Hemostatic Powder vs Standard Endoscopic Treatment for Gastrointestinal Tumor Bleeding: A Multicenter Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Current guidelines vary as to their recommendations addressing the role of hemostatic powders when managing patients with malignant gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding because these are based on very-low- to low-quality evidence, in large part due to a paucity of randomized trial data. METHODS: This was a patient- and outcome assessor-blinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Patients presenting with active bleeding from an upper or lower GI lesion suspected to be malignant at index endoscopy between June 2019 and January 2022 were randomly allocated to receive either TC-325 alone or standard endoscopic treatment (SET). The primary outcome was 30-day rebleeding, and secondary objectives included immediate hemostasis and other clinically relevant endpoints. RESULTS: Overall, 106 patients made up the study population (55 TC-325 and 51 SET, after 1 exclusion in the TC-325 group and 5 in the SET group). Baseline characteristics and endoscopic findings did not differ between the groups. Thirty-day rebleeding was significantly lower in the TC-325 (2.1% TC-325 vs 21.3% SET; odds ratio, 0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.80; P = .003). Immediate hemostasis rates were 100% in the TC-325 group vs 68.6% in the SET group (odds ratio, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.93-2.29; P < .001). Other secondary outcomes did not differ between the 2 groups. Independent predictors of 6-month survival included the Charlson comorbidity index (hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.32; P = .007) and receiving an additional nonendoscopic hemostatic or oncologic treatment during 30 days after the index endoscopy (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.43; P < .001) after adjustment for functional status, Glasgow-Blatchford score, and an upper GI source of bleeding. CONCLUSION: The TC-325 hemostatic powder results in greater immediate hemostasis rates followed by lower 30-day rebleeding rates when compared to contemporary SET. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03855904).

A newly designed duodenoscope with detachable distal cap significantly reduces organic residue contamination after reprocessing.

BACKGROUND: A newly designed duodenoscope with detachable distal cap may reduce bacterial contamination by allowing better access to the elevator. We compared bacterial contamination and organic residue evaluated by rapid adenosine triphosphate (ATP) test and culture from duodenoscopes with detachable vs. fixed distal caps after high-level disinfection (HLD). METHODS: During December 2018-April 2019, 108 used newly designed duodenoscopes were enrolled. In group A (n = 54), the distal cap of the duodenoscope was detached before manual cleaning. In group B (n = 54), the distal cap was not detached. After HLD, samples were collected from the elevator, submitted for culture, and evaluated using the ATP test, using the cutoff value of 40 relative light units (RLUs). RESULTS: After HLD, the proportion of potential bacterial contamination and organic residue in group A was significantly lower than in group B (37.0 % vs. 75.9 %; P  < 0.001; relative risk 0.49, 95 % confidence interval 0.33-0.71), and also confirmed by median ATP values (45.2 vs. 141.0 RLU; P  < 0.001). In group B, one sample culture was positive for nonpathogenic bacteria. Pathogenic bacteria were not found in any culture from either group. CONCLUSIONS: The detachable distal cap was more effective at eliminating bacterial contamination and reducing organic residue than a fixed cap. Nonpathogenic bacteria were detected in the fixed cap group after reprocessing. The ATP test with 40 RLU cutoff is a practical method to ensure the cleanliness of duodenoscope reprocessing without the need to wait for bacterial culture results.

Vaccine-Related adverse events following AZD1222 (ChAdOx1-nCoV-19) Covid-19 vaccine in solid malignancy patients receiving cancer treatment, as compared to age-matched healthy controls.

The study aimed to evaluate vaccine-related adverse events (VRAEs) following ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccine in solid cancer patients receiving treatment compared to healthy controls. 399 cancer patients and 90 healthy volunteers were enrolled. In the overall population, the incidence of VRAEs was significantly lower in cancer patients than in healthy volunteers (57% vs 80%, P < .001). Because the mean age of the cancer patients was higher than the healthy volunteers (59 vs 48 years, P < .001), we analyzed age-matched comparison and found that there was no significant difference of VRAEs between two groups (74% vs 79%, P .32). Most VRAEs were of mild severity in both groups. The most common local VRAE was pain at the injection site in both groups, and the most common systemic VRAE was fatigue in the cancer cohort, while myalgia was the most common VRAE among the healthy controls. In the cancer cohort, fever was the only VRAE that led to interruption of the cancer treatment (in two cases). Among the cancer treatment types, patients undergoing chemotherapy-containing regimens had a lower likelihood of experiencing VRAEs. In summary, the overall incidence of VRAEs following ChAdOx1-nCoV-19 vaccine in actively treated cancer patients was comparable to healthy controls after adjusting for age. The VRAEs that occurred rarely interfered with the cancer treatment. These findings substantiate that vaccination with AZD1222 is safe in cancer patients undergoing treatment.