Scissor-type knife improves the safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) among endoscopists without experience in ESD: A randomized ex vivo study

Background and study aims Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is technically challenging, difficult to learn, and carries a substantial risk of perforation, all of which remain significant barriers to its adoptability. We aimed to determine whether use of a novel scissor-type knife improved efficacy and safety among novice performers of ESD. Materials and methods Following a brief didactic session on ESD, participants performed ESD of two lesions (2 cm diameter) in an ex vivo porcine gastric model. One resection was performed with a conventional knife and the other with the scissor knife (order of knife randomized). We recorded procedure time, successful en bloc resection, and adverse events (including full-thickness perforation and muscle injury) for each dissection. Participants completed a post-study survey. Results 10 endoscopists (8 trainees, 2 staff) considered novices in ESD participated. Compared with the conventional knife, use of the scissor knife was associated with a significantly shorter time to completion of submucosal dissection (mean 6.2 [SD 5.6] vs. 15.6 [SD 15.6] minutes; P = 0.04) and total procedure time was not significantly different (22.1 [SD 13.3] vs. 24.9 [SD 26.5] minutes; P = 0.65). Scissor knife use was also associated with a significantly lower proportion of perforation and/or muscle injury (10.0 % vs. 70.0 %; P < 0.01) and proportion of muscle injury alone (10.0 % vs. 60.0 %; P  = 0.02). Conclusions Among novices performing ESD on an ex vivo animal model, use of a scissor knife was associated with a significantly lower proportion of adverse events without prolonging procedure time. Scissor-type knives may improve ESD safety, at least among novices

Comparison of risk scoring systems for patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: international multicentre prospective study

Objective: To compare the predictive accuracy and clinical utility of five risk scoring systems in the assessment of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Design: International multicentre prospective study. Setting: Six large hospitals in Europe, North America, Asia, and Oceania. Participants: 3012 consecutive patients presenting over 12 months with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Main outcome measures: Comparison of pre-endoscopy scores (admission Rockall, AIMS65, and Glasgow Blatchford) and post-endoscopy scores (full Rockall and PNED) for their ability to predict predefined clinical endpoints: a composite endpoint (transfusion, endoscopic treatment, interventional radiology, surgery, or 30 day mortality), endoscopic treatment, 30 day mortality, rebleeding, and length of hospital stay. Optimum score thresholds to identify low risk and high risk patients were determined. Results: The Glasgow Blatchford score was best (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0.86) at predicting intervention or death compared with the full Rockall score (0.70), PNED score (0.69), admission Rockall score (0.66, and AIMS65 score (0.68) (all P&lt;0.001). A Glasgow Blatchford score of ≤1 was the optimum threshold to predict survival without intervention (sensitivity 98.6%, specificity 34.6%). The Glasgow Blatchford score was better at predicting endoscopic treatment (AUROC 0.75) than the AIMS65 (0.62) and admission Rockall scores (0.61) (both P&lt;0.001). A Glasgow Blatchford score of ≥7 was the optimum threshold to predict endoscopic treatment (sensitivity 80%, specificity 57%). The PNED (AUROC 0.77) and AIMS65 scores (0.77) were best at predicting mortality, with both superior to admission Rockall score (0.72) and Glasgow Blatchford score (0.64; P&lt;0.001). Score thresholds of ≥4 for PNED, ≥2 for AIMS65, ≥4 for admission Rockall, and ≥5 for full Rockall were optimal at predicting death, with sensitivities of 65.8-78.6% and specificities of 65.0-65.3%. No score was helpful at predicting rebleeding or length of stay. Conclusions: The Glasgow Blatchford score has high accuracy at predicting need for hospital based intervention or death. Scores of ≤1 appear the optimum threshold for directing patients to outpatient management. AUROCs of scores for the other endpoints are less than 0.80, therefore their clinical utility for these outcomes seems to be limited. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16235737

Severity and outcomes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding with bloody vs. coffee-grounds hematemesis

Objectives: Numerous reviews indicate bloody hematemesis signifies more severe bleeding than coffee-grounds hematemesis. We assessed severity and outcomes related to bleeding symptoms in a prospective study. Methods: Consecutive patients presenting with hematemesis or melena were categorized as bloody emesis (N=1209), coffee-grounds emesis without bloody emesis (N=701), or melena without hematemesis (N=1069). We assessed bleeding severity (pulse, blood pressure) and predictors of outcome (hemoglobin, risk stratification scores) at presentation, and outcomes of bleeding episodes. The primary outcome was a composite of transfusion, intervention, or mortality. Results: Bloody and coffee-grounds emesis were similar in pulse ≥100 beats/min (35 vs. 37%), systolic blood pressure ≤100 mm Hg (12 vs. 12%), and hemoglobin ≤100 g/l (25 vs. 27%). Risk stratification scores were lower with bloody emesis. The composite end point was 34.7 vs. 38.2% for bloody vs. coffee-grounds emesis; mortality was 6.6 vs. 9.3%. Hemostatic intervention was more common (19.4 vs. 14.4%) with bloody emesis (due to a higher frequency of varices necessitating endoscopic therapy), as was rebleeding (7.8 vs. 4.5%). Outcomes were worse with hematemesis plus melena vs. isolated hematemesis for bloody (composite: 62.4 vs. 25.6%; hemostatic intervention: 36.5 vs. 13.8%) and coffee-grounds emesis (composite: 59.1 vs. 27.1%; hemostatic intervention: 26.4 vs. 8.1%). Conclusions: Bloody emesis is not associated with more severe bleeding episodes at presentation or higher mortality than coffee-grounds emesis, but is associated with modestly higher rates of hemostatic intervention and rebleeding. Outcomes with hematemesis are worsened with concurrent melena. The presence of bloody emesis plus melena potentially could be considered in decisions regarding timing of endoscopy

B-cell count and survival: differentiating chronic lymphocytic leukemia from monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis based on clinical outcome

The diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) in asymptomatic patients has historically been based on documenting a characteristic lymphocyte clone and the presence of lymphocytosis. There are minimal data regarding which lymphocyte parameter (absolute lymphocyte count [ALC] or B-cell count) and what threshold should be used for diagnosis. We analyzed the relationship of ALC and B-cell count with clinical outcome in 459 patients with a clonal population of CLL phenotype to determine (1) whether the CLL diagnosis should be based on ALC or B-cell count, (2) what lymphocyte threshold should be used for diagnosis, and (3) whether any lymphocyte count has independent prognostic value after accounting for biologic/molecular prognostic markers. B-cell count and ALC had similar value for predicting treatment-free survival (TFS) and overall survival as continuous variables, but as binary factors, a B-cell threshold of 11 × 109/L best predicted survival. B-cell count remained an independent predictor of TFS after controlling for ZAP-70, IGHV, CD38, or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) results (all P < .001). These analyses support basing the diagnosis of CLL on B-cell count and retaining the size of the B-cell count in the diagnostic criteria. Using clinically relevant criteria to distinguish between monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis (MBL) and CLL could minimize patient distress caused by labeling asymptomatic people at low risk for adverse clinical consequences as having CLL