Systematic Review of the Predictors of Recurrent Hemorrhage After Endoscopic Hemostatic Therapy for Bleeding Peptic Ulcers

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73351/1/j.1572-0241.2008.02070.x.pd

Outcomes of submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinomas removed by endoscopic mucosal resection

AIM: To investigate the outcomes and recurrences of pT1b esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) following endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and associated treatments. METHODS: Patients undergoing EMR with pathologically confirmed T1b EAC at two academic referral centers were retrospectively identified. Patients were divided into 4 groups based on treatment following EMR: Endoscopic therapy alone (group A), endoscopic therapy with either chemotherapy, radiation or both (group B), surgical resection (group C) or no further treatment/lost to follow-up (< 12 mo) (group D). Pathology specimens were reviewed by a central pathologist. Follow-up data was obtained from the academic centers, primary care physicians and/or referring physicians. Univariate analysis was performed to identify factors predicting recurrence of EAC. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients with T1b EAC underwent EMR, of which 32 (60%) had adequate follow-up ≥ 12 mo (median 34 mo, range 12-103). There were 16 patients in group A, 9 in group B, 7 in group C and 21 in group D. Median follow-up in groups A to C was 34 mo (range 12-103). Recurrent EAC developed overall in 9 patients (28%) including 6 (38%) in group A (median: 21 mo, range: 6-73), 1 (11%) in group B (median: 30 mo, range: 30-30) and 2 (29%) in group C (median 21 mo, range: 7-35. Six of 9 recurrences were local; of the 6 recurrences, 5 were treated with endoscopy alone. No predictors of recurrence of EAC were identified. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic therapy of T1b EAC may be a reasonable strategy for a subset of patients including those either refusing or medically unfit for esophagectomy

Clinical yield of diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in orthotopic liver transplant recipients With suspected biliary complications

Diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (D‐ERCP) is commonly performed for the evaluation of biliary complications after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). This practice is contrary to the national trend of reserving endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for therapeutic purposes. Our aim was to evaluate the clinical yield and complications of D‐ERCP in OLT recipients. In this retrospective study, 165 OLT recipients who underwent ERCP between January 2006 and December 2010 at the University of Michigan were divided into 2 groups: (1) a therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (T‐ERCP) group (if they met prespecified criteria that suggested a high likelihood of endoscopic intervention) and (2) a D‐ERCP group (if there was clinical suspicion of biliary disease but they did not meet any criteria). The 2 groups were compared with respect to the proportion of subjects undergoing high‐yield ERCP, which was defined as a procedure resulting in a clinically important intervention that modified the disease course. 66.3% of the D‐ERCP procedures were classified as high‐yield, whereas 90.1% of the T‐ERCP procedures were ( P < 0.001). Serious complications were infrequent in both groups. A survey of practitioners caring for OLT recipients suggested that the rate of high‐yield D‐ERCP seen in this study is congruent with what is considered acceptable in clinical practice. In conclusion, although T‐ERCP is more likely to reveal a pathological process requiring an intervention, D‐ERCP appears to be an acceptable clinical strategy for OLT recipients because of the high likelihood of a high‐yield study and the low rate of serious complications. Liver Transpl, 2012. © 2012 AASLD.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/95170/1/23535_ftp.pd

Effect of Covered Metallic Stents Compared With Plastic Stents on Benign Biliary Stricture Resolution A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance Endoscopic placement of multiple plastic stents in parallel is the first-line treatment for most benign biliary strictures; it is possible that fully covered, self-expandable metallic stents (cSEMS) may require fewer endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures (ERCPs) to achieve resolution. Objective To assess whether use of cSEMS is noninferior to plastic stents with respect to stricture resolution. Design, Setting, and Participants Multicenter (8 endoscopic referral centers), open-label, parallel, randomized clinical trial involving patients with treatment-naive, benign biliary strictures (N = 112) due to orthotopic liver transplant (n = 73), chronic pancreatitis (n = 35), or postoperative injury (n = 4), who were enrolled between April 2011 and September 2014 (with follow-up ending October 2015). Patients with a bile duct diameter less than 6 mm and those with an intact gallbladder in whom the cystic duct would be overlapped by a cSEMS were excluded. Interventions Patients (N = 112) were randomized to receive multiple plastic stents or a single cSEMS, stratified by stricture etiology and with endoscopic reassessment for resolution every 3 months (plastic stents) or every 6 months (cSEMS). Patients were followed up for 12 months after stricture resolution to assess for recurrence. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome was stricture resolution after no more than 12 months of endoscopic therapy. The sample size was estimated based on the noninferiority of cSEMS to plastic stents, with a noninferiority margin of −15%. Results There were 55 patients in the plastic stent group (mean [SD] age, 57 [11] years; 17 women [31%]) and 57 patients in the cSEMS group (mean [SD] age, 55 [10] years; 19 women [33%]). Compared with plastic stents (41/48, 85.4%), the cSEMS resolution rate was 50 of 54 patients (92.6%), with a rate difference of 7.2% (1-sided 95% CI, −3.0% to ∞; P < .001). Given the prespecified noninferiority margin of −15%, the null hypothesis that cSEMS is less effective than plastic stents was rejected. The mean number of ERCPs to achieve resolution was lower for cSEMS (2.14) vs plastic (3.24; mean difference, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.46; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with benign biliary strictures and a bile duct diameter 6 mm or more in whom the covered metallic stent would not overlap the cystic duct, cSEMS were not inferior to multiple plastic stents after 12 months in achieving stricture resolution. Metallic stents should be considered an appropriate option in patients such as these

Regional and racial variations in the utilization of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography among pancreatic cancer patients in the United States

BackgroundPancreatic cancer is projected to become the second leading cause of cancerâ related deaths by 2030. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is recommended as firstâ line therapy for biliary decompression in pancreatic cancer. The aim of our study was to characterize geographic and racial/ethnic disparities in ERCP utilization among patients with pancreatic cancer.MethodsRetrospective cohort study using the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)â Medicare database to identify patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer from 2003â 2013. The primary outcome was receipt of ERCP, with or without stent placement, vs any nonâ ERCP biliary intervention.ResultsOf the 36 619 patients with pancreatic cancer, 37.5% (n = 13 719) underwent an ERCP, percutaneous drainage, or surgical biliary bypass. The most common biliary intervention (82.6%) was ERCP. After adjusting for tumor location and stage, Blacks were significantly less likely to receive ERCP than Whites (aOR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72, 0.97) and more likely to receive percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) (aOR 1.38, 95% CI 1.14, 1.66). Patients in the Southeast and the West were more likely to receive ERCP than those in the Northeast (Southeast aOR 1.21, 95% CI 1.04, 1.40; West aOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.01, 1.32).ConclusionRacial/ethnic and geographic disparities in access to biliary interventions including ERCP exist for patients with pancreatic cancer in the United States. Our results highlight the need for further research and policies to improve access to appropriate biliary intervention for all patients.To date, disparities in the receipt of endoscopic therapies among patients with pancreatic cancer have not been reported. The results from our study suggest that blacks with pancreatic cancer and patients in the Northeast region of the US are less likely to receive the gold standard therapy for obstructive jaundice.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149758/1/cam42225_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149758/2/cam42225.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149758/3/cam42225-sup-0001-Supinfo.pd

Rectal indomethacin alone versus indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for preventing pancreatitis after ERCP: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: The combination of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) - a temporary plastic stent placed in the pancreatic duct - and rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is recommended for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk cases. Preliminary data, however, suggest that PSP may be unnecessary if rectal NSAIDs are administered. Given the costs and potential risks of PSP, we aim to determine whether rectal indomethacin obviates the need for pancreatic stent placement in patients undergoing high-risk ERCP. Methods/Design: The SVI (Stent vs. Indomethacin) trial is a comparative effectiveness, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of rectal indomethacin alone versus the combination of rectal indomethacin and PSP for preventing PEP in high-risk cases. One thousand four hundred and thirty subjects undergoing high-risk ERCP, in whom PSP is planned solely for PEP prevention, will be randomized to indomethacin alone or combination therapy. Those who are aware of study group assignment, including the endoscopist, will not be involved in the post-procedure care of the patient for at least 48 hours. Subjects will be assessed for PEP and its severity by a panel of independent and blinded adjudicators. Indomethacin alone will be declared non-inferior to combination therapy if the two-sided 95 % upper confidence bound of the treatment difference is less than 5 % between the two groups. Biological specimens will be obtained from trial participants and centrally banked. Discussion: The SVI trial is designed to determine whether PSP remains necessary in the era of NSAIDs pharmacoprevention. The associated bio-repository will establish the groundwork for important scientific breakthrough

Rectal indomethacin alone versus indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for preventing pancreatitis after ERCP: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background The combination of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) – a temporary plastic stent placed in the pancreatic duct – and rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is recommended for preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk cases. Preliminary data, however, suggest that PSP may be unnecessary if rectal NSAIDs are administered. Given the costs and potential risks of PSP, we aim to determine whether rectal indomethacin obviates the need for pancreatic stent placement in patients undergoing high-risk ERCP. Methods/Design The SVI (Stent vs. Indomethacin) trial is a comparative effectiveness, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority study of rectal indomethacin alone versus the combination of rectal indomethacin and PSP for preventing PEP in high-risk cases. One thousand four hundred and thirty subjects undergoing high-risk ERCP, in whom PSP is planned solely for PEP prevention, will be randomized to indomethacin alone or combination therapy. Those who are aware of study group assignment, including the endoscopist, will not be involved in the post-procedure care of the patient for at least 48 hours. Subjects will be assessed for PEP and its severity by a panel of independent and blinded adjudicators. Indomethacin alone will be declared non-inferior to combination therapy if the two-sided 95 % upper confidence bound of the treatment difference is less than 5 % between the two groups. Biological specimens will be obtained from trial participants and centrally banked. Discussion The SVI trial is designed to determine whether PSP remains necessary in the era of NSAIDs pharmacoprevention. The associated bio-repository will establish the groundwork for important scientific breakthrough. Trial registration NCT02476279, registered June 2015

Clip Closure Prevents Bleeding After Endoscopic Resection of Large Colon Polyps in a Randomized Trial

Background & aims: Bleeding is the most common severe complication after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colon polyps and is associated with significant morbidity and cost. We examined whether prophylactic closure of the mucosal defect with hemoclips after polyp resection reduces the risk of bleeding. Methods: We performed a multicenter, randomized trial of patients with a large nonpedunculated colon polyp (≥20 mm) at 18 medical centers in North America and Spain from April 2013 through October 2017. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that underwent endoscopic closure with a clip (clip group) or no closure (control group) and followed. The primary outcome, postprocedure bleeding, was defined as a severe bleeding event that required hospitalization, a blood transfusion, colonoscopy, surgery, or another invasive intervention within 30 days after completion of the colonoscopy. Subgroup analyses included postprocedure bleeding with polyp location, polyp size, or use of periprocedural antithrombotic medications. We also examined the risk of any serious adverse event. Results: A total of 919 patients were randomly assigned to groups and completed follow-up. Postprocedure bleeding occurred in 3.5% of patients in the clip group and 7.1% in the control group (absolute risk difference [ARD] 3.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7%-6.5%). Among 615 patients (66.9%) with a proximal large polyp, the risk of bleeding in the clip group was 3.3% and in the control group was 9.6% (ARD 6.3%; 95% CI 2.5%-10.1%); among patients with a distal large polyp, the risks were 4.0% in the clip group and 1.4% in the control group (ARD -2.6%; 95% CI -6.3% to -1.1%). The effect of clip closure was independent of antithrombotic medications or polyp size. Serious adverse events occurred in 4.8% of patients in the clip group and 9.5% of patients in the control group (ARD 4.6%; 95% CI 1.3%-8.0%). Conclusions: In a randomized trial, we found that endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect following resection of large colon polyps reduces risk of postprocedure bleeding. The protective effect appeared to be restricted to large polyps located in the proximal colon