Clinical practice guidelines for enhanced recovery after colon and rectal surgery from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons.

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) are dedicated to ensuring high-quality innovative patient care for surgical patients by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus as well as minimally invasive surgery. The ASCRS and SAGES society members involved in the creation of these guidelines were chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery and enhanced recovery. This consensus document was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus and develop clinical practice guidelines based on the best available evidence. While not proscriptive, these guidelines provide information on which decisions can be made and do not dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, healthcare workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. These guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient. This clinical practice guideline represents a collaborative effort between the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS) and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and was approved by both societies.

Diagnostic Modalities in Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

A variety of diagnostic modalities is available to assist in the evaluation of patients presenting with acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. This article reviews some older technologies like colonoscopy, nuclear scintigraphy, and conventional angiography and will also review the newest additions to the lower GI bleeding diagnostic toolbox, which are video capsule endoscopy and computed tomography (CT) angiography. The management algorithm used at a given institution depends on the available expertise and resources.

Elevation of Serum CEA in Patients with Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Anus.

The proportion of anal cancer cases that produce elevated carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels is not well described in the medical literature. In this study, we used electronic health record data from a single urban cancer center to identify patients from 2004-2018 with anal cancer who have also had a pre-initial treatment CEA measurement. We identified 40 patients who met our eligibility criteria. Of those, 11 (27.5%) had an elevated pretreatment CEA. Elevated CEA was not associated with any of the clinical or demographic covariates; however, three out of five patients with a recurrence had an elevated CEA.

Correction to: Anal canal squamous cell cancer: are surgical alternatives to chemoradiation just as effective?

One of the author's middle name of this article was incorrectly published as "Emmanouil E. Pappou." This is now presented correctly in this article as "Emmanouil P. Pappou."

Anal canal squamous cell cancer: are surgical alternatives to chemoradiation just as effective?

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to study long-term oncologic outcomes after different treatment strategies for anal canal cancer (SCAC). METHODS: Patients with SCAC (2004-2013) were identified from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Patients undergoing radiation (RT) were compared to those undergoing local excision (LE), abdominoperineal resection (APR), and abdominoperineal resection after radiation (RT + APR). Overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) data were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression. RESULTS: Two thousand seven hundred and seventy-two (83.8%) patients underwent RT, 382 (11.6%) LE, 77 (2.3%) APR, 76 (2.3%) RT + APR. Median age for the four groups was 60, 57, 64, and 56 years and 32, 49.7, 53.2, and 39.5% were male, respectively, while median tumor size was 4.4, 2.6, 5.3, and 5.5 cm, respectively. Five-year OS of RT, LE, APR, and RT + APR groups was 63.7, 79.6, 25.8, and 41.8% while CSS was 79.6, 92.5, 75.6, and 58.8%, respectively, (p < 0.001). Adjusted hazard ratios for OS for LE, APR, and RT + APR with RT as reference were 1.007 (0.702-1.444), 2.311 (1.367-3.906), and 2.072 (1.016-4.228), respectively. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that APR does not provide better outcomes in treatment of SCAC. Chemoradiation remains the gold standard treatment for majority of patients. Local excision is associated with favorable outcomes in some circumstances.

Use of an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker is a major risk factor for dehydration requiring readmission in the setting of a new ileostomy.

PURPOSE: Diverting ileostomies help prevent major complications related to anastomoses after colorectal resection but can cause metabolic derangement and hypovolemia, leading to readmission. This paper aims to determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) use increased the risk of readmission, or readmission specifically for dehydration after new ileostomy creation. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients undergoing diverting ileostomy at a tertiary-care hospital, 2009-2015. Primary outcome was 60-day readmission for dehydration; secondary outcomes included 60-day readmission for any cause, or for infection obstruction. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients underwent diverting ileostomy creation, 59% with a primary diagnosis of colorectal cancer. The 60-day readmission rate was 36% (n = 36). Of readmitted patients, 39% (n = 14) were admitted for dehydration. Other readmission reasons were infection (33%) and obstruction (3%). The majority (64%, n = 9) of patients readmitted for dehydration were taking either an ACEi or an ARB. Compared to patients not readmitted for dehydration, those who were readmitted for dehydration were more likely to be on an ACEi or an ARB (11/85, 13% vs. 9/14, 64%). After controlling for covariates, ACEi or ARB use was significantly associated with risk of readmission (p < 0.0001, odds ratio = 13.56, 95% confidence interval 3.54-51.92,). No other diuretic agent was statistically associated with readmission for dehydration. CONCLUSIONS: ACEi and ARB use is a significant risk factor for readmission for dehydration following diverting ileostomy creation. Consideration should be given to withholding these medications after ileostomy creation to reduce this risk.

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Colon Cancer.

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons is dedicated to ensuring high-quality patient care by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus. The Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee is composed of society members who are chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery. This committee was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus. This is accompanied by developing Clinical Practice Guidelines based on the best available evidence. These guidelines are inclusive and not prescriptive. Their purpose is to provide information on which decisions can be made, rather than to dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, health care workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. It should be recognized that these guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient.