Diagnosis and treatment of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency in chronic pancreatitis: An international expert survey and case vignette study.

INTRODUCTION: Despite evidence-based guidelines, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency is frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide insight into the current opinion and clinical decision-making of international pancreatologists regarding the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. METHODS: An online survey and case vignette study was sent to experts in chronic pancreatitis and members of various pancreatic associations: EPC, E-AHPBA and DPSG. Experts were selected based on publication record from the past 5 years. RESULTS: Overall, 252 pancreatologists participated of whom 44% had ≥ 15 years of experience and 35% treated ≥ 50 patients with chronic pancreatitis per year. Screening for exocrine pancreatic insufficiency as part of the diagnostic work-up for chronic pancreatitis is performed by 69% and repeated annually by 21%. About 74% considers nutritional assessment to be part of the standard work-up. Patients are most frequently screened for deficiencies of calcium (47%), iron (42%), vitamin D (61%) and albumin (59%). In case of clinically steatorrhea, 71% prescribes enzyme supplementation. Of all pancreatologists, 40% refers more than half of their patients to a dietician. Despite existing guidelines, 97% supports the need for more specific and tailored instructions regarding the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. CONCLUSION: This survey identified a lack of consensus and substantial practice variation among international pancreatologists regarding guidelines pertaining the management of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. These results highlight the need for further adaptation of these guidelines according to current expert opinion and the level of available scientific evidence.

Early risk stratification of patients with suspected chronic mesenteric ischaemia using a symptom and mesenteric artery calcium score based score chart.

BACKGROUND: The mesenteric artery calcium score (MACS) identifies patients with possible chronic mesenteric ischaemia (CMI) using standard computed tomography (CT) imaging. The MACS does not necessitate a dedicated computed tomography angiography (CTA) which is required for evaluation of mesenteric artery patency. This study aimed to test the use of a symptom and MACS based score chart to facilitate the selection of patients with a low probability of CMI, in whom further diagnostic workup can be omitted, and to validate the CTA-based score chart proposed by van Dijk et al. which guides treatment decisions in patients with suspected CMI. METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive patients with suspected CMI. The Agatston definition was used to calculate the MACS. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to create a MACS score chart, which was applied in all patients to determine its discriminative ability. The score chart by van Dijk et al. was validated in this independent external patient series. RESULTS: Hundred-ninety-two patients were included, of whom 49 had CMI. The MACS score chart composed of the variables weight loss, postprandial abdominal pain, history of cardiovascular disease, and MACS, showed an excellent discriminative ability (area under the curve [AUC] 0.87). CMI risks were 2.1% in the low-risk group (0-4 points) and 39.1% in the increased risk group (5-10 points); sensitivity (97.8%) and negative predictive value (NPV; 97.9%) were high. The CTA-based score chart by van Dijk et al. showed an excellent discriminative ability (AUC 0.89). CONCLUSION: The MACS score chart shows promise for early risk stratification of patients with suspected CMI based on a near-perfect NPV. It is complementary to the CTA-based score chart by van Dijk et al., which showed excellent external validity and is well suited to guide subsequent (invasive) treatment decisions in patients with suspected CMI.

European guidelines on chronic mesenteric ischaemia - joint United European Gastroenterology, European Association for Gastroenterology, Endoscopy and Nutrition, European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology, Netherlands Association of Hepatogastroenterologists, Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology, Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe, and Dutch Mesenteric Ischemia Study group clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia.

Chronic mesenteric ischaemia is a severe and incapacitating disease, causing complaints of post-prandial pain, fear of eating and weight loss. Even though chronic mesenteric ischaemia may progress to acute mesenteric ischaemia, chronic mesenteric ischaemia remains an underappreciated and undertreated disease entity. Probable explanations are the lack of knowledge and awareness among physicians and the lack of a gold standard diagnostic test. The underappreciation of this disease results in diagnostic delays, underdiagnosis and undertreating of patients with chronic mesenteric ischaemia, potentially resulting in fatal acute mesenteric ischaemia. This guideline provides a comprehensive overview and repository of the current evidence and multidisciplinary expert agreement on pertinent issues regarding diagnosis and treatment, and provides guidance in the multidisciplinary field of chronic mesenteric ischaemia.

Association Between Concentrations of Hemoglobin Determined by Fecal Immunochemical Tests and Long-term Development of Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using quantitative fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) is rapidly gaining ground worldwide. FITs are invariably used in a dichotomous manner using pre-specified cut-off values. To optimize FIT-based screening programs, we investigated the association between fecal hemoglobin (fHb) concentrations below the FIT cut-off value and later development of colorectal advanced neoplasia (AN). METHODS: We analyzed data collected from a population-based study of 9561 average-risk subjects (50-74 years old) in the Netherlands who were offered 4 rounds of FIT screening for CRC from November 2006 through December 2014. We analyzed data from 7663 participants screened at least once and found to have a negative FIT result at baseline (below the cut-off value of 10 µg Hb/ g feces). Participants were followed for a median of 4.7 years (interquartile range, 2.0-6.1 years); CRCs diagnosed outside the screening program were identified from the Dutch Comprehensive Cancer Centre database. Hazard ratios for AN were determined using Cox proportional hazard regression analyses. Logistic regression techniques were used to calculate risks of AN after consecutive fHb concentrations below the cut-off value. RESULTS: After 8 years of follow-up, participants with baseline concentrations of 8-10 µg fHb/g had a higher cumulative incidence of AN (33%) than participants with 0 µg fHb/g (5%) (P < .001). Multi-variate hazard ratios increased from 1.2 for subjects with concentrations of 0-2 µg fHb/g to 8.2 for subjects with concentrations of 8-10 µg fHb/g (P < .001). Participants with 2 consecutive fHb concentrations of 8 µg Hb/g had a 14-fold increase in risk of AN compared with participants with 2 consecutive fHb concentrations of 0 µg Hb/g (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In a population-based study of average-risk individuals with a FIT result below the cut-off value, we associated baseline concentrations of 8-10 µg fHb/g with an increased risk of AN compared with baseline concentrations of 0 µg fHb/g. Baseline and consecutive fHb concentrations are independent predictors for incident AN. This information might be used in designing personalized strategies for population-based CRC screening and reduce unnecessary repeat tests. Trialregister.nl no: first round, NTR1096; second round and additional invitees, NTR1512.

Esophageal stenting for benign and malignant disease: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline.

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), the European Society of Digestive Endoscopy (ESDO), and the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations for malignant disease 1 ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) for palliative treatment of malignant dysphagia over laser therapy, photodynamic therapy, and esophageal bypass (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 2 For patients with longer life expectancy, ESGE recommends brachytherapy as a valid alternative or in addition to stenting in esophageal cancer patients with malignant dysphagia. Brachytherapy may provide a survival advantage and possibly a better quality of life compared to SEMS placement alone. (Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.) 3 ESGE recommends esophageal SEMS placement as the preferred treatment for sealing malignant tracheoesophageal or bronchoesophageal fistula (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 ESGE does not recommend the use of concurrent external radiotherapy and esophageal stent treatment. SEMS placement is also not recommended as a bridge to surgery or prior to preoperative chemoradiotherapy. It is associated with a high incidence of adverse events and alternative satisfactory options such as placement of a feeding tube are available. (Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.) Main recommendations for benign disease 1 ESGE recommends against the use of self-expandable stents (SEMSs) as first-line therapy for the management of benign esophageal strictures because of the potential for adverse events, the availability of alternative therapies, and costs (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 2 ESGE suggests consideration of temporary placement of SEMSs as therapy for refractory benign esophageal strictures (weak recommendation, moderate evidence). Stents should usually be removed at a maximum of 3 months (strong recommendation, weak quality evidence). 3 ESGE suggests that fully covered SEMSs be preferred over partially covered SEMSs for the treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures, because of their lack of embedment and ease of removability (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 For the removal of partially covered esophageal SEMSs that are embedded, ESGE recommends the stent-in-stent technique (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 5 ESGE recommends that temporary stent placement can be considered for treating esophageal leaks, fistulas, and perforations. The optimal stenting duration remains unclear and should be individualized. (Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.) 6 ESGE recommends placement of a SEMS for the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding refractory to medical, endoscopic, and/or radiological therapy, or as initial therapy for patients with massive esophageal variceal bleeding (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pelvic abscess: A case series of 8 patients.

AIM: To show the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of pelvic abscess that were inaccessible for percutaneous drainage. METHODS: Eight consecutive patients with pelvic abscess that were not amenable to drainage under computed tomography (CT) guidance were referred for EUS-guided drainage. The underlying cause of the abscesses included diverticulitis in 4, postsurgical surgical complications in 2, iatrogenic after enema in 1, and Crohn's disease in 1 patient. Abscesses were all drained under EUS guidance via a transrectal or transsigmoidal approach. RESULTS: EUS-guided placement of one or two 7 Fr pigtail stents was technically successful and uneventful in all 8 patients (100%). The abscess was perisigmoidal in 2 and was multilocular in 4 patients. All procedures were performed under conscious sedation and without fluoroscopic monitoring. Fluid samples were successfully retrieved for microbiological studies in all cases and antibiotic policy was adjusted according to culture results in 5 patients. Follow-up CT showed complete recovery and disappearance of abscess. The stents were retrieved by sigmoidoscopy in only two patients and had spontaneously migrated to outside in six patients. All drainage procedures resulted in a favourable clinical outcome. All patients became afebrile within 24 h after drainage and the mean duration of the postprocedure hospital stay was 8 d (range 4-14). Within a median follow up period of 38 mo (range 12-52) no recurrence was reported. CONCLUSION: We conclude that EUS-guided drainage of pelvic abscesses without fluoroscopic monitoring is a minimally invasive, safe and effective approach that should be considered in selected patients.

Early surgery versus optimal current step-up practice for chronic pancreatitis (ESCAPE): design and rationale of a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: In current practice, patients with chronic pancreatitis undergo surgical intervention in a late stage of the disease, when conservative treatment and endoscopic interventions have failed. Recent evidence suggests that surgical intervention early on in the disease benefits patients in terms of better pain control and preservation of pancreatic function. Therefore, we designed a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the benefits, risks and costs of early surgical intervention compared to the current stepwise practice for chronic pancreatitis. METHODS/DESIGN: The ESCAPE trial is a randomized controlled, parallel, superiority multicenter trial. Patients with chronic pancreatitis, a dilated pancreatic duct (≥5 mm) and moderate pain and/or frequent flare-ups will be registered and followed monthly as potential candidates for the trial. When a registered patient meets the randomization criteria (i.e. need for opioid analgesics) the patient will be randomized to either early surgical intervention (group A) or optimal current step-up practice (group B). An expert panel of chronic pancreatitis specialists will oversee the assessment of eligibility and ensure that allocation to either treatment arm is possible. Patients in group A will undergo pancreaticojejunostomy or a Frey-procedure in case of an enlarged pancreatic head (≥4 cm). Patients in group B will undergo a step-up practice of optimal medical treatment, if needed followed by endoscopic interventions, and if needed followed by surgery, according to predefined criteria. Primary outcome is pain assessed with the Izbicki pain score during a follow-up of 18 months. Secondary outcomes include complications, mortality, total direct and indirect costs, quality of life, pancreatic insufficiency, alternative pain scales, length of hospital admission, number of interventions and pancreatitis flare-ups. For the sample size calculation we defined a minimal clinically relevant difference in the primary endpoint as a difference of at least 15 points on the Izbicki pain score during follow-up. To detect this difference a total of 88 patients will be randomized (alpha 0.05, power 90%, drop-out 10%). DISCUSSION: The ESCAPE trial will investigate whether early surgery in chronic pancreatitis is beneficial in terms of pain relief, pancreatic function and quality of life, compared with current step-up practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN45877994.