Effect of antiplatelet agent number, types, and pre-endoscopic management on post-polypectomy bleeding: validation of endoscopy guidelines.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether type of antiplatelet (AP) therapy, AP combination therapy, and AP continuing or switching strategy affect the risk of post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB). In this study, we sought to elucidate this risk. METHODS: We analyzed 1050 patients who underwent colonoscopic polypectomy: 525 AP users and 525 controls matched for age, sex, comorbidities, concomitant non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs use, and polyp characteristics who did not receive antithrombotics. PPB risk was evaluated by AP number, type, and continuing or switching strategies during the peri-endoscopic period. RESULTS: In multivariate analysis, bleeding risk increased significantly as the number of AP agents used increased (monotherapy, adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.7; dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), 4.6; triple antiplatelet therapy (TAPT), 11.1) compared with controls. With monotherapy, significantly increased PPB risk was found for aspirin (aOR 4.3), thienopyridine (aOR 6.3), and cilostazol (aOR 5.9), but not for eicosapentaenoic acid or other APs (beraprost, limaprost, sarpogrelate, dilazep, or dipyridamole). With DAPT, significantly increased PPB risk was found for combination aspirin plus cilostazol, but not aspirin plus other APs. Bleeding rates for continuing monotherapy were 4.3% for aspirin and 0% for thienopyridine, cilostazol, and other APs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of this large polypectomy dataset showed that the use of low-dose aspirin, thienopyridine, or cilostazol and a combination of these is associated with increased PPB risk. Although PPB risk was high with DAPT or TAPT, PPB rate in any antiplatelet monotherapy even with a continuing strategy was low at < 5%.

Long term outcome of EUS-based strategy for suspected choledocholithiasis but negative CT finding.

OBJECTIVES: The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines offered the risk-stratified approach in suspected choledocholithiasis. Previous studies have raised concern about the insufficient accuracy of the guideline, especially in high probability group. The purposes of this study were to authenticate the stratification and clinical predictors of the guidelines for suspected choledocholithiasis with no visible choledocholithiasis on computed tomography (CT) and to make clear the clinical strategy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out the retrospective single-center study of 156 patients with suspected choledocholithiasis but negative findings on CT who underwent EUS for about 8 years at Samsung Medical Center. We assessed the clinical predictors of the ASGE guidelines in predicting the presence of choledocholithiasis and the outcome of the EUS. RESULTS: Fifty-three of the 156 patients had positive findings on EUS that included choledocholithiasis (n = 43, 27.6%) or obstructive papillitis (n = 10, 6.4%). Among the 53 patients, 51 (96.2%) had choledocholithiasis or obstructive papillitis on ERCP. The 101 patients of 103 patients with negative finding on EUS did not show biliary events during follow-up period. EUS accuracy was 98.7% (sensitivity 100%; specificity 98.1%). Among the 49 patients with high probability, 21 (42.9%) had choledocholithiasis on ERCP. In 107 patients who were classified as intermediate probability, 30 (27.3%) had choledocholithiasis. There were no complications related to EUS. CONCLUSIONS: Not only intermediate probability group but also high probability group without definite acute cholangitis may require EUS. Application of EUS for suspected choledocholithiasis is highly accurate, safe and reduces unnecessary invasive ERCP in 57.1% of patients with high probability group.

Intermediate risk of choledocholithiasis: are we on the right path?

The risk of choledocholithiasis should be assessed in every patient undergoing cholecystectomy to define the next step. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy proposed a stratified predictor scale of choledocholithiasis. Therefore, we aimed to describe our experience managing patients with an intermediate risk of choledocholithiasis according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines and the actual presence of bile duct stones in magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Methods: A retrospective observational study with a prospective database was conducted. The analysis included sociodemographic data, laboratory values, and imaging. Bivariate, multivariate, and receiver operating characteristic analysis were performed. Results: Three hundred twenty-seven patients had an intermediate risk for choledocholithiasis. Half the patients were at least 65 years old. 24.77% were diagnosed with choledocholithiasis. Bile duct dilation was documented in only 3.06% of cases. Diagnosis of choledocholithiasis is associated with an age odds ratio (OR): 1.87 (P 0.02), alkaline phosphatase OR: 2.44 (P 0.02), and bile duct dilation greater than 6 mm OR: 14.65 (P 0.00). Conclusions: High variability in the accuracy of imaging techniques results in a large number of patients classified as intermediate risk without choledocholithiasis in cholangioresonance. Therefore, enhancing the criteria to define intermediate risk for patients in order to optimize resources is of paramount importance.

Appropriateness of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Guidelines for Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Prospective Analytical Study.

Introduction Extensive use of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) with the advent of open access centers has resulted in inappropriate endoscopies. Our study aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines for UGE and to assess the diagnostic yield of endoscopy in a tertiary care center in South India. Methods The study was conducted as a prospective analytical study. Indications for endoscopy were classified as "ASGE appropriate" and "ASGE inappropriate". The significance of association of ASGE guidelines and other categorical variables with endoscopic findings were assessed. Results ASGE appropriate indications and inappropriate indications accounted for 85.9% and 14.1% of endoscopies, respectively. The most common appropriate indication was persistent dyspepsia despite adequate proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (28.1%) and the only inappropriate indication for endoscopy was isolated dyspepsia without adequate PPI therapy (14.1%). The diagnostic yield of endoscopy for appropriate indications was 69.5% and for inappropriate indications was 55.1%, the difference was statistically significant (P= 0.003; OR-1.857). The sensitivity and specificity of ASGE guidelines was 88.5% and 19.5%, respectively. Conclusion According to our study, ASGE guidelines may be considered as appropriate guidelines for UGE in our population and these guidelines were followed 85.9% of the times in referring patients for the same. However, the high diagnostic yield even in inappropriate endoscopies indicates the necessity of further studies that might identify other relevant indications for endoscopy, thus avoiding misutilization of resources without missing out on relevant cases.

ASGE guidelines result in cost-saving in the management of choledocholithiasis.

BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to determine whether utilization of the ASGE guidelines for the evaluation of bile duct stones (BDS) would result in fewer imaging studies and in turn lead to a lower healthcare expenditure. METHODS: This was a retrospective study set in an urban Teaching Hospital. Patients undergoing evaluation for BDS and who had their gallbladders in situ were included in the study. Data with regard to age, sex, clinical history, pain level, vital signs and laboratory studies as well as diagnostic tests performed were extracted from the hospital's electronic medical record. The ASGE guidelines were applied retrospectively to each patient in the study group and the group was divided into two cohorts: one that followed the ASGE guidelines and one which did not. Patients in the two cohorts were further stratified into high-, intermediate-, and low-risk categories. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients met the criteria and were included in the study. Of the 38 patients, 22 were managed as per the ASGE guidelines and 16 were not. Twenty-seven patients were categorized as high-risk (14 following the correct algorithm, 13 not) and 11 as intermediate-risk (8 following, 3 not). There were no low-risk patients. Twelve of the 27 patients in the high-risk group had stones (56%) while 6 of 11 (55%) had stones in the intermediate-risk group. Fourteen computed tomography scans and 12 magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatographies were deemed inappropriate resulting in unnecessary increased expenditure of $ 22,236. CONCLUSION: The application of ASGE guidelines can minimize redundant investigations and effect cost saving but need to be refined to produce a better yield.