Location, morphology and invasiveness of lateral spreading tumors in the colorectum differ between two large cohorts from an eastern and western country.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Data from Japanese series show that surface morphology of laterally spreading tumors (LST) in the colon identifies lesions with different incidence and pattern of submucosal invasion. Such data from western countries are scarce. We compared clinical and histological features of LST in a western country and an eastern country, with special interest on mucosal invasiveness of LST, and investigated the effect of clinical factors on invasiveness in both countries. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with LST lesions ≥20mm were included from a multicenter prospective registry in Spain and from a retrospective registry from the National Cancer Center Hospital East, Japan. The primary outcome was the presence of submucosal invasion in LST. The secondary outcome was the presence of high-risk histology, defined as high-grade dysplasia or submucosal invasion. RESULTS: We evaluated 1102 patients in Spain and 663 in Japan. Morphological and histological characteristics differed. The prevalence of submucosal invasion in Japan was six-fold the prevalence in Spain (Prevalence Ratio PR=5.66; 95%CI: 3.96, 8.08), and the prevalence of high-risk histology was 1.5 higher (PR=1.44; 95%CI: 1.31, 1.58). Compared to the granular homogeneous type and adjusted by clinical features, granular mixed, flat elevated, and pseudo-depressed types were associated with higher odds of submucosal invasion in Japan, whereas only the pseudo-depressed type showed higher risk in Spain. Regarding high-risk histology, both granular mixed and pseudo-depressed were associated with higher odds in Japan, compared with only the granular mixed type in Spain. CONCLUSION: This study reveals differences in location, morphology and invasiveness of LST in an eastern and a western cohort.

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.).

Viabilidad de la enteroscopia monobalón realizada bajo sedación dirigida por endoscopista / Viability of single balloon enteroscopy performed under endoscopist-directed sedation

Introducción: existe controversia sobre quién debe responsabilizarse de la sedación en endoscopia digestiva, sobre todo en los procedimientos avanzados que exigen sedación profunda. La enteroscopia es uno de ellos. El objetivo del trabajo es valorar la viabilidad de la sedación controlada por endoscopista durante la enteroscopia de monobalón. Material y método: estudio prospectivo observacional de una serie de enteroscopias consecutivas. Personal dedicado: endoscopista, enfermera instrumentista y enfermera encargada de monitorización y administración de sedantes. Monitorización: pulsioximetría, tensión arterial cada cinco minutos, registro electrocardiográfico y frecuencia respiratoria. Administración continua de oxígeno. Insuflación con CO2. Posición del paciente: decúbito izquierdo. Control fluoroscópico. Resultados: cuarenta y cuatro exploraciones en 39 pacientes (24 hombres, 15 mujeres). Edad 74 (18-89). Grado ASA: I-12, II-23, III-9. Comorbilidades en el 68% de los casos. Fármacos empleados: propofol, 23 casos; propofol y midazolam, diez casos; propofol, midazolam y fentanilo, dos casos; propofol y fentanilo, dos casos; y midazolam y fentanilo, siete casos. Procedimientos completados: 100%. Tiempo de exploración: 52 minutos (20-120). Hallazgos diagnósticos en el 65,9% de los casos; maniobras terapéuticas en el 47,7%. Complicaciones graves: ninguna. Complicaciones menores derivadas de la sedación: 22,7%. Conclusión: la sedación controlada por endoscopista es eficaz y segura en la realización de enteroscopia con monobalón. Son convenientes estudios multicéntricos y con mayor número de casos para una mejor valoración de la eficacia, seguridad y eficiencia de la sedación por no anestesista en endoscopia avanzada en nuestro medio

Introduction: there is a lot of controversy with regard to who should be responsible for sedation during digestive endoscopy, particularly in advanced procedures that require deep sedation such as enteroscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the endoscopist-directed sedation viability during single balloon enteroscopy. Material and method: this was a prospective, observational study of a series of consecutive enteroscopies. The clinical staff included an endoscopist, scrub nurse and a nurse in charge of monitoring and sedative administration. The following parameters were monitored: pulse oximetry, blood pressure (every five minutes), electrocardiogram and respiratory rate. There was continuous supplemental oxygen and CO2 insufflation. The patient was in the left lateral decubitus position and a fluoroscopic control was used. Results: forty-four explorations were performed in 39 patients, 24 were male and 15 female. The median age was 74 (18-89) and the ASA score was I in 12 cases, II in 23 cases and III in nine cases. Comorbidities were present in 68% of cases. The drugs used included propofol in 23 cases, propofol and midazolam in ten cases, propofol/midazolam/fentanyl in two cases, propofol and fentanyl in two cases, and midazolam/fentanyl in seven cases. All procedures were complete. The length of the procedure was 52 minutes (20-120). There were diagnostic findings in 65.9% of cases and therapeutic measures in 47.7%. There were no severe complications and the rate of complications derived from sedation was 22.7%. Conclusion: endoscopist-directed sedation is effective and safe for single balloon enteroscopy. Multi-center and wider studies are needed in order to better assess the efficacy, safety and efficiency of sedation controlled by a non-anesthetist during advanced endoscopy in this field

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)

Viability of single balloon enteroscopy performed under endoscopist-directed sedation.

INTRODUCTION: there is a lot of controversy with regard to who should be responsible for sedation during digestive endoscopy, particularly in advanced procedures that require deep sedation such as enteroscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the endoscopist-directed sedation viability during single balloon enteroscopy. MATERIAL AND METHOD: this was a prospective, observational study of a series of consecutive enteroscopies. The clinical staff included an endoscopist, scrub nurse and a nurse in charge of monitoring and sedative administration. The following parameters were monitored: pulse oximetry, blood pressure (every five minutes), electrocardiogram and respiratory rate. There was continuous supplemental oxygen and CO2 insufflation. The patient was in the left lateral decubitus position and a fluoroscopic control was used. RESULTS: forty-four explorations were performed in 39 patients, 24 were male and 15 female. The median age was 74 (18-89) and the ASA score was I in 12 cases, II in 23 cases and III in nine cases. Comorbidities were present in 68% of cases. The drugs used included propofol in 23 cases, propofol and midazolam in ten cases, propofol/midazolam/fentanyl in two cases, propofol and fentanyl in two cases, and midazolam/fentanyl in seven cases. All procedures were complete. The length of the procedure was 52 minutes (20-120). There were diagnostic findings in 65.9% of cases and therapeutic measures in 47.7%. There were no severe complications and the rate of complications derived from sedation was 22.7%. CONCLUSION: endoscopist-directed sedation is effective and safe for single balloon enteroscopy. Multi-center and wider studies are needed in order to better assess the efficacy, safety and efficiency of sedation controlled by a non-anesthetist during advanced endoscopy in this field.

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.

Safety and risk factors for difficult endoscopist-directed ERCP sedation in daily practice: a hospital-based case-control study

Background: There are limited data concerning endoscopistdirected endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography deep sedation. The aim of this study was to establish the safety and risk factors for difficult sedation in daily practice. Patients and methods: Hospital-based, frequency matched case-control study. All patients were identified from a database of 1,008 patients between 2014 and 2015. The cases were those with difficult sedations. This concept was defined based on the combination of the receipt of high-doses of midazolam or propofol, poor tolerance, use of reversal agents or sedation-related adverse events. The presence of different factors was evaluated to determine whether they predicted difficult sedation. Results: One-hundred and eighty-nine patients (63 cases, 126 controls) were included. Cases were classified in terms of high-dose requirements (n = 35, 55.56%), sedation-related adverse events (n = 14, 22.22%), the use of reversal agents (n = 13, 20.63%) and agitation/discomfort (n = 8, 12.7%). Concerning adverse events, the total rate was 1.39%, including clinically relevant hypoxemia (n = 11), severe hypotension (n = 2) and paradoxical reactions to midazolam (n = 1). The rate of hypoxemia was higher in patients under propofol combined with midazolam than in patients with propofol alone (2.56% vs. 0.8%, p < 0.001). Alcohol consumption (OR: 2.674 [CI 95%: 1.098-6.515], p = 0.030), opioid consumption (OR: 2.713 [CI 95%: 1.096-6.716], p = 0.031) and the consumption of other psychoactive drugs (OR: 2.015 [CI 95%: 1.017-3.991], p = 0.045) were confirmed to be independent risk factors for difficult sedation. Conclusions: Endoscopist-directed deep sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is safe. The presence of certain factors should be assessed before the procedure to identify patients who are high-risk for difficult sedation (AU)

No disponible

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.

Safety and risk factors for difficult endoscopist-directed ERCP sedation in daily practice: a hospital-based case-control study.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data concerning endoscopist-directed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography deep sedation. The aim of this study was to establish the safety and risk factors for difficult sedation in daily practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Hospital-based, frequency matched case-control study. All patients were identified from a database of 1,008 patients between 2014 and 2015. The cases were those with difficult sedations. This concept was defined based on the combination of the receipt of high-doses of midazolam or propofol, poor tolerance, use of reversal agents or sedation-related adverse events. The presence of different factors was evaluated to determine whether they predicted difficult sedation. RESULTS: One-hundred and eighty-nine patients (63 cases, 126 controls) were included. Cases were classified in terms of high-dose requirements (n = 35, 55.56%), sedation-related adverse events (n = 14, 22.22%), the use of reversal agents (n = 13, 20.63%) and agitation/discomfort (n = 8, 12.7%). Concerning adverse events, the total rate was 1.39%, including clinically relevant hypoxemia (n = 11), severe hypotension (n = 2) and paradoxical reactions to midazolam (n = 1). The rate of hypoxemia was higher in patients under propofol combined with midazolam than in patients with propofol alone (2.56% vs. 0.8%, p < 0.001). Alcohol consumption (OR: 2.674 [CI 95%: 1.098-6.515], p = 0.030), opioid consumption (OR: 2.713 [CI 95%: 1.096-6.716], p = 0.031) and the consumption of other psychoactive drugs (OR: 2.015 [CI 95%: 1.017-3.991], p = 0.045) were confirmed to be independent risk factors for difficult sedation. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopist-directed deep sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is safe. The presence of certain factors should be assessed before the procedure to identify patients who are high-risk for difficult sedation.

Sedación en endoscopia digestiva / No disponible

No disponible

Gastrointestinal endoscopy sedation and monitoring practices in Spain: a nationwide survey in the year 2014.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The introduction of new sedative agents and a desire for improved patient care have encouraged the use of sedation for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy over the last decade. This survey aims to provide, within Spain, national and regional data on gastroenterologists' endoscopic sedation and monitoring practices, and on their attitudes concerning these practices. METHODS: A 19-item survey covering the current practices of sedation and monitoring in GI endoscopy was electronically mailed to all members of the three nationwide scientific societies. RESULTS: Of 2476 e-mailed questionnaires, a total of 569 (23 %) were returned, proportionally representing the structure of the Spanish health care system. Monitoring and resuscitation resources were universally available, as well as post-endoscopy recovery rooms. Endoscopy teams usually included a registered nurse (98.5 %), an auxiliary nurse (80.5 %), and other physicians (25.7 %), generally anesthesiologists. More than half of esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs) are performed with the patient under sedation; in 25 % of centers, more than 95 % colonoscopies are performed with the patient sedated, but a wide variation was observed. Pre-endoscopic risk is assessed in the vast majority of procedures. Propofol is the most commonly used sedative, either alone (in 70 % of EGDs and 80 % of colonoscopies) or in combination with other drugs. Private funding of a clinic was the only predictor of a significant increase in the use of sedation; 57.7 % of the respondents stated having difficulties in implementing sedation, with the limited availability of anesthesiologists and resuscitation training for the auxiliary staff the most common complaints. CONCLUSIONS: The use of sedation during GI endoscopy in Spain varies widely but is on the increase and is more common in private practice. Propofol is the preferred sedative in all procedures.

Hepatopatía glicogénica: una causa infrecuente y reversible de aumento de transaminasas en el paciente diabético. Caso clínico / Glycogenic hepatopathy: A rare and reversible cause of elevated transaminases in diabetic patients. Case report

No disponible

Experimental study of hybrid-knife endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) versus standard ESD in a Western country.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an effective but time-consuming treatment for early neoplasia that requires a high level of expertise. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and learning curve of gastric ESD with a hybrid knife with high pressure water jet and to compare with standard ESD. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a prospective non survival animal study comparing hybrid-knife and standard gastric ESD. Variables recorded were: Number of en-bloc ESD, number of ESD with all marks included (R0), size of specimens, time and speed of dissection and adverse events. Ten endoscopists performed a total of 50 gastric ESD (30 hybrid-knife and 20 standard). RESULTS: Forty-six (92 %) ESD were en-bloc and 25 (50 %) R0 (hybrid-knife: n = 13, 44 %; standard: n = 16, 80 %; p = 0.04). Hybrid-knife ESD was faster than standard (time: 44.6 +/- 21.4 minutes vs. 68.7 +/- 33.5 minutes; p = 0.009 and velocity: 20.8 +/- 9.2 mm(2)/min vs. 14.3 +/- 9.3 mm(2)/min (p = 0.079). Adverse events were not different. There was no change in speed with any of two techniques (hybrid-knife: From 20.33 +/- 15.68 to 28.18 +/- 20.07 mm(2)/min; p = 0.615 and standard: From 6.4 +/- 0.3 to 19.48 +/- 19.21 mm(2)/min; p = 0.607). The learning curve showed a significant improvement in R0 rate in the hybrid-knife group (from 30 % to 100 %). CONCLUSION: despite the initial performance of hybrid-knife ESD is worse than standard ESD, the learning curve with hybrid knife ESD is short and is associated with a rapid improvement. The introduction of new tools to facilitate ESD should be implemented with caution in order to avoid a negative impact on the results.