A randomized controlled trial of pre-procedure simethicone and N-acetylcysteine to improve mucosal visibility during gastroscopy - NICEVIS.

Background and study aims: Mucosal views can be impaired by residual bubbles and mucus during gastroscopy. This study aimed to determine whether a pre-gastroscopy drink containing simethicone and N-acetylcysteine improves mucosal visualisation. Patients and methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial recruiting 126 subjects undergoing routine gastroscopy. Subjects were randomized 1:1:1 to receive: A-pre-procedure drink of water, simethicone and N-acetylcysteine (NAC); B-water alone; or C-no preparation. Study endoscopists were blinded to group allocation. Digital images were taken at 4 locations (lower esophagus/upper gastric body/antrum/fundus), and rated for mucosal visibility (MV) using a 4-point scale (1 = best, 4 = worst) by 4 separate experienced endoscopists. The primary outcome measure was mean mucosal visibility score (MVS). Secondary outcome measures were procedure duration and volume of fluid flush required to achieve adequate mucosal views. Results: Mean MVS for Group A was significantly better than for Group B (1.35 vs 2.11, P < 0.001) and Group C (1.35 vs 2.21, P < 0.001). Mean flush volume required to achieve adequate mucosal views was significantly lower in Group A than Group B (2.0 mL vs 31.5 mL, P = 0.001) and Group C (2.0 mL vs 39.2 mL P < 0.001). Procedure duration did not differ significantly between any of the 3 groups. MV scores at each of the 4 locations demonstrated significantly better mucosal visibility in Group A compared to Group B and Group C (P < 0.0025 for all comparisons). Conclusions: A pre-procedure drink containing simethicone and NAC significantly improves mucosal visibility during gastroscopy and reduces the need for flushes during the procedure. Effectiveness in the lower esophagus demonstrates potential benefit in Barrett's oesophagus surveillance gastroscopy.

Endoscopic resection of sporadic duodenal adenomas: comparison of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) techniques and the risks of late delayed bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic resection (ER) of sporadic duodenal adenomas (SDAs) is an alternative treatment strategy to surgical excision but carries substantial risks of bleeding. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of SDAs has a high rate of perforation. This study aimed to examine the outcome for ER of SDAs in two large UK centers, both using a novel hybrid endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with ESD. METHODS: Prospective endoscopy databases of ER cases were examined for the period January 2005 to December 2012. Records were analyzed for patient demographics, lesion size and morphology, staging investigations, procedural technique, outcomes, histology, complications, and follow-up assessments. RESULTS: The study included 34 patients. The mean adenoma size was 25 mm. Of the 34 cases, 21 (62 %) were managed by the traditional snare EMR technique, 12 (35 %) by the hybrid EMR-ESD technique, and 1 by full en bloc ESD. Successful resection was achieved in 33 (97 %) of the 34 cases. En bloc resection and recurrence rates did not differ significantly between the cases treated by EMR and those treated by hybrid EMR-ESD. Three episodes of significant delayed bleeding occurred 1-18 days after the procedure. No perforations or deaths occurred. The risk of delayed bleeding was higher for the lesions 30 mm in diameter or larger than for the lesions smaller than 30 mm (33% vs. 0 %; p = 0.003). The risk of delayed bleeding was not related to the ER technique used (EMR, 9.5 %; ESD/hybrid, 7.7 %; p = 0.855). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic resection is an effective treatment for SDAs and can avoid the need for open surgery. This is the first series to report the use of a hybrid EMR-ESD technique for the treatment of SDAs in a Western setting. However, this technique did not confer any major outcome benefits over EMR. The risk of delayed bleeding is substantial, and bleeding may occur up to 18 days after the procedure. The risk of delayed bleeding was increased with lesions larger than 30 mm but was not influenced by the endoscopic technique.

High-definition endoscopy with i-Scan for evaluation of small colon polyps: the HiSCOPE study.

BACKGROUND: Traditional white-light endoscopy cannot reliably distinguish between small (<10 mm) adenomatous and hyperplastic colon polyps. High-definition white-light (HDWL) endoscopy and i-Scan may improve in vivo characterization of small colon polyps. OBJECTIVE: To compare HDWL endoscopy and HDWL plus i-Scan for the assessment of small colon polyps and to measure performance against the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) thresholds for assessment of diminutive colon polyps. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Single academic hospital. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing bowel cancer screening colonoscopy. INTERVENTION: In vivo assessment of all polyps <10 mm by using HDWL and i-Scan image enhancement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measure was overall diagnostic accuracy of in vivo assessment of colon polyps <10 mm. Secondary outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity for adenomatous histology, negative predictive value for adenomatous histology of diminutive rectosigmoid polyps, and accuracy of prediction of polyp surveillance intervals. RESULTS: A total of 209 polyps in 84 patients were included. There were no significant differences between HDWL endoscopy and i-Scan in characterization of polyps <10 mm (accuracy 93.3% vs 94.7%; P = 1.00; sensitivity 95.5% vs 97.0%; P = .50; specificity 89.3% vs 90.7%; P = 1.00). The negative predictive value for adenomatous histology of diminutive rectosigmoid polyps was 100% with both HDWL endoscopy and i-Scan. U.K. and U.S. polyp surveillance intervals were predicted with 95.2% accuracy with HDWL endoscopy and 97.2% accuracy with i-Scan. LIMITATIONS: Single-center study. CONCLUSION: HDWL endoscopy may be as accurate as HDWL with i-Scan image enhancement for the in vivo characterization of small colon polyps. Both modalities fulfil the ASGE performance thresholds for the assessment of diminutive colon polyps. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01761279.).

Endoscopic management of nonampullary duodenal polyps.

Duodenal polyps are a rare finding in patients presenting for gastroscopy, being found in 0.3-4.6% of cases. The majority of patients are asymptomatic. The most common lesions necessitating removal are duodenal adenomas which should be differentiated from other mucosal lesions such as ectopic gastric mucosa, and submucosal lesions such as carcinoids and gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs). Adenomas can occur sporadically or as part of a polyposis syndrome. Both groups carry malignant potential but this is higher in patients with a polyposis syndrome. The majority of sporadic duodenal adenomas are flat or sessile and occur in the second part of the duodenum. Historically duodenal adenomas have been managed by radical surgery, which carried significant mortality and morbidity, or more conservative local surgical excision which resulted in high local recurrence rates. There is growing evidence for the use of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) techniques for treatment of sporadic nonampullary duodenal adenomas, with good outcomes and low complication rates. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) carries greater risk of complications and should be reserved for experts in this technique. Patients with sporadic duodenal adenomas carry an increased risk of colonic neoplasia and should be offered colonoscopy. The impact of endoscopic resection on the course of polyposis syndromes such as familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) needs further study.