RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of walled-off pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) (pseudocyst [PC]; walled-off necrosis [WON]) utilizes double pigtail plastic stents (PS) and the newer large diameter fully covered self-expandable stents (FCSEMS) customized for PFC drainage. This study examined the impact of type of stent on clinical outcomes and costs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective two-center study. Outcome variables were technical and clinical success, need for repeat procedures, need for direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN), and procedure-related costs. RESULTS: A total of 49 (PC: 31, WON: 18) patients were analyzed. Initially, PS was used in 37 and FCSEMS in 12. Repeat transmural drainage was required in 14 (PS: 13 [9 treated with PS, 4 treated with FCSEMS]; FCSEMS: 1 [treated with PS]) due to stent migration (PS: 3; FCSEMS: 1) or inadequate drainage (PS: 10). Technical success was 100%. Initial clinical success was 64.9% (25/38) for PS versus 91.7% (11/12) for FCSEMS (P = 0.074). With repeat transmural stenting, final clinical success was achieved in 94.6% and 100%, respectively (P = 0.411). Compared to FCSEMS, PS was associated with greater need for repeat drainage (34.2% vs. 6.3%, P = 0.032). The need for and frequency of DEN was similar between both groups, but PS required more frequent balloon dilatation. PS was significantly cheaper for noninfected PC. Costs were similar for infected PC and WON. CONCLUSION: PS was associated with a higher need for a second drainage procedure to achieve clinical success. The use of FCSEMS did not increase procedural costs for infected PC and WON.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) cannot distinguish between endoscopists who detect one adenoma and those who detect ≥2 adenomas. Hypothetically, adenoma miss rate (AMR) may be significant for endoscopists with high ADRs who examine the rest of colon with less care after detecting first polyp. Our objective was to evaluate other quality indicators plus ADR vs. ADR alone in prediction of AMR. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of asymptomatic participants aged 50-75 years who underwent back-to-back screening colonoscopies by four faculty endoscopists. Each round of colonoscopy was performed by two of the endoscopists in a randomized order. During each round of colonoscopy, all detected polyps were removed. The second endoscopist was blinded to the results of the first. The total number of adenomas per positive participant (APP), the total number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), the additional adenomas found after the first adenoma per colonoscopy (ADR-Plus), and ADR were calculated for prediction of AMR. RESULTS: In all, 200 participants underwent back-to-back colonoscopies. There were no significant differences in ADRs of four endoscopists (44, 50, 54, and 46%). APPs were 1.91, 2.12, 2.19, and 2.43. APCs were 0.84, 1.06, 1.18, and 1.12. ADR-Plus were 0.40, 0.56, 0.64, and 0.66, respectively. AMRs differed significantly between the endoscopists (36, 27, 21, and 13%; P=0.01). There was no correlation between ADR and AMR (r=-0.25; P=0.75). Whereas APP exhibited a strong inverse correlation with AMRs (r=-0.99; P<0.01). APC and ADR-Plus appeared to be inversely correlated with AMR, however this was not statistically significant (r=-0.82; P=0.18 and r=-0.93; P=0.07, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among high-ADR endoscopists, AMRs still varied. APP may be a promising secondary indicator for distinguishing between the one-and-done polyp endoscopist and the meticulous endoscopist. The evaluation of influence of new metrics on colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention requires a larger population-based study.