Search

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is an alternative procedure to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) to treat large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCL). In this multicenter randomized clinical trial, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of UEMR versus CEMR on LNPCL.We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial from February 2018 to February 2020 in 11 hospitals in Spain. A total of 298 patients (311 lesions) were randomized to the UEMR (n=149) and CEMR (n=162) groups. The main outcome was the lesion recurrence rate in at least one follow-up colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included technical aspects, en bloc resection rate, R0 and adverse events, among others.There were no differences in the overall recurrence rate [9.5% UEMR vs. 11.7% CEMR; absolute risk difference -2.2% (CI 95%: -9.4% to 4.9%)]. However, considering the polyp sizes between 20 and 30 mm, the recurrence rate was lower for UEMR [3.4% UEMR vs. 13.1% CEMR; absolute risk difference -9.7% (CI 95%: -19.4% to 0%)]. The R0 resection showed the same tendency, with significant differences favoring UEMR only for polyps between 20 and 30 mm. Overall, UEMR was faster and easier to perform than CEMR. Importantly, both techniques were equally safe.UEMR is a valid alternative to CEMR of LNPCL and could be considered the first option of treatment for lesions between 20-30 mm due to its higher en bloc and R0 resection rates.

Background: post-sphyncterotomy endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) bleeding is an adverse event with an estimated incidence rate of 1.34%. There is no established consensus about how to treat this particular type of gastrointestinal bleed. Placement of fully covered self-expandable biliary metal stents (FCSEBMS) has been evaluated as an alternative treatment with positive outcomes and a low complication rate. Aim: to report the results of a cohort of patients with post-sphyncterotomy bleeding treated in a tertiary care referral hospital with FCSEBMS. Methods: a retrospective cases series study was performed including all post-ERCP bleeds treated with FCSEBMS (immediate or delayed) from January 2015 to June 2017. Clinical data, laboratory results and endoscopic reports were collected in order to evaluate the rebleeding rate after endoscopic treatment. Two different scenarios were considered: a) prophylactic stent placement after effective endoscopic treatment; and b) stents placed for the treatment of an active postsphyncterotomy bleed, refractory to standard endoscopic therapy. Results: twenty-two patients (14 male, eight women) diagnosed with postsphyncterotomy bleeding were treated with FCSEBMS placement. The stents were placed prophylactically in 15 patients, while the stents were placed as a treatment for a refractory bleed in seven patients. No differences were found between both groups except for a higher anticoagulation rate in the treatment group. Clinical success was achieved in all but one patient, with no complications in relation to stent placement. Distal migration was described in two of the 22 patients included in the study. Conclusions: temporary placement of FCSEBMS seems to be a technically feasible treatment option for post-ERCP bleeding with a high clinical success rate. The complication rate was low, although randomized studies are needed.

Background and Aims TC-325 (Hemospray, Cook Medical, Winston-Salem, NC) is an inorganic hemostatic powder recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This study aimed to examine the effectiveness, safety, and predictors of TC-325 failure in a large real-life cohort. Methods This was a retrospective study conducted at 21 Spanish centers. All patients treated with TC-325 until September 2018 were included. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as failed intraprocedural hemostasis or recurrent bleeding within the first 30 postprocedural days. Secondary outcomes included safety and survival. Risk and predictors of failure were assessed via competing-risk models. Results The cohort comprised 261 patients, of whom 219 (83.9%) presented with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). The most common causes were peptic ulcer (28%), malignancy (18.4%), and therapeutic endoscopy-related GIB (17.6%). TC-325 was used as rescue therapy in 191 (73.2%) patients. The rate of intraprocedural hemostasis was 93.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90%-96%). Risks of TC-325 failure at postprocedural days 3, 7, and 30 were 21.1%, 24.6%, and 27.4%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, spurting bleeding (P = .004), use of vasoactive drugs (P = .02), and hypotension (P = .008) were independent predictors of failure. Overall 30-day survival was 81.9% (95% CI, 76%-86%) and intraprocedural hemostasis was associated with a better prognosis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.29; P = .006). Two severe adverse events were noted. Conclusion TC-325 was safe and effective for intraprocedural hemostasis in more than 90% of patients, regardless of the cause or site of bleeding and its use as rescue therapy. In this high-risk cohort treated with TC-325, the 30-day failure rate exceeded 25% and was highest with spurting bleeding or hemodynamic instability.

Colorectal cancer is one of the three most frequent causes of cancer deaths in men and women in Europe and North America. Diagnosis and resection of adenomas has convincingly demonstrated its utility in diminishing colorectal cancer incidence. Therefore, colonoscopy is now the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening. But it is also known that colonoscopy effectiveness varies among endoscopists. Among different quality indicators, the most used is the adenoma detection rate (ADR) which is the percentage of average-risk patients for colorectal cancer who are found to have at least one adenoma or adenocarcinoma during a screening colonoscopy. There is compelling evidence supporting an inverse correlation between ADR and interval colorectal cancer (cancer found after a screening colonoscopy). Many factors such as quality of precolonoscopy preparation, additional observers, manoeuvres with the endoscope (second view, retroflexion, water inflation rather than air), time spent during withdrawal, changes in patient position, fold-flattener devices, new imaging or endoscopic modalities and use of intravenous or through the scope sprayed drugs, have been studied and developed with the aim of increasing the ADR. This reviews discusses these factors, and the current evidence, to “see better” in the colon and optimize ADR.