Atypical presentations and pitfalls of achalasia.

Achalasia is a rare disease with significant diagnostic delay and association with false diagnoses and unnecessary interventions. It remains unclear, whether atypical presentations, misinterpreted symptoms or inconclusive diagnostics are the cause. The aim of this study was the characterization of typical and atypical features of achalasia and their impact on delays, misinterpretations or false diagnoses. A retrospective analysis of prospective database over a period of 30 years was performed. Data about symptoms, delays and false diagnoses were obtained and correlated with manometric, endoscopic and radiologic findings. Totally, 300 patients with achalasia were included. Typical symptoms (dysphagia, regurgitation, weight loss and retrosternal pain) were present in 98.7%, 88%, 58.4% and 52.4%. The mean diagnostic delay was 4.7 years. Atypical symptoms were found in 61.7% and led to a delay of 6 months. Atypical gastrointestinal symptoms were common (43%), mostly 'heartburn' (16.3%), 'vomiting' (15.3%) or belching (7.7%). A single false diagnosis occurred in 26%, multiple in 16%. Major gastrointestinal misdiagnoses were GERD in 16.7% and eosinophilic esophagitis in 4%. Other false diagnosis affected ENT-, psychiatric, neurologic, cardiologic or thyroid diseases. Pitfalls were the description of 'heartburn' or 'nausea'. Tertiary contractions at barium swallows, hiatal hernias and 'reflux-like' changes at endoscopy or eosinophils in the biopsies were misleading. Atypical symptoms are common in achalasia, but they are not the sole source for diagnostic delays. Misleading descriptions of typical symptoms or misinterpretation of diagnostic studies contribute to false diagnoses and delays.

Endoscopic sedation and monitoring practice in Germany: re-evaluation from the first nationwide survey 3 years after the implementation of an evidence and consent based national guideline.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The use of sedation (e. g., of short-acting propofol) for gastrointestinal endoscopy has shown an upward trend in the USA and Europe over the last decade. To improve patient's safety different nationwide guidelines have been developed. This survey aimed at providing nationwide re-evaluated data 3 years after the implementation of consent- and evidence-based national guideline on sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS: A 24-item survey regarding current practices of endoscopy, sedation and monitoring in gastrointestinal endoscopy was sent to 4 405 members of the German Society of Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS). RESULTS: A total of 741/4405 (17 %) questionnaires were returned. Compared to 2007 we documented a further increase of the use of sedation during the performance of esophagogastro-duodenoscopies (EGDs) (82 vs. 74 % in 2007) and colonoscopies (91 vs. 87 % in 2007), accompanied with an increased rate of using propofol as a sedative agent in 97 vs. 74 % of the cases in 2007. In contrast the use of midazolam substantially decreased to 69 % versus 82 % in 2007. Most commonly used sedation regimens are still propofol ± benzodiazepines (43 vs. 38 % in 2007), while a combination of midazolam ± opioid decreased to 15 % versus 35 % in 2007. Unchanged to data from 2007, patients were routinely monitored by pulse oximetry (99 %). Routine use of an automated blood pressure monitoring increased to 40 % (versus 29 % in 2007) and the use of electrocardiography monitoring nearly doubled to 24 vs. 13 % in 2007. Supplemental oxygen is nowadays routinely administered in 64 % compared to 34 % of the cases in 2007. Regarding the administration of sedation we observed a profound increase of nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS; 73 % in 2011, 39 % in 2007) with a decrease of endoscopist-directed propofol sedation (29 % in 2011 vs. 59 % in 2007). However, monitored anaesthesia care was still only rarely used in Germany (2 %). CONCLUSION: After the implementation of the first national sedation guideline the use of propofol has become the most popular sedation regime in Germany, mainly administered as NAPS by trained nurses as a standard procedure. Automated blood pressure measurements and ECG recording were more often implemented in the monitoring practice and also the routine use of supplemental oxygen has been clearly improved.

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for suspected bilio-pancreatic disease: should the endoscopist take a second look?

INTRODUCTION: MRCP enables a planar ductography of the pancreatobiliary system, which for diagnostic purposes may render ERCP unnecessary. However, the interpretation of MRCP findings is primarily performed by radiologists, and it is unclear whether additional interpretation of the MRCP results by the endoscopist alters clinical management. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One-hundred and fifty-five consecutive patients, who were referred for further endoscopic procedures (EUS/ERCP) based on MRCP findings (performed within 4 weeks prior to admittance; a written radiological report as well as the digital images were available) were enrolled. Before the endoscopic examinations were done, the MRCP images were re-evaluated by an experienced endoscopist who was in charge of the further endoscopic management. The interpretations of the MRCP images by the radiologist and the endoscopist were then compared with the final diagnosis after the further endoscopic evaluation. Additionally, the recommendations made by the endoscopist for further patient management before and after MRCP image analysis were evaluated. RESULTS: The MRCP image quality was judged sufficient by the endoscopist in the majority of the cases (80 %).The diagnostic accuracy of the MRCP findings was 73 % based on the interpretation by the radiologist and 86 % from the interpretation of the endoscopist. In 14 patients the endoscopist scheduled an EUS instead of an ERCP after he had viewed the MRCP images. Overall, the endoscopic work-flow was modified by the additional interpretation of the MRCP by the endoscopist in 25/155 (16 %) of the cases. LIMITATIONS: This is a non-randomized, unblinded single-observer assessment. CONCLUSION: MRCP images should be additionally interpreted by an endoscopist before further endoscopic procedures are scheduled.

Long-term results (≥ 10 years) of endoscopic therapy for sphincter of Oddi dysfunction in patients with acute recurrent pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) is one important cause of idiopathic acute-recurrent pancreatitis (ARP). Several trials have documented complete remission from ARP after endoscopic sphincterotomy during a 2-3-year follow-up. Data with longer follow-up, however, are not available. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1995 and 1998, endoscopic sphincterotomy was performed in 37 patients with manometrically documented SOD and ARP. Afterwards, all patients were prospectively re-evaluated over a period of at least 2 years. In 2008, all patients and their primary physicians were contacted and the patients were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. If a case or situation was unclear, the patients were clinically re-evaluated at our hospital. RESULTS: During the initial prospective 2-year follow-up, relapsing pancreatitis was documented in 5/37 patients (14%). At this point, dual endoscopic sphincterotomy was performed in four patients, and one patient underwent surgical pancreatico-jejunostomy. On retrospective re-evaluation (total follow-up, 11.5±1.6 years) at least one episode of recurrent pancreatitis was found among 19/37 patients (51%). The mean number of relapses that occurred during long-term follow-up (0.7±0.7; range, 0-2) was lower than that recorded at the time of patient enrollment (2.5±0.5; range, 2-4). The recurrence rate did not differ with respect to the patient's first clinical presentation, their demographic data or initial manometric findings. However, relapsing pancreatitis was documented more often in patients who, in the past, had undergone either biliary or pancreatic endoscopic sphincterotomy (12/13 patients) than among those who had undergone dual endoscopic sphincterotomy first (7/24 patients; P<0.05). The median interval for relapsing pancreatitis was 3.5 years (range, 3-84 months). CONCLUSIONS: Follow-up after endoscopic therapy for SOD in patients with ARP should be considered for at least 5 years. For endoscopic treatment, dual endoscopic sphincterotomy may be preferred, although this will not completely prevent recurrence of pancreatitis. Endoscopic therapy nonetheless helped to decrease the frequency of relapse.

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates, and the European Society of Anaesthesiology Guideline: Non-anaesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy.

Propofol sedation by non-anaesthesiologists is an upcoming sedation regimen in several countries throughout Europe. Numerous studies have shown the efficacy and safety of this sedation regimen in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Nevertheless, this issue remains highly controversial. The aim of this evidence- and consensus-based set of guideline is to provide non-anaesthesiologists with a comprehensive framework for propofol sedation during digestive endoscopy. This guideline results from a collaborative effort from representatives of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA). These three societies have endorsed the present guideline.The guideline is published simultaneously in the Journals Endoscopy and European Journal of Anaesthesiology.

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates, and the European Society of Anaesthesiology Guideline: Non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy.

Propofol sedation by non-anesthesiologists is an upcoming sedation regimen in several countries throughout Europe. Numerous studies have shown the efficacy and safety of this sedation regimen in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Nevertheless, this issue remains highly controversial. The aim of this evidence- and consensus-based set of guideline is to provide non-anesthesiologists with a comprehensive framework for propofol sedation during digestive endoscopy. This guideline results from a collaborative effort from representatives of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA). These three societies have endorsed the present guideline.

Endoscopic sedation and monitoring practice in Germany: results from the first nationwide survey.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The use of sedation (e. g., of short-acting propofol) for gastrointestinal endoscopy has shown an upward trend in the United States and Europe over the last decade. This survey aimed at providing nationwide data on the current practice of endoscopic sedation and monitoring in Germany. METHODS: A 21-item survey regarding current practices of endoscopy, sedation and monitoring in gastrointestinal endoscopy was sent to 3 802 members of the German Society of Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS). RESULTS: A total of 1 061 / 3 802 (28%) questionnaires were returned. The respondents performed an average of 28 esophagogastro-duodenoscopies (EGDs) and 25 colonoscopies per week. Endoscopic procedures were staged in a hospital setting (60%) more often than in private practices (40%). The majority of the EGDs (74%) and colonoscopies (87%) were carried out under sedation, however, this fact may be influenced by a recall bias. The most frequently used agents for sedation were midazolam in 82% and propofol in 74% of the cases. The most common sedation regimens applied were propofol plus benzodiazepines (38%) and benzodiazepines with an opioid (35%). Patients were routinely monitored by pulse oximetry (97%), automated blood pressure readings (29%) and/or electrocardiography (13%). Supplemental oxygen was routinely administered in 34% of them. Endoscopists' satisfaction with sedation was greater among those using propofol than in the group applying benzodiazepines (visual analogue scale, 8.8 +/- 0.9 vs. 8.2 +/- 1.3, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Besides the common administration of short-acting benzodiazepines, sedation with propofol is also gaining ground in Germany; it is applied mainly in low doses (up to 150 mg). German endoscopists are highly satisfied with these sedation regimens, with propofol significantly leading the score. Patient monitoring predominantly follows currently prevailing guidelines.

[Early Barrett's carcinoma/high grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HG-IEN): pro endoscopic treatment--pro surgical treatment]. / Barrett-Frühkarzinom/Hochgradige intraepitheliale Neoplasie (HG-IEN): pro endoskopische Therapie--pro chirurgische Therapie.

Who may treat early Barrett's carcinoma of the oesophagus? The incidence of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus developing within Barrett's mucosa has substantially risen in the past few years. Furthermore, treatment of preneoplastic lesions or early carcinoma is controversial. From an endoscopist's point of view high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HG-IEN) should be resected endoscopically rather than destroyed endoscopically while early Barrett's carcinoma should undergo endoscopic staging resection. Surgical resection is rarely necessary because lymph node metastases are rare and there is some morbidity and mortality associated with the procedure. However, surgeons argue that complete surgical resection is required because no imaging technique reveals the exact extent of the lesion and, ultimately, the degree of infiltration can only be determined within the resected specimen. Also, only surgical procedures may remove all potentially involved regional lymph nodes. Furthermore, only within surgical resections we can eliminate all pre-existing Barrett's mucosa easily while endoscopic clearance of Barrett's mucosa is difficult and requires multiple sessions. The Merendino-Siewert procedure may be an option with very low morbidity and mortality. It is worthy of note that new endoscopic resection procedures have not been studied in a controlled fashion against conventional surgical procedures. Therefore, patients with HG-IEN or early Barrett's carcinoma of the esophagus should be recruited into controlled studies and be treated in specialised high-volume centres.

Transluminal endoscopic necrosectomy after acute pancreatitis: a multicentre study with long-term follow-up (the GEPARD Study).

BACKGROUND: As with endoscopic transmural drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections, the same transluminal access can be expanded to introduce an endoscope through the gastrointestinal wall into the retroperitoneum and remove infected pancreatic necroses under direct visual control. This study reports the first large series with long-term follow-up. METHODS: Data for all patients undergoing transluminal endoscopic removal of (peri)pancreatic necroses between 1999 and 2005 in six different centres were collected retrospectively, and the patients were followed up prospectively until 2008. The initial patient and treatment outcome data were recorded, as were long-term results. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients (63 men, 30 women; mean age 57 years) underwent a mean of six interventions starting at a mean of 43 days after an attack of severe acute pancreatitis. After establishment of transluminal access to the necrotic cavity and subsequent endoscopic necrosectomy, initial clinical success was obtained in 80% of the patients, with a 26% complication and a 7.5% mortality rate at 30 days. After a mean follow-up period of 43 months, 84% of the initially successfully treated patients had sustained clinical improvement, with 10% receiving further endoscopic and 4% receiving surgical treatment for recurrent cavities; 16% suffered recurrent pancreatitis. CONCLUSIONS: Direct transluminal endoscopic removal of pancreatic necroses is associated with good long-term maintenance of the high initial efficacy; complications can occur, with an associated mortality of around 7.5%. Further studies are necessary in order to optimise endotherapy and define its role in relation to surgery in the clinical management of such patients.

Capsule endoscopy interpretation by an endoscopy nurse - a comparative trial.

BACKGROUND: Capsule endoscopy is a common, pain-free diagnostic procedure for the small bowel. However, interpretation of the whole video recording is a time-consuming and costly procedure that can take up to 2 hours. The aim of the present study is two-fold: first to study the accuracy of capsule endoscopy analysis between a trained endoscopy nurse and a physician and secondly to determine if pre-evaluation by nursing staff might be time-effective for capsule reading. This study is especially important given the increasing financial pressure on current health-care systems. METHODS: A long-standing experienced endoscopy nurse, who was trained to read capsule endoscopy, and a physician, both blinded to the patient diagnosis and the other clinical findings reviewed 48 consecutive capsule endoscopy videos. The analyses of both the nurse and the physician were re-evaluated by an independent doctor regarding the agreement of the marked findings. RESULTS: Total time to read capsule endoscopy was significantly longer for the nurse's interpretation (63 +/- 26 min) as compared to the physician's interpretation (54 +/- 18 min, p < 0.01). The endoscopy nurse marked 236 thumbnails, whereas the doctor only marked 132 thumbnails. The nurse overlooked 4 of 64 relevant lesions (6 %), which had been detected by the physician. These overlooked lesions were not single important lesions, they were overlooked only in patients with multiple angiectasias of the small intestine, and thus the misdiagnosis was without clinical relevance. The physician overlooked 6 of 68 lesions detected by the nurse (9 %), also in patients with multiple angiodysplastic lesions and therefore without clinical relevance. On post-hoc analysis of the capsule video recordings the time needed by the physician to interpret the thumbnails marked by the nurse was 10 +/- 12 min. While there was no difference with respect to the estimated gastric emptying time (nurse 27 +/- 13 min vs. physician 28 +/- 14 min, n. s.), the estimated time of capsule passage through the ileocaecal valve was longer when interpreted by the endoscopy nurse (nurse 347 +/- 89 min vs. physician 326 +/- 74 min, n. s.). Nevertheless, the total cost for capsule pre-evaluation by the nurse was lower (13.23 euro vs. physician 17.82 euro). CONCLUSION: The endoscopy nurse detected 94 % of the significant lesions seen by the physician and no clinically relevant findings were overlooked. A pre-evaluation of the capsule video by trained staff is an accurate method and might be time effective.