The management of the hospitalized ulcerative colitis patient: the medical-surgical conundrum.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In this review article, we address emerging evidence for the medical and surgical treatment of the hospitalized patient with ulcerative colitis. RECENT FINDINGS: Ulcerative colitis is a chronic inflammatory disease involving the colon and rectum. About one-fifth of patients will be hospitalized from ulcerative colitis, and about 20-30%, experiencing an acute flare will undergo colectomy. Because of the significant clinical consequences, patients hospitalized need prompt evaluation for potential complications, stratification of disease severity, and a multidisciplinary team approach to therapy, which involves both the gastroenterologist and surgeon. Although corticosteroids remain first-line therapy, second-line medical rescue options, primarily infliximab or cyclosporine, are considered within 3-5 days of presentation. In conjunction, an early surgical consultation to present the possibility of a staged proctocolectomy as one of the therapeutic options is equally important. SUMMARY: A coordinated multidisciplinary, individualized approach to treatment, involving the patient preferences throughout the process, is optimal in providing patient-centered effective care.

Rectal Indomethacin Does Not Prevent Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in Consecutive Patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Rectal indomethacin, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, is given to prevent pancreatitis in high-risk patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), based on findings from clinical trials. The European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines recently recommended prophylactic rectal indomethacin for all patients undergoing ERCP, including those at average risk for pancreatitis. We performed a randomized controlled trail to investigate the efficacy of this approach. METHODS: We performed a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 449 consecutive patients undergoing ERCP at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, from March 2013 through December 2014. Approximately 70% of the cohort were at average risk for PEP. Subjects were assigned randomly to groups given either a single 100-mg dose of rectal indomethacin (n = 223) or a placebo suppository (n = 226) during the procedure. The primary outcome was the development of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), defined by new upper-abdominal pain, a lipase level more than 3-fold the upper limit of normal, and hospitalization after ERCP for 2 consecutive nights. RESULTS: There were no differences between the groups in baseline clinical or procedural characteristics. Sixteen patients in the indomethacin group (7.2%) and 11 in the placebo group (4.9%) developed PEP (P = .33). Complications and the severity of PEP were similar between groups. Per a priori protocol guidelines, the study was stopped owing to futility. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized controlled study of consecutive patients undergoing ERCP, rectal indomethacin did not prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. ClincialTrials.gov no: NCT01774604.

Quality of optical diagnosis of diminutive polyps and associated factors.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The aim of the study was to identify endoscopist-related and procedural factors that may be associated with the quality of optical diagnosis of diminutive polyps using narrow-band imaging (NBI). METHODS: All subjects who participated in a randomized trial on cap-assisted colonoscopy were eligible for the current study. Optical polyp diagnosis was an a priori outcome of the initial trial. Ten participating endoscopists used NBI to assess all of the diagnosed polyps as adenomatous or non-adenomatous in real-time and provided a degree of diagnostic certainty. The main outcome measures were quality benchmarks of optical diagnosis (negative predictive value [NPV] for diminutive rectosigmoid adenomas, agreement with pathology-based surveillance interval) and assessment of endoscopist-related and procedural factors potentially associated with the quality of optical diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 1650 polyps were found in 607 patients, with 1311 polyps (79 %) being diminutive, of which 672 (53 %) were adenomatous. The NPV of optical diagnosis for rectosigmoid adenomas was 95 %. The optical diagnosis-based surveillance interval agreed with the pathology-based recommendation in 93 % of patients. Prior experience with image-enhanced endoscopy had no effect on optical diagnosis. Low and high adenoma detectors were not different in achieving the quality benchmarks. Cap-assisted colonoscopy was not associated with quality of optical diagnosis. Quality metrics of optical diagnosis remained similar during the first and second half of the study period. CONCLUSION: High quality optical diagnosis of diminutive polyps can be achieved and sustained by endoscopists previously inexperienced in this practice with minimal training. None of the examined factors appear to affect the quality of optical diagnosis; particularly, endoscopists' adenoma detection was not associated with optical diagnosis.

Cap-assisted colonoscopy and detection of Adenomatous Polyps (CAP) study: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Cap-assisted colonoscopy has improved adenoma detection in some but not other studies. Most previous studies have been limited by small sample sizes and few participating endoscopists. The aim of the current study was to evaluate whether cap-assisted colonoscopy improves adenoma detection in a two-center, multi-endoscopist, randomized trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients who presented for an elective colonoscopy were randomized to cap-assisted colonoscopy (4-mm cap) or standard colonoscopy performed by one of 10 experienced endoscopists. Primary outcome measures were mean number of adenomas per patient and adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes included procedural measures and endoscopist variation; a logistic regression model was employed to examine predictors of increased detection with cap use. RESULTS: A total of 1113 patients (64 % male, mean age 62 years) were randomized to cap-assisted (n = 561) or standard (n = 552) colonoscopy. The mean number of adenomas detected per patient in the cap-assisted and standard groups was similar (0.89 vs. 0.82; P = 0.432), as was the ADR (42 % vs. 40 %; P = 0.452). Cap-assisted colonoscopy achieved a faster cecal intubation time (4.9 vs. 5.8 minutes; P < 0.001), a similar cecal intubation rate (99 % vs. 98 %; P = 0.326), and a higher terminal ileum intubation rate (93 % vs. 89 %; P < 0.028). Cap-assisted colonoscopy resulted in a 20 % increase in ADR for some endoscopists and in a 15 % decrease for others. Individual preference for the cap was an independent predictor of increased adenoma detection in adjusted analysis (P < 0.001), whereas baseline low adenoma detection was not. CONCLUSION: Although the efficiency of cecal and terminal ileum intubation was slightly improved by cap-assisted colonoscopy, adenoma detection was not. Cap-assisted colonoscopy may be beneficial for selected endoscopists. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicalTrials.gov (NCT01935180).

Incomplete polyp resection during colonoscopy-results of the complete adenoma resection (CARE) study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although the adenoma detection rate is used as a measure of colonoscopy quality, there are limited data on the quality of endoscopic resection of detected adenomas. We determined the rate of incompletely resected neoplastic polyps in clinical practice. METHODS: We performed a prospective study on 1427 patients who underwent colonoscopy at 2 medical centers and had at least 1 nonpedunculated polyp (5-20 mm). After polyp removal was considered complete macroscopically, biopsies were obtained from the resection margin. The main outcome was the percentage of incompletely resected neoplastic polyps (incomplete resection rate [IRR]) determined by the presence of neoplastic tissue in post-polypectomy biopsies. Associations between IRR and polyp size, morphology, histology, and endoscopist were assessed by regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 346 neoplastic polyps (269 patients; 84.0% men; mean age, 63.4 years) removed by 11 gastroenterologists, 10.1% were incompletely resected. IRR increased with polyp size and was significantly higher for large (10-20 mm) than small (5-9 mm) neoplastic polyps (17.3% vs 6.8%; relative risk = 2.1), and for sessile serrated adenomas/polyps than for conventional adenomas (31.0% vs 7.2%; relative risk = 3.7). The IRR for endoscopists with at least 20 polypectomies ranged from 6.5% to 22.7%; there was a 3.4-fold difference between the highest and lowest IRR after adjusting for size and sessile serrated histology. CONCLUSIONS: Neoplastic polyps are often incompletely resected, and the rate of incomplete resection varies broadly among endoscopists. Incomplete resection might contribute to the development of colon cancers after colonoscopy (interval cancers). Efforts are needed to ensure complete resection, especially of larger lesions. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT01224444.

Clinical Decision Making in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Mimics: Practice Management from Inflammatory Bowel Disease LIVE.

Background: Since 2009, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) specialists have utilized "IBD LIVE," a weekly live video conference with a global audience, to discuss the multidisciplinary management of their most challenging cases. While most cases presented were confirmed IBD, a substantial number were diseases that mimic IBD. We have categorized all IBD LIVE cases and identified "IBD-mimics" with consequent clinical management implications. Methods: Cases have been recorded/archived since May 2018; we reviewed all 371 cases from May 2018-February 2023. IBD-mimics were analyzed/categorized according to their diagnostic and therapeutic workup. Results: Confirmed IBD cases made up 82.5% (306/371; 193 Crohn's disease, 107 ulcerative colitis, and 6 IBD-unclassified). Sixty-five (17.5%) cases were found to be mimics, most commonly medication-induced (n = 8) or vasculitis (n = 7). The evaluations that ultimately resulted in correct diagnosis included additional endoscopic biopsies (n = 13, 21%), surgical exploration/pathology (n = 10, 16.5%), biopsies from outside the GI tract (n = 10, 16.5%), genetic/laboratory testing (n = 8, 13%), extensive review of patient history (n = 8, 13%), imaging (n = 5, 8%), balloon enteroscopy (n = 5, 8%), and capsule endoscopy (n = 2, 3%). Twenty-five patients (25/65, 38%) were treated with biologics for presumed IBD, 5 of whom subsequently experienced adverse events requiring discontinuation of the biologic. Many patients were prescribed steroids, azathioprine, mercaptopurine, or methotrexate, and 3 were trialed on tofacitinib. Conclusions: The diverse presentation of IBD and IBD-mimics necessitates periodic consideration of the differential diagnosis, and reassessment of treatment in presumed IBD patients without appropriate clinical response. The substantial differences and often conflicting treatment approaches to IBD versus IBD-mimics directly impact the quality and cost of patient care.

Patient perceptions of the risks and benefits of infliximab for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: For a patient to make informed, preference based decisions, they must be able to balance the risks and benefits of treatment. The aim of this study was to determine patients' and parents' perceptions of the risks and benefits of infliximab for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: Adult patients with IBD and parents of patients attending IBD patient education symposiums were asked to complete a questionnaire regarding the risks and benefits of infliximab. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-five questionnaires were completed. A majority (59%) of respondents expected a remission rate greater than 50% at 1 year and 18% expected a remission rate greater than 70% at 1 year. More than one-third (37%) of respondents answered that infliximab is not associated with a risk of lymphoma and 67% responded that the lymphoma risk is no higher than twice that of the general population. When presented a scenario of a hypothetical new drug for IBD with risks mirroring those estimated for infliximab, 64% of respondents indicated that they would not take the medication, despite its described benefits. Thirty percent of these patients were either currently taking or had previously taken infliximab. Patients actively taking infliximab predicted the highest remission rates for the infliximab (P = 0.05), and parents of patients predicted the lowest (P = 0.01). Parents estimated a higher risk of lymphoma than patients (P = 0.003). Risk and benefit perception was independent of gender and age of patient respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to published literature, patients and parents of patients overestimate the benefit of infliximab and underestimate its risks. We conclude that effective methods for communicating risks and benefits to patients need to be developed.

Training for NOTES.

The foundation of skills for the performance of natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) lies in the training for general surgery (especially laparoscopy) and flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy. Physicians wishing to practice NOTES need to acquire or have both skill sets, or need to partner together to blend complementary capabilities with colleagues. In the future, however, a new cadre of NOTES specialists may emerge who will have developed individual expertise in the full spectrum of NOTES knowledge base requirements. This article highlights a body of knowledge and skills needed to become a NOTES proceduralist and review the current training paradigms for gastrointestinal endoscopists and surgeons.