In patients referred for investigation because computed tomography suggests thickened gastric folds, endoscopic ultrasound is superfluous if gastroscopy is normal.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is often requested in patients in whom computed tomography (CT) shows gastric wall thickening. It is unclear if EUS is useful if upper endoscopy is normal. The aim of this study was to prospectively compare the yield of upper endoscopy and EUS for this indication. METHODS: All patients referred for endoscopic ultrasound because of thickened gastric folds on CT from May 2001 and June 2003 were included. A single physician, questioned, examined, and performed upper endoscopy followed by EUS in all patients. Data were recorded prospectively. The main outcome measures were: upper endoscopy and EUS findings and predictors of abnormal EUS. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were enrolled. The average age was 57.9, 49% were male, 51% were asymptomatic, 57% had normal upper endoscopy, and 70% had normal EUS. If upper endoscopy was abnormal, EUS was abnormal in 70% of cases (95% CI 62%-78%). If upper endoscopy was normal, the EUS was normal in 100% of cases (95% CI 92%-100%). Multivariate analysis revealed that neither age, gender, presence of abdominal symptoms nor alarm symptoms predicted abnormal EUS. CONCLUSIONS: When CT shows gastric wall thickening: (a) Nnormal upper endoscopy is strongly associated with normal EUS; (b) abnormal upper endoscopy is associated with abnormal EUS in 70% of cases; (c) clinical variables such as age, sex, and the presence of symptoms do not predict or increase the likelihood of abnormal EUS. Therefore, in patients with thickened gastric wall on CT, upper endoscopy should be used to select patients for EUS.

A prospective comparison of the yield of EUS in primary vs. recurrent idiopathic acute pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether EUS should be performed after a single episode of idiopathic pancreatitis vs. recurrent episodes or if clinical factors can predict positive EUS findings. METHODS: Consecutive patients with a single episode of idiopathic pancreatitis or with recurrent episodes underwent EUS (with analysis of bile for bilirubinate and cholesterol crystals, when possible). The diagnostic yield was compared for patients with a single episode of idiopathic pancreatitis and recurrent episodes (stratified by cholecystectomy status). Predictors of positive EUS findings were sought. EUS was considered "positive" if it identified any possible cause of pancreatitis other than chronic pancreatitis. RESULTS: A total of 370 patients were studied (246 no-cholecystectomy group [134 single episode of idiopathic pancreatitis, 112 recurrent episodes] and 124 post-cholecystectomy group [67 single episode of idiopathic pancreatitis, 57 recurrent episodes]). Overall, EUS yielded a positive finding in 29.2%. For patients in the no-cholecystectomy group, positive EUS findings were not significantly more frequent in those with a single episode of idiopathic pancreatitis vs. those with recurrent episodes (31.3% vs. 32.1%; p = 0.89). In the post-cholecystectomy group, the yield was not significantly different for single episode of idiopathic pancreatitis (29.9%) vs. recurrent episodes (17.5%) ( p = 0.15). Chronic pancreatitis was the only abnormality identified in 30.9% of patients in the no-cholecystectomy group vs. 26.6% of those in the post-cholecystectomy group ( p = 0.24). It was the most common abnormality found in all 4 subgroups (range 16.4%-42.0%) and was approximately twice as frequent in patients with recurrent episodes vs. a single episode of idiopathic pancreatitis (no-cholecystectomy: 42.0% vs. 21.6%, p = 0.0008; post-cholecystectomy: 38.6% vs. 16.4%, p = 0.008). Analysis of bile revealed crystals in 38/80 (47.5%) patients in whom it could be performed. Patients with positive EUS findings tended to be older. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with idiopathic pancreatitis, the yield of EUS is not significantly different after an initial attack or after recurrent attacks. Therefore, it is reasonable to perform EUS after an initial attack of idiopathic acute pancreatitis, especially in older patients.

Endoscopist administered propofol for upper-GI EUS is safe and effective: a prospective study in 500 patients.

BACKGROUND: The administration of propofol for endoscopic sedation by a qualified person, other than the endoscopist, is safe and effective. The aim of this study was to determine if propofol can be administered safely and effectively by the endoscopist performing the procedure. METHODS: All patients referred for upper-GI EUS were eligible for inclusion in the study. Exclusion criteria included the following: age less than 18 years, American Society of Anesthesiology physical status class greater than 2, a potential for difficulty in airway maintenance, and allergy to propofol constituents. The endoscopist administered propofol as an intravenous bolus followed by a constant infusion. Adverse events, drug dosage, complications, and patient/endoscopist satisfaction were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 500 patients (285 women, 215 men; mean age 53.4 [14.8 years]) were enrolled. Mean propofol dose was 301 mg (range 100-1000 mg). Mean procedure time was 19 minutes (range 3-70 minutes). The required examination was completed in all cases. There was no major adverse event. Oxygen desaturation (oxygen saturation < 95%) occurred in 16 (3%) patients. There were 4 (1%) cases of mild hypoxemia (saturation < 90%) but no case of severe hypoxemia (saturation <85%). The endoscopist rated the 92% of the procedures as "very smooth" or "smooth" and regarded administration of propofol as "easy" for 92%. All patients said they would prefer the same method of sedation if the procedure were repeated. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopist-administered propofol is safe and effective in selected patients.