Right-Sided Location Not Associated With Missed Colorectal Adenomas in an Individual-Level Reanalysis of Tandem Colonoscopy Studies

Background & Aims Interval cancers occur more frequently in the right colon. One reason could be that right-sided adenomas are frequently missed in colonoscopy examinations. We reanalyzed data from tandem colonoscopies to assess adenoma miss rates in relation to location and other factors. Methods We pooled data from 8 randomized tandem trials comprising 2218 patients who had diagnostic or screening colonoscopies (adenomas detected in 49.8% of patients). We performed a mixed-effects logistic regression with patients as cluster effects with different independent parameters. Factors analyzed included location (left vs right, splenic flexure as cutoff), adenoma size, form, and histologic features. Analyses were controlled for potential confounding factors such as patient sex and age, colonoscopy indication, and bowel cleanliness. Results Right-side location was not an independent risk factor for missed adenomas (odds ratio [OR] compared with the left side, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.75–1.17). However, compared with adenomas ≤5 mm, the OR for missing adenomas of 6–9 mm was 0.62 (95% CI, 0.44–0.87), and the OR for missing adenomas of ≥10 mm was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.33–0.77). Compared with pedunculated adenomas, sessile (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.16–2.85) and flat adenomas (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.49–4.10) were more likely to be missed. Histologic features were not significant risk factors for missed adenomas (OR for adenomas with high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.34–1.37 and OR for sessile serrated adenomas, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.47–1.64 compared with low-grade adenomas). Men had a higher number of adenomas per colonoscopy (1.27; 95% CI, 1.21–1.33) than women (0.86; 95% CI, 0.80–0.93). Men were less likely to have missed adenomas than women (OR for missed adenomas in men, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57–0.94). Conclusions In an analysis of data from 8 randomized trials, we found that right-side location of an adenoma does not increase its odds for being missed during colonoscopy but that adenoma size and histologic features do increase risk. Further studies are needed to determine why adenomas are more frequently missed during colonoscopies in women than men

Diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH). Main Recommendations MR1. ESGE recommends immediate assessment of hemodynamic status in patients who present with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH), with prompt intravascular volume replacement initially using crystalloid fluids if hemodynamic instability exists (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR2. ESGE recommends a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy that aims for a target hemoglobin between 7 g/dL and 9 g/dL. A higher target hemoglobin should be considered in patients with significant co-morbidity (e. g., ischemic cardiovascular disease) (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR3. ESGE recommends the use of the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Outpatients determined to be at very low risk, based upon a GBS score of 0 - 1, do not require early endoscopy nor hospital admission. Discharged patients should be informed of the risk of recurrent bleeding and be advised to maintain contact with the discharging hospital (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR4. ESGE recommends initiating high dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPI), intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (80 mg then 8 mg/hour), in patients presenting with acute UGIH awaiting upper endoscopy. However, PPI infusion should not delay the performance of early endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR5. ESGE does not recommend the routine use of nasogastric or orogastric aspiration/lavage in patients presenting with acute UGIH (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR6. ESGE recommends intravenous erythromycin (single dose, 250 mg given 30 - 120 minutes prior to upper gastrointestinal [GI] endoscopy) in patients with clinically severe or ongoing active UGIH. In selected patients, pre-endoscopic infusion of erythromycin significantly improves endoscopic visualization, reduces the need for second-look endoscopy, decreases the number of units of blood transfused, and reduces duration of hospital stay (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR7. Following hemodynamic resuscitation, ESGE recommends early (≤ 24 hours) upper GI endoscopy. Very early (< 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy may be considered in patients with high risk clinical features, namely: hemodynamic instability (tachycardia, hypotension) that persists despite ongoing attempts at volume resuscitation; in-hospital bloody emesis/nasogastric aspirate; or contraindication to the interruption of anticoagulation (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR8. ESGE recommends that peptic ulcers with spurting or oozing bleeding (Forrest classification Ia and Ib, respectively) or with a nonbleeding visible vessel (Forrest classification IIa) receive endoscopic hemostasis because these lesions are at high risk for persistent bleeding or rebleeding (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR9. ESGE recommends that peptic ulcers with an adherent clot (Forrest classification IIb) be considered for endoscopic clot removal. Once the clot is removed, any identified underlying active bleeding (Forrest classification Ia or Ib) or nonbleeding visible vessel (Forrest classification IIa) should receive endoscopic hemostasis (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR10. In patients with peptic ulcers having a flat pigmented spot (Forrest classification IIc) or clean base (Forrest classification III), ESGE does not recommend endoscopic hemostasis as these stigmata present a low risk of recurrent bleeding. In selected clinical settings, these patients may be discharged to home on standard PPI therapy, e. g., oral PPI once-daily (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR11. ESGE recommends that epinephrine injection therapy not be used as endoscopic monotherapy. If used, it should be combined with a second endoscopic hemostasis modality (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR12. ESGE recommends PPI therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with adherent clot not receiving endoscopic hemostasis. PPI therapy should be high dose and administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR13. ESGE does not recommend routine second-look endoscopy as part of the management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH). However, in patients with clinical evidence of rebleeding following successful initial endoscopic hemostasis, ESGE recommends repeat upper endoscopy with hemostasis if indicated. In the case of failure of this second attempt at hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) or surgery should be considered (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR14. In patients with NVUGIH secondary to peptic ulcer, ESGE recommends investigating for the presence of Helicobacter pylori in the acute setting with initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy when H. pylori is detected. Re-testing for H. pylori should be performed in those patients with a negative test in the acute setting. Documentation of successful H. pylori eradication is recommended (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR15. In patients receiving low dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis who develop peptic ulcer bleeding, ESGE recommends aspirin be resumed immediately following index endoscopy if the risk of rebleeding is low (e. g., FIIc, FIII). In patients with high risk peptic ulcer (FIa, FIb, FIIa, FIIb), early reintroduction of aspirin by day 3 after index endoscopy is recommended, provided that adequate hemostasis has been established (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence)

Emergency Portacaval Shunt Versus Rescue Portacaval Shunt in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Emergency Treatment of Acutely Bleeding Esophageal Varices in Cirrhosis—Part 3

Emergency treatment of bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis is of singular importance because of the high mortality rate. Emergency portacaval shunt is rarely used today because of the belief, unsubstantiated by long-term randomized trials, that it causes frequent portal-systemic encephalopathy and liver failure. Consequently, portacaval shunt has been relegated solely to salvage therapy when endoscopic and pharmacologic therapies have failed. Question: Is the regimen of endoscopic sclerotherapy with rescue portacaval shunt for failure to control bleeding varices superior to emergency portacaval shunt? A unique opportunity to answer this question was provided by a randomized controlled trial of endoscopic sclerotherapy versus emergency portacaval shunt conducted from 1988 to 2005. Unselected consecutive cirrhotic patients with acute bleeding esophageal varices were randomized to endoscopic sclerotherapy (n = 106) or emergency portacaval shunt (n = 105). Diagnostic workup was completed and treatment was initiated within 8 h. Failure of endoscopic sclerotherapy was defined by strict criteria and treated by rescue portacaval shunt (n = 50) whenever possible. Ninety-six percent of patients had more than 10 years of follow-up or until death. Comparison of emergency portacaval shunt and endoscopic sclerotherapy followed by rescue portacaval shunt showed the following differences in measurements of outcomes: (1) survival after 5 years (72% versus 22%), 10 years (46% versus 16%), and 15 years (46% versus 0%); (2) median post-shunt survival (6.18 versus 1.99 years); (3) mean requirements of packed red blood cell units (17.85 versus 27.80); (4) incidence of recurrent portal-systemic encephalopathy (15% versus 43%); (5) 5-year change in Child’s class showing improvement (59% versus 19%) or worsening (8% versus 44%); (6) mean quality of life points in which lower is better (13.89 versus 27.89); and (7) mean cost of care per year ($39,200 versus$216,700). These differences were highly significant in favor of emergency portacaval shunt (all p &lt; 0.001). Emergency portacaval shunt was strikingly superior to endoscopic sclerotherapy as well as to the combination of endoscopic sclerotherapy and rescue portacaval shunt in regard to all outcome measures, specifically bleeding control, survival, incidence of portal-systemic encephalopathy, improvement in liver function, quality of life, and cost of care. These results strongly support the use of emergency portacaval shunt as the first line of emergency treatment of bleeding esophageal varices in cirrhosis

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been associated with upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Given their worldwide use, even small risks account for a large number of cases. This study has been conducted with carefully collected information to further investigate the relationship between SSRIs and upper GI bleeding. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study in hospitals in Spain and in Italy. Cases were patients aged ≥18 years with a primary diagnosis of acute upper GI bleeding diagnosed by endoscopy; three controls were matched by sex, age, date of admission (within 3 months) and hospital among patients who were admitted for elective surgery for non-painful disorders. Exposures to SSRIs, other antidepressants and other drugs were defined as any use of these drugs in the 7 days before the day on which upper gastrointestinal bleeding started (index day). RESULTS: 581 cases of upper GI bleeding and 1358 controls were considered eligible for the study; no differences in age or sex distribution were observed between cases and controls after matching. Overall, 4.0% of the cases and 3.3% of controls used an SSRI antidepressant in the week before the index day. No significant risk of upper GI bleeding was encountered for SSRI antidepressants (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06, 95% CI, 0.57-1.96) or for whichever other grouping of antidepressants. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this case-control study showed no significant increase in upper GI bleeding with SSRIs and provide good evidence that the magnitude of any increase in risk is not greater than 2

Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). The Guideline was also reviewed and endorsed by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG). It addresses the roles of small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders. Main recommendations 1 ESGE recommends small-bowel video capsule endoscopy as the first-line investigation in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 2 In patients with overt obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, ESGE recommends performing small-bowel capsule endoscopy as soon as possible after the bleeding episode, optimally within 14 days, in order to maximize the diagnostic yield (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 ESGE does not recommend the routine performance of second-look endoscopy prior to small-bowel capsule endoscopy; however whether to perform second-look endoscopy before capsule endoscopy in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding or iron-deficiency anaemia should be decided on a case-by-case basis (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 In patients with positive findings at small-bowel capsule endoscopy, ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy to confirm and possibly treat lesions identified by capsule endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 5 ESGE recommends ileocolonoscopy as the first endoscopic examination for investigating patients with suspected Crohn's disease (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). In patients with suspected Crohn's disease and negative ileocolonoscopy findings, ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy as the initial diagnostic modality for investigating the small bowel, in the absence of obstructive symptoms or known stenosis (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). ESGE does not recommend routine small-bowel imaging or the use of the PillCam patency capsule prior to capsule endoscopy in these patients (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). In the presence of obstructive symptoms or known stenosis, ESGE recommends that dedicated small bowel cross-sectional imaging modalities such as magnetic resonance enterography/enteroclysis or computed tomography enterography/enteroclysis should be used first (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 6 In patients with established Crohn's disease, based on ileocolonoscopy findings, ESGE recommends dedicated cross-sectional imaging for small-bowel evaluation since this has the potential to assess extent and location of any Crohn's disease lesions, to identify strictures, and to assess for extraluminal disease (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). In patients with unremarkable or nondiagnostic findings from such cross-sectional imaging of the small bowel, ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a subsequent investigation, if deemed to influence patient management (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). When capsule endoscopy is indicated, ESGE recommends use of the PillCam patency capsule to confirm functional patency of the small bowel (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 7 ESGE strongly recommends against the use of small-bowel capsule endoscopy for suspected coeliac disease but suggests that capsule endoscopy could be used in patients unwilling or unable to undergo conventional endoscopy (strong recommendation, low quality evidence)