Endoscopic management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) evidence-based multidisciplinary guidelines.

1: ESGE suggests using contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) as the first-line imaging modality on admission when indicated and up to the 4th week from onset in the absence of contraindications. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be used instead of CT in patients with contraindications to contrast-enhanced CT, and after the 4th week from onset when invasive intervention is considered because the contents (liquid vs. solid) of pancreatic collections are better characterized by MRI and evaluation of pancreatic duct integrity is possible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends against routine percutaneous fine needle aspiration (FNA) of (peri)pancreatic collections. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. FNA should be performed only if there is suspicion of infection and clinical/imaging signs are unclear. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends initial goal-directed intravenous fluid therapy with Ringer's lactate (e. g. 5 - 10 mL/kg/h) at onset. Fluid requirements should be patient-tailored and reassessed at frequent intervals. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends against antibiotic or probiotic prophylaxis of infectious complications in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends invasive intervention for patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis and clinically suspected or proven infected necrosis. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE suggests that the first intervention for infected necrosis should be delayed for 4 weeks if tolerated by the patient. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends performing endoscopic or percutaneous drainage of (suspected) infected walled-off necrosis as the first interventional method, taking into account the location of the walled-off necrosis and local expertise. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7: ESGE suggests that, in the absence of improvement following endoscopic transmural drainage of walled-off necrosis, endoscopic necrosectomy or minimally invasive surgery (if percutaneous drainage has already been performed) is to be preferred over open surgery as the next therapeutic step, taking into account the location of the walled-off necrosis and local expertise. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends long-term indwelling of transluminal plastic stents in patients with disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. Lumen-apposing metal stents should be retrieved within 4 weeks to avoid stent-related adverse effects.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Hemangioma of the rectum - How misleading can hematochezia be?

We present the case of an 18-year-old male patient that was referred to our gastrenterology department with history of intermittent painless hematochezia since childhood. During such instances, he was diagnosed with bowel intussusception, eosinophilic gastroenteritis and inflammatory bowel disease at 4, 6 and 8 years old, respectively. He underwent treatment with 5-aminosalicylic acid for two years, without improvement of symptoms. He was then lost to follow-up until our observation. His physical examination was unremarkable except for digital rectal examination which found a nodular compressible mass by the palpating finger. Blood tests revealed a mild iron deficiency anemia. The colonoscopy showed an extended reddish and bluish multinodular submucosal mass in the rectum, suggesting diffuse cavernous hemangioma of the rectum (DHCR). The Magnetic Resonance Imaging, showed diffuse thickening of the entire rectum extending into the distal sigmoid with the mesorectum revealing multiple serpiginous structures, corresponding to abnormal blood vessels. After discussion, we considered to perform a sphincter-sparing procedure, namely pull through transection and coloanal anastomosis. However, intervention was ruled out by the patient because of his fear of anal incontinence and permanent colostomy. We adopted a conservative strategy with clinical surveillance and iron supplementation. At the present, the patient remains with intermittent rectal bleeding, referring poor quality of life due to his ongoing symptoms. This is a rare case of DHCR. Despite of being a benign disease, the management of DHCR requires a sphincter mucosectomy and pull-through coloanal sleeve anastomosis which has become the first-line procedure. The surgical outcomes are non-expectable in 32% with permanent sphincter lesion or with incomplete DHCR removal. As in this case, the surgeons or patients refusal to perform the intervention is common which represents a challenge to the clinical follow-up.

Performance of the Choledocholithiasis Diagnostic Score in Patients with Acute Cholecystitis.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of choledocholithiasis among patients with acute cholecystitis is estimated to be between 9 and 16.5%. There are no validated algorithms to predict choledocholithiasis in this group of patients. AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the choledocholithiasis diagnostic score proposed by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, in patients with acute cholecystitis. MATERIAL/METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study, covering a 4-year period at a secondary care hospital, was performed. All patients with an encoded diagnosis of acute cholecystitis and with at least one of the following procedures were included: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), endoscopic ultrasound, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, and intraoperative cholangiography. RESULTS: Among 4,369 patients with the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis, 40 (0.92%) had clinical or sonographic suspicion of choledocholithiasis. Their mean age was 68.1 ± 15 years, and 22 (55%) were men. Thirty-one of the patients included (77.5%) had a high risk of choledocholithiasis, and 9 (22.5%) had an intermediate risk. In 16 (51.6%) of the 31 patients with a high risk, the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis was confirmed. In 2 (22.2%) of the 9 patients with an intermediate risk, the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis was also confirmed. The high risk score for choledocholithiasis had a positive predictive value of 52% and a sensitivity of 89%. The intermediate risk score for choledocholithiasis had a positive predictive value of 22% and a sensitivity of 11%. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Suspicion of choledocholithiasis in patients with acute cholecystitis was a rare event (<1%). The sensitivity of the high risk score was approximately the same as found in published series with patients with suspected choledocholithiasis overall (86%), while the positive predictive value was substantially lower (52 vs. 79.8%). Therefore, in patients with acute cholecystitis and suspected choledocholithiasis, this score should not be used to screen for common bile duct stones, and a sensitive method should be used prior to ERCP.

Introdução: A prevalência de coledocolitíase em doentes com colecistite aguda é estimada entre 9 e 16.5%. Não existem algoritmos validados para o diagnóstico de coledocolitíase neste grupo de doentes. Objectivo: Avaliar a performance do score de coledocolitíase proposto pela American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, em doentes com coleciste aguda. Material/Métodos: Foi realizado um estudo retrospectivo transversal, durante um período de 4 anos num hospital de cuidados secundários. Foram incluídos todos os doentes com diagnóstico codificado de colecistite aguda e pelo menos um dos seguintes procedimentos: colangiopancreatografia retrógrada, ecoendoscopia, colangiopancreatografia por ressonância magnética e colangiografia intra-operatória. Resultados: Em 4,369 doentes com diagnóstico de colecistite aguda, 40 (0.92%) tiveram suspeita clínica ou ecográfica de coledocolitíase. A idade média foi 68.1 ± 15 anos e 22 (55%) eram homens. Dos doentes incluídos, 31 (77.5%) tinham score elevado de coledocolitíase e 9 (22.5%) tinham score intermédio. Em 16/31 (51.6%) doentes com score elevado o diagnóstico de coledocolitíase foi confirmado. Em 2/9 (22.2%) doentes com score intermédio foi também confirmada coledocolitíase. O score elevado de probabilidade de coledocolitíase teve um valor preditivo positivo de 52% e uma sensibilidade de 89%. O score intermédio de probabilidade teve um valor preditivo positivo de 22% e uma sensibilidade de 11%. Discussão e Conclusões: A suspeita de coledocolitíase em doentes com colecistite aguda foi um evento raro (<1%). A sensibilidade do score elevado de probabilidade foi semelhante ao reportado na literatura (86%), mas o valor preditivo positivo foi significativamente menor (52 vs. 79.8%). Assim, em doentes com colecistite aguda e suspeita de coledocolitíase este score não deve ser utilizado, devendo ser realizado um método de diagnóstico antes da CPRE.

Adenoma Detection Rate: I Will Show You Mine if You Show Me Yours.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the first cause of cancer-related mortality in Portugal. CRC screening reduces disease-specific mortality. Colonoscopy is currently the preferred method for screening as it may contribute to the reduction of CRC incidence. This beneficial effect is strongly associated with the adenoma detection rate (ADR). AIM: Our aim was to evaluate the quality of colonoscopy at our unit by measuring the currently accepted quality parameters and publish them as benchmarking indicators. METHODS: From 5,860 colonoscopies, 654 screening procedures (with and without previous fecal occult blood testing) were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 66.4 ± 7.8 years, and the gender distribution was 1:1. The overall ADR was 36% (95% confidence interval [CI] 32-39), the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy was 0.66 (95% CI 0.56-0.77), and the sessile serrate lesion detection rate was 1% (95% CI 0-2). The bowel preparation was rated as adequate in 496 (76%) patients. The adjusted cecal intubation rate (CIR) was 93.7% (95% CI 91.7-95.8). Most colonoscopies were performed under monitored anesthesia care (53%), and 35% were unsedated. The use of sedation (propofol or midazolam based) was associated with a higher CIR with an odds ratio of 3.60 (95% CI 2.02-6.40, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our data show an above-standard ADR. The frequency of poor bowel preparation and the low sessile serrated lesion detection rate were acknowledged, and actions were implemented to improve both indicators. Quality auditing in colonoscopy should be compulsory, and while many units may do so internally, this is the first national report from a high-throughput endoscopy unit.

Participation in clinical trials increases the detection of pre-malignant lesions during colonoscopy

Background: colorectal adenoma detection has been associated with the effectiveness of cancer prevention. Clinical trials have been designed to determine the role of several interventions to increase the detection of pre-malignant lesions. We hypothesized that colonoscopy in the setting of clinical trials has a higher pre-malignant lesion detection rate.Methods: a cross-sectional study was performed that compared the detection of pre-malignant lesions in 147 randomly sampled non-research colonoscopies and 294 from the control group of two prospective trials. Outpatients aged 40-79 years, with no personal history of colorectal cancer (CRC) were included.Results: baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The pre-malignant lesion detection rate in the trial vs control group was 65.6 % vs 44.2 % (OR 2.411; 95 % CI: 1.608-3.614; p < 0.001), the polyp detection rate was 73.8 % vs 59.9 % (OR 1.889; 95 % CI: 1.242-2.876; p = 0.003), the adenoma detection rate was 62.6 % vs 44.2 % (OR 2.110; 95 % CI: 1.411-3.155; p < 0.001) and the sessile serrated lesion detection rate was 17 % vs 4.1 % (OR 4.816; 95 % CI: 2.014-11.515; p < 0.001). The mean number of pre-malignant and sessile serrated lesions was 1.70 vs 1.06 (p = 0.002) and 0.32 vs 0.06 (p = 0.001) lesions per colonoscopy, respectively. There was no significant change in any of the study outcomes according to the multivariate analysis with each single potential confounder.Conclusions: patients involved in colonoscopy trials may benefit from higher quality examinations, as shown by the higher detection rates. Institutions should consider supporting clinical research in colonoscopy as a simple means to improve colonoscopy quality and colorectal cancer prevention. (AU)

Hemangioma of the rectum - How misleading can hematochezia be?

No disponible