Adverse events of self-expandable metal stent placement for malignant distal biliary obstruction: a large multicenter study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic placement of self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) may be accompanied by several types of adverse events. The present study analyzed the adverse events occurring after SEMS placement for MDBO. METHODS: The present study retrospectively investigated the incidence and types of adverse events in patients who underwent SEMS placement for MDBO between April 2018 and March 2021 at 26 hospitals. Risk factors for acute pancreatitis, cholecystitis, and recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Of the 1425 patients implanted with SEMSs for MDBO, 228 (16.0%) and 393 (27.6%) experienced early adverse events and RBO, respectively. Pancreatic duct without tumor involvement (P = .023), intact papilla (P = .025), and SEMS placement across the papilla (P = .037) were independent risk factors for acute pancreatitis. Tumor involvement in the orifice of the cystic duct was an independent risk factor for cholecystitis (P < .001). Use of fully and partially covered SEMSs was an independent risk factor for food impaction and/or sludge. Use of fully covered SEMSs was an independent risk factor for stent migration. Use of uncovered SEMSs and laser-cut SEMSs was an independent risk factor for tumor ingrowth. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic duct without tumor involvement, intact papilla, and SEMS placement across the papilla were independent risk factors for acute pancreatitis, and tumor involvement in the orifice of the cystic duct was an independent risk factor for cholecystitis. The risk factors for food impaction and/or sludge, stent migration, and tumor ingrowth differed among types of SEMSs.

Safety of early oral intake after endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticoenterostomy.

BACKGROUND: Techniques and devices for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided hepaticoenterostomy (EUS-HES) procedures, including EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) and EUS-guided hepaticojejunostomy (EUS-HJS), have been developed; however, the optimal timing to begin oral intake after EUS-HES remains unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of early oral intake after EUS-HES. METHODS: We retrospectively investigated patients who underwent EUS-HES (EUS-HGS or EUS-HJS) between March 2015 and March 2022. Patients who had no problems with the results of blood tests and computed tomography examinations on the morning of day 1 after EUS-HES were classified as either the early intake group (started oral intake on day 1 after EUS-HES) or the late intake group (started oral intake on day 2 or later after EUS-HES). Patients' characteristics, procedure characteristics, and early postprocedural adverse events (within 14 days after the procedure) were compared between groups. RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled in this study. Forty-three patients had no problems with the results of examinations performed on the morning of day 1 after EUS-HES. Twenty-one patients comprised the early intake group and 22 comprised the late intake group. Adverse events that developed within 14 days after EUS-HES were not significantly different between groups (early 4.7% vs. late 9.0%; odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.0080-10.49; P = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Starting oral intake on day 1 after EUS-HES did not increase postprocedural adverse events compared with starting oral intake on day 2 or later after EUS-HES.

Risk of colorectal cancer for fecal immunochemistry test-positive, average-risk patients after a colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Because the risk of colorectal cancer has not been well examined in fecal immunochemistry test (FIT)-positive patients who previously underwent colonoscopy, this study aimed to investigate this topic. METHODS: This was a single-center, observational study of prospectively collected data in Japan. FIT-positive, average-risk patients who underwent colonoscopy were divided into groups as follows: those who never underwent colonoscopy in the past (no colonoscopy group), those with a history of colonoscopy between 6 months and 5 years (0.5- to 5-year colonoscopy group), and those with a history of colonoscopy more than 5 years ago (> 5-year colonoscopy group). We investigated the prevalence of advanced neoplasia and invasive cancer among these groups using multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Detection rates of advanced neoplasia in the no colonoscopy group, 0.5- to 5-year colonoscopy group, and > 5-year colonoscopy group were 14.8% (240/1626), 3.9% (13/330), and 6.9% (17/248), respectively. Detection rates of invasive cancer in each aforementioned group were 5.7% (92/1,626), 0.3% (1/330), and 1.2% (3/248), respectively. Odds ratios of advanced neoplasia in the 0.5- to 5-year colonoscopy group and > 5-year colonoscopy were 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.42) and 0.40 (95% CI: 0.24-0.68), respectively, in multivariate analysis. The odds ratios of invasive cancer in each aforementioned group were 0.05 (95% CI: 0.01-0.37) and 0.19 (95% CI: 0.06-0.61), respectively. CONCLUSION: Re-screening with the FIT should not be recommended for at least 5 years for average-risk patients after colonoscopy without high-risk neoplasms, because the risks of colorectal cancer are low in such patients.

Examination time as a quality indicator of screening upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for asymptomatic examinees.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The significance of examination time of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for asymptomatic examinees is yet to be established. We aimed to clarify whether endoscopists who allot more examination time can detect higher numbers of neoplastic lesions among asymptomatic examinees. METHODS: We reviewed a database of consecutive examinees who underwent EGD in our hospital from April 2010 to September 2015. Staff endoscopists were classified into fast, moderate, and slow groups based on the mean examination time of EGD without a biopsy. Neoplastic lesion detection rate among these groups was compared using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 55 786 consecutive examinees who underwent EGD, 15 763 asymptomatic examinees who were screened by staff doctors were analyzed. Mean examination time of 13 661 EGD without biopsy was 6.2 min (range, 2-18 min). When cut-off times of 5 and 7 min were used, four endoscopists were classified into the fast (mean duration, 4.4 ± 1.0 min), 12 into the moderate (6.1 ± 1.4 min), and four into the slow (7.8 ± 1.9 min) groups. Neoplastic lesion detection rates in the fast, moderate, and slow groups were 0.57% (13/2288), 0.97% (99/10 180), and 0.94% (31/3295), respectively. Compared with that in the fast group, odds ratios for the neoplastic lesion detection rate in the moderate and slow groups were 1.90 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-3.40) and 1.89 (95% CI, 0.98-3.64), respectively. CONCLUSION: Endoscopists who do not allot adequate examination time may overlook neoplastic lesions in the upper gastrointestinal tract.

Multiple small intestinal ulcers associated with protein-losing enteropathy secondary to cholesterol crystal embolism:a case report.

A 78-year-old man with hypertension, nephrosclerosis, and angina pectoris visited his family doctor with a history of fatigue and leg edema. He had a history of percutaneous coronary intervention 5 years prior, and was taking low-dose aspirin. Blood tests revealed hypoalbuminemia, gastrointestinal 99mTc-HSA scintigraphy was positive, and alpha-1 antitrypsin clearance was high;therefore, the hypoalbuminemia was thought to be secondary to a protein-losing enteropathy. A small bowel series revealed multiple, ring-shaped, longitudinal ulcers in the ileum. Balloon-assisted enteroscopy from the anus showed severe stenosis with an ileal ulcer. Since we were not able to diagnose the ulcers, mesalazine and supplemental nutritional care were provided. Four years after the hypoalbuminemia had been diagnosed, the patient died because of pulmonary congestion secondary to renal failure. An autopsy revealed severe atherosclerosis in his aorta and multiple cholesterol embolisms in his small intestine, kidney, stomach, colon, liver, and spleen. The multiple ulcers in the small intestine were thought to be caused by cholesterol crystal embolism, which should be considered in the differential diagnosis of small intestinal ulcers in elderly men or patients after cardiovascular intervention.