Use of an over-the-scope clip for endoscopic sealing of a gastric fistula after sleeve gastrectomy

n/

Risk of Malignant Progression in Barrett’s Esophagus Patients: Results from a Large Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND: Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is a premalignant lesion that predisposes to esophageal adenocarcinoma. However, the reported incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with BE varies widely. We examined the risk of malignant progression in patients with BE using data from the Northern Ireland Barrett’s esophagus Register (NIBR), one of the largest population-based registries of BE worldwide, which includes every adult diagnosed with BE in Northern Ireland between 1993 and 2005. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We followed 8522 patients with BE, defined as columnar lined epithelium of the esophagus with or without specialized intestinal metaplasia (SIM), until the end of 2008. Patients with incident adenocarcinomas of the esophagus or gastric cardia or with high-grade dysplasia of the esophagus were identified by matching the NIBR with the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, and deaths were identified by matching with records from the Registrar General’s Office. Incidence of cancer outcomes or high-grade dysplasia was calculated as events per 100 person-years (% per year) of follow-up, and Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine incidence by age, sex, length of BE segment, presence of SIM, macroscopic BE, or low-grade dysplasia. All P values were from two-sided tests. RESULTS: After a mean of 7.0 years of follow-up, 79 patients were diagnosed with esophageal cancer, 16 with cancer of the gastric cardia, and 36 with high-grade dysplasia. In the entire cohort, incidence of esophageal or gastric cardia cancer or high-grade dysplasia combined was 0.22% per year (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.19% to 0.26%). SIM was found in 46.0% of patients. In patients with SIM, the combined incidence was 0.38% per year (95% CI = 0.31 to 0.46%). The risk of cancer was statistically significantly elevated in patients with vs without SIM at index biopsy (0.38% per year vs 0.07% per year; hazard ratio [HR] = 3.54, 95% CI = 2.09 to 6.00, P < .001), in men compared with women (0.28% per year vs 0.13% per year; HR = 2.11, 95% CI = 1.41 to 3.16, P < .001), and in patients with low-grade dysplasia compared with no dysplasia (1.40% per year vs 0.17% per year; HR = 5.67, 95% CI = 3.77 to 8.53, P < .001). CONCLUSION: We found the risk of malignant progression among patients with BE to be lower than previously reported, suggesting that currently recommended surveillance strategies may not be cost-effective

Pediatric Intensive Care Unit admission criteria for haemato-oncological patients: a basis for clinical guidelines implementation

Recent advances in supportive care and progress in the development and use of chemotherapy have considerably improved the prognosis of many children with malignancy, thus the need for intensive care admission and management is increasing, reaching about 40% of patients throughout the disease course. Cancer remains a major death cause in children, though outcomes have considerably improved over the past decades. Prediction of outcome for children with cancer in Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) obviously requires clinical guidelines, and these are not well defined, as well as admission criteria. Major determinants of negative outcomes remain severe sepsis/septic shock association and respiratory failure, deserving specific approach in children with cancer, particularly those receiving a bone marrow transplantation. A nationwide consensus should be achieved among pediatric intensivists and oncologists regarding the threshold clinical conditions requiring Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission as well as specific critical care protocols. As demonstrated for the critically ill non-oncologic child, it appears unreasonable that pediatric patients with malignancy can be admitted to an adult Intensive Care Unit ICU. On a national basis a pool of refecence institutions should be identified and early referral to an oncologic PICU is warranted

The management of pediatric severe traumatic brain injury: Italian guidelines

Introduction: the aim of the work was to update the “guidelines for the Management of severe traumatic Brain Injury” published in 2012, to reflect the new available evidence, and develop the Italian national guideline for the management of severe pediatric head injuries to reduce variation in practice and ensure optimal care to patients. eViDeNce acQUisitioN: MeDliNe and eMBase were searched from January 2009 to october 2017. inclusion criteria were english language, pediatric populations (0-18 years) or mixed populations (pediatric/adult) with available age subgroup analyses. the guideline development process was started by the Promoting group that composed a multidisciplinary panel of experts, with the representatives of the Scientific Societies, the independent expert specialists and a representative of the Patient associations. the panel selected the clinical questions, discussed the evidence and formulated the text of the recommendations. the documentarists of the University of Florence oversaw the bibliographic research strategy. a group of literature reviewers evaluated the selected literature and compiled the table of evidence for each clinical question. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The search strategies identified 4254 articles. We selected 3227 abstract (first screening) and, finally included 67 articles (second screening) to update the guideline. This Italian update includes 25 evidence-based recommendations and 5 research recommendations. coNclUsioNs: in recent years, progress has been made on the understanding of severe pediatric brain injury, as well as on that concerning all major traumatic pathology. this has led to a progressive improvement in the clinical outcome, although the quantity and quality of evidence remains particularly low

Palliative radiotherapy in addition to self-expanding metal stent for improving dysphagia and survival in advanced oesophageal cancer (ROCS: Radiotherapy after Oesophageal Cancer Stenting):study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: The single most distressing symptom for patients with advanced esophageal cancer is dysphagia. Amongst the more effective treatments for relief of dysphagia is insertion of a self-expanding metal stent (SEMS). It is possible that the addition of a palliative dose of external beam radiotherapy may prolong the relief of dysphagia and provide additional survival benefit. The ROCS trial will assess the effect of adding palliative radiotherapy after esophageal stent insertion. Methods/Design: The study is a randomized multicenter phase III trial, with an internal pilot phase, comparing stent alone versus stent plus palliative radiotherapy in patients with incurable esophageal cancer. Eligible participants are those with advanced esophageal cancer who are in need of stent insertion for primary management of dysphagia. Radiotherapy will be administered as 20 Gray (Gy) in five fractions over one week or 30 Gy in 10 fractions over two weeks, within four weeks of stent insertion. The internal pilot will assess rates and methods of recruitment; pre-agreed criteria will determine progression to the main trial. In total, 496 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio with follow up until death. The primary outcome is time to progression of patient-reported dysphagia. Secondary outcomes include survival, toxicity, health resource utilization, and quality of life. An embedded qualitative study will explore the feasibility of patient recruitment by examining patients’ motivations for involvement and their experiences of consent and recruitment, including reasons for not consenting. It will also explore patients’ experiences of each trial arm. Discussion: The ROCS study will be a challenging trial studying palliation in patients with a poor prognosis. The internal pilot design will optimize methods for recruitment and data collection to ensure that the main trial is completed on time. As a pragmatic trial, study strengths include collection of all follow-up data in the usual place of care, and a focus on patient-reported, rather than disease-orientated, outcomes. Exploration of patient experience and health economic analyses will be integral to the assessment of benefit for patients and the NHS

CagA-positive Helicobacter pylori infection is not associated with decreased risk of Barrett's esophagus in a population with high H. pylori infection rate

BACKGROUND & AIM: The role that H. pylori infection plays in the development of and Barrett's esophagus (BE) is uncertain. We tested the hypothesis that infection with cagA+ Helicobacter pylori strains protects against the development of BE. METHODS: We studied 104 consecutive patients, residents in an area with a high prevalence of H. pylori infection, with BE and 213 sex- and age-matched controls. H. pylori infection and CagA antibody status were determined by western blot serology. RESULTS: H. pylori prevalence was higher in patients with BE than in controls (87.5% vs. 74.6%; OR. 2.3; 95% CI: 1.23–4.59). Increasing age was associated with a higher prevalence of H. pylori (p < 0.05). The prevalence of CagA+ H. pylori serology was similar in patients with BE and controls (64.4% vs. 54.5%; NS). Type I H. pylori infection (CagA+ and VacA+) was similar in patients with BE and controls (44.2% vs. 41.3%; NS). Logistic regression analysis identified alcohol (O.R. 7.09; 95% CI 2.23–22.51), and H. pylori infection (OR: 2.41; 95%CI: 1.20–4.84) but not CagA+ serology as independent factors. CONCLUSION: Neither H. pylori infection nor H. pylori infection by CagA+ strains reduce the risk of BE in a population with high prevalence of H. pylori infection

Different perceptions of the burden of upper GI endoscopy: an empirical study in three patient groups

Background: Few studies have evaluated patients' perceived burden of cancer surveillance tests. Cancer screening and surveillance, however, require a large number of patients to undergo potentially burdensome tests with only some experiencing health gains from it. We investigated the determinants of patients' reported burden of upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy by comparing data from three patient groups. Patients and methods: A total of 476 patients were included: 180 patients under regular surveillance for Barrett esophagus (BE), a premalignant disorder; 214 patients with non-specific upper GI symptoms (NS), and 82 patients recently diagnosed with upper GI cancer (CA). We assessed pain, discomfort and overall burden experienced during endoscopy, symptoms in the week afterwards and psychological distress over time (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale and Impact of Event Scale). Results: Two-thirds (66%) of patients reported discomfort and overall burden of upper GI endoscopy. Only 23% reported any pain. BE patients reported significantly less discomfort, pain and overall burden than the other patients: those with NS reported more discomfort, CA patients more pain, and both more overall burden. These differences could be statistically explained by the number of previous endoscopies and whether sedation was provided or not, but not by patient characteristics. Conclusion: The perception of upper GI endoscopy varies by patient group, due to potential adaptation after multiple endoscopies and aspects of th