Endoscopia urgente frente a endoscopia precoz: ¿tiene algún papel la endoscopia urgente en la hemorragia digestiva alta aguda no varicosa? / Urgent endoscopy versus early endoscopy: Does urgent endoscopy play a role in acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding?

Introducción: Las principales guías de práctica clínica recomiendan la realización de endoscopia dentro de las 24horas posteriores a la admisión en urgencias en pacientes con hemorragia digestiva alta no variceal. Sin embargo, es un margen de tiempo muy amplio y el papel de la endoscopia urgente (<6horas) es controvertido. Material y métodos: Estudio prospectivo observacional realizado en Hospital Universitario La Paz, donde son seleccionados todos los pacientes, desde el 1 de enero de 2015 hasta el 30 de abril de 2020, que acudieron a urgencias y fueron sometidos a endoscopia por sospecha de hemorragia digestiva alta. Se establecieron dos grupos de pacientes: endoscopia urgente (<6horas) y precoz (6-24horas). El objetivo primario del estudio fue la mortalidad a los 30días. Resultados: Un total de 1.096 pacientes fueron incluidos, de los cuales 682 fueron sometidos a endoscopia urgente. La mortalidad a los 30 días fue del 6% (5% vs 7,7%, p=0,064) y del resangrado fue del 9,6%. No hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas en la mortalidad, resangrado, necesidad de tratamiento endoscópico, cirugía y/o embolización, pero sí en la necesidad de transfusión (57,5% vs 68,4%, p<0,001) y el número de concentrados de hematíes transfundidos (2,85±4,01 vs 3,51±4,09, p=0,008). Conclusión: La endoscopia urgente, en pacientes con hemorragia digestiva alta aguda, también el subgrupo de alto riesgo (GBS ≥ 12), no se asoció con una mortalidad menor a los 30 días que la endoscopia precoz. Sin embargo, en los pacientes con lesiones endoscópicas de alto riesgo (Forrest I-IIB), fue un predictor significativo de menor mortalidad. Por lo tanto, se requieren más estudios para la identificación correcta de pacientes, que se beneficien de esta actitud médica (endoscopia urgente). (AU)

Introduction: The main clinical practice guidelines recommend endoscopy within 24hours after admission to the Emergency Department in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. However, it is a wide time frame and the role of urgent endoscopy (<6hours) is controversial. Material and methods: Prospective observational study carried out at La Paz University Hospital, where all patients were selected, from January 1, 2015 to April 30, 2020, who attended the Emergency Room and underwent endoscopy for suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Two groups of patients were established: urgent endoscopy (<6hours) and early endoscopy (6-24hours). The primary endpoint of the study was 30-day mortality. Results: A total of 1096 were included, of whom 682 underwent urgent endoscopy. Mortality at 30days was 6% (5% vs 7.7%, P=.064) and rebleeding was 9.6%. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality, rebleeding, need for endoscopic treatment, surgery and/or embolization, but there were differences in the necessity for transfusion(57.5% vs 68.4%, P<.001) and the number of concentrates of transfused red blood cells (2.85±4.01 vs 3.51±4.09, P=.008). Conclusion: Urgent endoscopy, in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, as well as the high-risk subgroup (GBS ≥12), was not associated with lower 30-day mortality than early endoscopy. However, urgent endoscopy in patients with high-risk endoscopic lesions (ForrestI-IIB), was a significant predictor of lower mortality. Therefore, more studies are required for the correct identification of patients who benefit from this medical approach (urgent endoscopy). (AU)

Urgent endoscopy versus early endoscopy: Does urgent endoscopy play a role in acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding? / Endoscopia urgente frente a endoscopia precoz: ¿tiene algún papel la endoscopia urgente en la hemorragia digestiva alta aguda no varicosa?

INTRODUCTION: The main clinical practice guidelines recommend endoscopy within 24hours after admission to the Emergency Department in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. However, it is a wide time frame and the role of urgent endoscopy (<6hours) is controversial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective observational study carried out at La Paz University Hospital, where all patients were selected, from January 1, 2015 to April 30, 2020, who attended the Emergency Room and underwent endoscopy for suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Two groups of patients were established: urgent endoscopy (<6hours) and early endoscopy (6-24hours). The primary endpoint of the study was 30-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1096 were included, of whom 682 underwent urgent endoscopy. Mortality at 30days was 6% (5% vs 7.7%, P=.064) and rebleeding was 9.6%. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality, rebleeding, need for endoscopic treatment, surgery and/or embolization, but there were differences in the necessity for transfusion(57.5% vs 68.4%, P<.001) and the number of concentrates of transfused red blood cells (2.85±4.01 vs 3.51±4.09, P=.008). CONCLUSION: Urgent endoscopy, in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, as well as the high-risk subgroup (GBS ≥12), was not associated with lower 30-day mortality than early endoscopy. However, urgent endoscopy in patients with high-risk endoscopic lesions (ForrestI-IIB), was a significant predictor of lower mortality. Therefore, more studies are required for the correct identification of patients who benefit from this medical approach (urgent endoscopy).

Multicenter prospective comparison of conventional and high-power short duration radiofrequency application for pulmonary vein isolation: the high-power short-duration radiofrequency application for faster and safer pulmonary vein ablation (POWER FAST III) trial.

BACKGROUND: Electrical isolation of pulmonary veins (PV) with high-power short-duration (HPSD) radiofrequency application (RFa) may reduce the duration of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, without compromising the procedural efficacy and safety in comparison with the conventional approach. This hypothesis has been generated in several observational studies; the POWER FAST III will test it in a randomized multicenter clinical trial. METHODS: It is a multicenter randomized, open-label and non-inferiority clinical trial with two parallel groups. AF ablation using 70 W and 9-10 s RFa is compared with the conventional technique using 25-40 W RFa guided by numerical lesion indexes. The main efficacy objective is the incidence of atrial arrhythmia recurrences electrocardiographically documented during 1-year follow-up. The main safety objective is the incidence of endoscopically detected esophageal thermal lesions (EDEL). This trial includes a substudy of incidence of asymptomatic cerebral lesions detected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after ablation. RESULTS: A randomized clinical trial compares for the first time high-power short-duration and conventional ablation in order to obtain data about the efficacy and safety of the high-power technique in an adequate methodological context. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the POWER FAST III could support the use of the high-power short-duration ablation in clinical practice. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NTC04153747.

Cambios hemodinámicos posligadura con bandas de varices esofágicas: un estudio de cohortes / No disponible

INTRODUCCIÓN: existe controversia sobre la necesidad de mantener el tratamiento vasoconstrictor tras lograr una adecuada hemostasia mediante ligadura endoscópica, en la hemorragia aguda por varices esofágicas. Dado que es muy complejo hacer un gradiente "pre y posligadura urgente" en el sangrante por varices, nuestro objetivo es conocer las variaciones hemodinámicas tras la terapia endoscópica, midiendo un gradiente venoso hepático "pre" y otro 24 horas "posprocedimiento" en los cirróticos con ligadura programada como profilaxis de la hemorragia varicosa. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: estudio prospectivo, de cohorte, unicéntrico. Los pacientes, en protocolo de erradicación endoscópica, fueron sometidos a un gradiente de presión venosa hepática basal (GPVH PRE), sin modificar su tratamiento habitual con beta-bloqueantes. Después, se procedió a ligadura endoscópica, según guías de práctica clínica. Tras 24 horas del procedimiento, se realizó una segunda medida de presiones (GPVH POST). RESULTADOS: 30 pacientes. Las medianas de los GPVH PRE y POST ligadura fueron 16,5 mmHg (14-20) y 19,5 mmHg (17-21) respectivamente, con un aumento significativo tras el procedimiento (p < 0,001). Las variaciones porcentuales de presión portal, según cifra de gradiente basal (12, 16 y 20 mmHg), eran mayores en pacientes con menor GVPH frente a mayor GPVH basal en cualquiera de las categorías comparadas (p = 0,087, p = 0,016 y p < 0,001, respectivamente). En nuestra serie, el 36,7 % de los pacientes presentó un incremento de gradiente ≥ 20 % tras la ligadura. CONCLUSIÓN: la ligadura con bandas de varices esofágicas condiciona un aumento de presión portal, al menos transitorio, objetivado mediante gradiente de presión venosa hepática

No disponible

Hemodynamic changes after endoscopic variceal ligation: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: there is controversy about the need to maintain vasoconstrictor treatment after adequate haemostasis is achieved through endoscopic band ligation (EBL) in bleeding esophageal varices (BEV). Measuring a "before and after urgent-EBL" hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) in acute variceal hemorrhage is very difficult. Thus, the goal of this study was to determine hemodynamic variations after an EBL session. A "before" HVPG (PRE) was performed and another one 24 hours "after-ligation" (POST), in cirrhotic patients undergoing endoscopic band ligation as BEV prophylaxis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: this was a single-center, cohort, prospective study. Patients followed a program of repeated sessions of EBL until eradication of their varices and underwent a basal hepatic venous pressure gradient (PRE HVPG), without changing their usual treatment with beta-blockers. Subsequently, an endoscopic ligation session was performed, following the clinical practices guidelines. A second pressure measurement (POST HVPG) was taken 24 hours after the endoscopic treatment. RESULTS: 30 patients were included. PRE and POST HVPG median results were 16.5 mmHg (14-20) and 19.5 mmHg (17-21), respectively, with a significant increase after the procedure (p < 0.001). Percentage variations in portal pressure, based on the baseline gradient values (12, 16 and 20 mmHg), were higher for patients with a lower basal HVPG versus a higher HVPG for any of the categories compared (p = 0.087, p = 0.016 and p < 0.001, respectively). In our series, 36.7 % of patients showed a ≥ 20 % gradient increase after ligation. CONCLUSION: endoscopic band ligation causes an increase in portal pressure, at least for a transitional period, determined by the hepatic venous pressure gradient.

Feasibility and safety of pulmonary vein isolation by high-power short-duration radiofrequency application: short-term results of the POWER-FAST PILOT study.

PURPOSE: Pulmonary vein (PV) isolation (PVI) by point-by-point radiofrequency application (PPRF) results in longer procedures than that achieved by single-shot ablation techniques. In addition, it is associated with significant risk of oesophageal injury. The POWER-FAST pilot study evaluated the feasibility and safety of PVI by high-power short-duration (HPSD) PPRF. METHODS: HPSD PPRF around the PVs was done in 48 consecutive patients with atrial fibrillation. Fifty watts was delivered until a predefined lesion index value was reached (LSI ≥ 5 or Abl-I ≥ 350) and 60 W during 7-10 s in the first 18 and last 30 patients, respectively. A control group of 47 consecutive patients who had undergone PVI before the HPSD group with conventional PPRF (30 W for 30 s) was included for reference. Echocardiography and oesophageal endoscopy was performed shortly after ablation in all patients. RESULTS: PVI of all targeted veins was achieved in 98% and 100% of patients of the conventional and HPSD groups, respectively (p = 0.59). Total radiofrequency time was 34 ± 11, 24 ± 8, and 15 ± 5 min in groups 30 W, 50 W, and 60 W (p < 0.001). Audible steam pops occurred in 4 out of 48 (8%) patients in the HPSD group, accounting for 4 (0.08%) out of 5 269 HPSD radiofrequency applications. No patient in the HPSD group developed pericardial effusion. The incidence of oesophageal lesions was 28%, 22%, and 0% in groups 30 W, 50 W, and 60 W, respectively (p = 0.007) CONCLUSIONS: PVI can be achieved with HPSD PPRF in most patients. This approach appears safe and associated with low risk of esophageal damage.

Symptomatic exfoliative esophagitis induced by dabigatran

No disponible

Symptomatic exfoliative esophagitis induced by dabigatran.

Dabigatran is an oral anticoagulant prescribed as an alternative to warfarin which has been associated with exfoliative esophagitis and esophageal ulcer. We report a new case of dabigatran-induced exfoliative esophagitis where the mucosal injury improved after prescribing proton-pump inhibitors and ingesting medication with sufficient water.