Cold snare polypectomy versus cold endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is recommended for the resection of small colorectal polyps. However, few studies have investigated the efficacy of cold endoscopic mucosal resection (cold EMR) for small polyps. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of cold EMR compared with CSP for small colorectal polyps. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized trial conducted in three tertiary centers from January 2018 to February 2021. Patients with polyps sized 6-10 mm were randomized to CSP or cold EMR group. After polypectomy, two additional biopsies were performed to assess the completeness of resection. The primary outcome was complete polyp resection rate. Secondary outcomes were total procedure time and rate of adverse events such as immediate bleeding, delayed bleeding, and perforation. RESULTS: A total of 444 polyps in 327 patients were assessed and randomly assigned to each group. Of those, 425 polyps were finally analyzed based on pathology results. The complete resection rate was not significantly different between cold EMR and CSP groups (91.9% vs 89.8%, p = 0.24). However, the total procedure time was significantly increased in cold EMR (87.6 s vs. 45.8 s, p < 0.001). The rate of polypectomy adverse events was not significantly different between the two groups. No patient had massive bleeding or perforation. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in complete resection rate or adverse events between CSP and cold EMR. However, CSP reduced the total procedure time.

Comparison of 2 L Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid and 4 L Polyethylene Glycol in Elderly Patients Aged 60-79: A Prospective Randomized Study.

BACKGROUND: The bowel-cleansing efficacy and safety of 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbic acid (2L PEG + Asc) has rarely been studied in the elderly population. In this randomized trial, we compared the bowel cleanliness, safety, and tolerability of 2L PEG + Asc with those of 4 L PEG in an elderly population aged 60-79. METHODS: Study participants were randomized either to 2L PEG + Asc or 4L PEG. The primary endpoint was the success rate of bowel preparation, using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Before colonoscopy, all participants were questioned about adverse events and tolerability regarding purgative ingestion. RESULTS: A total of 347 individuals were enrolled (2L PEG + Asc, 174; 4L PEG, 173). Mean age in the 2L PEG + Asc and the 4L PEG was 69.3 ± 5.6 and 69.3 ± 5.0, respectively (P = 0.917). The rate for successful bowel cleansing was comparable between the 2L PEG + Asc (92%) and the 4L PEG (96%, P = 0.118). Total ingested liquid including purgative and water was lower in the 2L PEG + Asc group (2.9 L) than in the 4L PEG group (4.2 L, P < 0.001). The tolerability of purgative was superior in the 2L PEG + Asc (overall satisfaction, P < 0.001; willingness to reuse, P < 0.001). There were no serious adverse events during the trial. CONCLUSIONS: The bowel-cleansing efficacy of 2L PEG + Asc was comparable to that of 4L PEG. Tolerability was superior in the 2L PEG + Asc group. For older people, 2L PEG + Asc is an efficacious and safe bowel cleanser. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0004123).

Safety of Endoscopy in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic procedures can provoke peritonitis in patients receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD). The aim of this study was to assess the development of peritonitis after endoscopic procedures in PD patients. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data from PD patients who underwent endoscopies in 3 tertiary hospitals between 2008 and 2018. The patients were grouped into nonprophylactic, prophylactic, and prior antibiotic therapy groups. The incidence of peritonitis within 7 days of endoscopy was assessed. We also examined the factors associated with peritonitis. RESULTS: There were 1,316 endoscopies performed in 570 PD patients. The peritonitis rate after endoscopy was 3.0%. Specifically, the peritonitis rate was 1.8% for esophagogastroduodenoscopies, 4.2% for the colonoscopy group, and 5.3% for the sigmoidoscopy group. The prior antibiotic therapy group showed a significantly higher risk of peritonitis (odds ratio = 4.6; 95% confidence interval: 2.2-9.6; P < 0.01). Prophylactic antibiotics were not associated with reducing peritonitis. Therapeutic colonoscopies such as polypectomy were associated with an increased risk of developing peritonitis (odds ratio = 6.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.6-25.9). However, biopsies were not associated with an increased risk of peritonitis. DISCUSSION: Prophylactic antibiotics did not reduce the risk of peritonitis after endoscopy in PD patients. Therapeutic colonoscopies such as polypectomy and prior antibiotic therapy before endoscopy were associated with an increased risk of peritonitis.

Effect of prophylactic clip application for the prevention of postpolypectomy bleeding of large pedunculated colonic polyps: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Prophylactic application of a hemoclip has been suggested as an alternative to the use of an endoloop for the prevention of postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB) when resecting large, pedunculated colorectal polyps. Therefore, this multicenter, randomized controlled trial investigated the efficacy of prophylactic hemoclip application to reduce PPB during the resection of large pedunculated polyps. METHODS: Large pedunculated polyps (≥10 mm in head diameter) were eligible for inclusion. Polyps were randomized into a study arm (where clips were applied before resection) and a control arm (without pretreatment). The primary outcome was the rate of PPB in each group. PPB included immediate PPB (IPPB) and delayed PPB (DPPB). IPPB was defined as blood oozing (≥1 minute) or active spurting occurring immediately after polyp resection. DPPB was defined as rectal bleeding, occurring after completion of the colonoscopy. RESULTS: In total, 238 polyps from 204 patients were randomized into the clip arm (119 polyps) or the control arm (119 polyps). Overall bleeding adverse events were observed in 20 cases (IPPB, 16; DPPB, 4). The rate of overall PPB, IPPB, and DPPB was 8.4%, 6.7%, and 1.7%, respectively, for all polyps. The rate of overall PPB (clip 4.2% vs control 12.6%, P = .033) and IPPB (clip 2.5% vs control 10.9%, P = .017) was significantly lower in the clip arm than the control arm. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic clipping before resecting large pedunculated polyps can reduce overall PPB and IPPB compared with no prior treatment. Therefore, prophylactic clipping may be considered before resection of large pedunculated polyps. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02156193.).

Propofol compared with bolus and titrated midazolam for sedation in outpatient colonoscopy: a prospective randomized double-blind study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The safest and most efficient method of sedation for outpatient colonoscopy remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the efficiency and safety of bolus administration of midazolam compared with titrated administration and propofol administration for patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy. METHODS: We randomly divided patients undergoing colonoscopy into the propofol group, bolus midazolam group, and titrated midazolam group. We compared total procedure time, induction time, recovery time, and discharge time among the 3 groups. We also compared patient satisfaction and the incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: In total, 267 patients (89 in each study group) were enrolled during the study period. Patients in the propofol group had a shorter total procedure time (39.5 vs 59.4 vs 58.1 minutes; P < .001), induction time (4.6 vs 6.3 vs 7.6 minutes; P < .001), recovery time (11.5 vs 29.5 vs 29.2 minutes; P < .001), and discharge time (20.6 vs 34.9 vs 34.7 minutes; P < .001) than patients in the bolus midazolam group and titrated midazolam group. Patients in the propofol group reported higher degrees of satisfaction than patients in the bolus or titrated midazolam plus meperidine groups (9.9 vs 9.6 vs 9.6 [P = .007] and 4.9 vs 4.7 vs 4.8 [P = .008], respectively). Adverse events were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, propofol was superior to bolus or titrated midazolam in terms of endoscopy unit efficiency and patient satisfaction during outpatient colonoscopy. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0002805.).

Comparison of adenoma detection by colonoscopy between polypectomy performed during both insertion and withdrawal versus during withdrawal only: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: In standard colonoscopy, the colonoscope is inserted into the cecum, and inspection of the colonic mucosa and polypectomy are performed during withdrawal. The colon configuration can differ between the insertion and withdrawal phases, and some polyps found in the insertion phase can be missed during withdrawal. A few single-center studies investigated whether detection of polyps during the insertion phase affects the adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, the effectiveness of this strategy is unknown because of conflicting results. We aimed to determine whether polypectomy together with careful inspection during insertion increases the ADR compared with standard colonoscopy. METHODS: A randomized, controlled, multicenter trial was conducted at three university hospitals. Patients aged 50 to 80 years were randomly assigned to the study group or control group. For patients in the study group, polypectomy was performed together with careful inspection during both colonoscope insertion and withdrawal. In the control group, polyps were inspected and removed only during colonoscope withdrawal. The primary endpoint was the ADR, which was defined as the percentage of patients with ≥ 1 adenoma. RESULTS: A total of 1142 patients were enrolled (study group, n = 571; control group, n = 571). The ADR was similar in the 2 groups (study group, 44.1%; control group, 43.1%; P = 0.72). In the control group, 12 polyps that had been detected during colonoscope insertion were not found during withdrawal (polyp miss rate: 2.1%, 12/571). CONCLUSION: Polypectomy and careful inspection during both colonoscope insertion and withdrawal did not improve the overall ADR compared with standard colonoscopy (NCT01925833).

Predictive Model of Nonneoplastic Pathology after Endoscopic Resection of Gastric Epithelial Neoplasia.

Background/Aims: The rate of nonneoplastic pathology (NNP) after endoscopic resection (ER) of gastric epithelial neoplasia (GEN) has been reported to be 3%-7%. However, to date, the associations of pretreatment characteristics with NNP have not been identified. The aim of this study was to develop a predictive model for NNP after ER. Methods: Among 817 patients who underwent ER for GEN, factors associated with NNP were identified by univariate and multivariate analyses. Weighted points considering the ß coefficient were allocated to each variable that was significant in the multivariate analysis. The predictive score was calculated by the total points. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated for the predictive score. Results: The rate of NNP was 8.8%. After multivariate analysis, poor demarcation from the background, no ulceration, a flat appearance, and low-grade dysplasia were significant factors predictive of NNP. One point each was allocated for no ulcer, flat appearance, and low-grade dysplasia. Two points were allocated for poor demarcation from the background. The predictive score ranged from 0 to 5 points. Patients were categorized as being at low risk (0, 1, or 2 points) or high risk (3, 4, or 5 points) for NNP. The AUROC was 0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.77 to 0.88; p<0.01). With a cutoff value of 2.5, the sensitivity and specificity of the score for predicting NNP were 0.72 and 0.84, respectively. Conclusions: We developed a model to predict NNP after ER. Endoscopic re-biopsy or re-evaluation by pathologists is strongly recommended for the high-risk group.

Comparison of bowel-cleansing efficacy of split-dose and same-day dose bowel preparation for afternoon colonoscopy in patients with gastrectomy: a prospective randomized study.

BACKGROUND: A split dose (SPD) of purgative is the recommended bowel-preparation method for colonoscopy, although for colonoscopy scheduled for the afternoon, a same-day dose (SDD) of purgative is recommended. However, it has not been determined whether SPD or SDD is better in patients with gastrectomy who are at high risk of suboptimal bowel cleansing. We compared the bowel-cleansing efficacy of SPD and SDD regimens in patients with gastrectomy who underwent colonoscopy in the afternoon. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, assessor-blinded study. For the SDD group, polyethylene glycol (PEG) was ingested on the day of colonoscopy starting at 7 AM. In the SPD group, 2 L PEG was ingested at 9 PM the day before colonoscopy, and the remaining 2 L from 10 AM on the day of colonoscopy. Colonoscopy was performed from 1:30 PM. Before colonoscopy, the participants completed questionnaires asking about bowel-movement kinetics, adverse events, tolerability, overall satisfaction, and willingness to reuse the protocol. The bowel-cleansing efficacy was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. RESULTS: A total of 193 subjects were included (SDD, 95; SPD, 98). The rate of successful bowel cleansing was comparable between the two groups (SDD, 92.6% vs. SPD, 95.9%; P = 0.37). The incidence of adverse events (nausea, vomiting, bloating, abdominal pain, and dizziness/headache) was also comparable between the two groups. However, sleep disturbance was higher in the SPD group (SDD, 10.5% vs. SPD, 25.5%; P = 0.01). Tolerability did not differ between the SDD and SPD groups (satisfaction, P = 0.11; willingness to reuse, P = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: The bowel-cleansing efficacy, safety profile, and patient tolerability of SDD and SPD were comparable. Both SDD and SPD regimens are feasible bowel-preparation methods for patients with gastrectomy who undergo colonoscopy in the afternoon. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration number: KCT0002699.

Cold Snare Polypectomy in Patients Taking Dual Antiplatelet Therapy: A Randomized Trial of Discontinuation of Thienopyridines.

INTRODUCTION: Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is a safe and effective method for removing polyps ≤10 mm. The aim of this study was to compare the risk of clinically significant bleeding and thromboembolic events after CSP between stopping and continuing thienopyridines in patients taking dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). METHODS: The study was a single-center, noninferiority, and randomized controlled study involving patients who received colonoscopy from October 2015 to October 2016. Patients receiving DAPT with polyps ≤10 mm were randomly assigned to either the DAPT group (patients continued DAPT) or the aspirin group (patients discontinued thienopyridines for 1 week). Primary outcome was clinically significant bleeding. Secondary outcomes included intraprocedural bleeding, nonsignificant hematochezia, and occurrence of thromboembolic events. RESULTS: Forty-two patients with 104 eligible polyps were allocated to the DAPT group, and 45 patients with 101 eligible polyps were allocated to the aspirin group. Patient demographic characteristics including size, location, shape, and pathology of the removed polyps were similar in the 2 groups. Intraprocedural bleeding and nonsignificant hematochezia rates were also similar between the 2 groups (4.8% vs 2.2%, P = 0.608; 19.0% vs 8.9%, P = 0.170). No thromboembolic event occurred in either group. Only 1 patient (2.4%) in the DAPT group showed clinically significant bleeding. No significant bleeding was found in the aspirin group. DISCUSSION: Clinically significant bleeding rate after CSP for polyps ≤10 mm in patients continuing to take DAPT was 2.4%. Therefore, CSP is a safe method for removing small polyps even in patients taking DAPT (ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT02865824).

Comparison of Bowel Cleansing Efficacy, Safety, Bowel Movement Kinetics, and Patient Tolerability of Same-Day and Split-Dose Bowel Preparation Using 4 L of Polyethylene Glycol: A Prospective Randomized Study.

BACKGROUND: Split-dose bowel preparation is recommended for morning colonoscopy, although a same-day dose regimen is an alternative for afternoon colonoscopy. Same-day preparation for morning colonoscopy has rarely been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: We compared the bowel cleansing efficacy, bowel movement kinetics, safety profile, and patient tolerability of split-dose and same-day preparation using 4-L polyethylene glycol. DESIGN: This was a prospective, randomized, assessor-blinded study. SETTINGS: This study was performed at a tertiary center in Korea. PATIENTS: Study subjects were randomly assigned to the same-day or split-dose groups. For the same-day dose group, 4 L of polyethylene glycol were ingested on the day of colonoscopy starting at 5:00 AM for morning colonoscopy or 7:00 AM for afternoon colonoscopy. In the split-dose group, 2 L of polyethylene glycol were ingested at 9:00 PM the day before colonoscopy, and the remaining 2 L from 7:00 AM for morning colonoscopy or from 10:00 AM for afternoon colonoscopy. Colonoscopy was performed from 10:00 AM. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The efficacy of bowel cleansing was evaluated using the Boston bowel preparation scale. The participants completed questionnaires asking about adverse events, bowel movement kinetics, and tolerability of the preparation before colonoscopy. RESULTS: A total of 339 subjects were included (same-day dose = 172; split dose = 167). One subject in each group did not undergo colonoscopy. The rate of successful cleansing did not differ between the groups (same-day dose = 98.8% vs split dose = 98.2%; p = 0.681). There were no instances of hemodynamic instability or aspiration in either group. Tolerability, including overall satisfaction and willingness to reuse, were comparable between the groups. LIMITATIONS: This was a single-center study. CONCLUSIONS: The bowel cleansing efficacy, safety profile, and tolerability of same-day dosing with polyethylene glycol were comparable with those of split dose. Therefore, same-day dosing with 4 L of polyethylene glycol is a feasible bowel preparation method. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B44. COMPARACIÓN DE LA EFICACIA DE LA LIMPIEZA INTESTINAL, LA SEGURIDAD, LA CINÉTICA DEL MOVIMIENTO INTESTINAL Y LA TOLERABILIDAD DEL PACIENTE DE LA PREPARACIÓN INTESTINAL EN EL MISMO DÍA Y EN DOSIS DIVIDIDAS UTILIZANDO 4 L DE POLIETILENGLICOL: UN ESTUDIO PROSPECTIVO ALEATORIZADO: Se recomienda la preparación del intestino en dosis divididas para la colonoscopia de la mañana, aunque un régimen de una sola dosis el mismo día es una alternativa para la colonoscopia en la tarde. La preparación de una sola dosis el mismo día para la colonoscopia matutina rara vez se ha evaluado.Comparamos la eficacia de la limpieza intestinal, la cinética del movimiento intestinal, el perfil de seguridad y la tolerabilidad del paciente de la dosis dividida y la preparación el mismo día utilizando 4 L de polietilenglicol.Este fue un estudio prospectivo, aleatorizado, cegado por el evaluador.Este estudio se realizó en un centro terciario en Corea.Los sujetos del estudio fueron asignados aleatoriamente a el grupo de una dosis en el mismo día o al grupo de dosis dividida. Para el grupo de dosis del mismo día, se ingirieron 4 L de polietilenglicol el día de la colonoscopia a partir de las 5 a.m. para la colonoscopia de la mañana o las 7 a.m. para la colonoscopia de la tarde. En el grupo de dosis dividida, se ingirieron 2 L de polietilenglicol a las 9 p.m. el día anterior a la colonoscopia, y los otros 2 L restantes a partir de las 7 a.m. para la colonoscopia de la mañana o desde las 10 a.m. para la colonoscopia de la tarde. La colonoscopia se realizó a partir de las 10 a.m.La eficacia de la limpieza intestinal se evaluó mediante la escala de preparación intestinal de Boston. Los participantes completaron cuestionarios preguntando sobre los eventos adversos, la cinética del movimiento intestinal y la tolerabilidad de la preparación antes de la colonoscopia.Se incluyeron un total de 339 sujetos (dosis el mismo día, 172; dosis dividida, 167). Un sujeto en cada grupo no se sometió a colonoscopia. La tasa de limpieza exitosa no difirió entre los grupos (dosis el mismo día, 98.8% versus dosis dividida, 98.2%; p = 0.681). No hubo casos de inestabilidad hemodinámica o aspiración en ninguno de los grupos. La tolerabilidad, incluida la satisfacción general y la voluntad de reutilización, fueron comparables entre los grupos.Este fue un estudio de centro único.La eficacia de la limpieza intestinal, el perfil de seguridad y la tolerabilidad de la dosificación en el mismo día con polietilenglicol fueron comparables con los de la dosis dividida. Por lo tanto, la dosificación en el mismo día con 4 L de polietilenglicol es un método factible de preparación intestinal. Vea el video del resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B44.

Validation of same-day bowel preparation regimen using 4L polyethylene glycol: Comparison of morning and afternoon colonoscopy.

A split-dose regimen is the recommended method of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. However, for colonoscopy performed in the afternoon, same-day preparation is recommended rather than a split-dose regimen. No study has compared the efficacy of same-day bowel-cleansing for morning colonoscopy (MC) and afternoon colonoscopy (AC). The aims of this study were to evaluate the bowel-cleansing efficacy, adverse events, and patient tolerability of same-day bowel preparation for colonoscopy using 4L polyethylene glycol (PEG).The medical records of consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy at our healthcare center over 3 months were retrospectively reviewed. Colonoscopy was performed between 10:00 and 16:00. Study subjects were assigned to the MC or AC group according to their colonoscopy start time (MC group, before 12:00; AC group, after 12:00). Study subjects were instructed to drink 500-mL PEG every 15 minutes. In the MC group, bowel cleansing was started at 05:00 and finished at 07:00. For the AC group, 2L PEG was consumed from 07:00, and the remaining 2L PEG was started 3 hours before colonoscopy. The composite safety profile included vital signs, laboratory test results, and questionnaire findings. Laboratory testing of subjects and completion of the questionnaire were performed before colonoscopy. The questionnaire asked about adverse events and tolerability of the bowel cleansing regimen. Bowel-cleansing efficacy was assessed using the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS). Bowel-cleansing efficacy, tolerability, and safety profile were compared between the 2 groups.Two hundred and ninety-one subjects were included (MC group, 169; AC group, 122).The BBPS did not differ between the 2 groups (7.3 ±â€Š0.8 vs. 7.3 ±â€Š0.8, P = .68). There were no instances of electrolyte imbalance or hemodynamic instability in either group. The tolerability of the bowel-cleansing regimen did not differ between the 2 groups (P = .59).The bowel-cleansing efficacy, safety profile, and patient tolerability of MC and AC were comparable. A same-day dose of 4L PEG is a feasible bowel preparation method.

Treatment of benign perforations and leaks of the esophagus: factors associated with success after stent placement.

BACKGROUND: Self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) is effective and safe for the treatment of benign esophageal perforations or leaks. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with clinical success after SEMS placement. METHODS: Patients who received SEMS placement for treatment of benign esophageal perforations or leaks were retrospectively identified. These patients were analyzed for factors associated with clinical success and complications. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients underwent stent insertion for benign esophageal perforations (n = 11) or anastomotic leaks (n = 20). Clinical success was achieved in twenty-three patients (74.2%) after initial stent insertion. In multivariate analysis, early stent insertion within 1 day was identified as a significant independent predictor of successful sealing (Odds ratio = 3.14, 95% CI 1.36-7.24; p = 0.013). The anastomotic leak group needed a longer stent dwelling time (≥ 4 weeks) compared to the perforation group (75.0% vs. 27.3%, p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical success was significantly associated with early stent insertion. The dwelling time of stent was shorter for benign perforations compared to anastomotic leaks.

Three-year colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy in Korea: a Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases (KASID) multicenter prospective study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Colonoscopic surveillance is currently recommended after polypectomy owing to the risk of newly developed colonic neoplasia. However, few studies have investigated colonoscopy surveillance in Asia. This multicenter and prospective study was undertaken to assess the incidence of advanced adenoma based on baseline adenoma findings at 3 years after colonoscopic polypectomy. METHODS: A total of 1,323 patients undergoing colonoscopic polypectomy were prospectively assigned to 3-year colonoscopy surveillance at 11 tertiary endoscopic centers. Relative risks for advanced adenoma after 3 years were calculated according to baseline adenoma characteristics. RESULTS: Among 1,323 patients enrolled, 387 patients (29.3%) were followed up, and the mean follow-up interval was 31.0±9.8 months. The percentage of patients with advanced adenoma on baseline colonoscopy was higher in the surveillance group compared to the non-surveillance group (34.4% vs. 25.7%). Advanced adenoma recurrence was observed in 17 patients (4.4%) at follow-up. The risk of advanced adenoma recurrence was 2 times greater in patients with baseline advanced adenoma than in those with baseline non-advanced adenoma, though the difference was not statistically significant (6.8% [9/133] vs. 3.1% [8/254], P=0.09). Advanced adenoma recurrence was observed only in males and in subjects aged ≥50 years. In contrast, adenoma recurrence was observed in 187 patients (48.3%) at follow-up. Male sex, older age (≥50 years), and multiple adenomas (≥3) at baseline were independent risk factors for adenoma recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: A colonoscopy surveillance interval of 3 years in patients with baseline advanced adenoma can be considered appropriate.

Risk Factors for Additional Surgery after Iatrogenic Perforations due to Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.

Objectives. Endoscopic resection (ER) is commonly performed to treat gastric epithelial neoplasms and subepithelial tumors. The aim of this study was to predict the risk factors for surgery after ER-induced perforation. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed the data on patients who received gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) between January 2010 and March 2015. Patients who were confirmed to have perforation were classified into surgery and nonsurgery groups. We aimed to determine the risk factors for surgery in patients who developed iatrogenic gastric perforations. Results. A total of 1183 patients underwent ER. Perforation occurred in 69 (5.8%) patients, and 9 patients (0.8%) required surgery to manage the perforation. In univariate analysis, anterior location of the lesion, a subepithelial lesion, two or more postprocedure pain killers within 24 hrs, and increased heart rate within 24 hrs after the procedure were the factors related to surgery. In logistic regression analysis, the location of the lesion at the anterior wall and using two or more postprocedure pain killers within 24 hrs were risk factors for surgery. Conclusion. Most cases of perforations after ER can be managed conservatively. When a patient requires two or more postprocedure pain killers within 24 hrs and the lesion is located on the anterior wall, early surgery should be considered instead of conservative management.

Randomized clinical trial comparing 10- or 14-day sequential therapy and 10- or 14-day concomitant therapy for the first line empirical treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Whether concomitant therapy is superior to sequential therapy (ST) as first-line therapy of Helicobacter pylori in areas with high clarithromycin resistance remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of 10- or 14-day ST with 10- or 14-day concomitant therapy (CT). METHODS: This was a prospective randomized study comparing 10- or 14-day ST with 10- or 14-day CT. The ST-10 and ST-14 groups received pantoprazole 40 mg and amoxicillin 1 g twice a day for the first 5 and 7 days followed by pantoprazole 40 mg, clarithromycin 500 mg, and metronidazole 500 mg twice a day for the remaining 5 and 7 days, respectively. The CT-10 and CT-14 groups received pantoprazole 40 mg, amoxicillin 1 g, clarithromycin 500 mg, and metronidazole 500 mg twice daily for 10 and 14 days, respectively. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-one patients were randomly allocated to the four groups. The modified intention-to-treat eradication rates of ST-10, ST-14, CT-10, and CT-14 were 91.7%, 91.2%, 94.2%, and 98.5%, respectively. The corresponding per protocol eradication rates were 91.4%, 91.0%, 95.6%, and 98.5%. There was no difference in compliance and adverse events in the four groups. Eradication rates increased sequentially with statistical significance in the following order: ST-10, ST-14, CT-10, and CT-14 (P = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: All four regimens achieved eradication rates >90% in per protocol analyses in a country with high clarithromycin resistance. There was no difference in tolerability among the four regimens.

[Solitary Neurofibroma of the Sigmoid Colon Presenting as a Subepithelial Tumor Successfully Removed by Endoscopic Resection].

Neurofibromas are benign, slow-growing nerve sheath tumors of the peripheral nervous system, arising from Schwann cells, and classically associated with neurofibromatosis type 1 (Nf1, von Recklinghausen's disease). They occur rarely in the gastro-intestinal tract as isolated neoplasms, outside the classical clinical feature of neurofibromatosis. We herein present an isolated colonic neurofibroma without any systemic signs of neurofibromatosis. A 59-year-old female came to our hospital for constipation. On physical examination, general appearance showed no definite skin lesions. A subepithelial tumor measuring 0.8 cm was detected at the distal descending colon on colonoscopy. The lesion was removed completely by endoscopic resection. Microscopic examination showed proliferation of spindle cells in the mucosa and infiltration of inflammatory cells. Immunohistochemical staining was positive for S-100 protein. The above morphological and immunohistochemical characteristics were consistent with a diagnosis of a solitary neurofibroma of the sigmoid colon.

Comparison of AIMS65 Score and Other Scoring Systems for Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Koreans with Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The AIMS65 score has not been sufficiently validated in Korea. The objective of this study was to compare the AIMS65 and other scoring systems for the prediction of various clinical outcomes in Korean patients with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). METHODS: The AIMS65 score, clinical and full Rockall scores (cRS and fRS) and Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS) score were calculated in patients with NVUGIB in a single center retrospectively. The performance of these scores for predicting mortality, rebleeding, transfusion requirement, and endoscopic intervention was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve. RESULTS: Of the 523 patients, 3.4% died within 30 days, 2.5% experienced rebleeding, 40.0% required endoscopic intervention, and 75.7% needed transfusion. The AIMS65 score was useful for predicting the 30-day mortality, the need for endoscopic intervention and for transfusion. The fRS was superior to the AIMS65, GBS, and cRS for predicting endoscopic intervention and the GBS was superior to the AIMS65, fRS, and cRS for predicting the transfusion requirement. CONCLUSIONS: The AIMS65 score was useful for predicting the 30-day mortality, transfusion requirement, and endoscopic intervention in Korean patients with acute NVUGIB. However, it was inferior to the GBS and fRS for predicting the transfusion requirement and endoscopic intervention, respectively.

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided single-incision needle knife biopsy for gastric subepithelial tumors: comparison with resected specimens.

BACKGROUND: Several techniques are recommended for the histologic diagnosis of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs). The purpose of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield and safety of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided single-incision needle knife (SINK) biopsy for the diagnosis of gastric SETs. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who received biopsy for gastric SETs from August 2012 to May 2015 was conducted. Patients who received endoscopic ultrasonography and were found to have a SET originating from the muscularis propria of the stomach were included in the study. The aim of our study was to investigate the safety and diagnostic yield of SINK biopsy for gastric SETs. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients received SINK biopsy for SETs. The diagnostic yield of SINK biopsy was 87 % (95 % CI 75-100 %), and the diagnostic accuracy was 89 % (95 % CI 74-105 %). The sensitivity of SINK biopsy to identify gastrointestinal stromal tumors was 83 % (95 % CI 52-98 %); the specificity was 100 % (95 % CI 59-100 %); the positive predictive value was 100 % (95 % CI 69-100 %); and the negative predictive value was 78 % (95 % CI 40-97 %). There were no procedure-related adverse events during and after procedure. CONCLUSION: The use of SINK biopsy technique in patients with SETs is a good diagnostic tool with high diagnostic yield and accuracy. The method is simple, safe, and associated with few complications.

Perigastric Abscess as a Complication of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Gastric Cancer: First Case Report.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC) is a widely accepted and well established procedure because of its curative potential and low invasiveness compared with surgery. Perforation is a potential major complication during ESD, and non-surgical treatments such as endoscopic closure with clips are sufficient in most cases. Here, we report a case of perigastric abscess that occurred as a complication of ESD for EGC. The patient improved with administration of antibiotics without surgical intervention.