Endoscopic resolution and recurrence of gastric antral vascular ectasia after serial treatment with argon plasma coagulation.

AIM: To evaluate long-term endoscopic resolution and recurrence rate of gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE) after argon plasma coagulation (APC) treatment. METHODS: This was an IRB-approved retrospective single center study that included patients endoscopically treated for GAVE between 1/1/2008 to 12/31/2014. The primary and secondary end points of the study were rate of endoscopic resolution of GAVE after APC treatment and recurrence rate of GAVE after endoscopic resolution, respectively. Endoscopic resolution of GAVE was defined as no endoscopic evidence of GAVE after treatment with APC. Recurrence of GAVE was defined as endoscopic reappearance of GAVE after prior resolution. RESULTS: Twenty patients met the study criteria. Median age (range) of the patients was 59.5 years (42-74 years). GAVE was associated with underlying cirrhosis in 16 (80%) patients. Indications for initial esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) included hematemesis and/or melena (9/20, 45%), iron deficiency anemia (6/20, 30%), screening or surveillance of varices (4/20, 20%), and occult gastrointestinal bleeding (1/20, 5%). The patients were treated with a total of 55 APC sessions (range 1-7 sessions). Successful endoscopic resolution of GAVE was achieved in 8 out of 20 patients (40%). There was no correlation between number of treatment sessions and GAVE treatment success (P = NS). Recurrence of GAVE was noted on a subsequent EGD in 2 out of 8 patients (25%) with prior endoscopic resolution of GAVE. Median follow-up period for the study population was 627 d (range 63-1953 d). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic resolution rate of GAVE was low (40%) with a 25% recurrence rate after treatment with APC. These rates suggest that APC treatment of GAVE may not be optimal in many circumstances.

Prospective randomized controlled trial of an injectable esophageal prosthesis versus a sham procedure for endoscopic treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess whether endoscopic implantation of an injectable esophageal prosthesis, the Gatekeeper Reflux Repair System (GK), is a safe and effective therapy for controlling gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). METHODS: A prospective, randomized, sham-controlled, single-blinded, international multicenter study planned final enrollment of 204 patients in three groups: up to 60 lead-in, 96 GK, and 48 sham patients. The sham patients were allowed to cross over to the GK treatment arm or exit the study at 6 months. The primary end points were (1) reduction in serious device- and procedure-related adverse device effects compared with a surgical composite complication rate and (2) reduction in heartburn symptoms 6 months after the GK procedure compared with the sham procedure. The secondary end point was improved esophageal pH (total time pH was <4) 6 months after the GK procedure compared with baseline. RESULTS: A planned interim analysis was performed after 143 patients were enrolled (25 lead-in, 75 GK, and 43 sham patients), and the GK study was terminated early due to lack of compelling efficacy data. Four reported serious adverse events had occurred (2 perforations, 1 pulmonary infiltrate related to a perforation, and 1 severe chest pain) at termination of the study with no mortality or long-term sequelae. Heartburn symptoms had improved significantly at 6 months compared with baseline in the GK group (p < 0.0001) and the sham group (p < 0.0001), but no significant between-group difference in improvement was observed (p = 0.146). Esophageal acid exposure had improved significantly at 6 months compared with baseline in the GK group (p = 0.021) and the sham group (p = 0.003), but no significant between-group difference in improvement was observed (p = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: The GK procedure was associated with some serious but infrequent complications. No statistically significant difference in outcomes was observed between the treatment and control groups at 6 months compared with baseline.

EUS-guided FNA diagnostic yield of malignancy in solid pancreatic masses: a benchmark for quality performance measurement.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic yield of EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic masses is a potential benchmark for EUS-FNA quality, because the majority of EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses should be diagnostic for malignancy. OBJECTIVES: To determine the cytologic diagnostic rate of malignancy in EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses and to determine if variability exists among endoscopists and centers. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective study. PATIENTS: EUS centers provided cytology reports for all EUS-FNAs of solid, noncystic, >or=10-mm-diameter, solid pancreatic masses during a 1-year period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Cytology diagnostic of pancreatic malignancy. RESULTS: A total of 1075 patients underwent EUS-FNA at 21 centers (81% academic) with 41 endoscopists. The median number of EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic masses performed during the year per center was 46 (range, 4-177) and per endoscopist was 19 (range, 1-97). The mean mass dimensions were 32 x 27 mm, with 73% located in the head. The mean number of passes was 3.5. Of the centers, 90% used immediate cytologic evaluation. The overall diagnostic rate of malignancy was 71%, 95% confidence interval 0.69%-0.74%, with 5% suspicious for malignancy, 6% atypical cells, and 18% negative for malignancy. The median diagnostic rate per center was 78% (range, 39%-93%; 1st quartile, 61%) and per endoscopist was 75% (range, 0%-100%; 1st quartile, 52%). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study, participation bias, and varying chronic pancreatitis prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: (1) EUS-FNA cytology was diagnostic of malignancy in 71% of solid pancreatic masses and (2) endoscopists with a final cytologic diagnosis rate of malignancy for EUS-FNA of solid masses that was less than 52% were in the lowest quartile and should evaluate reasons for their low yield.

An instrument to predict endoscopy tolerance: a prospective randomized study.

Our purpose in this study was to determine if the use of an instrument developed by our group to direct sedation choice improves patient satisfaction with endoscopy sedation compared to standard sedation practice. After 200 enrollments, data were available for 194 patients who completed the study. There were nine cases of dissatisfaction: five (5%) in the control group and four (4%) in the intervention group (P = 0.78). The 95% confidence intervals (1%-10%) were almost identical, indicating no difference between groups. The study was stopped after an interim analysis showed no significant difference in satisfaction between the groups. This could have been because the assumption that patients with increased risk of dissatisfaction do better with deeper sedation is incorrect. Another explanation could be the increased awareness of the value of benzodiazepines in endoscopy. Consistent with our findings, nervousness rather than pain predicted dissatisfaction, and the optimal use of anxiolytics with amnesic properties may be comparable to that of propofol.

Development of an instrument to assess and predict satisfaction and poor tolerance among patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.

We aimed to test the reliability of a developed questionnaire that measures and predict aversive endoscopic experience. Two questionnaires (pre- and postprocedure) were given to patients presenting for routine endoscopy. The first questionnaire elicited demographics, prior endoscopic experience, history of drug or alcohol use, patient expectations, and levels of anxiety and nervousness before procedure. After endoscopy, tolerance and willingness to repeat the examination were determined. The primary outcome of "adverse endoscopic experience" (AEE) was defined as a score of > or =5 on the postprocedure overall level of satisfaction or unwillingness to repeat endoscopy. Thirteen of 148 subjects reported an AEE. Items measuring the primary outcome were internally validated by reliability analysis which significantly correlated with measures of aversive experience like pain, nervousness, and suffering during the procedure. Preprocedure factors that were associated with AEE in the univariate analysis and multivariate analysis were nervousness (P = 0.02) and chronic use of psychotropic drugs or alcohol (P = 0.03). In conclusion, we have developed a questionnaire that reliably measures aversive endoscopic experience. Nervousness before procedure and chronic use of psychotropic drugs are reliable predictors of such experience.

Endoscopic approach to gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

Unrevealing CT scans and ambiguous surveillance endoscopies fuel rising frustration for patient and physician. Several recent developments have added considerably to our understanding of submucosal masses and the stromal cell tumors often lurking within them.

Oral allopurinol does not prevent the frequency or the severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatitis is the most common major complication of ERCP. Efforts have been made to identify pharmacologic agents capable of reducing its incidence and severity. The aim of this trial was to determine whether prophylactic allopurinol, an inhibitor of oxygen-derived free radical production, would reduce the frequency and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Methods A total of 701 patients were randomized to receive either allopurinol or placebo 4 hours and 1 hour before ERCP. A database was prospectively collected by a defined protocol on patients who underwent ERCP. Standardized criteria were used to diagnose and grade the severity of postprocedure pancreatitis. RESULTS: The groups were similar with regard to patient demographics and to patient and procedure risk factors for pancreatitis. The overall incidence of pancreatitis was 12.55%. It occurred in 46 of 355 patients in the allopurinol group (12.96%) and in 42 of 346 patients in the control group (12.14%; p = 0.52). The pancreatitis was graded mild in 7.89%, moderate in 4.51%, and severe in 0.56% of the allopurinol group, and mild in 6.94%, moderate in 4.62%, and severe in 0.58% of the control group. There was no significant difference between the groups in the frequency or the severity of pancreatitis. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic oral allopurinol did not reduce the frequency or the severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

The yield and the predictors of esophageal pathology when upper endoscopy is used for the initial evaluation of dysphagia.

BACKGROUND: The utility of EGD when used as an initial test for the evaluation of dysphagia is unclear. The objective was to determine the yield and the predictive factors of significant pathology when EGD is performed as the initial test to evaluate dysphagia. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a computerized database. Data on patients who underwent EGD for dysphagia were retrieved from the endoscopy database of 6 endoscopy units. Patients who had undergone prior esophageal evaluation, failed EGD, or who had a history of prior upper-GI pathology were excluded. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate any relation between endoscopic findings and presenting clinical features. RESULTS: A total of 1649 patients with dysphagia (mean age 56.7 years, standard deviation 16.4; M:F 3:2) were analyzed. Abnormal findings at EGD were found in 70% (1150) of the patients, and a major pathology was seen in 54% (898). Male gender (p=0.0001), heartburn (p=0.0007), and odynophagia (p=0.0001) predicted the presence of major pathology. Cancer was found in 4% (70) of patients and was predicted by male gender (p=0.0002), age (p=0.01), and weight loss (p=0.04). The esophagus was normal in 29% (483) of patients and was predicted by female gender (p=0.0001) and the absence of heartburn (p=0.0004) but not age. There was a lack of details on patients' presentation and clinical history and an absence of long-term clinical follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: EGD is an effective and an appropriate tool for the initial evaluation of patients presenting with dysphagia. Early EGD should be considered, particularly, in male patients aged more than 40 years old who concomitantly report heartburn, odynophagia, or weight loss.

Acute pancreatitis after EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a pooled analysis from EUS centers in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and the severity of pancreatitis after EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses. A survey of centers that offer training in EUS in the United States was conducted. METHODS: A list of centers in which training in EUS is offered was obtained from the Web site of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Designated program directors were contacted via e-mail. The information requested included the number of EUS-guided FNA procedures performed for solid pancreatic masses, the number of cases of post-procedure pancreatitis, and the method for tracking complications. For each episode of pancreatitis, technical details were obtained about the procedure, including the location of the mass, the type of fine needle used, the number of needle passes, and the nature of the lesion. RESULTS: Nineteen of the 27 programs contacted returned the questionnaire (70%). In total, 4909 EUS-guided FNAs of solid pancreatic masses were performed in these 19 centers over a mean of 4 years (range 11 months to 9 years). Pancreatitis occurred after 14 (0.29%): 95% CI[0.16, 0.48] procedures. At two centers in which data on complications were prospectively collected, the frequency of acute pancreatitis was 0.64%, suggesting that the frequency of pancreatitis in the retrospective cohort (0.26%) was under-reported (p=0.22). The odds that cases of pancreatitis would be reported were 2.45 greater for the prospective compared with the retrospective cohort (95% CI[0.55, 10.98]). The median duration of hospitalization for treatment of pancreatitis was 3 days (range 1-21 days). The pancreatitis was classified as mild in 10 cases, moderate in 3, and severe in one; one death (proximate cause, pulmonary embolism) occurred after the development of pancreatitis in a patient with multiple comorbid conditions. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses is infrequently associated with acute pancreatitis. The procedure appears to be safe when performed by experienced endosonographers. The frequency of post EUS-guided FNA pancreatitis may be underestimated by retrospective analysis.

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: new progress, new questions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) are uncommon but important mesenchymal tumors of the GI tract. They are occasionally encountered on routine endoscopy examinations, when identification may present a diagnostic dilemma. The malignant form, fortunately rare, is typically aggressive and resistant to treatment. This paper reviews several important advances over the past several years in the diagnosis and treatment of GIST, as well as in understanding of its pathogenesis. RECENT FINDINGS: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has emerged as the diagnostic measure of choice in the evaluation of submucosal tumors of the GI tract, and EUS criteria have been devised for the identification and characterization of GIST. EUS can also guide needle aspiration of these lesions to obtain diagnostic tissue. The discovery of mutations in a membrane transduction receptor, KIT, has led to greater understanding of the pathogenesis of this tumor and has even provided clues to its cell of origin. Moreover, a unique therapeutic agent, imatinib, has been devised that specifically targets the aberrant KIT receptor and has demonstrated dramatic therapeutic efficacy in this otherwise resistant malignancy. Additional strides have been made in developing consensus definitions for GIST and for their laparoscopic resection. SUMMARY: Major advances in GIST diagnosis and treatment have occurred during the past several years and have improved the care of patients with all forms of this tumor.

Interobserver agreement among endosonographers for the diagnosis of neoplastic versus non-neoplastic pancreatic cystic lesions.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the degree of agreement among endosonographers for EUS diagnosis of neoplastic versus non-neoplastic pancreatic cystic lesions and the specific type of cystic lesion. METHODS: Videotapes of EUS procedures from 31 consecutive cases of a range of histopathologically proven lesions, including mucinous cystic neoplasm, serous cystadenoma, neuroendocrine tumor, intraductal papillary mucinous tumor, and pseudocyst, were used to make a study videotape, which was reviewed by 8 experienced endosonographers. The reviewers, blinded to clinical and surgical histopathology results, reviewed each case for the presence or absence of the following features: abnormality of pancreatic duct and parenchyma, margins, solid component, debris, and septations. They were asked to identify each lesion as neoplastic or non-neoplastic and to give a specific diagnosis for each lesion. RESULTS: There was fair agreement between endosonographers for diagnosis of neoplastic versus non-neoplastic lesions (kappa = 0.24). Agreement for individual types of lesions was moderately good for serous cystadenomas (kappa = 0.46) but fair for the remainder. Agreement was moderately good for presence or absence of solid component (kappa = 0.43); fair for presence or absence of abnormal pancreatic duct (kappa = 0.29), debris (kappa = 0.21), and septations (kappa = 0.30); and slight for presence or absence of margins (kappa = 0.01) and abnormal pancreatic parenchyma (kappa = 0.01). Accuracy rates of EUS for the diagnosis of neoplastic versus non-neoplastic lesions ranged from 40% to 93%. CONCLUSIONS: There is little more than chance interobserver agreement among experienced endosonographers for diagnosis of neoplastic versus non-neoplastic, specific type, and EUS features of pancreatic cystic lesions.

Hereditary pancreatitis: clinical presentation, ERCP findings, and outcome of endoscopic therapy.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary pancreatitis (HP) is an autosomal dominant disorder characterized by the onset of recurrent attacks of acute pancreatitis in childhood and frequent progression to chronic pancreatitis. There are limited data on the role of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP in patients with HP. The aims of this study were to describe the clinical presentation and findings on pancreatography and to evaluate the role of endoscopic and surgical intervention in patients with HP. METHODS: Twenty-seven consecutive patients with HP were referred for ERCP at two centers in the midwest United States. Medical records and pancreatograms were reviewed. RESULTS: Pancreatography was abnormal in all patients. The majority (70%) had severe (Cambridge Grade III) changes of chronic pancreatitis. Nineteen (70%) patients underwent endoscopic therapy and 8 (30%) surgical intervention. After endoscopic therapy (mean follow-up 32 months), 50% were symptom free, 38% had moderate improvement, and 12% had no or transient improvement in symptoms. After surgery (mean follow-up 32 months), 38% were symptom-free, 25% had moderate improvement, and 12% had transient improvement in symptoms. Two patients treated surgically died of pancreatic cancer. CONCLUSIONS: In the short-term, improving drainage of the pancreatic ductal system by endoscopic means effectively relieves pain and reduces the number of attacks of pancreatitis in the majority of patients with HP.