Search

Competing Interests: B. Rosa has received consultancy fees from Medtronic, unrelated to the current work. T. Cúrdia Gonçalves, M.J. Moreira, F. Dias de Castro, B. Sousa-Pinto, M. Dinis-Ribeiro, and J. Cotter declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Background: Pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy (PCE) evaluates the small bowel and colon noninvasively. This study evaluated diagnostic accuracy and safety of PCE vs. colonoscopy as first-line examination in suspected mid-lower gastrointestinal bleeding (MLGIB)., Methods: In this prospective, single-center, single-blinded cohort study, consecutive patients with suspected MLGIB underwent PCE followed by same-day colonoscopy. Diagnostic accuracy for potentially hemorrhagic lesions (PHLs; combined diagnosis by PCE + colonoscopy) and incidence of adverse events were assessed., Results: 100 patients were included (median age 70 [range 18-92] years; 65% female). PHLs were diagnosed in 46 patients, including small-bowel and/or colon angioectasias in 32. PCE correctly identified 54 individuals without PHLs, and 95.7% (44/46) of those with PHLs vs. 50.0% (23/46) for colonoscopy (P<0.01). PHLs were detected by PCE alone in 65.2% (30/46), both examinations in 28.3% (13/46), and colonoscopy alone in 6.5% (3/46). PHLs were diagnosed at the ileocolonic region in 28% of patients, with PCE diagnosing 25/28 cases (89.3%) and colonoscopy diagnosing 23/28 (82.1%; P=0.13). Interventional procedures were performed at colonoscopy in 13/81 patients with iron-deficiency anemia (16.0%) vs. 6/19 patients with overt bleeding (31.6%; P<0.01). No significant adverse events occurred with PCE vs. 2% with colonoscopy., Conclusions: In patients with MLGIB, PCE avoided further invasive procedures in >50% of patients. PCE was safe and more effective than colonoscopy in identifying PHL both in the small bowel and colon. These results support the potential use of PCE as first-line examination in patients with suspected MLGIB., Competing Interests: B. Rosa has received consultancy fees from Medtronic, unrelated to the current work. T. Cúrdia Gonçalves, M.J. Moreira, F. Dias de Castro, B. Sousa-Pinto, M. Dinis-Ribeiro, and J. Cotter declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) plays a critical role in the management of subepithelial lesions (SEL) of upper gastrointestinal tract many can be classified solely by a thorough upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) which can reduce the burden of additional studies., Aims: Analyze the impact of a stepwise approach starting with a second-look UGE before the decision of EUS in patients referred to our center with suspected SEL., Methods: Retrospective cohort study which included all adult patients referred to our center between 2015 and 2020 with suspected SEL.Second-look UGE evaluated the location, size, color, surface characteristics, movability and consistency of the SEL and bite-on-bite biopsies were performed. Decisions on SEL management and follow-up were collected., Results: A total of 193 SEL (190 patients) were included. At the index-UGE, stomach was the most frequent location (n = 115;59.6%). Most patients performed a second-look UGE (n = 180; 94.7%). A minority was oriented directly to EUS (n = 8;4.2%) or endoscopic resection (n = 2; 1.1%). In patients who underwent a second-look UGE, SEL were excluded in 25 (13.9%) and 21 (11.7%) did not need further work-up. The remaining patients were submitted to EUS (n = 88;48.9%), surveillance by UGE (n = 44; 24.4%) or endoscopic resection (n = 2; 1.1%)., Conclusion: Systematically performing a second-look UGE, in patients referred with suspected SEL, safely preclude the need for subsequent investigation in approximately one-fourth of the patients. As UGE is less invasive and more readily available, we suggest that a second-look UGE should be the initial approach in SEL management., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: There is scarce data focused on recurrence neoplasia rate (RR) after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (pEMR) of 10-19 mm non-pedunculated colorectal lesions (NPL). We aimed to analyze the RR after pEMR of 10-19 mm NPL, identify risk factors for its development and compare it with RR after pEMR of ≥ 20 mm NPL., Methods: Retrospective cohort-study including all ≥10 mm NPL resected by pEMR in our center between 2018-2022 with an early repeat colonoscopy (ERC). RR was defined as recurrence neoplasia identified in the ERC EMR scar with virtual chromoendoscopy or histological confirmation., Results: A total of 444 NPL were assessed, 124 (27.9%) with 10-19 mm. In the ERC, performed a median of 6 months after pEMR, RR was significantly lower for 10-19 mm NPL compared to ≥ 20 mm NPL (13/124 vs 68/320, p  = 0.005). In subgroup analysis, RR after pEMR of 15-19 mm NPL was significantly higher compared to 10-14 mm NPL (13/98 vs 0, p  = 0.041) but not significantly different compared to ≥ 20 mm NPL (13/98 vs 68/320, p  = 0.073). In multivariable analysis, size of NPL (HR 1.501, 95% CI 1.012-2.227, p  = 0.044) was the only independent risk factor identified for RR for 10-19 mm NPL., Conclusion: Although the early RR after pEMR of 10-19 mm NPL is significantly lower compared to ≥ 20 mm NPL, it is non-negligible (10.5%) and appears to be the highest among 15-19 mm NPL. The size of the lesion was the only independent risk factor for RR. Our findings should be accounted in the selection of the most appropriate post-polypectomy endoscopic surveillance.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may lead to the development of the novel coronavirus disease (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]). Scarce data are available regarding safety and efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients, which may present differences between subgroups. Lower humoral immunological response could require additional booster injections., Methods: This is a prospective study including adult patients with IBD after complete vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection with BioNTech vaccine. Patients with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection were excluded. A control group with healthy individuals matched for age and sex was also analyzed. Blood samples were collected 30 days after complete vaccination to quantify immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody titers against SARS-CoV-2 in both groups., Results: The final sample included 81 IBD and 32 non-IBD patients, 55 (48.7%) of them women, with a mean age of 40.2 ± 13.0 years. From IBD patients, 58 (71.6%) had Crohn's disease and 23 (28.4%) had ulcerative colitis. IBD patients had significantly lower median anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels when compared with the control group (6479 [interquartile range (IQR) 1830-11883, 10 053] AU/mL vs 13 061 [IQR 2826-21427, 15 539] AU/mL; P = .003). Regarding IBD medication, significant lower levels of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies when compared with control subjects were observed in patients treated with thiopurines (5423 [IQR 3109-13369, 10 260] AU/mL; P = .011), methotrexate (834 [IQR 507-3467, 4155] AU/mL; P = .002), anti-tumor necrosis factor α agents (5065 [IQR 1033-11669, 10 636] AU/mL; P = .001), and corticosteroids (548 AU/mL; P = .001). The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination was also significantly higher in patients treated with these agents., Conclusions: IBD patients treated with immunomodulators, anti-tumor necrosis factor α agents and corticosteroids presented significantly lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels following complete vaccination when compared with healthy control subjects. These findings support the benefit of additional booster injections in this population., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Pancreatitis is the most common complication following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). In patients receiving NSAID prophylaxis, we aimed to assess whether periprocedural intensive hydration (IH) resulted in a lower incidence of PEP when compared to standard hydration (SH)., Material and Methods: Prospective, single-center, double-blinded randomized controlled trial, with inclusion of consecutive patients submitted to inaugural ERCP between January 2015 and December 2018. Patients were randomized on admission, in a 1:1 ratio, to either SH-Ringer's Lactate (RL) at a rate of 1.5 mL/kg/h during and for 8 h following the procedure, or IH-RL at a rate of 3 mL/kg/h during and for 8 h following the procedure, with an additional bolus of 20 mL/kg at the end of the procedure. PEP incidence and severity were assessed according to the Atlanta Guidelines., Results: A total of 155 patients were randomized (83 to IH, 72 to SH). PEP was observed in 8,4% (n = 13) of the patients, and was significantly less frequent in IH patients when compared to SH (3,6% vs 13,9%, P = 0,021; relative risk 0.233 [95% IC, 0.061-0.881]); five patients in the SH group developed moderate to severe PEP, in contrast to 0 patients in the IH group (6.9% vs 0.0%, P = 0,020)., Conclusions: Intensive hydration significantly decreased the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis by four-fold. Moreover, no cases of moderate or severe pancreatitis were observed in patients submitted to this intervention. Associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, intensive hydration could constitute a new standard of care for patients undergoing ERCP., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Optimal strategies for using small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) in established small-bowel Crohn's disease (CD) remain uncertain. Mucosal healing (MH) has emerged as a valuable predictor of a flare-free disease. We aimed to evaluate the occurrence of disease flare on patients with small-bowel CD and MH, as well as to create a score identifying patients in higher risk for this outcome., Methods: We analyzed consecutive patients submitted to SBCE for assessment of MH and included those where MH was confirmed. The incidence of disease flare was assessed during follow-up (minimum 12 months). A score predicting disease flare was created from several analyzed variables., Results: From 47 patients with MH, 12 (25.5%) had a flare (versus 48.3% in excluded patients without MH; p = 0.01). Age ≤ 30 years (OR  = 70; p  = 0.048), platelet count ≥ 280 × 10 3 /L (OR  = 12.24; p  =  0.045) and extra-intestinal manifestations (OR  =  11.76; p  =  0.033) were associated with increased risk of CD flare during the first year after SBCE with MH. These variables were used to compute a risk-predicting score-the APEX score-which assigned the patients to having low (0-3 points) or high-risk (4-7 points) of disease flare and had excellent accuracy toward predicting disease relapse (AUC  =  0.82; 95%CI 0.64-0.99)., Conclusion: Patients with small-bowel CD and MH were not free of disease flares on the subsequent year, despite presenting lower rates when compared to those without MH. The APEX score demonstrated excellent accuracy at stratifying patients relapse risk and guiding further therapeutic options for patients achieving MH., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Objectives: Azathioprine (AZA)-induced pancreatitis (AIP) is a common, idiosyncratic adverse effect whose incidence and risk factors data in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients are not fully clarified. We aimed to establish the incidence, clinical course and identify risk factors for AIP., Methods: A retrospective study including all IBD patients on AZA between January 2013 and July 2020 was conducted. Patients with AIP were considered., Results: Azathioprine-induced pancreatitis occurred in 33 patients (7.5%; 442 patients on AZA). The mean time receiving AZA until AIP was 25 days, with a mean dose of 88 mg. All patients had a mild course of disease, which resolved with suspension of AZA and with no complications. Smoking (P = 0.02), single daily dose of AZA (P < 0.001), and concomitant budesonide (P = 0.001) were risk factors for AIP. In multivariate analysis, concomitant treatment with budesonide (odds ratio, 5.3; P = 0.002) and single daily dose of AZA (odds ratio, 3.8; P = 0.002) were the only predictors of AIP., Conclusions: Although AIP was a relatively common adverse effect, it presented a mild course in all patients. Smoking, concomitant use of budesonide, and single-dose regimen of AZA should be avoided in IBD patients treated with AZA., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A recent meta-analysis has suggested that proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy is associated with lower clinical remission rates and a higher number of hospitalizations in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) under infliximab therapy. We aimed to assess if these differences kept their significance when adjusted for other possible confounders., Methods: Cohort study of consecutive patients with Crohn's disease (CD) and Ulcerative Colitis (UC) under infliximab therapy. A minimum follow-up of 54 weeks after introduction of infliximab treatment was required. The analyzed outcomes were deep remission at week 54 and the need of IBD-related hospitalization, corticosteroid treatment or abdominal surgery under infliximab treatment. Collected possible confounders were age, gender, smoking habits, perianal disease, extra-intestinal manifestations, familiar history of IBD and concomitant use of immunomodulators., Results: Our final sample included 104 patients, 56 (53.8%) of them females, with a mean age of 38.2±13.1 years. From these, 77 (74.0%) had CD and 27 (26.0%) had UC. PPI therapy was described in 21 (20.2%) of the patients under infliximab treatment. On univariate analysis, PPI users were found to have significantly lower rates of deep remission at week 54 (7.7 vs 28.3%; p = 0.034) and higher IBD-related hospitalization rates (47.6 vs 21.7%; p = 0.034). No differences were found regarding the need of corticosteroid therapy (4.8 vs 10.8%; p = 0.398) or abdominal surgery (33.7 vs 21.7; p = 0.201). When adjusted for the collected confounders by multivariate analysis, while not significantly influencing deep remission at week 54 (OR = 0.16; 95%CI = 0.02-1.63; p = 0.121), concomitant PPI therapy was a significant independent risk factor for IBD-related hospitalization (OR = 3.22; 95%CI = 1.11-9.34; p = 0.04)., Conclusion: Despite not conducting to significantly different deep remission rates, concomitant PPI therapy was associated with a three-fold increase in hospitalization rates in IBD patients under infliximab treatment, even when adjusted for classical risk factors for adverse outcomes in IBD. These findings emphasize the importance of restricting PPI treatment to those with a clear clinical indication, especially in this set of patients., (Copyright © 2021 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Background: Treatment delay in patients admitted with acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) are associated with increased mortality. Therefore, it is essential to identify on admission patients at high-risk of steroid nonresponse who may benefit from earlier second-line treatment or surgical intervention. Recently, the ACE index was developed and includes 3 variables at admission: C-reactive protein (CRP) ≥50mg/dL, albumin ≤30g/L and endoscopic severity (Mayo endoscopic score=3), and ranges between 0-3 points. An index of 3 has been shown to be useful to identify patients with acute ulcerative colitis with high-risk of steroid nonresponse., Objectives: To assess the ACE index performance in predicting steroids response in ASUC., Methods: Retrospective study including consecutive admissions for ASUC according to Truelove and Witts definition between January 2005 and December 2020. The ACE index was calculated and its accuracy for predicting response to steroids on admission in ASUC was assessed through the area under the curve (AUC)., Results: Sixty-five patients were included of whom 78.5% responded to steroids. Mean CRP (p = 0.01), albumin (p=0.02) and endoscopic severity score (p < 0.001) at admission were significantly different between responders and nonresponders, as opposed to Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) score (p = 0.32). Median ACE index was 2. The ACE index was a predictor of steroids response (AUC 0.789; p = 0.001); 50.0% of patients with an index of 3 did not respond to steroids, and 86.3% of patients with an index inferior to 3 responded to steroids (positive predictive value 50.0%; negative predictive value of 86.3%)., Conclusion: The ACE index is an accurate predictor of steroids response on admission in ASUC. However, in our study, the ACE index doesn´t discriminate whose high-risk patients would benefit from earlier therapeutic escalation, since only 50.0% of patients with an index of 3 did not respond to steroids., (Copyright © 2021 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)