On-therapy impedance-pH monitoring can efficiently characterize PPI-refractory GERD and support treatment escalation

Background: On-therapy impedance-pH monitoring is recommended in patients with documented GERD and PPI-refractory heartburn in order to establish whether the unremitting symptom is reflux-related or not. Aims: To define on-PPI cut-offs of impedance-pH metrics allowing proper interpretation of on-therapy impedance-pH monitoring. Methods: Blinded expert review of impedance-pH tracings performed during double-dosage PPI, prospectively collected from 150 GERD patients with PPI-refractory heartburn and 45 GERD patients with PPI-responsive heartburn but persisting extra-esophageal symptoms. Acid exposure time (AET), number of total refluxes (TRs), post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index, and mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) were assessed. On-PPI cut-offs were defined and evaluated with ROC analysis and the area under curve (AUC). Results: All the four impedance-pH metrics significantly differed between PPI-refractory and PPI-responsive heartburn cases. At ROC analysis, AUC was 0.73 for AET, 0.75 for TRs, 0.81 for PSPW index, and 0.71 for MNBI; best cut-offs were ≥1.7% for AET, ≥45 for TRs, ≤36% for PSPW index, and ≤ 1847 Ω for MNBI; AUC of such cut-offs was 0.66, 0.71, 0.73, and 0.68, respectively. Analysis of PSPW index and MNBI added to assessment of AET and TRs significantly increased the yield of on-therapy impedance-pH monitoring in the PPI-refractory cohort (97% vs. 83%, p < 0.0001). Notably, suboptimal acid suppression as shown by AET ≥1.7% was detected in 43% of 150 PPI-refractory cases. Conclusions: We have defined on-PPI cut-offs of impedance-pH metrics by which comprehensive assessment of impedance-pH tracings, including analysis of PSPW index and MNBI can efficiently characterize PPI-refractory GERD and support treatment escalation

Management of Barrett’s Esophagus: Practice-Oriented Answers to Clinical Questions

Barrett's esophagus is the most important complication of gastro-esophageal reflux disease and the only known precursor of esophageal adenocarcinoma. The diagnosis and treatment of Barrett's esophagus are clinically challenging as it requires a high level of knowledge and competence in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. For instance, endoscopists should know when and how to perform biopsies when Barrett's esophagus is suspected. Furthermore, the correct identification and treatment of dysplastic Barrett's esophagus is crucial to prevent progression to cancer as well as it is the endoscopic surveillance of treated patients. Herein, we report practice-oriented answers to clinical questions that clinicians should be aware of when approaching patients with Barrett's esophagus

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration vs fine-needle biopsy for the diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasoundguided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) as a method of obtaining preoperative diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PanNETs) has been reported in several series. Fine-needle biopsies (FNB) are increasingly employed to obtain core specimens during EUS. However, the differences in efficacy between these sampling methods in the diagnosis of PanNETs still needs to be defined. Patients and methods Over a 13-year period, all patients who underwent EUS-guided tissue sampling of suspicious pancreatic lesions with clinical, endoscopic and pathologic details were entered into an electronic database. Lesions underwent EUS-FNA or FNB sampling, or a combination of the two. The accuracy and safety of different EUS-guided sampling methods for confirmed PanNETs were investigated. Results A total of 91 patients (M/F: 42/49, median age: 57 years), who underwent 102 EUS procedures had a final diagnosis of PanNET. Both EUS-guided sampling modalities were used in 28 procedures, EUS-FNA alone was used in 61 cases, while EUS-FNB alone in 13 cases. Diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB alone, including the inadequate specimens, was 77.5 % (95 %CI: 68.9 – 86.2%) and 85.4 % (95 % CI: 74.6 – 96.2 %), respectively. The combination of both sampling modalities established the diagnosis in 96.4 % of cases (27/28) (95 %CI: 89.6 – 100%), significantly superior to EUS-FNA alone (P = 0.023). Diagnostic sensitivity among the adequate samples for EUS-FNA, EUS-FNB and for the combination of the two methods was 88.4 % (95 %CI: 80.9 – 96.0 %), 94.3% (95 %CI: 86.6 – 100%) and 100% (95% CI: 100 – 100 %). There was one reported complication, a post-FNA bleeding, treated conservatively. Conclusions EUS-FNB improves diagnostic sensitivity and confers additional information to cytological assessment of PanNETs

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2019

ESGE recommends a low fiber diet on the day preceding colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of enhanced instructions for bowel preparation.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends split-dose bowel preparation for elective colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends, for patients undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, a same-day bowel preparation as an acceptable alternative to split dosing.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends to start the last dose of bowel preparation within 5 hours of colonoscopy, and to complete it at least 2 hours before the beginning of the procedure.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of high volume or low volume PEG-based regimens as well as that of non-PEG-based agents that have been clinically validated for routine bowel preparation. In patients at risk for hydroelectrolyte disturbances, the choice of laxative should be individualized.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence

Laparoscopic fundoplication for gastroesophageal reflux disease

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a condition that develops when the reflux of gastric contents into the esophagus leads to troublesome symptoms and/or complications. Heartburn is the cardinal symptom, often associated with regurgitation. In patients with endoscopy-negative heartburn refractory to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy and when the diagnosis of GERD is in question, direct reflux testing by impedance-pH monitoring is warranted. Laparoscopic fundoplication is the standard surgical treatment for GERD. It is highly effective in curing GERD with a 80% success rate at 20-year follow-up. The Nissen fundoplication, consisting of a total (360\ub0) wrap, is the most commonly performed antireflux operation. To reduce postoperative dysphagia and gas bloating, partial fundoplications are also used, including the posterior (Toupet) fundoplication, and the anterior (Dor) fundoplication. Currently, there is consensus to advise laparoscopic fundoplication in PPI-responsive GERD only for those patients who develop untoward side-effects or complications from PPI therapy. PPI resistance is the real challenge in GERD. There is consensus that carefully selected GERD patients refractory to PPI therapy are eligible for laparoscopic fundoplication, provided that objective evidence of reflux as the cause of ongoing symptoms has been obtained. For this purpose, impedance-pH monitoring is regarded as the diagnostic gold standard