Clinical outcome is distinct between radiological stricture and endoscopic stricture in ileal Crohn’s disease

Objectives Differences in clinical adverse outcomes (CAO) based on different intestinal stricturing definitions in Crohn’s disease (CD) are poorly documented. This study aims to compare CAO between radiological strictures (RS) and endoscopic strictures (ES) in ileal CD and explore the significance of upstream dilatation in RS. Methods This retrospective double-center study included 199 patients (derivation cohort, n = 157; validation cohort, n = 42) with bowel strictures who simultaneously underwent endoscopic and radiologic examinations. RS was defined as a luminal narrowing with wall thickening relative to the normal gut on cross-sectional imaging (group 1 (G1)), which further divided into G1a (without upstream dilatation) and G1b (with upstream dilatation). ES was defined as an endoscopic non-passable stricture (group 2 (G2)). Strictures met the definitions of RS (with or without upstream dilatation) and ES were categorized as group 3 (G3). CAO referred to stricture-related surgery or penetrating disease. Results In the derivation cohort, G1b (93.3%) had the highest CAO occurrence rate, followed by G3 (32.6%), G1a (3.2%), and G2 (0%) ( p < 0.0001); the same order was found in the validation cohort. The CAO-free survival time was significantly different among the four groups ( p < 0.0001). Upstream dilatation (hazard ratio, 1.126) was a risk factor for predicting CAO in RS. Furthermore, when upstream dilatation was added to diagnose RS, 17.6% of high-risk strictures were neglected. Conclusions CAO differs significantly between RS and ES, and clinicians should pay more attention to strictures in G1b and G3. Upstream dilatation has an important impact on the clinical outcome of RS but may not be an essential factor for RS diagnosis. Clinical relevance statement This study explored the definition of intestinal stricture with the greatest significance for the clinical diagnosis and prognosis of patients with CD, and consequently provided effective auxiliary information for clinicians to formulate strategies for the treatment of CD intestinal strictures. Key Points • The retrospective double-center study showed that clinical adverse outcome is different between radiological strictures and endoscopic strictures in CD. • Upstream dilatation has an important impact on the clinical outcome of radiological strictures but may not be an essential factor for diagnosis of radiological strictures. • Radiological stricture with upstream dilatation and simultaneous radiological and endoscopic stricture were at increased risk for clinical adverse outcomes; thus, closer monitoring should be considered.