Multicenter evaluation of first-line endoscopic treatment with the OTSC in acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding and comparison with the Rockall cohort: the FLETRock study.

INTRODUCTION: The over-the-scope clip (OTSC) overcomes limitations of standard clips and achieves a more efficient and reliable hemostasis in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). The study aims to evaluate mortality, rebleeding, and mortality after rebleeding of patients in whom the OTSC was used as the first-line endoscopic treatment (FLET) of NVUGIB. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In total, 118 patients (FLET cohort) with a median age of 73.5 years (range 29-93 years; mean (±SD) 71.39 ± 12.39 years) were included. The distribution of patients with respect to risk category revealed a median Rockall score of 7 (range 3-10). For hypothesis testing, the FLET cohort was categorized into three risk groups taking into account the Rockall score: low risk [Rockall risk category (RRC ≤3)], moderate risk (RRC 4-7), and high risk (RRC ≥8). Event rates (mortality, rebleeding, and mortality after rebleeding) observed per risk group were compared to predicted event rates (Rockall cohort) using Fisher's Exact Test. RESULTS: Primary successful hemostasis (PSH) was achieved in 92.4% either by FLET alone or in combination with an additional hemostasis technique in 1.7% (SCS = secondary clinical success). In 7.5% of the FLET cohort PSH could not be achieved. Compared to RRC prediction, mortality after rebleeding was significantly reduced from 27.9 to 10.9% in the high-risk group (RRC ≥8) treated with FLET (p < 0.011). Furthermore, the occurrence of rebleeding or continued bleeding was significantly lower in the moderate risk group (RRC 4-7) with 4.9% as well as in the high-risk group (RRC ≥8) with 21.4% compared to the Rockall cohort 24.0 and 53.2%, respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that OTSC is superior to standard care and FLET reduces significantly rebleeding and rebleeding-associated mortality in NVUGIB. For this reason, OTSC could be the treatment of choice as the first-line treatment as an alternative to standard hemostasis techniques in high-risk patients.

[Full thickness resection device (FTRD). Experience and outcome for benign neoplasms of the rectum and colon]. / Full-Thickness-Resection-Device (FTRD). Die endoskopische Vollwandresektion für das Rektum und Kolon.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic validity of a full-thickness resection is higher compared to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic mucosal dissection (ESD). Whereas transanal endoscopic microsurgery techniques (TEM, TAMIS) are established therapeutic procedures in the rectum no established and safe minimally invasive or endoscopic procedure exists in the colon. AIM: In this study the novel endoscopic full thickness resection device (FTRD, Ovesco, Germany) was investigated concerning success rates with histologically proven full thickness resections, R0 status as well as patient and device safety for the rectum and colon. METHOD: In the period from November 2014 to June 2015 full thickness resections in the rectum and colon were performed with the FTRD in 20 patients. Data on technical success, R0 resection rate and histologically confirmed full thickness resections were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: The following indications were treated in the rectum (n = 11) and colon (n = 9): T1 carcinoma (n = 6) and neuroendocrine tumors (n = 2), untreated and nonlifting adenomas (n = 3) and incomplete resection of adenomas with low and high grade dysplasia (n = 9). The technical success rate was 75 %, 3 technical failures made a conventional polypectomy necessary in 2 patients and in 1 patient an operative resection of the duplicated intestinal wall had to be performed. The median endoscopic follow-up time was 61.5 days (n = 10) and in 7 patients the clip had dislodged at the first follow-up. A thermal perforation in one case of conventional polypectomy gave rise to indications for a partial resection of the colon. In one patient the lesion in the cecum could be reached but not treated for technical reasons. The histological R0 rate was 80 %, whereas the full thickness resection rate was 60 % (85.7 % in the colon and 54.6 % in the rectum). In two patients with carcinoma and incomplete FTRD, surgical treatment was performed. The median size of the resection specimen was 5  cm(2) (range 1.6-12.9  cm(2)). CONCLUSION: The results show that FTRD is a safe and effective instrument for use in the lower gastrointestinal tract. Limitations of the FTRD system concerning full thickness resection are scarring, fibrosis and thickness of the intestinal wall, especially in the lower rectum; therefore, it is suggested that a simulation with a tube similar in size to the FTRD should be performed during the screening colonoscopy in order to establish whether an endoscopic resection with FTRD is possible.

[Buried bumper syndrome: A new classification and therapy algorithm]. / Buried-bumper-Syndrom : Eine neue Klassifikation mit Therapiealgorithmus.

BACKGROUND: Buried bumper syndrome (BBS) is a severe complication of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) based on the overgrowth of gastric mucosa over the inner bumper of a PEG and migration into the gastric or abdominal wall and with a highly variable incidence ranging between 0.9 and > 8 %. However, no classification has yet been described setting the extent of migration of the inner bumper in relation to therapy and the related risk, especially of perforation. OBJECTIVES: In the past 12 years 38 patients presented with BBS. Initially, an attempt was made to treat all BBS patients endoscopically. A structured BBS classification into four types for estimation of the therapy risk was developed. METHOD: BBS classification: IA: inner bumper partially extrakorporeal or subcutaneous with and without fistula; IB: inner bumper completely extrakorporeal, full thickness focal defect; II: partially visible inner bumper inside the stomach, good degree of mobility; IV: deep type., inner bumper not visible, mucosa without mobility. RESULTS: Up to August 2014, examiners with different degrees of experience classified and treated 17 BBS patients according to the algorithm described above (type IA n = 2, type IB n = 2, type II n = 3, type III n = 4 and type IV n = 6). Problem-free endoscopic therapy was possible in all of the patients in whom good mucosa mobilization with or without partial identification of the inner PEG bumper could be previously induced. CONCLUSION: The classification serves as an aid and takes both the therapist's experience and patient safety into consideration. In estimating the risk, it considers the following prevailing circumstances: More stringent obligation for patient information under the Patient Rights Act, with presentation of possibly necessary expansion of therapy; the obligation to cite relative alternative treatments; prior check of the resources available (specialist/surgery available yes/no).