Assessment of Video Capsule Endoscopy in the Management of Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Evaluation of acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding using invasive endoscopic procedures comprising the standard of care (SOC)-upper endoscopy and colonoscopy-can expose the endoscopy staff to SARS-CoV-2. Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) does not generate aerosols and only requires 1 person to manage the procedure. Objective: To examine the safety of VCE for the initial evaluation of GI bleeding at the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic to identify signs of active bleeding while minimizing patient and personnel exposure, saving personal protective equipment, and avoiding invasive or unnecessary procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter (UMass Memorial Medical Center and Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center) retrospective cohort study including 146 patients with COVID-19 who received VCE as the first-line diagnostic modality was conducted from March 15 to June 15, 2020, compared with SOC in January 2020 for evaluation of GI bleeding. The association between treatment and outcomes was estimated using multivariable regression adjusting for potential confounders. Propensity score matching was used to verify the results. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was detection of active bleeding or stigmata of recent bleeding. Secondary end points included the number of patients requiring any invasive procedures, number of additional procedures, rates of rebleeding and rehospitalization, transfusion requirements, and mortality. Results: Among 146 patients, 92 (63.0%) were men; mean (SD) age was 64.93 (14.13) years in the COVID-19 group and 61.33 (13.39) years in the SOC group. Active bleeding or stigmata of recent bleeding was observed in 44 (59.5%) patients in the COVID-19 group compared with 18 (25.0%) in the SOC group (adjusted odds ratio, 5.23; 95% CI, 2.23 to 12.27). Only 36 patients (48.7%) in the COVID-19 group required any invasive procedure during the hospitalization compared with 70 (97.2%) in the SOC group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.01; 95% CI, 0.001 to 0.08). The mean (SD) number of invasive procedures was 0.59 (0.77) per patient in the COVID-19 group compared with 1.18 (0.48) per patient in the SOC group (adjusted difference, -0.54; 95% CI, -0.77 to -0.31). Both approaches appeared to be safe and there was no significant difference in transfusion requirements, rebleeding, rehospitalization, or in-hospital mortality. No mortality was attributed to GI bleeding in either group. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, first-line diagnostic evaluation of acute GI bleeding using VCE appeared to be a safe and useful alternative to the traditional approach of upper endoscopy and colonoscopy. Use of VCE was associated with increased detection of active bleeding and a reduced number of invasive procedures and unnecessary exposure of personnel to SARS-CoV-2 and use of personal protective equipment.

Role of Esophageal Metal Stents Placement and Combination Therapy in Inoperable Esophageal Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: More than 50% of patients with esophageal cancer already have inoperable disease at the time of diagnosis. Controversy surrounds the outcomes of patients with advanced esophageal cancer who receive palliative care by either stent alone or stent plus an additional modality. We set out to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies assessing the use of metal stents as treatment options for symptomatic improvement, survival, and adverse events. METHODS: We searched Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception until January 14, 2016, as well as other databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing esophageal stent versus either esophageal stent plus brachytherapy, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy. For quality assurance purposes throughout the systematic review, multiple independent extractions were performed, and the process was executed as per the standards of the Cochrane collaboration. Primary outcomes were mean change in dysphagia score, overall survival, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were adverse events including fever, severe pain, aspiration, fistula, stent migration, perforation, and restenosis. RESULTS: Eight RCTs enrolling 732 patients were included with three distinct comparisons: stents combination therapy vs stents alone (5 studies, n = 417), stents alone versus brachytherapy alone (2 studies, n = 274), and stents + brachytherapy vs brachytherapy alone (1 study, n = 41). Stents combination therapy was defined as stents plus radiotherapy, chemotherapy, or both. Mean change in dysphagia scores favored stents combination therapy versus stents alone, and the effect was seen in patients surviving longer than 3 months. Stents combination therapy was also associated with a more favorable overall survival. The risks of stent migration, aspiration pneumonia, and restenosis were lower in the stents combination group compared to stents alone, while the risks of severe pain, hemorrhage, and fistula formation were higher. Changes in dysphagia scores and overall survival did not differ significantly in the brachytherapy-alone vs stents-alone comparison. The risk of fistula formation and hemorrhage were higher in the stents-alone group, while the risk of perforation was lower, compared to brachytherapy alone. Quality of life improvements were seen in all treatment groups, but were not pooled in analysis due to differing methods of measurement. DISCUSSION: While there appears to be no immediate short-term differences, those who live longer than 3 months experience a significant improvement in dysphagia score using a stents combination therapy approach vs stents alone. The combination therapy significantly improves the overall survival as well as showed improvements in quality of life scores. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed to assess improvements in dysphagia score, overall survival, quality of life, and adverse events.