Search

Background and Aims There are limited data regarding the safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography ( ERCP) in cirrhosis. The current literature consists of small series totalling less than 225 patients. Methods Retrospective matched cohort study of the National Inpatient Sample ( NIS) for 2009. We compared adverse events of cirrhotic patients who underwent ERCP ( n = 1930) with a matched control group that consisted of randomly selected non-cirrhotic patients who underwent ERCP ( n = 5790). An additional control group, to measure cirrhosis-related adverse events, consisted of cirrhotic patients undergoing non-pancreaticobiliary endoscopy. Results ERCP-associated adverse events of post- ERCP pancreatitis ( PEP) (8.3% vs. 5.5%) and bleeding (2.3% vs. 1.0%) were more common in the cirrhosis cohort vs. the non-cirrhosis cohort (all P < 0.05). In subgroup analysis, compensated cirrhotic patients ( n = 1308) had a similar adverse event profile to non-cirrhotic controls except for a slightly higher rate of PEP (7.7% vs. 5.5%; P < 0.05). However, decompensated cirrhotic patients ( n = 622) had statistically significant higher rates of PEP (9.7% vs. 5.5%) and bleeding (4.3% vs. 1.0%), compared with non-cirrhotic controls respectively ( P < 0.05). In regard to cirrhosis-related adverse events, cirrhotic patients undergoing ERCP were more likely to develop bacterial peritonitis vs. cirrhotic patients undergoing non-pancreaticobiliary endoscopy (2.2% vs. 1.1%; P < 0.005). Conclusion ERCP adverse events were statistically higher among patients with decompensated cirrhosis. This increased risk needs to be confirmed with prospective studies. A thorough risk/benefit assessment should be performed prior to performing ERCP in decompensated cirrhotic patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: The optimum method for sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures is not known. Propofol deep sedation has a faster recovery time than traditional sedative agents, but may be associated with increased complication rates. The aim of the present study was to pool data from all available studies to systematically compare the efficacy and safety of propofol with traditional sedative agents for advanced endoscopic procedures. Methods: Databases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials updated as of January 2013 were searched. Main outcome measures were procedure duration, recovery time, incidence of complications (hypotension, hypoxia), sedation level, patient cooperation and amnesia during advanced endoscopic procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasonography, and deep small bowel enteroscopy. Results: Nine prospective randomized trials with a total of 969 patients (485 propofol, 484 conscious sedation) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled mean difference in procedure duration between propofol and traditional sedative agents was -2.3 min [95% CI: -6.36 to 1.76, P = 0.27], showing no significant difference in procedure duration between the two groups. Pooled mean difference in recovery time was -30.26 min [95% CI: -46.72 to -13.80, P < 0.01], showing significantly decreased recovery time with propofol. There was also no significant difference between the two groups with regard to hypoxia and hypotension. Conclusions: Propofol for advanced endoscopic procedures is associated with shorter recovery time, better sedation and amnesia level without an increased risk of cardiopulmonary complications. Overall patient cooperation was also improved with propofol sedation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gastrointestinal endoscopy is a complex manual task with an extended learning curve. Numerous technologies are emerging that may accelerate the acquisition of endoscopic skills for trainees and experienced practitioners in gastroenterology. A wide variety of endoscopic simulators are available, ranging from ex vivo porcine models to computer simulators with haptic feedback. In parallel with endoscopic simulation, innovations are also occurring in “adjunctive” technologies for live endoscopy (ie, technologies that aim to provide more detailed visual or even 3-dimensional information streams to the endoscopist during a procedure). Such adjunctive technologies include live torque and force monitoring during colonoscopy and 3-dimensional views of scope positioning with respect to patient anatomy during linear endosonography. These innovations are spurred on by potential improvements in patient safety, procedural efficiency, and the possibility of expanded therapeutic applications in endoscopy. Additionally, providing more robust visual displays of key data such as scope position, overlaid on or adjacent to the endoscopic image, has the potential to alter the learning curve for gastroenterology trainees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We tested the primary hypothesis that use of general anaesthesia vs sedation increases vulnerability to adverse discharge (in-hospital mortality or new discharge to a nursing facility) after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, adult patients undergoing ERCP with general anaesthesia or sedation at a tertiary care hospital were included. We calculated adjusted absolute risk differences between patients receiving general anaesthesia vs sedation using provider preference-based instrumental variable analysis. We also used mediation analysis to determine whether intraoperative hypotension during general anaesthesia mediated its effect on adverse discharge.Results: Among 17 538 patients undergoing ERCP from 2007 through 2018, 16 238 received sedation and 1300 received GA. Rates of adverse discharge were 5.8% (n=938) after sedation and 16.2% (n=210) after general anaesthesia. Providers' adjusted mean predicted probabilities of using general anaesthesia for ERCP ranged from 0.2% to 63.2% of individual caseloads. Utilising provider-related variability in the use of general anaesthesia for instrumental variable analysis resulted in an 8.6% risk increase (95% confidence interval, 4.5-12.6%; P<0.001) in adverse discharge among patients receiving general anaesthesia vs sedation. Intraoperative hypotensive events occurred more often during general anaesthesia and mediated 23.8% (95% confidence interval, 3.9-43.7%: P=0.019) of the primary association.Conclusions: These results suggest that use of sedation during ERCP facilitates reduced adverse discharge for patients for whom general anaesthesia is not clearly indicated. Intraoperative hypotension during general anaesthesia for ERCP partly mediates the increased vulnerability to adverse discharge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate compliance with confidentiality and conflicts of interest (COI) in tweets sharing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy videos/images. METHODS: Physicians' tweets containing GI endoscopy videos/images were assessed for confidentiality and COI compliance. RESULTS: Identifiable details in tweets included procedure date (17.9%), date of birth (0.8%), and patient's face visible (0.5%). Ninety-five tweets (10%) mentioned the name/brand of a medical device. Of the 19 posted by US physicians, 7 came from physicians who had received payments from the device manufacturer. None of these physicians disclosed relevant COI. DISCUSSION: GI endoscopy tweets describing clinical cases or procedures may insufficiently address issues of confidentiality and COI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]