Gastrointestinal endoscopic practice during COVID-19 pandemic: a multi-institutional survey.

Introduction. An on-going coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a challenge all over the world. Since an endoscopy unit and its staff are at potentially high risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, we conducted a survey for the management of the gastrointestinal endoscopic practice, personal protective equipment (PPE), and risk assessment for COVID-19 during the pandemic at multiple facilities.Methods. The 11-item survey questionnaire was sent to representative respondent of Department of Gastroenterology, Osaka City University Hospital, and its 19 related facilities.Results. A total of 18 facilities submitted valid responses and a total of 373 health care professionals (HCPs) participated. All facilities (18/18: 100%) were screening patients at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection before endoscopy. During the pandemic, we found that the total volume of endoscopic procedures decreased by 44%. Eleven facilities (11/18: 61%) followed recommendations of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES); consequently, about 35%-50% of esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy were canceled. Mask (surgical mask or N95 mask), face shield/goggle, gloves (one or two sets), and gown (with long or short sleeves) were being used by endoscopists, nurses, endoscopy technicians, and endoscope cleaning staff in all the facilities (18/18: 100%). SARS-CoV-2 infection risk assessment of HCPs was conducted daily in all the facilities (18/18: 100%), resulting in no subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCPs.Conclusion. COVID-19 has had a dramatic impact on the gastrointestinal endoscopic practice. The recommendations of the JGES were appropriate as preventive measures for the SARSCoV-2 infection in the endoscopy unit and its staff.

Continuous warfarin administration versus heparin bridging therapy in post colorectal polypectomy haemorrhage: a study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (WHICH study).

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic removal of colorectal adenoma is considered an effective treatment for reducing the mortality rates associated with colorectal cancer. Warfarin, a type of anticoagulant, is widely used for the treatment and prevention of thromboembolism; however, bleeding may increase with its administration after polypectomy. In recent times, a high incidence of bleeding after endoscopic polypectomy has been reported in patients receiving heparin bridge therapy. However, previous studies have not compared the bleeding rate after endoscopic colorectal polypectomy between patients who continued with anticoagulant therapy and those who received heparin bridge therapy. We hypothesised that endoscopic colorectal polypectomy under the novel treatment with continuous warfarin is not inferior to endoscopic colorectal polypectomy under standard treatment with heparin bridge therapy with respect to the rate of postoperative bleeding. This study aims to compare the efficacy of endoscopic colorectal polypectomy with continuous warfarin administration and endoscopic colorectal polypectomy with heparin bridge therapy with respect to the rate of postoperative bleeding. METHODS: We will conduct a prospective multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial of two parallel groups. We will compare patients scheduled to undergo colorectal polypectomy under anticoagulant therapy with warfarin. There will be 2 groups, namely, a standard treatment group (heparin bridge therapy) and the experimental treatment group (continued anticoagulant therapy). The primary outcome measure is the rate of postoperative bleeding. On the contrary, the secondary outcomes include the rate of cumulative bleeding, rate of overt haemorrhage (that does not qualify for the definition of haemorrhage after endoscopic polypectomy), incidence of haemorrhage requiring haemostasis during endoscopic polypectomy, intraoperative bleeding during endoscopic colorectal polypectomy requiring angiography, abdominal surgery and/or blood transfusion, total rate of bleeding, risk factors for postoperative bleeding, length of hospital stay, incidence of thromboembolism, prothrombin time-international ratio (PT-INR) 28 days after the surgery, and incidence of serious adverse events. DISCUSSION: The results of this randomised controlled trial will provide valuable information for the standardisation of management of anticoagulants in patients scheduled to undergo colorectal polypectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN-CTR UMIN000023720 . Registered on 22 August 2016.

[Case of advanced gastric cancer successfully treated with chemotherapy of weekly paclitaxel].

We report a case of gastric cancer with ascites treated with chemotherapy. The patient is a 67-year-old male. Combination chemotherapy of S-1 and CDDP was given as the first-line treatment. However, the symptoms did not improve with that regimen, so we decided to change the chemotherapy to paclitaxel as second-line treatment. After 4 cycles, CT scan revealed decreasing ascites and endoscopy a reduction of the primary tumor. The patient has maintained a condition of decreasing ascites with improvement of QOL for 8 months. This regimen is considered effective treatment for unresectable gastric cancer.

A multicenter study on the prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis and PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilic infiltration.

OBJECTIVE: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is diagnosed by the presence of dysphagia and intraepithelial eosinophilic infiltration of ≥15 per high-power field (HPF). EoE should be distinguished from proton pump inhibitor-responsive esophageal eosinophilic infiltration (PPI-R EEI) in patients that are responsive to PPI treatment. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of EoE and PPI-R EEI in Japanese patients in a multicenter study. METHODS: Ten hospitals participated in this study. Esophageal biopsy was performed when the patients had typical EoE symptoms or when endoscopic findings revealed a typical EoE appearance. EEI was defined as the intraepithelial eosinophilic infiltration of ≥15 per HPF. Patients with EEI received rabeprazole for 8 weeks to distinguish EoE from PPI-R EEI. RESULTS: A total of 13,634 subjects that underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy because of further examination or as a routine checkup were enrolled. Seventy-one (0.5%) patients suspected with EoE were examined by biopsy. A histological examination of 7 (9.9%) cases revealed EEI. Two of these 7 patients showed no symptoms and the other 5 were treated with PPI. Two (0.01%) patients were diagnosed with EoE and 3 (0.02%) with PPI-R EEI. CONCLUSION: EoE and PPI-R EEI were rare in Japanese patients that underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Lymphangioma of the lesser omentum associated with abdominal esophageal carcinoma: report of a case.

A case of lymphangioma of the lesser omentum associated with abdominal esophageal carcinoma is described herein. The patient was a 54-year-old man who initially presented with dysphagia. Gastrointestinal fiberscopy (GIF) revealed an esophageal carcinoma and abdominal computed tomography (CT) detected a 3-cm, low-density lesion on the median aspect of the fornix, which was diagnosed as a metastatic lymph node. A radical operation was performed to resect the esophageal carcinoma, and a cystic lesion the size of a hen's egg was found in the lesser omentum of the stomach. The cystic lesion, which contained serous fluid, was unilocular and attached to the serosa of the stomach. The histological diagnosis was omental lymphangioma. Our review of the Japanese literature revealed 29 cases of lesser omental lymphangioma, but only two of these were associated with an advanced malignant tumor. Although the etiology of omental lymphangioma is unclear, the findings in our case suggested that obstruction of the lymphatic vessels invaded by the esophageal carcinoma may be one of the causes of this disease.