Search

Serrated polyps are important colorectal cancer precursors and are most commonly located in the proximal colon, where post-polypectomy bleeding rates are higher. There is limited clinical trial evidence to guide best practices for resection of large serrated polyps (LSPs).In a multicenter trial, patients with large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated polyps undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) were randomized to clipping of the resection base or no clipping. This analysis is stratified by histologic subtype of study polyp(s), categorized as serrated [sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) or hyperplastic polyps (HPs)] or adenomatous, comparing clip vs control groups. The primary outcome was severe post-procedure bleeding within 30 days of colonoscopy.A total of 179 participants with 199 LSPs (191 SSLs and 8 HPs) and 730 participants with 771 adenomatous polyps were included in the study. Overall, 5 patients with LSPs (2.8%) experienced post-procedure bleeding compared with 42 (5.8%) of those with adenomas. There was no difference in post-procedure bleeding rates between patients in the clip vs control group among those with LSPs (2.3% vs 3.3%, respectively, difference 1.0%; P = NS). However, among those with adenomatous polyps, clipping was associated with a lower risk of post-procedure bleeding (3.9% vs 7.6%, difference 3.7%; P = .03) and overall serious adverse events (5.5% vs 10.6%, difference 5.1%; P = .01).The post-procedure bleeding risk for LSPs removed via EMR is low, and there is no discernable benefit of prophylactic clipping of the resection base in this group. This study indicates that the benefit of endoscopic clipping following EMR may be specific for2 cm adenomatous polyps located in the proximal colon.gov, Number: NCT01936948.

Background Pneumatic dilation (PD) is often billed as a “short term” treatment for achalasia but anecdotally can last years. This study sought to explore how long a single pneumatic dilation may induce symptom remission in a treatment-naïve achalasia patient. Methods A single center, retrospective chart review of patients with an ICD-9 or − 10 code of achalasia between 2005 and 2017 was performed. Treatment naïve patients with manometric diagnosis of primary achalasia were included. Outcomes (success or failure); single vs multiple PD; age; and estimated duration of effect were evaluated. Each patient underwent a single PD unless re-intervention was required for relapse. Results 83 patients (52% female, median 51.6 ± 3.6 years) were included. 43% underwent 2 PD and 13% underwent 3 PD. There was no significant relation between age, gender, and number of PDs. After 1 PD, 87.5% of patients reported > 1 year of symptom remission. 80.5% of relapsed patients reported success after a 2nd dilation. 1 PD was more likely to result in success than multiple PDs (p p = 0.03). Conclusions PD is a safe, durable treatment for achalasia. A single PD is likely to last years. A second PD, if required, also has a high likelihood of success.

Background And Aims Excess postoperative opioid medication use can delay recovery and is associated with long-term misuse, addiction, and overdose. We aimed to explore the effect of preprocedural thoracic paravertebral nerve block (PNB) on pain-related outcomes after POEM. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, consecutive patients who did and did not receive a PNB prior to POEM were compared. The outcomes were peak and cumulative pain scores, total opioid use during hospitalization, and length of stay. After adjusting for confounders, the associations between nerve block and the outcomes of interest were explored. Results Forty-nine consecutive patients were enrolled; 25 patients received a block whereas the subsequent 24 did not. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the study groups. In unadjusted analyses, there was no significant difference between patients who did and did not undergo PNB in peak pain score (7.8 vs 8.7, P = 0.14), cumulative pain score in the first 12 hours (area under curve 66.5 vs 75.8, P = 0.22), median total opioid use (38.9 mg morphine equivalent dosing vs 42, P = 1.00), and median length of hospitalization (26.5 hours vs 24, P = 0.35). In multivariable regression models, PNB was not associated with a reduction in pain scores, opioid use, or hospitalization. There were no adverse events related to the block. Conclusion In this exploratory, observational study, paravertebral nerve block immediately before POEM did not result in a statistically significant reduction in pain-related outcomes or hospitalization. Additional observational studies may elucidate whether higher anesthetic doses or longer acting formulations would be of value.

Background and study aim Delayed bleeding is a common adverse event following endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large colorectal polyps. Prophylactic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of nonpedunculated polyps larger than 20 mm reduces the incidence of severe delayed bleeding, especially in proximal polyps. This study aimed to evaluate factors associated with complete prophylactic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of large polyps. Methods This is a post hoc analysis of the CLIP study (NCT01936948). All patients randomized to the clip group were included. Main outcome was complete clip closure of the mucosal resection defect. The defect was considered completely closed when no remaining mucosal defect was visible and clips were less than 1 cm apart. Factors associated with complete closure were evaluated in multivariable analysis. Results In total, 458 patients (age 65, 58 % men) with 494 large polyps were included. Complete clip closure of the resection defect was achieved for 338 polyps (68.4 %); closure was not complete for 156 (31.6 %). Factors associated with complete closure in adjusted analysis were smaller polyp size (odds ratio 1.06 for every millimeter decrease [95 % confidence interval 1.02–1.08]), good access (OR 3.58 [1.94–9.59]), complete submucosal lifting (OR 2.28 [1.36–3.90]), en bloc resection (OR 5.75 [1.48–22.39]), and serrated histology (OR 2.74 [1.35–5.56]). Conclusions Complete clip closure was not achieved for almost one in three resected large nonpedunculated polyps. While stable access and en bloc resection facilitate clip closure, most factors associated with clip closure are not modifiable. This highlights the need for alternative closure options and measures to prevent bleeding.

Background & Aims There is debate over the type of electrosurgical setting that should be used for polyp resection. Some endoscopists use a type of blended current (yellow), whereas others prefer coagulation (blue). We performed a single-blinded, randomized trial to determine whether type of electrosurgical setting affects risk of adverse events or recurrence. Methods Patients undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps 20 mm or larger (n = 928) were randomly assigned, in a 2 × 2 design, to groups that received clip closure or no clip closure of the resection defect (primary intervention) and then to either a blended current (Endocut Q) or coagulation current (forced coagulation) (Erbe Inc) (secondary intervention and focus of the study). The study was performed at multiple centers, from April 2013 through October 2017. Patients were evaluated 30 days after the procedure (n = 919), and 675 patients underwent a surveillance colonoscopy at a median of 6 months after the procedure. The primary outcome was any severe adverse event in a per patient analysis. Secondary outcomes were complete resection and recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy in a per polyp analysis. Results Serious adverse events occurred in 7.2% of patients in the Endocut group and 7.9% of patients in the forced coagulation group, with no significant differences in the occurrence of types of events. There were no significant differences between groups in proportions of polyps that were completely removed (96% in the Endocut group vs 95% in the forced coagulation group) or the proportion of polyps found to have recurred at surveillance colonoscopy (17% and 17%, respectively). Procedural characteristics were comparable, except that 17% of patients in the Endocut group had immediate bleeding that required an intervention, compared with 11% in the forced coagulation group (P = .006). Conclusions In a randomized trial to compare 2 commonly used electrosurgical settings for the resection of large colorectal polyps (Endocut vs forced coagulation), we found no difference in risk of serious adverse events, complete resection rate, or polyp recurrence. Electrosurgical settings can therefore be selected based on endoscopist expertise and preference. Clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT01936948.

Background & Aims Bleeding is the most common severe complication after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colon polyps and is associated with significant morbidity and cost. We examined whether prophylactic closure of the mucosal defect with hemoclips after polyp resection reduces the risk of bleeding. Methods We performed a multicenter, randomized trial of patients with a large nonpedunculated colon polyp (≥20 mm) at 18 medical centers in North America and Spain from April 2013 through October 2017. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that underwent endoscopic closure with a clip (clip group) or no closure (control group) and followed. The primary outcome, postprocedure bleeding, was defined as a severe bleeding event that required hospitalization, a blood transfusion, colonoscopy, surgery, or another invasive intervention within 30 days after completion of the colonoscopy. Subgroup analyses included postprocedure bleeding with polyp location, polyp size, or use of periprocedural antithrombotic medications. We also examined the risk of any serious adverse event. Results A total of 919 patients were randomly assigned to groups and completed follow-up. Postprocedure bleeding occurred in 3.5% of patients in the clip group and 7.1% in the control group (absolute risk difference [ARD] 3.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7%–6.5%). Among 615 patients (66.9%) with a proximal large polyp, the risk of bleeding in the clip group was 3.3% and in the control group was 9.6% (ARD 6.3%; 95% CI 2.5%–10.1%); among patients with a distal large polyp, the risks were 4.0% in the clip group and 1.4% in the control group (ARD –2.6%; 95% CI –6.3% to –1.1%). The effect of clip closure was independent of antithrombotic medications or polyp size. Serious adverse events occurred in 4.8% of patients in the clip group and 9.5% of patients in the control group (ARD 4.6%; 95% CI 1.3%–8.0%). Conclusions In a randomized trial, we found that endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect following resection of large colon polyps reduces risk of postprocedure bleeding. The protective effect appeared to be restricted to large polyps located in the proximal colon. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT01936948.

In recent years, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have come under great scrutiny due to possible adverse, long-term side effects. At the same time, Barrett's esophagus, a premalignant condition in the esophagus, continues to be a disease whose course is thought to be improved by the use of PPIs. We review the impact of proton pump therapy on the esophagus and on Barrett's mucosa. In analyzing changes on a cellular level, we explore the effect of mixed gastric refluxate and the complex cascade that ensues with esophageal exposure of these contents. Because the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma is on the rise, we explore other factors that may contribute to the progression of Barrett's from non-dysplastic mucosa to esophageal adenocarcinoma. By revisiting the need for adequate acid suppression in Barrett's and increasing our understanding of other possible factors that may have an effect of Barrett's progression, we hope to support our multifaceted approach to acid suppression in patients with Barrett's esophagus.

Background In 2008, the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) modified its colorectal screening guidelines regarding patients with family histories of colorectal polyps, specifically highlighting the importance of obtaining detailed history that includes the number, type, and size of adenomas found in a patient's relative. This information is then used to guide screening recommendations for these patients. Objective To assess the proportion of patients undergoing screening colonscopy for a family history of polyps who have knowledge of their family members' colonoscopy findings. Design Retrospective, single-center cohort pilot study. Setting Tertiary care medical center. Patients Patients who presented for screening colonoscopy between 2008 and 2010 with an indication of family history of polyps. Interventions Obtain detailed history regarding patient's family history of polyps, including which family member, age of family member at diagnosis, size, type and number of polyps found. Main Outcome Measurements Knowledge of family history. Results Seventy-three patients were included in the study. Their knowledge of their family histories of polyps showed the following: 23.2% (17/73; 95% CI, 14%-35%) did not know which family member had polyps, 42.5% (31/73; 95% CI, 31%-55%) did not know the age at diagnosis, 71.2% (52/73; 95% CI, 59%-81%) did not know the polyp type, 90.4% (66/73; 95% CI, 81%-96%) did not know the number of polyps found, and 97.3% (71/73; 95% CI, 90%-100%) did not know the polyp size. Limitations Retrospective study at a single tertiary referral center. Conclusions Patients' knowledge regarding the details of their family histories of polyp data appears often unknown or incomplete. Thus, at present, it may not appear feasible or practical to incorporate this level of information in colon cancer screening guidelines.