Several studies have suggested that the mucosal protective effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) do not extend beyond the duodenum; however, PPIs may cause lower gastrointestinal (LGI) injury, although these relationships have not yet been fully elucidated.
We searched all the relevant studies published until September 2022 that examined the risk of PPIs for LGI bleeding. We performed a meta-analysis of the risk of LGI bleeding (small bowel (SB) or colorectal bleeding) between PPI users and non-users. A subgroup analysis of patients consuming aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) was also performed.
Twelve studies with 341,063 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The use of PPIs was associated with the risk of LGI bleeding (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval [CI]] = 1.42 [1.16-1.73]; hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI] = 3.23 [1.56-6.71]). An association between PPI use and the risk of LGI bleeding was also identified in the subgroup of aspirin or NSAID users (OR [95% CI] = 1.64 [1.49-1.80]; HR [95% CI] = 6.55 [2.01-21.33]). In the bleeding site-specific analyses, the risk of SB bleeding was associated with PPI use (OR [95% CI] = 1.54 [1.30-1.84]).
PPI use was associated with an increased risk of LGI bleeding, particularly SB bleeding. This association was particularly pronounced among aspirin and NSAID users. Inappropriate PPI prescriptions should be avoided in patients with LGI bleeding and a low risk of upper gastrointestinal disease.

Small bowel bleeding that does not respond to conservative therapy requires surgical resection. However, identifying the bleeding sites intraoperatively is challenging. Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence imaging improves diagnosis of small bowel bleeding and surgical decision-making by visualizing blood flow. Herein, we reported two cases of small bowel bleeding that were successfully treated by using ICG to identify the bleeding sites and determine the extent of small bowel resection. The patients were a 46-year-old and a 75-year-old woman, both of whom presented with melena. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography and arteriography confirmed small bowel bleeding, and rebleeding occurred in both patients after transcatheter arterial embolization. Emergent surgeries were performed, and intraoperative selective angiography with ICG injections was conducted to identify obscure bleeding sites. ICG fluorescence identified all bleeding sites in both cases, and small bowel resections were successfully performed. The postoperative courses were uneventful, and both patients had a favorable postoperative course without recurrence of bleeding. ICG fluorescence imaging can safely identify the sites of intestinal bleeding and determine the appropriate extent of bowel resection.

BACKGROUND: Small bowel endoscopy, including small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) and balloon-assisted endoscopy (BAE), is useful for small bowel bleeding (SBB) assessment. However, the specific management strategy for overt SBB is not well established. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the pooled diagnostic yields (DYs) and therapeutic yields (TYs) of small bowel endoscopy in overt SBB and to determine the optimal endoscopy timing.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed of studies examining the DY and/or TY of small bowel endoscopy in overt SBB. Data on the DY, TY, and timing of small bowel endoscopy were extracted, pooled, and analyzed. The pooled DY and TY of small bowel endoscopy for patients with overt SBB were calculated. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were performed.
RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included. The pooled DY was 65.2% and 74.0% for SBCE and BAE, respectively. The pooled TY of SBCE and BAE was 55.9% and 35.8%, respectively. A meta-regression model showed that the timing of endoscopy was significantly associated with the DY of BAE and the TY of SBCE and BAE.
CONCLUSIONS: Small bowel capsule endoscopy and BAE would be useful diagnostic and therapeutic modalities in overt SBB. According to the subgroup analysis, in which the TY seemed to be higher within 2 days after bleeding for SBCE and BAE, the optimal timing of endoscopy would be within 2 days.

Background: Small bowel bleeding accounts for 5-10% of all gastrointestinal bleeding. Despite advances in imaging, endoscopy and minimally invasive therapeutic techniques, its diagnosis and treatment remains a challenge and a standardized algorithm for approaching suspected small bowel bleeding remains elusive. Furthermore, the choice of investigation is subject to timing of presentation and accessibility to investigations. The aim of this study was to construct a narrative review of recent literature surrounding the diagnosis and management of small bowel bleeding. Methods: A literature review was conducted examining the database pubmed with the following key words and Boolean operators: occult GI bleed OR mesenteric bleed OR gastrointestinal hemorrhage OR GI hemorrhage AND management. Articles were selected and reviewed based on relevance to the research topic. Where necessary, the full text was sought to further assess relevance. Results: In overt GI bleeding, CT angiography and red cell scintigraphy are both feasible and reliable diagnostic imaging modalities if standard endoscopy is negative. Red cell scintigraphy may be advantageous through detection of lower bleeding rates but it is subject to availability. Overt bleeding and a positive CT angiogram or red cell scan improves the diagnostic yield of formal angiography ± embolization. Video capsule endoscopy or double balloon endoscopy can be considered in occult GI bleeding following normal upper and lower endoscopy. Conclusions: Small bowel bleeding remains a rare but significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. Technological advances in diagnostics have aided evaluation but have not broadened the range of therapeutic interventions.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) and double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) in cases of obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB) of vascular origin.
METHODS: MEDLINE (via PubMed), LILACS (via BVS) and Cochrane/CENTRAL virtual databases were searched for studies dated before 2017. We identified prospective and retrospective studies, including observational, cohort, single-blinded and multicenter studies, comparing VCE and DBE for the diagnosis of OGIB, and data of all the vascular sources of bleeding were collected. All patients were subjected to the same gold standard method. Relevant data were then extracted from each included study using a standardized extraction form. We calculated study variables (sensitivity, specificity, prevalence, positive and negative predictive values and accuracy) and performed a meta-analysis using Meta-Disc software.
RESULTS: In the per-patient analysis, 17 studies (1477 lesions) were included. We identified 3150 exams (1722 VCE and 1428 DBE) in 2043 patients and identified 2248 sources of bleeding, 1467 of which were from vascular lesions. Of these lesions, 864 (58.5%) were diagnosed by VCE, and 613 (41.5%) were diagnosed by DBE. The pretest probability for bleeding of vascular origin was 54.34%. The sensitivity of DBE was 84% (95%CI: 0.82-0.86; heterogeneity: 78.00%), and the specificity was 92% (95%CI: 0.89-0.94; heterogeneity: 92.0%). For DBE, the positive likelihood ratio was 11.29 (95%CI: 4.83-26.40; heterogeneity: 91.6%), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.20 (95%CI: 0.15-0.27; heterogeneity: 67.3%). Performing DBE after CE increased the diagnostic yield of vascular lesion by 7%, from 83% to 90%.
CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of detecting small bowel bleeding from a vascular source is increased with the use of an isolated video capsule endoscope compared with isolated DBE. However, concomitant use increases the detection rate of the bleeding source.

BACKGROUND: Software tools have been developed as capsule endoscopy (CE) reading aids. The suspected blood indicator (SBI) tags possible areas of haemorrhage in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of SBI in CE. Areas covered: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies on the use of SBI in CE. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of SBI in diagnosing GI bleeding was evaluated. 2040 patients from 16 studies underwent 2049 CE examinations. The overall sensitivity of SBI for bleeding or potentially bleeding lesions was 0.553, specificity 0.578, DOR 12.354. The sensitivity of SBI for active bleeding was 0.988, specificity 0.646, DOR 229.89. Expert commentary: Currently, SBI has limited validity in CE reading. However, in active GI bleeding, it has good sensitivity, supporting its use in the acute setting.