Transoral incisionless fundoplication for recurrent symptoms after laparoscopic fundoplication.

BACKGROUND: Revision of a failed laparoscopic fundoplication carries higher risk of complication and lower chance of success compared to the original surgery. Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) may be an endoscopic alternative for select GERD patients without need of a moderate/large hiatal hernia repair. The aim of this study was to assess feasibility, efficacy, and safety of TIF 2.0 after failed laparoscopic Nissen or Toupet fundoplication (TIFFF). METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent TIFFF between September 2017 and December 2020 using TIF 2.0 technique (EsophyX Z/Z+) performed by gastroenterologists and surgeons. Patients were included if they had (1) recurrent GERD symptoms, (2) pathologic reflux based upon pH testing or Grade C/D esophagitis or Barrett's esophagus, and (3) hiatal hernia ≤ 2 cm. The primary outcome was improvement in GERD Health-Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) post-TIFFF. The TIFFF cohort was also compared to a similar surgical re-operative cohort using propensity score matching. RESULTS: Twenty patients underwent TIFFF (median 4.1 years after prior fundoplication) and mean GERD-HRQL score improved from 24.3 ± 22.9 to 14.75 ± 21.6 (p = 0.014); mean Reflux Severity Index (RSI) score improved from 14.1 ± 14.6 to 9.1 ± 8.0 (p = 0.046) with 8/10 (80%) of patients with normal RSI (< 13) post-TIF. Esophagitis healed in 78% of patients. PPI use decreased from 85 to 55% with 8/20 (45%) patients off of PPI. Importantly, mean acid exposure time decreased from 12% ± 17.8 to 0.8% ± 1.1 (p = 0.028) with 9/9 (100%) of patients with normalized pH post-TIF. There were no statistically significant differences in clinical efficacy outcomes between TIFFF and surgical revision, but TIFFF had significantly fewer late adverse events. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic rescue with TIF is a safe and efficacious alternative to redo laparoscopic surgery in symptomatic patients with appropriate anatomy and objective evidence of persistent or recurrent reflux.

Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Matched Case-Control Study.

INTRODUCTION: Although current literature has addressed gastrointestinal presentations including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abnormal liver chemistries, and hyperlipasemia as possible coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) manifestations, the risk and type of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in this population is not well characterized. METHODS: This is a matched case-control (1:2) study with 41 cases of GIB (31 upper and 10 lower) in patients with COVID-19 and 82 matched controls of patients with COVID-19 without GIB. The primary objective was to characterize bleeding etiologies, and our secondary aim was to discuss outcomes and therapeutic approaches. RESULTS: There was no difference in the presenting symptoms of the cases and controls, and no difference in severity of COVID-19 manifestations (P > 0.05) was observed. Ten (32%) patients with upper GIB underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy and 5 (50%) patients with lower GIBs underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. The most common upper and lower GIB etiologies were gastric or duodenal ulcers (80%) and rectal ulcers related to rectal tubes (60%), respectively. Four of the esophagogastroduodenoscopies resulted in therapeutic interventions, and the 3 patients with rectal ulcers were referred to colorectal surgery for rectal packing. Successful hemostasis was achieved in all 7 cases that required interventions. Transfusion requirements between patients who underwent endoscopic therapy and those who were conservatively managed were not significantly different. Anticoagulation and rectal tube usage trended toward being a risk factor for GIB, although it did not reach statistical significance. DISCUSSION: In COVID-19 patients with GIB, compared with matched controls of COVID-19 patients without GIB, there seemed to be no difference in initial presenting symptoms. Of those with upper and lower GIB, the most common etiology was peptic ulcer disease and rectal ulcers from rectal tubes, respectively. Conservative management seems to be a reasonable initial approach in managing these complex cases, but larger studies are needed to guide management.

Aspiration therapy for the treatment of obesity: 4-year results of a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The AspireAssist is the first Food and Drug Administration-approved endoluminal device indicated for treatment of class II and III obesity. OBJECTIVES: We earlier reported 1-year results of the PATHWAY study. Here, we report 4-year outcomes. SETTING: United States-based, 10-center, randomized controlled trial involving 171 participants with the treatment arm receiving Aspiration Therapy (AT) plus Lifestyle Therapy and the control arm receiving Lifestyle Therapy (2:1 randomization). METHODS: AT participants were permitted to continue in the study for an additional year up to a maximum of 5 years providing they maintained at least 10% total weight loss (TWL) from baseline at each year end. For AT participants who continued the study, 5 medical monitoring visits were provided at weeks 60, 68, 76, 90, and 104 and thereafter once every 13 weeks up to week 260. Exclusion criteria were a history of eating disorder or evidence of eating disorder on a validated questionnaire. Follow-up weight, quality of life, and co-morbidities were compared with the baseline levels. In addition, rates of serious adverse event, persistent fistula, withdrawal, and A-tube replacement were reported. All analyses were performed using a per-protocol analysis. RESULTS: Of the 82 AT participants who completed 1 year, 58 continued to this phase of the trial. Mean baseline body mass index of these 58 patients was 41.6 ± 4.5 kg/m2. At the end of first year (at the beginning of the follow-up study), these 58 patients had a body mass index of 34.1 ± 5.4 kg/m2 and had achieved an 18.3 ± 8.0% TWL. On a per protocol basis, patients experienced 14.2%, 15.3%, 16.6%, and 18.7% TWL at 1, 2, 3, and 4 years, respectively (P < .01 for all). Forty of 58 patients (69%) achieved at least 10% TWL at 4 years or at time of study withdrawal. Improvements in quality of life scores and select cardiometabolic parameters were also maintained through 4 years. There were 2 serious adverse events reported in the second through fourth years, both of which resolved with removal or replacement of the A tube. Two persistent fistulas required surgical repair, representing approximately 2% of all tube removals. There were no clinically significant metabolic or electrolytes disorders observed, nor any evidence for development of any eating disorders. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this midterm study have shown that AT is a safe, effective, and durable weight loss alternative for people with class II and III obesity and who are willing to commit to using the therapy and adhere to adjustments in eating behavior.

Effectiveness of Online Aftercare Programs Following Intragastric Balloon Placement for Obesity Is Similar to Traditional Follow-up: a Large Propensity Matched US Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: The combination of intragastric balloons (IGB) with comprehensive lifestyle and behavioral changes is critical for ongoing weight loss. Many community and rural practices do not have access to robust obesity resources, limiting the use of IGBs. Online aftercare programs were developed in response to this need, delivering lifestyle coaching to maximize effectiveness. How these programs compare to traditional follow-up is currently unknown. METHODS: Using propensity scoring (PS) methods, two large prospective databases of patients undergoing IGB therapy were compared to estimate the difference in percent total body weight loss (%TBWL) between groups while identifying predictors of response. RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty-eight unique patients across 78 different participating practices (online n = 437; clinical registry n = 321) was analyzed. The mean %TBWL at balloon removal was 11% ± 6.9 with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) between online and traditional follow-up of - 1.5% TBWL (95% CI - 3-0.4%; p = 0.125). Three months post-balloon removal, the combined %TBWL was 12.2% ± 8.3 with an ETD of only 1% TBWL (95%CI - 3-3%; p = 0.08). On multivariable linear regression, each incremental follow-up was associated with increased %TBWL (ß = 0.6% p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Online IGB aftercare programs provide similar weight loss compared with traditional programs. Increased lifestyle coaching whether in person or remotely is associated with more %TBWL at removal and during follow-up. Close follow-up for clinical symptoms is still warranted.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage: predictors of successful outcome in patients who fail endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

BACKGROUND: Patients with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are conventionally offered percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). While PTBD is effective, it is associated with catheter-related complications, pain, and poor quality of life. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a minimally invasive endoscopic option increasingly offered as an alternative to PTBD. We compare outcomes of EUS-BD and PTBD in patients with biliary obstruction at a single tertiary care center. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed in patients with biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-BD or PTBD after failed ERCP from June 2010 through December 2014 at a single tertiary care center. Patient demographics, procedural data, and clinical outcomes were documented for each group. The aim was to compare efficacy and safety of EUS-BD and PTBD and evaluate predictors of success. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were included (mean age 67.5 years, 65 % male). Forty-seven underwent EUS-BD, and thirteen underwent PTBD. Technical success rates of PTBD and EUS-BD were similar (91.6 vs. 93.3 %, p = 1.0). PTBD patients underwent significantly more re-interventions than EUS-BD patients (mean 4.9 versus 1.3, p < 0.0001), had more late (>24-h) adverse events (53.8 % vs. 6.6 %, p = 0.001) and experienced more pain (4.1 vs. 1.9, p = 0.016) post-procedure. In univariate analysis, clinical success was lower in the PTBD group (25 vs. 62.2 %, p = 0.03). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, EUS-BD was the sole predictor of clinical success and long-term resolution (OR 21.8, p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Despite similar technical success rates compared to PTBD, EUS-BD results in a lower need for re-intervention, decreased rate of late adverse events, and lower pain scores, and is the sole predictor for clinical success and long-term resolution. EUS-BD should be the treatment of choice after a failed ERCP.

Comparative analysis of traditional and coiled fiducials implanted during EUS for pancreatic cancer patients receiving stereotactic body radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: EUS-guided fiducial placement facilitates image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 types of commercially available fiducials for technical success, complications, visibility, and migration. DESIGN: Retrospective, single-center, comparative study. SETTING: Tertiary-care medical center. INTERVENTIONS: Traditional fiducials (TFs) (5-mm length, 0.8-mm diameter) and Visicoil fiducials (VFs) (10-mm length, 0.35-mm diameter) were compared. Fiducials were placed using linear 19-gauge (for TFs) or 22-gauge (for VFs) needles. A subjective visualization scoring system (0-2; 0 = not visible, 1 = barely visible, 2 = clearly visible) was used to assess visibility on CT. Fiducial migration was calculated as a change in interfiducial distance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Technical success, complications, visibility, and migration of 2 types of fiducials. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer underwent EUS-guided placement of 103 fiducials (77 TFs, 26 VFs). The mean number of fiducials placed per patient was 2.66 (standard deviation 0.67) for the 19-gauge needle and 2.60 (standard deviation 0.70) for the 22-gauge needle (P = .83). No intra- or postprocedural complications were encountered. The median visibility score for TFs was significantly better than that for VFs, both when scores of 0 were and were not included (2.00, interquartile range [IQR] 2.00-2.00 vs 1.75, IQR 1.50-2.00, P = .009 and 2.00, IQR 2.00-2.00 vs 2.00, IQR 1.50-2.00, P < .0001, respectively). The mean migration was not significantly different between the 2 types of fiducials (0.8 mm [IQR 0.4-1.6 mm] for TFs vs 1.3 mm [IQR 0.6-1.5 mm] for VFs; P = .72). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective, nonrandomized design. CONCLUSIONS: Visibility was significantly better for TFs compared with VFs. The degree of fiducial migration was not significantly different for TFs and VFs. There was no significant difference in the mean number of fiducials placed, indicating a similar degree of technical difficulty for TF and VF deployment.