Outcomes of submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinomas removed by endoscopic mucosal resection.

AIM: To investigate the outcomes and recurrences of pT1b esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) following endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and associated treatments. METHODS: Patients undergoing EMR with pathologically confirmed T1b EAC at two academic referral centers were retrospectively identified. Patients were divided into 4 groups based on treatment following EMR: Endoscopic therapy alone (group A), endoscopic therapy with either chemotherapy, radiation or both (group B), surgical resection (group C) or no further treatment/lost to follow-up (< 12 mo) (group D). Pathology specimens were reviewed by a central pathologist. Follow-up data was obtained from the academic centers, primary care physicians and/or referring physicians. Univariate analysis was performed to identify factors predicting recurrence of EAC. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients with T1b EAC underwent EMR, of which 32 (60%) had adequate follow-up ≥ 12 mo (median 34 mo, range 12-103). There were 16 patients in group A, 9 in group B, 7 in group C and 21 in group D. Median follow-up in groups A to C was 34 mo (range 12-103). Recurrent EAC developed overall in 9 patients (28%) including 6 (38%) in group A (median: 21 mo, range: 6-73), 1 (11%) in group B (median: 30 mo, range: 30-30) and 2 (29%) in group C (median 21 mo, range: 7-35. Six of 9 recurrences were local; of the 6 recurrences, 5 were treated with endoscopy alone. No predictors of recurrence of EAC were identified. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic therapy of T1b EAC may be a reasonable strategy for a subset of patients including those either refusing or medically unfit for esophagectomy.

Cold snare piecemeal resection of colonic and duodenal polyps ≥1 cm.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic removal of duodenal and colorectal adenomas is currently considered to be the standard of care for prevention of adenocarcinoma. The use of cautery carries a risk of delayed bleeding, post-polypectomy syndrome, and perforation. We examined the safety and feasibility of removing colonic and duodenal polyps ≥ 1 cm using a piecemeal cold snare polypectomy technique. PATIENTS: The study included 15 patients with duodenal polyps ≥ 1 cm and 15 patients with colonic polyps ≥ 1 cm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Bleeding, perforation, abdominal pain, or hospitalization occurring within 2 weeks of polypectomy. RESULTS: Between 24 August 2011 and 29 April 2013, 15 patients had removal of duodenal polyps ≥ 1 cm. Mean patient age was 64 years and 9/15 patients were male. The mean polyp size was 24 mm (10 - 60 mm). All polyps were removed with a cold snare and some required cold biopsy forceps. One patient required hospitalization for gastrointestinal blood loss 7 days post-polypectomy; this patient was using Coumadin. Between 27 February 2012 and 30 May 2013, 15 patients underwent resection of a ≥ 1 cm colonic polyp. Mean patient age was 68 years and 9/15 were male. The mean polyp size was 20 mm (10 - 45 mm). All polyps were primarily removed with a cold snare. None of the patients required hemostatic clips for control of immediate bleeding. One patient presented to the emergency department with abdominal pain 1 day after initial endoscopy. CT scan showed no abnormalities and the patient was discharged. CONCLUSIONS: Cold snare polypectomy for large duodenal and colonic polyps is technically feasible and may have a favorable safety profile compared to standard electrocautery-based endoscopic resection. Comparative trials are required to determine the relative safety and efficacy of cold snare techniques for complete and durable resection of large polyps compared to standard hot snare methods.

The risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis and the protective effect of rectal indomethacin in cases of attempted but unsuccessful prophylactic pancreatic stent placement.

BACKGROUND: It is believed, based on limited observational data, that an unsuccessful attempt to place a prophylactic pancreatic stent substantially increases the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). OBJECTIVE: To better understand the risk of PEP in patients with failed pancreatic stent placement (FPS) and the impact of rectal indomethacin on this risk. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of randomized, controlled trial data. SETTING: University of Michigan and Indiana University. PATIENTS: A total of 577 clinical trial participants at elevated risk for PEP. INTERVENTIONS: Pancreatic stent placement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Within the placebo group, we compared PEP rates in patients with FPS, patients who underwent successful stent placement, and in those without a stent attempt. We also performed a regression analysis evaluating the association between FPS and PEP. To define the protective effect of indomethacin, we repeated these analyses in the indomethacin group and in the full study cohort. RESULTS: The incidence of PEP among patients in the placebo group who experienced FPS was 34.7%, significantly exceeding rates in patients who underwent successful stent placement (16.4%) and in those without a stent attempt (12.1%). After we adjusted for known PEP risk factors, FPS was found to be independently associated with PEP. Among the indomethacin group and in the full cohort, FPS was not associated with a higher risk of PEP. LIMITATIONS: Low event rate, FPS not prospectively captured. CONCLUSION: FPS appears to confer an increased risk of PEP, which is attenuated by rectal indomethacin administration. These findings highlight the importance of adequate training and proficiency before endoscopists attempt pancreatic stent placement and the routine use of rectal indomethacin in high-risk ERCP cases.

International multicenter experience with an over-the-scope clipping device for endoscopic management of GI defects (with video).

BACKGROUND: The over-the-scope clip (OTSC) provides more durable and full-thickness closure as compared with standard clips. Only case reports and small case series have reported on outcomes of OTSC closure of GI defects. OBJECTIVE: To describe a large, multicenter experience with OTSCs for the management of GI defects. Secondary goals were to determine success rate by type of defect and type of therapy and to determine predictors of treatment outcomes. DESIGN: Multicenter, retrospective study. SETTING: Multiple, international, academic centers. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients who underwent attempted OTSC placement for GI defects, either as a primary or as a rescue therapy. INTERVENTIONS: OTSC placement to attempt closure of GI defects. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Long-term success of the procedure. RESULTS: A total of 188 patients (108 fistulae, 48 perforations, 32 leaks) were included. Long-term success was achieved in 60.2% of patients during a median follow-up of 146 days. Rate of successful closure of perforations (90%) and leaks (73.3%) was significantly higher than that of fistulae (42.9%) (P < .05). Long-term success was significantly higher when OTSCs were applied as primary therapy (primary 69.1% vs rescue 46.9%; P = .004). On multivariate analysis, patients who had OTSC placement for perforations and leaks had significantly higher long-term success compared with those who had fistulae (OR 51.4 and 8.36, respectively). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design and multiple operators with variable expertise with the OTSC device. CONCLUSION: OTSC is safe and effective therapy for closure of GI defects. Clinical success is best achieved in patients undergoing closure of perforations or leaks when OTSC is used for primary or rescue therapy. Type of defect is the best predictor of successful long-term closure.