Predictors of clinical outcome of colonic stents in patients with malignant large-bowel obstruction because of extracolonic malignancy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colonic stent placement in patients with large-bowel obstruction (LBO) secondary to extracolonic malignancy (ECM) has been evaluated in small series with heterogeneous results. Our aim is to better characterize the technical and clinical success of colonic stent placement and to identify factors that affect this success in ECM patients. METHODS: All patients at a single high-volume center who presented for colonic stent placement for LBO because of ECM between 2001 and 2012 were retrospectively identified. The outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, stent occlusion rate, and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 187 patients were identified. Mean age was 61.9 years (range, 23-89), and 150 (80.2%) were women. The most common malignancy type was urogynecologic (n = 104) and most common location sigmoid colon (n = 128). Overall, 142 patients (75.9%) achieved technical success and 102 patients (54.5%) clinical success. Radiographic presence of peritoneal carcinomatosis (P < .001) and multifocal disease (P < .001) were associated with both decreased technical and clinical success. Procedure-related adverse events were seen in 12 patients (6.4%). In patients with clinical success, the incidence of stent occlusion at 3 months was 14.7% (95% confidence interval, 7.8%-21.6%) and was higher in patients with prior radiation therapy (P = .011). The median overall survival for all patients from time of attempted stent placement was 3.3 months (95% confidence interval, 3.0-4.1). CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the largest retrospective series of colonic stent placement for LBO in ECM patients in the literature. Our technical success rate of 75.9%, clinical success rate of 54.5%, and 3-month stent occlusion rate of 14.7% suggest that stent placement is a viable palliative option for patients with advanced disease because of ECM. Patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis and multifocal disease have reduced technical and clinical success. However, these factors should not dissuade an attempt at stent placement, if risk-to-benefit analysis is favorable.

The potential impact of contemporary developments in the management of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease undergoing an initial gastroscopy.

BACKGROUND: Recent developments may alter the approach to patients presenting with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)-like symptoms. A newly proposed Montreal consensus definition of Barrett's esophagus includes all types of esophageal columnar metaplasia, with or without intestinal-type metaplasia. There is also increasing recognition of eosinophilic esophagitis (EE) in patients with GERD-like symptoms. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the impact of these developments on a multiphysician general gastroenterology practice in a tertiary care medical centre. METHODS: Medical charts of all patients having an initial gastroscopy for GERD-like symptoms over a one-year period were reviewed retrospectively, and audits of their endoscopic images and esophageal biopsies were performed. RESULTS: Of the 353 study participants, typical symptoms of heartburn and acid reflux were present in 87.7% and 23.2%, respectively. Less commonly, patients presented with atypical symptoms (eg, dysphagia in 9.4%). At endoscopy, 26% were found to have erosive esophagitis and 12% had endoscopically suspected esophageal metaplasia. Histological evaluation was available for 65 patients. Ten of the 65 biopsied patients (15%) met traditional criteria for Barrett's esophagus (ie, exhibiting intestinal-type metaplasia), whereas 49 (75%) fulfilled the newly proposed consensus definition of Barrett's esophagus. Five patients (7.7%) met the study criteria for EE (more than 20 eosinophils per high-power field), four of whom had not been previously recognized. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients presenting with GERD-like symptoms, the prevalence of Barrett's esophagus may increase markedly if the Montreal definition is adopted. In addition, growing awareness of EE may lead to an increase in the prevalence of this diagnosis. Prospective studies of the management implications of these findings are warranted.

Evaluation and management of hepatitis B in pregnancy: a survey of current practices.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of hepatitis B (HBV) during pregnancy is unclear. Safety and efficacy data of antiviral therapy are limited. We assessed the practice patterns of hepatologists, gastroenterologists, and other physicians for evaluating and managing pregnant patients with HBV as well as the variation of these practice patterns by primary specialty and practice description. METHODS: An 18-question electronic survey was sent to physicians with a special interest in liver disease addressing the evaluation and management of HBV during pregnancy. RESULTS: A total of 226 physicians responded, of whom 68.5% characterized their primary specialty as hepatology, 26.5% as gastroenterology, and 4.9% as other; 62.4% were academic-based physicians, and 37.6% were community-based physicians. The average years in practice were 13.3. Initiation of antiviral therapy during pregnancy was supported by 51.8% of respondents. Of those against therapy initiation, 60.4% cited a lack of clear recommendations, 32.1% cited safety concerns, and 7.5% cited a lack of efficacy. For patients on antivirals who desired to become pregnant, 74.8% of respondents would continue antiviral therapy. The most common antiviral used in pregnancy was lamivudine (72.1%). HBV vaccination and HBV immunoglobulin for infants born to mothers with HBV were recommended by 98.7% of respondents; 57.5% would also recommend breastfeeding. If antivirals were being used, only 30.5% of respondents would still recommend breastfeeding. More hepatologists were "very comfortable" (P=.032) managing these patients compared to nonhepatologists. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant heterogeneity in the management of pregnant patients with HBV regardless of primary specialty or practice description. This variability likely reflects a lack of data and specific guidelines. Further research and more specific guidelines are needed.