P134 Ultrasonographic scores for Crohn’s disease activity assessment – still lag behind CEUS
Freitas, M.(1,2,3);Macedo Silva, V.(1,2,3);Arieira, C.(1,2,3);Cúrdia Gonçalves, T.(1,2,3);Dias de Castro, F.(1,2,3);Leite, S.(1,2,3);Moreira, M.J.(1,2,3);Cotter, J.(1,2,3);
(1)Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira, Gastroenterology Department, Guimarães, Portugal;(2)Life and Health Sciences Research Institute ICVS, School of Medicine- University of Minho, Braga, Portugal;(3)ICVS/3B’s, PT Government Associate Laboratory, Braga/Guimarães, Portugal
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.
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).
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%.
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.