Gastrointestinal ischemia: endoscopic findings in the context of vascular insufficiency

Gastrointestinal ischemia may result from different causes: hemodynamic shock, thromboembolism, endoscopic or surgical complications, among other causes. Its symptoms are pain, vomiting, bleeding and bloating. Endoscopic findings are pale or blackened mucosa, and exudative and confluent ulcerative lesions. This paper aims to report a case of gastroduodenal ischemia associated with hemodynamic shock and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). This is a case of a 56-yearsold male with multiple comorbidities, presenting with refractory septic shock and DIC. He underwent an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) for investigation of melena, which revealed an extensive deep and exudative gastric ulcer, associated with edematous purplish duodenal mucosa. Due to the severity of the underlying condition, the patient evolved to death, evidencing septic shock as cause of death. Gastroduodenal ischemia is associated with a poor prognosis, in which early diagnosis by UGE is fundamental to guide potential interventions.

La isquemia gastroduodenal puede resultar por diferentes causas: shock hemodinámico, tromboembolismo, complicaciones post-procedimientos endoscópicos o quirúrgicos, entre otras. Sus síntomas son dolor, vómito, hemorragia y distensión abdominal. Los hallazgos endoscópicos son mucosa pálida o ennegrecida, lesiones ulcerativas exudativas y confluentes. Este trabajo relata un caso de isquemia gastrointestinal, asociada a choque hemodinámico y coagulación intravascular diseminada (CID). Este es un caso de un hombre de 56 años de edad, con múltiples comorbilidades, que presenta con shock séptico refractario a tratamiento y CID. El paciente se sometió a una endoscopia digestiva alta (EDA) para la investigación de melena, que reveló una extensa úlcera gástrica exudativa y profunda, asociada con mucosa duodenal violácea e inflamada. Debido a la gravedad de la enfermedad de base, el paciente evolucionó a la muerte, siendo el shock séptico como causa principal. La isquemia gastrointestinal es asociada a un mal pronóstico, en el que el diagnóstico precoz por EDA es fundamental para orientar las posibles intervenciones.

Computed tomography colonography versus colonoscopy for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Optical colonoscopy (OC) is the first choice of investigation for assessing the state of the colon and it is excellent for CRC screening. Newer technologies such as computed tomography colonography (CTC) may also be useful in CRC screening. This systematic review compares the benefits of CTC and OC for CRC screening. This review includes all the available randomized clinical trials comparing CTC and OC for CRC screening in asymptomatic patients. Three studies were included in the systematic review and were submitted for meta-analysis. In the analysis of participation rates, only 2,333 of 8,104 (29%) patients who were invited for screening underwent the CTC, and only 1,486 of the 7,310 (20%) patients who were invited for screening underwent OC. The absolute risk difference in participation rate in the two procedures was 0.1 (95% CI, 0.05-0.14) in favor of CTC. In the analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) detection rates, 2,357 patients undergoing CTC and 1,524 patients undergoing OC were included. Of these, 135 patients (5.7%) who underwent a CTC and 130 patients (8.5%) who underwent an OC were diagnosed with ACN. The absolute risk difference in ACN detection rate in the two procedure types was -0.02 (with a 95% CI between -0.04 and -0.00) in favor of OC. CTC is an option for CRC screening in asymptomatic patients. However, as CTC was inferior in detecting ACN, it should not replace OC, which remains the gold standard.

Guide wire-assisted cannulation versus conventional contrast to prevent pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized control trials / Canulación asistida por alambre guía versus contraste convencional para prevenir la pancreatitis: Una revisión sistemática y meta-análisis basados en ensayos aleatorios controlados

Objective: Through this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to clarify the differences between these two techniques, thus improving primary success cannulation and reducing complications during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, primarily pancreatitis. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted to search for data available up until June2015from the most important databases available in the health field: EMBASE, MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane, LILACS and CENTRAL (via BVS), SCOPUS, the CAPES database (Brazil), and gray literature. Results: Nine randomized clinical trialsincluding2583 people were selected from20,198 studies for meta-analysis. Choledocholithiasis had been diagnosed in mostly (63.8%) of the patients, who were aged an average of 63.15 years. In those patients treated using the guide wire-assisted cannulation technique, provided a significantly lower instance of pancreatitis (RD=0.03; 95% CI: 0.01-0.05; I2= 45%) and greater primary success cannulation (RD=0.07; 95% CI: 0.03-0.12; I2=12%) than conventional contrast cannulation. Conclusions: The guide wire-assisted technique, when compared to the conventional contrast technique, reduces the risk of pancreatitis and increases primary success cannulation rate. Thus, guide wire-assisted cannulation appears to be the most appropriate first-line cannulation technique

Objetivo: A través de esta revisión sistemática y meta-análisis, nuestro objetivo es aclarar las diferencias entre estas dos técnicas, mejorando así la canulación de éxito primario y reducir las complicaciones durante la colangiopancreatografía retrógrada endoscópica, principalmente la pancreatitis. Métodos: Una búsqueda exhaustiva se realizó para buscar datos disponibles hasta junio de 2015, desde las bases de datos más importantes disponibles en el campo de la salud: EMBASE, MEDLINE (vía PubMed), Cochrane, LILACS y CENTRAL (a través de la BVS), SCOPUS, la base de datos CAPES (Brasil), y la literatura gris. Resultados: Nueve ensayos clínicos aleatorios incluyendo 2583 personas fueron seleccionados de 20198 estudios de meta- análisis. Coledocolitiasis había sido diagnosticada en su mayoría (63,8%) de los pacientes, que tenían entre un promedio de 63,15 años. En los pacientes tratados con la técnica de canulación guiada, proporcionado una instancia significativamente menor de pancreatitis (RD=0,03; IC del 95%: 0,01-0,05; I2=45%) y una mayor canalización de éxito primario (RD=0,07; IC del 95%: 0,03-0.12; I2=12%) que la canulación por contraste. Conclusiones: La técnica canulación con alambre guía, en comparación a la técnica de contraste convencional, reduce el riesgo de pancreatitis y aumenta la tasa de canulación con éxito primario. Por lo tanto, canulación con alambre guía parece ser la técnica de canulación de primera línea y la más adecuada

Endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in suspected choledocholithiasis: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is a lack of consensus about the optimal noninvasive strategy for patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. Two previous systematic reviews used different methodologies not based on pretest probabilities that demonstrated no statistically significant difference between Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for the detection of choledocholithiasis. In this article, we made a comparison of the diagnostic ability of EUS and MRCP to detect choledocholithiasis in suspected patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations with all published randomized prospective trials. We performed the systemic review using MedLine, EMBASE, Cochrane, LILACS, and Scopus reviews through May 2015. We identified eight randomized, prospective, blinded trials comparing EUS and MRCP. All the patients were submitted to a gold standard method. We calculated the study-specific variables and performed analyses using aggregated variables such as sensitivity, specificity, prevalence, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy. RESULTS: Five hundred and thirty eight patients were included in the analysis. The pretest probability for choledocholithiasis was 38.7. The mean sensitivity of EUS and MRCP for detection of choledocholithiasis was 93.7 and 83.5, respectively; the specificity was 88.5 and 91.5, respectively. Regarding EUS and MRCP, PPV was 89 and 87.8, respectively, and NPV was 96.9 and 87.8, respectively. The accuracy of EUS and MRCP was 93.3 and 89.7, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For the same pretest probability of choledocholithiasis, EUS has higher posttest probability when the result is positive and a lower posttest probability when the result is negative compared with MRCP.