Risk factors for post-colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection bleeding and efficacy of carbazochrome sodium sulfonate: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Carbazochrome sodium sulfonate (CSS) is a hemostatic agent that reduces capillary permeability and enhances capillary resistance. However, its specific effects on colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) outcomes remain uncertain. This study aimed to assess the risk factors for post-ESD bleeding and the effect of CSS on colorectal ESD outcomes. METHODS: First, we retrospectively analyzed the risk factors for post-ESD bleeding using data from 1,315 lesions in 1,223 patients who underwent ESD for superficial colorectal neoplasms at eight institutions. Second, patients were divided into CSS and non-CSS groups using propensity score matching, and their outcomes from colorectal ESD were analyzed. RESULTS: The risk factors for post-colorectal ESD bleeding were identified as age of ≥70 years, tumor located in the rectum, tumor size of ≥40 mm, and post-ESD defect unclosure in both univariate and multivariate analyses. The CSS and non-CSS groups each consisted of 423 lesions after propensity score matching. The post-colorectal ESD bleeding rate was 3.5% (15/423) and 3.3% (14/423) in the CSS and non-CSS groups, respectively, indicating no significant differences. Among patients with the high-risk factors for post-ESD bleeding, the administration of CSS also did not demonstrate a significant reduction in the post-ESD bleeding rate compared to the non-CSS group. CONCLUSIONS: CSS administration is ineffective in preventing post-colorectal ESD bleeding in both the general population and individuals at a high risk for such bleeding. Our results indicate the necessity to reconsider the application of CSS for preventing post-colorectal ESD bleeding.

Monitoring of leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein and assessment by small bowel capsule endoscopy are prognostic for Crohn's disease patients.

Background and Aim: Endoscopy is important to determine the effectiveness of treatment for Crohn's disease (CD), but searching the entire small intestine is difficult. Thus, we investigated the usefulness of leucine-rich alpha-2 glycoprotein (LRG), a new biomarker for predicting mucosal activity, in evaluating the activity of CD small intestinal lesions. This will further determine whether the results of small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) affect the prognosis of patients with CD. Methods: A total of 114 patients with CD who underwent SBCE were included. We analyzed the correlation between LRG and Capsule Endoscopy Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CECDAI). The cutoff value of LRG to achieve mucosal healing was calculated using the receiver operating characteristic curve. Then, we compared the presence or absence of intervention and the relapse rate of patients who could not achieve mucosal healing. Results: The CECDAI correlated with LRG. The calculated LRG value for achieving mucosal healing was ≤11.9. Ninety-one patients were in clinical remission at the time of SBCE. During the follow-up period, 17 patients relapsed. As a result of SBCE, when no treatment intervention was performed in the case of CECDAI ≥3.5, the relapse rate was significantly higher than when CECDAI <3.5 or intervention was performed in the case of CECDAI ≥3.5. Conclusions: The results reveal that LRG correlates with the activity of the entire small intestine and that SBCE assessment and therapeutic intervention can influence patient prognosis.

Nasal breathing is superior to oral breathing when performing and undergoing transnasal endoscopy: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND : Transnasal endoscopy presents a technical difficulty when inserting the flexible endoscope. It is unclear whether a particular breathing method is useful for transnasal endoscopy. Therefore, we conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial to compare endoscopic operability and patient tolerance between patients assigned to nasal breathing or oral breathing groups. METHODS : 198 eligible patients were randomly assigned to undergo transnasal endoscopy with nasal breathing or with oral breathing. Endoscopists and patients answered questionnaires on the endoscopic operability and patient tolerance using a 100-mm visual analog scale ranging from 0 (non-existent) to 100 (most difficult/unbearable). The visibility of the upper-middle pharynx was recorded. RESULTS : Patient characteristics did not differ significantly between the groups. Nasal breathing showed a higher rate of good visibility of the upper-middle pharynx than oral breathing (91.9 % vs. 27.6 %; P < 0.001). Nasal breathing showed lower mean [SD] scores than oral breathing in terms of overall technical difficulty (21.0 [11.4] vs. 35.4 [15.0]; P < 0.001). Regarding patient tolerance, nasal breathing showed lower scores than oral breathing for overall discomfort (22.1 [18.8] vs. 30.5 [20.9]; P = 0.004) and other symptoms, including nasal and throat pain, choking, suffocating, gagging, belching, and bloating (all P < 0.05). The pharyngeal bleeding rate was lower in the nasal breathing group than in the oral breathing group (0 % vs. 9.2 %; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS : Nasal breathing is superior to oral breathing for those performing and undergoing transnasal endoscopy. Nasal breathing led to good visibility of the upper-middle pharynx, improved endoscopic operability, and better patient tolerance, and was safer owing to decreased pharyngeal bleeding.