Double-Blind Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Glucagon vs Placebo in the Resolution of Alimentary Esophageal Impaction.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of glucagon vs placebo in resolving esophageal foreign body impaction (EFBI), as well as the length of the procedure and adverse events. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial involving consecutive patients diagnosed with alimentary EFBI. Participants were randomized to receive either 1 mg of intravenous glucagon or placebo. All patients underwent upper endoscopy, and adverse events were assessed through a protocolized telephonic interview 7 days later. RESULTS: The study included 72 subjects in the glucagon group and 68 in the placebo group. The foreign body was not identified in 23.6% of subjects in the glucagon group and 20.6% of subjects in the placebo group (difference 3%, 95% confidence interval -10.7% to 16.8%, P = 0.67). The median time required to remove the foreign body was similar in both groups 4 minutes (range 2-10) in the glucagon group and 3.5 minutes (range 2-7) in the placebo group (difference 0.5 minutes, 95% confidence interval -1.3 to 2.3; P = 0.59). The most common adverse event reported in both groups was mild pharyngeal pain. DISCUSSION: Glucagon is no more effective than placebo in resolving EFBI or shortening the time required to remove the foreign body (EUDRA-CT number 2019-004920-40).

RISK FACTORS FOR METACHRONOUS COLORECTAL CANCER OR ADVANCED LESIONS AFTER ENDOSCOPIC RESECTION OF SERRATED POLYPS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Serrated polyps (SPs) are precursors to 15-20% of colorectal cancers (CRCs). However, there are uncertainties regarding which SPs require surveillance and at what intervals, with recommendations adapted from those for adenomas in the absence of solid evidence. Our aim was to assess which SP risk characteristics relate to a higher risk of metachronous CRC or advanced polyps. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for cohort, case-control studies, and clinical trials from inception to Dec 31, 2023, for CRC or advanced polyps [advanced adenoma (AA) or advanced SP] incidence at surveillance stratified by baseline SP size, dysplasia, location, and multiplicity. We defined advanced SPs as those >10mm or with dysplasia. CRC and advanced polyp incidence per 1,000 person-years (p-y) were estimated. We performed a meta-analysis by calculating pooled relative risks (RR) using a random-effects model. RESULTS: 5,903 studies were reviewed and 14 included, with 493,949 patients (mean age 59·5 years, 55% men). Mean follow-up was 4·9 years. CRC incidence per 1,000 p-y was 2·09 (95%CI 1·29-2·90) for advanced SP, 1·52 (0·78-2·25) for SP>10mm, 5·86 (2·16-9·56) for SP with dysplasia, 1·18 (0·77-1·60) for proximal SP, 0·52 (0·08-1·12) for >3SP, 0·50 (0·35-0·66) for non-advanced SP, and 0·44 (0·41-0·46) for normal colonoscopy. Metachronous CRC risk was higher in advanced SP vs non-advanced SP (RR 1·84, 95%CI 1·11-3·04), and vs normal colonoscopy (RR 2·92, 2·26-3·77); in SP>10mm vs <10mm (RR 2·61, 1·43-4·77), and vs normal colonoscopy (RR 3·52, 2·17-5·69); and in SP with dysplasia vs normal colonoscopy (RR 2·71, 2·00-3·67). No increase in CRC or advanced polyp risk was found in patients with proximal vs distal SP, nor in >3SP vs 1-2SP. CONCLUSIONS: CRC risk is significantly higher in patients with baseline advanced SP after 4·9 years of follow-up, with risk magnitudes similar to those described for AA, supporting the current recommendation for 3-year surveillance in patients with advanced SP.

Role of Artificial Intelligence in Colonoscopy Detection of Advanced Neoplasias : A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of computer-aided detection in identifying advanced colorectal neoplasia is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the contribution of computer-aided detection to colonoscopic detection of advanced colorectal neoplasias as well as adenomas, serrated polyps, and nonpolypoid and right-sided lesions. DESIGN: Multicenter, parallel, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04673136). SETTING: Spanish colorectal cancer screening program. PARTICIPANTS: 3213 persons with a positive fecal immunochemical test. INTERVENTION: Enrollees were randomly assigned to colonoscopy with or without computer-aided detection. MEASUREMENTS: Advanced colorectal neoplasia was defined as advanced adenoma and/or advanced serrated polyp. RESULTS: The 2 comparison groups showed no significant difference in advanced colorectal neoplasia detection rate (34.8% with intervention vs. 34.6% for controls; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.01 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.10]) or the mean number of advanced colorectal neoplasias detected per colonoscopy (0.54 [SD, 0.95] with intervention vs. 0.52 [SD, 0.95] for controls; adjusted rate ratio, 1.04 [99.9% CI, 0.88 to 1.22]). Adenoma detection rate also did not differ (64.2% with intervention vs. 62.0% for controls; aRR, 1.06 [99.9% CI, 0.91 to 1.23]). Computer-aided detection increased the mean number of nonpolypoid lesions (0.56 [SD, 1.25] vs. 0.47 [SD, 1.18] for controls; adjusted rate ratio, 1.19 [99.9% CI, 1.01 to 1.41]), proximal adenomas (0.94 [SD, 1.62] vs. 0.81 [SD, 1.52] for controls; adjusted rate ratio, 1.17 [99.9% CI, 1.03 to 1.33]), and lesions of 5 mm or smaller (polyps in general and adenomas and serrated lesions in particular) detected per colonoscopy. LIMITATIONS: The high adenoma detection rate in the control group may limit the generalizability of the findings to endoscopists with low detection rates. CONCLUSION: Computer-aided detection did not improve colonoscopic identification of advanced colorectal neoplasias. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Medtronic.

Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire based on patient experience (CSSQP): A valuable quality tool for all colonoscopies.

INTRODUCTION: The Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire based on Patient experience (CSSQP) was recently developed and validated within a Bowel Cancer Screening Program. We aimed to identify factor related to patient experience through the CSSQP, including all indications for colonoscopy. Indicators of satisfaction and perceived safety with colonoscopy were also assessed to compare the different centers. METHODS: Multicenter study in nine Spanish hospitals. Consecutive patients who had undergone a colonoscopy completed the CSSQP adding a novel item on bowel preparation. Factors related to patient experiences and data from non-respondents were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 2200 patients, 1753 filled out the questionnaire (response rate 79.7%, sample error 2%). Patients whose colonoscopy indication was a primary colorectal cancer screening (OR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.15-2.44, p=0.007) or due to a +FIT (OR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.18-2.53) reported higher satisfaction than patients with gastrointestinal symptoms. In addition, college-educated patients (OR: 2.11, 95% CI: 1.25-3.56) were more likely to report better overall satisfaction than patients with lower education level. Significant differences were observed in the majority of the CSSQP items between centers. Safety incidents were reported by 35 (2%) patients, and 176 (10%) patients reported that they received insufficient information. CONCLUSION: The CSSQP identifies several significant factors on satisfaction and perceived safety in patients referred for colonoscopy for any reason. The CSSQP also allows comparison of patient-identified colonoscopy quality indicators between centers.

Risk Factors for Metachronous Colorectal Cancer or Advanced Adenomas After Endoscopic Resection of High-risk Adenomas.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Among the characteristics of high-risk adenomas (HRAs), some may predict a higher risk of metachronous advanced lesions. Our aim was to assess which HRA characteristics are associated with high risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) or advanced adenomas (AAs). METHODS: We systematically searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for cohort studies and clinical trials of CRC or AA incidence at surveillance stratified by baseline lesion size, histology, and multiplicity. We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies were included, with 936,540 patients with mean follow-up 5.4 ± 2.9 years. CRC incidence per 1000 person-years was 2.6 (2.1-3.0) for adenomas ≥20 mm, 2.7 (2.2-3.2) for high-grade dysplasia (HGD), 2.0 (1.8-2.3) for villous component, 0.8 (0.1-1.4) for ≥5 adenomas, 1.0 (0.7-1.2) for ≥3 adenomas. Metachronous CRC risk was higher in adenomas ≥20 mm vs 10 to 19 mm (RR, 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-3.61), HGD vs low-grade dysplasia (RR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.88-4.44), villous vs tubular (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.33-2.31). No significant differences in CRC risk were found in ≥3 adenomas vs 1 to 2 (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.84-1.83), nor in ≥5 adenomas vs 3 to 4 (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.30-2.11). Compared with normal colonoscopy, RR for CRC risk was 2.61 (95% CI, 2.06-3.32) for ≥10mm, 6.62 (95% CI, 4.60-9.52) for HGD, 3.58 (95% CI, 2.24-5.73) for villous component, and 2.03 (95% CI, 1.40-2.94) for ≥3 adenomas. Similar trends were seen for metachronous AAs. CONCLUSION: Metachronous CRC risk is highest in patients with baseline adenomas with ≥20 mm or HGD. Multiplicity does not seem to be associated with substantially higher CRC risk in the near term.

Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Advanced Polyps One Year After Excision of High-Risk Adenomas.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multiple or large adenomas are considered to be high-risk for metachronous colorectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the risks of detecting colorectal cancer, advanced adenoma, and advanced serrated polyps at 1-year surveillance colonoscopy in patients with >5 adenomas or adenomas >20 mm. DESIGN: Descriptive, retrospective, multicentric, cohort study. We calculated the absolute risk of developing colorectal cancer, advanced adenomas, and advanced serrated polyps at the 1-year surveillance colonoscopy. Potential risk factors for advanced neoplasia at follow-up were evaluated with univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. SETTINGS: This study included data from a multicenter cohort colorectal cancer screening program, conducted from January 2014 to December 2015, based on fecal immunochemical tests in Spain. PATIENTS: We included 2119 participants with at least 1 adenoma ≥20 mm or ≥5 adenomas of any size. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We calculated the absolute risk of developing colorectal cancer, advanced adenomas, and advanced serrated polyps at the 1-year surveillance colonoscopy. Potential risk factors for advanced neoplasia at follow-up were evaluated with univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: At 1 year, participants displayed 6 colorectal cancers (0.3%), 228 advanced adenomas (10.5%), and 58 advanced serrated polyps (2.7%). The adjusted analysis identified 2 factors associated with advanced neoplasia: >5 adenomas (odds ratio 1.53; 95% CI: 1.15-2.03; p = 0.004) and polyps in a proximal location (OR 1.52; 95% CI: 1.15-2.02; p = 0.004). LIMITATIONS: First, the sample size was relatively small compared to other studies with similar aims. Another limitation was the lack of a comparison group, which could have provided more practical results in terms of surveillance recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The colorectal cancer detection rate at a 1-year colonoscopy surveillance was low among patients classified at high risk of advanced neoplasia. The risk factors for advanced neoplasia were ≥5 adenomas and proximal polyps at baseline. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B820 . RIESGO DE CNCER COLORRECTAL Y DE PLIPOS AVANZADOS UN AO DESPUS DE LA RESECCIN DE ADENOMAS DE ALTO RIESGO: ANTECEDENTES:Los pacientes con adenomas múltiples o grandes se consideran de alto riesgo para desarrollar cáncer colorrectal metacrónico.OBJETIVO:Evaluar los riesgos de detectar cáncer colorrectal, adenoma avanzado y pólipos serrados avanzados en la colonoscopia de seguimiento al año, en pacientes con un número mayor o igual a 5 adenomas o adenomas de 20 mm o más.DISEÑO:Estudio descriptivo, retrospectivo, multicéntrico, de cohortes. Calculamos el riesgo absoluto de desarrollar cáncer colorrectal, adenomas avanzados y pólipos serrados avanzados en la colonoscopia de vigilancia al año. Los factores de riesgo potenciales para el desarrollo de una neoplasia avanzada en el seguimiento, fueron evaluados mediante un análisis de regresión logística univariable y multivariable.AJUSTES:Este estudio incluyó datos de un programa de cribado de cáncer colorrectal de cohorte multicéntrico, realizado entre enero de 2014 y diciembre de 2015, con base en pruebas inmunoquímicas de materia fecal, en España.PACIENTES:Incluimos 2119 participantes con al menos un adenoma ≥20 mm o con cinco o más adenomas de cualquier tamaño.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Calculamos el riesgo absoluto de desarrollar cáncer colorrectal, adenomas avanzados y pólipos serrados avanzados en la colonoscopia de vigilancia al año. Los potenciales factores de riesgo para desarrollar una neoplasia avanzada en el seguimiento, se evaluaron mediante un análisis de regresión logística univariable y multivariable.RESULTADOS:Al año se encontraron en los pacientes participantes, 6 cánceres colorrectales (0,3%), 228 adenomas avanzados (10,5%) y 58 pólipos serrados avanzados (2,7%). Mediante el análisis ajustado se identificaron dos factores asociados con el desarrollo de neoplasia avanzada: un número igual o mayor a 5 adenomas (razón de probabilidades 1,53; IC del 95%: 1,15-2,03; p = 0,004) y la presencia de pólipos en una ubicación proximal (razón de probabilidades 1,52; IC del 95%: 1,15-2,02; p = 0,004).LIMITACIONES:Primero, el tamaño de la muestra fue relativamente pequeño en comparación con otros estudios con objetivos similares. Otra limitación fue la falta de un grupo comparativo, que podría haber proporcionado resultados más prácticos, en términos de recomendaciones de vigilancia.CONCLUSIÓNES:La tasa de detección de cáncer colorrectal mediante una colonoscopia de vigilancia al año, fue baja entre los pacientes clasificados como de alto riesgo de neoplasia avanzada. Los factores de riesgo para desarrollar una neoplasia avanzada fueron; un número igual o mayor a 5 adenomas y la presencia de pólipos proximales en la colonoscopia inicial de base. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B820 . ( Traducción-Eduardo Londoño-Schimmer ).

Safety of endoscopist-administered deep sedation with propofol in ASA III patients.

INTRODUCTION: deep sedation controlled by the endoscopist is safe in patients with low anesthetic risk (ASA I-II). However, scarce evidence is available in patients with intermediate risk (ASA III). OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the safety of deep sedation with propofol controlled by the usual endoscopy staff (endoscopist, nurse, assistant) in outpatients classified as ASA III and the risk factors for the occurrence of complications during deep sedation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: this observational and single-center cross-sectional study included consecutive patients undergoing non-complex procedures in which deep sedation was administered by the endoscopy staff. Patients were divided into group I (ASA = III) and group II (ASA < III). RESULTS: a total of 562 patients were included and 80 (14.2 %) were in group I. Complications related to deep sedation were more frequent in group I (23.8 % vs 14.5 %; p = 0.036), mainly mild desaturations (13.8 % vs 7.5 %; p = 0.058). Emergency intervention or death were not registered. The adjusted analysis identified age as the only independent baseline risk factor for developing global adverse events. CONCLUSION: ASA III patients developed more sedation-related complications than ASA I-II patients. However, these complications were mild and did not prevent the correct performance of the procedure.

Variation in Colonoscopy Performance Measures According to Procedure Indication.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Most fulfillment and benchmarking information for colonoscopy quality indicators has been obtained from studies of primary screening colonoscopies. We analyzed differences in the fulfillment of colonoscopy quality indicators based on the indication for endoscopy. METHODS: We performed an observational, multicenter, cross-sectional study of 14,867 patients who underwent endoscopy procedures for gastrointestinal symptoms (40.3%), a positive result from a fecal immunochemical test (36.0%), postpolypectomy surveillance (15.3%), or primary screening (8.4%), from February 2016 through December 2017 at 14 centers in Spain. We evaluated rates of adequate colon cleansing, cecal intubation, adenoma detection, and colorectal cancer detection, among others. We used findings from primary screening colonoscopies as the reference standard. RESULTS: Fewer than 90% of patients had adequate bowel preparation; 83.1% of patients with gastrointestinal symptoms had adequate bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR] compared with patients with primary screening colonoscopies, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49-0.78) and 85.3% of patients receiving postpolypectomy surveillance had adequate bowel preparation (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55-0.91). The cecal intubation rate was also lower in patients with gastrointestinal symptoms (93.1%) (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.22-0.52). The adenoma detection rate was higher in patients with a positive result from a fecal immunochemical test (46.4%) (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.71-2.35) and in patients undergoing postpolypectomy surveillance (48.2%) (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20-1.67). The highest proportion of patients with colorectal cancer was in the gastrointestinal symptom group (5.1%) (OR, 5.24; 95% CI, 2.30-11.93) and the lowest was in patients undergoing surveillance (0.8%) (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.32-2.14). CONCLUSIONS: Fulfillment of colonoscopy performance measures varies substantially by indication. Policies addressing performance measures beyond colonoscopy screening procedures should be developed. Benchmarking recommendations could be adjusted according to colonoscopy indication.

Diagnostic yield of early repeat colonoscopy after suboptimal bowel preparation in a fecal immunochemical test-based screening program.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines regarding surveillance after screening colonoscopy assume adequate bowel preparation. However, follow-up intervals after suboptimal cleansing are highly heterogeneous. We aimed to determine the diagnostic yield of early repeat colonoscopy in patients with suboptimal bowel preparation in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening colonoscopy. METHODS: An observational study including patients who underwent colonoscopy with suboptimal bowel preparation after positive FIT screening and then repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. Suboptimal preparation was defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score of 1 in any segment. Patients with a BBPS score of 0 in any segment or incomplete examination were excluded. The adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced ADR (AADR), and colorectal cancer rate were calculated for the index and repeat colonoscopies. RESULTS: Of the 2474 patients with FIT-positive colonoscopy at our center during this period, 314 (12.7 %) had suboptimal preparation. Of the 259 (82.5 %) patients who underwent repeat colonoscopy, suboptimal cleansing persisted in 22 (9 %). On repeat colonoscopy, the ADR was 38.7 % (95 %CI 32.6 % to 44.8 %) and the AADR was 14.9 % (95 %CI 10.5 % to 19.4 %). The per-adenoma miss rate was 27.7 % (95 %CI 24.0 % to 31.6 %), and the per-advanced adenoma miss rate was 17.6 % (95 %CI 13.3 % to 22.7 %). After repeat colonoscopy, the post-polypectomy surveillance recommendation changed from 10 to 3 years in 14.7 % of the patients with previous 10-year surveillance recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with suboptimal bowel preparation on FIT-positive colonoscopy present a high rate of advanced adenomas in repeat colonoscopy, with major changes in post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the method of choice for feeding and nutritional support in patients with a normal gastrointestinal function who require long-term enteral nutrition. We report our experience regarding an alternative endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided PEG technique. A retrospective clinical experience case series study was conducted from January 2019 to November 2019 at a tertiary center. Adult patients deemed unfit for conventional PEG due to absence of transillumination or previous gastric surgery were enrolled. An EUS target was created by filling a glove with saline and placing it in the abdomen. EUS was performed and the target identified from the stomach. The abdominal wall was punctured from the stomach and a guidewire was advanced. The guidewire was knotted to a string, which was passed into the stomach and drawn back through the mouth. The procedure was continued following the traditional technique. Four patients underwent EUS-PEG in our center during the study period. Mean age was 65 years and 50% were male. Two patients (50%) had a body mass index over 30. PEG indications were tongue malignancies (50%), cerebrovascular disease (25%) and dementia (25%). One patient had a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy was performed. Technical success rate was 100% and no complications occurred. This case series shows that the EUS-guided PEG technique is a safe alternative in patients deemed unfit for conventional PEG.

Effects of Family History on Relative and Absolute Risks for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guidelines recommend that individuals with familial colorectal cancer undergo colonoscopy surveillance instead of average-risk screening. However, these recommendations vary widely. To substantiate appropriate surveillance strategies, precise and valid evidence-based risk estimates are needed for individuals with a family history of colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane from inception to July 2018 for case-control and cohort studies investigating the effect of family history on CRC risk. We calculated summary estimates of pooled relative risks (RRs) using a random-effects model. Life tables were created to convert RR estimates into absolute risk estimates. RESULTS: We screened 4417 articles and identified 42 eligible case-control and 20 cohort studies. In case-control studies, the RR for CRC in patients with 1 first-degree relative (FDR with CRC) was 1.92 (95% CI, 1.53-2.41) and 1.37 (95% CI, 0.76-2.46) for cohort studies. For individuals with 2 or more FDRs with CRC, the RR was 2.81 in case-control studies (95% CI, 1.73-4.55) and 2.40 in cohort studies (95% CI, 1.76-3.28). For individuals having a FDR diagnosed with CRC at an age younger than 50 years, the RR for CRC in their FDRs was 3.57 in case-control studies (95% CI, 1.07-11.85) and 3.26 in cohort studies (95% CI, 2.82-3.77). The cumulative absolute risks for CRC at 85 years in Western Europe were 4.8% for persons with 1 FDR with CRC (95% CI, 2.7%-8.3%), 8.2% for individuals with 2 or more FDRs (95% CI, 6.1%-10.9%), and 11% for persons with a FDR diagnosed with CRC at an age younger than 50 years (95% CI, 9.5%-12.4%). CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that the RR of CRC among FDRs is lower than previously expected, especially based on cohort studies. Risk estimates are affected by the number of relatives with CRC and their age at diagnosis. Intensified colonoscopy surveillance strategies could be considered for high-risk groups. PROSPERO trial identification no: CRD42018103058.

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2019.

ESGE recommends a low fiber diet on the day preceding colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of enhanced instructions for bowel preparation.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends split-dose bowel preparation for elective colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends, for patients undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, a same-day bowel preparation as an acceptable alternative to split dosing.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends to start the last dose of bowel preparation within 5 hours of colonoscopy, and to complete it at least 2 hours before the beginning of the procedure.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of high volume or low volume PEG-based regimens as well as that of non-PEG-based agents that have been clinically validated for routine bowel preparation. In patients at risk for hydroelectrolyte disturbances, the choice of laxative should be individualized.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Over-the-scope clip for acute esophageal variceal bleeding.

Over-the-scope clip (OTSC) has been reported to control non-variceal bleeding; however, the use of this device for acute variceal hemorrhage (AVH) is very limited. We report our experience regarding the use of OTSC in patients with AVH in terms of technical success and safety. A retrospective clinical experience case series study was conducted from October 2017 to June 2019 at two tertiary care centers. Adult patients with AVH as a result of small varices managed with OTSC after endoscopic band ligation (EBL) failure were enrolled. Standard gastroscope and OTSC 'type a' with a cap of 11 mm in diameter were used in all procedures. Total of five patients with chronic liver disease (Child-Pugh score ≤8) and portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient, mean 14.4 ± 1.3 mmHg) were included. Four of them presented collapse of the bleeding varix, and one had wall disruption associated with fibrosis secondary to prior banding. We were able to stop AVH in all patients without clip-related adverse events during a 30-day follow-up period. Two patients developed solid food dysphagia after 3 months of clip deployment that resolved after removal using a bipolar cutting device. Twin grasper or anchor were not used to aid or facilitate the approximation of opposite edges in any patient. No additional local therapies or new endoscopic session for variceal eradication were required. This case series shows preliminary success controlling AVH with OTSC after EBL failure in patients with small varices. Esophageal dysphagia may appear as a complication during follow up but it can be resolved by clip removal.

Endoscopic surveillance after colonic polyps and colorrectal cancer resection. 2018 update. / Vigilancia tras resección de pólipos de colon y de cáncer colorrectal. Actualización 2018.

There is limited scientific evidence available to stratify the risk of developing metachronous colorectal cancer after resection of colonic polyps and to determine surveillance intervals and is mostly based on observational studies. However, while awaiting further evidence, the criteria of endoscopic follow-up needs to be unified in our setting. Therefore, the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology, the Spanish Society of Family and Community Medicine, the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy, and the Colorectal Cancer Screening Group of the Spanish Society of Epidemiology, have written this consensus document, which is included in chapter 10 of the "Clinical Practice Guideline for Diagnosis and Prevention of Colorectal Cancer. 2018 Update". Important developments will also be presented as regards the previous edition published in 2009. First of all, situations that require and do not require endoscopic surveillance are established, and the need of endoscopic surveillance of individuals who do not present a special risk of metachronous colon cancer is eliminated. Secondly, endoscopic surveillance recommendations are established in individuals with serrated polyps. Finally, unlike the previous edition, endoscopic surveillance recommendations are given in patients operated on for colorectal cancer. At the same time, it represents an advance on the European guideline for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening, since it eliminates the division between intermediate risk group and high risk group, which means the elimination of a considerable proportion of colonoscopies of early surveillance. Finally, clear recommendations are given on the absence of need for follow-up in the low risk group, for which the European guidelines maintained some ambiguity.

Clinical practice guideline. Diagnosis and prevention of colorectal cancer. 2018 Update. / Guía de práctica clínica. Diagnóstico y prevención del cáncer colorrectal. Actualización 2018.

This document updates the recommendations made by the Spanish Society of Family and Community Medicine and the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology for the diagnosis and prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC). In order to evaluate the quality of the evidence and determine the recommendation levels of the interventions, we used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. This document establishes optimal delay intervals based on symptoms and the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) and recommends reducing the barriers for diagnostic confirmation in symptomatic subjects. With regard to CRC screening in the average-risk population, we propose strategies to achieve the universal implementation of organised CRC screening programmes based on biennial FIT and to increase the participation of the target population, including the involvement of Primary Healthcare. This Clinical Practice Guideline recommends universal screening for Lynch syndrome with mismatch repair proteins immunohistochemistry or microsatellite instability in incident CRCs and the use of gene panels in patients with adenomatous polyposis. It also updates the strategies to reduce the incidence and mortality of both CRC and other tumours associated with hereditary syndromes. Regarding non-hereditary familial CRC and surveillance after resection of adenomas, serrated lesions or CRC, we established the recommendations based on the attributable risk and the risk reduction of the proposed intervention. Finally, the document includes recommendations regarding surveillance intervals in inflammatory bowel disease and the attitude towards dysplasia.