Endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous in benign biliary or pancreatic disorders with a 22-gauge needle and a 0.018-inch guidewire.

Background and study aims The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) for benign biliary or pancreatic disorders with a 22-gauge needle and a 0.018-inch guidewire. Patients and methods Patients who underwent EUS-RV after failed biliary or pancreatic cannulation for benign disorder were candidates for this study. For EUS-RV, a 22-gauge needle and a 0.018-inch guidewire were used. Inclusion criteria were unsuccessful biliary or pancreatic cannulation for therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with benign biliary or pancreatic obstruction. Exclusion criteria included malignant biliary or pancreatic obstruction, inaccessible papilla due to surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy or duodenal stricture, and previous sphincterotomy and/or biliary stent placement. The primary outcome was the technical success rate of biliary or pancreatic cannulation, and the secondary outcome was the rate of adverse events. Results Thirty-one patients were evaluated. The overall technical success rate was 80.6 % (81.5 % in biliary and 75 % in pancreatic cases). Adverse events (AEs) were identified in 12.9 % of patients, including one with biliary peritonitis, one with abdominal pain and one with severe pancreatitis plus pneumomediastinum. Only one of the AEs (3.3 %) was directly related to the rendezvous procedure. Conclusions EUS-RV may be a safe and feasible salvage method for unsuccessful cannulation for benign disorders. Use of a 22-gauge needle with a 0.018-inch guidewire may be the first option for benign pathology.

EUS-FNA cytological material from pancreatic lesions: the expression of cathepsins and its predictive value of malignancy.

AIMS: To assess the expression of cathepsins in pancreatic samples obtained by endoscopic ultrasonography and fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and to investigate their relationship with the staging of the pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: We prospectively included patients with solid pancreatic masses, in which EUS-FNA were performed. Cathepsins B, L, S and H expression was determined in FNA samples. RESULTS: Seventeen FNA were performed. All cytological material was from PDAC. Expression of cathepsins was predominantly low (B 65%, L 23%, S 76%, and H 41%). We found no correlation between the expression levels and the extension of the neoplasm. CONCLUSION: Expression of cathepsins in the cytological material of PDAC is diverse but still poor to be useful in the pre-operative diagnosis. There is no correlation between the expression levels of cathepsins and the extension of the PDAC.

Study of the expression of cathepsins in histological material from pancreatic lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To assess the expression levels of cathepsins in malignant and premalignant lesions. METHODS: We retrospectively included patients who underwent pancreatic surgery on pancreatic solid or cystic masses. The expression of cathepsin H, L, B and S was determined in both types of samples. Lesions were divided into three categories: malignant (pancreatic adenocarcinoma and malignant mucinous neoplasms), premalignant (mucinous neoplasms) and benign (other lesions). RESULTS: Thirty-one surgical resection samples were studied. The expression of cathepsins was significantly higher in malignant lesions than in premalignant and benign lesions (H 75%, 27%, 37% p = 0.05; L 92%, 36%, 37% p = 0.011; B 83%, 36%, 62% p = 0.069; S 92%, 36%, 25% p = 0.004, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Cathepsins are overexpressed in histological samples of malignant lesions compared to premalignant and benign lesions. However, the expression of cathepsins is similar in both premalignant and benign lesions.

[Safety of propofol administration by the staff of a gastrointestinal endoscopy unit]. / Seguridad de la administración de propofol por el personal de la unidad de endoscopia digestiva.

Deep sedation controlled by the staff of gastrointestinal endoscopy units is currently controversial. In the last few years, numerous studies have provided data supporting the safety of propofol use in these techniques. We present a large series of patients who underwent gastroscopy or colonoscopy under endoscopist-controlled deep sedation. A total of 875 procedures (297 gastroscopies and 578 colonoscopies) were included. In all procedures intravenous propofol with or without intravenous midazolam was administered. In gastroscopies, complications attributable to the sedation were found in only 6.7% of the patients, mostly due to desaturation, which was resolved without the need for intubation. In colonoscopies, complications were found in 11.2%, the most frequent being bradycardia and desaturation, none of which were serious. No association was found between the presence of complications and the propofol dose administered. In the group of patients undergoing colonoscopy, simultaneous midazolam administration allowed reduction of the propofol dose required to achieve deep sedation. In conclusion, propofol shows a good safety profile and excellent tolerance in patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy and can be administrated by the endoscopy team. At least in the case of colonoscopy, the associated use of midazolam allows the propofol dose to be decreased, thus, theoretically, reducing the drug's adverse effects.