Through-the-scope clip retention rates and performance in a porcine model.

Background and study aims Limited comparative data exist to guide optimal through-the-scope (TTS) clip selection. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, retention, and safety of three industry-leading TTS clips on tissue that mimics common clinical scenarios. Methods A survival study involving six domestic pigs was undertaken. Three commonly used clip models were selected: Assurance (STERIS, Mentor, Ohio, United States), Resolution (Boston Scientific, Boston, Massachusetts, United States), and SureClip (Micro-Tech, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States). To mimic clinical practice, the following scenarios were assessed: (1) normal mucosa; (2) cold snare resection; and (3) hot mucosal resection simulating fibrotic ulcers. Deployment of clips was randomized to target sites. Repeat endoscopy was performed 2 weeks following placement. Endoscopists rated the ease of use of clip placement on a Likert scale of 1 to 5. Results Fifty-four clips (18 Assurance, 18 Resolution, and 18 SureClip) were placed in six pigs. Mucosal healing was noted at all sites on follow up. Overall retention was nine of 18 (50.0%) SureClip, 10 of 18 (55.6%) Assurance, and 13 of 18 (72.2%) Resolution ( P =0.369). There was no difference in clip retention on normal and cold snare resection sites; however, clip retention was significantly higher for Resolution clips on fibrotic ulcers (50.0% versus 0% for Assurance and 0% SureClip, P =0.03). No adverse events were reported. Ease of use was equivalent across all models. Conclusions All clips were equivalent in efficacy and safety with successful clip deployment and mucosal healing. Overall retention rate was low for fibrotic tissue, with an improved retention rate observed with Resolution clips.

Performance and Predictors of Migration of Partially and Fully Covered Esophageal Self-Expanding Metal Stents for Malignant Dysphagia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are routinely used to palliate malignant dysphagia. However esophageal SEMS can migrate or obstruct due to epithelial hyperplasia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the rates and factors predicting migration and obstruction, and the nutritional outcomes in partially covered (pc) vs. fully covered (fc) SEMS vs. fcSEMS with antimigration fins (AF) placed for malignant dysphagia. METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing SEMS placement for malignant dysphagia at three academic medical centers. RESULTS: Among 357 patients, there were 55 (15.4%) stent migrations, 45 (12.6%) obstructions from epithelial hyperplasia, and 20 (5.6%) food impactions. Median overall survival was 79 days (IQR 41,199). The percent weight change/change in albumin at 30 and 60 days after SEMS placement were -2.24%/-0.544 g/dL and -2.98%/-0.55 g/dL, respectively. Stent migration occurred significantly more often with fcSEMS than pcSEMS (25.3% vs 10.9%; P < .003), but there was no difference when either group was compared to fcSEMS-AF (19.3%). The overall rate of epithelial hyperplasia resulting in stent obstruction was low (12.6%) and not different between stent types. Factors associated with increased risk of SEMS migration on multivariable logistic regression included stricture traversability with a diagnostic endoscope (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.29-4.35) and use of fcSEMS (OR, 2.56; 1.31-5.00) or fcSEMS-AF (OR, 2.30, 1.03-5.14). CONCLUSIONS: Traversability of a malignant esophageal stenosis predicts SEMS migration. In these patients with a limited overall survival, pcSEMS are associated with lower rates of stent migration and similar rates of obstruction compared to fcSEMS.

Safety and histologic outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection with a novel articulating knife for esophageal neoplasia.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Treatment of large esophageal neoplasia is gradually evolving from piecemeal to en bloc resections. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is known to achieve more complete resections than piecemeal EMR for large lesions, yet it remains underused in the West because of technical and safety concerns with traditional electrosurgical knives. We aimed to evaluate a novel endoscopic articulating knife used with ESD (ESD-AR) to determine its safety and efficacy for large esophageal neoplasms in comparison with EMR. METHODS: We retrospectively studied clinically indicated cases of ESD-AR and EMR for esophageal lesions that were 15 mm or greater. All EMR cases had at least 3 simultaneous EMRs to adequately compare resection area. Rates of perforation, GI bleeding, technical performance, and pre- and postendoscopic resection diagnoses were evaluated. RESULTS: Seventy-two ESD-AR and 72 widespread EMR cases were evaluated for Barrett's esophagus (56%), adenocarcinoma (36%), squamous nodularity (2%), and squamous cell carcinoma (6%). There were no statistical differences in age, sex, Barrett's esophagus length, and lesion or resection size between the 2 groups. No perforations occurred. Two adverse events were recorded with ESD-AR and none with EMR (3% vs 0%, P = .50); these were associated with anticoagulation use (P = .04) and greater resection area (P = .02). There were more upgraded diagnoses post-ESD versus EMR (27% vs 12%, P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: ESD-AR by an experienced endoscopist has a comparable safety profile with widespread EMR for large esophageal neoplasia and may have advantages for diagnostic staging.

Comparative quality assessment of esophageal examination with transnasal and sedated endoscopy.

Background Unsedated transnasal esophagoscopy (TNE) may offer a less expensive, mobile alternative to sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for evaluations of reflux related complications. Comparisons of imaging quality by these methods are lacking. Methods Two reviewers evaluated videos of TNE and EGD procedures, performed during a community randomized study comparing endoscopic techniques. Subjects were randomized to EGD, TNE in endoscopy suite, or TNE in mobile research unit. Endoscopic quality was assessed using a validated scoring tool. Results In total, 115 videos (58 EGD, 28 endoscopy suite TNE, and 29 mobile TNE) were reviewed. Overall quality scores for TNE and EGD were excellent without a statistically significant difference (P = 0.30). There were no differences in gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) visualization scores, though EGD scored higher in esophageal passage (P < 0.05) and TNE scored higher in esophageal intubation (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in any quality score between mobile TNE and gastrointestinal suite TNE. Conclusion Esophageal assessment with TNE or EGD was comparable in overall quality and GEJ visualization. TNE quality was not affected by procedure location. TNE is a feasible option for endoscopic assessment of reflux complications.

Stent-in-stent technique for removal of embedded partially covered self-expanding metal stents.

BACKGROUND: Removal of embedded partially covered self-expanding metal stents (PCSEMS) is associated with an increased risk of adverse events compared with removal of fully covered self-expanding stents (FCSES) due to tissue ingrowth. Successful removal of embedded PCSEMS has been described by the stent-in-stent (SIS) technique. AIMS: To report the first US experience from three high-volume quaternary care centers on the safety and efficacy of the SIS technique for removal of embedded PCSEMS. METHODS: Retrospective study of outcomes for consecutive patients who underwent the SIS for removal of embedded PCSEMS over a 5-year period. RESULTS: Twenty-seven embedded PCSEMS were successfully removed using the SIS technique (100 %) from 25 patients (11 males), median age 65 (range 37-80). All stents were successfully removed in one endoscopic session (no repeat SIS procedures were required for persistently embedded stents). The embedded PCSEMS had been in situ for a median of 76 days (range 26-501). Median SIS dwell time (FCSES in situ of PCSEMS) was 13 days (interquartile range 8-16 days; range 4-212 days). One adverse event (self-limited bleeding) occurred during a median follow-up period of 3 months (range 1-32). No patients died, required surgery, or had long-term disability due to adverse events attributed to the SIS technique. Twelve patients required additional interventions following SIS procedure for persistence or recurrence of the underlying pathology. CONCLUSION: When performed by experienced endoscopists, safe and effective removal of embedded PCSEMS can be achieved via the SIS technique.

Endoscopically identified well-differentiated rectal carcinoid tumors: impact of tumor size on the natural history and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data pertaining to the natural history and outcomes of patients with well-differentiated rectal carcinoids. OBJECTIVE: To correlate endoscopic size with the natural history and outcome. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Single tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Eighty-seven patients with endoscopically identified well-differentiated rectal carcinoid tumors. INTERVENTION: Colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Prevalence of metastasis at diagnosis, disease progression, and survival. RESULTS: Metastasis was present at diagnosis in 3%, 66%, and 73% of tumors measuring ≤10 mm, 11 to 19 mm, and ≥20 mm, respectively. Metastasis was predicted with 100% sensitivity and 87% specificity using an endoscopic lesion size ≥9 mm. In patients without identified metastasis, 64% were identified during screening colonoscopy. Within this select cohort, subsequent metastasis was discovered only at distant extra pelvic sites, in 1.6%, 50%, and 100% of patients with tumors initially measuring ≤10 mm, 11 to 19 mm, and ≥20 mm, respectively. The carcinoid related 5- and 10-year survival rates for locally confined disease were 96%. The corresponding survival rates for local and advanced metastatic disease were 60% and 35%, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Subjective estimation of tumor size, mitotic index or Ki-67 labeling index not reported, and lack of formal and standardized baseline staging algorithm and surveillance program. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical behavior of 11- to 19-mm tumors appears to mimic that of larger (>20 mm) lesions with respect to the presence of metastasis at diagnosis and disease progression. Therefore, if local therapy is contemplated, we propose to make a distinction between ≤10-mm and 11- to 19-mm tumors, favoring an aggressive staging and management protocol for 11- to 19-mm carcinoid tumors.

Effects of autofluorescence imaging on detection and treatment of early neoplasia in patients with Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Studies have reported that autofluorescence imaging (AFI) increases targeted detection of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN) and intramucosal cancer (IMC) in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE). We analyzed data from trials to assess the clinical relevance of AFI-detected lesions. METHODS: We collected information on 371 patients with BE, along with endoscopy and histology findings, from databases of 5 prospective studies of AFI (mean age, 65 years; 305 male). We compared these data with outcomes of treatment and follow-up. Study end points included the diagnostic value of AFI (proportion of surveillance patients with HGIN or IMC detected only by AFI-targeted biopsies) and value of AFI in selection of therapy (the proportion of patients for which detection of an HGIN or IMC lesion by AFI changed the treatment strategy based on white-light endoscopy or random biopsy analysis). RESULTS: Of study participants, 211 were referred for surveillance and 160 were referred for early stage neoplasia; HGIN or IMC were diagnosed in 147 patients. In 211 patients undergoing surveillance, 39 had HGIN or IMC (23 detected by white-light endoscopy, 11 detected by random biopsies, 5 detected by AFI). So, the diagnostic value of AFI was 5 (2%) of 211. In 24 patients, HGIN or IMC was diagnosed using only AFI. In 33 patients, AFI detected additional HGINs or IMCs next to lesions detected by primary white-light endoscopy. Lesions detected by AFI were treated in 57 patients: 26 patients underwent radiofrequency ablation and showed full remission of neoplasia, whereas 31 underwent endoscopic resection and 6 were found to have IMC. The value of AFI in selection of therapy was 6 (2%) of 371. CONCLUSIONS: Based on an analysis of data from clinical trials of patients with BE, detection of lesions by AFI has little effect on the diagnosis of early stage neoplasia or therapeutic decision making. AFI therefore has a limited role in routine surveillance or management of patients with BE.

Validation of the Prague C&M classification of Barrett's esophagus in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The Prague C&M classification for Barrett's esophagus has found widespread acceptance but has only been validated by Barrett's experts scoring video sequences. To date, validation has been lacking for its application in routine practice during real-time endoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate agreement between Barrett's experts and community hospital endoscopists when using this classification to describe Barrett's esophagus and hiatal hernia length during real-time endoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients underwent two consecutive endoscopies performed by different endoscopists. The study was performed in two cohorts: one cohort was seen by Barrett's experts and the other cohort by community hospital endoscopists. Landmarks were recorded according to the Prague classification. Outcomes were interobserver agreement (assessed with intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]), absolute agreement, and relative agreement. RESULTS: A total of 187 patients were included, with median extent of C3M5 (IQR C1 - 7 M4 - 9) for Barrett's esophagus and 3 cm (IQR 2-5) for hiatal hernia length. ICC was 0.91 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.88-0.93) for maximum length, 0.92 (95% CI 0.90-0.94) for circumferential extent, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.49-0.68) for hiatal hernia length. Absolute agreement within ≤ 1 cm was 74% (95% CI 68-80) for circumference, 68% (95% CI 62-75) for length, and 63% (95% CI 56 - 70) for hiatal hernia length. Relative agreement was 91% for Barrett's esophagus and 80 % for hiatal hernia length. Barrett's experts and community hospital endoscopists showed no differences in agreement. Shorter Barrett's segments (≤ 5 cm) had lower agreement compared with longer segments (> 5 cm). CONCLUSIONS: Agreement was good for Barrett's esophagus and reasonable for hiatal hernia length. These findings strengthen the value of the Prague C&M classification to describe Barrett's esophagus and hiatal hernia length. Although absolute agreement during real-time endoscopy was high, one should anticipate that Barrett's values may vary by 1 - 2 cm between two endoscopies.

Performance of double-balloon enteroscopy for the management of small bowel polyps in hamartomatous polyposis syndromes.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Hamartomatous polyposis syndromes (HPS) are a group of rare inherited autosomal dominant disorders. Small bowel polyposis is one of the manifestations of HPS. Double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) with polypectomy may obviate repeated small bowel surgeries for polyp intussusception, obstruction, or bleeding. The efficacy and safety of DBE-assisted polypectomy in HPS patients with clinically significant small bowel polyposis were evaluated. METHODS: All HPS patients who underwent DBE from January 2007 to April 2011 were identified using a prospectively maintained database. Data on patient demographics, pre-DBE radiological studies, polyp characteristics, procedural outcomes, and complications were abstracted. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients underwent a total of 34 DBE procedures. Pre-DBE imaging included computed tomography enterography (n = 15), computed tomography enteroclysis (n = 5), small bowel follow-through (n = 1), and magnetic resonance enterography (n = 1). Any small bowel polyp ≥ 1 cm in size on radiological imaging was referred for DBE-assisted polypectomy. Antegrade and retrograde DBE were successful in reaching and resecting targeted polyps in 90% (18/20) and 71.4% (10/14) of procedures, respectively. The overall success rate for DBE-assisted polypectomy was 82.3% (95% confidence interval: 66.5-91.6%). The median size of resected polyps was 2 cm (range 1-5 cm) and all were hamartomas. Minor adverse events occurred in four (11.8%) procedures, including abdominal pain (n = 2), immediate post-polypectomy bleeding (n = 1), and self-limited hematochezia (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: DBE-assisted polypectomy was successful in over 80% of HPS patients with an acceptable margin of safety. To the knowledge of the authors, this is one of the largest single-center studies to report on the performance and safety of DBE-assisted polypectomy in HPS patients.

GI endoscopes.

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the Committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through September 2010 for articles related to endoscopy by using the key words "gastroscope," "colonoscope," "echoendoscope," "duodenoscope," "choledochoscope," "ultraslim endoscope," "variable stiffness colonoscope," and "wide-angle colonoscope." Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Automated endoscope reprocessors.

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through February 2010 for articles related to automated endoscope reprocessors, using the words endoscope reprocessing, endoscope cleaning, automated endoscope reprocessors, and high-level disinfection. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Endoscopic tattooing.

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through January 2010 for articles related to endoscopic tattooing by using the Keywords tattooing, colonic, endoscopic, India ink, indocyanine green in different search term combinations. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Endoscopic tri-modal imaging is more effective than standard endoscopy in identifying early-stage neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic tri-modal imaging (ETMI) incorporates high-resolution endoscopy (HRE), autofluorescence imaging (AFI), and narrow band imaging (NBI). A recent uncontrolled study found that ETMI improved the detection of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and early carcinoma (Ca) in Barrett's esophagus (BE). The aim was to compare ETMI with standard video endoscopy (SVE) for the detection of HGD/Ca with the use of a randomized cross-over design. METHODS: Patients referred for work-up of inconspicuous HGD/Ca were eligible and underwent both SVE and ETMI in randomized order within an interval of 6-12 weeks. During ETMI, inspection with HRE was followed by AFI. Detected lesions were inspected in detail with NBI and biopsied, followed by random biopsies. During SVE, any visible lesion was biopsied followed by random biopsies. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients with BE underwent ETMI and SVE. No significant difference was observed in overall histologic yield between ETMI and SVE. ETMI had a significantly higher targeted yield compared with SVE because of AFI. However, the yield of targeted biopsies of ETMI was significantly inferior to the overall yield of SVE. Detailed inspection with NBI reduced the false-positive rate of HRE + AFI from 71% to 48% but misclassified 17% of HGD/Ca lesions as not suspicious. CONCLUSIONS: ETMI statistically significant improves the targeted detection of HGD/Ca compared with SVE. Subsequent characterization of lesions with NBI appears to be of limited value. At this stage, ETMI cannot replace random biopsies for detection of lesions or targeted biopsies for characterization of lesions in a high-risk population.

Fluorescence and Raman spectroscopy.

Reflectance spectroscopy is an emerging technology which provides rapid and safe evaluation of tissue for dysplasia and ischemia. The probe-based devices can be passed through most endoscopes. Current applications include detection of dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus, colitis, and colon polyps.

Endocytoscopy in esophageal cancer.

Endocytoscopy is a new imaging and magnification technology. It has been developed for observation of cellular structure and applied in the esophageal cancer. In this article we summarize the important aspects of this new modality.