Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy

Search
Advanced Search
OPEN ACCESS
mobile search button mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 58(1); 2025 > Article
Original Article Effect of antithrombotic therapies on small bowel bleeding: an European multicenter retrospective study
Lucia Scaramella1,orcid, Stefania Chetcuti Zammit2orcid, Reena Sidhu3,4orcid, Maurizio Vecchi1,5orcid, Gian Eugenio Tontini1,5orcid, Nicoletta Nandi5orcid, Matilde Topa5orcid, Luca Elli1,5orcid
Clinical Endoscopy 2025;58(1):102-111.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.073
Published online: December 2, 2024

1Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy

2Gastroenterology Department, Mater Dei Hospital, Malta, Italy

3Academic Dept of Gastroenterology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK

4Department of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

5Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

Correspondence: Lucia Scaramella Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Via F. Sforza, 35, 20122 Milan, Italy E-mail: lucia.scaramella@policlinico.mi.it
• Received: March 26, 2024   • Revised: June 22, 2024   • Accepted: July 1, 2024

© 2025 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 464 Views
  • 76 Download
prev next
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

See letter "Do all antithrombotic agents have a similar impact on small bowel bleeding?" in Volume 58 on page 80.
  • Background/Aims
    Small bowel bleeding (SBB) is the main indication for videocapsule endoscopy (VCE); the diagnostic yield (DY) could be influenced by antithrombotic therapies. We explored the effects of these therapies on SBB.
  • Methods
    Consecutive patients from two centers (Milan, Italy and Sheffield, UK) who underwent VCE between March 2001 and July 2020 were considered. Demographic data, clinical parameters, drug therapy, and technical characteristics of the procedure were collected. VCE findings and DY were evaluated.
  • Results
    In total, 957 patients (1,052 VCEs) underwent VCE for SBB (DY 50.6%, no retention); 27 patients (27 VCEs) received direct oral anticoagulants, 87 (88 VCEs) received other anticoagulants, 115 (135 VCEs) received antiplatelet therapy, 198 (218 VCEs) received monotherapy, and 31 (32 VCEs) received combined therapy. There were no differences in the completion rate, findings, and DYs between each subgroup or between monotherapy and combined therapy. The overt bleeding rate was similar in all groups, even when comparing antithrombotic users versus those not on therapy (p=0.59) or monotherapy versus combined therapy (p=0.34).
  • Conclusions
    VCE is safe and has a high clinical impact on SBB. Antithrombotic therapies did not affect DY or overt bleeding rate and, consequently, can be considered safe in terms of SBB risk.
  • Keywords: Anticoagulants; Capsule endoscopy; Gastrointestinal hemorrhage; Platelet aggregation inhibitors
Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is one of the most important emergencies in gastroenterology and the most common GI diagnosis in the United States necessitating hospitalization, accounting for over half a million admissions annually.1,2
GI bleeding has traditionally been divided into upper GI bleeding (i.e., bleeding in the GI tract between the upper esophageal sphincter and the ampulla of Vater) and lower GI bleeding (i.e., between the ampulla of Vater and the anus), with incidence rates of approximately 47/100,000 and 33/100,000, respectively.3 In the last decade, with the introduction of new techniques to investigate small bowel (SB) pathology, the term SB bleeding (SBB) has been defined as a source of bleeding in the digestive tract between the ampulla of Vater and the ileocecal valve. SBB represents approximately 5% to 10% of all GI bleeding cases, and suspected SBB (SSBB) is the main indication for videocapsule endoscopy (VCE). SSBB can be further classified into overt and occult bleeding, depending on the presence of bleeding manifestations.4-9
Anticoagulants prevent coagulation by inhibiting one or more steps in the coagulation cascade through several mechanisms. This class of drugs includes unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin, fondaparinux, vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), and direct factor Xa (FXa) or thrombin inhibitors. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) inhibit thrombin (dabigatran) and coagulation FXa (rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban). Due to their high safety profile and therapeutic efficacy, they are prescribed more frequently than VKAs in many countries.10,11 Antiplatelet agents (APAs) interfere with the platelet activation process and include several agents such as aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid [ASA], a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID]), P2Y12 platelet receptor blockers, and platelet glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa antagonists.
The risk of GI bleeding has been a subject of debate since the introduction of DOACs. Recent studies have shown a comparable major GI bleeding risk between DOACs and VKAs in the general population, with a slightly increased risk for DOACs in elderly patients and in the rivaroxaban group,12,13 but accounting for only upper or lower GI bleeding. However, there is a paucity of literature on the impact of DOACs on SBB.
VCE is the diagnostic modality of choice in SSBB because of its high diagnostic yield (DY) (61.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 47.3%–76.1%)14,15 and an excellent safety profile, with retention rates of around 1.2% for the indication of bleeding (95% CI, 0.9%–1.6%).16
To date, only a few studies have investigated VCE findings in patients receiving DOACs, suggesting a plausible relationship with SSBB.17-19 In this study, we explored the impact of DOACs on SBB using VCE. Patients receiving anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapies were also included for comparison.
Patients
This was a retrospective multicenter observational study. Consecutive patients referred to the Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit of the Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico (Milan, Italy) and Sheffield Teaching Hospital (Sheffield, United Kingdom) who underwent VCE between March 1, 2001, and July 31, 2020, were included from an existing database.
The following clinical and demographic data were collected: sex, age, drug therapy at the time of the procedure, comorbidities, and number and timing of the procedures performed. The technical details and findings of the VCE were also recorded.
Videocapsule endoscopy
Different video capsule prototypes were utilized during the time interval considered and at different sites, such as the mouth to anus (M2A), M2A Plus, PillCam SB2, SB3, Crohn’s Capsule (Given-Medtronic), OMOM (Jinshan Science and Technology), and MiroCam (Intromedic Company). Each investigation, as specified in the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines,20 was performed following bowel cleaning with a laxative-based preparation (the schedule varied over time and according to local policy in terms of the type of laxative, volume, and timing of administration) and after an overnight fast. The acquired SB images were analyzed using dedicated software. A prior patency capsule was used if clinically or radiologically indicated.
Indications, use of a patency test, type of capsule, completeness, gastric and SB transit times, SB cleansing, endoscopic findings (type and SB tertile) were collected for each patient and VCE. Cleansing was rated as optimal, good, fair, or poor (dichotomized as adequate when optimal or good, or inadequate when fair or poor). In 2020, the Small Bowel Mucosal Visibility Scoring System was utilized.21
SB findings were classified according to the Saurin classification,22 as suggested by the ESGE guidelines,23 and reviewed at inclusion in the study, considering the recent work by Leenhardt et al.24 (Fig. 1).
Clinical impact
We defined positive VCE videos as those containing at least one P2 finding (e.g., lesions that are considered highly relevant sources of bleeding)22,24 in any tertile of the SB. The clinical impact was then evaluated by calculating DY, which was defined as the proportion of positive tests out of the total number of tests considered. The safety of the procedure was analyzed in terms of the frequency of adverse events (e.g. capsule retention) during all VCEs.25
Statistical analysis
IBM SPSS Statistic software ver. 23.0 (IBM Corp.) and GraphPad Prism ver. 6.0 (GraphPad Software) were used for the statistical analyses. Continuous variables were compared using Student t-test, in case of normal distribution, and using the Kruskal-Wallis test or Mann-Whitney U-test for non-normal distribution. Categorical variables were compared using Fisher exact test or with χ2 or McNemar’s test. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.
We stratified the patients according to age (≤65 vs. >65 years), indication (SSBB vs. non-SSBB [NSBB]), SSBB presentation (overt vs. occult), and use of antiplatelet/anticoagulant therapies.
Ethical statements
The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki (6th revision, 2008) as reflected in a priori approval by the institution's Human Research Committee (protocol number 137/2021, Comitato Etico Milano Area 2). All the study participants provided informed consent for data retrieval and endoscopic treatment. The data collected were fully anonymized and treated confidentially in compliance with the most recent privacy laws at the European and national levels.
Overall, 1,497 patients (789 [52.7%] males and 708 [47.3%] females; median age, 68 [interquartile range, IQR 58–76] years) underwent VCE. A total of 1756 VCEs were performed. Of these, 1,052 (59.9%) were performed for SSBB (957 patients). The SSBB group was further subdivided into the overt and occult bleeding groups (Table 1).
The demographic characteristics of the patients and the technical aspects of VCE are reported in Table 1. In the SSBB population, there was no difference in age between females and males (69 [IQR 57–77] years vs. 68 [IQR 60–75] years, respectively; p=0.84). Comparing the overt and occult bleeding subgroups, there was no difference in age (p=0.41) or percentage of patients over 65 years (60.8% vs. 58.6%, p=0.58), whereas there was a slight male predominance in the overt bleeding subgroup (54.7% vs. 46.9%, p=0.046) and a higher completion rate in the occult bleeding group (81.6% vs. 89.0%, p=0.005). Compared with NSBB patients, SSBB patients were older (50 [IQR 37–65] years vs. 68 [IQR 58–76] years, p<0.001), with a male predominance (279 [39.6%] vs. 510 [48.5%], p≤0.001).
The DY was 50.6% in the SSBB group. The most common findings were angioectasia, blood in the lumen, and ulcers (53.9%, 22.3%, and 11.2% respectively; Supplementary Table 1). The DY values of the different subgroups are shown in Supplementary Table 2. Comparing the different DYs, depending on the type of SSBB (overt or occult) or the age of the patient, a greater DY was found in overt SSBB and older patients: 59% (odds ratio [OR], 1.529; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.126–2.074; p=0.007) and 56.2% (OR, 1.739; 95% CI, 1.357–2.229; p<0.001), respectively (Supplementary Table 3).
A total of 83 patients (8.7%, 37 males) presented with rebleeding episodes (i.e., to a new bleeding episode, regardless of previous treatment) and underwent repeat VCEs. Of the 179 VCEs performed in rebleeding patients, 96 (53.6%) showed positive findings. The most common findings were angioectasia, blood in the lumen, and ulcers (51.8%, 23.4%, and 14.6%, respectively; Supplementary Table 4). In this subgroup, 19 patients (40 VCEs) were on anticoagulant or APAs therapies: one patient (2 VCEs) was taking VKAs, while 18 patients (38 VCEs) were taking APAs. Ten patients (17 VCEs) were treated with ASA alone, one patient was treated with ASA and clopidogrel (2 VCEs) and eight patients (21 VCEs) were treated with clopidogrel. One patient was initially treated with clopidogrel, which was then switched to ASA. Overall, no VCE-related adverse events or capsule retention was reported in this study. Of the patients receiving anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapies, 27 (10.8%) VCEs were performed on those treated with DOACs, 88 (35.2%) on those treated with other anticoagulants (the VKAs subgroup), and 135 (54.0%) on those treated with antiplatelet therapy (the APAs subgroup).
Table 2 shows demographic characteristics of patients and technical aspects of VCE in these patients, showing no differences between the groups in terms of demographic characteristics, completion rate (100%, 89.8%, and 92.6% in the DOACs, VKAs, and APAs groups, respectively) and DYs (48.1%, 48.9%, and 59.3%, respectively). Compared with the general SSBB population, each subgroup consisted mostly of elderly patients, but there were no differences in terms of completion rate and DYs. The most common findings in each group were angioectasia, blood in the lumen, and ulcers (Table 3). Notably, there were no differences in the distinct groups except for diverticula, with a higher frequency in the VKAs group than in the APAs group (4 [6.6%] vs. 1 [0.9%], p=0.0496).
Subanalysis of this group of patients in two cohorts based on the number of drugs being given (monotherapy vs. combined therapy [i.e. more than one drug]) showed no differences in terms of demographic characteristics and technical aspects of VCE (Table 4) with a DY of 56.0% and 46.9% for monotherapy and combined therapy, respectively (p=0.35). The most common pathologies were angioectasia, blood in the lumen, and ulcers, with no intergroup differences (Table 4).
We then considered the difference in SSBB patterns according to the variety (Table 5) and number of antithrombotic drugs (Table 6). There was no difference in the overt bleeding rate between anticoagulated (DOACs and VKAs) patients, APAs users, and patients not on antithrombotic therapy, even considering antithrombotic users vs. patients not on therapy (23.2% vs. 20.6%, p=0.59). Similarly, the rate of overt bleeding was similar between the monotherapy and combined therapy groups (17.9% vs. 25.0%, p=0.34).
This study included a large European cohort of patients from two tertiary centers who underwent VCE for SSBB over a 20-year period. It also included a large cohort of patients receiving anticoagulants and/or antiplatelet therapies, in whom SB findings were analyzed and compared to those in the literature.17-19
As previously found in our study,18,26 a high DY in the overt SSBB subgroup was highlighted, presumably because of the intrinsically high DY of VCE in patients with overt bleeding. These results could be ascribed firstly to the ease of localization of overt bleeding lesions or associated with a recent bleeding episode due to the presence of fresh blood or clots that are easily visible, and secondly to the fact that the work up for overt bleeding is usually faster than for occult bleeding with a short time interval between the overt bleeding episode and the execution of the VCE, in accordance with the ESGE guidelines.9
Furthermore, as in our previous study,18 the utility of VCE in the elderly has been established. This could be attributed to the increased number of comorbidities and propensity to develop vascular lesions (e.g., angioectasia), as previously described.27,28
The most common findings, both in the SSBB population and in patients in which rebleeding occurred, were angioectasia, blood in the lumen and ulcers. This finding is consistent with the published literature.18,29,30 The APAs population had a higher number of ulcers than in the rest of the population, but the difference was not statistically significant, and it was the only subgroup with erosions and ulcerated stenosis. Low-dose ASA, was the most common drug in the APAs subgroup, as shown in Table 2. It is largely known that NSAIDs may lead to a drug-induced enteropathy: a clinical entity with a broad spectrum of endoscopic presentations ranging from petechiae and erythematous folds to ulcers and active bleeding.31 Only the most severe findings (e.g., deep ulcers) could be considered as highly relevant bleeding sources, i.e. P2 findings. However, these findings are less frequent, justifying the low DY obtained. In addition, low clinical significance was highlighted in a recent study by Niikura et al.,32 in which the use of NSAIDs, especially low-dose ASA, was significantly associated with an increased risk of SB mucosal injury, but with no significant associations between the use of such drugs and overt SBB.
GI bleeding risk has always been a matter of concern since the introduction of anticoagulants, especially with the advent of DOACs, where comparative studies with VKAs have revealed a higher incidence of GI bleeding associated with DOACs, which is attributable to colon or gastric cancers and diverticular hemorrhage.12,33,34 Evidence in the literature regarding the relationship between DOACs and SBB is sparse and somewhat conflicting. In a descriptive study, Yamaoka et al.19 described a high rate of SB lesions in a small cohort of patients treated with DOACs, whereas Macedo Silva et al.17 concluded that there was a higher risk of SBB in patients receiving DOACs than in patients treated with other anticoagulants and those not on anticoagulants. Another recent study by Choe et al.35 compared acute GI bleeding between DOACs and VKAs and concluded that patients on DOACs had better clinical outcomes in terms of the severity of acute GI bleeding or rebleeding than in those on VKAs. In the SBB subgroup, the frequency was lower in patients taking DOACs (but the difference did not reach statistical significance).
In our previous study, we analyzed the clinical impact of enteroscopy in SSBB, and in a subgroup analysis we concluded that there was no difference in terms of DY between patients receiving DOACs and patients treated with other anticoagulants or antiplatelet therapies.18 In this study, we investigated the possible risk for SBB in patients receiving anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. When considering the different drug classes (i.e., DOACs, APAs, and VKAs), the DYs were similar in all groups, and there was no difference when compared with the general SSBB population. The findings were homogeneous within the groups, except for a higher rate of SB diverticula in the VKAs group (4 cases) than in the APAs group (1 case), with no clinical significance.
These results suggest that anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs are not associated with an increased risk of SBB and do not influence the type of lesion found in the SB. As stated before, the literature is somewhat conflicting; in a recent meta-analysis, Tziatzios et al.36 investigated the impact of antithrombotic treatment on VCE findings in SBB and concluded that antithrombotic treatment was associated with a greater number of positive findings. However, when taking into account the different subgroups, in some studies, anticoagulant drugs were associated with a higher prevalence of P2 lesions, inducing bleeding from SB tumors in particular, and with rebleeding episodes;37,38 however, subsequent larger studies have failed to substantiate this association.39
In relation to APAs agents, the existing literature is also controversial. Boal Carvalho et al.38 found no association between antiplatelet use and VCE positivity, while the meta-analysis of Tziatzios et al.36 concluded that the presence of significant VCE findings was drug-related, and the effect was uniform among anticoagulant and antiplatelet users.
Analysis of the data according to the number of drugs taken by the patients instead of the type showed that the results were in line with prior analyses, with similar DYs and findings, leading to the conclusion that neither the type nor the number of anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs influenced SB findings or the risk of SBB. The literature is sparse, with only a few studies analyzing the combination of drugs. Two studies40,41 considering only a combination of APAs (low-dose aspirin and thienopyridine) found that this combination significantly exacerbated SB damage, resulting in more erosions and ulcers, while there are no data considering both types of antithrombotic drugs (anticoagulants and APAs). Further larger prospective studies are needed to investigate this relationship.
Rebleeding risk is a matter of concern in patients with SSBB, especially in patients on antithrombotic drugs; some studies have investigated this relationship with contrasting results. However, in their recent work, Tziatzios et al.36 concluded that antithrombotic drugs are a risk factor for rebleeding in these patients.37,42
In our population, only 22.3% of rebleeding cases were in patients on antithrombotic drugs, none were taking DOACs, and only one patient (accounting for two VCEs) was on a VKAs. This is in line with the study by Choe et al.35 which found that rebleeding was less common in patients on DOACs than in those on VKAs. These conflicting results suggest that other confounding factors may influence rebleeding risk; however, further studies are needed.
In our study, we did not find any differences in the SSBB patterns according to the variety or number of antithrombotic drugs used. In literature, there are conflicting results. Boal Carvalho et al.38 found that there was no significant association between the use of either APAs or anticoagulants and an overt SSBB presentation, while Kono et al.43 concluded that patients who took both APAs and anticoagulant drugs had a significantly higher rate of overt presentation in comparison with those on APAs only, but not with those on only anticoagulant drugs. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed between the APAs and anticoagulant groups. In a recent meta-analysis, Tziatzios et al.36 concluded that there was no significant difference between the use and nonuse of antithrombotic therapy for either overt or occult SSBB presentation.
In this study, we confirmed the overall safety profile of VCE, with no documented retention, even in challenging patients, because of the careful use of patency capsules. This completion rate was consistent with the results of our previous study.18
Our study has some limitations, firstly because of its retrospective design and the wide time frames during which patients undergoing VCE were included. This led to the heterogeneity of VCE platforms, with better software and images improving over the years, and reviewers, with different levels of expertise. Owing to the retrospective nature of the study, a large number of patients had missing information, such as an incomplete drug history, which might have affected the results. Additionally, the involvement of only two European centers may limit ethnic diversity, which can influence disease susceptibility and prevalence as well as aspects such as drug response and pharmacogenetics. All these factors can limit the generalizability of the findings to a broader population.
In this study, we confirmed that VCE is a safe technique with a high clinical impact in cases of SBB, especially in challenging situations such as overt SBB, and in the elderly. Furthermore, anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapies do not appear to affect the DY of VCE and, consequently, can be considered safe in terms of the risk of overt SBB.
Anticoagulants and APAs are generally discontinued in patients with acute bleeding. Although more evidence is required from prospective studies with systematic data collection and fewer limiting factors and heterogeneous data (e.g., comprehensive past medical and drug histories to better categorize and stratify the patients, a higher number of patients on antithrombotic drugs, and implementing a standardized follow-up to better detect rebleeding cases), considering the evidence from this study and after weighing the risks and benefits for each patient, it is prudent to restart antiplatelet and anticoagulant use in patients with a history of SBB, as there is no evidence that they increase the SBB risk.
An improved understanding of the impact of antithrombotic drugs in increasing on the risk of SB hemorrhage would lead to better management of these medications in the context of SBB. This would enhance the clinical management of patients and reduce the potential thrombotic risks associated with the inappropriate discontinuation of these drugs, particularly in emergency settings, such as overt SBB.
Supplementary Table 1. Enteroscopic findings.
ce-2024-073-Supplementary-Table-1.pdf
Supplementary Table 2. Videocapsule endoscopy diagnostic yield.
ce-2024-073-Supplementary-Table-2.pdf
Supplementary Table 3. Diagnostic yields, confrontation.
ce-2024-073-Supplementary-Table-3.pdf
Supplementary Table 4. Findings in rebleeding cases.
ce-2024-073-Supplementary-Table-4.pdf
Supplementary materials related to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.073.
Fig. 1.
Saurin classification of small bowel lesions with some examples. (A) Lymphangiectasia. (B) Chylous cysts. (C) Small erosion. (D) Red spot. (E) Angioectasia. (F) Aactive bleeding.
ce-2024-073f1.jpg
ce-2024-073f2.jpg
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics of patients and technical aspects of enteroscopies performed for SSBB (overt and occult) compared with NSBB
Characteristic SSBB overt SSBB occult SSBB total NSBB p-value (SSBB vs. NSBB)
Demographic
 Patients 193 (20.2) 764 (79.8) 957 (100.0) 540 (56.4)
 Age (yr) 69.5 (59–77) 68 (57–76) 68 (58–76) 50 (37–65) <0.001
 Male 116 (54.7) 394 (46.9) 510 (48.5) 279 (39.6) <0.001
 >65 yr 129 (60.8) 492 (58.6) 621 (59.0) 168 (23.9) <0.001
Technical
 Procedures 212 (20.2) 840 (79.8) 1,052 (100.0) 704 (66.9)
 Complete 173 (81.6) 748 (89.0) 921 (87.5) 594 (84.4) 0.07
 SB transit time (hr:min) 04:30 (03:34–05:31) 04:10 (03:26–05:10) 04:15 (03:27–05:19) 04:13 (03:28–05:25) 0.31
 Gastric transit time (hr:min) 00:20 (00:11–00:56) 00:17 (00:10–00:42) 00:18 (00:10–00:45) 00:17 (00:09–00:40) 0.52

Values are presented as number (%) or median (interquartile range) unless otherwise defined.

SB, small bowel; SSBB, suspected SB bleeding; NSSB, non-SB bleeding.

Table 2.
Demographic characteristics of patients and technical aspects of enteroscopies performed for SSBB in patients receiving antithrombotic therapies compared with SSBB population
Characteristic DOAC VKA APA SSBB p-value
pa) pb) pc) pd) pe) pf)
Patients demographic
 Patients (n=229) 27 87 115 957
 Age (yr) 77 (69–81) 74 (66–81) 73 (66–79) 68 (58–76) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.26 0.22 0.82
 Male 15 (55.6) 43 (49.4) 62 (53.9) 510 (48.5) 0.85 0.50 0.92 0.66 1.00 0.57
Type of drug (Pt) Dabigatran 8 Warfarin 81 Thienopyridines 21
Rivaroxaban 9 Acenocoumarol 6 Ticagrelor 2
Edoxaban 5 ASA 79
Apixaban 5 DAPT 13
Technical
 Procedures (n=250) 27 88 135 1,052
 Complete 27 (100) 77 (87.5) 121 (89.6) 921 (87.5) 0.07 1.00 0.58 0.06 0.13 0.67
 DY (%) 48.1 48.9 59.3 50.6 0.85 0.82 0.07 0.83 0.30 0.13

Values are presented as number (%) or median (interquartile range) unless otherwise defined.

DOAC, direct oral anticoagulant; VKA, vitamin K antagonist; APA, antiplatelet agent; SSBB, suspected small bowel bleeding; Pt, no. of patients recieving the drug; ASA, acetylsalicylic acid; DAPT, dual antiplatelet therapy; DY, diagnostic yield.

a)SSBB vs. DOAC,

b)SSBB vs. VKA,

c)SSBB vs. APA,

d)DOAC vs. VKA,

e)DOAC vs. APA,

f)VKA vs. APA.

Table 3.
Videocapsule endoscopic findings in DOAC, VKA, and APA
Endoscopic findings DOAC VKA APA p-value
pa) pb) pc)
Angioectasia (n=94) 11 (64.7) 28 (45.9) 55 (47.8) 0.27 0.20 1.00
Blood (n=54) 5 (29.4) 20 (32.8) 29 (25.3) 1.00 0.77 0.29
Ulcer (n=28) 1 (5.9) 7 (11.4) 20 (17.4) 0.68 0.31 0.38
Tumor (n=7) - 2 (3.3) 5 (4.3) 1.00
Ulcerated stenosis/incomplete stenosis (n=3) - - 3 (2.6)
Diverticula (n=5) - 4 (6.6) 1 (0.9) 0.0496
Erosion (n=2) - - 2 (1.7)
Total findings (n=193) 17 (100) 61 (100) 115 (100)

Values are presented as number (%).

DOAC, direct oral anticoagulant; VKA, vitamin K antagonist; APA, antiplatelet agent.

a)DOAC vs. VKA,

b)DOAC vs. APA,

c)VKA vs. APA.

Table 4.
Demographic characteristics of patients and technical aspects of videocapsule endoscopy and their findings in patients receiving anticoagulants and/or antiplatelet therapies as mono- or combined therapy
Monotherapy Combined therapy p-value
Patients demographic
 Patients (n=229) 198 31
 Age (yr) 74 (67–80) 74.5 (63–79) 0.64
 Male 103 (52.0) 17 (54.8) 0.85
Technical
 Procedures (n=250) 218 32
 Complete 204 (93.6) 28 (87.5) 0.26
 Diagnostic yield (%) 122/218 (56) 15/32 (46.9) 0.35
Findings
 Angioectasia (n=94) 81 (47.6) 13 (56.5) 0.51
 Blood (n=54) 48 (28.3) 6 (26.1) 1.00
 Ulcer (n=28) 24 (14.1) 4 (17.4) 0.75
 Tumor (n=7) 7 (4.1)
 Ulcerated stenosis/incomplete stenosis (n=3) 3 (1.8)
 Diverticula (n=5) 5 (2.9)
 Erosion (n=2) 2 (1.2)

Values are presented as number (%) or median (interquartile range) unless otherwise defined.

Table 5.
Suspected small bowel bleeding pattern according to the variety of antithrombotic drugs
Anticoagulated (n=115) APA (n=135) No therapy (n=802) p-value
pa) pb) pc) pd)
Overt 22 (19.1) 25 (18.5) 165 (20.6) 1.00 0.80 0.64 0.59
Occult 93 (80.9) 110 (81.5) 637 (79.4)

Values are presented as number (%).

APA, antiplatelet agent.

a)Anticoagulated vs. APAs,

b)anticoagulated vs. no therapy,

c)APAs vs. no therapy,

d)anticoagulated+APAs vs. no therapy.

Table 6.
Suspected small bowel bleeding pattern according to the number of antithrombotic drugs
Monotherapy (n=218) Combined therapy (n=32) p-value
Overt 39 (17.9) 8 (25.0) 0.34
Occult 179 (82.1) 24 (75.0)

Values are presented as number (%).

  • 1. Laine L, Jensen DM. Management of patients with ulcer bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:345–360.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 2. Peery AF, Crockett SD, Murphy CC, et al. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States: update 2021. Gastroenterology 2022;162:621–644.ArticlePubMed
  • 3. Oakland K. Risk stratification in upper and upper and lower GI bleeding: which scores should we use? Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2019;42-43:101613.ArticlePubMed
  • 4. Gerson LB, Fidler JL, Cave DR, et al. ACG clinical guideline: diagnosis and management of small bowel bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol 2015;110:1265–1288.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 5. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Gurudu SR, Bruining DH, et al. The role of endoscopy in the management of suspected small-bowel bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;85:22–31.ArticlePubMed
  • 6. Chetcuti Zammit S, Sanders DS, McAlindon ME, et al. Optimising the use of small bowel endoscopy: a practical guide. Frontline Gastroenterol 2019;10:171–176.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 7. Rondonotti E, Paggi S. Videocapsule endoscopy in celiac disease: indications and timing. Dig Dis 2015;33:244–251.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 8. Otani K, Watanabe T, Shimada S, et al. Clinical utility of capsule endoscopy and double-balloon enteroscopy in the management of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. Digestion 2018;97:52–58.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 9. Pennazio M, Rondonotti E, Despott EJ, et al. Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022. Endoscopy 2023;55:58–95.ArticlePubMed
  • 10. Rodwin BA, Salami JA, Spatz ES, et al. Variation in the use of warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation and associated cost implications. Am J Med 2019;132:61–70.ArticlePubMed
  • 11. Huisman MV, Rothman KJ, Paquette M, et al. The changing landscape for stroke prevention in AF: findings from the GLORIA-AF registry phase 2. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;69:777–785.ArticlePubMed
  • 12. Ruff CT, Giugliano RP, Braunwald E, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet 2014;383:955–962.ArticlePubMed
  • 13. Gu ZC, Wei AH, Zhang C, et al. Risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding with new vs conventional oral anticoagulants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;18:792–799.ArticlePubMed
  • 14. Pasha SF, Leighton JA, Das A, et al. Double-balloon enteroscopy and capsule endoscopy have comparable diagnostic yield in small-bowel disease: a meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;6:671–676.ArticlePubMed
  • 15. Chen WG, Shan GD, Zhang H, et al. Double-balloon enteroscopy in small bowel diseases: eight years single-center experience in China. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e5104.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 16. Liao Z, Gao R, Xu C, et al. Indications and detection, completion, and retention rates of small-bowel capsule endoscopy: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:280–286.ArticlePubMed
  • 17. Macedo Silva V, Freitas M, Arieira C, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants are associated with potentially bleeding lesions in suspected mid-gastrointestinal bleeding. Scand J Gastroenterol 2022;57:486–492.ArticlePubMed
  • 18. Elli L, Scaramella L, Tontini GE, et al. Clinical impact of videocapsule and double balloon enteroscopy on small bowel bleeding: results from a large monocentric cohort in the last 19 years. Dig Liver Dis 2022;54:251–257.ArticlePubMed
  • 19. Yamaoka M, Imaeda H, Hosoe N, et al. Small-bowel lesions in patients taking direct oral anticoagulants detected using capsule endoscopy. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2020;2020:7125642.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 20. Rondonotti E, Spada C, Adler S, et al. Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) technical review. Endoscopy 2018;50:423–446.ArticlePubMed
  • 21. Tontini GE, Wiedbrauck F, Cavallaro F, et al. Small-bowel capsule endoscopy with panoramic view: results of the first multicenter, observational study (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2017;85:401–408.ArticlePubMed
  • 22. Saurin JC, Delvaux M, Gaudin JL, et al. Diagnostic value of endoscopic capsule in patients with obscure digestive bleeding: blinded comparison with video push-enteroscopy. Endoscopy 2003;35:576–584.ArticlePubMed
  • 23. Spada C, McNamara D, Despott EJ, et al. Performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative. United European Gastroenterol J 2019;7:614–641.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 24. Leenhardt R, Koulaouzidis A, McNamara D, et al. A guide for assessing the clinical relevance of findings in small bowel capsule endoscopy: analysis of 8064 answers of international experts to an illustrated script questionnaire. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 2021;45:101637.ArticlePubMed
  • 25. Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L, et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:446–454.ArticlePubMed
  • 26. Pennazio M, Santucci R, Rondonotti E, et al. Outcome of patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding after capsule endoscopy: report of 100 consecutive cases. Gastroenterology 2004;126:643–653.ArticlePubMed
  • 27. Papadopoulos AA, Triantafyllou K, Kalantzis C, et al. Effects of ageing on small bowel video-capsule endoscopy examination. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:2474–2480.ArticlePubMed
  • 28. Pérez-Cuadrado-Robles E, Zamora-Nava LE, Jiménez-Garcia VA, et al. Indications for and diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy in the elderly. Rev Gastroenterol Mex (Engl Ed) 2018;83:238–244.ArticlePubMed
  • 29. Tanaka S, Mitsui K, Yamada Y, et al. Diagnostic yield of double-balloon endoscopy in patients with obscure GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;68:683–691.ArticlePubMed
  • 30. Xin L, Liao Z, Jiang YP, et al. Indications, detectability, positive findings, total enteroscopy, and complications of diagnostic double-balloon endoscopy: a systematic review of data over the first decade of use. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:563–570.ArticlePubMed
  • 31. Maiden L, Thjodleifsson B, Theodors A, et al. A quantitative analysis of NSAID-induced small bowel pathology by capsule enteroscopy. Gastroenterology 2005;128:1172–1178.ArticlePubMed
  • 32. Niikura R, Yamada A, Maki K, et al. Associations between drugs and small-bowel mucosal bleeding: multicenter capsule-endoscopy study. Dig Endosc 2018;30:79–89.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 33. Miller CS, Dorreen A, Martel M, et al. Risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients taking non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017;15:1674–1683.ArticlePubMed
  • 34. Caldeira D, Barra M, Ferreira A, et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: the risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2015;42:1239–1249.ArticlePubMed
  • 35. Choe AR, Moon CM, Tae CH, et al. Characteristics, location, and clinical outcomes of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients taking new oral anticoagulants compared to vitamin K antagonists. J Clin Med 2021;10:2693.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 36. Tziatzios G, Gkolfakis P, Papanikolaou IS, et al. Antithrombotic treatment is associated with small-bowel video capsule endoscopy positive findings in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci 2019;64:15–24.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 37. Kim JB, Ye BD, Song Y, et al. Frequency of rebleeding events in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding with negative capsule endoscopy. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;28:834–840.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 38. Boal Carvalho P, Rosa B, Moreira MJ, et al. New evidence on the impact of antithrombotics in patients submitted to small bowel capsule endoscopy for the evaluation of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2014;2014:709217.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 39. Min YW, Kim JS, Jeon SW, et al. Long-term outcome of capsule endoscopy in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: a nationwide analysis. Endoscopy 2014;46:59–65.ArticlePubMed
  • 40. Shiotani A, Honda K, Murao T, et al. Combination of low-dose aspirin and thienopyridine exacerbates small bowel injury. Scand J Gastroenterol 2011;46:281–286.ArticlePubMed
  • 41. Handa Y, Fukushima S, Osawa M, et al. P2Y12 inhibitors exacerbate low-dose aspirin-induced small bowel injury in dual antiplatelet therapy. Intern Med 2021;60:3517–3523.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 42. Koh SJ, Im JP, Kim JW, et al. Long-term outcome in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding after negative capsule endoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2013;19:1632–1638.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 43. Kono Y, Kawano S, Okamoto Y, et al. Clinical outcome of patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding during antithrombotic drug therapy. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2018;11:1756283X17746930.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  

      • PubReader PubReader
      • ePub LinkePub Link
      • Cite
        CITE
        export Copy Download
        Close
        Download Citation
        Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
        Format:
        • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
        • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
        Include:
        • Citation for the content below
        Effect of antithrombotic therapies on small bowel bleeding: an European multicenter retrospective study
        Clin Endosc. 2025;58(1):102-111.   Published online December 2, 2024
        DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.073
        Close
      • XML DownloadXML Download
      Figure
      • 0
      • 1
      Related articles
      Effect of antithrombotic therapies on small bowel bleeding: an European multicenter retrospective study
      Image Image
      Fig. 1. Saurin classification of small bowel lesions with some examples. (A) Lymphangiectasia. (B) Chylous cysts. (C) Small erosion. (D) Red spot. (E) Angioectasia. (F) Aactive bleeding.
      Graphical abstract

      Fig. 1.

      Graphical abstract

      Effect of antithrombotic therapies on small bowel bleeding: an European multicenter retrospective study
      Characteristic SSBB overt SSBB occult SSBB total NSBB p-value (SSBB vs. NSBB)
      Demographic
       Patients 193 (20.2) 764 (79.8) 957 (100.0) 540 (56.4)
       Age (yr) 69.5 (59–77) 68 (57–76) 68 (58–76) 50 (37–65) <0.001
       Male 116 (54.7) 394 (46.9) 510 (48.5) 279 (39.6) <0.001
       >65 yr 129 (60.8) 492 (58.6) 621 (59.0) 168 (23.9) <0.001
      Technical
       Procedures 212 (20.2) 840 (79.8) 1,052 (100.0) 704 (66.9)
       Complete 173 (81.6) 748 (89.0) 921 (87.5) 594 (84.4) 0.07
       SB transit time (hr:min) 04:30 (03:34–05:31) 04:10 (03:26–05:10) 04:15 (03:27–05:19) 04:13 (03:28–05:25) 0.31
       Gastric transit time (hr:min) 00:20 (00:11–00:56) 00:17 (00:10–00:42) 00:18 (00:10–00:45) 00:17 (00:09–00:40) 0.52
      Characteristic DOAC VKA APA SSBB p-value
      pa) pb) pc) pd) pe) pf)
      Patients demographic
       Patients (n=229) 27 87 115 957
       Age (yr) 77 (69–81) 74 (66–81) 73 (66–79) 68 (58–76) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.26 0.22 0.82
       Male 15 (55.6) 43 (49.4) 62 (53.9) 510 (48.5) 0.85 0.50 0.92 0.66 1.00 0.57
      Type of drug (Pt) Dabigatran 8 Warfarin 81 Thienopyridines 21
      Rivaroxaban 9 Acenocoumarol 6 Ticagrelor 2
      Edoxaban 5 ASA 79
      Apixaban 5 DAPT 13
      Technical
       Procedures (n=250) 27 88 135 1,052
       Complete 27 (100) 77 (87.5) 121 (89.6) 921 (87.5) 0.07 1.00 0.58 0.06 0.13 0.67
       DY (%) 48.1 48.9 59.3 50.6 0.85 0.82 0.07 0.83 0.30 0.13
      Endoscopic findings DOAC VKA APA p-value
      pa) pb) pc)
      Angioectasia (n=94) 11 (64.7) 28 (45.9) 55 (47.8) 0.27 0.20 1.00
      Blood (n=54) 5 (29.4) 20 (32.8) 29 (25.3) 1.00 0.77 0.29
      Ulcer (n=28) 1 (5.9) 7 (11.4) 20 (17.4) 0.68 0.31 0.38
      Tumor (n=7) - 2 (3.3) 5 (4.3) 1.00
      Ulcerated stenosis/incomplete stenosis (n=3) - - 3 (2.6)
      Diverticula (n=5) - 4 (6.6) 1 (0.9) 0.0496
      Erosion (n=2) - - 2 (1.7)
      Total findings (n=193) 17 (100) 61 (100) 115 (100)
      Monotherapy Combined therapy p-value
      Patients demographic
       Patients (n=229) 198 31
       Age (yr) 74 (67–80) 74.5 (63–79) 0.64
       Male 103 (52.0) 17 (54.8) 0.85
      Technical
       Procedures (n=250) 218 32
       Complete 204 (93.6) 28 (87.5) 0.26
       Diagnostic yield (%) 122/218 (56) 15/32 (46.9) 0.35
      Findings
       Angioectasia (n=94) 81 (47.6) 13 (56.5) 0.51
       Blood (n=54) 48 (28.3) 6 (26.1) 1.00
       Ulcer (n=28) 24 (14.1) 4 (17.4) 0.75
       Tumor (n=7) 7 (4.1)
       Ulcerated stenosis/incomplete stenosis (n=3) 3 (1.8)
       Diverticula (n=5) 5 (2.9)
       Erosion (n=2) 2 (1.2)
      Anticoagulated (n=115) APA (n=135) No therapy (n=802) p-value
      pa) pb) pc) pd)
      Overt 22 (19.1) 25 (18.5) 165 (20.6) 1.00 0.80 0.64 0.59
      Occult 93 (80.9) 110 (81.5) 637 (79.4)
      Monotherapy (n=218) Combined therapy (n=32) p-value
      Overt 39 (17.9) 8 (25.0) 0.34
      Occult 179 (82.1) 24 (75.0)
      Table 1. Demographic characteristics of patients and technical aspects of enteroscopies performed for SSBB (overt and occult) compared with NSBB

      Values are presented as number (%) or median (interquartile range) unless otherwise defined.

      SB, small bowel; SSBB, suspected SB bleeding; NSSB, non-SB bleeding.

      Table 2. Demographic characteristics of patients and technical aspects of enteroscopies performed for SSBB in patients receiving antithrombotic therapies compared with SSBB population

      Values are presented as number (%) or median (interquartile range) unless otherwise defined.

      DOAC, direct oral anticoagulant; VKA, vitamin K antagonist; APA, antiplatelet agent; SSBB, suspected small bowel bleeding; Pt, no. of patients recieving the drug; ASA, acetylsalicylic acid; DAPT, dual antiplatelet therapy; DY, diagnostic yield.

      SSBB vs. DOAC,

      SSBB vs. VKA,

      SSBB vs. APA,

      DOAC vs. VKA,

      DOAC vs. APA,

      VKA vs. APA.

      Table 3. Videocapsule endoscopic findings in DOAC, VKA, and APA

      Values are presented as number (%).

      DOAC, direct oral anticoagulant; VKA, vitamin K antagonist; APA, antiplatelet agent.

      DOAC vs. VKA,

      DOAC vs. APA,

      VKA vs. APA.

      Table 4. Demographic characteristics of patients and technical aspects of videocapsule endoscopy and their findings in patients receiving anticoagulants and/or antiplatelet therapies as mono- or combined therapy

      Values are presented as number (%) or median (interquartile range) unless otherwise defined.

      Table 5. Suspected small bowel bleeding pattern according to the variety of antithrombotic drugs

      Values are presented as number (%).

      APA, antiplatelet agent.

      Anticoagulated vs. APAs,

      anticoagulated vs. no therapy,

      APAs vs. no therapy,

      anticoagulated+APAs vs. no therapy.

      Table 6. Suspected small bowel bleeding pattern according to the number of antithrombotic drugs

      Values are presented as number (%).

      Table 1.

      Table 2.

      Table 3.

      Table 4.

      Table 5.

      Table 6.

      Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy Twitter Facebook
      © Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
      Close layer
      TOP