Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Two Commercially Available Single-Use Duodenoscopes: A Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Single-use disposable duodenoscopes (SDD) have been developed to mitigate infectious risks related to reusable duodenoscopes. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of the two available SDDs in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a comparative study of 2 SDD in consecutive ERCP procedures performed by expert endoscopists from 9 academic centers. Performance ratings, procedure details, and adverse events were collected. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients were included: 129 patients underwent ERCP with Exalt (mean age 63, Males- 66 (51%), 72 with aScope Duodeno (mean age 65, males=30 (42%). A majority of endoscopists had performed >2000 ERCPs in both groups (71% Exalt, 93% aScope Duodeno). Technical success was 92% in both groups (n=119 Exalt-group, n=66 aScope-Duodeno-group). The procedural complexity for the ERCP cases performed were: Grade 1: 35 cases (18%), Grade 2: 83 cases (41%), Grade 3: 65 cases (32%), and Grade 4: 18 cases (9%). Thirteen patients (10%) from the Exalt group and 16 patients (22%) from the aScope Duodeno group required conversion to a reusable duodenoscope. On a scale of 1 to 5, Exalt and aScope Duodeno, respectively, were rated: 2.31 versus 2.60 for location and visualization quality, 1.38 versus 1.57 for maneuverability based on papillary orientation, 1.48 versus 1.15 for suction/air control, and 2.31 versus 2.34 for elevator efficiency. None of the adverse events were related to the SDDs. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 SDDs were comparable. Further ongoing enhancements to these devices will improve maneuverability and clinical effectiveness.

Endoscopy-guided transesophageal echocardiography for large esophageal varices: Use of the "Double Barrel" technique.

Rhythm control strategies in patients with esophageal varices and atrial arrhythmias pose a unique challenge. The left atrium should be imaged for a thrombus prior to attempting cardioversion or ablation, but the presence of varices is a relative contraindication for transesophageal echocardiography. We present a safe, novel technique of evaluating for left atrial thrombus with simultaneous transesophageal echocardiography and esophagogastroduodenoscopy using slim probes in a patient with large, high-risk esophageal varices, and symptomatic atrial flutter with rapid ventricular rates despite medical therapy.

Outcomes of a hybrid technique using EMR and endoscopic full-thickness resection for polyps not amenable to standard techniques (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The full-thickness resection device (FTRD) offers a safe and effective approach for resection of complex colorectal lesions but is limited to lesions <2 cm in size. A hybrid approach-combining EMR with the FTRD-significantly expands the pool of lesions amenable to this technique; however, its safety and efficacy has not been well established. METHODS: We report a single-center retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent full-thickness resection (FTR) of colorectal lesions, either with a standalone FTRD or a hybrid (EMR + FTRD) approach. Outcomes of technical success, clinical success (macroscopically complete resection), R0 resection, and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. RESULTS: Sixty-nine FTR procedures (38 standalone FTR and 31 hybrid EMR + FTR) were performed on 65 patients. The most common indications were nonlifting polyp (43%) or suspected high-grade dysplasia or carcinoma (38%). Hybrid EMR + FTR permitted resection of significantly larger lesions (mean, 39 mm; range, 15-70 mm) compared with standalone FTR (mean, 17 mm; range, 7-25 mm; P < .01). Clinical success (91%), technical success (83%), and R0 resection (81%) rates did not differ between standalone and hybrid groups. Most patients (96%) were discharged home on the day of the procedure. Three AEs occurred, including 2 patients who developed acute appendicitis. CONCLUSIONS: A hybrid approach combining EMR and FTRD maintains safety and efficacy while permitting resection of significantly larger lesions than FTRD alone.

What Constitutes Optimal Management of T1N0 Esophageal Adenocarcinoma?

PURPOSE AND DESIGN: Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) develops as a consequence of gastroesophageal reflux disease and Barrett's esophagus (BE). While combination therapy with chemotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by esophagectomy improves survival in more advanced tumors, the optimal treatment strategy for early-stage EAC is undefined. Endoscopic eradication therapy, consisting of endoscopic resection and mucosal ablation, has revolutionized therapy for superficial (T1a) EAC in BE and allows for esophageal preservation in appropriate patients at low risk for lymph node metastasis (LNM). This review critically examines the literature regarding evaluation, treatment, and outcomes in patients with T1 EAC. METHODS: The literature was queried via the PubMed database to include articles published between 1990 and 2017. Search terms were generated from the key statements "Endoscopic eradication therapy results in equivalent overall survival when compared to esophagectomy for clinical T1aN0 EAC" and "Esophagectomy provides better overall survival than endoscopic eradication therapy for cT1b EAC". Abstracts were reviewed and included according to predefined selection and exclusion criteria, and were then assessed according to the GRADE system. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T1aN0 EAC, overall survival with endoscopic eradication therapy is equal to esophagectomy. Given the substantial risk of LNM in patients with submucosal (T1b) EAC, esophagectomy remains the standard of care for surgical candidates. In the case of inoperability or low-risk lesions, endoscopic resection may be considered adequate therapy. Chemotherapy and radiation can be offered as primary therapy for non-surgical candidates with lesions not amenable to endoscopic therapy, but does not have a clear role in the adjuvant setting after either endoscopic or surgical resection.

Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

Pancreatic cancer is a common gastrointestinal malignancy, and is often associated with a poor prognosis. Challenges to effective screening for pancreatic cancer include low disease prevalence and high cost of screening modalities such as endoscopic ultrasound and cross-sectional imaging. Further, most patients are asymptomatic during the early course of disease, which often leads to delay in diagnosis. Treatment options include surgery, chemotherapy, and palliative care.

A primer on exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, fat malabsorption, and fatty acid abnormalities.

Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) is characterized by a deficiency of exocrine pancreatic enzymes, resulting in deficits in digestion of all macronutrients, with deficiencies in digestion of fats being the most clinically relevant. The leading cause of EPI is chronic pancreatitis. However, many other causes and conditions may be implicated, including cystic fibrosis, pancreatic duct obstruction, gastric and pancreatic surgery, diabetes mellitus and other conditions. Physical and biochemical causes of EPI include decreased production and secretion of lipase, increased lipase destruction, pancreatic duct obstruction, decreased lipase stimulation and degradation, as well as gastrointestinal motility disorders. EPI is largely diagnosed clinically, and is often identified by symptoms such as steatorrhea, weight loss, abdominal discomfort, and abdominal bloating. Lifestyle modifications (eg, smoking cessation, limiting or avoiding alcoholic drinks, and reducing dietary fat intake) and exogenous pancreatic enzyme supplements are commonly used to help restore normal digestion and absorption of dietary nutrients in patients with EPI.

Gastric heterotopia in rectum: A literature review and its diagnostic pitfall.

OBJECTIVES: The term heterotopia, in pathology, refers to the presence of normal tissues at foreign sites. Gastric heterotopia has been reported anywhere in the gastrointestinal tract. However, the presence of gastric heterotopia in the rectum is very rare. METHODS: We, here, report a rare case of a localized 2-cm area of cratered mucosa with heaped-up borders in the rectum of a 51-year-old, asymptomatic woman who underwent screening colonoscopy. RESULTS: Histologic examination of the biopsy from the lesional tissue in rectum demonstrated fragments of rectal mucosa co-mingling with oxyntic- and antral-type gastric mucosa. No intestinal metaplasia or Helicobacter pylori is identified. CONCLUSION: Patients with gastric heterotopia in rectum usually present with bleeding and/or abdominal pain. Definite treatment of choice is surgical or endoscopic resection, although the lesions also respond to histamine-2 receptor blockers. In this article, most recent literature about gastric heterotopia in rectum is reviewed, following a case presentation about it.