Search

Objectives: Bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastric tumors in patients taking antithrombotic drugs, in particular direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), remains unresolved; therefore, we evaluated the risk factors for post-ESD bleeding and drug differences in patients taking DOACs., Methods: We included 278 patients taking antithrombotic drugs who underwent gastric ESD between January 2017 and March 2022. Antithrombotic drugs were withdrawn following the 2017 guidelines (Appendix on anticoagulants including DOACs). To further clarify differences in antithrombotic agents' effects, the peri-cancerous mucosa in the resected specimen was pathologically evaluated according to the Updated Sydney System. Multivariate analysis was performed to assess the risk of post-ESD bleeding., Results: The incidence of post-ESD bleeding in patients taking DOACs was 19.6% (10/51). Among patients taking antithrombotic drugs, DOACs were identified as a possible factor involved in post-ESD bleeding (odds ratio [OR] 4.92). Among patients taking DOACs, possible factors included resection length diameter ≥30 mm (OR 3.72), presence of neutrophil infiltration (OR 2.71), lesions occurring in the lower third of stomach (OR 2.34), and preoperative antiplatelet use (OR 2.22). Post-ESD bleeding by DOAC type was 25.0% of patients (4/16) receiving apixaban, in 20.0% (3/15) receiving edoxaban, in 21.4% (3/14) receiving rivaroxaban, and in none of those receiving dabigatran., Conclusions: The administration of DOACs was shown to be a possible factor involved in post-ESD bleeding, and risk factors for patients taking DOACs included neutrophil infiltration. The pharmacological differences in the effects of DOACs contributing to bleeding in gastric ulcers suggest comparatively less bleeding with dabigatran after ESD., (© 2024 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.)

Objectives: Long-term outcomes of gastric subepithelial lesions have not been elucidated. To reveal the natural history, we initiated a prospective, 10-year follow-up of patients with small (≤20 mm) gastric subepithelial lesions in September 2014. Here, we report the results of an interim analysis of a prospective observational study., Methods: In total, 567 patients with 610 lesions were prospectively registered between September 2014 and August 2016. The location, size, morphology, and number of subepithelial lesions were recorded on a web-based case report form. This study has been conducted as an Academic Committee Working Group of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society., Results: The endoscopic follow-up period was 4.60 ± 1.73 years (mean ± standard deviation), and survival data were investigated for 5.28 ± 1.68 years. This interim analysis revealed that the estimated cumulative incidence of a size increase ≥5 mm, after accounting for patients' death and resection of the tumor as competing risk events, was 4.5% at 5 years. In addition, the estimated cumulative incidence of lesion size increase ≥5 mm or resection of lesions was 7.9% at 5 years, and that of size increase ≥10 mm or resection of lesions was 4.5% at 5 years., Conclusion: These results indicate that approximately one in 13 patients with small (≤20 mm) gastric subepithelial lesions may require resection or further investigation for increased tumor size (≥5 mm) within 5 years., (© 2023 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.)

All gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures have a high risk of aerosol contamination of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to endoscopists, nurses, and healthcare assistants. Given the current pandemic situation of COVID-19, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society issued the recommendation for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy based on the status of COVID-19 as of April 9, 2020, in Japan: (i) indications for GI endoscopy in the pandemic of COVID-19; (ii) practical protective equipment for medical personnel depending on the risk for COVID-19; (iii) preprocedural management, such as pharyngeal local anesthesia using lidocaine spray which has a potential to generate the aerosols; (iv) ideal settings of the endoscopy room including the numbers of the staff and the patients; (v) postprocedural management, such as undressing and follow-up of the patients, as well as the involved staff, were documented to fit the practical scenarios in GI endoscopy, with the available data in Japan and the world. We believe that certain measures will prevent further spread of COVID-19., (© 2020 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.)

Some situations may require endoscopy during the COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) pandemic. Here, we describe the necessary precautions in the form of clinical questions and answers (Q&A) regarding the safe deployment of gastrointestinal endoscopy in such situations while protecting endoscopy staff and patients from infection. Non-urgent endoscopy should be postponed. The risk of infection in patients should be evaluated in advance by questionnaire and body temperature. The health of staff must be checked every day. Decisions to employ endoscopy should be based on the institutional conditions and aims of endoscopy. All endoscopic staff need to wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). The endoscope and other devices should be cleaned and disinfected after procedures in accordance with the relevant guidelines. Optimal management of the endoscopy unit is required. Endoscopy for infected patients or those with suspected infection demands exceptional caution. When a patient who undergoes endoscopy is later found to have COVID-19, the members of staff involved are considered exposed to the virus and must not work for at least 14 days if their PPE is considered insufficient. When PPE resources are limited, some equipment may be used continuously throughout a shift as long as it is not contaminated. Details of the aforementioned protective measures are described., (© 2020 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.)

Background and Aim: There are few clinical studies on the risk factors for rebleeding based on the endoscopic hemostatic procedure carried out, including ulcer characteristics such as exposed blood vessels. The present study aims to clarify the risk factors for rebleeding after endoscopic clipping hemostasis for hemorrhagic gastroduodenal ulcers., Methods: A retrospective study was carried out with data collected during the 10-year period from January 2000 to December 2009 for 312 consecutive patients with hemorrhagic gastroduodenal ulcer. Two hundred and ninety-three patients (216 men and 77 women; mean age, 67.0 ± 15.0 years) who underwent endoscopic clipping as the initial hemostatic treatment were analyzed. The risk factors for rebleeding were determined by comparing 271 patients who did not rebleed after initial treatment with 22 patients who developed rebleeding., Results: The success rate of initial clipping hemostasis was 100%; however, rebleeding occurred in 7.5% (22/293) and a multivariate analysis identified exposed blood vessels of more than 2 mm in diameter as independent risk factors for rebleeding (P = 0.0124, odds ratio 6.25 [95% CI: 1.53-13.62])., Conclusions: Endoscopic clipping monotherapy is effective for hemorrhagic gastroduodenal ulcers; however, exposed blood vessels of more than 2 mm in diameter in the initial endoscopic procedure are a risk factor for rebleeding., (© 2012 The Authors. Digestive Endoscopy © 2012 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.)