Long-term results after EUS gallbladder drainage in high-surgical-risk patients with acute cholecystitis: A 3-year follow-up registry.

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) has become the favorite drainage option for high surgical-risk patients with acute cholecystitis. However, data on long-term outcomes regarding efficacy and security over 1 year are scarce. Patients and methods We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database to analyze the 3-year long-term outcomes of EUS-GBD with lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) in high-surgical-risk patients with acute cholecystitis. Results Fifty patients with acute cholecystitis who underwent EUS-GBD with LAMS and 3-year follow-up or until death were included in this study. No endoscopic revisions were scheduled unless an adverse event (AE) or suspected LAMS dysfunction occurred. AEs occurred in 18%, 20%, and 26% of patients in the first, second, and third years, respectively. Thirteen patients developed at least one AE, and six presented with a second AE during follow-up. Recurrence of cholecystitis occurred in two patients (4%). Seven stent migrations (14%) occurred but all were asymptomatic. Symptomatic LAMS-related AEs (LAMS-RAEs) (37.5%) were related to gastric location of the stent compared with duodenal location (66.7% vs. 12.5%, P = 0.03). No stent-related bleeding or stent-related mortality was observed. Conclusions EUS-GBD with LAMS without scheduled removal is an effective and safe long-term treatment in high-surgical-risk patients with acute cholecystitis. Late LAMS-RAEs tend to be more asymptomatic over time. Symptomatic LAMS-RAEs are associated with gastric location, and overall, AEs tend to recur.

Safety of endoscopist-administered deep sedation with propofol in ASA III patients

Introduction: deep sedation controlled by the endoscopist is safe in patients with low anesthetic risk (ASA I-II). However, scarce evidence is available in patients with intermediate risk (ASA III).Objective: to evaluate the safety of deep sedation with propofol controlled by the usual endoscopy staff (endoscopist, nurse, assistant) in outpatients classified as ASA III and the risk factors for the occurrence of complications during deep sedation.Patients and methods: this observational and single-center cross-sectional study included consecutive patients undergoing non-complex procedures in which deep sedation was administered by the endoscopy staff. Patients were divided into group I (ASA = III) and group II (ASA < III).Results: a total of 562 patients were included and 80 (14.2 %) were in group I. Complications related to deep sedation were more frequent in group I (23.8 % vs 14.5 %; p = 0.036), mainly mild desaturations (13.8 % vs 7.5 %; p = 0.058). Emergency intervention or death were not registered. The adjusted analysis identified age as the only independent baseline risk factor for developing global adverse events.Conclusion: ASA III patients developed more sedation-related complications than ASA I-II patients. However, these complications were mild and did not prevent the correct performance of the procedure. (AU)

Safety of endoscopist-administered deep sedation with propofol in ASA III patients.

INTRODUCTION: deep sedation controlled by the endoscopist is safe in patients with low anesthetic risk (ASA I-II). However, scarce evidence is available in patients with intermediate risk (ASA III). OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the safety of deep sedation with propofol controlled by the usual endoscopy staff (endoscopist, nurse, assistant) in outpatients classified as ASA III and the risk factors for the occurrence of complications during deep sedation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: this observational and single-center cross-sectional study included consecutive patients undergoing non-complex procedures in which deep sedation was administered by the endoscopy staff. Patients were divided into group I (ASA = III) and group II (ASA < III). RESULTS: a total of 562 patients were included and 80 (14.2 %) were in group I. Complications related to deep sedation were more frequent in group I (23.8 % vs 14.5 %; p = 0.036), mainly mild desaturations (13.8 % vs 7.5 %; p = 0.058). Emergency intervention or death were not registered. The adjusted analysis identified age as the only independent baseline risk factor for developing global adverse events. CONCLUSION: ASA III patients developed more sedation-related complications than ASA I-II patients. However, these complications were mild and did not prevent the correct performance of the procedure.

Diagnostic yield of early repeat colonoscopy after suboptimal bowel preparation in a fecal immunochemical test-based screening program.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines regarding surveillance after screening colonoscopy assume adequate bowel preparation. However, follow-up intervals after suboptimal cleansing are highly heterogeneous. We aimed to determine the diagnostic yield of early repeat colonoscopy in patients with suboptimal bowel preparation in fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening colonoscopy. METHODS: An observational study including patients who underwent colonoscopy with suboptimal bowel preparation after positive FIT screening and then repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. Suboptimal preparation was defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score of 1 in any segment. Patients with a BBPS score of 0 in any segment or incomplete examination were excluded. The adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced ADR (AADR), and colorectal cancer rate were calculated for the index and repeat colonoscopies. RESULTS: Of the 2474 patients with FIT-positive colonoscopy at our center during this period, 314 (12.7 %) had suboptimal preparation. Of the 259 (82.5 %) patients who underwent repeat colonoscopy, suboptimal cleansing persisted in 22 (9 %). On repeat colonoscopy, the ADR was 38.7 % (95 %CI 32.6 % to 44.8 %) and the AADR was 14.9 % (95 %CI 10.5 % to 19.4 %). The per-adenoma miss rate was 27.7 % (95 %CI 24.0 % to 31.6 %), and the per-advanced adenoma miss rate was 17.6 % (95 %CI 13.3 % to 22.7 %). After repeat colonoscopy, the post-polypectomy surveillance recommendation changed from 10 to 3 years in 14.7 % of the patients with previous 10-year surveillance recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with suboptimal bowel preparation on FIT-positive colonoscopy present a high rate of advanced adenomas in repeat colonoscopy, with major changes in post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations.

Tratamiento antibiótico en la pancreatitis aguda / Antibiotic therapy in acute pancreatitis

La infección de necrosis pancreática (INP) es una de las principales causas de mortalidad en pacientes con pancreatitis aguda (PA). La elección de un tratamiento antibiótico en PA debe basarse en la penetración del fármaco en páncreas y en el grado de cobertura que ofrece contra la flora bacteriana típica que produce la INP. Fármacos como el imipenem, el ciprofloxacino y el metronidazol se han estudiado extensamente y parecen ser los ideales para el tratamiento de la INP. Las guías de práctica clínica recomiendan carbapenem como tratamiento empírico inicial, y en caso de aislar un germen grampositivo en muestras de punción pancreática recomiendan vancomicina asociada o no a carbapenem. Actualmente, no hay pruebas científicas suficientes para apoyar el tratamiento antibiótico profiláctico de la INP, dado que tanto los estudios de mayor calidad (doble ciego) como el último metaanálisis publicado no han mostrado ninguna ventaja en su uso (AU)

Infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) is one of the main causes of mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP). The choice of antibiotic therapy in AP should be based on penetration of the drug in the pancreas and the degree of coverage provided against the typical bacterial flora produced in IPN. Drugs such as imipenem, ciprofloxacin and metronidazole have been widely studied and seem to be ideal in the treatment of INP. Clinical practice guidelines recommend a carbapenem agent as the initial empirical treatment. When Gram-positive pathogens are isolated in pancreatic samples, vancomycin can be used alone or associated with a carbapenem. Currently, prophylactic antibiotic therapy for IPN is not supported by the scientific evidence, since both the best quality studies (double-blind) and the latest meta-analysis published have found no benefit of the use of this strategy (AU)

[Antibiotic therapy in acute pancreatitis]. / Tratamiento antibiótico en la pancreatitis aguda.

Infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) is one of the main causes of mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP). The choice of antibiotic therapy in AP should be based on penetration of the drug in the pancreas and the degree of coverage provided against the typical bacterial flora produced in IPN. Drugs such as imipenem, ciprofloxacin and metronidazole have been widely studied and seem to be ideal in the treatment of INP. Clinical practice guidelines recommend a carbapenem agent as the initial empirical treatment. When Gram-positive pathogens are isolated in pancreatic samples, vancomycin can be used alone or associated with a carbapenem. Currently, prophylactic antibiotic therapy for IPN is not supported by the scientific evidence, since both the best quality studies (double-blind) and the latest meta-analysis published have found no benefit of the use of this strategy.