Venous thromboembolism in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Disease burden and initiation of ambulatory thromboprophylaxis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Ambulatory thromboprophylaxis (AT) in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) reduces venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk and is recommended for patients receiving systemic chemotherapy. We evaluated VTE rates, severity, timing, and risk factors in PAC patients as well as AT rates and initiation times. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with PAC were included. Data collected included patient demographics, medical history, PAC diagnosis, development of VTE, AT, and bleeding episodes. VTE was defined as a DVT or a PE. Patients were classified as receiving AT for VTE prevention if they received a prescription for outpatient anticoagulation. RESULTS: The cohort included 243 PAC patients. VTE occurred in 24 %. Overall, 52 % developing VTE were hospitalized and 5 % died as a result of the VTE. Of those who developed VTE 50 % were diagnosed within the first 2 months of PAC diagnosis. Univariate predictors of elevated VTE risk included an elevated Onkotev score, metastasis at diagnosis, male gender and not receiving AT. Multivariate predictors of elevated VTE risk included male gender (P = 0.014) and not receiving AT (P = 0.001). Overall, 30 % of patients received AT. The median time from diagnosis to initiation of AT was 43 days. Major bleeding occurred in 5.8 %. Patients receiving AT were not at a significantly increased risk of major bleeding (p = 0.5). Patients with intestinal tumor invasion were at significantly increased risk of major bleeding (P = 0.021). CONCLUSION: VTE risk is significant and morbid in PAC patients. AT rates are low, and initiation is often delayed. Therapeutic endoscopists diagnosing PAC may be helpful in AT initiation.

Laparoscopic approaches to resection of suspected gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors based on tumor location.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) should be optimized to achieve a negative pathologic surgical margin while limiting the extent of stomach volume loss. Careful identification of exact gastric tumor location using preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans and gastroscopy should allow for selection of a specific operative approach. METHODS: This retrospective case series involved 12 patients (7 men and 5 women; mean age, 60.5 years) with suspected gastric GIST undergoing tumor resection at Fletcher Allen Health Care, a university medical center, from January 2005 to August 2006. The main outcome measures were pathologic resection margins, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), morbidity, and duration of hospital stay. RESULTS: The 12 patients were separated into three groups on the basis of tumor location as follows: type 1 (fundus/greater curvature, n = 5), type 2 (prepyloric/antrum, n = 3), and type 3 (lesser curvature/perigastroesophageal junction, n = 4). Preoperative imaging (CT scan and/or endoscopy) used to identify tumor location accurately predicted the operative approach before surgery for 11 of the12 patients. The surgical approach was selected solely by tumor location as follows: type 1 (laparoscopic partial gastrectomy [LPG]), type 2 (laparoscopic distal gastrectomy [LDG]), and type 3 (laparoscopic transgastric resection [LTG]). Nine patients had a final pathologic diagnosis of GIST. The average tumor size was 4.6 cm, but this did not influence procedure selection. Histologic margins were microscopically negative in all patients. The LPG and LTG approaches had similar outcomes in terms of estimated blood loss (EBL; 80 vs 100 ml) and hospital stay (3.4 vs 3.3 days; p = 0.0198), but LTG had longer operative times (236 vs 180 min). The LDG procedure had longer operative times, greater EBL, and a longer hospital stay. The operative morbidity was 17%, and there was no operative mortality. CONCLUSION: The selection of an operative technique for resection of gastric submucosal tumors can be based on preoperative identification of tumor location, for better definition of both the extent of gastric resection and the technical complexity of the laparoscopic procedure.

Procedure-related abdominal discomfort in patients undergoing colorectal cancer screening: a comparison of colonoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to determine if there was a difference in procedure-related abdominal discomfort or willingness to return for subsequent screening examinations between patients undergoing colonoscopy and those undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopy. METHODS: Two groups were compared: patients referred for screening flexible sigmoidoscopy and patients referred for screening colonoscopy. All patients were asymptomatic for colorectal cancer. Four university-based gastroenterologists performed all procedures. Patients received conscious sedation for colonoscopy but not for flexible sigmoidoscopy. A research nurse blinded to the procedure performed and the study purpose administered a standardized telephone questionnaire assessing and quantifying peri-procedural discomfort. RESULTS: A cohort of 466 patients underwent screening examinations, and 87% were contacted subsequent to their examination. Procedure-related discomfort, postprocedural discomfort, or discomfort at either of these two times ("peri-procedural discomfort") occurred in 28% (68/243), 14% (34/243), and 36% (88/243) of patients undergoing colonoscopy, respectively. Procedure-related discomfort, postprocedural discomfort, or discomfort at either of these two times occurred in 58% (94/162), 16% (26/162), and 62% (100/162) of patients undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopy, respectively. Peri-procedural discomfort was significantly more common in patients undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopy than with colonoscopy (p < 0.0005). Patients undergoing screening colonoscopy were more willing to undergo the procedure again than those undergoing screening flexible sigmoidoscopy (p < 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing screening colonoscopy with conscious sedation are less likely to experience peri-procedural discomfort than those undergoing screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. Although most patients are willing to undergo subsequent screening examinations, patients undergoing screening colonoscopy are significantly more willing to undergo a subsequent examination than those undergoing screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Education improves colorectal cancer screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy in an inner city population.

OBJECTIVE: The District of Columbia General Hospital has a flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) colorectal cancer screening program. We noted that this program was underused. The aim of this study was to determine whether education could improve use of a flexible sigmoidoscopy screening program in an inner city population. METHODS: Patients undergoing screening FS 5 months before our educational initiative were compared to patients undergoing screening FS 5 months after implementation. A 1-month period was allowed for implementation. Procedure logs and GI charts were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients underwent FS screening during our study period. Of the patients, 97% were African-American; 58% were female; and the average age was 61 yr. A total of 50 patients underwent FS in the pre-education group, and 71 patients underwent FS after implementation of our educational initiative. CONCLUSIONS: Education resulted in a 42% increase in FS screening in this inner city, predominantly African-American population. Larger scale educational initiatives should be conducted to determine whether these benefits can persist and can be improved upon.

Disease-specific outcomes assessment for chronic pancreatitis.

Outcomes assessment for individuals with chronic pancreatitis is a relatively new area of research. It is particularly important because of the lack of validated clinical assessment tools for those with this disease process. This article critically evaluates the current medical, endoscopic, and surgical interventions available for patient management.

Prospective analysis of complications 30 days after outpatient colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to (1) determine whether more complications are reported by patients 30 days after outpatient colonoscopy than are discussed at our monthly morbidity and mortality conferences, (2) identify complications resulting in visits to the emergency department or physician's office or leading to hospitalization, and (3) assess which factors put patients at highest risk. A secondary goal was to determine the rate of work lost after outpatient colonoscopy. METHODS: Trained interviewers performed standardized telephone interviews of consecutive outpatients undergoing colonoscopy at Georgetown University Hospital over a 1-year period. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred ninety-six patients were contacted 30 days after outpatient colonoscopy and participated in our study. Twenty patients had complications that required a visit to an emergency department or physician. Ninety percent of these cases (18) were detected at 30 days, but 15% (3) were discussed at morbidity and mortality conferences. All seven complications that necessitated hospitalization were identified at 30 days, but only two were discussed at our morbidity and mortality conference. The most common complications reported by patients were abdominal discomfort (5.4%) and rectal bleeding (2.1%). CONCLUSION: More complications are detected by means of contacting patients 30 days after outpatient colonoscopy than are discussed at our morbidity and mortality conferences.

Prospective analysis of complications 30 days after outpatient upper endoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare complication rates reported by patients 30 days after outpatient upper endoscopy with those discussed at our monthly morbidity and mortality conference. We also intended to establish which complications were reported most frequently 30 days after upper endoscopy, and which patients or procedures involved the highest risk. METHODS: Trained interviewers performed standardized telephone interviews on consecutive outpatients undergoing upper endoscopy over a 1-yr period. Patients were queried regarding potential events related to their upper endoscopy in the 30 days subsequent, including symptoms, emergency room (ER) and/or physician visits, and hospitalizations. The indications, findings, and therapies were reviewed from endoscopic reports. RESULTS: A total of 473 patients were contacted 30 days after outpatient upper endoscopy and agreed to participate in our study. The most common complications reported by patients at 30 days were sore throat (9.5%) and abdominal discomfort (5.3%). Twelve patients (2.5%) required an ER/physician visit and five patients (1.1%) required hospitalization. The minority of both ER/physician visits (16.7%) and hospitalizations (40%) were discussed at our monthly morbidity and mortality conferences. CONCLUSIONS: More complications were reported by patients 30 days after outpatient upper endoscopy than were discussed at our monthly morbidity and mortality conferences. The most frequent complications reported by patients were sore throat and abdominal pain. The minority of ER/physician visits and hospitalizations were discussed at our morbidity and mortality conferences.