RESUMEN
Pancreatic cancer produces disabling abdominal pain, and the pain medical management for pancreatic cancer is often challenging because it mainly relies on the use of narcotics (major opioids). However, opioids often provide suboptimal pain relief, and the use of opioids can lead to patient tolerance and several side effects that considerably reduce the quality of life of pancreatic cancer patients. Endosonography-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) is an alternative for pain control in patients with nonsurgical pancreatic cancer; EUS-CPN consists of the injection of alcohol and a local anesthetic into the area of the celiac plexus to achieve chemical ablation of the nerve tissue. EUS-CPN via the transgastric approach is a safer and more accessible technique than the percutaneous approach. We have reviewed most of the studies that evaluate the efficacy of EUS-CPN and that have compared the different approaches that have been performed by endosonographers. The efficacy of EUS-CPN varies from 50% to 94% in the different studies, and EUS-CPN has a pain relief duration of 4-8 wk. Several factors are involved in its efficacy, such as the onset of pain, previous use of chemotherapy, presence of metastatic disease, EUS-CPN technique, type of needle or neurolytic agent used, etc. According to this review, injection into the ganglia may be the best technique, and a good visualization of the ganglia is the best predictor for a good EUS-CPN response, although more studies are needed. However, any of the 4 different techniques could be used to perform EUS-CPN effectively with no differences in terms of complications between the techniques, but more studies are needed. The effect of EUS-CPN on pain improvement, patient survival and patient quality of life should be evaluated in well-designed randomized clinical trials. Further research also needs to be performed to clarify the best time frame in performing a EUS-CPN.
RESUMEN
AIM: To assess the cleansing efficacy and safety of a new Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) bowel preparation regimen. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing two CCE regimens. Subjects were asymptomatic and average risk for colorectal cancer. The second generation CCE system (PillCam® COLON 2; Medtronic, Yoqneam, Israel) was utilized. Preparation regimens differed in the 1st and 2nd boosts with the Study regimen using oral sulfate solution (89 mL) with diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium solution ("diatrizoate solution") (boost 1 = 60 mL, boost 2 = 30 mL) and the Control regimen oral sulfate solution (89 mL) alone. The primary outcome was overall and segmental colon cleansing. Secondary outcomes included safety, polyp detection, colonic transit, CCE completion and capsule excretion ≤ 12 h. RESULTS: Both regimens had similar cleansing efficacy for the whole colon (Adequate: Study = 75.9%, Control = 77.3%; P = 0.88) and individual segments. In the Study group, CCE completion was superior (Study = 90.9%, Control = 76.9%; P = 0.048) and colonic transit was more often < 40 min (Study = 21.8%, Control = 4%; P = 0.0073). More Study regimen subjects experienced adverse events (Study = 19.4%, Control = 3.4%; P = 0.0061), and this difference did not appear related to diatrizoate solution. Adverse events were primarily gastrointestinal in nature and no serious adverse events related either to the bowel preparation regimen or the capsule were observed. There was a trend toward higher polyp detection with the Study regimen, but this did not achieve statistical significance for any size category. Mean transit time through the entire gastrointestinal tract, from ingestion to excretion, was shorter with the Study regimen while mean colonic transit times were similar for both study groups. CONCLUSION: A CCE bowel preparation regimen using oral sulfate solution and diatrizoate solution as a boost agent is effective, safe, and achieved superior CCE completion.