Adherence to guideline recommendations for Barrett's esophagus (BE) surveillance endoscopies: Effects of dedicated BE endoscopy lists.

Background and study aims For non-dysplastic Barrett's Esophagus (BE) patients, guidelines recommend endoscopic surveillance every 3 to 5 years with four-quadrant random biopsies every 2 cm of BE length. Adherence to these guidelines is low in clinical practice. Pooling BE surveillance endoscopies on dedicated endoscopy lists performed by dedicated endoscopists could possibly enhance guideline adherence, detection of visible lesions, and dysplasia detection rates (DDRs). Patients and methods Data were used from the ACID-study (Netherlands Trial Registry NL8214), a prospective trial of BE surveillance in the Netherlands. BE patients with known or previously treated dysplasia were excluded. Guideline adherence, detection of visible lesions, and DDRs were compared for patients on dedicated and general endoscopy lists. Results A total of 1,244 patients were included, 318 on dedicated lists and 926 on general lists. Endoscopies on dedicated lists showed significantly higher adherence to the random biopsy protocol (85% vs. 66%, P <0.01) and recommended surveillance intervals (60% vs. 47%, P <0.01) compared to general lists. Detection of visible lesions (8.8% vs. 8.1%, P =0.79) and DDRs were not significantly different (6.9% and 6.6%, P =0.94). None (0.0%) of the patients scheduled on dedicated lists and 10 (1.1%) on general lists were diagnosed with esophageal adenocarcinoma ( P =0.07). In multivariable analysis, dedicated lists were significantly associated with biopsy protocol adherence and adherence to surveillance interval recommendations with odds ratios of 4.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.07-9.57) and 1.64 (95% CI 1.03-2.61), respectively. Conclusions Dedicated endoscopy lists are associated with better adherence to the random biopsy protocol and surveillance interval recommendations.

Short-term esophageal stenting in the management of benign perforations.

OBJECTIVES: The standard approach to benign esophageal perforations consists of conservative treatment or surgery. In this study, we investigated the efficacy of short-term stent placement for nonmalignant esophageal perforations. METHODS: This is a prospective single-center study of patients with benign esophageal perforations in whom a removable self-expandable stent was placed. Data were collected from a prospective database, endoscopy records, and operation reports. To obtain follow-up data, we contacted the patients, their relatives, or their general practitioner. RESULTS: A total of 33 patients underwent stent insertion owing to an iatrogenic perforation (n=19), Boerhaave's syndrome (n=10), or other causes (n=4); this resulted in an immediate and complete sealing of the lesion in 32 patients (97%). Stents migrated in 11 patients (33%). Four patients required an esophageal resection for failed stent therapy (n=3) and failed stent removal (n=1). The 90-day mortality rate was 15%. A total of 33 endoscopic stent extractions were attempted. Overall, 23 stents were extracted within 6 weeks (group I) and 10 stents between 6 and 84 weeks (group II). Extractions were uncomplicated in all patients in group I (100%) vs. in 5 patients in group II (50%) (P=0.001). Six extraction-related complications occurred in group II, including two self-limiting bleedings, three stent fractures, and one impacted stent. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a benign esophageal perforation, temporary stent therapy is effective and provides a good alternative to surgery. Complications due to stent removal can be prevented by removal of the prosthesis within 6 weeks after insertion, without compromising the efficacy of treatment.

Esophageal stents for the relief of malignant dysphagia due to extrinsic compression.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: In patients with primary esophageal cancer, luminal patency can be restored by placement of a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS). The use of SEMS in patients with dysphagia caused by malignant extrinsic compression has largely been unreported. In this study we evaluated the efficacy of SEMS in a large cohort of patients with malignant extrinsic compression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective single-center study. Between 1995 and 2009, 50 consecutive patients with malignant extrinsic compression who had undergone SEMS placement were included (mean age 64 years; 37-males). In the majority of patients, extrinsic esophageal compression was caused by obstructive pulmonary cancer (n = 23) and by mediastinal metastasis after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer (n = 16). RESULTS: Stent placement was technically successful in all patients. Severe complications occurred in 5 / 50 patients (10 %) including perforation during dilation prior to stent insertion (n = 2) and hemorrhage (n = 3). Two patients (4 %) died from bleeding. Mild complications were seen in 9 / 50 patients (18 %). Recurrent dysphagia occurred in eight patients (16 %) and was successfully managed by subsequent endoscopic intervention. Median survival after stent placement was 44 days (range 5 days - 2 years). The median stent patency of 46 days in this series exceeded median patient survival. CONCLUSIONS: Insertion of an SEMS is an effective palliative treatment for patients with dysphagia due to malignant extrinsic compression. In spite of the short survival, some patients present with recurrent dysphagia, which can be managed effectively by endoscopic re-intervention.

Triage of colonoscopies: open access endoscopy versus outpatient consultation with a gastroenterologist.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: In many Dutch hospitals, open access referral for colonoscopy is authorized by a gastroenterologist after screening a standard referral letter (SRL) without face-to-face contact with the patient. We investigated the added value of a 7.5 min outpatient consultation with a gastroenterologist (OC), regarding the patient indications, priority for colonoscopy, and the frequency of correct information about patient medications and comorbidities on SRLs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a prospective, blinded, single-center study, gastroenterologists assessed SRLs for the accuracy and priority of the colonoscopy request (SRL). These data were compared to results from the OC, and primary outcomes were the number of patients who were not recommended for colonoscopy and priority scheduling of colonoscopy for suspicion of cancer. RESULTS: Patients were analyzed using both SRL and OC and, of 255 patients, 224 of them underwent colonoscopy. Colonoscopy was not recommended for 6.3 % and 11.4 % of patients using the SRL and OC, respectively (P = 0.02). Using the SRL, gastroenterologists did not recommend colonoscopy for seven patients, but the same patients were recommended for colonoscopy when OC was available. This was explained because the indications on the SRL did not match the information obtained from OC. Compared to OC , more colonoscopies were prioritized when the SRL was used to make decisions. Cancer was detected in 7/112 (SRL ) versus 7/65 (OC ) of priority-scheduled patients. SRLs did not report the use of coumarins and insulin in 1.6 % of patients or the prevalence of serious comorbid conditions in 52 % of patients. CONCLUSIONS: A 7.5 min outpatient consultation with a gastroenterologist improved the identification of indications for colonoscopy, decreased priority scheduling of patients, and increased the number of patients diagnosed with cancer in the prioritized group. SRLs frequently omitted patients' medications and comorbidities.