Endoscopic iatrogenic esophageal perforation and management: a retrospective outcome analysis in the modern era.

INTRODUCTION: Iatrogenic esophageal perforation (IEP) is a severe adverse event (AE) of upper endoscopy procedures (UEPs) associated with morbidity. Management has shifted from surgery to endotherapy with clip closure (CC), self-expanding metal stent (SEMS), and vacuum therapy (VT). Limited analyses measure outcomes during contemporary interventional endoscopy periods. METHODS: IEPs associated with EGD, upper EUS, small bowel enteroscopy (SBE), and ERCP at a 3-hospital academic center from January 2011 to December 2023 were identified retrospectively from a centralized AE database. Additional information was obtained from medical records. Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel and STATA. RESULTS: Thirty-two IEPs from 26 EGDs, 4 EUS, 1 SBE, and 1 ERCP were identified. IEPs occurred mostly after dilation (bougie N = 7; balloon, N = 5) or foreign body removal (N = 6). Most IEPs occurred in the lower esophagus (N = 10) or gastroesophageal junction (N = 8). Diagnosis was made at a median 2 h after the injury by endoscopy (N = 14), CT scan (N = 12), esophagram (N = 5), or x-ray (N = 1). Initial treatment included conservative therapy alone (N = 7), CC (N = 3), SEMS (N = 14), SEMS plus CC (N = 3), or surgery (N = 3). Eleven patients required additional treatment including repeat SEMS or adjustment (N = 4) or VT (N = 1). No surgical interventions were required after 2013. The median hospital stay was 3 days. Disposition included discharge to home (N = 25), long-term care facility (N = 2), 4 deaths (12.5% of IEPs), and 1 unknown. CONCLUSIONS: IEPs are rare and occur throughout the esophagus after any UEP. The majority are recognized immediately and managed with endotherapy, or rarely, surgery today. These characteristics likely explain the low mortality in this study.

Adverse Event Fatalities Related to GI Endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Death after endoscopy is rare, under-reported, and has variable causes. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence and causes of fatal endoscopic adverse events (AEs) across two academic medical centers and to identify patient-, procedure-, and sedation-related risk factors. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of fatal adverse events causally related to endoscopy at Denver Health Medical Center and the University of Colorado Hospital from 2011 to 2020. Fatal AEs were retrieved from the physician-reported database. Electronic medical records were then reviewed to determine medical history, procedure details, subsequent treatments, and time and cause of death. RESULTS: From January 2011 to January 2020, 146,010 GI endoscopy procedures were performed. Median patient age was 70 [51-78] and 57% were male. Thirty-one deaths were identified, 28 of which were attributed to endoscopy, yielding a procedure-related fatality rate of 0.018%. Procedures included 11 EGDs, one colonoscopy, two flexible sigmoidoscopies, six ERCPs, seven upper EUS, and one PEG-J tube placement. Specific causes of death included aspiration in four patients (14%); cardiac arrest or myocardial infarction in seven patients (25%); perforation in nine patients (32%); bleeding in four patients (14%); cholangitis or sepsis without perforation in three patients (11%); and acute pancreatitis in one patient (3.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Fatal endoscopic AEs were rare but tended to occur in older patients with major comorbidities. Most deaths occurred from aspiration pneumonia, cardiac arrest, or perforation-related sepsis within 1 week of the procedure.

Inappropriate prescribing of proton pump inhibitors in hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors have numerous important side effects, yet they are prescribed for outpatients who do not have recognized indications. Less is known with respect to prescribing for inpatients. OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate of inappropriate prescribing of protein pump inhibitors and to assess reasons why they are prescribed. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: The study was a retrospective review of administrative data for adult hospital patients discharged from the Medicine service of Denver Health (DH) and from the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009. MEASUREMENTS: Valid indications for proton pump inhibitors were sought from discharge diagnoses, prescription records, and, in a randomly selected group of patients from DH, from direct review of records. RESULTS: Inclusion criteria were met by 9875 DH patients and 6,592,100 UHC patients; of patients receiving a proton pump inhibitor, 61% and 73%, respectively, did not have a valid indication. Increased rates of Clostridium difficile infection were found in both groups of patients receiving proton pump inhibitors. Chart reviews found valid indications for proton pump inhibitors in 19% of patients who did not have a valid indication on the basis of the administrative data, and "prophylaxis" was the justification for inappropriate prescribing in 56%. CONCLUSION: Proton pump inhibitors are frequently inappropriately prescribed to Medicine inpatients who do not have a valid indication and this practice is associated with an increase in C. difficile infection. Interventions are needed to curtail this inappropriate prescribing practice.

Long-term management after liver transplantation: primary care physician versus hepatologist.

As long-term survival after liver transplantation increases, metabolic complications are becoming increasingly prevalent. Given concerns about which group of providers should be managing liver recipients and how well metabolic complications are managed, we administered a postal survey to 280 transplant hepatologists to determine attitudes, perceptions, and practice patterns in the management of metabolic complications after transplantation. The response rate was 68.2%. There was great variation in patterns of practice across the United States with respect to the number of posttransplant clinics, clinic format, and number of recipients cared for per week. Hepatologists, primary care physicians (PCPs), and surgeons were primarily responsible for the overall care of liver recipients 1 year or more after liver transplantation according to 66%, 24%, and 8% of respondents, respectively. Hepatologists felt that metabolic complications were common, but few strongly agreed that hypertension (33.3%), chronic renal insufficiency (3.8%), diabetes mellitus (8.8%), dyslipidemia (11.1%), and bone disease (12.8%) were well controlled. The majority of hepatologists indicated that ideally PCPs should be managing recipients' hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, and bone disease (78.8%, 63.1%, 78.3%, and 72.5%), but they felt that in actuality, PCPs were managing these conditions less frequently (45.4%, 51.4%, 44.6%, and 38%). In conclusion, metabolic complications are perceived to be common but not well controlled post-transplant, and most hepatologists feel that PCPs should take a more active role in the management of these complications. Future studies are needed to identify barriers to care in the treatment of metabolic complications post-transplant with the goal of improving long-term morbidity and mortality.