Joanna Sieczkowska1, Dorota Jarzębicka1, Beata Marcińska2, Monika Meglicka1, Grzegorz Oracz1, Elżbieta Jurkiewicz2, *Jarosław Kierkuś1
Efficacy of 3% sorbitol solution in preparation to magnetic resonance enterography in children with inflammatory bowel disease
Skuteczność 3% roztworu sorbitolu w przygotowaniu do enterografii rezonansu magnetycznego u dzieci z nieswoistym zapaleniem jelit
1Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Feeding Disorders and Pediatrics, The Children’s Memorial Health Institute, Warsaw
Head of Department: prof. Józef Ryżko, MD, PhD
2Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The Children’s Memorial Health Institute, Warsaw
Head of Department: Elżbieta Jurkiewicz, MD, PhD, Associate Professor
Streszczenie
Wstęp. W celu prawidłowego przeprowadzenia badania enterografii rezonansu magnetycznego wymagane jest odpowiednie rozdęcie pętli jelita cienkiego. Aktualnie brak jest schematu przygotowania do badania MR.
Cel pracy. Ocena skuteczności w poszerzeniu pętli jelita cienkiego po zastosowaniu 3% roztworu sorbitolu w przygotowaniu do enterografii rezonansu magnetycznego u dzieci z nieswoistym zapaleniem jelit.
Materiał i metody. Do badania włączono 58 pacjentów, którzy mieli wykonane badanie enterografii rezonansu magnetycznego. Przygotowanie jelita rozpoczęte było na 2 godziny przed badaniem. Ilość roztworu 3% sorbitolu jaką musiało wypić dziecko, uzależnione było od jego wieku. Dzieci poniżej 12. r.ż. miały do wypicia roztwór złożony z 35 ml 3% sorbitolu rozpuszczonego w 200 ml wody. Starsze dzieci wypijały odpowiednio dla przedziału wiekowego 12.-15. r.ż. lub powyżej 15. r.ż.: 45 ml w 200 ml wody oraz 50 ml w 200 ml wody. Następnie, aby uzyskać odpowiednie rozdęcie pętli jelita cienkiego, co 10-15 min dopijały wodę.
Wyniki. 7/58 (12%) pacjentów prezentowało objawy nietolerancji po wypiciu roztworu sorbitolu. 4 dzieci (6,9%) wymiotowało, u 3 (5,3%) obserwowano biegunkę. W wyniku uporczywych wymiotów u jednego pacjenta badania nie wykonano, a w przypadku drugiego dziecka badanie zostało przerwane. Odcinkowe, nieodpowiednie poszerzenie pętli jelita cienkiego było obserwowane u 21,1%, a w 17,5% przypadków badanie MR wykazało zmiany sugerujące zmiany zapalne, co mogło być jednak wynikiem fałszywie dodatnim. Odpowiednie rozdęcie ileum terminale uzyskano u 94,8% pacjentów.
Wnioski. Przygotowanie jelita do enterografii rezonansu magnetycznego generalnie było dobrze tolerowane. W 94,8% uzyskano odpowiednie rozdęcie ileum terminale. Jednakże u 21,1% pacjentów obserwowano odcinkowe niewystarczające rozdęcie pętli jelitowych.
Summary
Introduction. To successfully perform MR enterography technique the distention of the small bowel is necessary. However, there is no guidelines of bowel preparation.
Aim. To detect efficacy in bowel distention of 3% sorbitol solution as contrast for MR enterography in children with IBD.
Material and methods. 58 patients, who had magnetic resonance enterography, were included. Amount of 3% sorbitol solution for enterography depended on children’s age. The bowel preparation had been started 2 hours before examination. Children younger than 12y old were recommended to drink solution composed of 35 ml 3% sorbitol mixed in 200 ml water. Older drank 45 ml in 200 ml water and 50 ml in 200 ml water for 12-15y old and older than 15y old, respectively. After that in every 10-15 min they were drink water to fulfil small bowel.
Results. 7/58 (12%) patients presented intolerance to sorbitol solution. 4 (6.9%) experienced vomiting, 3 (5.3%) had diarrhoea after contrast adjustment. As a result of severe vomiting in case of 1 patient MR was not performed and for another one study was stopped. Segmental, not sufficient small bowel distention were observed in 21.1% and in 17.5% cases MR showed lesions suggested inflammation which could be false positive results. There was found strong statistically significant correlation between these two variables. However, magnetic resonance enterography in 94.8% has shown good distention of terminal ileum.
Conclusions. Generally, bowel preparation for magnetic resonance enterography was good tolerated. Ileum terminale was successfully evaluated in 94.8%. However, for 21.1% cases segmental insufficient small bowel distention was observed.
INTRODUCTION
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) includes Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, and indeterminate colitis. Historically, diagnosis of IBD based on endoscopy and conventional X-ray barium studies. The main disadvantage of the latter was exposition of patients on ionizing radiation. Recently the number of incidences of IBD in children and adolescents is on the rise (1). More frequently is observed severe form of disease which need to evaluate treatment effects. To avoid exposure to undesirable studies effects, in search were new techniques which will characterize with high effectiveness in detection of bowel inflammation, high safety profile and repetitiveness. Introduction of cross-sectional imaging replaced fluoroscopic studies in many centers. Especially popular is magnetic resonance (MR). The most important feature is the lack of ionizing radiation. Similarly as computed tomography (2), MR is characterized by high specificity and sensitivity in detection of IBD lesions localized in small bowel. Actually MR technique is considered as the study of choice to detect inflammatory bowel disease lesions in gut localization (3). Presence of gut inflammation seen in MR is helpful to differentiate both IBD entities. Furthermore magnetic resonance is taking a part in therapeutic process. High disease activity can require more aggressive pharmacological treatment. MR image is helpful to plan range of surgery if is needed. Farther, MR can be successfully used to assess efficacy after pharmacological treatment or to detect disease recurrence after bowel resection. MR can efficiently detect extraluminal manifestations of IBD (4). Thus diagnostic imaging by MR is used not only at initial diagnosis, but also to monitor response to therapy, to search extraintestinal complications or plan operative management.
Magnetic resonance can be performed in two forms: enteroclysis and enterography. Methods differ to each other by the way how the patient is prepared for the study, namely the method of administration the contrast agent used to fulfill small bowel. Optimal luminal distension is a key to diagnostic imaging of the small bowel. Enteroclysis is a technique when contrast agent is delivered via a nasojejunal tube. Optimum bowel distension is successfully obtained by this method. Although it is effective, this is relatively uncomfortable for patients. Placement of nasojejunal tube is unpleasant or sometime even painful. Furthermore, position of tube should be checked by X-ray what entail exposure to ionizing radiation. As IBD are long-life diseases requiring several imaging examinations for therapeutic monitoring, such ionizing exposure should be avoided especially for young patients. In 2001 non-invasive distension of small bowel was proposed by oral contrast ingestion (5). Comparative studies showed that optimal bowel distension was achieved better by enteroclysis than enterography (oral contrast administration), but both methods are characterized by high diagnostic accuracy (6). Analysis performed among adult patients which point was to assess tolerance on way of contrast agent administration showed that oral method was more preferable (7). Up to now, is only few experiences with MR-enteroclysis in children. There is no evidence of better results with use of MR-enteroclyls than MR-enterography. However, it seems that for children more common is to perform MR enterography, especially because can totally avoid exposition for ionizing radiation (8). Unfortunately, still there are no guidelines for the required type and dose of contrast, neither timing of administration and imaging. Because lack of recommendations to bowel preparation before MR, in search is type of the most optimal substance (9-12). The best contrast agent should be tasty, easy to administer (preferably needed to drink small amount of contrast solution), should have minimal mucosal absorption, and not cause of artifacts. Additionally it should have low cost and do not cause side effects.
AIM
The aim of our study was to assess efficacy in bowel preparation with use of 3% sorbitol solution. Presence of any adverse effect were recorded.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Powyżej zamieściliśmy fragment artykułu, do którego możesz uzyskać pełny dostęp.
Mam kod dostępu
- Aby uzyskać płatny dostęp do pełnej treści powyższego artykułu albo wszystkich artykułów (w zależności od wybranej opcji), należy wprowadzić kod.
- Wprowadzając kod, akceptują Państwo treść Regulaminu oraz potwierdzają zapoznanie się z nim.
- Aby kupić kod proszę skorzystać z jednej z poniższych opcji.
Opcja #1
24 zł
Wybieram
- dostęp do tego artykułu
- dostęp na 7 dni
uzyskany kod musi być wprowadzony na stronie artykułu, do którego został wykupiony
Opcja #2
59 zł
Wybieram
- dostęp do tego i pozostałych ponad 7000 artykułów
- dostęp na 30 dni
- najpopularniejsza opcja
Opcja #3
119 zł
Wybieram
- dostęp do tego i pozostałych ponad 7000 artykułów
- dostęp na 90 dni
- oszczędzasz 28 zł
Piśmiennictwo
1. Malaty HM, Fan X, Opekun AR et al.: Rising incidence of inflammatory bowel disease among children: a 12-year study. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2010 Jan; 50(1): 27-31.
2. Panes J, Bouhnik Y, Reinisch W et al.: Imaging techniques for assessment of inflammatory bowel disease: joint ECCO and ESGAR evidence-based consensus guidelines. J Crohns Colitis 2013 Aug; 7(7): 556-585.
3. Levine A, Koletzko S, Turner D et al.: ESPGHAN revised porto criteria for the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease in children and adolescents. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2014 Jun; 58(6): 795-806.
4. Smith EA, Dillman JR, Adler J et al.: MR enterography of extraluminal manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease in children and adolescents: moving beyond the bowel wall. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012 Jan; 198(1): W38-45.
5. Patak MA, Froehlich JM, von Weymarn C et al.: Non-invasive distension of the small bowel for magnetic-resonance imaging. Lancet 2001 Sep 22; 358(9286): 987-988.
6. Negaard A, Paulsen V, Sandvik L et al.: A prospective randomized comparison between two MRI studies of the small bowel in Crohn’s disease, the oral contrast method and MR enteroclysis. Eur Radiol 2007 Sep; 17(9): 2294-2301.
7. Negaard A, Sandvik L, Berstad AE et al.: MRI of the small bowel with oral contrast or nasojejunal intubation in Crohn’s disease: randomized comparison of patient acceptance. Scand J Gastroenterol 2008 Jan; 43(1): 44-51.
8. Paolantonio P, Ferrari R, Vecchietti F et al.: Current status of MR imaging in the evaluation of IBD in a pediatric population of patients. Eur J Radiol 2009 Mar; 69(3): 418-424.
9. Kuehle CA, Ajaj W, Ladd SC et al.: Hydro-MRI of the small bowel: effect of contrast volume, timing of contrast administration, and data acquisition on bowel distention. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006 Oct; 187(4): W375-385.
10. Kinner S, Kuehle CA, Herbig S et al.: MRI of the small bowel: can sufficient bowel distension be achieved with small volumes of oral contrast? Eur Radiol 2008 Nov; 18(11): 2542-2548.
11. Young BM, Fletcher JG, Booya F et al.: Head-to-head comparison of oral contrast agents for cross-sectional enterography: small bowel distention, timing, and side effects. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2008 Jan-Feb; 32(1): 32-38.
12. Ajaj W, Goehde SC, Schneemann H et al.: Dose optimization of mannitol solution for small bowel distension in MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004 Oct; 20(4): 648-653.
13. Mentzel HJ, Reinsch S, Kurzai M, Stenzel M: Magnetic resonance imaging in children and adolescents with chronic inflammatory bowel disease. World J Gastroenterol 2014 Feb 7; 20(5): 1180-1191.
14. Romero M, Buxbaum JL, Palmer SL: Magnetic resonance imaging of the gut: a primer for the luminal gastroenterologist. Am J Gastroenterol 2014 Apr; 109(4): 497-509.
15. Sood RR, Joubert I, Franklin H et al.: Small bowel MRI: comparison of a polyethylene glycol preparation and water as oral contrast media. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002 Apr; 15(4): 401-408.
16. Minowa O, Ozaki Y, Kyogoku S et al.: MR imaging of the small bowel using water as a contrast agent in a preliminary study with healthy volunteers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999 Sep; 173(3): 581-582.
17. Mollard BJ, Smith EA, Dillman JR: Pediatric MR enterography: technique and approach to interpretation-how we do it. Radiology 2015 Jan; 274(1): 29-43.
18. Torkzad MR, Masselli G, Halligan S et al.: Indications and selection of MR enterography vs. MR enteroclysis with emphasis on patients who need small bowel MRI and general anaesthesia: results of a survey. Insights Imaging 2015 Jun; 6(3): 339-346.
19. Gee MS, Harisinghani MG: MRI in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011 Mar; 33(3): 527-534.
20. Wang YM, van Eys J: Nutritional significance of fructose and sugar alcohols. Annu Rev Nutr 1981; 1: 437-475.
21. Ajaj W, Goehde SC, Schneemann H et al.: Oral contrast agents for small bowel MRI: comparison of different additives to optimize bowel distension. Eur Radiol 2004 Mar; 14(3): 458-464.
22. Ajaj W, Goyen M, Schneemann H et al.: Oral contrast agents for small bowel distension in MRI: influence of the osmolarity for small bowel distention. Eur Radiol 2005 Jul; 15(7): 1400-1406.
23. Masselli G, Gualdi G: MR imaging of the small bowel. Radiology 2012 Aug; 264(2): 333-348.
24. Sauer CG, Middleton JP, Alazraki A et al.: Comparison of magnetic resonance enterography with endoscopy, histopathology, and laboratory evaluation in pediatric Crohn disease. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2012 Aug; 55(2): 178-184.
25. Dagia C, Ditchfield M, Kean M, Catto-Smith T: Imaging for Crohn disease: use of 3-T MRI in a paediatric setting. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2008 Oct; 52(5): 480-488.
26. Saini S, Colak E, Anthwal S et al.: Comparison of 3% sorbitol vs psyllium fibre as oral contrast agents in MR enterography. Br J Radiol 2014 Oct; 87(1042): 20140100.
27. Chen YA, Cervini P, Kirpalani A et al.: Small bowel obstruction following computed tomography and magnetic resonance enterography using psyllium seed husk as an oral contrast agent. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014 Jul-Aug; 28(7): 391-395.
