Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy alone vs. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration with rapid onsite evaluation in pancreatic lesions: a multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the standard in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions, in particular when combined with rapid onsite evaluation of cytopathology (ROSE). More recently, a fork-tip needle for core biopsy (FNB) has been shown to be associated with excellent diagnostic yield. EUS-FNB alone has however not been compared with EUS-FNA + ROSE in a large clinical trial. Our aim was to compare EUS-FNB alone to EUS-FNA + ROSE in solid pancreatic lesions. METHODS: A multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial involving seven centers was performed. Solid pancreatic lesions referred for EUS were considered for inclusion. The primary end point was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary end points included sensitivity/specificity, mean number of needle passes, and cost. RESULTS: 235 patients were randomized: 115 EUS-FNB alone and 120 EUS-FNA + ROSE. Overall, 217 patients had malignant histology. The diagnostic accuracy for malignancy of EUS-FNB alone was non-inferior to EUS-FNA + ROSE at 92.2 % (95 %CI 86.6 %-96.9 %) and 93.3 % (95 %CI 88.8 %-97.9 %), respectively (P = 0.72). Diagnostic sensitivity for malignancy was 92.5 % (95 %CI 85.7 %-96.7 %) for EUS-FNB alone vs. 96.5 % (93.0 %-98.6 %) for EUS-FNA + ROSE (P = 0.46), while specificity was 100 % in both. Adequate histological yield was obtained in 87.5 % of the EUS-FNB samples. The mean (SD) number of needle passes and procedure time favored EUS-FNB alone (2.3 [0.6] passes vs. 3.0 [1.1] passes [P < 0.001]; and 19.3 [8.0] vs. 22.7 [10.8] minutes [P = 0.008]). EUS-FNB alone cost on average 45 US dollars more than EUS-FNA + ROSE. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNB alone is non-inferior to EUS-FNA + ROSE and is associated with fewer needle passes, shorter procedure time, and excellent histological yield at comparable cost.

Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the Older Patient.

The incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is increasing, and as our population ages, there is a growing number of IBD patients who are transitioning into advanced age; 15% to 20% of IBD patients are classified as late-onset (between 60-65 years of age). This has led clinicians to treat a large number of older patients with IBD. The principles of management of IBD in older patients are the same as those who are younger. There are, however, phenotypic differences that are unique to late-onset IBD and age-related concerns that clinicians must consider when initiating therapy for their older patients with IBD. Given the increasing number of older IBD patients, the aim of this article is to present an updated, evidence-based review of the therapeutic options and issues that arise in this unique patient population.

Goblet cell carcinoid of the appendix - An interobserver variability study using two proposed classification systems.

Goblet cell carcinoid (GCC) is an uncommon tumor of the vermiform appendix. Due to a broad spectrum of morphological differentiation, subclassification and grading of GCCs remains an area of controversy. Two separate systems have proposed classifying GCC tumors into three (classical GCC; adenocarcinoma ex-GCC, signet ring cell type; adenocarcinoma ex-GCC, poorly differentiated carcinoma type) OR two subgroups (low and high grade GCC) based on morphological criteria. We independently compared the inter-observer variability associated with each classification system. Overall, both systems had moderate interobserver agreement, with the two-tiered system (κ=0.54) performing slightly better than the three-tiered system (κ=0.42). GI-specialist pathologists had substantial agreement for both two and three-tiered systems (κ=0.65 vs. 0.65). Non-GI trained pathologists had lower overall agreement than GI trained pathologists, but their agreement was better using the two-tiered system (κ=0.44) than the three-tiered system (κ=0.22). A sub-analysis of 6 cases with a high rate of discordant classification revealed several challenges that exist in applying current criteria, including differentiating "goblet" vs. "signet ring" cell morphology, applying a 1 mm2 criteria to multifocal non-contiguous glandular and single infiltrating cell architecture, differentiating fibro-inflammatory stroma from desmoplastic stroma, and solid architecture in cases with abundant extracellular mucin, and distinguishing "reactive" nuclear atypia from true "cytologic atypia". Despite these challenges, the study identified better agreement among GI pathologists than non-GI trained pathologists. While GI pathologist review may be helpful, further research on objective classification criteria remains an area of interest.

Risk of Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients Taking Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are convenient and effective in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism and the prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, these drugs have been associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the risk of GI bleeding in patients receiving these drugs. METHODS: We searched the EMBASE, Medline, Cochrane, and ISI Web of knowledge databases through January 2016 for randomized trials that compared NOACs with conventional anticoagulants for approved indications. We conducted a meta-analysis, reporting odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcome was major GI bleeding. Secondary outcomes included clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding and upper and lower GI bleeding. We performed a priori subgroup analyses by individual drug. RESULTS: Our analysis included a total of 43 randomized trials, comprising 166,289 patients. There was no difference between NOACs and conventional anticoagulants in the risk of major bleeding (1.5% vs 1.3%, respectively; OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.80-1.21), clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (0.6% vs 0.6%, respectively; OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.64-1.36), upper GI bleeding (1.5% vs 1.6%, respectively; OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.77-1.20), or lower GI bleeding (1.0% vs 1.0%, respectively; OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.67-1.15). Dabigatran (2.0% vs 1.4%, respectively; OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.04-1.55) and rivaroxaban (1.7% vs 1.3%, respectively; OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.15-1.70) were associated with increased odds of major GI bleeding compared with conventional anticoagulation, whereas no difference was found for apixaban (0.6% vs 0.7%, respectively; OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.64-1.02) or edoxaban (1.9% vs 1.6%, respectively; OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78-1.11). These subgroup findings were not observed in other sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found risk of major GI bleeding to be similar between NOACs and conventional anticoagulation. Dabigatran and rivaroxaban, however, may be associated with increased odds of major GI bleeding. Further high-quality studies are needed to characterize GI bleeding risk among NOACs.

Age Is the Only Predictor of Poor Bowel Preparation in the Hospitalized Patient.

We examine the impact of key variables on the likelihood of inpatient poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Records of inpatients that underwent colonoscopy at our institution between January 2010 and December 2011 were retrospectively extracted. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to assess the effect of clinical variables on the odds of poor preparation. Tested predictors included age; gender; use of narcotics; heavy medication burden; comorbidities; history of previous abdominal surgery; neurological disorder; product used for bowel preparation, whether or not the bowel regimen was given as split or standard dose; and time of endoscopy. Overall, 244 patients were assessed including 83 (34.0%, 95% CI: 28.1-39.9%) with poor bowel preparation. Cecal intubation was achieved in 81.1% of patients (95% CI: 76.2-86.0%). When stratified by quality of bowel preparation, cecal intubation was achieved in only 65.9% (95% CI: 60.0-71.9%) of patients with poor bowel preparation and 89.9% (95% CI: 86.1-93.7%) of patient with good bowel preparation. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, only advancing age was an independent predictor of poor bowel preparation (OR = 1.026, CI: 1.006 to 1.045, and p = 0.008). Age is the only independent predictor of poor bowel preparation amongst hospitalized patients.

Safety of Digestive Endoscopy following Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review.

Background. The safety of endoscopy after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is poorly characterized. We thus performed a systematic review assessing the safety of endoscopy following ACS. Methods. Searches in EMBASE, Medline, and Web of Science identified articles for inclusion. Data abstraction was completed by two independent reviewers. Results. Fourteen retrospective studies yielded 1178 patients (mean 71.3 years, 59.0% male) having suffered an ACS before endoscopy. Patients underwent 1188 endoscopies primarily to investigate suspected gastrointestinal bleeding (81.2%). Overall, 810 EGDs (68.2%), 191 colonoscopies (16.1%), 100 sigmoidoscopies (8.4%), 64 PEGs (5.4%), and 22 ERCPs (1.9%) were performed 9.0 ± 5.2 days after ACS, showing principally ulcer disease (25.1%; 95% CI 22.2-28.3%) and normal findings (22.9%; 95% CI 20.1-26.0%). Overall, 108 peri- and postprocedural complications occurred (9.1%; 95% CI 7.6-10.9%), with hypotension (24.1%; 95% CI 17.0-32.9%), arrhythmias (8.1%; 95% CI 4.5-18.1%), and repeat ACS (6.5%; 95% CI 3.1-12.8%) as the most frequent. All-cause mortality was 8.1% (95% CI 6.3-10.4%), with 4 deaths attributed to endoscopy (<24 hours after ACS, 3.7% of all complications; 95% CI 1.5-9.1%). Conclusion. A significant proportion of possibly endoscopy-related negative outcomes occur following ACS. Further studies are required to better characterize indications, patient selection, and appropriate timing of endoscopy in this cohort.

Sengstaken-Blakemore tube for non-variceal distal esophageal bleeding refractory to endoscopic treatment: a case report & review of the literature.

Non-variceal upper-gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) refractory to therapeutic endoscopy is a challenging situation. The following details a novel use for the Sengstaken-Blakemore tube in a case of severe ulcerative esophagitis after failure of conventional medical and endoscopic treatment. A 77-year-old man with a history of peptic ulcer disease developed massive hematemesis during a hospital admission. Initial gastroscopy revealed an adherent blood clot occupying the distal esophagus, extending to the gastric cardia and proximal fundus. Epinephrine was injected into and surrounding the clot; however, following the endoscopy the patient was hemodynamically unstable, requiring aggressive resuscitation. Repeat gastroscopy, following saline lavage, revealed active bleeding within severely ulcerated esophageal mucosa, immediately proximal to the gastro-esophageal (GE) junction. Despite apparent hemostasis following injection of epinephrine and electrocautery, the patient displayed clinical signs of continued bleeding. Furthermore, surgical and radiological interventions were precluded by the patient's hemodynamic instability. In an attempt to tamponade blood supply to the GE junction, a Sengstaken-Blakemore tube was inserted and placed under tension. Successful hemostasis was subsequently achieved and the patient remained stable. This is the first case to describe use of a Sengstaken-Blakemore tube in severe ulcerative esophagitis refractory to standard endoscopic management.