Partially covered versus uncovered pyloro-duodenal stents for unresectable malignant gastric outlet obstruction: Randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the current study was to compare the efficacy of partially covered duodenal stent (PCDS) vs. uncovered duodenal stent (UCDS) in patients suffering from unresectable primary malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). METHODS: This was a prospective international randomized controlled study conducted in 10 high-volume institutions. Consecutive patients suffering from malignant GOO were recruited. The primary outcome measurement was the reintervention rate. Secondary outcomes included technical and clinical success, 30-day adverse events, 30-day mortality, causes of stent dysfunction, and the duration of stent patency. RESULTS: Between March 2017 and October 2020, 115 patients (59 PCDS, 56 UCDS) were recruited. The 1-year reintervention was not significantly different (PCDS vs. UDCS = 12/59, 20.3% vs. 14/56, 25%, P = 0.84). There was a trend to fewer patients with tumor ingrowth in the PCDS group (6/59 [10.2%]) vs. 13/56 [23.2%], P = 0.07). There were no significant differences in the technical success (100% vs. 100%, P = 1), clinical success (91.5% vs. 98.2%, P = 0.21), procedural time (21.5 [interquartile range [IQR] 17-30] vs. 20.0 [IQR 15-34.75], P = 0.62), hospital stay (4 [IQR 3-12] vs. 5 [IQR 3-8] days, P = 0.81), 30-day adverse events (18.6% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.62), or 30-day mortality (6.8% vs. 5.2%, P = 1.00). CONCLUSION: The use of PCDS was associated with a lower risk of tumor ingrowth but did not improve on reintervention rates or stent patency. Both kinds of stents could be used in this group of patients.

Use of over-the-scope clip (OTSC) versus standard therapy for the prevention of rebleeding in large peptic ulcers (size ≥1.5 cm): an open-labelled, multicentre international randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Over-the-scope clip (OTSC) has been used recently for primary haemostasis of peptic ulcers. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of OTSC to standard endoscopic therapy in primary treatment of patients with peptic ulcer bleeding that are of size ≥1.5 cm. The target population accounts for only 2.5% of all upper GI bleeders. METHODS: This was a multicentre international randomised controlled trial from July 2017 to October 2020. All patients with Forest IIa or above peptic ulcers of ≥1.5 cm were included. Primary outcome was 30-day clinical rebleeding. Secondary endpoints include 3-day all-cause mortality, transfusion requirement, hospital stay, technical and clinical success, and further interventions. 100 patients are needed to yield a power of 80% to detect a difference of -0.15 at the 0.05 significance level (alpha) using a two-sided Z-test (pooled). RESULTS: 100 patients were recruited. Success in achieving primary haemostasis was achieved in 46/50 (92%) and 48/50 (96%) in the OTSC and conventional arm, respectively. Among patients who had success in primary haemostasis, 2/46 (4.35%) patients in the OTSC arm and 9/48 (18.75%) patients in the conventional arm developed 30-day rebleeding (p=0.03). However, in an intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference in rebleeding within 30 days (5/50 (10%) OTSC vs 9/50 (18%) standard, p=0.23) or all-cause mortality (2/50 (4%) OTSC vs 4/50 (8%) standard, p=0.68; OR=2.09, 95% CI 0.37 to 11.95). There was also no difference in transfusion requirement, hospital stay, intensive care unit admission and further interventions. CONCLUSION: The routine use of OTSC as primary haemostasis in large bleeding peptic ulcers was not associated with a significant decrease in 30-day rebleeding. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03160911.

Curative endoscopic full-thickness resection of a fundic gland-type gastric adenocarcinoma.

Video 1Summary of the presented case. Macroscopic images of the lesion in a white-light endoscopy and narrow-band imaging and in an underwater view followed by scenes from the resection with circular marking, submucosal injection, circumferential incision, and submucosal dissection using a multi-bend double-channel endoscope, as well as clip traction, controlled full-thickness dissection, and inspection of the defect plus closure of the defect with the clip-and-loop technique.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) compared to submucosal tunnel endoscopic resection (STER) for treatment of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

Background and study aims Submucosal tunnel endoscopic resection (STER) is being increasingly performed for treatment of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), while STER has been limited by close dissection within tunnel and risking breach of tumor capsule. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) allows resection of GIST with margins to prevent recurrence. This study aimed to compare EFTR against STER for treatment of gastric GIST. Patients and methods We retrospectively reviewed clinical outcomes of patients with gastric GIST who received either STER or EFTR. Patients with gastric GISTs < than 4 cm were included. Clinical outcomes including baseline demographics, perioperative and oncological outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results From 2013 to 2019, 46 patients with gastric GISTs were treated with endoscopic resection, 26 received EFTR and 20 received STER. Most of the GISTs were in the proximal stomach. There was no difference in operative time (94.9 vs 84.9 mins; P  = 0.401), while endoscopic suturing was applied more for closure after EFTR ( P  < 0.0001). Patients after STER had earlier resumption of diet and shorter hospital stay while there was no difference in adverse event rate between two groups. The en-bloc resection rate for EFTR was significantly higher than for STER (100 % vs 80 %; P  = 0.029), while there was no difference in the local recurrence. Conclusions This study demonstrated that although patients who received EFTR had longer hospital stays and slower resumption of diet compared to those who underwent STER, EFTR achieved a significantly higher rate of en-bloc resection compared to STER for treatment of gastric GIST.

Clinical pattern and prevalence of upper gastrointestinal toxicity in patients abusing ketamine.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluations of upper gastrointestinal toxicity from ketamine abuse are uncommon. This study investigated the clinical pattern of upper gastrointestinal symptoms in patients inhaling ketamine. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study of 611 consecutive patients who were seeking treatment for ketamine uropathy in a tertiary hospital setting between August 2008 and June 2016, their clinical pattern of upper gastrointestinal symptoms was evaluated and compared with a control population of 804 non-users. RESULTS: A total of 168 (27.5%) patients abusing ketamine (mean age 26.3 years, 58.9% female) reported the presence of upper gastrointestinal symptoms. These symptoms were significantly more prevalent in patients inhaling ketamine than in those who were not (27.5% vs 5.2%, P < 0.001). Their mean duration of ketamine abuse before symptom presentation was 5.0 ± 3.1 years. The presenting symptoms included epigastric pain (n = 155, 25.4%), recurrent vomiting (n = 48, 7.9%), anemia (n = 36, 5.9%) and gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 20, 3.3%). Uropathy symptoms were preceded by upper gastrointestinal symptoms for 4.4 ± 3.0 years in 141 (83.9%) patients. Logistic regression showed that elder age (odds ratio [OR] 1.06, P = 0.04), active abuser status (OR 1.60, P = 0.04) and longer duration of ketamine abuse (OR 1.00, P = 0.04) were independent factors associated with upper gastrointestinal toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Although epigastric symptoms are unusual in the young population, upper gastrointestinal toxicity was highly prevalent in those inhaling ketamine. Enquiries about ketamine abuse are recommended when assessing young patients with epigastric symptoms.