Clutch cutter is a safe device for performing endoscopic submucosal dissection of superficial esophageal neoplasms: a western experience.

Although the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been established to be more efficacious in the treatment of superficial gastrointestinal neoplasia than the piecemeal resection, its use is still limited due to the concern about serious adverse events particularly in the west. Newer ESD knives have been developed that have been said to be safer than the first-generation devices. We aimed to report a Western single center experience regarding the initial safety and performance of ESD for superficial esophageal neoplasia treated with the Clutch Cutter (DP2618DT; Fujifilm Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). Our main outcome was safety in terms of bleeding or perforation. Secondary outcomes included en bloc resection and the R0 resection. Fourteen patients with superficial esophageal neoplasia underwent 15 ESDs using the Clutch Cutter. The mean age was 65 ± 16.7 years and 10 (71.4%) males. Eight (57%) patients had esophageal adenocarcinoma, 3 (21.4%) had high-grade dysplasia, 1 (7%) had nodular low-grade dysplasia, and 2 (14.3%) had squamous cell carcinoma. Mild anticipated intraprocedural bleeding was present with most procedures. However, no significant postoperative bleeding or perforation was encountered. One patient had mild chest pain postprocedure. En bloc resection was achieved in all lesions 100%. Histological R0 was achieved in 5/12 lesions (41.6%). The mean length of the resected area was 24.8 ± 13 mm (IQR: 17-30 mm). All patients were safely discharged home after overnight observation. In conclusion, this is the largest series of esophageal ESD using the multimodal Clutch Cutter in the United States; we found that the device effectively achieved en bloc resection of superficial esophageal neoplasia without significant adverse events. The use of the Clutch Cutter should be considered as one option to minimize adverse events during ESD in the Western population.

Outcomes of oesophageal self-dilation for patients with refractory benign oesophageal strictures.

BACKGROUND: Current management of refractory benign oesophageal strictures with endoscopic dilations and stenting leads to resolution of dysphagia in only 30% of patients. Oesophageal self-dilation may be an alternative. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oesophageal self-dilation at a tertiary referral centre. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patients with refractory benign oesophageal strictures who participated in oesophageal self-dilation at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN, USA) between 2003 and 2017. Clinical data including stricture characteristics, Dakkak and Bennett Dysphagia Score, number and dates of endoscopies, and complications were collected. A two-tailed paired Student's t test was used to compare the measures of efficacy, with differences considered significant at a 5% probability level. RESULTS: We identified 52 patients with refractory strictures treated with self-dilation. The median number of endoscopic interventions was reduced from 9.5 (range 5-30) to 0 (range 0-3) within 12 months before and after self-dilation, respectively (P < 0.0001). A median intervention-free interval of 417 days (IQR 256-756 days) was observed. The mean dysphagia score at baseline was 2.5 (95% CI 2.2-2.8) and 0.33 (95% CI 0.11-0.53) after self-dilation. 23 of 27 (85%) patients who received enteral nutrition prior to self-dilation had their feeding tubes removed. CONCLUSIONS: Oesophageal self-dilation is an effective way of maintaining oesophageal patency in refractory benign oesophageal strictures, with safety comparable to current standard of care. Prospective studies are needed to further validate the role of self-dilation in treatment of refractory benign oesophageal strictures.

The course of achalasia one to four decades after initial treatment.

BACKGROUND: Most follow-up studies of achalasia are limited to <5 years. AIM: To study the long-term efficacy of pneumatic dilation (PD) and myotomy in achalasia at least 10 years after treatment. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of achalasia patients with >10 years follow-up after initial myotomy or pneumatic dilation. Symptom recurrence which required repeat dilation or surgery was compared between pneumatic dilation and myotomy. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty patients (112 myotomy, 38 pneumatic dilation) of similar characteristics were studied. The mean duration of follow-up after initial treatment was 17.5 ± 7.2 years (10-40 years). Symptoms recurrence rate was 60.7% (100% pneumatic dilation patients vs. 47.3% myotomy), hazard ratio 0.24 demonstrating a lower need for repeat dilation or surgery with myotomy than pneumatic dilation (P = 0.008). All pneumatic dilation patients underwent myotomy in 4 ± 4 (0-16 years). Forty of 53 myotomy patients had symptom recurrence prompting further treatment: 16 pneumatic dilation, 11 myotomy and 13 both. The mean time to repeat procedure was 6.9 years (0-40). The myotomy group required fewer dilations and/or surgeries than the pneumatic dilation group (1.6 vs. 3.6, P < 0.001). 13 patients (10.1%) progressed to end-stage achalasia (five myotomy, eight pneumatic dilation) over 40 years. At last follow-up, 57/62 (92%) patients had absent or mild dysphagia, 53/62 (85%) patients had regurgitation less than once per week and 37 (60.7%) had heartburn episodes <1/week similar for pneumatic dilation and myotomy (P = 0.27). CONCLUSION: Although the majority of patients treated for achalasia do well after decades of treatment, most patients may need a series of endoscopic and/or surgical procedures to maintain effective symptom control.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: pharmacological interventions for eosinophilic oesophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is a growing cause of dysphagia. Current therapies include dietary manipulation, steroids and biological drugs. AIM: To perform a systematic review and summarise the effect of different medical interventions on EoE. METHODS: Two reviewers searched Pubmed and Embase for studies on treatment for EoE. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) limited to pharmacological interventions. Two reviewers selected studies. Meta-analysis was done using random effects model to estimate odds ratio (OR). Heterogeneity was determined by Cochran's Q statistic and I(2) . RESULTS: Seventeen references met our inclusion criteria. Eleven RCTs involving 455 participants were included in the meta-analysis. 325 participants were evaluated for symptomatic improvement and 330 were evaluated for histological remission. Symptomatic improvement with topical steroids (7 studies, 250 participants) compared to the control group (placebo or PPI) was noted (OR: 3.03, 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.57-5.87). Histological remission was also noted in nine studies involving 330 participants (OR: 13.66, 95% CI: 2.65-70.34) comparing topical steroids to a control (placebo or PPI). There was no difference between anti-IL-5 drugs and placebo in terms of symptomatic improvement (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.34-1.42). CONCLUSIONS: Topical steroids induce significant symptomatic and histological remission, and should be considered as a first line treatment. Anti-IL-5 therapy has a minor effect on eosinophilic oesophagitis. Future research in eosinophilic oesophagitis should standardise methodology according to published guidelines to improve quality and allow direct comparison between therapies.