Endoscopic management of gastrointestinal leaks and fistulae: Whatoption do we have?

Gastrointestinal leaks and fistulae are serious, potentially life threateningconditions that may occur with a wide variety of clinical presentations. Leaks aremostly related to post-operative anastomotic defects and are responsible for animportant share of surgical morbidity and mortality. Chronic leaks and longstanding post-operative collections may evolve in a fistula between twoepithelialized structures. Endoscopy has earned a pivotal role in the managementof gastrointestinal defects both as first line and as rescue treatment. Endotherapyis a minimally invasive, effective approach with lower morbidity and mortalitycompared to revisional surgery. Clips and luminal stents are the pioneer ofgastrointestinal (GI) defect endotherapy, whereas innovative endoscopic closuredevices and techniques, such as endoscopic internal drainage, suturing systemand vacuum therapy, has broadened the indications of endoscopy for themanagement of GI wall defect. Although several endoscopic options are currentlyused, a standardized evidence-based algorithm for management of GI defect isnot available. Successful management of gastrointestinal leaks and fistulaerequires a tailored and multidisciplinary approach based on clinical presentation,defect features (size, location and onset time), local expertise and the availabilityof devices. In this review, we analyze different endoscopic approaches, which weselected on the basis of the available literature and our own experience. Then, weevaluate the overall efficacy and procedural-specific strengths and weaknesses ofeach approach.

Efficacy and tolerability of high and low-volume bowel preparation compared:A real-life single-blinded large-population study

BACKGROUND Low-volume preparations for colonoscopy have shown similar efficacy compared to high-volume ones in randomized controlled trials(RCT).However,most RCTs do not provide data about clinical outcomes including lesions detection rate.Moreover,real-life comparisons are lacking.AIM To compare efficacy(both in terms of adequate bowel preparation and detection of colorectal lesions)and tolerability of a high-volume(HV:4 L polyethylene glycol,PEG)and a low-volume(LV:2 L PEG plus bisacodyl)bowel preparation in a real-life setting.METHODS Consecutive outpatients referred for colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled between 1 December 2014 and 31 December 2016.Patients could choose either LV or HV preparation,with a day-before schedule for morning colonoscopies and a split-dose for afternoon procedures.Adequate bowel preparation according to Boston Bowel Preparation Scale(BBPS),clinical outcomes including polyp detection rate(PDR),adenoma detection rate(ADR),advanced adenoma detection rate(AADR),sessile/serrated lesion detection rate(SDR)and cancer detection rate and self-reported tolerability of HV and LV were blindly assessed.RESULTS Total 2040 patients were enrolled and 1815(mean age 60.6 years,50.2%men)finally included.LV was chosen by 52%of patients(50.8%of men,54.9%of women).Split-dose schedule was more common with HV(44.7%vs 38.2%,P=0.005).High-definition scopes were used in 33.4%of patients,without difference in the two groups(P=0.605).HV and LV preparations showed similar adequate bowel preparation rates(89.2%vs 86.6%,P=0.098),also considering the two different schedules(HV split-dose 93.8%vs LV split-dose 93.6%,P=1;HV daybefore 85.5%vs LV day-before 82.3%,P=0.182).Mean global BBPS score was higher for HV preparations(7.1±1.7 vs 6.8±1.6,P<0.001).After adjustment for sex,age and indications for colonoscopy,HV preparation resulted higher in PDR[Odds ratio(OR)1.32,95%CI:1.07-1.63,P=0.011]and ADR(OR 1.29,95%CI 1.02–1.63,P=0.038)and comparable to LV in AADR(OR 1.51,95%CI 0.97-2.35,P=0.069),SDR and cancer detection rate.The use of standard-definition colonoscopes was associated to lower PDR(adjusted OR 1.59,95%CI:1.22-2.08,P<0.001),ADR(adjusted OR 1.71,95%CI:1.26–2.30,P<0.001)and AADR(adjusted OR 1.97,95%CI:1.09-3.56,P=0.025)in patients receiving LV preparation.Mean Visual Analogue Scale tolerability scored equally(7,P=0.627)but a≥75%dose intake was more frequent with LV(94.6%vs 92.1%,P=0.003).CONCLUSION In a real-life setting,PEG-based low-volume preparation with bisacodyl showed similar efficacy and tolerability compared to standard HV preparation.However,with higher PDR and ADR,HV should still be considered as the reference standard for clinical trials and the preferred option in screening colonoscopy,especially when colonoscopy is performed with standard resolution imaging.

在有分散的胃的息肉的病人的 colorectal 息肉的风险: 盒子控制研究

AIM:To assess the risk of colonic polyps,adenomas and advanced neoplastic lesions(ANL) in patients with sporadic gastric polyps,especially those with fundic gland polyps(FGP).METHODS:Clinical records of patients who had performed an upper and a lower digestive endoscopy between September 2007 and August 2008 were retrospectively analyzed.A case-control study was carried out,calling patients with gastric polyps as 'cases' and patients without gastric polyps as 'controls'.The risk of colonic polyps,adenomas and ANL(villous component ≥ 25%,size ≥ 10 mm,or high grade dysplasia) was assessed [odds ratio(OR) and its corresponding 95%CI].RESULTS:Two hundred and forty seven patients were analyzed:78 with gastric polyps(cases) and 169 without gastric polyps(controls).Among the cases,the majority of gastric polyps were FGP(80%,CI:69-88) and hyperplastic(20%,CI:12-31);25% had colonic polyps(25% hyperplastic and 68% adenomas,from which 45% were ANL).Among the controls,20% had colonic polyps(31% hyperplastic and 63% adenomas,from which 41% were ANL).The patients with sporadic FGP had an OR of 1.56(CI:0.80-3.04) for colonic polyps,an OR of 1.78(CI:0.82-3.84) for colonic adenomas,and an OR of 0.80(CI:0.21-2.98) for ANL.Similar results were found in patients with gastric polyps in general.CONCLUSION:The results of this study did not show more risk of colorectal adenomas or ANL neither in patients with sporadic gastric polyps nor in those with FGP.

Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Rescue treatment with a modified cyanoacrylate

AIM To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a modified cyanoacrylate [N-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate associated with methacryloxysulfolane(NBCA + MS)] to treat nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding(NV-UGIB).METHODS In our retrospective study we took into account 579 out of 1177 patients receiving endoscopic treatment for NV-UGIB admitted to our institution from 2008 to 2015; the remaining 598 patients were treated with other treatments. Initial hemostasis was not achieved in 45 of 579 patients; early rebleeding occurred in 12 of 579 patients. Thirty-three patients were treated with modified cyanoacrylate: 27 patients had duodenal, gastric or anastomotic ulcers, 3 had post-mucosectomy bleeding, 2 had Dieulafoy's lesions, and 1 had duodenal diverticular bleeding.RESULTS Of the 45 patients treated endoscopically without initialhemostasis or with early rebleeding, 33(76.7%) were treated with modified cyanoacrylate glue, 16(37.2%) underwent surgery, and 3(7.0%) were treated with selective transarterial embolization. The mean age of patients treated with NBCA + MS(23 males and 10 females) was 74.5 years. Modified cyanoacrylate was used in 24 patients during the first endoscopy and in 9 patients experiencing rebleeding. Overall, hemostasis was achieved in 26 of 33 patients(78.8%): 19 out of 24(79.2%) during the first endoscopy and in 7 out of 9(77.8%) among early rebleeders. Two patients(22.2%) not responding to cyanoacrylate treatment were treated with surgery or transarterial embolization. One patient had early rebleeding after treatment with cyanoacrylate. No late rebleeding during the follow-up or complications related to the glue injection were recorded.CONCLUSION Modified cyanoacrylate solved definitively NV-UGIB after failure of conventional treatment. Some reported life-threatening adverse events with other formulations, advise to use it as last option.

Neuroendocrine carcinomas arising in ulcerative colitis:Coincidences or possible correlations?

Patients with in· ammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk of colorectal malignancies. Adenocarcinoma is the commonest type of colorectal neoplasm associated with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease, but other types of epithelial and non-epithelial tumors have also been described in inflamed bowel. With regards to non-epithelial malignancies, lymphomas and sarcomas represent the largest group of tumors reported in association with IBD, especially in immunosuppressed patients. Carcinoids and in particular neuroendocrine neoplasms other than carcinoids (NENs) are rare tumors and are infrequently described in the setting of IBD. Thus, this association requires further investigation. We report two cases of neoplasms arising in mild left-sided UC with immuno-histochemical staining for neuroendocrine markers: a large cell and a small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the rectum. The two patients were different in age (35 years vs 77 years) and disease duration (11 years vs 27 years), and both had never received immuno-suppressant drugs. Although the patients underwent regular endoscopic and histological follow-up, the two neoplasms were locally advanced at diagnosis. One of the two patients developed multiple liver metastases and died 15 mo after diagnosis. These findings confirm the aggressiveness and the poor prognosis of NENs compared to colorectal adenocarcinoma. While carcinoids seem to be coincidentally associated with IBD, NENs may also arise in this setting. In fact, long-stand-ing in· ammation could be directly responsible for thedevelopment of pancellular dysplasia involving epithelial, goblet, Paneth and neuroendocrine cells. It has yet to be established which IBD patients have a higher risk of developing NENs.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses:the fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy dilemma. Is the best needle yet to come?

Fine needle aspiration (FNA) is currently the standard of care for sampling pancreatic solid masses by using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).The accuracy of the technique is reported to be high,especially if coupled with the rapid on site evaluation (ROSE),and it has a high safety profile.However,FNA presents some limitations,such as the small amount of tissue that can be collected and the inability of obtaining a core tissue with intact histological architecture,which is relevant to perform immunohistochemical analysis,molecular profiling and,therefore,targeted therapies.Moreover,the presence of the ROSE by an expert cytopathologist is very important to maximize the diagnostic yield of FNA technique;however,it is not widely available,especially in small centers.Hence,the introduction of EUS fine needle biopsy (FNB) with a new generation of needles,which show a high safety profile too and a satisfying diagnostic accuracy even in the absence of ROSE,could be the key to overcome the limitations of FNA.However,FNB has not yet shown diagnostic superiority over FNA.Considering all the technical aspects of FNA and FNB,the different types of needle currently available,comparisons in term of diagnostic yield,and the different techniques of sampling,a tailored approach should be used in order to determine the needle that is most appropriate for the different specific scenarios.