Gustavo Andrade de Paulo

Long-term result of endoscopic treatment of an ampullary adenoma with extension into the common bile duct

A 56-year-old man with chronic hepatic disease due to hepatitis C and esophageal varices was referred to our hospital with an elevated alpha-fetoprotein level and a solid lesion in the distal common bile duct (CBD) seen on computed tomography (CT) scanning. This lesion was protruding into the second part of the duodenum and causing dilatation of the biliary tree. An upper gastrointestinal endoscopy revealed a raised lesion at the major duodenal papilla (▶Fig. 1). Biopsies showed a tubular adenoma with low grade dysplasia. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) revealed thickening that was restricted to the mucosal layer and choledocholithiasis. The patient was not suitable for surgical treatment because of his portal hypertension. We therefore performed an endoscopic papillectomy, followed by a sphincterotomy and placement of a plastic pancreatic stent. A follow-up endoscopy 7 days later revealed a residual lesion with a filling defect in the distal CBD (▶Fig. 2). After 30 days, a cholangioscopy was performed using CO2 and a pediatric gastroscope passed over a guidewire (▶Fig. 3). Biopsies were taken and the residual lesion was treated with argon plasma coagulation (APC) at 20W and 1.5 L/min (▶Video1). The patient remains completely asymptomatic 5 years later, receiving annual follow-up, and having no residual lesions (▶Fig. 4). Ampullary adenomas can be found incidentally on endoscopic screening examinations and harbor a malignant potential [1]. In a retrospective study, 180 patients who had been treated for ampullary adenomas were followed up for a mean of 4.4 years [2]. There was no difference in endoscopic and operative resection of the ampullary adenomas in terms of local recurrence. However, intraductal E-Videos

Comparison of the pull and introducer percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy techniques in patients with head and neck cancer

Background and study aims Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients is associated with higher complication and mortality rates when compared to a general patient population. The pull technique is still the preferred technique worldwide but it has some limitations. The aim of this study is to compare the pull and introducer PEG techniques in patients with HNC. Patients and methods This study is based on a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of 309 patients with HNC who underwent PEG in the Cancer Institute of São Paulo. Results The procedure was performed with the standard endoscope in 205 patients and the introducer technique was used in 137 patients. There was one procedure-related mortality. Age, sex and albumin level were similar in both groups. However in the introducer technique group, patients had a higher tumor stage, a lower Karnofsky status, and presented more frequently with tracheostomy and trismus. Overall, major, minor, immediate and late complications and 30-day mortality rates were similar but the introducer technique group presented more minor bleeding and tube dysfunctions. Conclusion The push and introducer PEG techniques seem to be both safe and effective but present different complication profiles. The choice of PEG technique in patients with HNC should be made individually.

II Brazilian consensus statement on endoscopic ultrasonography

Background and Objectives: At the time of its introduction in the early 80s, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) was indicated for diagnostic purposes. Recently, EUS has been employed to assist or to be the main platform of complex therapeutic interventions. Methods: From a series of relevant new topics in the literature and based on the need to complement the I Brazilian consensus on EUS, twenty experienced endosonographers identified and reviewed the pertinent literature in databases. The quality of evidence, strength of recommendations, and level of consensus were graded and voted on. Results: Consensus was reached for eight relevant topics: treatment of gastric varices, staging of nonsmall cell lung cancer, biliary drainage, tissue sampling of subepithelial lesions (SELs), treatment of pancreatic fluid collections, tissue sampling of pancreatic solid lesions, celiac neurolysis, and evaluation of the incidental pancreatic cysts. Conclusions: There is a high level of evidence for staging of nonsmall cell lung cancer; biopsy of SELs as the safest method; unilateral and bilateral injection techniques are equivalent for EUS-guided celiac neurolysis, and in patients with visible ganglia, celiac ganglia neurolysis appears to lead to better results. There is a moderate level of evidence for: yield of tissue sampling of pancreatic solid lesions is not influenced by the needle shape, gauge, or employed aspiration technique; EUS-guided and percutaneous biliary drainage present similar clinical success and adverse event rates; plastic and metallic stents are equivalent in the EUS-guided treatment of pancreatic pseudocyst. There is a low level of evidence in the routine use of EUS-guided treatment of gastric varices.

Endoscopic and Echoendoscopic Evaluation of Gastric Varices Eradication with Cianoacrilate

Endoscopic and Echoendoscopic Evaluation of Gastric Varices Eradication with Cianoacrilate Erika Macedo, Fernanda Thuler, Veruska Di Sena, Gustavo De Paulo, Frank Nakao, Jose Ardengh, Angelo P. Ferrari Jr. Introduction: bleeding from gastric varices rupture is more severe than from esophageal varices. Usual endoscopic techniques (sclerotherapy and banding) are not good choices for gastric varices eradication. Cianoacrilate endoscopic injection has been reported as the best choice for such patients. Aim: to asses the value of echoendoscopy in monitoring gastric varices eradication by cianoacrilate injection. Method: 17 patients with Sarin type GEV2 varices were submitted to endoscopic injection of a cianoacrilate and lipiodol solution (1 ml each). Patients younger than 18 years and/or with severe systemic disease were excluded from the study. All patients were submitted to EUS and endoscopy before and at 3, 6 and 12 months after index treatment. Doppler signal was used during EUS. After each 3-month interval the injection was repeated if there was endoscopic evidence of remaining or recurrent varices. Results: our study group consisted of 10 men and 7 women, mean age 50.6 years (range 22 76, median 51 years). Portal hypertension was secondary to cirrhosis due to schistosomiasis (4), chronic B or C viral hepatitis (3 and 8) and alcohol abuse (2). Endoscopic injection was successfully performed in the U turn position, with no immediate complications. Three patients are still waiting for the first 3-month re-evaluation and two patients died of hepatic insufficiency, unrelated to bleeding. Among the remaining 12 patients, 8 finished the study (1 year follow-up), 4 had their 3and 6month follow-up (2 in each group). In seven patients there was a need for additional injection sessions: a mean of 1.8 sessions/patient (range 1-3). Endoscopic follow up showed complete eradication of variceal novel in every patient. EUS follow up showed absence of variceal flow (negative Doppler signal) in every patient considered eradicated by conventional endoscopy. There were no complications. Conclusion: endoscopic injection of cianoacrilate plus lipiodol is a safe and effective method for gastric varices eradication. EUS evaluation allows detection of variceal flow andmay help in planning additional treatment as well as in monitoring the patient.