Full-thickness resection device (FTRD) for treatment of upper gastrointestinal tract lesions: the first international experience.

Background and study aims The Full-Thickness Resection Device (FTRD) provides a novel treatment option for lesions not amenable to conventional endoscopic resection techniques. There are limited data on the efficacy and safety of FTRD for resection of upper gastrointestinal tract (GIT) lesions. Patients and methods This was an international multicenter retrospective study, including patients who had an endoscopic resection of an upper GIT lesion using the FTRD between January 2017 and February 2019. Results Fifty-six patients from 13 centers were included. The most common lesions were mesenchymal neoplasms (n = 23, 41 %), adenomas (n = 7, 13 %), and hamartomas (n = 6, 11 %). Eighty-four percent of lesions were located in the stomach, and 14 % in the duodenum. The average size of lesions was 14 mm (range 3 to 33 mm). Deployment of the FTRD was technically successful in 93 % of patients (n = 52) leading to complete and partial resection in 43 (77 %) and 9 (16 %) patients, respectively. Overall, the FTRD led to negative histological margins (R0 resection) in 38 (68 %) of patients. A total of 12 (21 %) mild or moderate adverse events (AEs) were reported. Follow-up endoscopy was performed in 31 patients (55 %), on average 88 days after the procedure (IQR 68-138 days). Of these, 30 patients (97 %) did not have any residual or recurrent lesion on endoscopic examination and biopsy, with residual adenoma in one patient (3 %). Conclusions Our results suggest a high technical success rate and an acceptable histologically complete resection rate, with a low risk of AEs and early recurrence for FTRD resection of upper GIT lesions

Periesophageal Pseudoaneurysms: Rare Cause of Refractory Bleeding Treated with Transarterial Embolization

A 43-year-old female with history of systemic lupus erythematosus, prior cytomegalovirus esophagitis treated with ganciclovir, and long segment Barrett’s esophagus (Prague class C8 M9) with high grade dysplasia treated with radiofrequency ablation presented to the hospital with hematemesis. An upper gastrointestinal endoscopy showed multiple esophageal ulcers with active arterial spurting which could not be controlled with endoscopic interventions including placement of hemostatic clips. An emergent angiogram demonstrated actively bleeding saccular dilations (pseudoaneurysms) in the esophageal branches of the lower thoracic aorta as well as left gastric artery for which gelfoam and coil embolization was initially successful. Due to recurrence of massive bleeding, she subsequently underwent emergent esophagectomy and bipolar exclusion. Pathology demonstrated submucosal hemorrhage, esophagitis with dysplastic Barrett’s mucosa, and an ulcer containing cytomegaloviral inclusions. We report the first case of arterial bleeding from periesophageal pseudoaneurysms as well as use of angiographic embolization for arterial bleeding in the esophagus

Azithromycin versus erythromycin infusions prior to endoscopy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding

BackgroundIntravenous erythromycin prior to endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) improves outcomes but requires immediate preparation delaying administration in emergency cases. Azithromycin is readily available and does not require prolonged preparation. The aim of the study was to assess the effect of azithromycin in improving the quality of endoscopic visualization in upper GIB compared to erythromycin.MethodsPatients admitted with upper GIB who received erythromycin or azithromycin before urgent endoscopy were included. Primary outcome of the quality of visualization was assessed by two gastroenterologists, blinded to the choice of infusion, using a scoring system ranging from 0 to 8, with a maximum of 2 points assigned to the fundus, body, antrum and bulb.ResultsSixty-six patients were included; 25 received azithromycin and 41 received erythromycin. Mean total visualization score was significantly higher with azithromycin compared to that with erythromycin (6.8±1.4 vs. 5.5±2.2, respectively; P=0.01) and remained significant after adjusting for confounders (Diff: 0.01, 1.88; P=0.05). Secondary outcomes analyses showed a shorter LOS when given azithromycin compared to erythromycin [6 (3 to 9) vs. 8 (7 to 16) days, respectively, 95% CI: 1.03, 3.89; P=0.04]. Time between initiating the infusion and endoscopy was longer with azithromycin (Diff: 40.64 min; 95% CI: 7.23, 74.05; P=0.02). Need for second look endoscopy, procedure time, blood transfusion requirements and procedure-related complications did not differ between the groups.ConclusionsAzithromycin infusion before endoscopy for upper GIB was associated with better visualization than that of erythromycin. Randomized trials are needed to validate these findings