Endoscopic resection of large duodenal and papillary lateral spreading lesions is clinically and economically advantageous compared with surgery.

Background and study aims Adenomas of the duodenum and ampulla are uncommon. For lesions ≤ 20 mm in size and confined to the papillary mound, endoscopic resection is well supported by systematic study. However, for large laterally spreading lesions of the duodenum or papilla (LSL-D/P), surgery is often performed despite substantial associated morbidity and mortality. We aimed to compare actual endoscopic outcomes of such lesions and costs with those predicted for surgery using validated prediction tools. Patients and methods Patients who underwent endoscopic resection of LSL-D/P were analyzed. Two surgeons assigned the hypothetical surgical management. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), and the Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity (P-POSSUM) were used to predict morbidity, mortality, and length of hospital stay. Actual endoscopic and hypothetical surgical outcomes and costs were compared. Results A total of 102 lesions were evaluated (mean age of patients 69 years, 52 % male, mean lesion size 40 mm). Complete endoscopic resection was achieved in 93.1 % at the index procedure. Endoscopic adverse events occurred in 18.6 %. Recurrence at first surveillance endoscopy was seen in 17.7 %. For patients with ≥ 2 surveillance endoscopies (n = 55), 90 % were clear of disease and considered cured (median follow-up 27 months). Compared with hypothetical surgical resection, endoscopic resection had less morbidity (18 % vs. 31 %; P = 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (median 1 vs. 4.75 days; P < 0.001), and was less costly than surgery (mean $ 11 093 vs. $ 19 358; P < 0.001). Conclusion In experienced centers, even extensive LSL-D/P can be managed endoscopically with favorable morbidity and mortality profiles, and reduced costs, compared with surgery.

Cost Analysis of Endoscopic Mucosal Resection vs Surgery for Large Laterally Spreading Colorectal Lesions.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Large laterally spreading lesions (LSL) in the colon and rectum can be safely and effectively removed by endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). However, many patients still undergo surgery. Endoscopic treatment may be more cost effective. We compared the costs of endoscopic versus surgical management of large LSL. METHODS: We performed a prospective, observational, multicenter study of consecutive patients referred to 1 of 7 academic hospitals in Australia for the management of large LSL (≥ 20 mm) from January 2010 to December 2013. We collected data on numbers of patients undergoing EMR, actual endoscopic management costs (index colonoscopy, hospital stay, adverse events, and first surveillance colonoscopy), characteristics of patients and lesions, outcomes, and adverse events, and findings from follow-up examinations 14 days, 4-6 months, and 16-18 months after treatment. We compared data from patients who underwent EMR with those from a model in which all patients underwent surgery without any complications. Event-specific costs, based on Australian refined diagnosis-related group codes, were used to estimate average cost per patient. RESULTS: EMR was performed on 1489 lesions (mean size, 36 mm) in 1353 patients (mean age, 67 years; 52.1% male). Total costs involved in the endoscopic management of large LSL were US $6,316,593 and total inpatient hospitalization length of stay was 1180 days. The total cost predicted for the surgical management group was US $16,601,502, with a total inpatient hospitalization length of stay of 4986 days. Endoscopic management produced a potential total cost saving of US $10,284,909; the mean cost difference per patient was US $7602 (95% confidence interval, $8458-$9220; P < .001). Inpatient hospitalization length of stay was reduced by 2.81 nights per patient (95% confidence interval, 2.69-2.94; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In a large multicenter study, endoscopic management of large LSL by EMR was significantly more cost-effective than surgery. Endoscopic management by EMR at an appropriately experienced and resourced tertiary center should be considered the first line of therapy for most patients with this disorder. This approach is likely to deliver substantial overall health expenditure savings. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT01368289.

An audit of combined multichannel intraluminal impedance manometry in the assessment of dysphagia.

BACKGROUND: Multichannel Intraluminal Impedance (MII) Monitoring is a method of examining oesophageal bolus transit without the need for radiation. In combination with oesophageal manometry it allows correlation of bolus transit with peristaltic activity. The clinical application of impedance manometry is still being refined. This audit looked to examine whether impedance manometry had advantages over standard manometry in assessment of patients with dysphagia. METHODS: 41 patients with the presenting symptom of dysphagia were assessed by combined MII and oesophageal manometry at a Wellington Hospital between February 2008 and December 2009. Each underwent manometry and MII using standardised techniques. FINDINGS: Achalasia was diagnosed in 23 patients (56.1%), Ineffective oesophageal motility (IEM) in 5 patients (12.2%), Diffuse oesophageal Spasm (DES) in 7 patients (17.1%), and Nutcracker oesophagus in 2 patients (4.9%). 4 patients had normal manometry studies (9.8%). All patients with achalasia, IEM, and DES had abnormal bolus transit. All patients with normal manometry had abnormal bolus transit. Both patients with nutcracker oesophagus had normal bolus transit. 4 patients with achalasia had undergone previous Hellers myotomy. Two of these patients (50.0%) now had normal LES relaxation pressures, but all four still had abnormal oesophageal peristalsis and abnormal bolus transit. INTERPRETATION: Multichannel Intraluminal Impedance manometry has advantages over standard manometry in characterising the physiological abnormalities associated with dysphagia. Patients in this study had severe defects including achalasia where bolus transit was invariably poor meaning little further information was gained. Extension of this study to include a wider group of patients with dysphagia may yield different results.