Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fiducial placement in pancreatic tumors: safety and technical feasibility.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for pancreatic malignancies requires the placement of fiducials to guide treatment delivery. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and feasibility of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fiducial placement using a 22-gauge needle, in patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing SBRT. METHODS: this single-center retrospective study included 47 patients with biopsy-proven advanced pancreatic cancer who underwent EUS-guided fiducial placement between February 2014 and February 2018. Primary outcome measurements included technical success, fiducial migration rate and procedural complications. RESULTS: all 47 patients received a sufficient number of fiducials and could therefore undergo a successful SBRT. The mean number of fiducials inserted per case was 2 ± 1 (range 1-3) and no fiducial migration was noted. The adverse event rate was 4.2%, as one patient developed mild pancreatitis and another patient required one week of hospitalization one month after fiducial placement due to a duodenal abscess. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided fiducial placement is a safe and technically feasible procedure in centers with endosonographers that are well trained in EUS with FNA.

Initial experience with EUS-guided cholangiopancreatography for biliary and pancreatic duct drainage: a Spanish national survey.

BACKGROUND: EUS-guided cholangiopancreatography (ESCP) allows transmural access to biliopancreatic ducts when ERCP fails. Data regarding technical details, safety, and outcomes of ESCP are still unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes of ESCP in community and referral centers at the initial development phase of this procedure, to identify the ESCP stages with higher risk of failure, and to evaluate the influence on outcomes of factors related to the endoscopist. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective study. SETTING: Public health system hospitals with experience in ESCP in Spain. PATIENTS: A total of 125 patients underwent ESCP in 19 hospitals, with an experience of <20 procedures. INTERVENTION: ESCP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Technical success and complication rates in the initial phase of implantation of ESCP are described. The influence of technical characteristics and endoscopist features on outcomes was analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 125 patients from 19 hospitals were included. Biliary ESCP was performed in 106 patients and pancreatic ESCP was performed in 19. Technical success was achieved in 84 patients (67.2%) followed by clinical success in 79 (63.2%). Complications occurred in 29 patients (23.2%). Unsuccessful manipulation of the guidewire was responsible for 68.2% of technical failures, and 58.6% of complications were related to problems with the transmural fistula. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study. CONCLUSION: Outcomes of ESCP during its implantation stage reached a technical success rate of 67.2%, with a complication rate of 23.2%. Intraductal manipulation of the guidewire seems to be the most difficult stage of the procedure.

Prospective evaluation of a clinical guideline recommending early patients discharge in bleeding peptic ulcer.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: To validate an early discharge policy in patients admitted with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) due to ulcers. METHODS: Patients with gastroduodenal ulcer or erosive gastritis/duodenitis were included in a previous study aiming to develop a practice guideline for early discharge of patients with UGIB. Variables associated with unfavorable evolution were analyzed in order to identify patients with low-risk of re-bleeding. After that, a one-year prospective analysis of all UGIB episodes was carried out. RESULTS: A total of 341 patients were identified in the retrospective study. Variables associated with unfavorable evolution were: systolic blood pressure < or = 100 mmHg, heart rate > or = 100 bpm, and a Forrest endoscopic classification of severe. 10% of patients were immediately discharged; however, if predictive variables obtained in the multivariate analysis had been used, hospitalization could have been prevented in 34% of patients. A total of 77 patients were included in the prospective analysis. Although only 19.5% of patients were immediately discharged without complications, 29 patients (37.7%) were theoretically suitable for early discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with UGIB who have clean-based ulcers and are stable on admission can be safely discharged immediately after endoscopy. Implementation of the clinical practice guideline safely reduced hospital admission for those patients.

Usefulness of applying lidocaine in esophagogastroduodenoscopy performed under sedation with propofol.

AIM: To determine whether topical lidocaine benefits esophagogastroduoduenoscopy (EGD) by decreasing propofol dose necessary for sedation or procedure-related complications. METHODS: The study was designed as a prospective, single centre, double blind, randomised clinical trial and was conducted in 2012 between January and May (NCT01489891). Consecutive patients undergoing EGD were randomly assigned to receive supplemental topical lidocaine (L; 50 mg in an excipient solution which was applied as a spray to the oropharynx) or placebo (P; taste excipients solution without active substance, similarly delivered) prior to the standard propofol sedation procedure. The propofol was administered as a bolus intravenous (iv) dose, with patients in the L and P groups receiving initial doses based on the patient's American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) classification (ASA I-II: 0.50-0.60 mg/kg; ASA III-IV: 0.25-0.35 mg/kg), followed by 10-20 mg iv dose every 30-60 s at the anaesthetist's discretion. Vital signs, anthropometric measurements, amount of propofol administered, sedation level reached, examination time, and the subjective assessments of the endoscopist's and anaesthetist's satisfaction (based upon a four point Likert scale) were recorded. All statistical tests were performed by the Stata statistical software suite (Release 11, 2009; StataCorp, LP, College Station, TX, United States). RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the groups treated with lidocaine or placebo in terms of total propofol dose (310.7 ± 139.2 mg/kg per minute vs 280.1 ± 87.7 mg/kg per minute, P = 0.15) or intraprocedural propofol dose (135.3 ± 151.7 mg/kg per minute vs 122.7 ± 96.5 mg/kg per minute, P = 0.58). Only when the L and P groups were analysed with the particular subgroups of female, < 65-year-old, and lower anaesthetic risk level (ASA I-II) was a statistically significant difference found (L: 336.5 ± 141.2 mg/kg per minute vs P: 284.6 ± 91.2 mg/kg per minute, P = 0.03) for greater total propofol requirements). The total incidence of complications was also similar between the two groups, with the L group showing a complication rate of 32.2% (95%CI: 21.6-45.0) and the P group showing a complication rate of 26.7% (95%CI: 17.0-39.0). In addition, the use of lidocaine had no effect on the anaesthetist's or endoscopist's satisfaction with the procedure. Thus, the endoscopist's satisfaction Likert assessments were equally distributed among the L and P groups: unsatisfactory, [L: 6.8% (95%CI: 2.2-15.5) vs P: 0% (95%CI: 0-4.8); neutral, L: 10.1% (95%CI: 4.2-19.9) vs P: 15% (95%CI: 7.6-25.7)]; satisfactory, [L: 25.4% (95%CI: 10-29.6) vs P: 18.3% (95%CI: 15.5-37.6); and very satisfactory, L: 57.6% (95%CI: 54-77.7) vs P: 66.6% (95%CI: 44.8-69.7)]. Likewise, the anaesthetist's satisfaction Likert assessments regarding the ease of maintaining a patient at an optimum sedation level without agitation or modification of the projected sedation protocol were not affected by the application of lidocaine, as evidenced by the lack of significant differences between the scores for the placebo group: unsatisfactory, L: 5.8% (95%CI: 1.3-13.2) vs P: 0% (95%CI: 0-4.8); neutral, L: 16.9% (95%CI: 8.9-28.4) vs P: 16.7% (95%CI: 8.8-27.7); satisfactory, L: 15.2% (95%CI: 7.7-26.1) vs P: 20.3% (95%CI: 11.3-31.6); and very satisfactory, L: 62.7% (95%CI: 49.9-74.3) vs P: 63.3% (95%CI: 50.6-74.7). CONCLUSION: Topical pharyngeal anaesthesia is safe in EGD but does not reduce the necessary dose of propofol or improve the anaesthetist's or endoscopist's satisfaction with the procedure.

Oral and intravenous iron treatment in inflammatory bowel disease: hematological response and quality of life improvement.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of oral and intravenous iron treatment in anemic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients, considering both hematological and quality-of-life outcomes. METHODS: We performed a prospective multicenter study in IBD patients with iron deficiency anemia. Patients having hemoglobin >10 g/dL were prescribed oral ferrous sulfate. If hemoglobin <10 g/dL, intravenous (sucrose) iron was administered. Oral iron-intolerant patients were changed to intravenous treatment. Clinical (Truelove/Harvey-Bradshaw), hematological (response defined as hemoglobin normalization), and quality-of-life (shortened CCVEII-9 questionnaire) evaluations were performed at baseline and at 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: 100 IBD patients (59 Crohn's disease, 41 ulcerative colitis) were included. Mean basal hemoglobin levels were 10.8 +/- 1.3 g/dL (range, 6.6-12.9). Seventy-eight patients received oral treatment and 22 intravenous iron. Hemoglobin normalization was achieved in 86% of patients: 89% with oral, and 77% with intravenous iron. An IBD activity increase was not demonstrated in any patient. Four patients (5.1%) showed oral iron intolerance leading to discontinuation of treatment. No adverse events were reported for intravenous iron. Hemoglobin correlated with CCVEII-9 (P < 0.001). The CCVEII-9 score increased in patients who normalized hemoglobin levels in 3 months (from 58 +/- 9 to 73 +/- 10) or 6 months (54 +/- 9, 68 +/- 12, and 74 +/- 10) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Oral iron treatment is effective and well tolerated in most IBD patients, and does not exacerbate the symptoms of the underlying IBD. Intravenous iron, on the other hand, is an effective and safe alternative treatment for iron deficiency anemia in more severely anemic or intolerant patients. Anemia correction with iron treatment is associated with a relevant improvement in the patients' quality of life.

Accuracy of monoclonal stool antigen test for the diagnosis of H. pylori infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review and a meta-analysis of accuracy of monoclonal stool antigen test (SAT) for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection. SELECTION OF STUDIES: assessing the accuracy of monoclonal SAT for the diagnosis of H. pylori infection. SEARCH STRATEGY: electronic and manual bibliographical searches. DATA EXTRACTION: independently done by two reviewers. DATA SYNTHESIS: meta-analyses combining the sensitivities, specificities, and likelihood ratios (LRs) of the individual studies. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies, including 2,499 patients, evaluated the monoclonal SAT before eradication therapy. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, LR+, and LR- were: 0.94 (95% CI 0.93-0.95), 0.97 (0.96-0.98), 24 (15-41), and 0.07 (0.04-0.12). The accuracy of both monoclonal and polyclonal SAT was evaluated together in 13 pretreatment studies, and higher pooled sensitivity was demonstrated with the monoclonal technique (0.95 vs 0.83). Twelve studies, including 957 patients, assessed the monoclonal SAT to confirm eradication after therapy. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, LR+, and LR- were 0.93 (0.89-0.96), 0.96 (0.94-0.97), 17 (12-23), and 0.1 (0.07-0.15). Both tests were evaluated together in eight post-treatment studies and, again, the monoclonal technique showed higher sensitivity (0.91 vs 0.76). Heterogeneity among studies disappeared when a single outlier study was excluded. Subanalysis depending on the reference method, the study population, or the study quality showed similar results. CONCLUSION: Monoclonal SAT is an accurate noninvasive method both for the initial diagnosis of H. pylori infection and for the confirmation of its eradication after treatment. The monoclonal technique has higher sensitivity than the polyclonal one, especially in the post-treatment setting.