Incidence and evolution of foreign body impaction in the upper gastrointestinal tract and its relationship with eosionophilic oesophagitis / Incidencia y evolución de las impactaciones por cuerpos extraños en el tracto digestivo superior y su relación con la esofagitis eosinofílica

Background: Foreign body impaction is a frequent indication of urgent endoscopy. One of the reasons for impaction is eosinophilic oesophagitis (EE). To analyze characteristics of oesophageal foreign body impactions and their relationship with eosinophilic oesophagitis.Methods: In this retrospective study, urgent endoscopies in a tertiary care centre were analyzed. We included all urgent endoscopies due to bolus and foreign body impactions performed between September 1st 2018 and September 1st 2020. We reviewed clinical data of all patients who were diagnosed with EE and compared it to impactions that were due to other motives. The mean follow-up time was 18.7 months.Results: 693 urgent endoscopy procedures were performed. 239 (34%) of these were due to foreign body ingestion. Mean age of the patients was 63 years old and 135 (63%) were men. EE was diagnosed in 36 (17%) patients. The factors associated with EE were age, to be younger than 50 years (OR, 7.3; 95% CI, 1.1–48.4; p=0.04), asthma/rhinitis/atopic dermatitis (OR, 8.9; 95% CI, 2.3–35.3; p=0.002), findings in the endoscopy as trachealization (OR, 9.7; 95% CI, 1.3–70.9; p=0.03) and psychotropic/calcium channel blocker drugs (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.009–0.9; p=0.04). 15 (7%) patients died. In 6 of them death was impaction-related. None patients with EE died.Conclusions: Foreign body impaction in the upper gastrointestinal tract due to EE is a frequent cause of urgent endoscopy. Being under 50 years of age, having asthma/rhinitis/atopic dermatitis, trachealization on the oesophagus and not taking psychotropic/calcium channel blocker drugs are factors associated with the diagnosis of EE. Mortality in the follow-up of patients without EE is important.(AU)

Antecedentes: La impactación por cuerpos extraños es una indicación frecuente de endoscopia urgente. Una de las causas de impactación es la esofagitis eosinofílica. Nuestro objetivo es analizar las características de las impactaciones por cuerpos extraños en el esófago y su relación con la esofagitis eosinofílica.Métodos: En este estudio retrospectivo, se analizan todas las endoscopias urgentes realizadas por impactación de alimentos y cuerpos extraños en un hospital terciario entre el 1 de septiembre de 2018 y el 1 de septiembre de 2020. Se analizan las características clínicas de los pacientes diagnosticados de esofagitis eosinofílica y se comparan con las impactaciones debidas a otros motivos. El seguimiento medio fue de 18,7 meses.Resultados: Se realizaron 693 procedimientos de endoscopia urgentes; de ellos, 239 (34%) fueron por impactación por cuerpos extraños. La edad media fue de 63 años y 135 (63%) eran hombres; 36 (17%) de todos los pacientes con impactación fueron diagnosticados de esofagitis eosinofílica. Los factores asociados a ella fueron la edad, ser menor de 50 años (OR 7,3; IC 95%: 1,1-48,4; p=0,04), el antecedente de asma y/o rinitis y/o dermatitis atópica (OR 8,9; IC 95%: 2,3-35,3; p=0,002), los hallazgos endoscópicos como traquealización (OR 9,7; IC 95%: 1,3-70,9; p=0,03) y el consumo de fármacos psicotrópicos o antagonistas del calcio (OR 0,09; IC 95%: 0,009-0,9; p=0,04). Fallecieron 15 (7%) pacientes, todos sin esofagitis eosinofílica y en 6 el fallecimiento se relacionó con las impactaciones.Conclusiones:La impactación por cuerpos extraños en el tubo digestivo por esofagitis eosinofílica es una entidad frecuente en los servicios de endoscopia de urgencia.(AU)

Incidence and evolution of foreign body impaction in the upper gastrointestinal tract and its relationship with eosionophilic oesophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Foreign body impaction is a frequent indication of urgent endoscopy. One of the reasons for impaction is eosinophilic oesophagitis (EE). To analyze characteristics of oesophageal foreign body impactions and their relationship with eosinophilic oesophagitis. METHODS: In this retrospective study, urgent endoscopies in a tertiary care centre were analyzed. We included all urgent endoscopies due to bolus and foreign body impactions performed between September 1st 2018 and September 1st 2020. We reviewed clinical data of all patients who were diagnosed with EE and compared it to impactions that were due to other motives. The mean follow-up time was 18.7 months. RESULTS: 693 urgent endoscopy procedures were performed. 239 (34%) of these were due to foreign body ingestion. Mean age of the patients was 63 years old and 135 (63%) were men. EE was diagnosed in 36 (17%) patients. The factors associated with EE were age, to be younger than 50 years (OR, 7.3; 95% CI, 1.1-48.4; p=0.04), asthma/rhinitis/atopic dermatitis (OR, 8.9; 95% CI, 2.3-35.3; p=0.002), findings in the endoscopy as trachealization (OR, 9.7; 95% CI, 1.3-70.9; p=0.03) and psychotropic/calcium channel blocker drugs (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.009-0.9; p=0.04). 15 (7%) patients died. In 6 of them death was impaction-related. None patients with EE died. CONCLUSIONS: Foreign body impaction in the upper gastrointestinal tract due to EE is a frequent cause of urgent endoscopy. Being under 50 years of age, having asthma/rhinitis/atopic dermatitis, trachealization on the oesophagus and not taking psychotropic/calcium channel blocker drugs are factors associated with the diagnosis of EE. Mortality in the follow-up of patients without EE is important.

Clinical validation of risk scoring systems to predict risk of delayed bleeding after EMR of large colorectal lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Endoscopic Resection Group of the Spanish Society of Endoscopy (GSEED-RE) model and the Australian Colonic Endoscopic Resection (ACER) model were proposed to predict delayed bleeding (DB) after EMR of large superficial colorectal lesions, but neither has been validated. We validated and updated these models. METHODS: A multicenter cohort study was performed in patients with nonpedunculated lesions ≥20 mm removed by EMR. We assessed the discrimination and calibration of the GSEED-RE and ACER models. Difficulty performing EMR was subjectively categorized as low, medium, or high. We created a new model, including factors associated with DB in 3 cohort studies. RESULTS: DB occurred in 45 of 1034 EMRs (4.5%); it was associated with proximal location (odds ratio [OR], 2.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-6.16), antiplatelet agents (OR, 2.51; 95% CI, .99-6.34) or anticoagulants (OR, 4.54; 95% CI, 2.14-9.63), difficulty of EMR (OR, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.41-7.40), and comorbidity (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, .99-4.47). The GSEED-RE and ACER models did not accurately predict DB. Re-estimation and recalibration yielded acceptable results (GSEED-RE area under the curve [AUC], .64 [95% CI, .54-.74]; ACER AUC, .65 [95% CI, .57-.73]). We used lesion size, proximal location, comorbidity, and antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy to generate a new model, the GSEED-RE2, which achieved higher AUC values (.69-.73; 95% CI, .59-.80) and exhibited lower susceptibility to changes among datasets. CONCLUSIONS: The updated GSEED-RE and ACER models achieved acceptable prediction levels of DB. The GSEED-RE2 model may achieve better prediction results and could be used to guide the management of patients after validation by other external groups. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03050333.).

Guía clínica para la resección mucosa endoscópica de lesiones colorrectales no pediculadas / Clinical guidelines for endoscopic mucosal resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions

Este documento resume el contenido de la Guía de resección mucosa endoscópica elaborada por el grupo de trabajo de la Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva (GSEED de Resección Endoscópica) y expone las recomendaciones sobre el manejo endoscópico de las lesiones neoplásicas colorrectales superficiales (AU)

This document summarizes the contents of the Clinical Guidelines for the Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Lesions that was developed by the working group of the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy (GSEED of Endoscopic Resection). This document presents recommendations for the endoscopic management of superficial colorectal neoplastic lesions (AU)

Guía clínica para la resección mucosa endoscópica de lesiones colorrectales no pediculadas / Clinical guidelines for endoscopic mucosal resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions

Este documento resume el contenido de la Guía de resección mucosa endoscópica elaborada por el grupo de trabajo de la Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva (GSEED de Resección Endoscópica) y expone las recomendaciones sobre el manejo endoscópico de las lesiones neoplásicas colorrectales superficiales (AU)

This document summarizes the contents of the Clinical Guidelines for the Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Lesions that was developed by the working group of the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy (GSEED of Endoscopic Resection). This document presents recommendations for the endoscopic management of superficial colorectal neoplastic lesions (AU)

Clinical guidelines for endoscopic mucosal resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions.

This document summarizes the contents of the Clinical Guidelines for the Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Lesions that was developed by the working group of the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy (GSEED of Endoscopic Resection). This document presents recommendations for the endoscopic management of superficial colorectal neoplastic lesions.

Clinical guidelines for endoscopic mucosal resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions. / Guía clínica para la resección mucosa endoscópica de lesiones colorrectales no pediculadas.

This document summarizes the contents of the Clinical Guidelines for the Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Lesions that was developed by the working group of the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy (GSEED of Endoscopic Resection). This document presents recommendations for the endoscopic management of superficial colorectal neoplastic lesions.

A Scoring System to Determine Risk of Delayed Bleeding After Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Colorectal Lesions.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: After endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of colorectal lesions, delayed bleeding is the most common serious complication, but there are no guidelines for its prevention. We aimed to identify risk factors associated with delayed bleeding that required medical attention after discharge until day 15 and develop a scoring system to identify patients at risk. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 1214 consecutive patients with nonpedunculated colorectal lesions 20 mm or larger treated by EMR (n = 1255) at 23 hospitals in Spain, from February 2013 through February 2015. Patients were examined 15 days after the procedure, and medical data were collected. We used the data to create a delayed bleeding scoring system, and assigned a weight to each risk factor based on the ß parameter from multivariate logistic regression analysis. Patients were classified as being at low, average, or high risk for delayed bleeding. RESULTS: Delayed bleeding occurred in 46 cases (3.7%, 95% confidence interval, 2.7%-4.9%). In multivariate analysis, factors associated with delayed bleeding included age ≥75 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.36; P < .01), American Society of Anesthesiologist classification scores of III or IV (OR, 1.90; P ≤ .05), aspirin use during EMR (OR, 3.16; P < .05), right-sided lesions (OR, 4.86; P < .01), lesion size ≥40 mm (OR, 1.91; P ≤ .05), and a mucosal gap not closed by hemoclips (OR, 3.63; P ≤ .01). We developed a risk scoring system based on these 6 variables that assigned patients to the low-risk (score, 0-3), average-risk (score, 4-7), or high-risk (score, 8-10) categories with a receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.83). In these groups, the probabilities of delayed bleeding were 0.6%, 5.5%, and 40%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of delayed bleeding after EMR of large colorectal lesions is 3.7%. We developed a risk scoring system based on 6 factors that determined the risk for delayed bleeding (receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.77). The factors most strongly associated with delayed bleeding were right-sided lesions, aspirin use, and mucosal defects not closed by hemoclips. Patients considered to be high risk (score, 8-10) had a 40% probability of delayed bleeding.