Transgastric endoscopic pneumoperitoneum versus laparoscopy: effects on host systemic and peritoneal inflammatory responses in a porcine model.

BACKGROUND: The host systemic and peritoneal immune responses during natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) continues to be delineated. The immune response to laparoscopy (LAP) has been favorably depicted. However, the immunologic effects of NOTES are yet to be determined, and the introduction of contaminants via the host orificium may have deleterious effects. The purpose of this study was to characterize the effect that NOTES would have on porcine systemic and peritoneal immune function. METHODS: Twenty-four pigs were divided into three groups: ENDO (upper-endoscopy control), NOTES, and LAP. All animals had blood and peritoneal lavage samples collected for cytokine analysis pre- and postoperatively. Interleukin-1ß (IL-1ß), interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-10 (IL-10), tumor necrosis factor α (TNFα), and interferon γ (IFNγ) levels were quantified using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Peritoneal lavage samples were cultured and identified by group and time of collection for microbiological analysis. RESULTS: TNFα was found in detectable levels in serum samples of all three groups. For the NOTES group, there was a significant increase in TNFα at t = 1 h (P < 0.01), which dropped significantly at t = 48 h (P < 0.01). IL-1ß was present as an early response in NOTES lavage samples (t = 0 and t = 1 h). Both LAP and NOTES had similar elevation of IL-1ß in the final lavage samples at t = 48 h. The other cytokines were not consistently found above detectable levels in any group. Similar microbiological contaminants were found in the ENDO and LAP groups. In the NOTES group, no significant growth was observed from cultures at 48 h. CONCLUSIONS: For measurable cytokines, the NOTES inflammatory response was not significantly different from that of the LAP group. NOTES did not carry a significantly increased amount of microbiological contamination at 48 h compared to LAP. These data suggest that the host immune response to NOTES does not significantly differ from that to LAP in a porcine model.

Reducing referral delays in colorectal cancer diagnosis: is it about how you ask?

OBJECTIVES: Delays in colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosis related to colonoscopy referrals are not well studied. The authors tested whether certain details of information transmitted through computerised provider order entry (CPOE)-based referrals affected timeliness of diagnostic colonoscopy for patients with newly diagnosed CRC. METHODS: The authors studied a 6-year cohort of all newly diagnosed patients with CRC at a large tertiary care Veterans Affairs hospital and its affiliated multispecialty clinics. Referring providers included primary care clinicians, resident trainees and other specialists. From the colonoscopy referral preceding CRC diagnosis, the authors determined request date, type and frequency of diagnostic clues provided (symptoms, signs, test results), notation of urgency, and documented evidence of verbal contact between referring provider and consultant to expedite referral. The authors compared distributions of proportions of diagnostic clues between patients with a lag of >60 and ≤60 day, and examined predictors of lag time. RESULTS: Of 367 electronic referrals identified with a median lag of 57 days, 178 (48.5%) had a lag of >60 days. Referrals associated with longer lag times included those with 'positive faecal occult blood test' (92 days, p<0.0001), 'haematochesia' (75 days, p=0.02), 'history of polyps' (221 days, p=0.0006) and when 'screening' (vs specific symptoms) was given as the reason for diagnostic colonoscopy (203 days, p=0.002). Independent predictors of shorter wait times included three diagnostic clues, notation of urgency and documentation of verbal contact. CONCLUSIONS: Attention to certain details of diagnostic information provided to consultants through CPOE-based referrals may help reduce delays in CRC diagnosis.

Missed opportunities to initiate endoscopic evaluation for colorectal cancer diagnosis.

OBJECTIVES: Delayed diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most common reasons for ambulatory diagnostic malpractice claims in the United States. Our objective was to describe missed opportunities to diagnose CRC before endoscopic referral, in terms of patient characteristics, nature of clinical clues, and types of diagnostic-process breakdowns involved. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of consecutive, newly diagnosed cases of CRC between February 1999 and June 2007 at a tertiary health-care system in Texas. Two reviewers independently evaluated the electronic record of each patient using a standardized pretested data collection instrument. Missed opportunities were defined as care episodes in which endoscopic evaluation was not initiated despite the presence of one or more clues that warrant a diagnostic workup for CRC. Predictors of missed opportunities were evaluated in logistic regression. The types of breakdowns involved in the diagnostic process were also determined and described. RESULTS: Of the 513 patients with CRC who met the inclusion criteria, both reviewers agreed on the presence of at least one missed opportunity in 161 patients. Among these patients there was a mean of 4.2 missed opportunities and 5.3 clues. The most common clues were suspected or confirmed iron deficiency anemia, positive fecal occult blood test, and hematochezia. The odds of a missed opportunity were increased in patients older than 75 years (odds ratio (OR)=2.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-4.1) or with iron deficiency anemia (OR=2.2; 95% CI 1.3-3.6), whereas the odds of a missed opportunity were lower in patients with abnormal flexible sigmoidoscopy (OR=0.06; 95% CI 0.01-0.51), or imaging suspicious for CRC (OR=0.3; 95% CI 0.1-0.9). Anemia was the clue associated with the longest time to endoscopic referral (median=393 days). Most process breakdowns occurred in the provider-patient clinical encounter and in the follow-up of patients or abnormal diagnostic test results. CONCLUSIONS: Missed opportunities to initiate workup for CRC are common despite the presence of many clues suggestive of CRC diagnosis. Future interventions are needed to reduce the process breakdowns identified.