Endoscopic treatment (endoscopic balloon dilation/self-expandable metal stent) vs surgical resection for the treatment of de novo stenosis in Crohn's disease (ENDOCIR study): an open-label, multicentre, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Stenosis is one of the most common complications in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). Endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) is the treatment of choice for a short stenosis adjacent to the anastomosis from previous surgery. Self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) may be a suitable treatment option for longer stenoses. To date, however, there is no scientific evidence as to whether endoscopic (EBD/SEMS) or surgical treatment is the best approach for de novo or primary stenoses that are less than 10 cm in length. METHODS/DESIGN: Exploratory study as "proof-of-concept", multicentre, open-label, randomized trial of the treatment of de novo stenosis in the CD; endoscopic treatment (EBD/SEMS) vs surgical resection (SR). The type of endoscopic treatment will initially be with EDB; if a therapeutic failure occurs, then a SEMS will be placed. We estimate 2 years of recruitment and 1 year of follow-up for the assessment of quality of life, costs, complications, and clinical recurrence. After the end of the study, patients will be followed up for 3 years to re-evaluate the variables over the long term. Forty patients with de novo stenosis in CD will be recruited from 15 hospitals in Spain and will be randomly assigned to the endoscopic or surgical treatment groups. The primary aim will be the evaluation of the patient quality of life at 1 year follow-up (% of patients with an increase of 30 points in the 32-item Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ-32). The secondary aim will be evaluation of the clinical recurrence rate, complications, and costs of both treatments at 1-year follow-up. DISCUSSION: The ENDOCIR trial has been designed to determine whether an endoscopic or surgical approach is therapeutically superior in the treatment of de novo stenosis in CD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04330846. Registered on 1 April 1 2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home.

Self-expandable metal stents versus endoscopic balloon dilation for the treatment of strictures in Crohn's disease (ProtDilat study): an open-label, multicentre, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) is the established endoscopic treatment for short strictures in Crohn's disease. Fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FCSEMS) have been used for endoscopic treatment of patients for whom EBD was unsuccessful. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of the two endoscopic treatments in patients with Crohn's disease with stenosis and compare the mean cost of both treatments. METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, randomised trial was done in 19 tertiary and secondary hospitals in Spain. Patients with Crohn's disease with obstructive symptoms and predominantly fibrotic strictures of less than 10 cm in length were eligible for inclusion. We excluded patients with stenosis treated with SEMS or EBD in the previous year and stenosis not accessible to a colonoscope. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either EBD (EBD group) or FCSEMS (FCSEMS group) using a digital en-block randomisation system (block size of four). In the EBD group, dilation was done with a CRE Boston Scientific (Marlborough, MA, USA) pneumatic balloon with the diameter set at the discretion of the endoscopist; a maximum of two sessions of dilation were allowed with a minimum interval of 15-30 days between them. In the FCSEMS group, a 20 mm diameter Taewoong (Gimpo-si, South Korea) fully covered metal stent was placed; stent length was set at the discretion of the endoscopist. The primary outcome was to assess the efficacy of the endoscopic treatment, defined by the proportion of patients free of a new therapeutic intervention (EBD, FCSEMS, or surgery) due to symptomatic recurrence at 1 year of follow-up. Patients were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Adverse events were recorded for all the patients; events were considered associated to be with the procedure when a causal association was possible, probable, or definite. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02395354. FINDINGS: From Aug 28, 2013, to Oct 9, 2017, we assessed the eligibility of 99 patients, of whom 19 (19%) patients were excluded. Thus, 80 (81%) patients were randomly assigned to treatment: 39 (49%) patients to the FCSEMS group and 41 (51%) patients to the EBD group. 33 (80%) of 41 patients in the EBD group and 20 (51%) of 39 patients in the FCSEMS group were free of a new therapeutic intervention at 1 year (odds ratio [OR] 3·9 [95% CI 1·4-10·6]; p=0·0061). Two (3%) of 80 patients had severe adverse events (one [2%] patient in the EBD group and one [3%] patient in the FCSEMS group); both patients had perforations. INTERPRETATION: EBD is more effective than FCSEMS for Crohn's disease strictures, with a good safety profile for both treatments. FUNDING: Spanish National Institute of Health, Foundation of Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy, Catalan Society of Gastroenterology, and Taweoong.

Study of the standard direct costs of various techniques of advanced endoscopy. Comparison with surgical alternatives.

INTRODUCTION: The complexity of endoscopy has carried out an increase in cost that has a direct effect on the healthcare systems. However, few studies have analyzed the cost of advanced endoscopic procedures (AEP). OBJECTIVES: To carry out a calculation of the standard direct costs of AEP, and to make a financial comparison with their surgical alternatives. METHODS: Calculation of the standard direct cost in carrying out each procedure. An endoscopist detailed the time, personnel, materials, consumables, recovery room time, stents, pathology and medication used. The cost of surgical procedures was the average cost recorded in the hospital. RESULTS: Thirty-eight AEP were analyzed. The technique showing lowest cost was gastroscopy + APC (€116.57), while that with greatest cost was ERCP with cholangioscopy + stent placement (€5083.65). Some 34.2% of the procedures registered average costs of €1000-2000. In 57% of cases, the endoscopic alternative was 2-5 times more cost-efficient than surgery, in 31% of cases indistinguishable or up to 1.4 times more costly. CONCLUSION: Standard direct cost of the majority of AEP is reported using a methodology that enables easy application in other centers. For the most part, endoscopic procedures are more cost-efficient than the corresponding surgical procedure.