Endoluminal bariatric techniques.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of new or emerging endoscopic technologies that have the potential to have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent preclinical and clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through January 2011 using the keywords "bariatric," "endoscopic," "intragastric balloon," "duodenojejunal bypass sleeve," and "transoral gastroplasty." Reports on Emerging Technologies are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. These reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Reports on Emerging Technologies are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

GI endoscopes.

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the Committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through September 2010 for articles related to endoscopy by using the key words "gastroscope," "colonoscope," "echoendoscope," "duodenoscope," "choledochoscope," "ultraslim endoscope," "variable stiffness colonoscope," and "wide-angle colonoscope." Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Enteral stents.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2010 for articles related to enteral, esophageal, duodenal, and colonic stents. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Computer-assisted personalized sedation.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of new or emerging endoscopic technologies that have the potential to have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent preclinical and clinical studies on the topic, and a MAUDE (Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience; U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized but, in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through January 2010 using the keywords "computer," "computerized," "computer-assisted," "sedation," "propofol." Reports on Emerging Technology are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. These reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Reports on Emerging Technology are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Interventional EUS.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of new or emerging endoscopic technologies that have the potential to have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used by performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent preclinical and clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but, in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2009 by using the keywords "interventional endoscopic ultrasound," "EUS," and "interventional endoscopy." Reports on Emerging Technologies are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. These reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Reports on Emerging Technologies are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

The role of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in device evaluation and monitoring.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used by performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through October 2009 for articles and references related to devices and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by using the keywords "FDA" and "devices." In addition, the Web was searched using the same keywords. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration website was also thoroughly reviewed. Practitioners should continue to monitor the medical literature for subsequent data about these issues. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Automated endoscope reprocessors.

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through February 2010 for articles related to automated endoscope reprocessors, using the words endoscope reprocessing, endoscope cleaning, automated endoscope reprocessors, and high-level disinfection. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Endoscopic tattooing.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through January 2010 for articles related to endoscopic tattooing by using the Keywords tattooing, colonic, endoscopic, India ink, indocyanine green in different search term combinations. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Prognostic value of humbug gene overexpression in stage II colon cancer.

Overexpression of aspartyl (asparaginyl) beta-hydroxylase (AAH) has been demonstrated in hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, and pancreatic carcinoma. AAH has an important role in regulating cell motility and invasiveness. Humbug is a truncated homolog of AAH, with a role in calcium regulation. The present study examines the prognostic use of AAH and humbug gene expression in stage II colon cancer. One hundred thirty cases of TNM stage II colon carcinoma were retrieved from the Rhode Island Hospital pathology archives. Tissue microarrays were immunostained with the FB50 and 15C7 monoclonal antibodies generated to recombinant AAH. However, FB50 also recognizes humbug. In addition, AAH and humbug expression was analyzed in samples of colon cancer and adjacent normal mucosa by real-time quantitative reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. Humbug (FB50) expression was localized to the tumor cytoplasm, whereas normal colonic epithelium did not exhibit significant immunoreactivity. Humbug staining was detected in 85% of the neoplasms, 23% of which stained strongly. Strong humbug immunoreactivity positively correlated with nuclear grade (P = .006) and inversely with survival (P = .027). In contrast to humbug, AAH (15C7) immunoreactivity was seen in normal and neoplastic epithelium. There was no correlation between AAH immunoreactivity and tumor grade, or survival. Correspondingly, reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction studies demonstrated up-regulation of humbug but not AAH in 95% of colon carcinomas relative to adjacent colon cancer-free mucosa (P < .0001). This study demonstrates that high levels of humbug immunoreactivity in colon carcinomas correlate with histologic grade and tumor behavior, suggesting that humbug can serve as a prognostic biomarker of TNM stage II colon cancers. In addition, molecular studies demonstrated that the increased levels of FB50 detected were due to humbug, as opposed to AAH overexpression.

Increased expression of eotaxin-3 distinguishes between eosinophilic esophagitis and gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Differentiating eosinophilic esophagitis from gastroesophageal reflux disease is important given their pathogenetic differences and responses to therapy. Eotaxins are a family of chemokines important for activation and recruitment of eosinophils mediated by their receptor, chemokine receptor-3 (CCR-3). Interleukin 5 (IL-5) is a key cytokine involved in many steps of eosinophil production and recruitment. The aim of this study was to compare the messenger RNA expression of the eotaxins, CCR-3, and IL-5 between well-characterized groups of patients with eosinophilic esophagitis, patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease, and healthy individuals. This was a retrospective study using esophageal biopsies from 33 patients with eosinophilic esophagitis, 20 patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease, and 17 healthy controls. Parameters studied included demographic features, presenting symptoms, endoscopic findings, histopathologic features, and messenger RNA levels of eotaxins 1, 2, and 3, CCR-3, and IL-5 by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue. Patients with eosinophilic esophagitis were predominantly males (M/F=3:1), with a mean age of 15.9 years and a mean eosinophil count of 55 per x400 high-power field. Patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease had a mean age of 31.5 years and a mean eosinophil count of 5.8 per high-power field. Total intraepithelial eosinophil and lymphocyte counts, the presence of superficial eosinophil clusters, microabscesses, and basal cell hyperplasia were all significantly associated with eosinophilic esophagitis as opposed to gastroesophageal reflux disease (P<.0001). The mean expression levels of eotaxin-3 were markedly elevated in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis as compared with the gastroesophageal reflux disease and healthy control groups (731+/-276, 31+/-12, and 1.5+/-0.4 pg/ng beta-actin, respectively; P<.001). Mean expression levels of eotaxins 1 and 2, IL-5, and CCR-3 were also significantly increased in the patients with eosinophilic esophagitis, albeit at lower levels than eotaxin-3. In conclusion, our results highlight the important contribution of eotaxin-3 in the pathogenesis of eosinophilic esophagitis. Determination of eotaxin-3 levels by real-time polymerase chain reaction on paraffinized, formalin-fixed tissue may be a useful test in the differentiation of eosinophilic esophagitis from gastroesophageal reflux disease.