Comparison of Cap-Assisted vs Conventional Endoscopic Technique for Management of Food Bolus Impaction in the Esophagus: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: "Push" or "pull" techniques with the use of snares, forceps, baskets, and grasping devices are conventionally used to manage esophageal food bolus impaction (FBI). A novel cap-assisted technique has recently been advocated to reduce time taken for food bolus (FB) removal. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the cap-assisted technique against conventional methods of esophageal FB removal in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Consecutive patients with esophageal FBI requiring endoscopic removal, from 3 Australian tertiary hospitals between 2017 and 2019, were randomized to either the cap-assisted technique or the conventional technique. Primary outcomes were technical success and FB retrieval time. Secondary outcomes were technical success rate, en bloc removal rate, procedure-related complication, length of hospital stay, and cost of consumables. RESULTS: Over 24 months, 342 patients with esophageal FBI were randomized to a cap-assisted (n = 171) or conventional (n = 171) technique. Compared with the conventional approach, the cap-assisted technique was associated with (i) shorter FB retrieval time (4.5 ± 0.5 minutes vs 21.7 ± 0.9 minutes, P < 0.001), (ii) shorter total procedure time (23.0 ± 0.6 minutes vs 47.0 ± 1.3 minutes, P < 0.0001), (iii) higher technical success rate (170/171 vs 160/171, P < 0.001), (iv) higher rate of en bloc removal (159/171 vs 48/171, P < 0.001), and (v) lower rate of procedure-related mucosal tear and bleeding (0/171 vs 13/171, P < 0.001). There were no major adverse events or deaths within 30 days in either group. The total cost of consumables was higher in the conventional group (A$19,644.90 vs A$6,239.90). DISCUSSION: This multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed that the cap-assisted technique is more effective and less costly than the conventional approach and should be first-line treatment for esophageal FBI.

Should Pyloric Lymph Nodes Be Dissected for Siewert Type II and III Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagogastric Junctions: Experience from a High-Volume Center in China.

BACKGROUND: The optimal extent of lymph node (LN) dissection remains controversial in adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG), especially in Siewert types II and III. The aim of this study was to analyze clinicopathological characteristics of patients with Siewert type II and III AEGs to clarify whether pyloric (no. 5 and no.6) lymphadenectomy is essential in these patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed in the Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from September 2008 to December 2012, and clinicopathological characteristics on all patients with Siewert type II and III AEGs, who underwent curative total gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy were collected. The index of estimated benefit from lymph node dissection (IEBLD) was used to evaluate the efficacy of lymph node dissection of no. 5 and no. 6. Both clinicopathological characteristics and IEBLDs were set as the standards in the assessment of the value of pyloric lymph nodes dissection. RESULTS: A total of 216 patients with AEG (Siewert type II: 141, Siewert type III: 75) were included into the study. Type III AEG had a larger tumor size and relatively advanced T stage compared to Type II AEG. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates in type II and type III AEGs were almost similar (type II 50.4% vs. type III 46.7%, p = 0.782). There was a very low incidence of pyloric lymph nodes metastases in type II AEG (no. 5 is 1.4% and no. 6 is 0.7%). Hence, the IEBLDs of no. 5 and no. 6 lymph node were negligible regardless of the T stage and tumor differentiation. In type III AEG, metastasis rates of no. 5 and no. 6 lymph node were 9.3 and 5.3%, respectively. The IEBLDs of no. 5 and no. 6 lymph node were 2.7 and 1.3, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the IEBLDs of pyloric lymph nodes, dissection of no. 5 and no. 6 lymph nodes were worthwhile for Siewert type III AEG but not essential for Siewert type II AEG.

Value of routine duodenal mucosal biopsies in the evaluation of anemia in a large Australian referral centre.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Small bowel mucosal biopsies (SBBx) are routinely performed to investigate unexplained anemia; however, previous studies have demonstrated a low yield in diagnosing celiac disease. Our aim was to determine the yield of routine SBBx in a large cohort of patients who underwent gastroscopy for the investigation of anemia. METHODS: Data from consecutive patients who underwent gastroscopy for the investigation of anemia in a tertiary hospital, from January 2008-December 2011, were prospectively collected. Measured outcomes were the prevalence of celiac disease, the yield of duodenal biopsies, and the correlation between celiac serology and diagnosis. RESULTS: Over 4 years, 987 patients (385 M:602 F; 48.27 ± 15.89 years) underwent endoscopy for anemia, of which 534 (54.1%) had proven iron deficiency anemia (IDA). Abnormal SBBx consistent with celiac disease were found in 2% (22/987), with a higher prevalence in females (3.2%, n = 19 vs 0.8%, n = 3 in males) and in those with IDA (3.6%, n = 19 vs 0.7%, n = 3 in non-IDA). Macroscopic endoscopic abnormalities were present in 86% (19/22) of patients with celiac disease. Of the 178 patients who had celiac serology, tissue transglutaminase antibody had the highest sensitivity (80%) and specificity (99%). Combined serology had a sensitivity of 85.7%. CONCLUSION: Only 2% of patients with unexplained anemia had abnormal SBBx consistent with celiac disease and even fewer patients in non-IDA. Given the availability and high sensitivity of celiac serology and macroscopic changes on endoscopy, SBBx should not be routine during endoscopy but should be limited to those with positive celiac serology, abnormal endoscopic appearance, or females with IDA.

Long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for high-grade dysplasia and early-stage carcinoma in the colorectum.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal carcinomas (CRCs) arise from premalignant precursors in an adenoma-carcinoma sequence, in which adenoma with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and early-stage carcinoma are defined as advanced neoplasia. A limited number of studies have evaluated the long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for advanced colorectal neoplasia. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ESD for advanced colorectal neoplasia as well as the long-term outcomes, including local recurrence and metastasis. METHODS: We analyzed data collected from 610 consecutive patients with 616 advanced colorectal neoplasia lesions treated with ESD between January 2007 and December 2013. Clinical, endoscopic, and histological data were collected over a median follow-up period of 58 months to determine tumor stage and type, resection status, complications, tumor recurrence, and distant metastasis. RESULTS: The overall rates of en bloc resection, histological complete resection, and major complications were 94.3%, 89.4%, and 2.3%, respectively. Hybrid ESD was an independent factor of piecemeal resection. Tumor location in the colon was associated with increased risk of ESD-related complications. During the follow-up period, all patients remained free of metastasis. However, local recurrence occurred in 4 patients (0.8%); piecemeal resection was a risk factor. CONCLUSIONS: ESD is effective and safe for resection of advanced colorectal neoplasia, with a high en bloc resection rate and favorable long-term outcomes. ESD is indicated for the treatment of HGD and early-stage CRC to obtain curative resection and reduce local recurrence rate.

Submucosal tunnel endoscopic resection for extraluminal tumors: a novel endoscopic method for en bloc resection of predominant extraluminal growing subepithelial tumors or extra-gastrointestinal tumors (with videos).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The management of subepithelial tumors with a predominant extraluminal growth pattern or extra-GI tumors can be challenging and traditionally requires a surgical resection that is not only invasive but may carry a significant risk of morbidity and mortality. We aimed to assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a novel endoscopic technique termed submucosal tunnel endoscopic resection for extraluminal tumors (STER-ET). METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients who underwent STER-ET for GI subepithelial tumors with a predominant extraluminal growth pattern or extra-GI tumors located at the level of cardia or the proximal part of the lesser curvature of the stomach seen on cross-sectional imaging between January 2016 and March 2017. RESULTS: Eight patients underwent STER-ET. The mean (± standard deviation) tumor size was 2.8 ± 0.6 cm and 2.3 ± 0.8 cm in longest and shortest dimension, respectively. The average procedure time was 67 ± 4.4 minutes. The rates of curative en bloc resection and en bloc retrieval was 100% and 87.5%, respectively. On final histology, 6 tumors were GI stromal tumors, 1 was a schwannoma, and 1 was a foregut cyst. Five patients had capnoperitoneum during the procedure and required abdominal decompression. One patient had a small mucosotomy successfully treated with a hemostatic clip. There were no major adverse events or deaths. The median length of hospital stay was 3 days. There was no residual tumor on surveillance imaging after a mean follow-up period of 10.0 ± 2.1 months. CONCLUSIONS: STER-ET is a novel technique that appears to be safe and effective in achieving a curative resection for GI subepithelial tumors with a predominantly extraluminal growth pattern or extraluminal tumors in a selected group of patients. However, larger studies are required to validate our finding.

Effectiveness of a cap-assisted device in the endoscopic removal of food bolus obstruction from the esophagus.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The use of a transparent cap has been found to be effective for retrieval of an esophageal foreign body. However, data on the use of a cap in food bolus obstruction (FBO) are limited. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of a cap-assisted technique compared with conventional techniques in removal of FBO. METHODS: All patients who underwent an endoscopy for boneless FBO between 2011 and 2016 were prospectively recruited. The measured outcomes were procedure time, success rate of food bolus (FB) extraction, rate of en bloc removal, procedure-related adverse events, and length of hospital stay (LOS) between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Of the 315 patients who had an endoscopy for FBO, 48 (15.2%) had spontaneous passage of FB and 267 (84.8%) had impacted FB. Sixty-eight (25%) patients had the "push" maneuver, and 199 (75%) patients had the "pull" maneuver to remove FB. Of those who had the "pull" maneuver, a cap was used for 93 and conventional device(s) for 106. The use of a cap was associated with a shorter procedural time (34.3 ± 8.0 minutes versus 43.3 ± 22.6 minutes, P = .003), a higher rate of en bloc removal (87.3% versus 22.8%, P < .001), a lower rate of adverse events (0/93 versus 7/106, P = .01), and a shorter LOS (1.0 ± 0.6 days versus 1.6 ± 1.4 days, P = .0017). CONCLUSION: The cap-assisted technique has been found to be effective and safe in removal of esophageal FBO. This technique was associated with a shorter procedural time and a reduced LOS compared with conventional techniques. However, these findings require further validation in a randomized control study.

Future role of endoscopic ultrasound in personalized management of pancreatic cancer.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is aggressive and lethal with the majority of cases presenting with advanced unresectable disease due to delayed diagnosis. Despite improvement in surgery, chemotherapies, and intensive care medicine, the outcome of PDAC remains poor, which may relate to the tumor biology. Recent data suggest that PDAC is a "systemic cancer" with complex molecular or genomics derangement with marked heterogeneity. The ability to characterize the PDAC better by detailed evaluation of tissue biomarkers or genomics allows for improved prediction of prognosis and stratification of treatment, a concept known as "personalized cancer therapy." Using tissue from resected PDAC specimens has several weaknesses and is only possible in 20% of patients with PDAC. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biopsy overcomes these weaknesses, and with recent advancements in needle technology, tissue can be obtained for personalized cancer therapy for all patients with PDAC. This review aims to outline our current understanding of the molecular biology of PDAC specifically focusing on how EUS-guided biopsy may play a fundamental role in tissue acquisition, allowing for assessment and stratify therapy according to the individual cancer biology as we move toward the era of precision medicine.

Full-Spectrum Endoscopy Improves Surveillance for Dysplasia in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) increase the risk of colorectal cancer. Surveillance colonoscopy with chromoendoscopy is recommended, but conventional forward-viewing colonoscopy (FVC) detects dysplasia with low levels of sensitivity. Full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) incorporates 2 additional lateral cameras to the forward camera of the colonoscope, allowing endoscopists to view behind folds and in blind spots, which might increase dysplasia detection. We compared FUSE vs FVC in the detection of dysplasia in patients with IBDs. METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized, cross-over, tandem colonoscopy study comparing FVC vs FUSE in 52 subjects with IBD undergoing surveillance for neoplasia in Australia (23 with Crohn's colitis, 29 with ulcerative colitis; median age, 45.0 y; 60% male; mean IBD duration, 16.4 y). All subjects met national IBD surveillance inclusion criteria; 27 were assigned randomly to groups that underwent FVC followed by FUSE, and 25 were assigned to groups that underwent FUSE followed by FVC. All procedures were performed from February 2014 through December 2015. Random biopsy specimens were collected and visible lesions were collected; all were analyzed histologically. The primary end point was dysplasia missed by the first colonoscopy detected by the second colonoscopy. Dysplasia was diagnosed by an expert gastrointestinal pathologist blinded to the colonoscope allocation in consensus with a second expert pathologist. RESULTS: FVC missed 71.4% of dysplastic lesions per lesion whereas FUSE missed 25.0% per lesion (P = .0001); FVC missed 75.0% of dysplastic lesions per subject and FUSE missed 25.0% per subject (P = .046). FUSE identified a mean of 0.37 dysplastic lesions and FVC identified a mean of 0.13 dysplastic lesions (P = .044). The total colonoscopy times were similar (21.2 min for FUSE vs 19.1 min for FVC; P = .32), but withdrawal time was significantly longer for FUSE (15.8 min) than for FVC (12.0 min) (P = .03). Correcting for per-unit withdrawal time, the mean dysplasia miss rate per subject was significantly lower for FUSE (0.19) than for FVC (0.83; P < .0001). Targeted tissue acquisition identified significantly more dysplastic lesions than random biopsies (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective cross-over study of IBD patients undergoing surveillance colonoscopy, we found panoramic views obtained by full-spectrum endoscopy increased the number of dysplastic lesions detected, compared with conventional forward-viewing colonoscopy. Trial no: ACTRN12616000047493.

Morbidity and mortality of endoscopist-directed nurse-administered propofol sedation (EDNAPS) in a tertiary referral center.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopist-Directed Nurse-Administered Propofol Sedation (EDNAPS) has been evaluated in community settings rather than tertiary referral centers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A hospital-wide prospectively collected database of Medical Emergency Team Calls (METCALL), emergency responses triggered by medically unstable patients, was reviewed. Responses that followed EDNAPS were extracted and compared with a prospectively entered database of all endoscopies performed using EDNAPS over the same period. RESULTS: A total of 33,539 endoscopic procedures (16,393 gastroscopies, 17,146 colonoscopies) were performed on 27,989 patients using EDNAPS. Intravenous drugs included midazolam (0 - 5 mg), fentanyl (0 - 100 mcg), and propofol (10 - 420 mg). Of 23 METCALLs (18 gastroscopies and 5 colonoscopies), there were 16 with ASA scores of III or higher. Indications for gastroscopy were gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhage (n = 11; 8 variceal, 3 nonvariceal), dysphagia (n = 5), PEG removal (n = 1), and dyspepsia (n = 1). Fifteen of 22 patients, including all of those who had a colonoscopy, made a full recovery and returned to the ward or were discharged home. In the gastroscopy group, seven were intubated and admitted to Intensive Care, of whom six were emergency cases for gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 4 variceal, n = 2 non variceal) and one in which the indication was PEG removal. Two deaths occurred in the intubated group. CONCLUSIONS: In a tertiary referral center, EDNAPS for low-to-moderate risk (ASA ≤ 2) patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy is very safe. Gastroscopy is associated with greater anesthetic risk than colonoscopy and those with high ASA scores needing urgent endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage are at particular risk of cardiorespiratory decompensation.