Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

P134 Ultrasonographic scores for Crohn’s disease activity assessment – still lag behind CEUS

2021; Oxford University Press; Volume: 15; Issue: Supplement_1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab076.261

1876-4479

Marta Freitas, Vítor Macedo Silva, Cátia Arieira, Tiago Cúrdia Gonçalves, Francisca Dias de Castro, Sílvia Leite, Maria João Moreira, José Cotter,

Intraperitoneal and Appendiceal Malignancies

Abstract Background Intestinal ultrasound (IUS) is an increasingly used non-invasive tool to monitor Crohn‘s disease (CD) activity. Currently, there is no widely accepted, reproducible IUS activity index to evaluate inflammatory activity. In 2020, two new scores emerged: the Simple Ultrasound Activity Score for CD (SUS-CD) and International Bowel Ultrasound Segmental Activity Score (IBUS-SAS). We aimed to compare the accuracy of SUS-CD, IBUS-SAS and contrast ultrasound (CEUS) in predicting inflammatory activity in the terminal ileum in ileocolonoscopy. Methods Retrospective study including all IBD patients submitted to conventional IUS and CEUS with contrast SonoVue® directed to the terminal ileum performed by a single operator between April 2016 and March 2020. Examinations were performed using an ultrasound Hitachi HI VISION Avius®. Qualitative and quantitative parameters from the conventional IUS analysis including wall thickness, stratification, colour Doppler and inflammatory fat were evaluated, and segmental SUS-CD and IBUS-SAS were calculated. A quantitative measurement of contrast bowel wall enhancement, peak intensity, was evaluated using CEUS. The CD activity was assessed with ileocolonoscopy by Simple Endoscopic Score for CD (SES-CD). Disease activity was graded as inactive (SES-CD<7) or active (SES-CD≥7). Results Fifty patients were included, 54.0% female, with mean age of 33±12years. Patients had a mean SUS-CD of 3.4±1.0, IBUS-SAS of 58.9±25.9 and CEUS peak intensity of 12.6±12.2. SUS-CD and IBUS-SAS were not different between patients with active or inactive disease (p=0.15; 0.57, respectively) with a poor capability to predict endoscopic activity (AUC 0.62, 95% CI 0.45–0.78; 0.55, 95% CI 0.38–0.72, respectively). Peak intensity in CEUS was significantly different in patients with active or inactive disease (p=0.004) with a good capability to predict endoscopic activity (AUC 0.80; 95% CI 0.64–0.92). A peak intensity optimal cut-off to predict active disease was 8.2 with a sensitivity of 71.4% and a specificity of 78.9%. Conclusion SUS-CD and IBUS-SAS were not able to predict with good accuracy endoscopic activity in terminal ileum in CD. On the other hand, CEUS with peak intensity assessment showed a good diagnostic accuracy for active inflammation in CD. Therefore, CEUS is a non-invasive emerging method, that should be routinely integrated in the ultrasonographic evaluation in CD.