Memantine treatment does not affect compulsive behavior or frontostriatal connectivity in an adolescent rat model for quinpirole-induced compulsive checking behavior

RATIONALE: Compulsivity often develops during childhood and is associated with elevated glutamate levels within the frontostriatal system. This suggests that anti-glutamatergic drugs, like memantine, may be an effective treatment. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to characterize the acute and chronic effect of memantine treatment on compulsive behavior and frontostriatal network structure and function in an adolescent rat model of compulsivity. METHODS: Juvenile Sprague-Dawley rats received repeated quinpirole, resulting in compulsive checking behavior (n = 32; compulsive) or saline injections (n = 32; control). Eight compulsive and control rats received chronic memantine treatment, and eight compulsive and control rats received saline treatment for seven consecutive days between the 10th and 12th quinpirole/saline injection. Compulsive checking behavior was assessed, and structural and functional brain connectivity was measured with diffusion MRI and resting-state fMRI before and after treatment. The other rats received an acute single memantine (compulsive: n = 12; control: n = 12) or saline injection (compulsive: n = 4; control: n = 4) during pharmacological MRI after the 12th quinpirole/saline injection. An additional group of rats received a single memantine injection after a single quinpirole injection (n = 8). RESULTS: Memantine treatment did not affect compulsive checking nor frontostriatal structural and functional connectivity in the quinpirole-induced adolescent rat model. While memantine activated the frontal cortex in control rats, no significant activation responses were measured after single or repeated quinpirole injections. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of a memantine treatment effect in quinpirole-induced compulsive adolescent rats may be partly explained by the interaction between glutamatergic and dopaminergic receptors in the brain, which can be evaluated with functional MRI

Long-Term Outcome of Immediate Versus Postponed" Intervention in Patients With Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis" (POINTER)" Multicenter Randomized Trial

Objective: To compare the long-term outcomes of immediate drainage versus the postponed-drainage approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Background: In the randomized POINTER trial, patients assigned to the postponed-drainage approach using antibiotic treatment required fewer interventions, as compared with immediate drainage, and over a third were treated without any intervention. Methods: Clinical data of those patients alive after the initial 6-month follow-up were re-evaluated. The primary outcome was a composite of death and major complications. Results: Out of 104 patients, 88 were re-evaluated with a median followup of 51 months. After the initial 6-month follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 7 of 47 patients (15%) in the immediate-drainage group and 7 of 41 patients (17%) in the postponed-drainage group (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.33-2.28; P=0.78). Additional drainage procedures were performed in 7 patients (15%) versus 3 patients (7%) (RR 2.03; 95% CI 0.56-7.37; P=0.34). The median number of additional interventions was 0 (IQR 0-0) in both groups (P=0.028). In the total follow-up, the median number of interventions was higher in the immediate-drainage group than in the postponed-drainage group (4 vs. 1, P=0.001). Eventually, 14 of 15 patients (93%) in the postponed-drainage group who were successfully treated in the initial 6-month follow-up with antibiotics and without any intervention remained without intervention. At the end of follow-up, pancreatic function and quality of life were similar. Conclusions: Also, during long-term follow-up, a postponed-drainage approach using antibiotics in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis results in fewer interventions as compared with immediate drainage and should therefore be the preferred approach.</p

Evaluation of polypectomy quality indicators of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps in a nonexpert, bowel cancer screening cohort

Background and Aims: With the introduction of the national bowel cancer screening program, the detection of sessile and flat colonic lesions ≥20 mm in size, defined as large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs), has increased. The aim of this study was to examine the quality of endoscopic treatment of LNPCPs in the Dutch screening program. Methods: This investigation comprised 2 related, but separate, substudies (1 with a cross-sectional design and 1 with a longitudinal design). The first examined prevalence and characteristics of LNPCPs in data from the national Dutch screening cohort from February 2014 until January 2017. The second, with screening data from 5 endoscopy units in the Southern part of the Netherlands from February 2014 until August 2015, examined performance on important quality indicators (technical and clinical successes, recurrence rate, adverse event rate, and surgery referral rate). All patients were part of the national Dutch screening cohort. Results: In the national cohort, an LNPCP was detected in 8% of participants. Technical and clinical success decreased with increasing LNPCP size, from 93% and 96% in 20- to 29-mm lesions to 85% and 86% in 30- to 39-mm lesions and to 74% and 81% in ≥40-mm lesions (P < .001; P = .034). The cumulative recurrence rate at 12 months increased with LNPCP size, from 9% to 22% and 26% in the respective size groups (P = .095). The adverse event rate was 5%. The overall surgical referral rate for noninvasive LNPCPs was 7%. Conclusions: In this performance of 2 substudies, it was shown that quality parameters for endoscopic resection of large polyps in the Dutch screening cohort are not reached, especially in ≥30-mm polyps. Endoscopic resection of large polyps could benefit from additional training, quality monitoring, and centralization either within or between centers

Endoscopic Versus Surgical Step-Up Approach for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (ExTENSION):Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial

Background & Aims: Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years. Methods: In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life. Results: After a mean follow-up period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08–0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09–0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups. Conclusions: At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up. Netherlands Trial Register no: NL8571

Immediate versus postponed intervention for infected necrotizing pancreatitis

BACKGROUND Infected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is encapsulated. Whether outcomes could be improved by earlier catheter drainage is unknown. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, randomized superiority trial involving patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, in which we compared immediate drainage within 24 hours after randomization once infected necrosis was diagnosed with drainage that was postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis was reached. The primary end point was the score on the Comprehensive Complication Index, which incorporates all complications over the course of 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS A total of 104 patients were randomly assigned to immediate drainage (55 patients) or postponed drainage (49 patients). The mean score on the Comprehensive Complication Index (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe complications) was 57 in the immediate-drainage group and 58 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, −1; 95% confidence interval [CI], −12 to 10; P=0.90). Mortality was 13% in the immediate-drainage group and 10% in the postponed-drainage group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.42 to 3.68). The mean number of interventions (catheter drainage and necrosectomy) was 4.4 in the immediate-drainage group and 2.6 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.0). In the postponed-drainage group, 19 patients (39%) were treated conservatively with antibiotics and did not require drainage; 17 of these patients survived. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS This trial did not show the superiority of immediate drainage over postponed drainage with regard to complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Patients randomly assigned to the postponed-drainage strategy received fewer invasive interventions

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of T1 colorectal cancers:a retrospective analysis from a multicenter Dutch eFTR registry

Background Complete endoscopic resection and accurate histological evaluation for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) are critical in determining subsequent treatment. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a new treatment option for T1 CRC<2cm. We aimed to report clinical outcomes and short-term results. Methods Consecutive eFTR procedures for T1 CRC, prospectively recorded in our national registry between November 2015 and April 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes were technical success and R0 resection. Secondary outcomes were histological risk assessment, curative resection, adverse events, and short-term outcomes. Results We included 330 procedures: 132 primary resections and 198 secondary scar resections after incomplete T1 CRC resection. Overall technical success, R0 resection, and curative resection rates were 87.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82.7%-90.3%), 85.6% (95%CI 81.2%-89.2%), and 60.3% (95%CI 54.7%-65.7%). Curative resection rate was 23.7% (95%CI 15.9%-33.6%) for primary resection of T1 CRC and 60.8% (95%CI 50.4%-70.4%) after excluding deep submucosal invasion as a risk factor. Risk stratification was possible in 99.3%. The severe adverse event rate was 2.2%. Additional oncological surgery was performed in 49/320 (15.3%), with residual cancer in 11/49 (22.4%). Endoscopic follow-up was available in 200/242 (82.6%), with a median of 4 months and residual cancer in 1 (0.5%) following an incomplete resection. Conclusions eFTR is relatively safe and effective for resection of small T1 CRC, both as primary and secondary treatment. eFTR can expand endoscopic treatment options for T1 CRC and could help to reduce surgical overtreatment. Future studies should focus on long-term outcomes

Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of non-pedunculated rectal lesions (TRIASSIC study):study protocol of a European multicenter randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: In the recent years two innovative approaches have become available for minimally invasive en bloc resections of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions (polyps and early cancers). One is Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS), the other is Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD). Both techniques are standard of care, but a direct randomised comparison is lacking. The choice between either of these procedures is dependent on local expertise or availability rather than evidence-based. The European Society for Endoscopy has recommended that a comparison between ESD and local surgical resection is needed to guide decision making for the optimal approach for the removal of large rectal lesions in Western countries. The aim of this study is to directly compare both procedures in a randomised setting with regard to effectiveness, safety and perceived patient burden. METHODS: Multicenter randomised trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with non-pedunculated lesions > 2 cm, where the bulk of the lesion is below 15 cm from the anal verge, will be randomised between either a TAMIS or an ESD procedure. Lesions judged to be deeply invasive by an expert panel will be excluded. The primary endpoint is the cumulative local recurrence rate at follow-up rectoscopy at 12 months. Secondary endpoints are: 1) Radical (R0-) resection rate; 2) Perceived burden and quality of life; 3) Cost effectiveness at 12 months; 4) Surgical referral rate at 12 months; 5) Complication rate; 6) Local recurrence rate at 6 months. For this non-inferiority trial, the total sample size of 198 is based on an expected local recurrence rate of 3% in the ESD group, 6% in the TAMIS group and considering a difference of less than 6% to be non-inferior. DISCUSSION: This is the first European randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and safety of TAMIS and ESD for the en bloc resection of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions. This is important as the detection rate of these adenomas is expected to further increase with the introduction of colorectal screening programs throughout Europe. This study will therefore support an optimal use of healthcare resources in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NL7083 , 06 July 2018

Clip placement to prevent delayed bleeding after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection (CLIPPER): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large colorectal polyps is in most cases the preferred treatment to prevent progression to colorectal carcinoma. The most common complication after EMR is delayed bleeding, occurring in 7% overall and in approximately 10% of polyps ≥ 2 cm in the proximal colon. Previous research has suggested that prophylactic clipping of the mucosal defect after EMR may reduce the incidence of delayed bleeding in polyps with a high bleeding risk. Methods: The CLIPPER trial is a multicenter, parallel-group, single blinded, randomized controlled superiority study. A total of 356 patients undergoing EMR for large (≥ 2 cm) non-pedunculated polyps in the proximal colon will be included and randomized to the clip group or the control group. Prophylactic clipping will be performed in the intervention group to close the resection defect after the EMR with a distance of < 1 cm between the clips. Primary outcome is delayed bleeding within 30 days after EMR. Secondary outcomes are recurrent or residual polyps and clip artifacts during surveillance colonoscopy after 6 months, as well as cost-effectiveness of prophylactic clipping and severity of delayed bleeding. Discussion: The CLIPPER trial is a pragmatic study performed in the Netherlands and is powered to determine the real-time efficacy and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic clipping after EMR of proximal colon polyps ≥ 2 cm in the Netherlands. This study will also generate new data on the achievability of complete closure and the effects of clip placement on scar surveillance after EMR, in order to further promote the debate on the role of prophylactic clipping in everyday clinical practice. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03309683. Registered on 13 October 2017. Start recruitment: 05 March 2018. Planned completion of recruitment: 31 August 2021

Postponed or immediate drainage of infected necrotizing pancreatitis (POINTER trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background Infected necrosis complicates 10% of all acute pancreatitis episodes and is associated with 15–20% mortality. The current standard treatment for infected necrotizing pancreatitis is the step-up approach (catheter drainage, followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive necrosectomy). Catheter drainage is preferably postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis, which usually takes 4 weeks. This delay stems from the time when open necrosectomy was the standard. It is unclear whether such delay is needed for catheter drainage or whether earlier intervention could actually be beneficial in the current step-up approach. The POINTER trial investigates if immediate catheter drainage in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis is superior to the current practice of postponed intervention. Methods POINTER is a randomized controlled multicenter superiority trial. All patients with necrotizing pancreatitis are screened for eligibility. In total, 104 adult patients with (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis will be randomized to immediate (within 24 h) catheter drainage or current standard care involving postponed catheter drainage. Necrosectomy, if necessary, is preferably postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis, in both treatment arms. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI), which covers all complications between randomization and 6-month follow up. Secondary outcomes include mortality, complications, number of (repeat) interventions, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and direct and indirect costs. Standard follow-up is at 3 and 6 months after randomization. Discussion The POINTER trial investigates if immediate catheter drainage in infected necrotizing pancreatitis reduces the composite endpoint of complications, as compared with the current standard treatment strategy involving delay of intervention until the stage of walled-off necrosis

Stent-induced compression necrosis for the endoscopic removal of a partially eroded Lap-Band

Endoscopic removal of eroded Lap-Bands is a minimally invasive alternative to surgical removal that prerequires sufficient erosion through the gastric wall, that is, ≥180° of the gastro-oesophageal wall circumference. A 69-year-old woman presented with dysphagia due to a long-standing Lap-Band erosion, currently of a 60° circumference. Adhesions due to her extensive surgical history rendered surgical treatment undesirable, so a self-expanding stent was placed endoscopically to induce sufficient erosion for subsequent endoscopic removal. During therapy, the patient complained of ructus and dysphagia, probably related to an overly proximally (oesophageal) positioned stent. After a total of 12 weeks, far longer than the described stenting duration in the literature, the Lap-Band was found free in the gastric lumen and was successfully removed using an endoscopic loop. Stent-induced compression necrosis should be considered as a minimally invasive treatment option for Lap-Bands eroded for <180°, with caution in the context of extensive fibrosis