Clinical follow-up on weight loss, glycemic control, and safety aspects of 24 months of duodenal-jejunal bypass liner implantation.

BACKGROUND: The duodenal-jejunal bypass liner (DJBL) is an endoscopic device designed to induce weight loss and improve glycemic control. The liner is licensed for a maximum implant duration of 12 months. It might be hypothesized that extension of the dwelling time results in added value. The goals of our study were to determine weight change, change in glycemic control, and safety in patients with an intended 24 months of DJBL dwelling time. METHODS: Patients were initially selected for a 12-month implantation period. When no physical complaints or adverse events (AEs) occurred, motivated patients who responded well were selected for extension of dwelling time to 24 months. Patients underwent a control endoscopy 12 months after implantation and visited the out-patient clinic every 3 months up to explantation. Patients agreed to remove the DJBL when complaints or AEs occurred that could not be treated conservatively. RESULTS: Implantation was extended in 44 patients, and 24 (55%) patients completed the full 24 months. Twenty patients required early removal due to AEs. During dwelling time, body weight decreased significantly (15.9 kg; TBWL 14.6%). HbA1c decreased non-significantly (4.9 mmol/mol). The number of insulin users and daily dose of insulin both decreased significantly. At 24 months after removal, glycemic control had worsened, while body weight was still significantly lower compared to baseline. In total, 68% of the patients experienced at least one AE. Two patients developed a hepatic abscess. CONCLUSIONS: DJBL treatment results in significant weight loss and improves glycemic control during implantation. The largest beneficial effects occur during the first 9-12 months after implantation. Extension of dwelling time to 24 months results only in stabilization of body weight and glycemic control. After explantation, weight improvements are maintained, but glycemic control worsens. As the cumulative risk of AEs increases with time, a maximal dwelling time of 12 months is advisable.

Contrast Enhanced Abdominal Ultrasound in the Assessment of Ileal Inflammation in Crohn's Disease: A Comparison with MR Enterography.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To prospectively examine the feasibility and accuracy of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the assessment of Crohn's disease (CD) activity in the terminal ileum in comparison to Magnetic Resonance Enterography (MRE), using endoscopy as a reference standard. METHODS: 105 consecutive patients with alleged clinically active CD were assessed by MRE and CEUS. CEUS of the terminal ileum was performed using an intravenous microbubble contrast enhancer. Accuracy values of CEUS and MRE for the presence of active terminal ileitis were evaluated using the Receiver Operating Characteristic method, using endoscopic findings as a reference standard. Sensitivity and specificity values of MRE and CEUS were compared by the McNemar test. RESULTS: CEUS was feasible in 98% of patients, MRE in all. Optimal diagnostic accuracy in CEUS was obtained at a peak intensity value of 10%, showing 100% sensitivity, 92% specificity and an accuracy of 99% in demonstrating ileal mucosal inflammation. For MRE, overall sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were, 87%, 100%, and 88%, respectively. CEUS and MRE were highly correlated in assessing length and wall thickness of the terminal ileum. CEUS identified 11 of 16 MRE-detected strictures, but no fistulae. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of CEUS is comparable to that of MRE in the assessment of active, uncomplicated terminal ileal CD and therefore a valuable bedside alternative to MRE in the follow-up of these patients.

A cost-benefit analysis of endoscopy reporting methods: handwritten, dictated and computerized.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Gastrointestinal endoscopy investigations are frequently requested by gastroenterologists, general practitioners and other physicians. In addition to the classic methods of report writing, several electronic endoscopic report systems are currently available. The aim of the study was to evaluate the costs of three different ways of producing reports; by hand, by dictation, or by computer. METHODS: Three methods of report writing were compared, with special attention to costs. The endoscopy process was analyzed, from arrival of the patient to sending the report to the referring doctor, and including production of endoscopic images or video, logging of used endoscopes and their disinfection, and storage costs for endoscopy data. RESULTS: During the first 5 years, the mean costs per procedure were Euro 4.78 for handwritten, Euro 6.39 for dictated and Euro 8.90 for computerized reports. Due to depreciation, after this initial period, the respective costs declined to Euro 4.37, Euro 5.20 and Euro 5.13, respectively. Despite high initial costs, a cost-benefit analysis already revealed a financial benefit from a computerized system after 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: The electronic production of an endoscopic report turned out to be the most expensive way of report writing during the first 5 years, due to high initial costs. After 5 years the costs of the different systems were comparable with each other. Cost-benefit analysis showed a positive financial benefit for computerized reports after 3 years.

Computerisation of endoscopy reports using standard reports and text blocks.

BACKGROUND: The widespread use of gastrointestinal endoscopy for diagnosis and treatment requires effective, standardised report systems. This need is further increased by the limited storage of images, and by the need for structured databases for surveillance and epidemiology. We therefore aimed for a report system which would be quick, easy to learn, and suitable for use in busy daily practice. METHODS: Endobase III is an endoscopy information system offering three different ways of report writing, i.e. standard reports, text blocks and Minimal Standard Terminology (MST). A working group of two university and four general hospitals worked as a reference group for the development of standard reports and text blocks. Guidelines from various gastrointestinal endoscopy societies were followed to compose the reports. RESULTS: Standard reports were based on a list of distinct diagnoses; text blocks were based on anatomic landmarks and individual procedures. As such, 316 standard reports were developed for upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). In this way selecting one diagnosis produces a complete report. A total of 1571 different text blocks were additionally developed for each part of the gastrointestinal tract and for procedures during endoscopy. This module allowed generation of a full report on the combination of text blocks. Reports could be composed and printed within two minutes for 90% of cases. CONCLUSION: Standard reports and text blocks are a quick, user-friendly way of report writing accepted and used by a number of gastroenterologists in the Netherlands.