Predictors of long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection of early gastric neoplasia in the West: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine long-term outcomes of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in Western settings based on the latest Japanese indication criteria, and to examine predictors of outcomes and complications. METHODS: Data were collected from consecutive patients undergoing gastric ESD at four participating centers from 2009 to 2021. Retrospective analysis using logistic regression and survival analysis was performed. RESULTS: 415 patients were included (mean age 71.7 years; 56.4 % male). Absolute indication criteria (2018 guideline) were met in 75.3 % of patients. Median follow-up was 52 months. Post-resection histology was adenocarcinoma, high grade dysplasia, and low grade dysplasia in 49.9 %, 22.7 %, and 17.1 %, respectively. Perforation, early and delayed bleeding occurred in 2.4 %, 4.3 %, and 3.4 %, respectively. Rates of en bloc and R0 resection, and recurrence on first endoscopic follow-up were 94.7 %, 83.4 %, and 2.7 %, respectively. Relative indication (2018 guideline) for ESD was associated with R1 outcome (P = 0.02). Distal location (P = 0.002) and increased procedure time (P = 0.04) were associated with bleeding, and scarring (P = 0.009) and increased procedure duration (P = 0.003) were associated with perforation. Recurrence-free survival at 2 and 5 years was 94 % and 83 %, respectively. CONCLUSION: This is the largest Western multicenter cohort and suggests that gastric ESD is safe and effective in the Western setting. A quarter of patients fell outside the new absolute indications for ESD, suggesting that Western practice involves more advanced lesions. We identified the predictors of complications, which should help to inform future Western practice and research.

Sporadic non-ampullary duodenal adenomas: efficacy and outcomes of endoscopic resection.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Sporadic non-ampullary duodenal adenomas (SNDAs) are often referred to tertiary centers because of the challenges in endoscopic resection. There is a paucity of data on both technical and clinical outcomes. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection for the treatment of SNDA in two western centers. METHODS: This is a retrospective study reporting data of a cohort of patients referred for resection of SNDA between 2013 and 2017. Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis or ampullary lesions were excluded from present analysis. Outcomes considered for this study were technical success, adverse events, recurrence and need for surgery. RESULTS: 120 patients (mean age 66 ± 11.9 years, 64male) were enrolled in the study. Mean size of the lesions was 23.3 mm (range 5-80). Fifty-six en-bloc endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) (46.6%), 41 piecemeal EMR (pEMR) and 23 endoscopic submucosal dissection were performed. Intra-procedural perforation was observed in 4 patients (3.3%). Fourteen post-procedural (11.6%) adverse events were recorded. All post-procedural perforations occurred in lesions > 30 mm. Recurrence was observed in 11 patients (9.5%) during a mean follow-up of 29 months. All recurrences were successfully managed endoscopically. 119 patients were still alive at last follow-up. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic resection can be successfully carried out in majority of patients. Size > 30 mm seems to be the predictor of high adverse events risk.

Multi-band mucosectomy for neoplasia in patients with Barrett's esophagus: in vivo comparison between two different devices.

BACKGROUND: Multi-band mucosectomy (MBM) is effective and safe for Barrett's neoplasia. No studies have yet compared the efficacy and safety of the MBM devices commercially available: Duette™ (CookMedical) and Captivator™ (BostonScientific). Our aim is to compare the two devices. METHODS: This is a dual-center retrospective case-control study (Rozzano, Portsmouth) comparing efficacy, safety, and histology of resected specimens between Duette™ (DUE) and Captivator™ (CAPT). Efficacy was assessed by R0 and local recurrence (LR) rate. Bleedings, perforations, and strictures were recorded as safety outcomes. Moreover, the specimens were re-examined by two pathologists, blinded about the study group, to assess the maximum thickness of both the whole specimens and the resected submucosal layer. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients (38 per group) were included. The two groups did not differ in terms of baseline characteristics. R0 resection was achieved in 96.7% versus 96.3% (p = ns) and LR were recorded in 4/38 (10.5%) versus 3/38 (7.9%) in DUE and CAPT group, respectively (p = ns). Considering Duette™ versus Captivator™, 2 versus 3 patients developed a symptomatic stricture. Only one post-procedural bleeding occurred (Captivator™). Maximum medium thicknesses of specimens and of resected submucosa did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: MBM is safe and effective for resecting visible lesions using either of the two available devices.

Endoscopic management of intraprocedural bleeding during endoscopic interventions.

Endoscopic resection techniques have evolved over time, allowing effective and safe resection of the majority of pre-malignant and early cancerous lesions in the gastrointestinal tract. Bleeding is one of the most commonly encountered complications during endoscopic resection, which can interfere with the procedure and result in serious adverse events. Intraprocedural bleeding is relatively common during endoscopic resection and, in most cases, is a mild and self-limiting event. However, it can interfere with the completion of the resection and may result in negative patient-related outcomes in severe cases, including the need for hospitalization and blood transfusion as well as the requirement for radiological or surgical interventions. Appropriate management of intraprocedural bleeding can improve the safety and efficacy of endoscopic resection, and it can be readily achieved with the use of several endoscopic hemostatic tools. In this review, we discuss the recent advances in the approach to intraprocedural bleeding complicating endoscopic resection, with a focus on the various endoscopic hemostatic tools available to manage such events safely and effectively.