Predictors of technical difficulty for trainees in esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is technically challenging, especially for trainees, and requires a safe training system. This study aimed to identify predictors of technical difficulty facing trainees performing esophageal ESD to establish such system. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent ESD performed by trainees between January 2010 and August 2022. Technical difficulties were defined as muscularis propria exposure and long procedure time (≥ 90 min). Factors associated with these technical difficulties were investigated. RESULTS: A total of 798 lesions in 721 patients were evaluated. Muscularis propria exposure occurred in 298 lesions (37.3%), including 10 perforations (1.3%). The procedure time was ≥ 90 min in 134 lesions (16.8%). In the multivariate analysis, tumor size ≥ 20 mm, tumors ≥ 1/2 of the circumference, and those close to previous treatment scars significantly increased the incidence of both difficulties, whereas tumors in the upper esophagus significantly decreased this incidence. Furthermore, female sex and tumors in the left wall were independent predictors of muscularis propria exposure, and elevated morphology was an independent predictor of long procedure time. Muscularis propria exposure and long procedure time occurred in more than half of the cases with three or more predictors of each difficulty. CONCLUSIONS: Large tumors and tumors close to previous treatment scars increase technical difficulties for trainees in esophageal ESD. Conversely, tumors in the upper esophagus reduce these difficulties. These results enable us to predict the difficulty level preoperatively and select appropriate cases in stepwise training.

Differences between patients with inpatient-onset and outpatient-onset acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: An observational study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The clinical severity and course of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB) are believed to differ between inpatient-onset and outpatient-onset cases, but no reports have investigated these issues in detail. We aimed to evaluate the clinical differences between inpatient-onset and outpatient-onset ALGIB. METHODS: Medical records of patients who had undergone emergency colonoscopy for ALGIB were retrospectively reviewed. The severity was evaluated using the NOBLADS score. Patients with obvious ALGIB relapse and/or persistent iron-deficiency anemia after emergency colonoscopy were considered to exhibit a poor clinical course. RESULTS: We reviewed 723 patients with ALGIB and divided them into the inpatient-onset cohort (172 patients) and outpatient-onset cohort (551 patients). Compared with the outpatient-onset cohort, the inpatient-onset cohort had a significantly higher proportion of patients with a poor clinical course (51.2% vs 21.6%; P < 0.001) and a significantly higher mean NOBLADS score (3.6 ± 1.1 vs 2.5 ± 1.0; P < 0.001). The most common bleeding source was acute hemorrhagic rectal ulcer (52.3%) in the inpatient-onset cohort and colonic diverticular bleeding (29.4%) in the outpatient-onset cohort. Multivariate analysis showed that a platelet count < 15 × 104 /µL and albumin concentration < 3 g/dL were significantly associated with a poor clinical course in the inpatient-onset cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical course was significantly worse in the inpatient-onset cohort than in the outpatient-onset cohort. The bleeding source, clinical characteristics, and clinical course differed between the inpatient-onset and outpatient-onset cohorts. The clinical course in the inpatient-onset cohort may depend on the patient's condition at ALGIB onset.