RESUMEN
Introduction: Dynamic changes in liver function tests have been proposed to correctly reclassify the risk of choledocholithiasis; however, information is scarce and insufficient to recommend its use. Methods: Retrospective cohort of patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) due to moderate and high risk of choledocholithiasis according to the 2019 American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines. We evaluated whether significant changes in liver function tests (bilirubin, transaminases, or alkaline phosphatase), defined as an increase or a reduction ⩾30 or ⩾50% between two measurements taken with a difference of 24-72 h can correctly reclassify the risk of choledocholithiasis beyond the ASGE guidelines. The net reclassification index (NRI) was calculated for patients with and without choledocholithiasis. Results: Among 1175 patients who underwent ERCP, 170 patients were included in the analysis (59.4% women, median 59.5 years). Among patients without a diagnosis of choledocholithiasis, the number of patients correctly reclassified by transaminases was slightly higher than those incorrectly reclassified (NRI = 0.24 for aspartate amino transaminase and 0.20 for alanine amino transaminase). However, among patients with a diagnosis of choledocholithiasis, it led to incorrect reclassification in a greater number of cases (NRI = -0.21 and -0.14, respectively). The benefits of reclassification were minimal for bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase, or for value changes >50%. A subgroup analysis showed similar findings in patients without a history of cholecystectomy and in those with normal bile duct. Conclusion: Dynamic changes in liver function tests do not improve choledocholithiasis risk classification beyond the 2019 ASGE criteria. New criteria should continue to be sought to optimize risk stratification.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There are risks of choledocholithiasis in symptomatic gallstones, and some surgeons have proposed the identification of choledocholithiasis before cholecystectomy. Our goal was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the latest guidelines and create computational prediction models for the accurate prediction of choledocholithiasis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed symptomatic gallstone patients hospitalized with suspected choledocholithiasis. The diagnostic performance of 2019 and 2010 guidelines of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and 2019 guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) in different risks. Lastly, we developed novel prediction models based on the preoperative predictors. RESULTS: A total of 1199 patients were identified and 681 (56.8%) had concurrent choledocholithiasis and were included in the analysis. The specificity of the 2019 ASGE, 2010 ASGE, and 2019 ESGE high-risk criteria was 85.91%, 72.2%, and 88.42%, respectively, and their positive predictive values were 85.5%, 77.4%, and 87.3%, respectively. For Mid-risk patients who followed 2019 ASGE about 61.8% of them did not have CBD stones in our study. On the choice of surgical procedure, laparoscopic cholecystectomy + laparoscopic transcystic common bile duct exploration can be considered the optimal treatment choice for cholecysto-choledocholithiasis instead of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreatography (ERCP). We build seven machine learning models and an AI diagnosis prediction model (ModelArts). The area under the receiver operating curve of the machine learning models was from 0.77 to 0.81. ModelArts AI model showed predictive accuracy of 0.97, recall of 0.97, precision of 0.971, and F1 score of 0.97, surpassing any other available methods. CONCLUSION: The 2019 ASGE guideline and 2019 ESGE guideline have demonstrated higher specificity and positive predictive value for high-risk criteria compared to the 2010 ASGE guideline. The excellent diagnostic performance of the new artificial intelligence prediction model may make it a better choice than traditional guidelines for managing patients with suspected choledocholithiasis in future.
Asunto(s)
Colecistectomía Laparoscópica , Coledocolitiasis , Cálculos Biliares , Humanos , Coledocolitiasis/diagnóstico por imagen , Coledocolitiasis/cirugía , Estudios Retrospectivos , Inteligencia Artificial , Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica/métodos , Cálculos Biliares/diagnóstico , Cálculos Biliares/cirugía , Cálculos Biliares/etiología , Medición de RiesgoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (ASGE-SAGES) guidelines for managing choledocholithiasis (CDL) omit patient-specific factors like frailty. We evaluated how frail patients with CDL undergoing same-admission cholecystectomy were managed within ASGE-SAGES guidelines. METHODS: We analyzed patients undergoing same-admission cholecystectomy for CDL and/or acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP) from 2016 to 2019 at 12 US academic medical centers. Patients were grouped by Charlson comorbidity index into non-frail (NF), moderately frail (MF), and severely frail (SF). ASGE-SAGES guidelines stratified likelihood of CDL and were used to compare actual to suggested management. Rate of guideline deviation was our primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included rates of surgical site infections (SSIs), biliary leaks, and 30-day surgical readmissions. Rates are presented as NF, MF, and SF. RESULTS: Among 844 patients, 43.3% (n = 365) were NF, 25.4% (n = 214) were MF, and 31.4% (n = 265) were SF. Frail patients were older (33y vs 56.7y vs 73.5y, P < .0001) and more likely to have ABP (32.6% vs 47.7% vs 43.8%, P = .0005). As frailty increased, guideline deviation increased (41.1% vs 43.5% vs 53.6%, P < .006). Severe frailty was predictive of guideline deviation compared to MF (aOR 1.47, 95% CI 1.02-2.12, P = .04) and NF (aOR 1.46, 95% CI 1.01-2.12, P = .04). There was no difference in SSIs (P = .2), biliary leaks (P = .7), or 30-day surgical readmission (P = .7). CONCLUSION: Frail patients with common bile duct stones had more management deviating from guidelines yet no difference in complications. Future guidelines should consider including frailty to optimize detection and management of CDL in this population.
Asunto(s)
Coledocolitiasis , Fragilidad , Cálculos Biliares , Pancreatitis , Humanos , Coledocolitiasis/cirugía , Coledocolitiasis/diagnóstico , Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica , Fragilidad/complicaciones , Cálculos Biliares/complicaciones , Endoscopía Gastrointestinal , Pancreatitis/cirugía , Pancreatitis/complicaciones , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is one of the main therapeutic and sometimes diagnostic methods in biliary and pancreatic diseases. A grading system for the difficulty of ERCP (grade one to four, the higher grade represents the more complexity of the procedure) has been developed by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE). This study aimed to assess the prevalence of ERCP-related complications, their common risk factors, and specifically the role of difficulty of the procedure based on ASGE grading. Material and Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed on 620 ERCP-operated patients over 4 years in two tertiary referral centers affiliated with Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. Data about the difficulty of procedures based on the ASGE grading scale, complications including pancreatitis, bleeding, infection, perforation, arrhythmia, respiratory suppression, aspiration, and major common risk factors were collected. Results: The overall prevalence of complications was 11.6% including pancreatitis 8.2%, perforation 0.8%, gastrointestinal bleeding 1.3%, cholangitis 2.4%, and cardiopulmonary problems 0.5% (arrhythmia 0.3% and respiratory depression 0.2%). Patients with pancreatic contrast injection (66.7% vs. 11.3% P = 0.04) and sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) (44.4% vs. 11.1%; P = 0.01) showed a statistically significant higher overall complication rate. The association of these risk factors remained significant in multivariable logistic regression analysis. Patients with pancreatic contrast injection also showed a statistically significant higher prevalence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (66.7% vs. 11.3% P = 0.04). Furthermore, a significantly higher prevalence of arrhythmia (3.6% vs. 0; P = 0.008) was observed among patients with difficult cannulation. Based on the ASGE difficulty grading score, most of the patients were classified as grade 2 (74.2%) and 3 and 4 (23.4%). No statistically significant difference was noted between the difficulty-based groups in terms of complications. Conclusion: The current study showed that the most critical risk factors of ERCP-induced complications were pancreatic contrast injection and SOD. ASGE grading scale for ERCP complexity did not predict the occurrence of complications in our study population.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Currently there is no ideal diagnostic/therapeutic approach for patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. The primary aim of our study was to evaluate the performance of the criteria for predicting choledocholithiasis proposed by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) in 2019. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted that included 352 patients seen at a secondary care public healthcare institution in Monterrey, Nuevo León, that treats an open population and does not have endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography at its disposal. RESULTS: The most frequent predictor presented by the patients was abnormal liver function tests (90.63%), and with their use alone, sensitivity was higher than that of all the predictors analyzed (91.41%). In addition, the finding of common bile duct stones on ultrasound imaging was the only predictor independently associated with the confirmatory diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. Regarding the general performance of the 2019 criteria, the high-risk category had 68.75% sensitivity, 52.08% specificity, a positive predictive value of 79.28%, a negative predictive value of 38.46%, diagnostic accuracy of 64.20%, and a confirmatory diagnosis of choledocholithiasis in 79.28% of the patients of that risk category. CONCLUSIONS: The study corroborated that the presence of choledocholithiasis could be predicted using the choledocholithiasis predictors and risk categories proposed by the ASGE, with acceptable accuracy, in accordance with the standards suggested by those same guidelines.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Acute gallstone pancreatitis (AGP) is the most common cause of acute pancreatitis (AP) in the United States. Patients with AGP may also present with choledocholithiasis. In 2010, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) suggested a management algorithm based on probability for choledocholithiasis, recommending additional imaging for patients at intermediate risk and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for patients at high risk of choledocholithiasis. In 2019, the ASGE guidelines were updated using more specific criteria to categorize individuals at high risk for choledocholithiasis. Neither ASGE guideline has been studied in AGP to determine the probability of having choledocholithiasis. AIM: To determine compliance with ASGE guidelines, assess outcomes, and compare 2019 vs 2010 ASGE criteria for suspected choledocholithiasis in AGP. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 882 patients admitted with AP to a single tertiary care center from 2008-2018. AP was diagnosed using revised Atlanta criteria and AGP was defined as the presence of gallstones on imaging or with cholestatic pattern of liver injury in the absence of another cause. Patients with chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic malignancy were excluded as were those who went directly to cholecystectomy prior to assessment for choledocholithiasis. Patients were assigned low, intermediate or high risk based on ASGE guidelines. Our primary outcomes of interest were the proportion of patients in the intermediate risk group undergoing magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) first and the proportion of patients in the high risk group undergoing ERCP directly without preceding imaging. Secondary outcomes of interest included outcome differences based on if guidelines were not adhered to. We then evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of 2019 in comparison to the 2010 ASGE criteria for patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. We performed the t test or Wilcoxon rank sum test, as appropriate, to analyze if there were outcome differences based on if guidelines were not adhered to. Kappa coefficients were calculated to measure the degree of agreement between pairs of variables. RESULTS: In this cohort, we identified 235 patients with AGP of which 79 patients were excluded as they went directly to surgery for cholecystectomy without prior MRCP or ERCP. Of the remaining 156 patients, 79 patients were categorized as intermediate risk and 77 patients were high risk for choledocholithiasis according to the 2010 ASGE guidelines. Among 79 intermediate risk patients, 54 (68%) underwent MRCP first whereas 25 patients (32%) went directly to ERCP. For the 54 patients with intermediate risk who had MRCP first, 36 patients had no choledocholithiasis while 18 patients had evidence of choledocholithiasis prompting ERCP. Of these patients, ERCP confirmed stone disease in 11 patients. Of the 25 intermediate risk patients who directly underwent ERCP, 18 patients had stone disease. One patient with a normal ERCP developed post ERCP pancreatitis. Patients undergoing MRCP in this group had a significantly longer length of stay (5.0 vs 4.0 d, P = 0.02). In the high risk group, 64 patients (83%) had ERCP without preceding imaging, of which, 53 patients had findings consistent with choledocholithiasis, of which 13 patients (17%) underwent MRCP before ERCP, all of which showed evidence of stone disease. Furthermore, all of these patients ultimately had an ERCP, of which 8 patients had evidence of stones and 5 had normal examination.Our cohort also demonstrated that 58% of all 156 patients with AGP had confirmed choledocholithiasis (79% of the high risk group and 37% of the intermediate group when risk was assigned based on the 2010 ASGE guidelines). When the updated 2019 ASGE guidelines were applied instead of the original 2010 guidelines, there was moderate agreement between the 2010 and 2019 guidelines (kappa = 0.46, 95%CI: 0.34-0.58). Forty-two of 77 patients were still deemed to be high risk and 35 patients were downgraded to intermediate risk. Thirty-five patients who were originally assigned high risk were reclassified as intermediate risk. For these 35 patients, 26 patients had ERCP findings consistent with choledocholithiasis and 9 patients had a normal examination. Based on the 2019 criteria, 9/35 patients who were downgraded to intermediate risk had an unnecessary ERCP with normal findings (without a preceding MRCP). CONCLUSION: Two-thirds in intermediate risk and 83% in high risk group followed ASGE guidelines for choledocholithiasis. One intermediate-group patient with normal ERCP had post-ERCP AP, highlighting the risk of unnecessary procedures.
Asunto(s)
Coledocolitiasis , Cálculos Biliares , Pancreatitis , Enfermedad Aguda , Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica/efectos adversos , Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica/métodos , Coledocolitiasis/complicaciones , Coledocolitiasis/diagnóstico por imagen , Coledocolitiasis/cirugía , Endoscopía Gastrointestinal , Cálculos Biliares/complicaciones , Cálculos Biliares/diagnóstico por imagen , Cálculos Biliares/cirugía , Humanos , Pancreatitis/complicaciones , Pancreatitis/diagnóstico por imagen , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Összefoglaló. Bevezetés: Az epeúti kövesség meglétének valószínusége különbözo klinikai prediktorok alapján megbecsülheto, e faktorok szenzitivitása és specificitása azonban nem kielégíto. Az endoszkópos ultrahangvizsgálat az epeúti kövesség diagnosztizálásának szemiinvazív precíz eszköze. Célkituzés: Célunk az endoszkópos ultrahangvizsgálat diagnosztikus érzékenységének vizsgálata gyanított epeúti kövesség esetén. Módszer: A prospektív vizsgálat során a betegeket az Amerikai Emésztoszervi Endoszkópos Társaság (ASGE) ajánlása szerint meghatározott prediktorok alapján közepes és magas valószínuségi csoportokba osztottuk, és endoszkópos ultrahangvizsgálatot, valamint amennyiben szükséges volt, endoszkópos retrográd kolangiopankreatográfiát (ERCP) végeztünk. Eredmények: Összesen 95 beteget vizsgáltunk. Az endoszkópos ultrahangvizsgálat 53 (56%) beteg esetében írt le epeúti kövességet: 55%-ban (39/71) a közepes valószínuségi és 58%-ban (14/24) a magas valószínuségi csoportban. Az ERCP mindegyik choledocholithiasisos esetet megerosítette. A két valószínuségi csoport között nem volt szignifikáns különbség (p = 0,56) az ERCP által igazolt epeúti kövesség tekintetében. Az ERCP csupán 1 esetben detektált epeúti kövességet a negatív endoszkópos ultrahangvizsgálat ellenére. Az endoszkópos ultrahangvizsgálat specificitása 100%, szenzitivitása 98%, míg pozitív és negatív prediktív értéke 100%, valamint 98% volt. Megbeszélés: Az epeúti kövesség meglétének becslése különbözo klinikai prediktorok alapján kihívást jelenthet. Következtetés: Az endoszkópos ultrahangvizsgálat szenzitív és pontos diagnosztikus eszköz a choledocholithiasis kimutatására és értékelésére, olyan esetekben is, amelyeknél az elozetes képalkotók nem találtak kövességet. Orv Hetil. 2022; 163(10): 400-406. INTRODUCTION: The likelihood of common bile duct stones can be prognosticated by various clinical predictors, however, the sensitivity and specificity of these factors are moderate. Endoscopic ultrasonography has been shown to be a semi-invasive precise test for the detection of common bile duct stones. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. METHOD: Patients of this prospective study were categorized and divided into intermediate likelihood and high likelihood groups according to the clinical predictors defined by the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines and referred for linear endosonography. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was performed if needed. RESULTS: A total of 95 patients were assessed. Common bile duct stones were detected by endoscopic ultrasonography overall in 53 (56%) patients: 55% (39/71) in the intermediate likelihood and 58% (14/24) in the high likelihood group of patients. The detected common bile duct stones in all patients were confirmed by ERCP. There was no significant difference (p = 0.56) in the detection of stones by ERCP between the two likelihood groups. ERCP confirmed choledocholithiasis only in one patient whose preceding endosonography did not detect stone. The specificity and sensitivity of endoscopic ultrasonography were 100% and 98%, the positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 100% and 98%, respectively. DISCUSSION: Estimating the likelihood of choledocholithiasis based on various clinical predictors might be challenging. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic ultrasonography is a highly sensitive and accurate diagnostic tool for the detection and evaluation of common bile duct stones also in patients with previous normal imaging findings. Orv Hetil. 2022; 163(10): 400-406.
Asunto(s)
Coledocolitiasis , Endosonografía , Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica , Coledocolitiasis/diagnóstico por imagen , Humanos , Hungría , Estudios ProspectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Esophageal function testing is an integral component of the evaluation of refractory GERD and esophageal motility disorders. This review summarizes the current technologies available for esophageal function testing, including the functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP), high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM), and multichannel intraluminal impedance (MII) and pH monitoring. METHODS: We performed a MEDLINE, PubMed, and MAUDE database literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies through March 2021 using the following key words: esophageal manometry, HRM, esophageal impedance, FLIP, MII, and esophageal pH testing. Technical data were gathered from traditional and web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. The report was drafted, reviewed, and edited by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Technology Committee and approved by the Governing Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. RESULTS: FLIP is a high-resolution impedance planimetry system used for pressure and dimension measurement in the esophagus, pylorus, and anal sphincter. FLIP provides complementary information to HRM for esophageal motility disorders, especially achalasia. The Chicago classification, based on HRM data, is a widely adopted algorithmic scheme used to diagnose esophageal motility disorders. MII detects intraluminal bolus movement and, combined with pH measurement or manometry, provides information on acid and non-acid gastroesophageal reflux and bolus transit in patients with refractory GERD and for preoperative evaluation for anti-reflux procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal function testing techniques (FLIP, HRM, and MII-pH) have diagnostic and prognostic value in the evaluation of esophageal motility disorders and refractory GERD. Newer technologies and classification systems have enabled an increased understanding of these diseases.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Single-session endoscopic stone extraction (ESE) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has the best outcome in managing concomitant cholelithiasis (gallstone disease [GSD]) and choledocholithiasis (common bile duct stone [CBDS]). Traditional rendezvous technique with an intraoperative cholangiogram is associated with various technical (bowel distention, frozen Calot's triangle, limitation of intraoperative cholangiogram and so on) and logistical difficulties (lack of trained personnel and equipment for ESE in the operating room). We modified our approach of ESE-LC (tandem ESE-LC) to study the safety of the approach and overcome these disadvantages of the traditional rendezvous approach. METHODS: A prospective study of patients with GSD and suspected CBDS from January 2017 to December 2019 was conducted. Tandem ESE-LC involves ESE and LC under the same general anaesthesia in a single day, while ESE is performed in the endoscopic suite using carbon dioxide insufflation, a balloon/basket was used for achieving bile duct clearance and the same was confirmed with an occlusion cholangiogram. Patients were then shifted to the operating room for LC. The primary outcome included bile duct clearance and safety of the procedure. RESULTS: Of 56 patients assessed for eligibility, 42 were included in the study (median age: 53 years, 25 [60%] women). Biliary colic was the most common presenting symptom (n = 24, 57%), followed by acute cholecystitis (n = 11, 26%). The median number of stones and stone size was 1 (1-6) and 4 mm (3-10), respectively. All patients had successful bile duct clearance. Stenting was performed in 5 (12%) patients. Intraoperatively, Calot's dissection was difficult and frozen in 10 and 11 patients respectively. The cystic duct was short and wide in 13 (31%) patients. Subtotal cholecystectomy was performed in 6 (14%) patients. The median duration of postprocedural hospital stay was 1 (0-13) day. Three patients had tandem ESE-LC on a day-care basis. One patient had post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancretography pancreatitis, and another required percutaneous drainage for gall bladder fossa collection. No patient had retained CBDS at a median follow-up of 18 (3-28) months. CONCLUSION: Tandem ESE-LC is safe and effective method in managing concomitant GSD and CBDS.
RESUMEN
In 2019, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guideline on the endoscopic management of choledocholithiasis modified the individual predictors of choledocholithiasis proposed in the widely referenced 2010 guideline to improve predictive performance. Nevertheless, the primary literature, especially for the 2019 iteration, is limited. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis to examine the diagnostic performance of the 2010, and where possible the 2019, predictors. PROSPERO protocol CRD42020194226. A comprehensive literature search from 2001 to 2020 was performed to identify studies on the diagnostic performance of any of the 2010 and 2019 ASGE choledocholithiasis predictors. Identified studies underwent keyword screening, abstract review, and full-text review. The primary outcomes included multivariate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals for each criterion. Secondary outcomes were reported sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive value. A total of 20 studies met inclusion criteria. Based on reported ORs, of the 2010 guideline "very strong" predictors, ultrasound with stone had the strongest performance. Of the "strong" predictors, CBD > 6 mm demonstrated the strongest performance. "Moderate" predictors had inconsistent and/or weak performance; moreover, all studies reported gallstone pancreatitis as non-predictive of choledocholithiasis. Only one study examined the new predictor (bilirubin > 4 mg/dL and CBD > 6 mm) proposed in the 2019 guideline. Based on this review, aside from CBD stone on ultrasound, there is discordance between the proposed strength of 2010 choledocholithiasis predictors and their published diagnostic performance. The 2019 guideline appears to do away with the weakest 2010 predictors.
Asunto(s)
Coledocolitiasis , Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica , Coledocolitiasis/diagnóstico por imagen , Endoscopía Gastrointestinal , Humanos , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Estudios Retrospectivos , Ultrasonografía , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic intervention is often the first line of therapy for GI nonvariceal bleeding. Although some of the devices and techniques used for this purpose have been well studied, others are relatively new, with few available outcomes data. METHODS: In this document, we review devices and techniques for endoscopic treatment of nonvariceal GI bleeding, the evidence regarding their efficacy and safety, and financial considerations for their use. RESULTS: Devices used for endoscopic hemostasis in the GI tract can be classified into injection devices (needles), thermal devices (multipolar/bipolar probes, hemostatic forceps, heater probe, argon plasma coagulation, radiofrequency ablation, and cryotherapy), mechanical devices (clips, suturing devices, banding devices, stents), and topical devices (hemostatic sprays). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic evaluation and treatment remains a cornerstone in the management of nonvariceal upper- and lower-GI bleeding. A variety of devices is available for hemostasis of bleeding lesions in the GI tract. Other than injection therapy, which should not be used as monotherapy, there are few compelling data that strongly favor any one device over another. For endoscopists, the choice of a hemostatic device should depend on the type and location of the bleeding lesion, the availability of equipment and expertise, and the cost of the device.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Lithotripsy is a procedure for fragmentation or destruction of stones to facilitate their removal or passage from the biliary or pancreatic ducts. Although most stones may be removed endoscopically using conventional techniques such as endoscopic sphincterotomy in combination with balloon or basket extraction, lithotripsy may be required for clearance of large, impacted, or irregularly shaped stones. Several modalities have been described, including intracorporeal techniques such as mechanical lithotripsy (ML), electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL), and laser lithotripsy, as well as extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL). METHODS: In this document, we review devices and methods for biliary and pancreatic lithotripsy and the evidence regarding efficacy, safety, and financial considerations. RESULTS: Although many difficult stones can be safely removed using ML, endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) has emerged as an alternative that may lessen the need for ML and also reduce the rate of adverse events. EHL and laser lithotripsy are effective at ductal clearance when conventional techniques are unsuccessful, although they usually require direct visualization of the stone by the use of cholangiopancreatoscopy and are often limited to referral centers. ESWL is effective but often requires coordination with urologists and the placement of stents or drains with subsequent procedures for extracting stone fragments and, thus, may be associated with increased costs. CONCLUSIONS: Several lithotripsy techniques have been described that vary with respect to ease of use, generalizability, and cost. Overall, lithotripsy is a safe and effective treatment for difficult biliary and pancreatic duct stones.
RESUMEN
AIM: To evaluate adherence of primary care physicians (PCPs) to international guidelines when referring patients for upper-gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE), evaluate the importance of alarm symptoms and the performance of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines in a Saudi population. METHODS: A prospective, observational cross-sectional study on dyspeptic patients undergoing UGE who were referred by PCPs over a 4 mo period. Referrals were classified as appropriate or inappropriate according to adherence to ASGE guidelines. RESULTS: Total of 221 dyspeptic patients was enrolled; 161 patients met our inclusion criteria. Mean age was 40.3 years (SD ± 18.1). Females comprised 70.1%. Alarm symptoms included low hemoglobin level (39%), weight loss (18%), vomiting (16%), loss of appetite (16%), difficulty swallowing (3%), and gastrointestinal bleeding (3%). Abnormal endoscopy findings included gastritis (52%), duodenitis (10%), hiatus hernia (7.8%), features suggestive of celiac disease (6.5%), ulcers (3.9%), malignancy (2.6%) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD: 17%). Among patients who underwent UGE, 63% met ASGE guidelines, and 50% had abnormal endoscopic findings. Endoscopy was not indicated in remaining 37% of patients. Among the latter group, endoscopy was normal in 54% of patients. There was no difference in proportion of abnormal endoscopic findings between two groups (P = 0.639). CONCLUSION: Dyspeptic patients had a low prevalence of important endoscopic lesions, and none of the alarm symptoms could significantly predict abnormal endoscopic findings.
Asunto(s)
Dispepsia/diagnóstico , Endoscopía Gastrointestinal/normas , Adhesión a Directriz/normas , Infecciones por Helicobacter/diagnóstico , Médicos de Atención Primaria/normas , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto/normas , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/normas , Sociedades Médicas/normas , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Estudios Transversales , Dispepsia/epidemiología , Dispepsia/microbiología , Femenino , Infecciones por Helicobacter/epidemiología , Infecciones por Helicobacter/microbiología , Helicobacter pylori/aislamiento & purificación , Hospitales Universitarios , Humanos , Modelos Logísticos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Análisis Multivariante , Oportunidad Relativa , Selección de Paciente , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Estudios Prospectivos , Derivación y Consulta , Arabia Saudita/epidemiología , Procedimientos Innecesarios , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
Social networks are useful in the study of relationships between individuals or entire populations, and the ties through which any given social unit connects. Those represent the convergence of the various social contacts of that unit. Consequently, the term "social networking service" (SNS) became extremely familiar. Similar to familiar SNSs, International Digestive Endoscopy Network (IDEN) 2014 was based on an international network composed of an impressive 2-day scientific program dealing with a variety of topics for gastrointestinal (GI) diseases, which connects physicians and researchers from all over the world. The scientific programs included live endoscopic demonstrations and provided cutting-edge information and practice tips as well as the latest advances concerning upper GI, lower GI, and pancreatobiliary endoscopy. IDEN 2014 featured American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE-KSGE)-joint sessions prepared through cooperation between ASGE and KSGE. Furthermore, IDEN 2014 provided a special program for young scientists called the 'Asian Young Endoscopist Award Forum' to foster networks, with many young endoscopists from Asian countries taking an active interest and participation.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of guidelines published by interventional medical societies. METHODS: We reviewed the interventional medicine subspecialty society websites of the American Association for Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology (AABIP), American Society of Diagnostic and Interventional Nephrology (ASDIN), American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) as of November 15, 2012, for published interventional guidelines. The study was performed between November 15, 2012, and January 1, 2013. The AABIP did not publish guidelines, so American Thoracic Society and American College of Chest Physicians guidelines were reviewed. All the guidelines were reviewed for graded levels of evidence, methods used to grade the evidence, and disclosures of conflicts of interest (COIs). RESULTS: Of 153 interventional guidelines evaluated, 4 were duplicates. Forty-six percent of guidelines (69 of 149) graded the quality of evidence using 7 different methods. The ASGE graded 71% of guidelines (46 of 65) compared with 29% (23 of 78) by the SCAI and 0 by the ASDIN (n=4) and the pulmonary societies (n=2). Of the 3425 recommendations reviewed, 11% (n=364) were supported by level A, 42% (n=1432) by level B, and 48% (n=1629) by level C. The mean age of the guidelines was 5.2 years. Additionally, 62% of the guidelines (92 of 149) failed to comment on COIs; when disclosed, 91% of guidelines (52 of 57) reported COIs. In total, 1827 COIs were reported by 45% of the authors (317 of 697), averaging 5.8 COIs per author. CONCLUSION: Most of the interventional guidelines failed to grade the evidence. When present, most guidelines used lower-quality evidence. Furthermore, most guidelines failed to disclose COIs. When commented on, numerous COIs were present. Future guidelines should clearly state the quality of evidence, use a standard grading system, be transparent regarding potential biases, and provide frequent updates.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Bronquiales/terapia , Angiografía Coronaria/normas , Endoscopía Gastrointestinal/normas , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia/normas , Nefrología/normas , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto/normas , Neumología/normas , Investigación Biomédica/normas , Conflicto de Intereses , Revelación , Humanos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Sociedades Médicas/normas , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
Detecting and resecting colonic polyps during endoscopy has been shown to reduce CRC. At the same time, endoscopy has faced substantial technical improvements and continues to undergo major changes. Detection of colorectal neoplasias is facilitated by using high-definition endoscopy, and characterization of lesions is more accurate by using virtual CE. High-definition endoscopy has found widespread use, whereas virtual CE is still more often used in tertiary centers and for high-risk patient groups. Endomicroscopy has opened the door for in vivo histology and functional as well as molecular imaging. Thorough training of the endoscopists is necessary, and redefined reimbursement codes may help make these techniques available in the clinical arena for high-risk patients who are most probable to benefit from the more advanced diagnostic endoscopy techniques. Over recent years, there has also been an increasing push by healthcare payors and providers to improve the quality of healthcare services. The ultimate goal of monitoring quality measures is to improve the overall health of the population and, for colon cancer screening, to reduce the incidence and mortality of colon cancer. However, the development of an appropriate quality measure and ensuring the accuracy of the data on which we base our efforts are among the first challenges that we must meet (Table 1). The continued technologic advancements in colonoscopy and endoscopic imaging may result in improvements in the quality of colonoscopy and should lead to a decrease in the incidence and mortality from colon cancer.
Asunto(s)
Adenoma/diagnóstico , Colonoscopía/métodos , Colonoscopía/normas , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Adenoma/cirugía , Colonoscopía/instrumentación , Neoplasias Colorrectales/cirugía , Colorantes , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Humanos , Microscopía Confocal , Imagen de Banda Estrecha , Indicadores de Calidad de la Atención de SaludRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Traditional white-light endoscopy cannot reliably distinguish between small (<10 mm) adenomatous and hyperplastic colon polyps. High-definition white-light (HDWL) endoscopy and i-Scan may improve in vivo characterization of small colon polyps. OBJECTIVE: To compare HDWL endoscopy and HDWL plus i-Scan for the assessment of small colon polyps and to measure performance against the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) thresholds for assessment of diminutive colon polyps. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Single academic hospital. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing bowel cancer screening colonoscopy. INTERVENTION: In vivo assessment of all polyps <10 mm by using HDWL and i-Scan image enhancement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measure was overall diagnostic accuracy of in vivo assessment of colon polyps <10 mm. Secondary outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity for adenomatous histology, negative predictive value for adenomatous histology of diminutive rectosigmoid polyps, and accuracy of prediction of polyp surveillance intervals. RESULTS: A total of 209 polyps in 84 patients were included. There were no significant differences between HDWL endoscopy and i-Scan in characterization of polyps <10 mm (accuracy 93.3% vs 94.7%; P = 1.00; sensitivity 95.5% vs 97.0%; P = .50; specificity 89.3% vs 90.7%; P = 1.00). The negative predictive value for adenomatous histology of diminutive rectosigmoid polyps was 100% with both HDWL endoscopy and i-Scan. U.K. and U.S. polyp surveillance intervals were predicted with 95.2% accuracy with HDWL endoscopy and 97.2% accuracy with i-Scan. LIMITATIONS: Single-center study. CONCLUSION: HDWL endoscopy may be as accurate as HDWL with i-Scan image enhancement for the in vivo characterization of small colon polyps. Both modalities fulfil the ASGE performance thresholds for the assessment of diminutive colon polyps. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01761279.).