Search

Background and Aims: Obtaining adequate tissue samples in subepithelial lesions (SELs) remains challenging. Several biopsy techniques are available, but a systematic review including all available techniques to obtain a histologic diagnosis of SEL is lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield and adverse event rates of endoscopic biopsies, EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA), EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) (EUS-FNB), and mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) for SELs in the upper GI tract., Methods: A search strategy in multiple databases was performed. The primary outcome was diagnostic yield, defined as the percentage of procedures in which histology was obtained and resulted in a definitive histopathologic diagnosis. Secondary outcome measures included reported procedure-related adverse events, which were graded according to the AGREE (Adverse Events in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy) classification., Results: A total of 94 original articles were included. Studies were classified per endoscopic technique to obtain histopathology. This resulted in 8 included studies for endoscopic biopsy methods, 55 studies for EUS-FNA, 33 studies for EUS-FNB, and 26 studies for MIAB. Pooled rates for diagnostic yield were 40.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 30.8-51.2) for endoscopic biopsy, 74.6% (95% CI, 69.9-78.7) for EUS-FNA, 84.2% (95% CI, 80.7-87.2) for EUS-FNB, and 88.2% (95% CI, 84.7-91.1) for MIAB. Reported procedure-related adverse events graded AGREE II or higher were 2.8% to 3.9% for endoscopic biopsies, 1.0% to 4.5% for EUS-FNA, .9% to 7.7% for EUS-FNB, and 1.9% to 7.9% for MIAB., Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, MIAB and EUS-FNB seem to be most effective in terms of achieving a high diagnostic yield, with similar rates of adverse events., Competing Interests: Disclosure M. Bruno: Consultant for and support for industry and investigator-initiated studies from Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, and Pentax Medical; support for investigator-initiated studies from Mylan, AMBU, and ChiRoStim. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Patients with many different digestive diseases undergo repeated EGDs throughout their lives. Tethered capsule endomicroscopy (TCE) is a less-invasive method for obtaining high-resolution images of the GI mucosa for diagnosis and treatment planning of GI tract diseases. In this article, we present our results from a single-center study aimed at testing the safety and feasibility of TCE for imaging the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum., Methods: After being swallowed by a participant without sedation, the tethered capsule obtains cross-sectional, 10 μm-resolution, optical coherence tomography images as the device traverses the alimentary tract. After imaging, the device is withdrawn through the mouth, disinfected, and reused. Safety and feasibility of TCE were tested, focusing on imaging the esophagus of healthy volunteers and patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) and the duodenum of healthy volunteers. Images were compared with endoscopy and histopathology findings when available., Results: Thirty-eight patients were enrolled. No adverse effects were reported. The TCE device swallowing rate was 34 of 38 (89%). The appearance of a physiologic upper GI wall, including its microscopic pathology, was visualized with a tissue coverage of 85.4% ± 14.9% and 90.3% ± 6.8% in the esophagus of BE patients with and without endoscopic evidence of a hiatal hernia, respectively, as well as 84.8% ± 7.4% in the duodenum. A blinded comparison of TCE and endoscopic BE measurements showed a strong to very strong correlation (r = 0.7-0.83; P < .05) for circumferential extent and a strong correlation (r = 0.77-0.78; P < .01) for maximum extent (Prague classification). TCE interobserver correlation was very strong, at r = 0.92 and r = 0.84 (P < .01), for Prague classification circumferential (C) and maximal (M) length measurements, respectively., Conclusions: TCE is a safe and feasible procedure for obtaining high-resolution microscopic images of the upper GI tract without endoscopic assistance or sedation., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background and Aims: Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is a hereditary syndrome that can affect the entire GI tract. Current screening recommendations include EGD starting at age 25 to 30 years or earlier in symptomatic patients. However, few reports describe upper GI tract involvement in children with FAP that support the notion of early screening. The aim of our study is to understand the prevalence and severity of upper GI involvement in children with FAP., Methods: We performed a retrospective review of the Mayo Clinic records, between 1992 and 2016, to identify children with the diagnosis of FAP who underwent EGD examinations. A systematic review of the literature was performed to include published studies reporting children with FAP and upper GI findings., Results: The retrospective study included 69 children with a mean age of 13.5 years (range, 3-18). Thirty-six children (52%) had duodenal adenoma with low-grade dysplasia. Five children required an ampullectomy secondary to enlarged and polypoid ampullas. Combined with published studies, a total of 206 children with upper GI findings were identified, of which 87 (42%) had duodenal adenoma (1 had high-grade dysplasia). Meta-analysis of 5 series demonstrated duodenal adenoma detection rate of 39% (95% confidence interval, 21%-57%; I 2  = 85%)., Conclusions: The available data to date show that children with FAP can have clinically relevant lesions in the upper GI tract earlier than previously foreseen, suggesting that earlier screening may be indicated. Larger multicenter prospective studies are needed to determine the best approach and optimal age for EGD screening in children with FAP., (Copyright © 2018 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Reports on the performance of unsedated ultrathin endoscopy via the transnasal (uTNE) and transoral (uTOE) routes are conflicting. We aimed to estimate the technical success rate, patient preference, and acceptability of uTNE and uTOE alone and in comparison with conventional EGD (cEGD; with or without sedation)., Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed on all primary studies reporting the outcomes of interest. Electronic databases (Cochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE) were searched on February 1, 2014., Results: Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria with 6659 patients in total. The pooled technical success rate was 94.0% for uTNE (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.6-95.8; 30 studies) and 97.8% for uTOE (95% CI, 95.6-98.9; 16 studies). The difference in proportion of success for uTNE compared with cEGD was -2.0% (95% CI, -4.0 to -1.0; 18 studies), but that difference was not significant when uTNE < 5.9 mm in diameter was used (-1.0%; 95% CI, -3.0 to .0; 9 studies). There was no significant difference in success rate between uTOE and cEGD (.0%; 95% CI, -1.0 to 2.0; 10 studies). The pooled difference in proportion of patients who preferred uTNE over cEGD was 63.0% (95% CI, 49.0-76.0; 10 studies), whereas preference for uTOE versus cEGD was not significantly different (38.0%; 95% CI, -4.0 to 80.0; 2 studies). Acceptability was high for both uTNE (85.2%; 95% CI, 79.1-89.9; 16 studies) and uTOE (88.7%; 95% CI, 82.4-92.9; 10 studies)., Conclusions: Technical success rate for uTNE < 5.9 mm is equivalent to cEGD. uTNE has high patient acceptability, with better patient preference, and therefore could be a useful alternative to cEGD for screening purposes. uTOE had a similar technical success rate but an equivocal preference to cEGD., (Copyright © 2015 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Information regarding the safety and feasibility of EUS-guided FNA (EUS/FNA) in surgically altered anatomy is limited., Objective: The aim of this study was to describe EUS outcomes for Billroth I and II, Whipple, Puestow, Roux-en-Y (including gastric bypass), esophagectomy, and Nissen fundoplication surgeries., Design: Retrospective study., Setting: Single tertiary-care center., Patients: This study involved 188 EUS procedures performed in patients with surgically altered anatomy by 6 endosonographers from July 1995 to October 2008., Intervention: EUS and FNA., Main Outcome Measurements: Type of surgery, EUS indication, limitations to imaging, reasons for limitations, FNA results, and EUS/FNA complications., Results: Of 188 patients, 96 were men (mean age 57 years; range, 16-92 years). Of patients with Billroth II anatomy (n = 39), 10 had limited (common bile duct [CBD], head of pancreas [HOP]) imaging because intubation of the afferent limb failed (n = 6) or was not attempted (n = 4). Roux-en-Y (n = 18) encompased a variety of surgeries, but in general (n = 13) the proximal duodenum was not reached and the HOP and CBD were not imaged. For Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 7), the HOP and CBD were not imaged, with the exception of 1 case (in which staple-line dehiscence permitted access to the proximal duodenum). For the remaining procedures, EUS and FNA were successful with few exceptions. There were no significant adverse events (95% confidence interval, 0% to 1.9%)., Limitations: Retrospective descriptive study., Conclusion: EUS is generally successful and safe in patients with surgically altered anatomy in this tertiary-care setting, and a very low rate of adverse events is possible. Exceptions included imaging the HOP and CBD after Roux-en-Y surgery. After Billroth II surgery, if the afferent limb was intubated, the majority of patients were able to have a complete pancreaticobiliary examination, including FNA., (Copyright © 2010 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The diagnostic yield of EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) of suspected GI stromal tumors (GIST) has not been assessed in large series., Objective: Our purpose was to determine the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of subepithelial lesions with EUS features suggestive of GIST., Design: Retrospective database review., Setting: Tertiary care referral center and an urban Veterans Administration hospital., Patients: Consecutive patients referred for EUS evaluation of upper GI subepithelial lesions of the fourth endosonographic layer who underwent EUS-FNA., Main Outcome Measurements: Proportion of patients whose cytopathologic examination was diagnostic (immunohistochemical stains establish a specific diagnosis), suspicious (spindle cells identified, quantity not sufficient for specific stains), or nondiagnostic., Results: A total of 112 patients (45.5% female, mean age 61.6 years) underwent EUS-FNA (mean number of FNA passes 5.3). Tumor location was as follows: stomach 62.5%, esophagus 30.4%, and duodenum 7.1%. EUS-FNA was diagnostic in 61.6%, suspicious (spindle cells) in 22.3%, and nondiagnostic in 16.1%. The histologic results were 31.3% GIST, 26.8% leiomyomas, 22.3% spindle cell neoplasms, 3.5 % neural tumors, and 16.1% nondiagnostic. Fifteen (12.5%) patients also underwent EUS-guided core needle biopsy needle sampling; 7 were diagnostic, 2 suspicious, and 6 nondiagnostic. Twenty-four (20.0%) patients underwent jumbo forceps sampling; 5 were diagnostic, 1 suspicious, and 18 nondiagnostic. There were no cases of diagnostic core needle biopsy after nondiagnostic FNA core needle biopsy. Jumbo forceps biopsy of ulcerated masses was diagnostic in 3 GISTs in which FNA was nondiagnostic. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that no variable was associated with an increased diagnostic yield., Conclusions: EUS-FNA sampling of subepithelial lesions was diagnostic in 61.6% and showed a spindle cell neoplasm ("suspicious") in another 22.3% (diagnostic yield 83.9%). Core needle biopsy needle sampling did not increase the yield, but in the setting of an ulcerated mass, forceps biopsy may be diagnostic.

Background: Although the presence of a duodenal diverticulum is usually asymptomatic, bleeding in this tissue is sometimes difficult to diagnose and treat., Objective: To investigate the strategy for treatment, we reviewed the clinical data of patients diagnosed and treated for duodenal diverticular bleeding., Design: Retrospective case series., Setting: Single tertiary-referral center., Patients: Seven consecutive patients with bleeding from a duodenal diverticulum (mean age, 73.7 +/- 3.4 years old)., Interventions: The clinical characteristics, endoscopic findings, and treatment strategy for duodenal diverticular bleeding., Main Outcome Measurements: All 7 patients achieved hemostasis. Six of 7 patients were treated endoscopically. There were no complications with endoscopic treatment., Results: Three patients bled from diverticula located at the second portion of the duodenum, and 4 patients bled from that located at the third portion. In 6 of 7 patients, lesions were identified and treated endoscopically with hemoclips, hypertonic saline solution and epinephrine (HSE), and/or 1% polidocanol injection. In 1 case, the lesion could not be detected during the first endoscopic examination, and the patient, therefore, was treated with transarterial embolization followed by surgical resection., Limitations: This preliminary case series described the feasibility of the endoscopic treatment. However, optimal management, including angiography and/or surgery, should be individualized to the patients, location, and type of hemorrhage., Conclusions: Bleeding from a duodenal diverticulum should be considered in the case of upper-GI bleeding of unknown origin. An endoscopy may be an effective alternative to surgery in the management of a bleeding duodenal diverticulum.

Background: Early endoscopy has been shown to improve outcomes and optimize cost-effectiveness in nonvariceal upper-GI bleeding (NVUGIB). However, there is little information regarding clinical and process determinants that affect the time from onset of bleeding to performance of the endoscopy., Objective: The aim of this study was to identify factors that predict time to endoscopy in patients with new onset NVUGIB., Design: Linear regression models were constructed with time between triage (outpatients) or onset of bleeding (inpatients) and the performance of endoscopy., Setting: The RUGBE is a nationwide, multicenter database collected for the purpose of obtaining descriptive data on patients with NVUGIB., Patients: The study population consisted of 1500 patients (89.6%) who underwent gastroscopy within 48 hours., Results: Median time to endoscopy was 12 hours (95% CI 11.0, 13.0). Endoscopy after working hours (regression coefficient [beta] -3.52; 95% CI -5.47, -1.58), availability of an endoscopy nurse on-call for the procedure (beta -2.48; 95% CI -3.83, -1.14), and admission to a hospital unit were associated with a shorter interval to endoscopy. In contrast, the presence of chest pain (beta 3.65; 95% CI 1.64, 5.67) or dyspnea (beta 2.79; 95% CI 1.10, 4.48), absence of gross blood on rectal examination (beta 2.20; 95% CI 0.69, 3.71), and inpatient status at onset of bleeding (beta 14.6; 95% CI 8.70, 20.4) were independent predictors of a delayed endoscopy. Subgroup analysis showed that actual time intervals as well as independent predictors of time until endoscopy differed between inpatients and outpatients., Limitations: Retrospective analysis., Conclusions: The timing of endoscopy in patients with NVUGIB is dependent on both clinical and process parameters, which differ between inpatient and outpatient settings. They bear implications with regards to shaping practice and deciding on resource allocation in order to facilitate an early endoscopy, which is currently recommended for improved patient outcomes.