Faris Murad

Wireless capsule endoscopy

Over the last decade, WCE has established itself as a valuable test for imaging the small intestine. It is a safe and relatively easy procedure to perform that can provide valuable information in the diagnosis of small-bowel conditions. Its applications still remain limited within the esophagus and colon. Future developments may include improving visualization within the esophagus and developing technologies that may allow manipulation of the capsule within the GI tract and biopsy capabilities.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection

ESD is an established effective treatment modality for premalignant and early-stage malignant lesions of the stomach, esophagus, and colorectum. Compared with EMR, ESD is generally associated with higher rates of en bloc, R0, and curative resections and a lower rate of local recurrence. Oncologic outcomes with ESD compare favorably with competing surgical interventions, and ESD also serves as an excellent T-staging tool to identify noncurative resections that will require further treatment. ESD is technically demanding and has a higher rate of adverse events than most endoscopic procedures including EMR. As such,sufficient training is critical to ensure safe conduct and high-quality resections. A standardized training model for Western endoscopists has not been clearly established,but will be self-directed and include courses, animal model training, and optimally an observership at an expert center.Numerous dedicated ESD devices are now available in the United States from different manufacturers. Although the use of ESD in the United States is increasing, issues related to technical difficulty, limited training opportunities and mentors, risk of adverse events, long procedure duration,and suboptimal reimbursement may limit ESD adoption in the United States to a modest number of academic referral centers for the foreseeable future.

Tissue adhesives: cyanoacrylate glue and fibrin sealant

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported adverse events of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the “related articles” feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the Committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2012 for relevant articles by using the key words cyanoacrylate, cyanoacrylate glue, cyanoacrylate and gastroenterology, cyanoacrylate and endoscopy, fibrin glue, fibrin sealant, tissue glue and endoscopy. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Obesity as a risk factor for sedation-related complications during propofol-mediated sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND There are limited data on the safety of anesthesia-assisted endoscopy by using propofol-mediated sedation in obese individuals undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures (AEPs). OBJECTIVE To study the association between obesity (as measured by body mass index [BMI]) and the frequency of sedation-related complications (SRCs) in patients undergoing AEPs. DESIGN Prospective cohort study. SETTING Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS A total of 1016 consecutive patients undergoing AEPs (BMI <30, 730 [72%]; 30-35, 159 [16%]; >35, 127 [12%]). INTERVENTION Monitored anesthesia sedation with propofol alone or in combination with benzodiazepines and/or opioids. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS SRCs, airway maneuvers (AMs), hypoxemia, hypotension requiring vasopressors, and early procedure termination were compared across 3 groups. RESULTS There were 203 AMs in 13.9% of patients, hypoxemia in 7.3%, need for vasopressors in 0.8%, and premature termination in 0.6% of patients. Increasing BMI was associated with an increased frequency of AMs (BMI <30, 10.5%; 30-35, 18.9%; >35-26.8%; P < .001) and hypoxemia (BMI <30, 5.3%; 30-35, 9.4%; >35, 13.4%; P = .001); there was no difference in the frequency of need for vasopressors (P = .254) and premature termination of procedures (P = .401). On multivariable analysis, BMI (odds ratio [OR] 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3-3.1), age (OR 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1), and American Society of Anesthesiologists class 3 or higher (OR 2.4; 95% CI, 1.1-5.0) were independent predictors of SRCs. In obese individuals (n = 286), there was no difference in the frequency of SRCs in patients receiving propofol alone or in combination (P = .48). LIMITATIONS Single tertiary center study. CONCLUSIONS Although obesity was associated with an increased frequency of SRCs, propofol sedation can be used safely in obese patients undergoing AEPs when administered by trained professionals.

Impact of Retroflexion Vs. Second Forward View Examination of the Right Colon on Adenoma Detection: A Comparison Study

OBJECTIVES:Although screening colonoscopy is effective in preventing distal colon cancers, effectiveness in preventing right-sided colon cancers is less clear. Previous studies have reported that retroflexion in the right colon improves adenoma detection. We aimed to determine whether a second withdrawal from the right colon in retroflexion vs. forward view alone leads to the detection of additional adenomas.METHODS:Patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy were invited to participate in a parallel, randomized, controlled trial at two centers. After cecal intubation, the colonoscope was withdrawn to the hepatic flexure, all visualized polyps removed, and endoscopist confidence recorded on a 5-point Likert scale. Patients were randomized to a second exam of the proximal colon in forward (FV) or retroflexion view (RV), and adenoma detection rates (ADRs) compared. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate predictors of identifying adenomas on the second withdrawal from the proximal colon.RESULTS:A total of 850 patients (mean age 59.1±8.3 years, 59% female) were randomly assigned to FV (N=400) or RV (N=450). Retroflexion was successful in 93.5%. The ADR (46% FV and 47% RV) and numbers of adenomas per patient (0.9±1.4 FV and 1.1±2.1 RV) were similar (P=0.75 for both). At least one additional adenoma was detected on second withdrawal in similar proportions (10.5% FV and 7.5% RV, P=0.13). Predictors of identifying adenomas on the second withdrawal included older age (odds ratio (OR)=1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01–1.08), adenomas seen on initial withdrawal (OR=2.8, 95% CI=1.7–4.7), and low endoscopist confidence in quality of first examination of the right colon (OR=4.8, 95% CI=1.9–12.1). There were no adverse events.CONCLUSIONS:Retroflexion in the right colon can be safely achieved in the majority of patients undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. Reexamination of the right colon in either retroflexed or forward view yielded similar, incremental ADRs. A second exam of the right colon should be strongly considered in patients who have adenomas discovered in the right colon, particularly when endoscopist confidence in the quality of initial examination is low.

Rapid on-site evaluation for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of the pancreas decreases the incidence of repeat biopsy procedures.

Rapid on‐site evaluation (ROSE) for endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration (EUS‐FNA) biopsy of the pancreas provides immediate feedback regarding cellular adequacy to aid in obtaining a definitive diagnosis and has the potential to avoid repeat procedures. The objective of the current study was to measure the impact of ROSE service on the incidence of repeat EUS FNA biopsy procedures.

Variation in Aptitude of Trainees in Endoscopic Ultrasonography, Based on Cumulative Sum Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS Studies have reported substantial variation in the competency of advanced endoscopy trainees, indicating a need for more supervised training in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). We used a standardized, validated, data collection tool to evaluate learning curves and measure competency in EUS among trainees at multiple centers. METHODS In a prospective study performed at 15 centers, 17 trainees with no prior EUS experience were evaluated by experienced attending endosonographers at the 25th and then every 10th upper EUS examination, over a 12-month training period. A standardized data collection form was used (using a 5-point scoring system) to grade the EUS examination. Cumulative sum analysis was applied to produce a learning curve for each trainee; it tracked the overall performance based on median scores at different stations and also at each station. Competency was defined by a median score of 1, with acceptable and unacceptable failure rates of 10% and 20%, respectively. RESULTS Twelve trainees were included in the final analysis. Each of the trainees performed 265 to 540 EUS examinations (total, 4257 examinations). There was a large amount of variation in their learning curves: 2 trainees crossed the threshold for acceptable performance (at cases 225 and 245), 2 trainees had a trend toward acceptable performance (after 289 and 355 cases) but required continued observation, and 8 trainees needed additional training and observation. Similar results were observed at individual stations. CONCLUSIONS A specific case load does not ensure competency in EUS; 225 cases should be considered the minimum caseload for training because we found that no trainee achieved competency before this point. Ongoing training should be provided for trainees until competency is confirmed using objective measures.

Tools for endoscopic stricture dilation

To promote the appropriate use of new or emerging endoscopic technologies and those technologies that have an impact on endoscopic practice, the ASGE Technology Committee presents relevant information to practicing physicians in the form of technology reviews. Evidence-based methodology is used whereby a MEDLINE literature search is performed to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic, a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search is performed to identify the reported complications of a given technology, and both are supplemented by accessing the “related articles” feature of PubMed and by scrutiny of pertinent references cited in the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking; in such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinion are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Reviews are drafted by 1 or 2 committee members, reviewed in significant detail by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is appropriate, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2012 for articles related to dilation by using the keywords “endoscopic dilation,” “bougie dilators,” “balloon dilators,” “esophageal strictures,” “anastomotic strictures,” “inflammatory bowel strictures,” “pancreatic strictures,” “biliary strictures,” “colonic strictures,” “achalasia,” “pyloric stenosis,” and “self-expanding metal stents.” Practitioners should continue to monitor the medical literature for subsequent data about the efficacy, safety, and socioeconomic aspects of these technologies.

A limited immunocytochemical panel for the distinction of subepithelial gastrointestinal mesenchymal neoplasms sampled by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration.

We studied the use of immunocytochemical analysis with material procured by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-guided FNA) for the diagnosis of subepithelial intramural gastrointestinal (GI) mesenchymal neoplasms (SIGIMNs). We identified all EUS-guided FNA specimens of SIGIMNs that had undergone immunocytochemical analysis. Results were compared with follow-up histologic diagnoses. There were 95 aspirates that were diagnosed as GI mesenchymal tumors (GI stromal tumors [GISTs], n = 46), leiomyomas (n = 38), peripheral nerve sheath tumors (n = 5), and other neoplasms by cytologic examination. Immunoreactivity with antibodies to CD117 always predicted GIST at follow-up; 15 of 16 cases immunoreactive with antibodies to CD34 were found to be GISTs at follow-up. Strong immunoreactivity with antibodies to smooth muscle actin or desmin usually predicted a leiomyoma at follow-up aside from a single glomus tumor and a case with apparent nonneoplastic smooth muscle contaminant. When sufficient material is present, immunocytochemical analysis used with material obtained by EUS-guided FNA is highly predictive of final pathologic diagnosis.

Technology status evaluation reportElectrosurgical generators

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the “related articles” feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the Committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2012 for articles related to endoscopy by using the key words electrosurgical generators, electrosurgical generator units, electrosurgery and endoscopy, current and endoscopy, Endocut, argon plasma coagulation, complications and endoscopy, monopolar and endoscopy, bipolar and endoscopy, and a variety of related searches. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.