Amandeep K. Shergill

Complications of ERCP

d ( t s f t c s n d i a s a This is one of a series of position statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. This document is an update of a previous ASGE publication.1 In preparing this document, a search of the medical iterature was performed using PubMed. Additional refernces were obtained from the bibliographies of the identied articles and from recommendations of expert consulants. When limited or no data exist from well-designed rospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large eries and reports from recognized experts. Position stateents are based on a critical review of the available data nd expert consensus at the time that the document was rafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed o clarify aspects of this document, which may be revised s necessary to account for changes in technology, new ata, or other aspects of clinical practice. This document is intended to be an educational device o provide information that may assist endoscopists in roviding care to patients. This position statement is not a ule and should not be construed as establishing a legal tandard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requirng, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical ecisions in any particular case involve a complex analsis of the patient’s condition and available courses of ction. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an ndoscopist to take a course of action that varies from this osition statement. Since its introduction in 1968, ERCP has become a comonly performed endoscopic procedure.2 The diagnostic nd therapeutic utility of ERCP has been well demonstrated or a variety of disorders, including the management of choedocholithiasis, the diagnosis and management of biliary nd pancreatic neoplasms, and the postoperative manageent of biliary perioperative complications.3-5 The evolution of the role of ERCP has occurred simultaneously with that of other diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, most notably magnetic resonance imaging/MRCP, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (with or without intraoperative cholangiography), and EUS. For endoscopists to accurately assess the clinical appropriateness of ERCP, it is important to have a thorough

Complications of colonoscopy

Summary Endoscopic complications are rare but inevitable, occurring in fewer than 0.35% of procedures [B]. Knowledge of potential complications and their expected frequency can lead to an improved informed consent process [C]. Complications from the procedure include perforation, hemorrhage, postpolypectomy coagulation syndrome, infection, preparation-associated complications, and death, and are more likely to occur with therapeutic procedures rather than diagnostic procedures [B]. Risk factors for poylpectomy-associated complications include the location and size of the polyp, experience of the operator, polypectomy technique and possibly the type of electrocoagulation current used [B]. Use of saline solution injection under large sessile polyps decreases depth of thermal injury [A] and may decrease complications [B]. Early recognition of complications and prompt intervention may decrease patient morbidity [C]. Treatment of complications range from supportive for postpolypectomy coagulation syndrome, to repeat colonoscopy with injection or electrocoagulation for bleeding, to surgical repair for free perforation [B]. Consideration of the risks and benefits may improve clinical outcome by identifying potential complications and taking appropriate steps to minimize the risks [C].

The role of endoscopy in Barrett's esophagus and other premalignant conditions of the esophagus

i ( n d m e This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed using PubMed. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When limited or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results of large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time the guidelines are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. The recommendations were based on reviewed studies and were graded on the strength of the supporting evidence (Table 1).1 The strength of individual recommendations is based on both the aggregate evidence quality and an assessment of the anticipated benefits and harms. Weaker recommendations are indicated by phrases such as “we suggest,” whereas stronger recommendations are typically stated as “we recommend.” This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient’s condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from these guidelines.

Effect of raltegravir-containing intensification on HIV burden and T-cell activation in multiple gut sites of HIV-positive adults on suppressive antiretroviral therapy

Objective:To determine whether raltegravir-containing antiretroviral therapy (ART) intensification reduces HIV levels in the gut. Design:Open-label study in HIV-positive adults on ART with plasma HIV RNA below 40 copies/ml. Methods:Seven HIV-positive adults received 12 weeks of ART intensification with raltegravir alone or in combination with efavirenz or darunavir. Gut cells were obtained by upper and lower endoscopy with biopsies from duodenum, ileum, colon, and rectum at baseline and 12 weeks. Study outcomes included plasma HIV RNA, HIV DNA and RNA from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) and four gut sites, T-cell subsets, and activation markers. Results:Intensification produced no consistent decrease in HIV RNA in the plasma, PBMC, duodenum, colon, or rectum. However, five of seven participants had a decrease in unspliced HIV RNA per 106 CD4+ T cells in the ileum. There was a trend towards decreased T-cell activation in all sites, which was greatest for CD8+ T cells in the ileum and PBMC, and a trend towards increased CD4+ T cells in the ileum. Conclusion:Most HIV RNA and DNA in the blood and gut is not the result of ongoing replication that can be impacted by short-term intensification with raltegravir. However, the ileum may support ongoing productive infection in some patients on ART, even if the contribution to plasma RNA is not discernible.

Differences in HIV Burden and Immune Activation within the Gut of HIV-Positive Patients Receiving Suppressive Antiretroviral Therapy

BACKGROUND The gut is a major reservoir for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in patients receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART). We hypothesized that distinct immune environments within the gut may support varying levels of HIV. METHODS In 8 HIV-1-positive adults who were receiving ART and had CD4(+) T cell counts of >200 cells/μL and plasma viral loads of <40 copies/mL, levels of HIV and T cell activation were measured in blood samples and endoscopic biopsy specimens from the duodenum, ileum, ascending colon, and rectum. RESULTS HIV DNA and RNA levels per CD4(+) T cell were higher in all 4 gut sites compared with those in the blood. HIV DNA levels increased from the duodenum to the rectum, whereas the median HIV RNA level peaked in the ileum. HIV DNA levels correlated positively with T cell activation markers in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) but negatively with T cell activation markers in the gut. Multiply spliced RNA was infrequently detected in gut, and ratios of unspliced RNA to DNA were lower in the colon and rectum than in PBMCs, which reflects paradoxically low HIV transcription, given the higher level of T cell activation in the gut. CONCLUSIONS HIV DNA and RNA are both concentrated in the gut, but the inverse relationship between HIV DNA levels and T cell activation in the gut and the paradoxically low levels of HIV expression in the large bowel suggest that different processes drive HIV persistence in the blood and gut. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00884793 (PLUS1).

Applicability, Tolerability and Efficacy of Preemptive Antiviral Therapy in Hepatitis C‐Infected Patients Undergoing Liver Transplantation

Preliminary studies suggest preemptive anti‐HCV therapy in liver transplant recipients may enhance the rates of viral clearance, but the applicability and tolerability of preemptive therapy has not been evaluated in a contemporary cohort. In this randomized study, the safety and tolerability of preemptive standard (IFN) or pegylated (peg‐IFN) interferon alfa‐2b (3 MU thrice weekly or 1.5 μg/kg weekly), or IFN/peg‐IFN plus ribavirin (600 mg increased to 1.0–1.2 g daily) was initiated 2–6 weeks post‐transplantation and continued for a total of 48 weeks. Only 51 (41%) of 124 transplant recipients were eligible for preemptive treatment; eligible patients had lower model for end‐stage liver disease (MELD) and Childs‐Pugh scores pre‐transplantation and were more frequently live donor transplant recipients than ineligible patients. Dose reductions and discontinuations were required in 85% and 37% of patients, respectively, and 27% experienced serious adverse events. Growth factor (GF) use (erythropoietin and GCSF) in the latter half of the study did not significantly affect the frequency of dose reductions. Only 15% of patients were able to achieve full‐dose treatment during treatment. End‐of‐treatment and sustained virological responses were 13.6% and 9.1%, respectively, with most responders in the combination therapy group. We conclude that preemptive antiviral therapy is applicable to only a portion of transplant recipients, with ‘sicker’ patients less likely to be managed by this approach. Living donor liver transplant recipients were more frequently eligible for treatment than deceased donor recipients. Virological response rates are low, likely related to the poor tolerability of therapy and the lack of achievement of target drug doses. Future studies should focus on alternative dosing schedules with more aggressive use of adjuvant therapies, including GFs.

SCENIC International Consensus Statement on Surveillance and Management of Dysplasia in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Patients with ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s colitis have an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Most cases are believed to arise from dysplasia, and surveillance colonoscopy therefore is recommended to detect dysplasia. Detection of dysplasia traditionally has relied on both examination of the mucosa with targeted biopsies of visible lesions and extensive random biopsies to identify invisible dysplasia. Current U.S. guidelines recommend obtaining at least 32 random biopsy specimens from all segments of the colon as the foundation of endoscopic surveillance. However, much of the evidence that provides a basis for these recommendations is from older literature, when most dysplasia was diagnosed on random biopsies of colon mucosa. With the advent of video endoscopy and newer endoscopic technologies, investigators now report that most dysplasia discovered in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is visible. Such a paradigm shift may have important implications for the surveillance and management of dysplasia. The evolving evidence regarding newer endoscopic methods to detect dysplasia has resulted in variation among guideline recommendations from organizations around the world. We therefore sought to develop unifying consensus recommendations addressing 2 issues: (1) How should surveillance colonoscopy for detection of dysplasia be performed? (2) How should dysplasia identified at colonoscopy be managed?

Clinical Features of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients With Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection

Background—Patients with HIV infection exhibit increased rates of coronary events; however, the clinical features of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in HIV-infected patients have not been well defined. Methods and Results—Between 1993 and 2003, 68 HIV-infected patients were hospitalized with ACS. We compared the clinical features and outcome of these patients with those of 68 randomly selected control patients with ACS without HIV. HIV patients were on average more than a decade younger than controls and more likely to be male and current smokers and to have low HDL cholesterol. They were less likely than controls to have diabetes or hyperlipidemia, and their TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) risk scores on admission were significantly lower. At coronary angiography, the number of vessels with >50% stenosis was 1.3±1.0 in HIV patients and 1.9±1.2 in controls (P =0.007). Restenosis developed in 15 of 29 HIV patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention compared with 3 of 21 controls (52% versus 14%, P =0.006). Conclusions—HIV patients with ACS are younger and more likely to be males and current smokers and to have low HDL cholesterol levels compared with other ACS patients. Their TIMI risk scores are lower, and they are more likely to have single-vessel disease; however, their restenosis rates after percutaneous coronary intervention are unexpectedly high.

The role of endoscopy in the management of acute non-variceal upper GI bleeding

d c p B s i R This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed by using PubMed. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When few or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time that the guidelines are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. The recommendations are based on reviewed studies and are graded on the strength of the supporting evidence1 (Table 1). he strength of individual recommendations is based on oth the aggregate evidence quality and an assessment of the nticipated benefits and harms. Weaker recommendations re indicated by phrases such as “We suggest . . . ,” whereas tronger recommendations are typically stated as “We recmmend . . . .” This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient’s condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from these guidelines.

SCENIC international consensus statement on surveillance and management of dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease.

Section of Digestive Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut; Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut; Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Healthcare System and Stanford University School of Medicine (affiliate), Palo Alto, California; Division of Gastroenterology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; University of California at San Francisco, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, California; University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom