Esophageal dilation with polyvinyl (American) dilators over a marked guidewire: practice and safety at one center over a 5-yr period.

OBJECTIVE: Improvements in dilator technology over the past decade have revolutionized esophageal dilation. There remains, however, a number of controversies relating to several technical aspects of wire-guided dilation, including whether or not fluoroscopy is necessary. We describe our experience with wire-guided esophageal bougienage. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our experience with esophageal dilation using polyvinyl (American) dilators and marked guidewires over the period 1990-1994 to assess the practice habits of our endoscopists and the safety of the technique. We did 606 wire-guided dilations on 354 adult patients. Dilations were done by six different endoscopists. RESULTS: Fluoroscopy was used in only 32/606 dilations (5.3%) and then only to pass a guidewire when the scope could not be passed through the stricture. Fluoroscopy was not used to monitor dilator passage. Peptic strictures were dilated to their maximal target size (determined by the individual endoscopist) in one session in 195 of 253 instances (77.1%). Practice differences were seen between the individual endoscopists relating to how rapidly dilation was accomplished, the number of dilators passed per session, and the maximal dilator size passed. No perforations or other serious complications occurred in our series. CONCLUSIONS: Wire-guided esophageal bougienage is a very safe procedure when careful attention to technique is observed. No perforations were seen in our series of over 600 dilations. Fluoroscopy is needed only in those cases in which a scope cannot be passed through a stricture to assist with guidewire passage. In a majority of cases, peptic strictures can be dilated to a 45-to 51-Fr size in a single session.

The effect of droperidol on objective markers of patient cooperation and vital signs during esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, prospective investigation.

We investigated the effect of droperidol on objective markers of cooperation and vital signs in 140 patients undergoing elective diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Procedure duration and the total doses of midazolam and meperidine required during the procedure were evaluated as objective markers of patient cooperation. The droperidol group comprised 66 patients and the placebo group 74 patients. Patient and procedure characteristics were similar for both groups. Droperidol produced a 10% reduction in procedure duration. Linear multiple regression modeling revealed droperidol to be a significant predictor of procedure duration (p = .036). Droperidol significantly reduced midazolam and meperidine requirements (p < .01). Nonetheless, four patients in the droperidol group received naloxone to reverse prolonged, excessive drowsiness. Droperidol produced a significant reduction in procedure-associated increase in pulse rate but did not exacerbate procedure-associated reduction in mean arterial pressure. Droperidol favorably influences markers of patient cooperation during elective, diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy. However, the clinical significance of these changes is unclear.

Prospective, randomized trial comparing a new sodium phosphate-bisacodyl regimen with conventional PEG-ES lavage for outpatient colonoscopy preparation.

BACKGROUND: Several recent trials have shown that colonoscopy preparation with sodium phosphate solution is as effective and at least as well tolerated as conventional PEG-ES lavage. These trials utilized two 1.5-fluid oz doses, one given on the evening before colonoscopy and the other early the next morning. METHODS: We devised a new sodium phosphate regimen in which the entire dose was given on the evening before examination (1.5 fl oz at 4 PM, 1.5-fl oz at 7 PM and 10 mg of bisacodyl at 10 PM) and performed a prospective, randomized trial that compared it with conventional PEG-ES lavage in terms of quality of colon cleansing, patient tolerance, and safety in an outpatient colonoscopy population with normal renal function. Seventy-two patients received sodium phosphate-bisacodyl and 75 PEG-ES lavage. RESULTS: The overall quality of colon cleansing and frequency of unsatisfactory preparations were similar with both methods. Patients found preparation with sodium phosphate-bisacodyl to be easier than PEG-ES lavage (p = 0.005). No clinically important adverse effects were seen with either method of preparation. The average cost of sodium phosphate-bisacodyl was $4.32 per patient compared with $18.15 for PEG-ES lavage preparation. CONCLUSION: Preparation with sodium phosphate-bisacodyl, given on the evening before colonoscopy, is a well-tolerated, efficacious, and cost-effective alternative to conventional PEG-ES lavage.

Do gastroenterologists themselves follow the American Cancer Society recommendations for colorectal cancer screening?

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of mortality from cancer in the United States. Unfortunately, many patients already have advanced disease by the time symptoms occur. Screening of asymptomatic persons offers the potential of detecting the disease at its early and curable stages. The American Cancer Society (ACS) screening recommendations are the most widely employed in this country. We sought to determine whether gastroenterologists themselves follow the ACS recommendations, and if not, to determine their reasons for not doing so. We also looked at gastroenterologists' use of diets and supplements that might reduce the likelihood of colorectal cancer. METHOD: A questionnaire was mailed out to all gastroenterologists with U.S. addresses listed in the American College of Gastroenterology membership directory. RESULTS: Of 1466 respondents, 330 were excluded because they were at high risk for colorectal cancer or were not gastroenterologists. This left 875 gastroenterologists age 40 years and over and 261 gastroenterologists under age 40 for analysis. Overall, 68% of respondents felt the ACS recommendations were adequate; 32% did not. Of those who disagreed with the ACS recommendations, 58% preferred screening colonoscopy, and 22% preferred flexible sigmoidoscopy without annual fecal occult blood testing. Of gastroenterologists age 40 and over, 38% strictly followed the ACS recommendations themselves, 39% partially, and 23% did not follow them. Fifty percent of those who did not strictly follow the recommendations believed they were adequate but procrastinated or "did not have the time" to follow them. Overall, 82% of gastroenterologists said they used a high fiber diet, 68% used a diet low in fat, 18% used a calcium supplement, and 25% used aspirin regularly. CONCLUSIONS: Although two-thirds of gastroenterologists agreed with the ACS recommendations, only 38% themselves followed them strictly. Of the approximately one-third of gastroenterologists who considered them inadequate, a majority preferred screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterologists were more aggressive in following dietary practices that might help prevent colorectal cancer development than they were in undergoing screening.

Review of duodenal diverticula.

Duodenal diverticula occur in 2-5% of patients undergoing barium studies of the upper intestinal tract. Duodenal diverticula are classified into two types: extraluminal or intraluminal. Usually of little clinical significance, they can cause obstruction, cholelithiasis, ascending cholangitis, ulcers, and hemorrhage, and may perforate. Associated intestinal tract malformations have been reported in 40% of patients with intraluminal duodenal diverticula. Diagnosis is made by endoscopy or upper gastrointestinal series. In symptomatic cases, extraluminal diverticula are amenable to surgery, whereas intraluminal diverticula may be either surgically or endoscopically resected. Imaging of the biliary tree should be performed prior to any intervention.