Cap-Assisted Endoscopic Septotomy of Zenker's Diverticulum: Early and Long-Term Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple therapeutic modalities including surgery and rigid and flexible endoscopy have been adopted to manage Zenker's diverticulum (ZD). Minimally invasive flexible endoscopic septotomy (FES) techniques have been increasingly favored over the past 20 years; however, long-term data are still scanty. The aim of this study is to evaluate early and long-term outcomes of FES for naive ZD in a single-center setting. METHODS: From 2010 to 2017, ZD patients treated with FES were included in a prospectively maintained database (NCT03948438). Those who had already been treated surgically or endoscopically were excluded from the analysis. The Dakkak and Bennett dysphagia scale was used to rate the dysphagia. Persistent complete or near-complete resolution of symptoms (Dakkak and Bennett 0 or 1) was defined as clinical success. Postprocedural adverse events were reported according to ASGE lexicon. RESULTS: Overall, 256 consecutive patients were treated. Mean pouch size was 29.8 ± 11.3 mm. The procedure was successfully completed in all scheduled patients, with an early clinical success of 96.1%. Adverse events occurred in 3.5% (9/256) of patients. Eight of them were mild/moderate with no fatal events, whereas one patient required surgery. Recurrences occurred in 31.3% (80/256) of treated patients after a mean time of 9 ± 3 months and 95% of recurrences were treated by a second FES. At an average follow-up of 5.5 years, 95.3% of patients were asymptomatic after a mean number of 1.3 procedures. DISCUSSION: FES is a safe and effective treatment modality for patients with ZD. Recurrence rate is significant; however, endoscopic reintervention is associated with long-term relief of dysphagia.

Single-dose versus short-course prophylactic antibiotics for peroral endoscopic myotomy: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has been recommended for achalasia treatment. To prevent the potential of infective risk, antibiotic prophylaxis is usually administered, whereas the additional need of antibiotic therapy after POEM is uncertain. The primary endpoint was to determine whether prophylaxis versus prophylaxis plus short therapy was needed after POEM. METHODS: Consecutive patients scheduled for POEM were randomly assigned (1:1) to group A (prophylactic cefazolin 2 g IV) or group B (prophylaxis + cefazolin 2 g IV × 3 followed by oral amoxicillin/clavulanate 3 g/day). Infective risk was assessed by means of host response, namely body temperature and serum levels of white blood cells and C-reactive protein; immune response (the cytokines interleukin [IL]-6, IL-1ß, and tumor necrosis factor-α and microbial translocation mediators lipopolysaccharide binding protein and soluble CD14); and blood cultures at time points before (t0) and after (t1, t2) POEM. RESULTS: After POEM, none of the 124 enrolled patients (54.6 ± 12.6 years old; 64 men) developed any fever (body temperature: t0, 36.56± .49°C; t1, 36.53± .52°C; t2, 36.48± .41°C), without any differences between groups at any time point. Regarding systemic inflammation, no difference was reported between groups in serum levels of C-reactive protein and white blood cells. Considering microbial translocation mediated response, lipopolysaccharide binding protein (group A: t0, 1539 ± 168.6 pg/mL; t1, 1321 ± 149.1 pg/mL; t2, 2492 ± 283.2 pg/mL; group B: t0, 1318 ± 115.9 pg/mL; t1, 1492 ± 163.8 pg/mL; t2, 2600 ± 328.2 pg/mL) and soluble CD14 (group A: t0, 2.16 ± .15 µg/mL; t1, 1.89 ± .15 µg/mL; t2, 2.2 ± .15 µg/mL; group B: t0, 2.1 ± .13 µg/mL; t1, 2 ± .13 µg/mL; t2, 2.5 ± .2 µg/mL) were similar between the 2 groups; the immune response cytokines IL-6, IL-1ß, and tumor necrosis factor-α also were similar in the 2 groups. In relation to blood cultures, at t1 the group B bacteremia rate was 3.2% (2/62) and group A was 1.6% (1/62) with no difference (P = .6). All subsequent blood cultures were negative at t2. CONCLUSIONS: According to our study, postprophylactic short-term antimicrobial therapy after POEM is not required because of a very low residual infective risk. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03587337.).

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and jejunostomy: Indications and techniques.

Nutritional support is essential in patients who have a limited capability to maintain their body weight. Therefore, oral feeding is the main approach for such patients. When physiological nutrition is not possible, positioning of a nasogastric, nasojejunal tube, or other percutaneous devices may be feasible alternatives. Creating a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is a suitable option to be evaluated for patients that need nutritional support for more than 4 wk. Many diseases require nutritional support by PEG, with neurological, oncological, and catabolic diseases being the most common. PEG can be performed endoscopically by various techniques, radiologically or surgically, with different outcomes and related adverse events (AEs). Moreover, some patients that need a PEG placement are fragile and are unable to express their will or sign a written informed consent. These conditions highlight many ethical problems that become difficult to manage as treatment progresses. The aim of this manuscript is to review all current endoscopic techniques for percutaneous access, their indications, postprocedural follow-up, and AEs.