Adverse events of self-expandable metal stent placement for malignant distal biliary obstruction: a large multicenter study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic placement of self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) may be accompanied by several types of adverse events. The present study analyzed the adverse events occurring after SEMS placement for MDBO. METHODS: The present study retrospectively investigated the incidence and types of adverse events in patients who underwent SEMS placement for MDBO between April 2018 and March 2021 at 26 hospitals. Risk factors for acute pancreatitis, cholecystitis, and recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Of the 1425 patients implanted with SEMSs for MDBO, 228 (16.0%) and 393 (27.6%) experienced early adverse events and RBO, respectively. Pancreatic duct without tumor involvement (P = .023), intact papilla (P = .025), and SEMS placement across the papilla (P = .037) were independent risk factors for acute pancreatitis. Tumor involvement in the orifice of the cystic duct was an independent risk factor for cholecystitis (P < .001). Use of fully and partially covered SEMSs was an independent risk factor for food impaction and/or sludge. Use of fully covered SEMSs was an independent risk factor for stent migration. Use of uncovered SEMSs and laser-cut SEMSs was an independent risk factor for tumor ingrowth. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic duct without tumor involvement, intact papilla, and SEMS placement across the papilla were independent risk factors for acute pancreatitis, and tumor involvement in the orifice of the cystic duct was an independent risk factor for cholecystitis. The risk factors for food impaction and/or sludge, stent migration, and tumor ingrowth differed among types of SEMSs.

The impact of COVID-19 on Japanese patients with eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders during the vaccination era.

Background: Eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs) are chronic allergic diseases categorized as eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and non-EoE EGIDs. Few studies regarding the association between EGIDs and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported. Although most Japanese individuals received the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine, the incidence of COVID-19 remained high in 2022. This study examines the incidence of COVID-19 in patients with EGIDs during the vaccination era. Methods: Patients with EGIDs who visited our department between October and December 2022 were enrolled in the study. The incidence and severity of COVID-19 prior to October 1, 2022 were determined. Patients who reported having COVID-19 also reported their hospitalization history, intensive care unit admissions, and EGID flares. The number of SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations received and treatment for EGIDs were obtained from the patients' medical records. Results: Of 111 patients with EGIDs (65 with EoE and 46 with non-EoE EGIDs) included in this study, 31 (28%) patients reported having COVID-19, including 14 (22%) with EoE and 17 (37%) with non-EoE EGIDs. Fifty-nine (84%) patients received two or more vaccinations, and 11 (16%) patients received no vaccinations. COVID-19 was mild in all but one patient who had moderate symptoms. COVID-19 was not associated with EGID flares. EGID treatments and an unvaccinated status were not associated with an increased risk of COVID-19. Conclusion: COVID-19 was mild in patients with EGIDs and not associated with EGIDs flares during the vaccination era. There was a relatively high incidence of COVID-19 among patients with non-EoE EGIDs.

Risk factors for adverse events associated with endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial pharyngeal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Superficial pharyngeal cancer can be treated with curative intent while preserving function using minimally invasive peroral endoscopic resection techniques such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). However, severe adverse events occasionally occur, such as laryngeal edema requiring temporary tracheotomy and fistula formation. Therefore, we investigated the risk factors for adverse events associated with ESD for superficial pharyngeal cancer. METHODS: This retrospective observational study was conducted at a single institution, and 63 patients who underwent ESD were enrolled. The primary outcome was the risk factors for adverse events associated with ESD. The secondary outcomes were adverse events associated with ESD and their frequency. RESULTS: The overall adverse event rate was 15.9% (10/63). The incidence of laryngeal edema requiring prophylactic temporary tracheotomy was 11.1%, while laryngeal edema requiring emergency temporary tracheotomy, postoperative bleeding, aspiration pneumonia, fistula, abscess, and stricture formation occurred in 1.6% of patients, respectively. Logistic regression analyses showed that a history of radiotherapy for head and neck cancer was a risk factor for adverse events (odds ratio [OR], 16.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.04-91.34; p = 0.001). After adjusting the model for differences in the baseline risk factors using the inverse probability of treatment weighting method, the adverse events were found to increase in association with a history of radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (OR, 39.66; 95% CI,5.85-268.72; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: History of radiotherapy for head and neck cancer is an independent risk factor for adverse events associated with ESD for superficial pharyngeal cancer. Among adverse events, laryngeal edema requiring prophylactic temporary tracheotomy was particularly high.

A follow-up questionnaire survey 2022 on radiation protection among 464 medical staff from 34 endoscopy-fluoroscopy departments in Japan.

Objectives: We surveyed and reported low protective equipment usage and insufficient knowledge among endoscopy-fluoroscopy departments in Japan in 2020. Two years later, we conducted a follow-up survey of doctors, nurses, and technologists in Japan. Methods: We conducted a questionnaire survey on radiation protection from May to June 2022. The participants were medical staff, including doctors, nurses, and radiological and endoscopy technicians in endoscopy-fluoroscopy departments. The questionnaire included 17 multiple-choice questions divided into three parts: background, equipment, and knowledge. Results: We surveyed 464 subjects from 34 institutions. There were 267 doctors (58%), 153 nurses (33%), and 44 technologists (9%). The rate of wearing a lead apron was 98% in this study. The rates of wearing a thyroid collar, lead glasses, and radiation dosimeter were 27%, 35%, and 74%, respectively. The trend of the protective equipment rate was similar to that of our previous study; however, radiation dosimetry among doctors was still low at 58%. The percentage of subjects who knew the radiation exposure (REX) dose of each procedure was low at 18%. Seventy-six percent of the subjects attended lectures on radiation protection, and 73% knew about the three principles of radiation protection; however, the concept of diagnostic reference levels was not well known (18%). Approximately 60% of the subjects knew about the exposure dose increasing cancer mortality (63%) and the 5-year lens REX limit (56%). Conclusions: There was some improvement in radiation protection equipment or education, but relatively little compared to the 2020 survey of endoscopy departments.

Medical radiation exposure during gastrointestinal enteral metallic stent placement: Post hoc analysis of the REX-GI study.

Background and Aim: Recently, the use of various endoscopic procedures performed under X-ray fluoroscopy guidance has increased. With the popularization of such procedures, diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) have been widely accepted as the global standard for various procedures with ionizing radiation. The Radiation Exposure from Gastrointestinal Fluoroscopic Procedures (REX-GI) study aimed to prospectively collect actual radiation exposure (RE) data and establish DRLs in gastrointestinal endoscopy units. In this post hoc analysis of the REX-GI study, we established DRLs for each disease site by analyzing cases of gastrointestinal enteral metallic stent placement. Methods: The REX-GI study was a multicenter, prospective observational study conducted to collect actual RE data during gastrointestinal enteral metallic stent placement. To establish DRL values for three disease sites, namely the esophagus, gastroduodenum, and colon, we examined fluoroscopy time (FT; min), number of X-ray images, air kerma at the patient entrance reference point (K a,r; mGy), and the air kerma-area product (P KA; Gy cm2) during enteral metallic stent placement. Results: Five-hundred and twenty-three stenting procedures were performed. The DRL values of FT (min) and the number of X-ray images for the esophagus/gastroduodenum/colon were 9/16/18 min and 9/15/11 min, respectively. Furthermore, the DRL values of K a,r and P KA for each disease site were 43.3/120/124 mGy and 10.3/36.6/48.4 Gy cm2, respectively. Among the procedures, esophageal stents were significantly associated with the lowest values (P < 0.001). Conclusion: The characteristics of RE vary according to disease site among gastrointestinal enteral metallic stent placements. Thus, it is desirable to set DRL values based on the disease site.

[Current real-world treatments for Japanese patients with eosinophilic esophagitis].

A total of 306 patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) were analyzed at our department. Proton pump inhibitors or potassium-competitive acid blockers were used as the first-line treatment in 286 (93.5%) patients. Fifty-five (18.0%) patients received topical steroid swallowing therapy. During 17.7-month mean follow-up, 46.4% of the patients were followed-up with no medications, 37.3% of the patients received maintenance or on-demand therapy using acid-suppressive drugs, and 9.8% of the patients received maintenance therapy with steroid swallowing. The majority of patients with EoE were treated using a therapeutic strategy similar to that used for gastroesophageal reflux disease. However, some patients were refractory to the treatment. Current real-world treatment strategies for Japanese patients with EoE are clarified.

Angle of covered self-expandable metallic stents after placement is a risk factor for recurrent biliary obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that covered self-expandable metallic stents (CSEMS) with a low axial forces after placement can cause early recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) due to precipitating sludge formation. AIM: To ascertain whether the angle of CSEMS after placement is a risk factor for RBO in unresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). METHODS: Between January 2010 and March 2019, 261 consecutive patients underwent self-expandable metallic stent insertion by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography at our facility, and 87 patients were included in this study. We evaluated the risk factors for RBO, including the angle of CSEMS after placement as the primary outcome. We measured the obtuse angle of CSEMS after placement on an abdominal radiograph using the SYNAPSE PACS system. We also evaluated technical and functional success, adverse events, time to RBO (TRBO), non-RBO rate, survival time, cause of RBO, and reintervention procedure as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: We divided the patients into two cohorts based on the presence or absence of RBO. The angle of CSEMS after placement (per 1° and per 10°) was evaluated using the multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis, which was an independent risk factor for RBO in unresectable distal MBO [hazard ratio, 0.97 and 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.94-0.99 and 0.54-0.92; P = 0.01 and 0.01, respectively]. For early diagnosis of RBO, the cut-off value of the angle of CSEMS after placement using the receiver operating characteristic curve was 130° [sensitivity, 50.0%; specificity 85.5%; area under the curve 0.70 (95%CI: 0.57-0.84)]. TRBO in the < 130° angle group was significantly shorter than that in the ≥ 130° angle group (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the angle of the CSEMS after placement for unresectable distal MBO is a risk factor for RBO. These novel results provide pertinent information for future stent management.

Comparison of 22-gauge standard and Franseen needles in EUS-guided tissue acquisition for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This large multicenter randomized controlled trial compared the diagnostic yields of 22-gauge standard and 22-gauge Franseen needles for EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) of solid pancreatic lesions. METHODS: Consecutive patients with solid pancreatic lesions were prospectively randomized to EUS-TA using standard or Franseen needles. Samples obtained with the first needle pass and with second and subsequent passes were evaluated separately. The primary endpoint was the rate of accuracy for diagnosis of malignancy. Other endpoints were technical success rate, sample cellularity, adverse events, diagnostic accuracy in patient subgroups, and the diagnostic accuracy and numbers of second and subsequent needle passes. RESULTS: Of 523 patients undergoing EUS-TA, 260 were randomized to using standard 22-gauge needles and 263 to 22-gauge Franseen needles. The technical success rate in each group was 99.6%, with similar adverse event rates in the standard (1.5%) and Franseen (.8%) needle groups. First-pass EUS-TA using the Franseen needle resulted in significantly greater diagnostic accuracy (84.0% vs 71.2%, P < .001) and sensitivity (82.4% vs 66.7%, P < .001) than first-pass EUS-TA using a standard needle and also resulted in superior diagnostic accuracy in patients requiring immunostaining. Second and subsequent EUS-TA using Franseen needles showed significantly greater accuracy (94.7% vs 90.0%, P = .049) and sensitivity (94.0% vs 88.6%, P = .047) and required fewer needle passes (1.81 vs 2.03, P = .008) than using standard needles. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-TA with the Franseen needle is superior to EUS-TA with a standard needle with respect to diagnostic accuracy per pass, particularly in patients who require immunostaining, and number of passes when using macroscopic on-site evaluation. (Clinical trial registration numbers: UMIN000030634 and jRCTs052180062.).