Search

Combining simethicone (SIM) with a colon preparation agent has been shown to improve mucosal visibility during screening colonoscopy, but its effect on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) remains unclear. SIM is commonly used through the endoscope to eliminate bubbles during endoscopy. However, this practice recently has been associated with endoscope-transmitted infections. Our aims were to determine the role of SIM added to a polyethylene glycol preparation on the ADR, procedure times, colon preparation, and intraprocedural use of SIM. This was a randomized, controlled, observer-blinded, clinical trial of patients undergoing screening colonoscopy. Patients with a high risk of colorectal cancer were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned to 2 different preparations: polyethylene glycol plus SIM or polyethylene glycol. Two endoscopists blinded to patient preparation regimens scored its quality by using the Boston Bowel Preparation scale (BBPS) and the bubble scale. Interobserver agreement was calculated. The polyp detection rate, ADR, intraprocedural use of SIM, cecal intubation time, and withdrawal time were recorded. For study purposes, cecal intubation time and withdrawal time were combined to determine the effective procedure time. No significant difference between the polyethylene glycol plus SIM and polyethylene glycol arms was seen regarding the ADR (33.3% vs 38.8%; P =.881) and effective procedure time (759.3 ± 253.1 seconds vs 800.2 ± 459.6 seconds; P =.373), respectively. Intraprocedural use of SIM as well as the bubble scale score were significantly lower in the polyethylene glycol plus SIM arm (1.6% vs 48.9%; P ≤.05) and (0.1 vs 2.1; P ≤.05), respectively. Conversely, no difference was found in the BBPS scores. The interobserver agreement for both scores was strong (bubble scale score kappa =.537; P <.05; BBPS score kappa =.184; P <.05). Adding SIM to a polyethylene glycol preparation did not improve the ADR or effective procedure time. Nevertheless, it resulted in lower bubble scale scores, and more importantly, in less intraprocedural use of SIM. This simple and inexpensive intervention may have the potential to reduce the risk of endoscope-transmitted infections. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03119168.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims The frequency of bacteremia during ERCP with cholangioscopy has not been well studied. There are no formal guidelines regarding antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP with cholangioscopy. The aim was to estimate the frequency of bacteremia and subsequent infectious adverse events after ERCP with cholangioscopy. Methods This prospective nonrandomized study performed in a single tertiary referral center included adult patients who were undergoing ERCP with cholangioscopic examination of the common bile duct. Blood cultures were drawn from patients before the procedure and 5 and 30 minutes after the procedure. Antibiotics were not given before or after the procedure. Patients were followed up after 24 hours and 1 week after the procedure for infectious adverse events. The primary outcome was bacteremia rate, and secondary outcomes were cholangitis rate and adverse events. Results Fifty-seven patients were enrolled in the study with 60 procedures performed. The first procedure from each patient was considered in the analysis, and thus we included 57 patients with 57 procedures in this study analysis. Postprocedure bacteremia was seen in 5 of 57 procedures (8.8%; 95% confidence interval, 2.9%-19.3%). Four patients were readmitted with cholangitis (7.0%). Bacteremia was more common in patients who had cholangioscopy with biopsy sampling compared with patients who had cholangioscopy without biopsy sampling ( P = .011). Cholangitis was significantly more common in patients with bacteremia than in those patients with a negative blood culture ( P = .035). Conclusion ERCP with cholangioscopy is associated with a bacteremia rate of 8.8% and a cholangitis rate of 7.0%. Preprocedural antibiotics may be considered before cholangioscopy, especially if tissue acquisition with biopsy sampling is expected. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01673269 .) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & Aims Although cholangioscopy is widely used during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatiography (ERCP), its safety and feasibility for elderly patients are not well established. We aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of cholangioscopy in elderly patients. Methods We performed a retrospective study of all ERCPs with single-operator cholangioscopy (SOC) performed at 3 tertiary referral hospitals from March 2012 through October 2015. We collected data on patient demographics, procedure indications, findings, complications, and success rates (complete success was achieved if all intended diagnostic and therapeutic procedures were performed, such as tissue sample collection or complete removal of stones). The cohort was divided into 3 groups: patients younger than 65 years (group 1, n = 178), patients 65–75 years old (group 2, n = 86), and patients older than 75 years (group 3, n = 77). We used 1-way ANOVA, the χ 2 test, and the Wilcoxon sum rank test to compare study variables. The primary aim was to assess rates of complications from ERCP with SOC in elderly patients compared with younger patients. Results Baseline clinical features were similar among groups, except for a higher prevalence of co-morbidities in group 3. The indication for and findings from ERCP with SOC differed among the groups; stricture or tumor was the most common indication in groups 1 and 3—the most common findings were strictures and masses, respectively. In group 2, choledocholithiasis was the most common indication and finding. The success rate, analyzed in a subset of 209 patients, was 88.5% overall and did not differ significantly among groups. The overall rate of complication was 7.33% with no significant difference among groups (7.30% for group 1, 6.98% for group 2, and 7.79% for group 3) ( P < .17). Conclusions In a retrospective analysis of ERCPs with SOCs, we found this procedure to be safe for elderly patients (older than 75 years), who had rates of complications and hospital admission similar to those of younger patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are nearly 50,000 colorectal cancer (CRC) deaths in the United States each year. CRC is curable if detected in its early stages. Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) can detect precursor lesions and many can be analyzed at the point-of-care (POC) in physician offices. However, there are few data to guide test selection. Broader use of FITs could make CRC screening more accessible, especially in resource-poor settings. A total of 3600 racially and ethnically diverse individuals aged 50 to 85 years having either a screening or surveillance colonoscopy will be recruited. Each participant will complete five FITs on a single stool sample. Test characteristics for each FIT for advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) will be calculated using colonoscopy as the gold standard. We have complete data from a total of 2990 individuals. Thirty percent are Latino and 5.3% are black/African American. We will present full results once the study is completed. Our focus in this study is how well FITs detect ACN, using colonoscopy as the gold standard. Four of the five FITs being used are POC tests. Although FITs have been shown to have acceptable performance, there is little data to guide which ones have the best test characteristics and colonoscopy is the main CRC screening test used in the United States. Use of FITs will allow broader segments of the population to access CRC screening because these tests require no preparation, are inexpensive, and can be collected in the privacy of one's home. Increasing CRC screening uptake will reduce the burden of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]