Search

Background and study aim There are no data comparing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gallbladder drainage (EGBD) with percutaneous cholecystostomy as a treatment for patients with acute cholecystitis. Patients and methods This was a 1 : 1 matched cohort study of all patients who were unfit for cholecystectomy and underwent EGBD or percutaneous cholecystostomy instead for the treatment of acute cholecystitis. The outcomes were matched for age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. Outcome measures included the technical and clinical success rates, adverse events, hospital stay, the number of unplanned admissions, and mortality. Results Between November 2011 and August 2014, a total of 118 patients were included in the study (59 EGBD, 59 percutaneous cholecystostomy). Technical and clinical success rates were similar. In the EGBD group, significantly fewer patients suffered from overall adverse events (19 [32.2 %] vs. 44 [74.6 %]; P < 0.001) and serious adverse events (14 [23.7 %] vs. 44 [74.6 %]; P < 0.001) compared to the percutaneous cholecystostomy group. Patients in the EGBD group required fewer unplanned admissions (4 [6.8 %] vs. 42 [71.2 %]; P < 0.001), which were due to problems related to the cholecystostomy tube in 95.2 %. The 30-day adverse event rates were similar between the groups (17 [28.8 %] vs. 10 [16.9 %]; P = 0.13). For instance, recurrent acute cholecystitis occurred in 0 patients in the EGBD group and in 4 (6.8 %) patients in the percutaneous cholecystostomy group (P = 0.12). The 30-day mortality rates were non-significantly higher in the EGBD group (5 [8.5 %] vs. 1 [1.7 %]; P = 0.21). Conclusions EGBD and percutaneous cholecystostomy were both effective means of achieving gallbladder drainage. EGBD may be a promising alternative to percutaneous cholecystostomy for treatment of acute cholecystitis in patients who are unfit for surgery, provided that experienced endosonographers are available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: Colonoscopy cannot be completed in up to 10% of cases. We postulate that cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC), by fitting a mucosectomy cap to the tip of a colonoscope, could improve the outcome. METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial in two regional endoscopy centers. All colonoscopies were performed by experienced colonoscopists. Patients 18 years or older undergoing their first colonoscopy were recruited. Patients were randomized to the CAC group or to the regular colonoscopy (RC) group. The first successful cecal intubation rate, rescue cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation and total colonoscopy times, and polyp detection rate were compared. RESULTS: One thousand patients were enrolled (mean age 52.6 years, 46% men). There was no statistically significant difference in the first successful cecal intubation rate between CAC and RC groups (96.2% vs. 94.6%, P = 0.23). The cecal intubation and total colonoscopy times were shorter in the CAC group than in the RC group (6.0 ± 4.0 min vs. 7.2 ± 4.8 min, P < 0.001; 14.7 ± 8.6 min vs. 16.7 ± 10.3 min, P = 0.001). The adenoma detection rate was significantly lower in the CAC group than in the RC group (30.5% vs. 37.5%, P = 0.018), but there was no significant difference in the detection of advanced lesions. In case of failing cecal intubation, use of CAC as a rescue method could achieve a higher success rate than RC (66.7% vs. 21.1%, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Among experienced colonoscopists, CAC did not improve the initial cecal intubation rate and had a lower adenoma detection rate. However, it shortened the cecal intubation time and performed better as a rescue method. Its utilization should be reserved for selected cases, especially when initial cecal intubation fails. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For decades, timing of endoscopy has been a controversy in the management of patients who present with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). The advent of endoscopic hemostatic therapy led to reduced further bleeding, surgery and mortality. Observational studies suggest that in patients at low risk of further bleeding, early endoscopy establishes diagnosis and allows their prompt hospital discharge. In the high-risk patients, early endoscopy with hemostatic treatment can stop bleeding and improve outcomes. Sample size in early randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was small. They included low-risk patients or patients with poorly defined risks. We designed a RCT to test the hypothesis that in high-risk patients (defined by those with an admission Glasgow Blatchford Score of 12 or greater), endoscopy within 6 h of gastrointestinal consultation, when compared to the standard of care i.e. endoscopy within 24 h, would improve outcomes. The primary outcomes, all-cause mortality at 30 days did not differ between groups; 23 of 258 (8.9%) in the urgent-endoscopy group and 17 of 258 (6.6%) in the early-endoscopy group died (difference 2.3%, 95% confidence interval -2.3 to 6.9%). Further bleeding was similar (10.9% vs. 7.8%) between groups. A higher rate in endoscopic hemostatic treatment was observed in the urgent-endoscopy group (60.1% vs. 48.4%). In patients with peptic ulcers, active bleeding or visible vessels were found on initial endoscopy in 105 of the 158 patients (66.4%) and in 76 of 159 (47.8%) in the respective group. In the majority of patients with GIB, endoscopy earlier than 24 h is not indicated., (© 2021 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.)

Background and study aim  There are no data comparing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gallbladder drainage (EGBD) with percutaneous cholecystostomy as a treatment for patients with acute cholecystitis. Patients and methods  This was a 1 : 1 matched cohort study of all patients who were unfit for cholecystectomy and underwent EGBD or percutaneous cholecystostomy instead for the treatment of acute cholecystitis. The outcomes were matched for age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. Outcome measures included the technical and clinical success rates, adverse events, hospital stay, the number of unplanned admissions, and mortality. Results  Between November 2011 and August 2014, a total of 118 patients were included in the study (59 EGBD, 59 percutaneous cholecystostomy). Technical and clinical success rates were similar. In the EGBD group, significantly fewer patients suffered from overall adverse events (19 [32.2 %] vs. 44 [74.6 %]; P  < 0.001) and serious adverse events (14 [23.7 %] vs. 44 [74.6 %]; P  < 0.001) compared to the percutaneous cholecystostomy group. Patients in the EGBD group required fewer unplanned admissions (4 [6.8 %] vs. 42 [71.2 %]; P  < 0.001), which were due to problems related to the cholecystostomy tube in 95.2 %. The 30-day adverse event rates were similar between the groups (17 [28.8 %] vs. 10 [16.9 %]; P  = 0.13). For instance, recurrent acute cholecystitis occurred in 0 patients in the EGBD group and in 4 (6.8 %) patients in the percutaneous cholecystostomy group ( P  = 0.12). The 30-day mortality rates were non-significantly higher in the EGBD group (5 [8.5 %] vs. 1 [1.7 %]; P  = 0.21). Conclusions  EGBD and percutaneous cholecystostomy were both effective means of achieving gallbladder drainage. EGBD may be a promising alternative to percutaneous cholecystostomy for treatment of acute cholecystitis in patients who are unfit for surgery, provided that experienced endosonographers are available., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is currently an integral investigation of many gastrointestinal disorders. It has been shown to have a higher efficacy than conventional computed tomography in detection and characterization of small lesions especially in the pancreas. Much effort has been put to further improve the sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy of EUS. One of the major advances is the utilization of contrast agents for better delineation of the vascularity and tissue perfusion of the target lesion. This article describes the basic principles of ultrasound contrast agents and the different modalities used in contrast-enhanced EUS (CE-EUS) including contrast-enhanced Doppler EUS (CED-EUS) and contrast-enhanced harmonic EUS (CEH-EUS). In addition, the current applications of contrast enhanced EUS in different gastrointestinal conditions were discussed. Furthermore, the future development of hybrid approaches combining CE-EUS with other imaging modalities and the potential therapeutic aspect of using it as a vector for drug delivery were also discussed.

Objectives: Colonoscopy cannot be completed in up to 10% of cases. We postulate that cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC), by fitting a mucosectomy cap to the tip of a colonoscope, could improve the outcome., Methods: We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial in two regional endoscopy centers. All colonoscopies were performed by experienced colonoscopists. Patients 18 years or older undergoing their first colonoscopy were recruited. Patients were randomized to the CAC group or to the regular colonoscopy (RC) group. The first successful cecal intubation rate, rescue cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation and total colonoscopy times, and polyp detection rate were compared., Results: One thousand patients were enrolled (mean age 52.6 years, 46% men). There was no statistically significant difference in the first successful cecal intubation rate between CAC and RC groups (96.2% vs. 94.6%, P=0.23). The cecal intubation and total colonoscopy times were shorter in the CAC group than in the RC group (6.0+/-4.0 min vs. 7.2+/-4.8 min, P<0.001; 14.7+/-8.6 min vs. 16.7+/-10.3 min, P=0.001). The adenoma detection rate was significantly lower in the CAC group than in the RC group (30.5% vs. 37.5%, P=0.018), but there was no significant difference in the detection of advanced lesions. In case of failing cecal intubation, use of CAC as a rescue method could achieve a higher success rate than RC (66.7% vs. 21.1%, P=0.003)., Conclusions: Among experienced colonoscopists, CAC did not improve the initial cecal intubation rate and had a lower adenoma detection rate. However, it shortened the cecal intubation time and performed better as a rescue method. Its utilization should be reserved for selected cases, especially when initial cecal intubation fails.