Comparison of Urologist- vs Gastroenterologist-Directed Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Pancreaticolithiasis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for pancreaticolithiasis is most commonly performed by urologists. We investigated the effects of transitioning from urologist- to gastroenterologist-directed ESWL on case complexity, process measures, and duct clearance. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent ESWL for pancreaticolithiasis from 2014 through 2019 at a single center. We collected demographic, clinical, radiographic, and procedural data in duplicate and compared case complexity and process measures between the periods the procedure was performed by urologists (January 2014 through February 2017; 18 patients, 0.47 patients/month) vs gastroenterologists (March 2017 through December 2019; 61 patients; 1.79 patients/month). We also compared data on pancreatic duct stone characteristics and technical success (duct clearance, determined by imaging analysis). RESULTS: There were no differences in patient demographics, comorbidities, pancreatic stone morphology, or time from referral to ESWL during the period the procedure was performed by urologists vs gastroenterologists. Patients received a higher mean number of ESWL shocks per session during the gastroenterology period (4341) than during the urology period (3117) (P < .001). A higher proportion of patients underwent same-session endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography during the gastroenterology time period (66%) than the urology time period (6%) (P < .001). A higher proportion of patients had partial or complete duct clearance during the gastroenterology period (71%) than during the urology period (44%) (P = .04). During the urology period, a higher proportion of patients were hospitalized following ESWL, although there was no difference in captured adverse events between the periods. CONCLUSIONS: Transition from urologist- to gastroenterologist-directed ESWL did not affect case complexity or wait times for ESWL. However, the transition did result in increased procedure volume, more shocks per ESWL session, and improved duct clearance.

Hemoglobin Monitoring in Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Are We Monitoring Blood Counts Too Frequently?

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal hemorrhage is a common cause of hospital admission. However, there are little data to inform practice around blood count monitoring-a cornerstone of management. We hypothesized that more frequent testing leads to increased resource utilization without improvement in patient outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study examined all patients admitted to a large academic medical institution primarily for gastrointestinal bleeding between July 10, 2014, and January 1, 2018. We identified 1150 patients admitted for gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Patients under 18, who developed bleeding while hospitalized, or who were transferred were excluded. The primary outcome was the number of complete blood counts collected in the first 48 hours of admission. Propensity matched analysis was performed to assess blood transfusion, units of blood transfused, time-to-endoscopy, mortality, and 30-day readmission rate. RESULTS: On average, 5.6 complete blood counts were collected in the first 48 hours; 67% of the cohort was transfused (average of 2.6 units of packed red blood cells). When matched for comorbidity, anticoagulant use, location (ward vs. intensive care unit), vital signs, hemoglobin level, and international normalized ratio, patients having more frequent monitoring had similar hospital length of stay and mortality rates, but were more likely to receive a blood transfusion (0.93 vs 0.76, P < .05), and if transfused, receive more blood (4 vs 2 units, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Blood count monitoring occurs more frequently than is likely necessary, is associated with a higher likelihood of blood transfusion, and does not affect patient outcomes, suggesting patient care may be improved by less frequent monitoring.

The Clinical Course and Management of Severe Esophagitis Dissecans Superficialis: A Case Report.

Esophagitis dissecans superficialis is a rare clinical endoscopic finding with poorly understood pathogenesis and ill-defined management. A 71-year-old man is admitted with progressively worsening dysphagia and odynophagia with endoscopic features most consistent with severe esophagitis dissecans superficialis. Extensive workup did not reveal an etiology, and he was subsequently treated with steroids, resulting in rapid, almost complete clinical and endoscopic recovery.