A Case of a Rectal Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: An Unexpected Cause of Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding in an Immunocompromised Man.

GISTs are rare, with only around 5,000 cases diagnosed annually in the United States. However, these tumors are the most common mesenchymal neoplasm in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. 5%-15% of GISTS arise in the colon and rectum. Most GISTs are diagnosed incidentally on imaging, endoscopy, or during a surgical procedure.

Rate of and Factors Associated with Palliative Care Referral among Patients Declined for Liver Transplantation.

Background: End-stage liver disease (ESLD) is associated with high morbidity and mortality, with liver transplantation as the only existing cure. Despite reduced quality of life and limited life expectancy, referral to palliative care (PC) rarely occurs. Moreover, there is scarcity of data on the appropriate timing and type of PC intervention needed. Aim: To evaluate PC utilization and documentation in ESLD patients declined or delisted for transplant at a tertiary care medical center with a large liver transplantation program. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients discussed in Liver Transplant Committee (LTC) at our academic medical center between August 2018 and May 2020 in the United States. Patients declined or delisted for liver transplantation were included. Baseline demographics, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, decompensation events, and reason for transplant ineligibility were recorded. The primary outcome was PC referral. Secondary outcomes included survival from LTC decision, time from LTC decision to PC referral, and code status in relation to PC referral. Results: Of 769 patients discussed at LTC, 135 were declined for transplantation. Thirty-seven (27%) received referral to PC. When adjusting for body mass index and age, MELD score of 21-30 had odds ratio (OR) of 4.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7-12.3) and MELD score >30 had OR of 12.8 (95% CI: 3.9-47.7) for PC referral when compared with MELD score <20. When adjusting for MELD score, presence of ascites had OR of 4.6 (95% CI: 1.1-19.1) and presence of multiple complications had OR of 2.2 (95% CI: 2.2-3.8). Conclusions: Only 37 (27%) patients delisted or declined for liver transplantation were referred to PC. MELD score and degree of decompensation were important factors associated with referral. Continued exploration of these data could help guide future studies and help determine timing and criteria for PC referral.

Role of routine second-look endoscopy in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Studies evaluating the role of routine second-look endoscopy in patients with acute upper GI bleed because of peptic ulcer disease (PUD) have reported conflicting results. This meta-analysis evaluates the usefulness of routine second-look endoscopy in these patients. METHODS: We reviewed several databases from inception to September 15, 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared routine second-look endoscopy with no planned second-look endoscopy in patients with acute upper GI bleed because of PUD. Our outcomes of interest were recurrent bleeding, mortality, need for surgery, and mean number of units of blood transfused. For categorical variables, we calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); for continuous variables, we calculated standardized mean difference with 95% CIs. Data were analyzed using a random effects model. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to ascertain the quality of evidence. RESULTS: We included 9 RTCs comprising 1452 patients; 726 patients underwent planned/routine second-look endoscopy and 726 did not. We found no significant difference in recurrent bleeding (RR, .79; 95% CI, .51-1.23), need for surgery (RR, .58; 95% CI, .29-1.15), mortality (RR, .69; 95% CI, .33-1.45), or mean number of units of blood transfused (standardized mean difference, -.06; 95% CI, -.19 to .07). Quality of evidence ranged from low to moderate based on the GRADE framework. CONCLUSIONS: Single endoscopy with complete endoscopic hemostasis is not inferior to routine second-look endoscopy in reducing the risk of recurrent bleeding, mortality, or need for surgery in patients with acute upper GI bleed because of PUD.

Impact of Moderate versus Deep Sedation and Trainee Participation on Adenoma Detection Rate-Analysis of a Veteran Population.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is used as a quality indicator for screening and surveillance colonoscopy. The study aimed to determine if moderate versus deep sedation affects the outcomes of the ADR and other quality metrics in the veteran population. METHODS: A retrospective review of colonoscopies performed at Memphis Veterans Affairs Medical Center over a one-year period was conducted. A total of 900 colonoscopy reports were reviewed. After exclusion criteria, a total of 229 index, average-risk screening colonoscopies were identified. Data were collected to determine the impact of moderate (benzodiazepine plus opioids) versus deep (propofol) sedation on the ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), and withdrawal time. RESULTS: Among 229 screening colonoscopies, 103 (44.9%) used moderate sedation while 126 (55%) were done under deep sedation. The ADR and PDR were not significantly different between moderate versus deep sedation at 35.9% vs. 37.3% (p=0.82) and 58.2% vs. 48.4% (p=0.13), respectively. Similarly, there was no significant difference in withdrawal time between moderate and deep sedation (13.4 min vs. 14 min, p=0.56) during screening colonoscopies. CONCLUSION: In veterans undergoing index, average-risk screening colonoscopies, the quality metrics of the ADR, PDR, and withdrawal time are not influenced by deep sedation compared with moderate sedation.

Efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating the role of tranexamic acid in acute upper GI bleeding (UGIB) have reported conflicting results. In this systematic review, we have evaluated the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in UGIB. METHODS: We searched several databases from inception to June 6, 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared tranexamic acid and placebo in UGIB. Our outcomes of interest were mortality, rebleeding, all thromboembolic events, venous thromboembolic events, need for transfusion, endoscopic intervention and surgery. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed effect model. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 12 RCTs comprising 14,100 patients. We found no significant difference in mortality, pooled RR (95% CI) 0.87 (0.74-1.01), rebleeding, pooled RR (95% CI) 0.90 (0.79-1.02), need for surgery, pooled RR (95% CI) 0.86 (0.73-1.02), need for transfusion, pooled RR (95% CI) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) or thromboembolic events, RR (95% CI) 1.16 (0.87-1.56) between treatments. We found an increased risk of venous thromboembolic events with tranexamic acid, pooled RR (95% CI) 1.94 (1.23-3.05). Certainty of evidence based on the GRADE framework for the different outcomes ranged from low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: Tranexamic acid does not improve outcomes in UGIB and may increase the risk of venous thromboembolic events.

Underwater vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection in the management of colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background Recently, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has shown promising results in the management of colorectal polyps. Some studies have shown better outcomes compared to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare UEMR and EMR in the management of colorectal polyps. Methods We searched several databases from inception to November 2019 to identify studies comparing UEMR and EMR. Outcomes assessed included rates of en bloc resection, complete macroscopic resection, recurrent/residual polyps on follow-up colonoscopy, complete resection confirmed by histology and adverse events. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence interval were calculated using a fixed effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I 2 statistic. Funnel plots and Egger's test were used to assess publication bias. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessment of quality of observational studies, and the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias for RCTs Results Seven studies with 1291 patients were included; two were randomized controlled trials and five were observational. UEMR demonstrated statistically significantly better efficacy in rates of en bloc resection, pooled RR 1.16 (1.08, 1.26), complete macroscopic resection, pooled RR 1.28 (1.18, 1.39), recurrent/residual polyps; pooled RR 0.26 (0.12, 0.56) and complete resection confirmed by histology; pooled RR 0.75 (0.57, 0.98). There was no significant difference in adverse events (AEs); pooled RR 0.68 (0.44, 1.05). Conclusions This meta-analysis found statistically significantly better rates of en bloc resection, complete macroscopic resection, and lower risk of recurrent/residual polyps with UEMR compared to EMR. We found no significant difference in AEs between the two techniques.

Prophylactic hemoclips in prevention of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding for ≥ 1 cm colorectal polyps: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background and aim Studies evaluating the role of prophylactic hemoclips (HC) in prevention of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) have reported conflicting results. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the role of prophylactic HC placement in prevention of DPPB for polyps ≥ 1 cm in size. Methods We reviewed several databases to identify RCTs evaluating the role of HC in prevention of DPPB. The outcomes assessed included prevention of DPPB with polyps 1 to 1.9 cm, ≥ 2 cm, any polyp ≥ 1 cm, proximal colon polyps, distal colon polyps, and perforation. We analyzed data using a fixed effect model and reported summary pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI). We assessed heterogeneity with the I 2 statistic. Results We included nine RCTs with 4550 patients. For polyps ≥ 2 cm, there was a statistically significantly lower risk of DPPB with use of HC; RR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.36, 0.86. There was also a statistically significantly lower risk for proximal colon polyps ≥ 2 cm; RR 0.41 (0.24, 0.70) but no significant difference for distal polyps; RR 1.23 (0.45, 3.32). There was also no significant difference in risk for polyps 1 to 1.9 cm; RR 1.07 (0.59, 1.97). There was no significant reduction in risk of perforation with HC use for any polyp size. Conclusions Prophylactic HC placement is effective in prevention of DPPB from proximal colon polyps ≥ 2 cm, but of no significant benefit for polyps 1 to 1.9 cm in size or for distal colon polyps ≥ 2 cm.

Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Staging of Early Rectal Cancer.

Endoscopic ultrasound can be highly accurate for the staging of neoplasms in early rectal cancer.

Gouty Tophi Manifesting as a Pancreatic Foci.

Gout is a common disorder of uric acid metabolism highly prevalent in our population. The majority of patients with gout present with acute monoarticular arthritis, but a significant proportion of patients also go on to develop chronic tophaceous gout. Musculoskeletal sites are the usual sites of tophus formation and, very rarely, tophi may form in a visceral organ. We present a case of pancreatic gout of which only 3 cases have been reported. Our case is unique and challenging, as it initially masqueraded as a pancreatic neoplasm creating many diagnostic dilemmas.

Time for a Changing of Guard: From Minimally Invasive Surgery to Endoscopic Drainage for Management of Pancreatic Walled-off Necrosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic drainage (ED) with or without necrosectomy, and minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy (MISN) have been increasingly utilized for treatment of symptomatic sterile and infected pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON). We conducted this systematic review to compare the safety of ED with MISN for management of WON. METHODS: We searched several databases from inception through November 9, 2017 to identify comparative studies evaluating the safety of ED versus MISN for management of WON. MISN could be performed using video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement or laparoscopy. We evaluated difference in mortality, major organ failure, adverse events, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Six studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 4 observational studies) with 641 patients (326 ED and 315 MISN) were included in this meta-analysis. Rates of mortality for ED and MISN were 8.5% and 14.2%, respectively. Pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval was 0.59 (0.35-0.98), I=0% in favor of ED. On subgroup analysis: no difference in mortality was seen based on randomized controlled trials [OR, 0.65 (0.08-5.11)], while ED had improved survival in observational studies [OR, 0.49 (0.27-0.89)]. Development of new major organ failure rates after interventions were 12% and 54% for ED and MISN, respectively. Pooled OR was 0.12 (0.06-0.31), I=25% in favor of ED. For adverse events, pooled OR was 0.25 (0.10-0.67), I=70% in favor of ED. There was no difference in risk of bleeding [OR, 0.68 (0.44-1.05)], while ED was associated with a significantly lower rate of pancreatic fistula formation [OR, 0.20 (0.11-0.37)], I=0%. Length of stay was also lower with ED, pooled mean difference was -21.07 (-36.97 to -5.18) days. CONCLUSIONS: When expertise is available, ED is the preferred invasive management strategy over MISN for management of WON as it is associated with lower mortality, risk of major organ failure, adverse events, and length of hospital stay.

A meta-analysis of endoscopic ultrasound-fine-needle aspiration compared to endoscopic ultrasound-fine-needle biopsy: diagnostic yield and the value of onsite cytopathological assessment.

Background The diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is variable, and partly dependent upon rapid onsite evaluation (ROSE) by a cytopathologist. Second generation fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles are being increasingly used to obtain core histological tissue samples. Aims Studies comparing the diagnostic yield of EUS guided FNA versus FNB have reached conflicting conclusions. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the diagnostic yield of FNA with FNB, and specifically evaluating the diagnostic value of ROSE while comparing the two types of needles. Methods We searched several databases from inception to 10 April 2016 to identify studies comparing diagnostic yield of second generation FNB needles with standard FNA needles. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for categorical outcomes of interest (diagnostic adequacy, diagnostic accuracy, and optimal quality histological cores obtained). Standard mean difference (SMD) was calculated for continuous variables (number of passes required for diagnosis). These were pooled using random effects model of meta-analysis to account for heterogeneity. Meta-regression was conducted to evaluate the effect of ROSE on various outcomes of interest. Results Fifteen studies with a total of 1024 patients were included in the analysis. We found no significant difference in diagnostic adequacy [RR 0.98 (0.91, 1.06), (I2 = 51 %)]. Although not statistically significant (P = 0.06), by meta-regression, in the absence of ROSE, FNB showed a relatively better diagnostic adequacy. For solid pancreatic lesions only, there was no difference in diagnostic adequacy [RR 0.96 (0.86, 1.09), (I2 = 66 %)]. By meta-regression, in the absence of ROSE, FNB was associated with better diagnostic adequacy (P = 0.02). There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy [RR 0.99 (0.95, 1.03), (I2 = 27 %)] or optimal quality core histological sample procurement [RR 0.97 (0.89, 1.05), (I2 = 9.6 %)]. However, FNB established diagnosis with fewer passes [SMD 0.93 (0.45, 1.42), (I2 = 84 %)]. The absence of ROSE was associated with a higher SMD, i. e., in the presence of an onsite pathologist, FNA required relatively fewer passes to establish the diagnosis than in the absence of an onsite pathologist. Conclusions There is no significant difference in the diagnostic yield between FNA and FNB, when FNA is accompanied by ROSE. However, in the absence of ROSE, FNB is associated with a relatively better diagnostic adequacy in solid pancreatic lesions. Also, FNB requires fewer passes to establish the diagnosis.

Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided biliary drainage in comparison with percutaneous biliary drainage when ERCP fails: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is increasingly used as an alternate therapeutic modality to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) for biliary obstruction in patients who fail ERCP. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of these 2 procedures. METHODS: We searched several databases from inception to September 4, 2016 to identify comparative studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD and PTBD. Primary outcomes of interest were the differences in technical success and postprocedure adverse events. Secondary outcomes of interest included clinical success, rate of reintervention, length of hospital stay, and cost comparison for these 2 procedures. Odds ratios (ORs) and standard mean difference were calculated for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. These were analyzed using random effects model of meta-analysis. RESULTS: Nine studies with 483 patients were included in the final analysis. There was no difference in technical success between 2 procedures (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, .69-4.59; I2 = 22%) but EUS-BD was associated with better clinical success (OR, .45; 95% CI, .23-.89; I2 = 0%), fewer postprocedure adverse events (OR, .23; 95% CI, .12-.47; I2 = 57%), and lower rate of reintervention (OR, .13; 95% CI, .07-.24; I2 = 0%). There was no difference in length of hospital stay after the procedures, with a pooled standard mean difference of -.48 (95% CI, -1.13 to .16), but EUS-BD was more cost-effective, with a pooled standard mean difference of -.63 (95% CI, -1.06 to -.20). However, the latter 2 analyses were limited by considerable heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: When ERCP fails to achieve biliary drainage, EUS-guided interventions may be preferred over PTBD if adequate advanced endoscopy expertise and logistics are available. EUS-BD is associated with significantly better clinical success, lower rate of postprocedure adverse events, and fewer reinterventions.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic gallbladder drainage in acute cholecystitis: Is it better than percutaneous gallbladder drainage?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The efficacy and safety of endoscopic gallbladder drainage (EGBD) performed via endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC)-based transpapillary stenting or EUS-based transmural stenting are unknown. We aimed to conduct a proportion meta-analysis to evaluate the cumulative efficacy and safety of these procedures and to compare them with percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PGBD). METHODS: We searched several databases from inception through December 10, 2015 to identify studies (with 10 or more patients) reporting technical success and postprocedure adverse events of EGBD. Weighted pooled rates (WPRs) for technical and clinical success, postprocedure adverse events, and recurrent cholecystitis were calculated for both methods of EGBD. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were also calculated to compare the technical success and postprocedure adverse events in patients undergoing EGBD versus PGBD. RESULTS: The WPRs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of technical success, clinical success, postprocedure adverse events, and recurrent cholecystitis for ERC-based transpapillary drainage were 83% (95% CI, 78%-87%; I2 = 38%), 93% (95% CI, 89%-96%; I2 = 39%), 10% (95% CI, 7%-13%; I2 = 27%), and 3% (95% CI, 1%-5%; I2 = 0%), respectively. The WPRs for EUS-based drainage for technical success, clinical success, postprocedure adverse events, and recurrent cholecystitis were 93% (95% CI, 87%-96%; I2 = 0%), 97% (95% CI, 93%-99%; I2 = 0%), 13% (95% CI, 8%-19%; I2 = 0%), and 4% (95% CI, 2%-9%; I2 = 0%), respectively. On proportionate difference, EUS-based drainage had better technical (10%) and clinical success (4%) in comparison with ERC-based drainage. The pooled OR for technical success of EGBD versus PGBD was .51 (95% CI, .09-2.88; I2 = 23%) and for postprocedure adverse events was .33 (95% CI, .14-.80; I2 = 16%) in favor of EGBD. CONCLUSIONS: EGBD is an efficacious and safe therapeutic modality for treatment of patients with acute cholecystitis who cannot undergo surgery. EGBD shows a similar technical success as PGBD but appears to be safer than PGBD.

Granular cell tumor of the esophagus: report of five cases and review of the literature.

Granular cell tumor (GCT) is an uncommon esophageal neoplasm. It commonly presents as a nonspecific painless mass. The purpose of this study is to describe our experience with 5 patients newly diagnosed with GCT at VA Medical Center in Memphis, Tennessee from February 2001 to June 2005. Clinical manifestation, endoscopic appearance, histology, different modalities of treatment and prognosis are discussed. Based on this experience, we conclude that GCTs are relatively rare in occurrence. They usually present as a firm to hard submucosal nodule on esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Diagnosis can be made by endoscopic biopsy in most cases. Treatment options include endoscopic surveillance, endoscopic resection, or surgery. The usual course of GCTs is benign.

Sarcoidosis mimicking primary sclerosing cholangitis requiring liver transplantation.

Sarcoidosis is a systemic granulomatous disease of unknown etiology. The association of the cholestatic pattern usually seen in sarcoidosis, with biliary duct changes resembling primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is rare. Liver transplantation permits the histological evaluation of the complete explanted liver, making the diagnosis more reliable. In conclusion we present our experience with two patients with sarcoidosis requiring liver transplantation, who presented with clinical and radiological findings characteristics of primary sclerosing cholangitis.

Sedation for upper endoscopy: comparison of midazolam versus fentanyl plus midazolam.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of using one or two drugs for conscious sedation in upper endoscopy remains unproven. This study evaluates the adequacy of conscious sedation during upper endoscopy using midazolam alone compared with midazolam plus fentanyl. METHODS: Patients older than 18 years of age who underwent elective, outpatient upper endoscopy were included. They were randomized to receive either a combination of midazolam/fentanyl or midazolam alone. The adequacy of sedation obtained was assessed using a questionnaire answered by the physician at the end of the procedure, and by the patient 24 to 72 hours after endoscopy. RESULTS: From the endoscopist's perspective, following an intention-to-treat analysis, patients had better tolerance in the combination group (78.3% excellent/good tolerance M/F group versus 55.8% M group) (P = 0.043) (Table 2). Per patient's assessment excellent/good tolerance was found in 93% of M group and 94% in F/M group (P = 1.0). No difference in duration of the procedure was found between the two groups. No complications during endoscopies were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In diagnostic upper endoscopy, an adequate level of sedation can be obtained safely either by midazolam or midazolam plus fentanyl. From an endoscopist's perspective, the combination is significantly better.