ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic duct stents are frequently placed for prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. Because of concern for possible secondary ductal changes from a retained stent, these stents need to be monitored and removed if retained. Usually an abdominal X-ray is performed to assess retained stent, and if present, an esophagogastroduodenoscopy is performed to remove the stent. Limited data is published on false-negative radiology reports for spontaneous passage of stents. METHODS: Using an Institutional Review Board-approved stent log, a retrospective chart review of all pancreatic duct stents placed at our institution from 2008 to 2014 was performed. RESULTS: A total of 856 pancreatic duct stents were placed during the study period. Of these, 435 (50.8%) were prophylactic stents and 421 (49.2%) were therapeutic. Complete follow-up data were available in 426 (97.9%) patients with prophylactic stents. Six patients (1.4%) were lost to follow up and three (0.7%) expired prior to removal. In all, 283 (66%) had follow-up imaging, with 167 (39.2%) having the official radiology read with no retained pancreatic duct stent in place. Eight of these cases were "false-negative" radiology interpretation (4.8% of cases read as "no stent," NNH = 20). The stent was found either by review of image by an endoscopist or incidental stent discovery during a follow-up procedure. CONCLUSION: Radiologist interpretation of abdominal X-rays to assess spontaneous passage of prophylactic pancreatic ducts stents resulted in a false-negative interpretation in approximately 5% of cases. Independent review of the images by the endoscopist may be beneficial given unfamiliarity of these stents by radiologists.
ABSTRACT
AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of liquid nitrogen cryotherapy as a primary or rescue treatment for BE, with and without dysplasia, or intramucosal adenocarcinoma (IMC). METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center study carried out in a tertiary care center including 45 patients with BE who was treatment-naïve or who had persistent intestinal metaplasia (IM), dysplasia, or IMC despite prior therapy. Barrett's mucosa was resected via EMR when clinically appropriate, then patients underwent cryotherapy until eradication or until deemed to have failed treatment. Surveillance biopsies were taken at standard intervals. RESULTS: From 2010 through 2014, 33 patients were studied regarding the efficacy of cryotherapy. Overall, 29 patients (88%) responded to cryotherapy, with 84% having complete regression of all dysplasia and cancer. Complete eradication of cancer and dysplasia was seen in 75% of subjects with IMC; the remaining two subjects did not respond to cryotherapy. Following cryotherapy, 15 patients with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) had 30% complete regression, 50% IM, and 7% low-grade dysplasia (LGD); one subject had persistent HGD. Complete eradication of dysplasia occurred in all 5 patients with LGD. In 5 patients with IM, complete regression occurred in 4, and IM persisted in one. In 136 cryotherapy sessions amongst 45 patients, adverse events included chest pain (1%), stricture (4%), and one gastrointestinal bleed in a patient on dual antiplatelet therapy who had previously undergone EMR. CONCLUSION: Cryotherapy is an efficacious and safe treatment modality for Barrett's esophagus with and without dysplasia or intramucosal adenocarcinoma.
