Preoperative BChE serves as a prognostic marker in patients with resectable AEG after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Diminished systemic serum butyrylcholinesterase (BChE), a biomarker for chronic inflammation, cachexia, and advanced tumor stage, has shown to play a prognostic role in various malignancies. The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of pretherapeutic BChE levels in patients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction (AEG), treated with or without neoadjuvant therapy. METHODS: Data of a consecutive series of patients with resectable AEG at the Department for General Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, were analyzed. Preoperative serum BChE levels were correlated to clinic-pathological parameters as well as treatment response. The prognostic impact of serum BChE levels on disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated by univariate and multivariate cox regression analysis, and Kaplan-Meier curves used for illustration. RESULTS: A total of 319 patients were included in this study, with an overall mean (standard deviation, SD) pretreatment serum BChE level of 6.22 (± 1.91) IU/L. In univariate models, diminished preoperative serum BChE levels were significantly associated with shorter overall (OS, p < 0.003) and disease-free survival (DFS, p < 0.001) in patients who received neoadjuvant treatment and/or primary resection. In multivariated analysis, decreased BChE was significantly associated with shorter DFS (HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.84-1.00, p 0.049) and OS (HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.85-1.00, p < 0.49) in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy. Backward regression identified the interaction between preoperative BChE and neoadjuvant chemotherapy as a predictive factor for DFS and OS. CONCLUSION: Diminished serum BChE serves as a strong, independent, and cost-effective prognostic biomarker for worse outcome in patients with resectable AEG who had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Severe Dysphagia is Rare After Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation.

BACKGROUND: Dysphagia remains the most significant concern after anti-reflux surgery, including magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA). The aim of this study was to evaluate postoperative dysphagia rates, its risk factors, and management after MSA. METHODS: From a prospectively collected database of all 357 patients that underwent MSA at our institution, a total of 268 patients were included in our retrospective study. Postoperative dysphagia score, gastrointestinal symptoms, proton pump inhibitor intake, GERD-HRQL, Alimentary Satisfaction, and serial contrast swallow imaging were evaluated within standardized follow-up appointments. To determine patients' characteristics and surgical factors associated with postoperative dysphagia, a multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 23 months, none of the patients presented with severe dysphagia, defined as the inability to swallow solids or/and liquids. 1% of the patients underwent endoscopic dilatation, and 1% had been treated conservatively for dysphagia. 2% of the patients needed re-operation, most commonly due to recurrent hiatal hernia. Two patients underwent device removal due to unspecific discomfort and pain. No migration of the device or erosion by the device was seen. The LINX® device size ≤ 13 was found to be the only factor associated with postoperative dysphagia (OR 5.90 (95% CI 1.4-24.8)). The postoperative total GERD-HRQL score was significantly lower than preoperative total score (2 vs. 19; p = 0.001), and daily heartburn, regurgitations, and respiratory complains improved in 228/241 (95%), 131/138 (95%) and 92/97 (95%) of patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Dysphagia requiring endoscopic or surgical intervention was rare after MSA in a large case series. LINX® devices with a size < 13 were shown to be an independent risk factor for developing postoperative dysphagia.

Expanded Indication for Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation: Outcomes in Weakly Acidic Reflux Compared to Standard GERD Patients.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is a modern surgical anti-reflux technique with proven efficacy and low postoperative morbidity in patients with acidic reflux. The aim of this retrospective review study was to evaluate the symptomatic outcome of MSA in patients with weakly acidic reflux. METHODS: From a prospectively collected clinical database, comprising all 327 patients that underwent MSA at our institution, a total of 67 patients with preoperative weakly acidic reflux measured in the 24-h impedance-pH-metry were identified. Postoperative gastrointestinal symptoms, proton pump inhibitor intake (PPI), GERD Health-Related Quality-of-Life (GERD-HRQL), alimentary satisfaction (AS), and patients' overall satisfaction were evaluated within highly standardized follow-up appointments. Furthermore, outcome of these patients was compared to the postoperative outcome of a comparable group of patients with a preoperative acidic reflux. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 24 months, none of the patients with weakly acidic reflux presented with persistent dysphagia, or underwent endoscopic dilatation or reoperation. The postoperative GERD-HRQL score was significantly reduced (2 vs. 20; p = 0.001) and the median AS was 9/10. Preoperative daily heartburn, regurgitations, and respiratory complaints were improved in 95%, 95%, and 96% of patients, respectively. A total of 10% of the patients continued to use PPIs postoperatively. No significant difference was observed in terms of postoperative outcome or quality of life when comparing weakly acidic reflux patients with those diagnosed with preoperative acidic reflux. CONCLUSION: Magnetic sphincter augmentation significantly improves GERD-related symptoms and quality of life in patients with weakly acidic reflux with very low postoperative morbidity.

Modern GERD treatment: feasibility of minimally invasive esophageal sphincter augmentation.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common chronic disease requiring adequate treatment since it represents one major cause of development of Barrett's esophagus and eventually carcinoma. Novel laparoscopic magnetic sphincter augmentation for GERD was evaluated prospectively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 23 patients with GERD underwent minimally invasive implantation of LINX™ Reflux Management System. Primary outcome measures were overall feasibility, short-term procedure safety and efficacy. Secondary GERD-related quality of life was assessed. RESULTS: All implantations were performed without serious adverse events. A significant decrease in all major GERD complaints were found: heartburn: 96%-22% (p<0.001); bloating: 70%-30% (p=0.006); respiratory complaints: 57%-17% (p=0.039); sleep disturbance: 65%-4% (p<0.001). A four-week follow-up reduction of ≥50% of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) dose was achieved in over 80% of patients. Self-limiting difficulty in swallowing was found in 70% within four weeks. One patient required for endoscopic dilation. GERD-related quality of life improved significantly. CONCLUSION: LINX™ implantation is a standardized, technically simple, safe and well-tolerated expeditious procedure.

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in type 2 diabetics: symptom load and pathophysiologic aspects - a retro-pro study.

BACKGROUND: Information about gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in patients with Diabetes mellitus type 2 (T2D) is scarce, although the incidence of both disorders is increasing. METHODS: This "retro-pro" study compared 65 T2D patients to a control group of 130 age- and sex-matched non-diabetics. GERD was confirmed by gastroscopy, manometry, pH-metry and barium swallow. RESULTS: In patients with T2D compared to controls, dysphagia (32.3% vs. 13.1%; p = 0.001) and globus sensation (27.7% vs. 13.8%; p = 0.021) were found more frequently, whereas heartburn (76.9% vs. 88.5%; p = 0.046) and regurgitation (47.7% vs. 72.3%; p= 0.001) were predominant in non-diabetics. Despite higher body mass indices (31.1 ± 5.2 vs. 27.7 ± 3.7 kg/m²; p < 0.001), hiatal hernia was less frequent in T2D patients compared to controls (60.0% vs. 90.8%, p < 0.001). Lower oesophageal sphincter (LES) pressure was higher in patients with T2D (median 10.0 vs. 7.2 mmHg, p = 0.016). DeMeester scores did not differ between the groups. Helicobacter pylori infections were more common in T2D patients (26.2% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.001). Barrett metaplasia (21.5% vs. 17.7%), as well as low- (10.8% vs. 3.8%) and high-grade dysplasia (1.5% vs. 0%) were predominant in T2D patients. CONCLUSIONS: T2D patients exhibit different GERD symptoms, higher LES pressures and a decreased prevalence of hiatal hernia than non-diabetics, which may be related to worse oesophageal motility and, thus, a more functional rather than anatomical cause of GERD. Low-grade dysplasia was more than twice as high in T2D than in non-diabetics patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Ethics committee of the Medical University of Vienna, IRB number 720/2011.

Elevated lipopolysaccharide in the colon evokes intestinal inflammation, aggravated in immune modulator-impaired mice.

Frequency of gram-negative bacteria is markedly enhanced in inflamed gut, leading to augmented LPS in the intestine. Although LPS in the intestine is considered harmless and, rather, provides protective effects against epithelial injury, it has been suggested that LPS causes intestinal inflammation, such as necrotizing enterocolitis. Therefore, direct effects of LPS in the intestine remain to be studied. In this study, we examine the effect of LPS in the colon of mice instilled with LPS by rectal enema. We found that augmented LPS on the luminal side of the colon elicited inflammation in the small intestine remotely, not in the colon; this inflammation was characterized by body weight loss, increased fluid secretion, enhanced inflammatory cytokine production, and epithelial damage. In contrast to the inflamed small intestine induced by colonic LPS, the colonic epithelium did not exhibit histological tissue damage or inflammatory lesions, although intracolonic LPS treatment elicited inflammatory cytokine gene expression in the colon tissues. Moreover, we found that intracolonic LPS treatment substantially decreased the frequency of immune-suppressive regulatory T cells (CD4(+)/CD25(+) and CD4(+)/Foxp3(+)). We were intrigued to find that LPS-promoted intestinal inflammation is exacerbated in immune modulator-impaired IL-10(-/-) and Rag-1(-/-) mice. In conclusion, our results provide evidence that elevated LPS in the colon is able to cause intestinal inflammation and, therefore, suggest a physiological explanation for the importance of maintaining the balance between gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria in the intestine to maintain homeostasis in the gut.

Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: a single-center case controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Recent advances in laparoscopic and thoracoscopic surgery have made it possible to perform esophagectomy using minimally invasive techniques. Although technically complex, recent case studies showed that minimally invasive approaches to esophagectomy are feasible and have the potential to improve mortality, hospital stay, and functional outcome. METHODS: We have performed a case controlled pair-matched study comparing 62 patients who had undergone either minimally invasive (MIE) or open esophagectomy (OE) between 2004 and 2007. Patients were matched by tumor stage and localization, sex, age, and preoperative ASA score. Pathologic stage, operative time, blood loss, transfusion requirements, hospital length of stay, postoperative morbidity, and mortality were recorded. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were seen in the overall number of patients with surgical morbidity (MIE: 25% vs. OE: 74%, p = 0.014), the transfusion rate (MIE: 12.9% vs. OE: 41.9%, p = 0.001), and the rate of postoperative respiratory complications (MIE: 9.7% vs. OE: 38.7%, p = 0.008). There was no difference with respect to the duration of surgery. The number of resected lymph nodes and rate of pathologic complete resection were comparable. ICU stay [MIE: 3 days (range = 0-15) vs. OE: 6 days (range = 1-40), p = 0.03] and hospital stay [MIE: 12 days (range = 8-46) vs. OE: 24 days (range = 10-79), p = 0.001] were significantly shorter in the MIE group. CONCLUSION: The results of this case-controlled study provide further evidence for the feasibility and possible improvements in the postoperative morbidity of minimally invasive esophagectomy. Our data are comparable to those from other centers and lead us to initiate the first prospectively randomized study comparing the morbidity of total minimally invasive esophagectomy with the open technique.

Solving the problem of difficult stent removal due to tissue ingrowth in partially uncovered esophageal self-expanding metal stents.

Partially uncovered stents provide a better fixation to the esophageal wall than fully covered stents, but indication is limited to palliation because stent removal is compromised by mucosal ingrowth. After an unsuccessful attempt to remove a partially uncovered Evolution stent (Cook Medical Inc, Bloomington, IN) we placed a Polyflex stent (Boston Scientific, Natick, MA) inside the first stent, overlapping at the lower part to press the tissue out of the stent mesh. Both stents were easily removed 3 days later. By adopting this procedure to scheduled stent removals, partially uncovered SEMS may be used to prevent the frequently observed migrations of fully-covered stents in the treatment of esophageal perforation or anastomotic leakage.