Search

Introduction: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is standard of care for T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, data on outcomes in high-risk T1a EAC are limited. We assessed and compared outcomes after EET of low-risk and high-risk T1a EAC, including intraluminal EAC recurrence, extraesophageal metastases, and overall survival., Methods: Patients who underwent EET for T1a EAC at 3 referral Barrett's esophagus endotherapy units between 1996 and 2022 were included. Patients with submucosal invasion, positive deep margins, or metastases at initial diagnosis were excluded. High-risk T1a EAC was defined as T1a EAC with poor differentiation and/or lymphovascular invasion, with low-risk disease being defined without these features. All pathology was systematically assessed by expert gastrointestinal pathologists. Baseline and follow-up endoscopy and pathology data were abstracted. Time-to-event analyses were performed to compare outcomes between groups., Results: One hundred eighty-eight patients with T1a EAC were included (high risk, n = 45; low risk, n = 143) with a median age of 70 years, and 84% were men. Groups were comparable for age, sex, Barrett's esophagus length, lesion size, and EET technique. Rates of delayed extraesophageal metastases (11.1% vs 1.4%) were significantly higher in the high-risk group ( P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the rates of intraluminal EAC recurrence ( P = 0.79) and overall survival ( P = 0.73) between the 2 groups., Discussion: Patients with high-risk T1a EAC undergoing successful EET had a substantially higher rate of extraesophageal metastases compared with those with low-risk T1a EAC on long-term follow-up. These data should be factored into discussions with patients while selecting treatment approaches. Additional prospective data in this area are critical., (Copyright © 2023 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Background and Aims: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is guideline endorsed for management of early-stage (T1) esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Patients with baseline high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and EAC are at highest risk of recurrence after successful EET, but limited data exist on long-term (>5 year) recurrence outcomes. Our aim was to assess the incidence and predictors of long-term recurrence in a multicenter cohort of patients with T1 EAC treated with EET., Methods: Patients with T1 EAC achieving successful endoscopic cancer eradication with a minimum of 5 years' clinical follow-up were included. The primary outcome was neoplastic recurrence, defined as dysplasia or EAC, and it was characterized as early (<2 years), intermediate (2-5 years), or late (>5 years). Predictors of recurrence were assessed by time to event analysis., Results: A total of 84 T1 EAC patients (75 T1a, 9 T1b) with a median 9.1 years (range, 5.1-18.3 years) of follow-up were included. The overall incidence of neoplastic recurrence was 2.0 per 100 person-years of follow-up. Seven recurrences (3 dysplasia, 4 EAC) occurred after 5 years of EAC remission. Overall, 88% of recurrences were treated successfully endoscopically. EAC recurrence-related mortality occurred in 3 patients at a median of 5.2 years from EAC remission. Complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia was independently associated with reduced recurrence (hazard ratio, .13)., Conclusions: Following successful EET of T1 EAC, neoplastic recurrence occurred after 5 years in 8.3% of cases. Careful long-term surveillance should be continued in this patient population. Complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia should be the therapeutic end point for EET., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: A. Kahn: Consultant for MiMedx. G. W. Falk: Research funding from Lucid and Castle Biosciences; and consultant for Lucid, Castle Biosciences, and Exact Sciences. K. K. Wang: Research funding from Micro-Tech and Pentax Medical; and consultant for GIEMedical, EsoCap, Isola Therapeutics, and FUJI Medical. P. G. Iyer: Research funding from Exact Sciences, Pentax Medical, and Cernostics; and consultant for Exact Sciences, Pentax Medical, Cernostics, CDX Medical, and Ambu. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aim: Endoscopy featured water-aided colonoscopy (WAC) as novel in the Innovation Forum in 2011. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy published a modified Delphi consensus review (MDCR) that supports WAC for clinical practice in 2021. We tested the hypothesis that experience was an important predictor of WAC use, either as water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), or a combination of WI and WE., Methods: A questionnaire was sent by email to the MDCR authors with an in-depth knowledge of WAC. They responded and also invited colleagues and trainees without in-depth knowledge to respond. Logistic regression analysis was used with the reasons for WAC use treated as the primary outcome. Reports related to WAC post MDCR were identified., Results: Of 100 respondents, > 80% indicated willingness to adopt and modify practice to accommodate WAC. Higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) incentivized WE use. Procedure time slots ≤ 30 and > 30 min significantly predicted WI and WE use, respectively. Co-authors of the MDCR were significantly more likely to perform WAC (odds ratio [OR] = 7.5, P = 0.037). Unfamiliarity with (OR = 0.11, P = 0.02) and absence of good experience (OR = 0.019, P = 0.002) were associated with colonoscopists less likely to perform WAC. Reports related to WAC post MDCR revealed overall and right colon WE outcomes continued to improve. Network meta-analyses showed that WE was superior to Cap and Endocuff. On-demand sedation with WE shortened nursing recovery time., Conclusions: An important predictor of WAC use was experience. Superior outcomes continued to be reported with WE., (© 2022 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

Background & Aims: Nonpedunculated colorectal polyps are normally endoscopically removed to prevent neoplastic progression. Delayed bleeding is the most common major adverse event. Clipping the resection defect has been suggested to reduce delayed bleedings. Our aim was to determine if prophylactic clipping reduces delayed bleedings and to analyze the contribution of polyp characteristics, extent of defect closure, and antithrombotic use., Methods: An individual patient data meta-analysis was performed. Studies on prophylactic clipping in nonpedunculated colorectal polyps were selected from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane database (last selection, April 2020). Authors were invited to share original study data. The primary outcome was delayed bleeding ≤30 days. Multivariable mixed models were used to determine the efficacy of prophylactic clipping in various subgroups adjusted for confounders., Results: Data of 5380 patients with 8948 resected polyps were included from 3 randomized controlled trials, 2 prospective, and 8 retrospective studies. Prophylactic clipping reduced delayed bleeding in proximal polyps ≥20 mm (odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.88; number needed to treat = 32), especially with antithrombotics (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35-0.99; number needed to treat = 23; subgroup of anticoagulants/double platelet inhibitors: n = 226; OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.16-1.01; number needed to treat = 12). Prophylactic clipping did not benefit distal polyps ≥20 mm with antithrombotics (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.79-2.52)., Conclusions: Prophylactic clipping reduces delayed bleeding after resection of nonpedunculated, proximal colorectal polyps ≥20 mm, especially in patients using antithrombotics. No benefit was found for distal polyps. Based on this study, patients can be identified who may benefit from prophylactic clipping. (PROSPERO registration number CRD42020104317.)., (Copyright © 2022 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is the preferred ablative modality for treating dysplastic Barrett's esophagus. The recently introduced self-sizing circumferential ablation catheter eliminates the need for a sizing balloon. Although it enhances efficiency, outcomes have not been compared with the previous manual-sizing catheter. We evaluated the comparative safety and efficacy of these 2 ablation systems in a large, multicenter cohort., Methods: Patients undergoing RFA at 3 tertiary care centers from 2005 to 2018 were included. Circumferential RFA was performed in a standard fashion, followed by focal RFA as needed. Outcomes were compared between the self-sizing and manual-sizing groups. The primary outcome was the rate of adverse events, including strictures, perforation, and bleeding. Secondary outcomes were procedure time and treatment efficacy, as assessed by rates and time to complete eradication of dysplasia (CE-D) and intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM)., Results: Three hundred eighteen patients were included, 90 (28.3%) treated with the self-sizing catheter and 228 (71.7%) with the manual-sizing catheter. Twenty-one patients (6.6%) developed strictures (8 [8.9%] in the self-sizing group and 13 [5.7%] in the manual-sizing group, P = .32). Of the self-sizing strictures, 75% occurred at the 12J dose before widespread adoption of the current 10J treatment standard. One patient developed bleeding, and no perforations were encountered. Procedure time was significantly shorter in the self-sizing group. No significant differences were observed in rates of and time to CE-D and CE-IM., Conclusions: These findings suggest that both systems are comparable in safety and efficacy. The use of the self-sizing system may enhance the efficiency of RFA for treating dysplastic Barrett's esophagus., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Systemic sclerosis or scleroderma (SSc) is a chronic autoimmune disease that renders the esophagus prone to significant gastroesophageal reflux due to impaired esophageal clearance and reduced lower esophageal sphincter pressure. The reported prevalence of Barrett's esophagus (BE) in women with SSc varies from 2% to 37% and is derived from older studies with small sample sizes. We aimed to assess the prevalence of BE in a large cohort of women with SSc., Methods: Women with SSc referred from the Mayo Clinic Arizona Rheumatology Clinic who completed esophagogastroduodenoscopy between 2002 and 2020 were included. Demographic and high-resolution manometry data were evaluated. The diagnosis of scleroderma was confirmed by an expert rheumatologist. The BE diagnosis was confirmed by an expert gastrointestinal pathologist., Results: There were 235 women with SSc who underwent EGD. High-resolution manometry (HRM) was completed in 172 patients. Women with SSc with BE were significantly more likely to have scleroderma esophagus (absent contractility with hypotensive lower esophageal sphincter) on HRM than women with SSc without BE (P = 0.018). There were 30 patients with SSc (12.8%) with histologically proven BE. Dysplasia was found in 13 (43.3%): 4 with indefinite, 7 with low grade, and 2 with adenocarcinoma. The incidence of any dysplasia was 5.3% per year (0.9% per year for adenocarcinoma)., Discussion: This the largest study on prevalence of BE in women with SSc, yielding a prevalence of 12.8%. Women with SSc with BE were significantly more likely to have absent contractility with hypotensive lower esophageal sphincter findings on HRM. The high prevalence and incidence of dysplasia found suggest that women with SSc should be included in the screening recommendations for BE., (Copyright © 2021 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy., Methods: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting)., Results: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01., Conclusion: In this pilot study we found that low-volume colon preparation may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings., Trial Registration: The Affect of Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Hospitalized Patients Colonoscopies., Trial Registration: NCT01978509 (terminated). Retrospectively registered on November 07, 2013.

Background & Aims: Topically applied methylene blue dye chromoendoscopy is effective in improving detection of colorectal neoplasia. When combined with a pH- and time-dependent multimatrix structure, a per-oral methylene blue formulation (MB-MMX) can be delivered directly to the colorectal mucosa., Methods: We performed a phase 3 study of 1205 patients scheduled for colorectal cancer screening or surveillance colonoscopies (50-75 years old) at 20 sites in Europe and the United States, from December 2013 through October 2016. Patients were randomly assigned to groups given 200 mg MB-MMX, placebo, or 100 mg MB-MMX (ratio of 2:2:1). The 100-mg MB-MMX group was included for masking purposes. MB-MMX and placebo tablets were administered with a 4-L polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation. The patients then underwent colonoscopy by an experienced endoscopist with centralized double-reading. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with 1 adenoma or carcinoma (adenoma detection rate [ADR]). We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences in detection between the 200-mg MB-MMX and placebo groups. False-positive (resection rate for non-neoplastic polyps) and adverse events were assessed as secondary endpoints., Results: The ADR was higher for the MB-MMX group (273 of 485 patients, 56.29%) than the placebo group (229 of 479 patients, 47.81%) (OR 1.46; 95% CI 1.09-1.96). The proportion of patients with nonpolypoid lesions was higher in the MB-MMX group (213 of 485 patients, 43.92%) than the placebo group (168 of 479 patients, 35.07%) (OR 1.66; 95% CI 1.21-2.26). The proportion of patients with adenomas ≤5 mm was higher in the MB-MMX group (180 of 485 patients, 37.11%) than the placebo group (148 of 479 patients, 30.90%) (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.01-1.83), but there was no difference between groups in detection of polypoid or larger lesions. The false-positive rate did not differ significantly between groups (83 [23.31%] of 356 patients with non-neoplastic lesions in the MB-MMX vs 97 [29.75%] of 326 patients with non-neoplastic lesions in the placebo group). Overall, 0.7% of patients had severe adverse events but there was no significant difference between groups., Conclusions: In a phase 3 trial of patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopies, we found MB-MMX led to an absolute 8.5% increase in ADR, compared with placebo, without increasing the removal of non-neoplastic lesions. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT01694966., (Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Goals: To investigate factors predictive of progression from nondysplastic Barrett esophagus (NDBE) or low-grade dysplasia (LGD) to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) using a large, prospective cohort of patients, wherein all esophageal biopsies undergo expert gastrointestinal pathologist review., Background: Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic surveillance to detect incident EAC in the setting of Barrett esophagus (BE), particularly in NDBE patients, is questioned. Previous studies have reported factors predictive of progression to EAC to guide surveillance intervals, but their strength is limited by small sample size and absence of expert gastrointestinal pathologist involvement in esophageal biopsy review., Study: NDBE and LGD subjects were identified from a prospective registry in a tertiary care center. "Progressors" were BE subjects who developed HGD/EAC>12 months after the initial NDBE or LGD diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards model were used to identify predictors of progression., Results: In total, 318 with NDBE and 301 with BE-LGD (mean age, 62.6 y, 85% male) were included. The mean follow-up was 5.3 years. The 7 NDBE and 21 LGD subjects progressed to HGD/EAC. BE length [hazards ratio (HR), 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.03-1.29], presence of nodularity (HR, 4.98; 95% CI, 1.80-11.7), and baseline LGD (HR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.13-6.57) were significant predictors of progression on multivariate analysis., Conclusions: In this well-defined cohort of NDBE and BE-LGD subjects, BE length, presence of LGD, and nodularity were independent predictors of progression to HGD/EAC. These factors may aid in identifying high-risk patients who may benefit from closer endoscopic surveillance/therapy.

Background and Aims: There is controversy about finding intestinal metaplasia (IM) of the gastric cardia on biopsy. The most recent American College of Gastroenterology guideline comments that IM cardia is not more common in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE). It provides limited guidance on whether the cardia should be treated when patients with BE undergo endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) and whether the cardia should undergo biopsy after ablation. The aims of our study were to determine the frequency in the proximal stomach of (1) histologic gastric cardia mucosa and (2) IM cardia. A third aim was to explore the frequency of advanced pathology (dysplasia and adenocarcinoma) in the cardia after patients with BE have undergone EET., Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy between January 2008 and December 2014 who had proximal stomach biopsies were included. Patients who had histologically confirmed BE were compared with those without BE., Results: Four hundred sixty-two patients, 289 with BE and 173 without BE, were included. Histologically confirmed cardiac mucosa was found in 81.6% of all patients. This was more frequent in those with versus without BE (86% vs 75%; odds ratio [OR], 2.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-3.32; P = .003). IM cardia was more common in the BE group (17% vs 7%; OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.38-5.19; P = .004). Advanced pathology was more likely in the patients with BE who had undergone EET., Conclusions: Cardiac mucosa is present in most patients who undergo endoscopy for upper GI symptoms. IM cardia is more common in patients with BE than those without. Advanced histologic changes in the cardia were seen only in the subgroup of patients with BE who had undergone EET., (Copyright © 2019 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Acute esophageal food impaction (AEFI) occurs frequently. Few data are published describing the use of effervescent agents (EAs) for treatment of AEFI. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness, cost, and safety of EAs in the treatment of AEFI. We retrospectively identified patients aged 18 years and older who were seen in the emergency department of 2 hospitals in 1 metropolitan area from January 1, 2011, through April 4, 2016, who had a clinical diagnosis of AEFI. We collected and analyzed data on outcomes and cost associated with the use of EAs, glucagon, and no pharmacologic therapy. During the study period, 239 patients with AEFI met the inclusion criteria. Of the 45 patients who received EA monotherapy, 25 (55.6%) responded successfully, compared with 11 of 62 (17.7%) who received glucagon monotherapy (P < .001) and 16 of 93 (17.2%) who had no therapy (P < .001). Ten of 39 patients (25.6%) who were given both glucagon and EA responded successfully. The other 177 patients had endoscopy, which was successful in all cases. Median hospitalization charges for patients who responded successfully to EA alone were $1,136, compared with $2,602 for responders to glucagon alone (P < .001) and $1,194 for those who cleared their bolus spontaneously (P < .001). All patients who received EA monotherapy had lower median hospitalization costs ($2,384) than all patients who received glucagon monotherapy ($9,289; P = .03) and all patients who received neither ($8,386; P = .02). Effervescent agents are a safe, effective, and cost-saving initial strategy in the treatment of acute esophageal food impaction., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus.)

Background: The most recent Chicago Classification expanded the criteria for diagnosis of jackhammer esophagus (JHE) to include the distal contractile integral (DCI) of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES). The clinical impact of the manometric inclusion of LES hypercontractility remains unclear. We aimed to analyze the clinical features and long-term outcomes of measured LES-dependent (LD-JHE) and LES-independent (LI-JHE) jackhammer esophagus., Methods: Patients meeting diagnostic criteria for JHE were identified at two academic medical centers. High-resolution esophageal manometry data were re-analyzed with inclusion and exclusion of the LES DCI. LD-JHE was defined by falling outside JHE diagnostic criteria with exclusion of the LES. A telephone survey was conducted for follow-up utilizing the impact dysphagia (IDQ-10) questionnaire., Key Results: Eighty-one patients met study inclusion criteria, with 12 (14.8%) classified as LD-JHE. LD-JHE patients had a significantly lower mean DCI and fewer swallows with DCI >8000 mm Hg-s-cm. Basal LES pressure was higher in patients with dysphagia to solids than those with dysphagia to solids and liquids. Clinical and manometric parameters were otherwise similar between groups. Sixty-six patients had clinical or phone follow-up at a median of 46.6 months. Forty-one patients (62.1%) received therapies directed at JHE. There was no difference in symptom improvement for treated vs untreated patients or for JHE subtype., Conclusions and Inferences: Our findings suggest that LD-JHE and LI-JHE are clinically indistinguishable and thus support existing diagnostic criteria. Furthermore, our long-term follow-up data suggest that JHE, irrespective of LES involvement, may improve without treatment. Further study is needed to clarify which patients merit therapeutic intervention., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are utilized for a variety of indications, including treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease, and prevention of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Several studies have documented an increasing prevalence of inappropriate PPI use. Furthermore, recent media reports have highlighted new research data suggesting a possible association between chronic PPI use and several adverse medical outcomes, leading to frequent patient inquiries about these associations. Thus, providers face the challenge of counseling patients about the balance of risks and benefits related to PPI use. We aimed to explore providers' knowledge and attitudes toward reported adverse effects of PPI use and compare providers' prescription practices. A comprehensive, non-incentivized electronic survey was sent to all providers (residents, fellows, advanced practice providers, and consultants across 8 internal medicine specialties) at our tertiary academic medical center. The survey contained 21 questions covering provider demographics and responses to challenging clinical scenarios dealing with PPI use. Chi-square was used to compare responses from providers. The survey was distributed to 254 providers, of which 94 (24 GI and 70 non-GI) completed the survey (37% response rate). Among those 94 providers, 48 were consultants, 17 were advanced practice providers, and 29 were trainees. Non-GI providers included cardiology, pulmonary, endocrinology, family medicine, general internal medicine, hematology/oncology, and nephrology. Over half of the providers (51 [54%]) described their practice as outpatient setting, 29 (31%) providers defined their practice as a mixed setting (inpatient and outpatient), while 14 (15%) designated it as inpatient only. Nineteen (80%) GI providers and 48 (69%) non-GI providers discussed the risks and benefits with patients (P = 0.64). Fifteen (63%) GI providers and 33 (47%) non-GI providers indicated that recent reports changed their practice (P = 0.49). More GI providers (5 [21%]) lowered the dose of PPI compared with non-GI (1[1%]) (P = 0.004); 18 (26%) of non-GI and 3 (13%) of GI providers discontinued PPI and substituted it with a histamine 2 (H2) blocker (P = 0.29). A larger but nonsignificant percentage of trainees (8 [28%]) switched PPI to H2 blockers compared with consultants (8 [17%]; P = 0.39). Six (25%) of GI providers and 14 (20%) of non-GI providers were concerned about Clostridium difficile infection (P = 0.58). Twenty-four (34%) of the non-GI were worried about kidney diseases compared with 3 (13%) of the GI providers (P = 0.1). Ten (21%) consultants were concerned about risk of osteoporosis compared with 3 (10%) trainees (P = 0.38), while 8 (28%) trainees were worried about the risk of C. difficile infection compared with 10 (21%) consultants (P = 0.69). Most providers (85 [90%]) agreed that educational activities would be helpful to address these challenges. More GI providers lowered the dose of PPI compared with non-GI; non-GI providers were more likely to discontinue PPI and substitute it with an H2 blocker. Educating patients and providers about potential adverse effects of PPI is imperative.

Radiofrequency ablation of Barrett's esophagus with low-grade dysplasia is recommended in recent American College of Gastroenterology guidelines, with endoscopic surveillance considered a reasonable alternative. Few studies have directly compared outcomes of radiofrequency ablation to surveillance and those that have are limited by short duration of follow-up. This study aims to compare the long-term effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation versus endoscopic surveillance in a large, longitudinal cohort of patients with Barrett's esophagus, and low-grade dysplasia.We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with confirmed low-grade dysplasia at a single academic medical center from 1991 to 2014. Patients progressing to high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma within one year of index LGD endoscopy were defined as missed dysplasia and excluded. Risk factors for progression were assessed via Cox proportional hazards model. Comparison of progression risk was conducted using a Kaplan-Meier analysis. Subset analyses were conducted to examine the effect of reintroducing early progressors and excluding patients diagnosed prior to the advent of ablative therapy. Of 173 total patients, 79 (45.7%) underwent radiofrequency ablation while 94 (54.3%) were untreated, with median follow up of 90 months. Seven (8.9%) patients progressed to high-grade dysplasia or adenocarcinoma despite ablation, compared with 14 (14.9%) undergoing surveillance (P = 0.44). This effect was preserved when patients diagnosed prior to the introduction of radiofrequency ablation were excluded (8.9% vs 13%, P = 0.68). Reintroduction of patients progressing within the first year of follow-up resulted in a trend toward significance for ablation versus surveillance (11.1% vs 23.8%, P = 0.053).In conclusion, progression to high-grade dysplasia or adenocarcinoma was not significantly reduced in the radiofrequency ablation cohort when compared to surveillance. Despite recent studies suggesting the superiority of radiofrequency ablation in reducing progression, diligent endoscopic surveillance may provide similar long-term outcomes.

Background: The impact of Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS) scores on the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in each segment has not been adequately addressed. The aim of this study was to determine the association between segmental or overall ADR and serrated polyp detection rate (SDR) with segmental and total BBPS scores., Methods: All outpatient screening colonoscopies with documented BBPS scores were retrospectively reviewed at a tertiary institution from January to December 2013. Chi-square tests and logistic regression were used to analyze the detection rates of adenomas and serrated polyps with bowel prep scores. Odds ratios were calculated using logistic regression that controlled for withdrawal time, age, body mass index, diabetes status and sex., Results: We analyzed 1991 colonoscopies. The overall ADR was 37.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 35.3-39.6). There was a significant difference in the overall ADR, and in SDR across all bowel category groups, with total BBPS scores of 8 and 9 having lower detection rates than scores of 5, 6 and 7. As the quality of bowel preparation increased, there was a statistical decrease in the ADR (odds ratio [OR] 0.79 [CI 0.66-0.94], P=0.04) of the right colon, while in the left colon, there was a statistical decrease in SDR (OR 0.78, [CI 0.65-0.92] P=0.019)., Conclusion: Segmental ADR and SDR both decreased as prep scores increased, decreasing notably in patients with excellent prep scores of 8 and 9. A possible explanation for this unexpected discrepancy may be related to longer and better visualization of the mucosa when cleansing and suctioning is necessary., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: None

Background and Aim: Feedback has been shown to improve performance in colonoscopy including adenoma detection rate (ADR). The frequency at which feedback should be given is unknown. As part of a quality improvement program, we sought to measure the outcome of providing quarterly and monthly feedback on colonoscopy quality measures., Methods: All screening colonoscopies performed at endoscopy unit at Mayo Clinic Arizona by gastroenterologists between October 2010 and December 2012 were reviewed. Quality indicators, including ADR, were extracted for each individual endoscopist, and feedback was provided. The study period was divided into four distinct groups: pre-intervention that served as baseline, quarterly feedback, monthly feedback, and post-intervention. Based on ADR, endoscopists were grouped into "low detectors" (≤ 25%), "average detectors" (26-35%), and "high detectors" (> 35%)., Results: A total of 3420 screening colonoscopies were performed during the study period (555 patients during pre-intervention, 1209 patients during quarterly feedback, 599 during monthly feedback, and 1057 during the post-intervention period) by 16 gastroenterologists. The overall ADR for the group improved from 30.5% to 37.7% (P = 0.003). Compared with the pre-interventional period, all quality indicators measured significantly improved during the monthly feedback and post-intervention periods but not in the quarterly feedback period., Conclusions: In our quality improvement program, monthly feedback significantly improved colonoscopy quality measures, including ADR, while quarterly feedback did not. The impact of the intervention was most prominent in the "low detectors" group. Results were durable up to 6 months following the intervention., (© 2017 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

The Chicago Classification version 3.0 (CC v 3.0) defines hypercontractile peristalsis as Jackhammer esophagus (JE); Nutcracker esophagus (NE) is no longer recognized. Data regarding patient characteristics and treatment response for JE versus NE are limited. We aimed to compare demographic characteristics, high resolution manometry (HRM) features, clinical presentation, management strategies, and treatment outcomes in patients with JE versus NE. We performed a retrospective analysis of adult patients diagnosed with NE (CC v 2.0) or JE (CC v 3.0) by HRM from January 2012 to August 2015. Demographics, symptoms, treatments, and response to therapy (none or partial/complete) were ascertained by chart review, for statistical comparisons. In 45 patients with JE and 29 with NE, there was no significant difference in rate of dysphagia (73% and 59%) or chest pain (44% and 59%). Treatment data were available in 29 JE (smooth muscle relaxants in 4, pain modulators in 3, botulinum toxin injection (BTX) in 10, endoscopic dilation in 5, multimodal treatment in 7), and 20 NE patients (smooth muscle relaxants in 2, pain modulators in 2, (BTX) in 6, endoscopic dilation in 3, multimodal treatment in 7). Follow-up data on 26/29 JE and 20/20 NE patients showed similar treatment response (96.4% vs. 82.1%, p= 0.08) after mean follow-up of 11.2 and 11 months, respectively. There were no major differences for JE versus NE in demographics, symptoms, or type of and response to therapy. Larger prospective, controlled trials are needed to clarify the clinical significance and response to treatment in JE and NE., (© The Authors 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

We investigated whether the incidence of brain metastasis (BM) from primary esophageal and esophagogastric cancer is increasing. A single-institution retrospective review identified 583 patients treated from January 1997 to January 2016 for stages I through IV cancer of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction (follow-up, ≥3 months). Collected data included demographic information, date and staging at primary diagnosis, histologic subtype, treatment regimen for primary lesion, date of BM diagnosis, presence or absence of central nervous system symptoms, presence or absence of extracranial disease, treatment regimen for intracranial lesions, and date of death. The overall cohort included 495 patients (85%) with adenocarcinoma and 82 (14%) with squamous cell carcinoma (492 [84%] were male; median age at diagnosis, 68 years [range: 26-90 years]). BM was identified in 22 patients (3.8%) (median latency after primary diagnosis, 11 months). Among patients with BM, the primary histology was adenocarcinoma in 21 and squamous cell carcinoma in 1 (P = 0.30). BM developed in 12 who were initially treated for locally advanced disease and in 10 stage IV patients who presented with distant metastases. Overall survival (OS) after BM diagnosis was 18% at 1 year (median, 4 months). No difference in OS after BM diagnosis was observed in patients initially treated for localized disease compared to patients who presented with stage IV disease; however, OS was superior for patients who initially had surgical resection compared to patients treated with whole brain radiotherapy or stereotactic radiosurgery alone (1-year OS, 67% vs. 0%; median OS, 13.5 vs. 3 months; P = 0.003). The incidence of BM is low in patients with esophageal cancer. Outcomes were poor overall for patients with BM, but patients who underwent neurosurgical resection had improved survival., (© The Authors 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: Low-grade dysplasia (LGD) is a risk factor for progression in Barrett's esophagus (BE). Progression estimates however vary and predictors of progression are not well established. We aimed to assess predictors of progression in a multicenter BE-LGD cohort., Methods: All subjects with LGD (diagnosed by a GI pathologist) in a prospective BE registry were identified. Progression was defined development of HGD/EAC more than 12 months after index date of LGD diagnosis. Clinical, endoscopic factors and impact of histologic review by an independent panel of two GI pathologists were assessed as predictors of progression. Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess their association with risk of progression., Results: 244 BE-LGD subjects met inclusion criteria. Their mean age was 63.2 years. 205 (84%) were males. The median follow up was 4.8 years. Fifty six patients were diagnosed with HGD/EAC in less than 12 months, while 14 progressed to HGD/EAC after 12 months, with an overall annual risk of progression of 1.2%. 29% of LGD subjects were downgraded to non-dysplastic and the remaining re-confirmed as LGD or indefinite dysplasia. The risk of progression in the reconfirmed LGD group was eight fold higher (hazards ratio: 7.6, 95% CI: 1.5-139.4) in a propensity score stratified model., Conclusions: In this large BE-LGD cohort, progression risk increased substantially when an additional panel of two expert GI pathologists re-confirmed a LGD diagnosis. These BE subjects may be candidates for endoscopic therapy. LGD was a marker of prevalent HGD/EAC in 18% of patients.

Background: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a validated quality measure for screening colonoscopy, but there are little data for other indications. The distribution of adenomas is not well described for these indications., Aim: To describe ADR and the adenoma distribution in the proximal and distal colon based on colonoscopy indication., Methods: Outpatient colonoscopies are subdivided by indication. PDR and ADR for the entire colon and for proximal and distal colon. Data were compared using generalized estimating equations to adjust for clustering amongst endoscopists while controlling for patient age and gender., Results: 3436 colonoscopies were reviewed (51.2%: men ( n = 1759)). Indications are screening 49.2%, surveillance 29.3%, change in bowel habit 8.4%, bleeding 5.8%, colitides 3.0%, pain 2.8%, and miscellaneous 1.5%. Overall ADR was 37% proximal ADR 28%, and distal ADR 17%. PDR and ADR were significantly higher in surveillance than in screening (PDR: 69% versus 51%; ADR: 50% versus 33%; p = 0.0001). Adenomas were more often detected in the proximal than in the distal colon, for all indications., Conclusions: Prevalence of polyps and adenomas differs based on colonoscopy indication. Adenoma detection is highest in surveillance and more commonly detected in the proximal colon. For quality assurance, distinct ADR and PDR targets may need to be established for different colonoscopy indications.

Background and Study Aims: Gastroenterology trainees acquire skill and proficiency in performing colonoscopies at different rates. The cause for heterogeneous competency among the trainees is unclear. Kinematic analysis of the wrist joint while performing colonoscopy can objectively assess the variation in wrist motion. Our objective was to test the hypothesis that the time spent by the trainees in extreme ranges of wrist motion will decrease as the trainees advance through the fellowship year., Subjects and Methods: Five first-year gastroenterology fellows were prospectively studied at four intervals while performing simulated colonoscopies. The setting was an endoscopy simulation laboratory at a tertiary care center. Kinematic assessment of wrist motion was done using a magnetic position/orientation tracker held in place by a custom-made arm sleeve and hand glove. The main outcome measure was time spent performing each of four ranges of wrist motion (mid, center, extreme, and out) for each wrist degree of freedom (pronation/supination, flexion/extension, and adduction/abduction)., Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the time spent for wrist movements across the three degrees of freedom throughout the study period. However, fellows spent significantly less time in extreme range (1.47 ± 0.34 min vs. 2.44 ± 0.34 min, P = 0.004) and center range (1.02 ± 0.34 min vs 1.9 ± 0.34 min, P = 0.01) at the end of the study compared to the baseline evaluation. The study was limited by the small number of subjects and performance of colonoscopies on a simulator rather than live patients., Conclusions: Gastroenterology trainees alter the time spent at the extreme range of wrist motion as they advance through training. Endoscopy training during the first 10 months of fellowship may have beneficial effects on learning ergonomically correct motion patterns.

Background: The frequency of nonneoplastic polypectomy (NNP) and its impact on the polyp detection rate (PDR) is unknown. The correlation between NNP and adenoma detection rate (ADR) and its impact on the cost of colonoscopy has not been investigated., Objective: To determine the rate of NNP in screening colonoscopy, the impact of NNP on the PDR, and the correlation of NNP with ADR. The increased cost of NNP during screening colonoscopy also was calculated., Design: We reviewed all screening colonoscopies. PDR and ADR were calculated. We then calculated a nonneoplastic polyp detection rate (patients with ≥1 nonneoplastic polyp)., Setting: Tertiary-care referral center., Patients: Patients who underwent screening colonoscopies from 2010 to 2011., Interventions: Colonoscopy., Main Outcome Measurements: ADR, PDR, NNP rate., Results: A total of 1797 colonoscopies were reviewed. Mean (±standard deviation) PDR was 47.7%±12.0%, and mean ADR was 27.3%±6.9%. The overall NNP rate was 10.4%±7.1%, with a range of 2.4% to 28.4%. Among all polypectomies (n=2061), 276 were for nonneoplastic polyps (13.4%). Endoscopists with a higher rate of nonneoplastic polyp detection were more likely to detect an adenoma (odds ratio 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.2). With one outlier excluded, there was a strong correlation between ADR and NNP (r=0.825; P<.001). The increased cost of removal of nonneoplastic polyps was $32,963., Limitations: Retrospective study., Conclusion: There is a strong correlation between adenoma detection and nonneoplastic polyp detection. The etiology is unclear, but nonneoplastic polyp detection rate may inflate the PDR for some endoscopists. NNP also adds an increased cost. Increasing the awareness of endoscopic appearances through advanced imaging techniques of normal versus neoplastic tissue may be an area to improve cost containment in screening colonoscopy., (Copyright © 2015 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Bowel dysfunction has been recognized as a predominant side effect of opioid use. Even though the effects of opioids on the stomach and small and large intestines have been well studied, there are limited data on opioid effects on esophageal function. The aim of this study was to compare esophageal pressure topography (EPT) of patients taking opioids at the time of the EPT (≤24 h) with chronic opioid users who were studied off opioid medications for at least 24 h using the Chicago classification v3.0., Methods: A retrospective review identified 121 chronic opioid users who completed EPT between March 2010 and August 2012. Demographic and manometric data were compared between the two groups using general linear models or χ(2)., Results: Of the 121 chronic opioid users, 66 were studied on opioid medications (≤24 h) and 55 were studied off opioid medications for at least 24 h. Esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow obstruction was significantly more prevalent in patients using opioids within 24 h compared with those who did not (27% vs. 7%, P=0.004). Mean 4 s integrated relaxation pressure was also significantly higher in patients studied on opioids (10.71 vs. 6.6 mm Hg, P=0.025). Resting lower esophageal sphincter pressures tended to be higher on opioids (31.61 vs. 26.98 mm Hg, P=0.25). Distal latency was significantly lower in patients studied on opioids (6.15 vs. 6.74 s, P=0.044)., Conclusions: Opioid use within 24 h of EPT is associated with more frequent EGJ outflow obstruction and spastic peristalsis compared with when opioid use is stopped for at least 24 h before the study.

Aim: To compare the yield of adenomas between narrow band imaging and white light when using high definition/magnification., Methods: This prospective, non-randomized comparative study was performed at the endoscopy unit of veteran affairs medical center in Phoenix, Arizona. Consecutive patients undergoing first average risk colorectal cancer screening colonoscopy were selected. Two experienced gastroenterologists performed all the procedures that were blinded to each other's findings. Demographic details were recorded. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Proportional data were compared using the χ(2) test and means were compared using the Student's t test. Tandem colonoscopy was performed in a sequential and segmental fashion using one of 3 strategies: white light followed by narrow band imaging [Group A: white light (WL) → narrow band imaging (NBI)]; narrow band imaging followed by white light (Group B: NBI → WL) and, white light followed by white light (Group C: WL → WL). Detection rate of missed polyps and adenomas were evaluated in all three groups., Results: Three hundred patients were studied (100 in each Group). Although the total time for the colonoscopy was similar in the 3 groups (23.8 ± 0.7, 22.2 ± 0.5 and 24.1 ± 0.7 min for Groups A, B and C, respectively), it reached statistical significance between Groups B and C (P < 0.05). The cecal intubation time in Groups B and C was longer than for Group A (6.5 ± 0.4 min and 6.5 ± 0.4 min vs 4.9 ± 0.3 min; P < 0.05). The withdrawal time for Groups A and C was longer than Group B (18.9 ± 0.7 min and 17.6 ± 0.6 min vs 15.7 ± 0.4 min; P < 0.05). Overall miss rate for polyps and adenomas detected in three groups during the second look was 18% and 17%, respectively (P = NS). Detection rate for polyps and adenomas after first look with white light was similar irrespective of the light used during the second look (WL → WL: 13.7% for polyps, 12.6% for adenomas; WL → NBI: 14.2% for polyps, 11.3% for adenomas). Miss rate of polyps and adenomas however was significantly higher when NBI was used first (29.3% and 30.3%, respectively; P < 0.05). Most missed adenomas were ≤ 5 mm in size. There was only one advanced neoplasia (defined by size only) missed during the first look., Conclusion: Our data suggest that the tandem nature of the procedure rather than the optical techniques was associated with the detection of additional polyps' and adenomas.

Colonoscopy is the gold standard test for colorectal cancer screening. The primary advantage of colonoscopy as opposed to other screening modalities is the ability to provide therapy by removal of precancerous lesions at the time of detection. However, colonoscopy may miss clinically important neoplastic polyps. The value of colonoscopy in reducing incidence of colorectal cancer is dependent on many factors including, the patient, provider, and facility level. A high quality examination includes adequate bowel preparation, optimal colonoscopy technique, meticulous inspection during withdrawal, identification of subtle flat lesions, and complete polypectomy. Considerable variation among institutions and endoscopists has been reported in the literature. In attempt to diminish this disparity, various approaches have been advocated to improve the quality of colonoscopy. The overall impact of these interventions is not yet well defined. Implementing optimal education and training and subsequently analyzing the impact of these endeavors in improvement of quality will be essential to augment the utility of colonoscopy for the prevention of colorectal cancer.