Oral ingestion versus endoscopic delivery of endoscopic capsule in patients with previous gastrointestinal surgery (ORENCES study): A Spanish multicentre observational study / Ingesta oral versus colocación endoscópica de la cápsula endoscópica en pacientes con cirugía gastrointestinal previa (estudio ORENCES): un estudio observacional multicéntrico español

Background: Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy is the first-choice technique for investigating the majority of small bowel diseases. Its most common complications are related to incomplete examinations and capsule retention. There is no consensus on how patients with previous gastrointestinal surgery should receive the capsule. Objective: The primary endpoint was to compare the rate of complete small-bowel examinations (completion rate) between oral ingestion and endoscopic delivery of the capsule. The secondary endpoint was to compare diagnostic yield and adverse events in the two groups. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted in nine hospitals in Spain. Demographic data, previous surgery, indication for capsule endoscopy, intestinal transit time, diagnosis, completion rate (percentage of capsules reaching the caecum), diagnostic yield (percentage of results compatible with indication for the exam) and adverse events were collected. Results: From January 2009 to May 2019 fifty-seven patients were included (39 male, mean age 66±15 years). The most common indications for the exam were “overt” (50.9%) and “occult” (35.1%) small bowel bleeding. Previous Billroth II gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass were present in 52.6% and 17.5% of patients respectively. The capsule was swallowed in 34 patients and placed endoscopically in 23 patients. No significant differences were observed between the oral ingestion and endoscopic delivery groups in terms of completion rate (82.4% vs. 78.3%; p=0.742), diagnostic yield (41.2% vs. 52.2%; p=0.432) or small bowel transit time (301 vs. 377min, p=0.118). No capsule retention occurred. Only one severe adverse event (anastomotic perforation) was observed in the endoscopic delivery group. Conclusions: In our case series, there were no significant differences between oral ingestion and endoscopic delivery in terms of completion rate, diagnostic yield or safety.(AU)

Antecedentes: La cápsula endoscópica representa la técnica de primera elección para investigar la mayoría de las enfermedades del intestino delgado. Sus complicaciones más comunes frecuentes son las exploraciones incompletas y la retención a nivel de intestino delgado. Hasta el momento no hay acuerdo sobre cómo administrar la cápsula a los pacientes que han sido sometidos a una cirugía gastrointestinal previa. Objetivo: El objetivo principal fue comparar la tasa de estudios completos entre la ingestión oral y la administración endoscópica de la cápsula. Los objetivos secundarios fueron comparar el rendimiento diagnóstico y los eventos adversos en ambos grupos. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio observacional retrospectivo en 9 hospitales de España. Se recogieron datos demográficos, cirugía previa, indicación de cápsula endoscópica, tiempo de tránsito intestinal, diagnóstico, tasa de estudios completos (porcentaje de cápsulas que llegan al ciego), rendimiento diagnóstico (porcentaje de resultados compatibles con la indicación del examen) y eventos adversos. Resultados: Desde enero de 2009 hasta mayo de 2019 se incluyeron 57 pacientes (39 hombres, edad media 66 ± 15 años). Las indicaciones más frecuentes para el examen fueron hemorragia de intestino delgado «manifiesta» (50,9%) y «oculta» (35,1%). El 52,6% de los pacientes presentaba gastrectomía Billroth II y el 17,5% bypass gástrico en Y de Roux. La cápsula fue ingerida en 34 pacientes y colocada endoscópicamente en 23 pacientes. No se observaron diferencias significativas entre los grupos de ingesta oral y de colocación endoscópica en cuanto a tasa de estudios completos (82,4% vs. 78,3%; p = 0,742), rendimiento diagnóstico (41,2% vs. 52,2%; p = 0,432) y tiempo de tránsito del intestino delgado (301 vs. 377 min, p = 0,118). No hubo casos de cápsulas retenidas. Solo se observó un evento adverso severo (perforación anastomótica) en el grupo de colocación endoscópica...(AU)

Oral ingestion versus endoscopic delivery of endoscopic capsule in patients with previous gastrointestinal surgery (ORENCES study): A Spanish multicentre observational study.

BACKGROUND: Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy is the first-choice technique for investigating the majority of small bowel diseases. Its most common complications are related to incomplete examinations and capsule retention. There is no consensus on how patients with previous gastrointestinal surgery should receive the capsule. OBJECTIVE: The primary endpoint was to compare the rate of complete small-bowel examinations (completion rate) between oral ingestion and endoscopic delivery of the capsule. The secondary endpoint was to compare diagnostic yield and adverse events in the two groups. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted in nine hospitals in Spain. Demographic data, previous surgery, indication for capsule endoscopy, intestinal transit time, diagnosis, completion rate (percentage of capsules reaching the caecum), diagnostic yield (percentage of results compatible with indication for the exam) and adverse events were collected. RESULTS: From January 2009 to May 2019 fifty-seven patients were included (39 male, mean age 66±15 years). The most common indications for the exam were "overt" (50.9%) and "occult" (35.1%) small bowel bleeding. Previous Billroth II gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass were present in 52.6% and 17.5% of patients respectively. The capsule was swallowed in 34 patients and placed endoscopically in 23 patients. No significant differences were observed between the oral ingestion and endoscopic delivery groups in terms of completion rate (82.4% vs. 78.3%; p=0.742), diagnostic yield (41.2% vs. 52.2%; p=0.432) or small bowel transit time (301 vs. 377min, p=0.118). No capsule retention occurred. Only one severe adverse event (anastomotic perforation) was observed in the endoscopic delivery group. CONCLUSIONS: In our case series, there were no significant differences between oral ingestion and endoscopic delivery in terms of completion rate, diagnostic yield or safety. Being less invasive, oral ingestion of the capsule should be the first-choice method in patients with previous gastrointestinal surgery.

Step-up empiric elimination diet for pediatric and adult eosinophilic esophagitis: The 2-4-6 study.

BACKGROUND: Numerous dietary restrictions and endoscopies limit the implementation of empiric elimination diets in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Milk and wheat/gluten are the most common food triggers. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the effectiveness of a step-up dietary strategy for EoE. METHODS: We performed a prospective study conducted in 14 centers. Patients underwent a 6-week 2-food-group elimination diet (TFGED; milk and gluten-containing cereals). Remission was defined by symptom improvement and less than 15 eosinophils/high-power field. Nonresponders were gradually offered a 4-food-group elimination diet (FFGED; TFGED plus egg and legumes) and a 6-food-group elimination diet (SFGED; FFGED plus nuts and fish/seafood). In responders eliminated food groups were reintroduced individually, followed by endoscopy. RESULTS: One hundred thirty patients (25 pediatric patients) were enrolled, with 97 completing all phases of the study. A TFGED achieved EoE remission in 56 (43%) patients, with no differences between ages. Food triggers in TFGED responders were milk (52%), gluten-containing grains (16%), and both (28%). EoE induced only by milk was present in 18% and 33% of adults and children, respectively. Remission rates with FFGEDs and SFGEDs were 60% and 79%, with increasing food triggers, especially after an SFGED. Overall, 55 (91.6%) of 60 of the TFGED/FFGED responders had 1 or 2 food triggers. Compared with the initial SFGED, a step-up strategy reduced endoscopic procedures and diagnostic process time by 20%. CONCLUSIONS: A TFGED diet achieves EoE remission in 43% of children and adults. A step-up approach results in early identification of a majority of responders to an empiric diet with few food triggers, avoiding unnecessary dietary restrictions, saving endoscopies, and shortening the diagnostic process.

Eficacia de lanreótido en pacientes con angiodisplasias gastrointestinales refractarias al tratamiento con octreótido / Efficacy of lanreotide in patients with gastrointestinal angiodysplasia refractory to octreotide therapy

No disponible

Variceal ligation plus nadolol compared with ligation for prophylaxis of variceal rebleeding: a multicenter trial.

beta-Blockers and endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) have proven to be valuable methods in the prevention of variceal rebleeding. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of EVL combined with nadolol versus EVL alone as secondary prophylaxis for variceal bleeding. Patients admitted for acute variceal bleeding were treated during emergency endoscopy with EVL or sclerotherapy and received somatostatin for 5 days. At that point, patients were randomized to receive EVL plus nadolol or EVL alone. EVL sessions were repeated every 10 to 12 days until the varices were eradicated. Eighty patients with cirrhosis (alcoholic origin in 66%) were included (Child-Turcotte-Pugh A, 15%; B, 56%; C, 29%). The median follow-up period was 16 months (range, 1-24 months). The variceal bleeding recurrence rate was 14% in the EVL plus nadolol group and 38% in the EVL group (P = .006). Mortality was similar in both groups: five patients (11.6%) died in the combined therapy group and four patients (10.8%) died in the EVL group. There were no significant differences in the number of EVL sessions to eradicate varices: 3.2 +/- 1.3 in the combined therapy group versus 3.5 +/- 1.3 in the EVL alone group. The actuarial probability of variceal recurrence at 1 year was lower in the EVL plus nadolol group (54%) than in the EVL group (77%; P = .06). Adverse effects resulting from nadolol were observed in 11% of the patients. In conclusion, nadolol plus EVL reduces the incidence of variceal rebleeding compared with EVL alone. A combined treatment could lower the probability of variceal recurrence after eradication.