Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy for Treatment of Boerhaave's syndrome: a multicenter analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Boerhaave's syndrome, an effort rupture of the esophagus, is a rare but serious condition. Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) is a new therapeutic approach for gastrointestinal perforation. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted at five tertiary hospitals in southern Germany. All patients treated for Boerhaave's syndrome since 2010 were identified and included. Treatment success and outcomes were assessed and compared between the different modes of primary treatment. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients with Boerhaave's syndrome were identified (median age 68 years; n = 16 female). The primary treatment was EVT in 25 cases, surgery in 14, and endoscopic stenting in 15. Primary EVT was successful in 20 of the 25 patients (80.0%). Two patients were switched to surgical treatment and one was switched to esophageal stenting and two died. The mortality rate was lower (P = 0.160) in patients treated primarily with EVT (n = 2, 8.0%) than in comparison to patients of the non-EVT group (n = 8, 25.0%). Treatment success was significantly higher (P = 0.007) for primary EVT (80.0%) than for non-EVT (43.8%). Primary EVT was associated with treatment success in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: EVT showed a high success rate for treatment of Boerhaave's syndrome and was associated with treatment success.

Alternating gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine alone versus continuous gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel after induction treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (ALPACA): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: A standardised dose-reduction strategy has not been established for the widely used gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel regimen in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of alternating treatment cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine combination therapy and gemcitabine alone versus continuous treatment with the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine combination. METHODS: ALPACA was a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial conducted at 29 study centres across Germany. Patients aged 18 years or older with a histologically or cytologically confirmed diagnosis of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who had not been previously treated for advanced disease were enrolled. After an induction phase with three cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine combination therapy (nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle), patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by stratified permuted block randomisation either to continue treatment with standard nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine or to receive alternating cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine and gemcitabine alone. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Randomisation was done centrally by the study statistician using a computer-generated randomisation list, and was stratified by Karnofsky Performance Status and presence of liver metastases. The primary endpoint was the derivation of an unbiased point estimate and an associated confidence interval with a confidence coefficient of 80% for the hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival after randomisation, without testing a specific hypothesis, analysed by intention to treat in all patients who started randomised treatment. Safety was analysed according to treatment received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02564146, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between May 27, 2016, and May 27, 2021, 325 patients were enrolled. Following three cycles of induction treatment, 174 patients were randomly assigned: 85 to continue receiving standard nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine, of whom 79 started treatment, and 89 to the alternating treatment schedule, of whom 88 started treatment. Of the 167 patients who started randomised treatment, 88 (53%) were female and 79 (47%) were male. Median overall survival after randomisation was 10·4 months (80% CI 9·2-12·0) in the group that received standard treatment and 10·5 months (10·2-11·1) in the group that received alternating treatment (HR 0·90, 80% CI 0·72-1·13; p=0·56). The most common adverse events of any grade were peripheral neuropathy (59 [74%] of 80 patients in the continuous treatment group vs 53 [62%] of 85 patients in the alternating treatment group) and fatigue (43 [54%] vs 44 [52%]). Treatment-emergent serious adverse events after randomisation occurred in 40 (50%) patients in the continuous treatment group and in 28 (33%) in the alternating treatment group. Fewer treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in patients treated with alternating cycles compared with those receiving standard therapy, especially for peripheral neuropathy (17 [21%] patients in the continuous treatment group vs 12 [14%] in the alternating treatment group) and infections (16 [20%] vs nine [11%]). There were two treatment-related deaths after randomisation, both in the continuous treatment group (one multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, not treated after randomisation, and one interstitial lung disease). INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that a dose-reduced regimen with alternating cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine and gemcitabine alone after three induction cycles is associated with similar overall survival to that for standard treatment with nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine, but with improved tolerability. We therefore propose that a switch to the alternating schedule could be considered in a clinical setting for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who have at least stable disease after three cycles of nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine treatment. FUNDING: Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb.

[Endoscopic Diagnosis and Treatment of Early Mucosal Neoplasms in the Oesophagus]. / Endoskopische Diagnostik und Therapie von malignen epithelialen Läsionen und ihren Vorläufern im Ösophagus.

Endoscopy is the gold standard for diagnosis of oesophageal cancer and its precursor lesions. Besides this, endoscopy treatment of these precursor lesions and early oesophageal cancer has been well evaluated and established. This includes dysplastic lesions associated with Barrett's oesophagus and early adenocarcinoma, as well as early squamous cell cancer of the oesophagus. The role of endoscopy for diagnosis and treatment of these lesions is summarised.

[Endoscopic Diagnosis and Treatment of Early Mucosal Neoplasms in the Oesophagus]. / Endoskopische Diagnostik und Therapie von malignen epithelialen Läsionen und ihren Vorläufern im Ösophagus.

Endoscopy is the gold standard for diagnosis of oesophageal cancer and its precursor lesions. Besides this, endoscopy treatment of these precursor lesions and early oesophageal cancer has been well evaluated and established. This includes dysplastic lesions associated with Barrett's oesophagus and early adenocarcinoma, as well as early squamous cell cancer of the oesophagus. The role of endoscopy for diagnosis and treatment of these lesions is summarised.

Propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy and enteral stenting for malignant gastric outlet.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) significantly reduce patients' quality of life. Endoscopic treatment involves enteral stenting or endoscopic ultrasonography to perform gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE). Aim was to compare enteral stenting with EUS-GE for endoscopic treatment of malignant GOO. METHODS: We retrospectively compared enteral stenting with EUS-GE for the treatment of malignant GOO. Patients treated at our institution were identified and a propensity score matching analysis was performed. Treatment failure was the primary outcome, while the secondary endpoints were time until treatment failure, technical and clinical success rates, and adverse event rates. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients were included in the final analysis. Of whom, 44 were included in each of the two treatment groups. Treatment failure occurred significantly more frequently in the enteral stenting group (13/44) compared with the EUS-GE group (4/44; hazard ratio: 4,9; 95% CI 1.6-15.1). A Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a median time until treatment failure of 22.0 weeks (95% CI 4.6-39.4) in the enteral stenting group compared with 76.0 weeks (95% CI 55.9-96.1) in the EUS-GE group (P = .002). No difference in technical success and clinical success was detected. Technical success was achieved in 43/44 patients (97.7%) in the enteral stenting group compared with 41/44 patients (93.2%) in the EUS-GE group, while clinical success was achieved in 32/44 (72.7%) and 35/44 (79.5%) patients, respectively. Nine adverse events were observed (9/44, 10.2%). There were no differences in 30-day adverse event rate and 30-day mortality rate. CONCLUSION: EUS-GE was superior to enteral stenting in the treatment of malignant GOO in terms of treatment failure and time until treatment failure in a propensity score-matched cohort.

Endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary lesions of minor papilla.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Ampullary lesions (ALs) of the minor duodenal papilla are extremely rare. Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) is a routinely used treatment for AL of the major duodenal papilla, but the role of EP for minor AL has not been accurately studied. METHODS: We identified 20 patients with ALs of minor duodenal papilla in the multicentric database from the Endoscopic Papillectomy vs Surgical Ampullectomy vs Pancreatitcoduodenectomy for Ampullary Neoplasm study, which included 1422 EPs. We used propensity score matching (nearest-neighbor method) to match these cases with ALs of the major duodenal papilla based on age, sex, histologic subtype, and size of the lesion in a 1:2 ratio. Cohorts were compared by means of chi-square or Fisher exact test as well as Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Propensity score-based matching identified a cohort of 60 (minor papilla 20, major papilla 40) patients with similar baseline characteristics. The most common histologic subtype of lesions of minor papilla was an ampullary adenoma in 12 patients (3 low-grade dysplasia and 9 high-grade dysplasia). Five patients revealed nonneoplastic lesions. Invasive cancer (T1a), adenomyoma, and neuroendocrine neoplasia were each found in 1 case. The rate of complete resection, en-bloc resection, and recurrences were similar between the groups. There were no severe adverse events after EP of lesions of minor papilla. One patient had delayed bleeding that could be treated by endoscopic hemostasis, and 2 patients showed a recurrence in surveillance endoscopy after a median follow-up of 21 months (interquartile range, 12-50 months). CONCLUSIONS: EP is safe and effective in ALs of the minor duodenal papilla. Such lesions could be managed according to guidelines for EP of major duodenal papilla.

Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing a novel and dedicated device with conventional endoscopic techniques for the treatment of buried bumper syndrome (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Buried bumper syndrome (BBS) is a rare adverse event of PEG tubes. This study compared the newly developed Flamingo device (Fujifilm Medwork GmbH, Höchstadt, Germany) with conventional endoscopic techniques for BBS treatment. METHODS: This prospective, randomized controlled trial compared the Flamingo set (study group) with other endoscopic techniques (control group) for BBS treatment in 6 German hospitals. The primary endpoint was procedure time. Further outcome parameters were technical success, adverse event rate, and number and cost of devices used in each group. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients (18 in each group; mean age, 73 years; 12 women) were included in this study between March 2018 and December 2022. Median time since placement of the feeding tube was 30 months. The bumper was located in the gastric corpus in 27 patients, and the internal bumper was completely overgrown in 31 patients. The duration of the removal procedure was 17 minutes (range, 3-72) in the study group compared with 38 minutes (range, 12-111) in the control group (P = .046). The primary technical success rate was 77.8% in the study group and 55.6% in the control group (P = .157), whereas the overall technical success rate was 100% compared with 83.3% (P = .070). Adverse events occurred in 4 patients (11.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic removal of the buried bumper using the Flamingo device was significantly faster than that with other endoscopic techniques and showed a higher technical success rate. This device may become the endoscopic treatment of choice for BBS. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03186066.).

[Use of specific antidotes in DOAC-associated severe gastrointestinal bleeding - an expert consensus - Antagonozation of direct oral anticoagulants in gastrointestinal hemorrhages]. / Einsatz von spezifischen Antidots bei DOAK-assoziierter schwerer gastrointestinaler Blutung ­ ein Expertenkonsensus.

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is one of the most common complications associated with the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). Clear algorithms exist for the emergency measures in (suspected) GI bleeding, including assessing the medication history regarding anti-platelet drugs and anticoagulants as well as simple coagulation tests during pre-endoscopic management. Platelet transfusions, fresh frozen plasma (FFP), or prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) are commonly used for optimizing the coagulation status. For severe bleeding under the thrombin inhibitor dabigatran, idarucizumab is available, and for bleeding under the factor Xa inhibitors rivaroxaban or apixaban, andexanet alfa is available as specific antidotes for DOAC antagonization. These antidotes represent emergency drugs that are typically used only after performing guideline-compliant multimodal measures including emergency endoscopy. Antagonization of oral anticoagulants should be considered for severe gastrointestinal bleeding in the following situations: (1) refractory hemorrhagic shock, (2) endoscopically unstoppable bleeding, or (3) nonavoidable delays until emergency endoscopy for life-threatening bleeding. After successful (endoscopic) hemostasis, anticoagulation (DOACs, vitamin K antagonist, heparin) should be resumed timely (i.e. usually within a week), taking into account individual bleeding and thromboembolic risk.

Integrated Analysis of the RASH Study with the Use of the "Burden of Therapy" (BOTh®TM) Methodology-A Novel Tool for Assessing Adverse Events in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer.

This analysis of the RASH trial (NCT01729481) aimed at gaining a better understanding of the "Burden of Therapy" (BOTh®TM) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). In the RASH study, 150 patients with newly diagnosed metastatic PDAC were treated with gemcitabine plus erlotinib (gem/erlotinib) for four weeks. Patients who developed a skin rash during this four-week run-in phase continued with the gem/erlotinib treatment, while rash-negative patients were switched to FOLFIRINOX. The study demonstrated a 1-year survival rate of rash-positive patients who received gem/erlotinib as first-line treatment that was comparable to previous reports of patients receiving FOLFIRINOX. To understand whether these comparable survival rates may be accompanied by better tolerability of the gem/erlotinib treatment compared to FOLFIRINOX, the BOTh®TM methodology was used to continuously quantify and depict the burden of therapy generated by treatment emergent events (TEAEs). Sensory neuropathy was significantly more common in the FOLFIRINOX arm, and prevalence as well as severity increased over time. In both arms, the BOTh®TM associated with diarrhea decreased over the course of treatment. The BOTh®TM caused by neutropenia was comparable in both arms but decreased in the FOLFIRINOX arm over time, possibly due to chemotherapy dose reductions. Overall, gem/erlotinib was associated with a slightly higher overall BOTh®TM, but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.6735). In summary, the BOTh®TM analysis facilitates the evaluation of TEAEs. In patients fit for intense chemotherapeutic regimens, FOLFIRINOX is associated with a lower BOTh®TM than gem/erlotinib.

Efficacy and safety of combined EMR and endoscopic full-thickness resection (hybrid EFTR) for large nonlifting colorectal adenomas.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) with a full-thickness resection device (FTRD) has become the standard technique for selected nonlifting colorectal adenomas, but tumor size is the major limitation. However, large lesions might be approached in combination with EMR. Herein, we report the largest single-center experience to date of combined EMR and EFTR (hybrid EFTR) in patients with large (≥25 mm) nonlifting colorectal adenomas not amenable to EMR or EFTR alone. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent hybrid EFTR of large (≥25 mm) nonlifting colorectal adenomas. Outcomes of technical success (successful advancement of the FTRD with consecutive successful clip deployment and snare resection), macroscopic complete resection, adverse events, and endoscopic follow-up were evaluated. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients with nonlifting colorectal adenomas were included. Mean lesion size was 36.5 mm (range, 25-60 mm), and 66.6% were located in the right side of the colon. Technical success was 100% with macroscopic complete resection in 97.3%. Mean procedure time was 83.6 minutes. Adverse events occurred in 6.7%, leading to surgical therapy in 1.3%. Histology revealed T1 carcinoma in 16%. Endoscopic follow-up was available in 93.3% (mean follow-up time, 8.1 months; range, 3-36) and showed no signs of residual or recurrent adenoma in 88.6%. Recurrence (11.4%) was treated endoscopically. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid EFTR is safe and effective for advanced colorectal adenoma that cannot be approached by EMR or EFTR alone. Hybrid EFTR expands the indication of EFTR substantially in selected patients.

[Gastrointestinal bleeding]. / Gastrointestinale Blutungen.

GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDING: Gastrointestinal bleeding occurs frequently in clinical practice. The presence of gastrointestinal bleeding usually is suspected by typical clinical history and results of clinical examination and laboratory findings. Endoscopic treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding is associated with high success rates over 90%. Different techniques for endoscopic hemostasis are available and for most indications, a combination of two modalities is recommended. Endoscopic management of recurrent or persistent bleeding is technically more challenging and associated with increased mortality (up to 10%, especially in patients with high age and comorbidities). In this situation, endoscopic hemostasis using an over-the-scope clip has shown to be superior to standard treatment for recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Recent studies also have shown superiority for first-line over-the-scope clip treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in high-risk patients. In this review, management of gastrointestinal bleeding is summarized based on current guidelines and current literature.

Outcomes of rescue procedures in the management of locally recurrent ampullary tumors: A Pancreas 2000/EPC study.

BACKGROUND: Ampullary lesions are rare and can be locally treated either with endoscopic papillectomy or transduodenal surgical ampullectomy. Management of local recurrence after a first-line treatment has been poorly studied. METHODS: Patients with a local recurrence of an ampullary lesion initially treated with endoscopic papillectomy or transduodenal surgical ampullectomy were retrospectively included from a multi-institutional database (58 centers) between 2005 and 2018. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were included, 21 (20.4%) treated with redo endoscopic papillectomy, 14 (13.6%) with transduodenal surgical ampullectomy, and 68 (66%) with pancreaticoduodenectomy. Redo endoscopic papillectomy had low morbidity with 4.8% (n = 1) severe to fatal complications and a R0 rate of 81% (n = 17). Transduodenal surgical ampullectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy after a first procedure had a higher morbidity with Clavien III and more complications, respectively, 28.6% (n = 4) and 25% (n = 17); R0 resection rates were 85.7% (n = 12) and 92.6% (n = 63), both without statistically significant difference compared to endoscopic papillectomy (P = .1 and 0.2). Pancreaticoduodenectomy had 4.4% (n = 2) mortality. No deaths were registered after transduodenal surgical ampullectomy or endoscopic papillectomy. Recurrences treated with pancreaticoduodenectomy were more likely to be adenocarcinomas (79.4%, n = 54 vs 21.4%, n = 3 for transduodenal surgical ampullectomy and 4.8%, n = 1 for endoscopic papillectomy, P < .0001). Three-year overall survival and disease-free survival were comparable. CONCLUSION: Endoscopy is appropriate for noninvasive recurrences, with resection rate and survival outcomes comparable to surgery. Surgery applies more to invasive recurrences, with transduodenal surgical ampullectomy rather for carcinoma in situ and early cancers and pancreaticoduodenectomy for more advanced tumors.

Reduced mortality for over-the-scope clips (OTSC) versus surgery for refractory peptic ulcer bleeding: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Surgery or transcatheter arterial embolization or are both considered as standard treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) refractory to endoscopic hemostasis. Over-The-Scope clips (OTSC) have shown superiority to standard endoscopic treatment but a comparison with surgery has not been performed, yet. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective, multicenter study, 103 patients treated with OTSC (n = 66) or surgery (n = 37) for refractory PUB in four tertiary care centers between 2009 and 2019 were analyzed. Primary endpoint was clinical success (successful hemostasis and no rebleeding within seven days). Secondary endpoints were adverse events, length of ICU-stay and in-hospital mortality. Univariable and multivariable regression models were performed to define predictive factors for allocation to surgical therapy and for mortality. RESULTS: Age, comorbidities, anticoagulation therapy, number of pretreatments, ulcer location, and Rockall-Score were similar in both groups. In the surgical group, there were significantly more patients in shock at rebleeding (78.1% vs. 43.9%; p = 0.002), larger ulcers (18.6 ± 7.4 mm vs. 23.0 ± 9.4 mm; p = 0.017) and more FIa bleedings (64.9% vs. 19.7%; p < 0.001) were detected. Clinical success was comparable (74.2% vs. 83.8%; p = 0.329). In the surgical group, length of ICU-stay (16.2 ± 18.0 days vs. 4.7 ± 6.6 days; p < 0.001), severe adverse events (70.3% vs. 4.5%; p < 0.001) and in-hospital mortality (35.1% vs. 9.1%; p = 0.003) were significantly higher. Multivariable analysis defined shock at rebleeding as the main predictor for allocation to surgical therapy (OR 4.063, 95%CI {1.496-11.033}, p = 0.006). Postsurgical adverse events were the main reason for the in-hospital mortality (OR 5.167, 95% CI {1.311-20.363}, p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, OTSC compared to surgical treatment showed comparable clinical success but was associated with shorter ICU-stay, less severe adverse events and lower in-hospital mortality.

Adverse events of endoscopic full-thickness resection: results from the German and Dutch nationwide colorectal FTRD registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is emerging as a minimally invasive alternative to surgery for complex colorectal lesions. Previous studies have demonstrated favorable safety results; however, large studies representing a generalizable estimation of adverse events (AEs) are lacking. Our aim was to provide further insight in AEs after eFTR. METHODS: Data from all registered eFTR procedures in the German and Dutch colorectal full-thickness resection device registries between July 2015 and March 2021 were collected. Safety outcomes included immediate and late AEs. RESULTS: Of 1892 procedures, the overall AE rate was 11.3% (213/1892). No AE-related mortality occurred. Perforations occurred in 2.5% (47/1892) of all AEs, 57.4% (27/47) of immediate AEs, and 42.6% (20/47) of delayed AEs. Successful endoscopic closure was achieved in 29.8% of cases (13 immediate and 1 delayed), and antibiotic treatment was sufficient in 4.3% (2 delayed). The appendicitis rate for appendiceal lesions was 9.9% (13/131), and 46.2% (6/13) could be treated conservatively. The severe AE rate requiring surgery was 2.2% (42/1892), including delayed perforations in .9% (17/1892) and immediate perforations in .7% (13/1892). Delayed perforations occurred between days 1 and 10 (median, 2) after eFTR, and 58.8% (10/17) were located on the left side. Other severe AEs were appendicitis (.4%, 7/1892), luminal stenosis (.1%, 2/1892), delayed bleeding (.1%, 1/1892), pain after eFTR close to the dentate line (.1%, 1/1892), and grasper entrapment in the clip (.1%, 1/1892). CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal eFTR is a safe procedure with a low risk for severe AEs in everyday practice and without AE-related mortality. These results further support the position of eFTR as an established minimally invasive technique for complex colorectal lesions.