Patient perception and preference of EUS-guided drainage over percutaneous drainage when endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage fails: An international multicenter survey.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a feasible procedure when ERCP fails, as is percutaneous transhepatic BD (PTBD). However, little is known about patient perception and preference of EUS-BD and PTBD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An international multicenter survey was conducted in seven tertiary referral centers. In total, 327 patients, scheduled to undergo ERCP for suspected malignant biliary obstruction, were enrolled in the study. Patients received decision aids with visual representation regarding the techniques, benefits, and adverse events (AEs) of EUS-BD and PTBD. Patients were then asked the choice between the two simulated scenarios (EUS-BD or PTBD) after failed ERCP, the reasons for their preference, and whether altering AE rates would influence their prior choice. RESULTS: In total, 313 patients (95.7%) responded to the questionnaire and 251 patients (80.2%) preferred EUS-BD. The preference of EUS-BD was 85.7% (186/217) with EUS-BD expertise, compared to 67.7% (65/96) without EUS-BD expertise (P < 0.001). The main reason for choosing EUS-BD was the possibility of internal drainage (78.1%). In multivariate analysis, the availability of EUS-BD expertise was the single independent factor that influenced patient preference (odds ratio: 3.168; 95% of confidence interval, 1.714-5.856; P < 0.001). The preference of EUS-BD increased as AE rates decreased (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this simulated scenario, approximately 80% of patients preferred EUS-BD over PTBD after failed ERCP. However, preference of EUS-BD declined as its AE rates increased. Further technical innovations and improved proficiency in EUS-BD for reducing AEs may encourage the use of this procedure as a routine clinical practice when ERCP fails.

Coeliac disease screening is suboptimal in a tertiary gastroenterology setting.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Coeliac disease (CD) is widely prevalent in North America, but case-finding techniques currently used may not be adequate for patient identification. We aimed to determine the adequacy of CD screening in an academic gastroenterology (GI) practice. METHODS: Consecutive initial visits to a tertiary academic GI practice were surveyed over a 3-month period as a fellow-initiated quality improvement project. All electronic records were reviewed to look for indications for CD screening according to published guidelines. The timing of screening was noted (before or after referral), as well as the screening method (serology or biopsy). Data were analysed to compare CD screening practices across subspecialty clinics. RESULTS: 616 consecutive patients (49±0.6 years, range 16-87 years, 58.5% females, 94% Caucasian) fulfilled inclusion criteria. CD testing was indicated in 336 (54.5%), but performed in only 145 (43.2%). The need for CD screening was highest in luminal GI and inflammatory bowel disease clinics, followed by biliary and hepatology clinics (p<0.0001); CD screening rate was highest in the luminal GI clinic (p=0.002). Of 145 patients screened, 4 patients (2.4%) had serology consistent with CD, of which 2 were proven by duodenal biopsy. Using this proportion, an additional 5 patients might have been diagnosed in 191 untested patients with indications for CD screening. CONCLUSIONS: More than 50% of patients in a tertiary GI clinic have indications for CD screening, but <50% of indicated cases are screened. Case-finding techniques therefore are suboptimal, constituting a gap in patient care and an important target for future quality improvement initiatives.

Treatment implications of high-resolution manometry findings: options for patients with esophageal dysmotility.

OPINION STATEMENT: High-resolution manometry (HRM) has significantly impacted diagnosis and management of achalasia in particular, and has improved characterization of other motor disorders. Achalasia, the most profound esophageal motor disorder, is characterized by esophageal outflow obstruction from abnormal relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) during swallowing, and presents with transit symptoms (dysphagia, regurgitation). Esophageal body motor disorders include both inhibitory nerve dysfunction associated with hypermotility or spasm, and hypomotility disorders with poor contraction. The implications of hypermotility disorders are both perceptive and obstructive. On the other hand, hypomotility disorders have reflux implications because of abnormal barrier function at the LES, and abnormal bolus clearance. Esophageal outflow obstruction in achalasia responds favorably to disruption of the LES, and outcome may be predicted by HRM subtyping of achalasia. Identification of dominant (perceptive vs. obstructive) mechanisms of symptom generation help direct therapy of hypermotility disorders, while hypomotility disorders typically require management of concurrent reflux disease.

Depression in primary caregivers of patients listed for liver or kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: No studies have examined depression in primary caregivers of adult patients listed for liver or kidney transplantation. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of depression among primary caregivers of patients listed for liver or kidney transplantation and to compare these 2 groups. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey was conducted. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale and a demographic questionnaire were sent out and returned by mail. RESULTS: Of 72 eligible primary caregivers, 42 (58%) participated; the participation rate was similar for caregivers of kidney and liver failure patients (21/32 [66%)] vs 21/40 [53%], P = .3). Mean caregiver age was 54.7 +/- 13.6 years. Twenty-three caregivers (54.8%) were spouses, 15 (35.7%) were first-degree relatives, and 26 (62%) were women. Median depression scale score was 5.5 (0-36). Three (7%), 2 (5%), and 3 (7%) participants reported mild, moderate, and severe depression, respectively. Median Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale score was higher among caregivers of liver versus kidney patients, but the difference was not statistically significant (9 vs 4, P = .2). Depression scale scores did not correlate with age, sex, time listed, or nature or length of relationship with the patient. The prevalence of depression in primary caregivers was 19%; of these caregivers, one third may have had severe depression. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of moderate to severe depression in primary caregivers of liver and kidney transplant candidates is significant. The impact of depression on caregivers as well as patients, both before and after transplantation, deserves study. Screening for depression in caregivers could lead to clinical interventions that benefit caregivers and indirectly improve patient outcomes.