Motorized spiral enteroscopy: results of an international multicenter prospective observational clinical study in patients with normal and altered gastrointestinal anatomy

BACKGROUND : Motorized spiral enteroscopy (MSE) has been shown to be safe and effective for deep enteroscopy in studies performed at expert centers with limited numbers of patients without previous abdominal surgery. This study aimed to investigate the safety, efficacy, and learning curve associated with MSE in a real-life scenario, with the inclusion of patients after abdominal surgery and with altered anatomy. METHODS : Patients with indications for deep enteroscopy were enrolled in a prospective observational multicenter study. The primary objective was the serious adverse event (SAE) rate; secondary objectives were the diagnostic and therapeutic yield, procedural success, time, and insertion depth. Data analysis was subdivided into training and core (post-training) study phases at centers with different levels of MSE experience. RESULTS : 298 patients (120 women; median age 68, range 19-92) were enrolled. In the post-training phase, 21.5 % (n = 54) had previous abdominal surgery, 10.0 % (n = 25) had surgically altered anatomy. Overall, SAEs occurred in 2.3 % (7/298; 95 %CI 0.9 %-4.8 %). The SAE rate was 2.0 % (5/251) in the core group and 4.3 % (2/47) in the training group, and was not increased after abdominal surgery (1.9 %). Total enteroscopy was achieved in half of the patients (n = 42) undergoing planned total enteroscopy. In 295/337 procedures (87.5 %), the anatomical region of interest could be reached. CONCLUSIONS : This prospective multicenter study showed that MSE was feasible and safe in a large cohort of patients in a real-life setting, after a short learning curve. MSE was shown to be feasible in postsurgical patients, including those with altered anatomy, without an increase in the SAE rate. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03955081

Treatment of post-cholecystectomy biliary strictures with fully-covered self-expanding metal stents - results after 5 years of follow-up

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic treatment of post-cholecystectomy biliary strictures (PCBS) with multiple plastic biliary stents placed sequentially is a minimally invasive alternative to surgery but requires multiple interventions. Temporary placement of a single fully-covered self-expanding metal stent (FCSEMS) may offer safe and effective treatment with fewer re-interventions. Long-term effectiveness of treatment with FCSEMS to obtain PCBS resolution has not yet been studied. METHODS: In this prospective multi-national study in patients with symptomatic benign biliary strictures (N = 187) due to various etiologies received a FCSEMS with scheduled removal at 6-12 months and were followed for 5 years. We report here long-term outcomes of the subgroup of patients with PCBS (N = 18). Kaplan Meier analyses assessed long-term freedom from re-stenting. Adverse events were documented. RESULTS: Endoscopic removal of the FCSEMS was achieved in 83.3% (15/18) of patients after median indwell of 10.9 (range 0.9-13.8) months. In the remaining 3 patients (16.7%), the FCSEMS spontaneously migrated and passed without complications. At the end of FCSEMS indwell, 72% (13/18) of patients had stricture resolution. At 5 years after FCSEMS removal, 84.6% (95% CI 65.0-100.0%) of patients who had stricture resolution at FCSEMS removal remained stent-free. In addition, at 75 months after FCSEMS placement, the probability of remaining stent-free was 61.1% (95% CI 38.6-83.6%) for all patients. Stent or removal related serious adverse events occurred in 38.9% (7/18) all resolved without sequalae. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with symptomatic PCBS, temporary placement of a single FCSEMS intended for 10-12 months indwell is associated with long-term stricture resolution up to 5 years. Temporary placement of a single FCSEMS may be considered for patients with PCBS not involving the main hepatic confluence. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01014390; CTRI/2012/12/003166; Registered 17 November 2009

Digital single-operator pancreatoscopy for the treatment of symptomatic pancreatic duct stones: a prospective multicenter cohort trial

BACKGROUND  Digital single-operator pancreatoscopy (DSOP)-guided lithotripsy is a novel treatment modality for pancreatic endotherapy, with demonstrated technical success in retrospective series of between 88 % and 100 %. The aim of this prospective multicenter trial was to systematically evaluate DSOP in patients with chronic pancreatitis and symptomatic pancreatic duct stones. METHODS  Patients with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis and three or fewer stones ≥ 5mm in the main pancreatic duct (MPD) of the pancreatic head or body were included. The primary end point was complete stone clearance (CSC) in three or fewer treatment sessions with DSOP. Current guidelines recommend extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for MPD stones > 5 mm. A performance goal was developed to show that the CSC rate of MPD stones using DSOP was above what has been previously reported for ESWL. Secondary end points were pain relief measured with the Izbicki pain score (IPS), number of interventions, and serious adverse events (SAEs). RESULTS  40 chronic pancreatitis patients were included. CSC was achieved in 90 % of patients (36/40) on intention-to-treat analysis, after a mean (SD) of 1.36 (0.64) interventions (53 procedures in total). The mean (SD) baseline IPS decreased from 55.3 (46.2) to 10.9 (18.3). Overall pain relief was achieved in 82.4 % (28/34) after 6 months of follow-up, with complete pain relief in 61.8 % (21/34) and partial pain relief in 20.6 % (7/34). SAEs occurred in 12.5 % of patients (5/40), with all treated conservatively. CONCLUSION  DSOP-guided endotherapy is effective and safe for the treatment of symptomatic MPD stones in highly selected patients with chronic pancreatitis. It significantly reduces pain and could be considered as an alternative to standard ERCP techniques for MPD stone treatment in these patients

Diagnostic criteria and severity assessment of acute cholecystitis: Tokyo Guidelines

The aim of this article is to propose new criteria for the diagnosis and severity assessment of acute cholecystitis, based on a systematic review of the literature and a consensus of experts. A working group reviewed articles with regard to the diagnosis and treatment of acute cholecystitis and extracted the best current available evidence. In addition to the evidence and face-to-face discussions, domestic consensus meetings were held by the experts in order to assess the results. A provisional outcome statement regarding the diagnostic criteria and criteria for severity assessment was discussed and finalized during an International Consensus Meeting held in Tokyo 2006. Patients exhibiting one of the local signs of inflammation, such as Murphy’s sign, or a mass, pain or tenderness in the right upper quadrant, as well as one of the systemic signs of inflammation, such as fever, elevated white blood cell count, and elevated C-reactive protein level, are diagnosed as having acute cholecystitis. Patients in whom suspected clinical findings are confirmed by diagnostic imaging are also diagnosed with acute cholecystitis. The severity of acute cholecystitis is classified into three grades, mild (grade I), moderate (grade II), and severe (grade III). Grade I (mild acute cholecystitis) is defined as acute cholecystitis in a patient with no organ dysfunction and limited disease in the gallbladder, making cholecystectomy a low-risk procedure. Grade II (moderate acute cholecystitis) is associated with no organ dysfunction but there is extensive disease in the gallbladder, resulting in difficulty in safely performing a cholecystectomy. Grade II disease is usually characterized by an elevated white blood cell count; a palpable, tender mass in the right upper abdominal quadrant; disease duration of more than 72 h; and imaging studies indicating significant inflammatory changes in the gallbladder. Grade III (severe acute cholecystitis) is defined as acute cholecystitis with organ dysfunction

Techniques of biliary drainage for acute cholangitis: Tokyo Guidelines

Biliary decompression and drainage done in a timely manner is the cornerstone of acute cholangitis treatment. The mortality rate of acute cholangitis was extremely high when no interventional procedures, other than open drainage, were available. At present, endoscopic drainage is the procedure of first choice, in view of its safety and effectiveness. In patients with severe (grade III) disease, defined according to the severity assessment criteria in the Guidelines, biliary drainage should be done promptly with respiration management, while patients with moderate (grade II) disease also need to undergo drainage promptly with close monitoring of their responses to the primary care. For endoscopic drainage, endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) or stent placement procedures are performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported no difference in the drainage effect of these two procedures, but case-series studies have indicated the frequent occurrence of hemorrhage associated with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), and complications such as pancreatitis. Although the usefulness of percutaneous transhepatic drainage is supported by the case-series studies, its lower success rate and higher complication rates makes it a second-option procedure

Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy compared with colonoscopy

Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) represents a noninvasive technology that allows visualization of the colon without requiring sedation and air insufflation. A second-generation colon capsule endoscopy system (PillCam Colon 2) (CCE-2) was developed to increase sensitivity for colorectal polyp detection compared with the first-generation system. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, accuracy, and safety of CCE-2 in a head-to-head comparison with colonoscopy. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, multicenter trial including 8 European sites. PATIENTS: This study involved 117 patients (mean age 60 years). Data from 109 patients were analyzed. INTERVENTION: CCE-2 was prospectively compared with conventional colonoscopy as the criterion standard for the detection of colorectal polyps that are >/=6 mm or masses in a cohort of patients at average or increased risk of colorectal neoplasia. Colonoscopy was independently performed within 10 hours after capsule ingestion or on the next day. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: CCE-2 sensitivity and specificity for detecting patients with polyps >/=6 mm and >/=10 mm were assessed. Capsule-positive but colonoscopy-negative cases were counted as false positive. Capsule excretion rate, level of bowel preparation, and rate of adverse events also were assessed. RESULTS: Per-patient CCE-2 sensitivity for polyps >/=6 mm and >/=10 mm was 84% and 88%, with specificities of 64% and 95%, respectively. All 3 invasive carcinomas were detected by CCE-2. The capsule excretion rate was 88% within 10 hours. Overall colon cleanliness for CCE-2 was adequate in 81% of patients. LIMITATIONS: Not unblinding the CCE-2 results at colonoscopy; heterogenous patient population; nonconsecutive patients. CONCLUSION: In this European, multicenter study, CCE-2 appeared to have a high sensitivity for the detection of clinically relevant polypoid lesions, and it might be considered an adequate tool for colorectal imaging

Techniques of biliary drainage for acute cholecystitis: Tokyo Guidelines

The principal management of acute cholecystitis is early cholecystectomy. However, percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) may be preferable for patients with moderate (grade II) or severe (grade III) acute cholecystitis. For patients with moderate (grade II) disease, PTGBD should be applied only when they do not respond to conservative treatment. For patients with severe (grade III) disease, PTGBD is recommended with intensive care. Percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder aspiration (PTGBA) is a simple alternative drainage method with fewer complications; however, its clinical usefulness has been shown only by case-series studies. To clarify the clinical value of these drainage methods, proper randomized trials should be done. This article describes techniques of drainage for acute cholecystitis

Sex-Specific Genetic Associations for Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

Acknowledgments We thank Dr Stuart MacGregor for his input on the study proposal and review of prior versions of this manuscript. We also thank all patients and controls for participating in this study. The MD Anderson controls were drawn from dbGaP (study accession: phs000187.v1.p1). Genotyping of these controls were done through the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (UTMDACC) and the Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR). We acknowledge the principal investigators of this study: Christopher Amos, Qingyi Wei, and Jeffrey E. Lee. Controls from the Genome-Wide Association Study of Parkinson Disease were obtained from dbGaP (study accession: phs000196.v2.p1). This work, in part, used data from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) dbGaP database from the CIDR: NeuroGenetics Research Consortium Parkinson’s disease study. We acknowledge the principal investigators and coinvestigators of this study: Haydeh Payami, John Nutt, Cyrus Zabetian, Stewart Factor, Eric Molho, and Donald Higgins. Controls from the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) were drawn from dbGaP (study accession: phs000524.v1.p1). The CRIC study was done by the CRIC investigators and supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). Data and samples from CRIC reported here were supplied by NIDDK Central Repositories. This report was not prepared in collaboration with investigators of the CRIC study and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of the CRIC study, the NIDDK Central Repositories, or the NIDDK. We acknowledge the principal investigators and the project officer of this study: Harold I Feldman, Raymond R Townsend, Lawrence J. Appel, Mahboob Rahman, Akinlolu Ojo, James P. Lash, Jiang He, Alan S Go, and John W. Kusek. The following UK hospitals participated in sample collection through the Stomach and Oesophageal Cancer Study (SOCS) collaboration network: Addenbrooke’s Hospital, University College London, Bedford Hinchingbrooke Hospital, Peterborough City Hospital, West Suffolk Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Churchill Hospital, John Hospital, Velindre Hospital, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, Queen’s Burton, Queen Elisabeth Hospital, Diana Princess of Wales, Scunthorpe General Hospital, Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital, New Cross Hospital, Belfast City Hospital, Good Hope Hospital, Heartlands Hospital, South Tyneside District General Hospital, Cumberland Infirmary, West Cumberland Hospital, Withybush General Hospital, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Wycombe General Hospital, Wexham Park Hospital, Southend Hospital, Guy’s Hospital, Southampton General Hospital, Bronglais General Hospital, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Manor Hospital, Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology, Lincoln County Hospital, Pilgrim Hospital, Grantham & District Hospital, St Mary’s Hospital London, Croydon University Hospital, Whipps Cross University Hospital, Wansbeck General Hospital, Hillingdon Hospital, Milton Keynes General Hospital, Royal Gwent Hospital, Tameside General Hospital, Castle Hill Hospital, St Richard’s Hospital, Ipswich Hospital, St Helens Hospital, Whiston Hospital, Countess of Chester Hospital, St Mary’s Hospital IOW, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Glan Clwyd Hospital, Wrexham Maelor Hospital, Darent Valley Hospital, Royal Derby Hospital, Derbyshire Royal Infirmary, Scarborough General Hospital, Kettering General Hospital, Kidderminster General Hospital, Royal Lancaster Infirmary, Furness General Hospital, Westmorland General Hospital, James Cook University Hospital, Friarage Hospital, Stepping Hill Hospital, St George’s Hospital London, Doncaster Royal Infirmary, Maidstone Hospital, Tunbridge Hospital, Prince Charles Hospital, Hartlepool Hospital, University Hospital of North Tees, Ysbyty Gwynedd, St. Jame’s University Hospital, Leeds General Infirmary, North Hampshire Hospital, Royal Preston Hospital, Chorley and District General, Airedale General Hospital, Huddersfield Royal Infirmary, Calderdale Royal Hospital, Torbay District General Hospital, Leighton Hospital, Royal Albert Edward Infirmary, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Burnley General Hospital, Royal Blackburn Hospital, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Freeman Hospital, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Victoria Hospital Blackpool, Weston Park Hospital, Royal Hampshire County Hospital, Conquest Hospital, Royal Bournemouth General Hospital, Mount Vernon Hospital, Lister Hospital, William Harvey Hospital, Kent and Canterbury Hospital, Great Western Hospital, Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary, Poole General Hospital, St Hellier Hospital, North Devon District Hospital, Salisbury District Hospital, Weston General Hospital, University Hospital Coventry, Warwick Hospital, George Eliot Hospital, Alexandra Hospital, Nottingham University Hospital, Royal Chesterfield Hospital, Yeovil District Hospital, Darlington Memorial Hospital, University Hospital of North Durham, Bishop Auckland General Hospital, Musgrove Park Hospital, Rochdale Infirmary, North Manchester General, Altnagelvin Area Hospital, Dorset County Hospital, James Paget Hospital, Derriford Hospital, Newham General Hospital, Ealing Hospital, Pinderfields General Hospital, Clayton Hospital, Dewsbury & District Hospital, Pontefract General Infirmary, Worthing Hospital, Macclesfield Hospital, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Salford Royal Hospital, Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, and Manchester Royal Infirmary. Conflict of interest The authors disclose no conflicts. Funding This work was primarily funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01CA136725). The funders of the study had no role in the design, analysis, or interpretation of the data, nor in writing or publication decisions related to this article. Jing Dong was supported by a Research Training Grant from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT; RP160097) and the Research and Education Program Fund, a component of the Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin endowment at the Medical College of Wisconsin (AHW). Quinn T. Ostrom was supported by RP160097. Puya Gharahkhani was supported by a grant from National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (1123248). Geoffrey Liu was supported by the Alan B. Brown Chair in Molecular Genomics and by the CCO Chair in Experimental Therapeutics and Population Studies. The University of Cambridge received salary support for Paul D. Pharoah from the NHS in the East of England through the Clinical Academic Reserve. Brian J. Reid was supported by a grant (P01CA91955) from the NIH/National Cancer Institute (NCI). Nicholas J. Shaheen was supported by a grant (P30 DK034987) from NIH. Thomas L. Vaughan was supported by NIH Established Investigator Award K05CA124911. Michael B. Cook was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NCI, NIH, Department of Health and Human Services. Douglas A. Corley was supported by the NIH grants R03 KD 58294, R21DK077742, and RO1 DK63616 and NCI grant R01CA136725. Carlo Maj was supported by the BONFOR-program of the Medical Faculty, University of Bonn (O-147.0002). Jesper Lagergren was supported by the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Research Prize. David C. Whiteman was supported by fellowships from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (1058522, 1155413).Peer reviewedPostprin