Higher adenoma detection rate with the endocuff: a randomized trial.

Background and study aim Different techniques have been introduced to improve the endoscopist's view and enhance the detection of polyps. The endocuff is a polymer sleeve cap that is connected to the tip of the colonoscope in order to improve visualization of the mucosa during colonoscopy. The aim of the study was to compare adenoma detection rates (ADR) of endocuff-assisted colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy. Patients and methods Patients 50 years or older were randomized into two groups: an endocuff-assisted colonoscopy group and a conventional colonoscopy group without the endocuff. Results A total of 337 patients were included: 174 in the endocuff group and 163 in the conventional group. The median age was 61 years (interquartile range 55 - 70 years), and 74 % were women. The ADR was higher in the endocuff group than in the conventional group (22.4 % vs. 13.5 %; P = 0.02). The mean number of adenomas was 0.30 (SD 0.25) in the endocuff group and 0.21 (SD 0.26) in the conventional group (P â€Š= 0.02). The rate of ileal intubation was lower in the endocuff group (73 % vs. 87 %; P < 0.001). No serious adverse events occurred with the use of the endocuff. Conclusions Endocuff colonoscopy achieved a greater ADR than conventional colonoscopy.Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NTC02387593).

Pneumatosis cystoides intestinalis.

A 54-year-old woman underwent colonoscopy for colon cancer screening. Colonoscopy showed multiple cysts in the sigmoid colon, with the largest being 4 cm in diameter. One of the cysts was biopsied. Cyst walls were observed; during biopsy, the gas was released and the cyst collapsed. Computed tomography of the abdomen confirmed a diagnosis of pneumatosis cystoides intestinalis. Pneumatosis cystoides intestinalis is a rare disease characterized by the presence in the intestinal submucosa or subserosa of multiple cysts filled with gas (nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide and hydrogen). This condition occurs more often in males than in females, with cysts most frequently located in the colon. Causes may include elevated intraluminal pressure, pulmonary diseases, bacterial gas production, malnutrition, chemotherapy, connective tissue diseases, among others. Symptoms of pneumatosis cystoides intestinalis include abdominal pain, diarrhea, bloating and gastrointestinal bleeding. This condition is diagnosed by endoscopy or computed tomography of the abdomen. Conservative treatment is successful in 93% of patients. However, 3% of patients develop complications such as intestinal obstruction or perforation.

Utility of endoscopic ultrasound in idiopathic acute recurrent pancreatitis.

Idiopathic acute recurrent pancreatitis (IARP) is defined as at least two episodes of acute pancreatitis with the complete or near-complete resolution of symptoms and signs of pancreatitis between episodes, without an identified cause. There is a paucity of information about the usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in IARP. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic yield of EUS in IARP. DESIGN: A retrospective study was performed in patients with IARP evaluated by EUS between January 2009 and December 2016. Follow-up assessments of acute pancreatitis recurrence were carried out. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients with 102 EUS procedures were included. EUS was able to identify the cause of IARP in 55 patients (75.3%). The most common findings were chronic pancreatitis in 27 patients (49.1%), followed by lithiasic pathology in 24 patients (43.6%), and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm in four patients (7.3%). A directed treatment against EUS findings had a protective tendency associated with the final resolution of recurrence. There were no complications reported. CONCLUSION: EUS performed in patients with IARP helped to identify a possible cause in 2/3 of the cases. The majority of patients have a treatable disease.

Can topical epinephrine application to the papilla prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography? Results from a double blind, multicentre, placebo controlled, randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is a complication associated with important morbidity, occasional mortality and high costs. Preventive strategies are suboptimal as PEP continues to affect 4% to 9% of patients. Spraying epinephrine on the papilla may decrease oedema and prevent PEP. This study aimed to compare rectal indomethacin plus epinephrine (EI) versus rectal indomethacin plus sterile water (WI) for the prevention of PEP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicentre randomised controlled trial included patients aged >18 years with an indication for ERCP and naive major papilla. All patients received 100 mg of rectal indomethacin and 10 mL of sterile water or a 1:10 000 epinephrine dilution. Patients were asked about PEP symptoms via telephone 24 hours and 7 days after the procedure. The trial was stopped half way through after a new publication reported an increased incidence of PEP among patients receiving epinephrine. RESULTS: Of the 3602 patients deemed eligible, 3054 were excluded after screening. The remaining 548 patients were randomised to EI group (n=275) or WI group (n=273). The EI and WI groups had similar baseline characteristics. Patients in the EI group had a similar incidence of PEP to those in the WI group (3.6% (10/275) vs 5.12% (14/273), p=0.41). Pancreatic duct guidewire insertion was identified as a risk factor for PEP (OR 4.38, 95% CI (1.44 to 13.29), p=0.009). CONCLUSION: Spraying epinephrine on the papilla was no more effective than rectal indomethacin alone for the prevention of PEP. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02959112).

Bleeding from gastrointestinal ectopic varices is not associated with haemorrhage from oesophageal or gastric varices.

INTRODUCTION: Ectopic varices are those that appear in a different region of the gastroesophageal junction. Bleeding from ectopic varices is rare but is usually massive and deadly. AIM: To identify the possible factors that cause bleeding from ectopic varices in patients with portal hypertension. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional and retrospective study; the data were collected between January 2004 and June 2014. We included patients with portal hypertension and gastrointestinal ectopic varices diagnosed by endoscopy. RESULTS: We found 31 patients with gastrointestinal ectopic varices. Of these, 25 had liver cirrhosis, and six showed non-cirrhotic portal hypertension. There were 16 men and 15 women in the study. The median age of the patients was 60 years (range minimum-maximum of 27 to 80 years). Nineteen (61%) patients had rectal varices, 10 (32%) had duodenal varices, 1 (3%) had ileal varices, and 1 (3%) had colonic varices. We found bleeding in 4 (13%) of the 31 patients with ectopic varices; two belonged to the cirrhosis group, and the other two were from the non-cirrhotic portal hypertension group. Three of the 4 patients with bleeding from gastrointestinal ectopic varices had exhibited haemorrhage from oesophageal varices (odds ratio = 4.09, 95% CI: 0.37-44.78, p = 0.249), but none of them showed bleeding from gastric varices. CONCLUSIONS: Bleeding from gastrointestinal ectopic varices is not necessarily associated with bleeding from oesophageal or gastric varices.

Central is as effective as bilateral endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of central (single) vs bilateral (2-injections) endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) for palliation of patients with pain related to pancreatic cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer were included. Central EUS CPN was used in the first group and bilateral EUS CPN in the second. The measurement of pain was made with a visual analog pain scale (VAPS) applied before and after the procedure. Follow-up was made at weeks 2 and 4 after the procedure. The use of morphine before and after EUS CPN was evaluated. Complications related to the procedure were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 53 patients underwent EUS CPN, 21 (39.6%) with the central technique and 32 (60.4%) with bilateral injection; 29 were women (54.7%) and the median age was 59 (30-85) years. The tumor was located in the head of the pancreas in 24 (45.3%) patients, the neck in 14 (26.4%), the body in 26 (49.1%) and in the tail of the pancreas in 8 (15.1%). Nearly, 14 (26.4%) patients had more than one pancreatic segment involved. There was no difference in the median (range) percent pain reduction from baseline-4 weeks later was 50% (0-100) vs 60% (0-100), for central and bilateral techniques, respectively; P = 0.18. In total, 60.4% of patients had a reduction of 50% punctuation in the VAPS. No major complications were detected. CONCLUSIONS: EUS CPN is useful for the management of pain in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer, but there is no significant difference between central vs bilateral techniques.