James M. Scheiman

ACCF/ACG/AHA 2008 expert consensus document on reducing the gastrointestinal risks of antiplatelet therapy and NSAID use: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on clinical expert consensus documents

ACCF TASK FORCE MEMBERS Robert A. Harrington, MD, FACC, Chair; Eric R. Bates, MD, FACC; Charles R. Bridges, MD, MPH, FACC; Mark J. Eisenberg, MD, MPH, FACC; Victor A. Ferrari, MD, FACC; Mark A. Hlatky, MD, FACC; Sanjay Kaul, MBBS, FACC; Jonathan R. Lindner, MD, FACC‡; David J. Moliterno, MD, FACC; Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, FACC; Richard S. Schofield, MD, FACC‡; Robert S. Rosenson, MD, FACC; James H. Stein, MD, FACC; Howard H. Weitz, MD, FACC; Deborah J. Wesley, RN, BSN

Endoscopic ultrasound is highly accurate and directs management in patients with neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas

OBJECTIVE:Preoperative localization of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors with traditional imaging fails in 40–60% of patients. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is highly sensitive in the detection of these tumors. Previous reports included relatively few patients or required the collaboration of multiple centers. We report the results of EUS evaluation of 82 patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.METHODS:We prospectively used EUS early in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with biochemical or clinical evidence of neuroendocrine tumors. Patients had surgical confirmation of tumor localization or clinical follow-up of >1 yr.RESULTS:Eighty-two patients underwent 91 examinations (cases). Thirty patients had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type I. One hundred pancreatic tumors were visualized by EUS in 54 different patients. The remaining 28 patients had no pancreatic tumor or an extrapancreatic tumor. Surgical/pathological confirmation was obtained in 75 patients. The mean tumor diameter was 1.51 cm and 71% of the tumors were ≤2.0 cm in diameter. Of the 54 explorations with surgical confirmation of a pancreatic tumor, EUS correctly localized the tumor in 50 patients (93%). Twenty-nine insulinomas, 18 gastrinomas, as well as one glucagonoma, one carcinoid tumor, and one somatostatinoma were localized. The most common site for tumor localization was the pancreatic head (46 patients). Most tumors were hypoechoic, homogenous, and had distinct margins. EUS of the pancreas was correctly negative in 20 of 21 patients (specificity, 95%). EUS was more accurate than angiography with or without stimulation testing (secretin for gastrinoma, calcium for insulinoma), transcutaneous ultrasound, and CT in those patients undergoing further imaging procedures. EUS was not reliable in localizing extrapancreatic tumors.CONCLUSIONS:In this series, the largest single center experience reported to date, EUS had an overall sensitivity and accuracy of 93% for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Our results support the use of EUS as a primary diagnostic modality in the evaluation and management of patients with neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas.

ACCF/ACG/AHA 2008 Expert Consensus Document on Reducing the Gastrointestinal Risks of Antiplatelet Therapy and NSAID Use

This document has been developed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents, the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), and the American Heart Association (AHA). Expert consensus documents (ECDs) are intended to inform practitioners, payers, and other interested parties of the opinion of the ACCF and document cosponsors concerning evolving areas of clinical practice and/or technologies that are widely available or new to the practice community. Topics chosen for coverage by ECDs are so designed because the evidence base, the experience with technology, and/or the clinical practice are not considered sufficiently well developed to be evaluated by the formal American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) practice guidelines process. Often the topic is the subject of ongoing investigation. Thus, the reader should view ECDs as the best attempt of the ACCF and other cosponsors to inform and guide clinical practice in areas where rigorous evidence may not be available or the evidence to date is not widely accepted. When feasible, ECDs include indications or contraindications. Topics covered by ECDs may be addressed subsequently by the ACC/AHA Practice Guidelines Committee as new evidence evolves and is evaluated. The Task Force on ECDs makes every …

A Randomized Trial of Rectal Indomethacin to Prevent Post-ERCP Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND Preliminary research suggests that rectally administered nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs may reduce the incidence of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). METHODS In this multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial, we assigned patients at elevated risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis to receive a single dose of rectal indomethacin or placebo immediately after ERCP. Patients were determined to be at high risk on the basis of validated patient- and procedure-related risk factors. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis, which was defined as new upper abdominal pain, an elevation in pancreatic enzymes to at least three times the upper limit of the normal range 24 hours after the procedure, and hospitalization for at least 2 nights. RESULTS A total of 602 patients were enrolled and completed follow-up. The majority of patients (82%) had a clinical suspicion of sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in 27 of 295 patients (9.2%) in the indomethacin group and in 52 of 307 patients (16.9%) in the placebo group (P=0.005). Moderate-to-severe pancreatitis developed in 13 patients (4.4%) in the indomethacin group and in 27 patients (8.8%) in the placebo group (P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Among patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis, rectal indomethacin significantly reduced the incidence of the condition. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00820612.).

Celecoxib versus omeprazole and diclofenac in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis (CONDOR): a randomised trial

BACKGROUND Cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and non-selective NSAIDs plus a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) have similar upper gastrointestinal outcomes, but risk of clinical outcomes across the entire gastrointestinal tract might be lower with selective drugs than with non-selective drugs. We aimed to compare risk of gastrointestinal events associated with celecoxib versus diclofenac slow release plus omeprazole. METHODS We undertook a 6-month, double-blind, randomised trial in patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis at increased gastrointestinal risk at 196 centres in 32 countries or territories. Patients tested negative for Helicobacter pylori and were aged 60 years and older or 18 years and older with previous gastroduodenal ulceration. We used a computer-generated randomisation schedule to assign patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive celecoxib 200 mg twice a day or diclofenac slow release 75 mg twice a day plus omeprazole 20 mg once a day. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was a composite of clinically significant upper or lower gastrointestinal events adjudicated by an independent committee. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00141102. FINDINGS 4484 patients were randomly allocated to treatment (2238 celecoxib; 2246 diclofenac plus omeprazole) and were included in intention-to-treat analyses. 20 (0.9%) patients receiving celecoxib and 81 (3.8%) receiving diclofenac plus omeprazole met criteria for the primary endpoint (hazard ratio 4.3, 95% CI 2.6-7.0; p<0.0001). 114 (6%) patients taking celecoxib versus 167 (8%) taking diclofenac plus omeprazole withdrew early because of gastrointestinal adverse events (p=0.0006). INTERPRETATION Risk of clinical outcomes throughout the gastrointestinal tract was lower in patients treated with a COX-2-selective NSAID than in those receiving a non-selective NSAID plus a PPI. These findings should encourage review of approaches to reduce risk of NSAID treatment. FUNDING Pfizer Inc.

Prevention of ulcers by esomeprazole in at-risk patients using non-selective NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors

OBJECTIVES:Proton pump inhibitors reduce ulcer recurrence in non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) users, but their impact in at-risk ulcer-free patients using the current spectrum of prescribed agents has not been clearly defined. We assessed esomeprazole for ulcer prevention in at-risk patients (≥60 yr and/or ulcer history) taking NSAIDs, including COX-2 inhibitors. Such studies are particularly relevant, given that concerns regarding adverse cardiovascular outcomes among COX-2 inhibitor users may prompt re-evaluation of their use.METHODS:We conducted two similar double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter studies; VENUS (United States) and PLUTO (multinational). A total of 844 and 585 patients requiring daily NSAIDs, including COX-2 inhibitors were randomized to receive esomeprazole (20 or 40 mg) or placebo, daily for 6 months.RESULTS:In the VENUS study, the life table estimated proportion of patients who developed ulcers over 6 months (primary variable, intent-to-treat population) was 20.4% on placebo, 5.3% on esomeprazole 20 mg (p < 0.001), and 4.7% on esomeprazole 40 mg (p < 0.0001). In the PLUTO study, the values were 12.3% on placebo, 5.2% with esomeprazole 20 mg (p= 0.018), and 4.4% with esomeprazole 40 mg (p= 0.007). Significant reductions were observed for users of both non-selective NSAIDs and COX-2 inhibitors. Pooled ulcer rates for patients using COX-2 inhibitors (n = 400) were 16.5% on placebo, 0.9% on esomeprazole 20 mg (p < 0.001) and 4.1% on esomeprazole 40 mg (p= 0.002). Esomeprazole was well tolerated and associated with better symptom control than placebo.CONCLUSIONS:For at-risk patients, esomeprazole was effective in preventing ulcers in long-term users of NSAIDs, including COX-2 inhibitors.

Can endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography replace ERCP in patients with suspected biliary disease? A prospective trial and cost analysis.

OBJECTIVES:ERCP is the gold standard for pancreaticobiliary evaluation but is associated with complications. Less invasive diagnostic alternatives with similar capabilities may be cost-effective, particularly in situations involving low prevalence of disease. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and ERCP in the same patients with suspected extrahepatic biliary disease. The economic outcomes of EUS-, MRCP-, and ERCP-based diagnostic strategies were evaluated.METHODS:Prospective cohort study of patients referred for ERCP with suspected biliary disease. MRCP and EUS were performed within 24 h before ERCP. The investigators were blinded to the results of the alternative imaging studies. A cost-utility analysis was performed for initial ERCP, MRCP, and EUS strategies for these patients.RESULTS:A total of 30 patients were studied. ERCP cholangiogram failed in one patient, and another patient did not complete MRCP because of claustrophobia. The final diagnoses (n = 28) were CBD stone (mean = 4 mm; range = 3–6 mm) in five patients; biliary stricture in three patients, and normal biliary tree in 20. Two patients had pancreatitis after therapeutic ERCP, one after precut sphincterotomy followed by a normal cholangiogram. EUS was more sensitive than MRCP in the detection of choledocolithiasis (80%vs 40%), with similar specificity. MRCP had a poor specificity and positive predictive value for the diagnosis of biliary stricture (76%/25%) compared to EUS (100%/100%), with similar sensitivity. The overall accuracy of MRCP for any abnormality was 61% (95% CI = 0.41–0.78) compared to 89% (CI = 0.72–0.98) for EUS. Among those patients with a normal biliary tree, the proportion correctly identified with each test was 95% for EUS and 65% for MRCP (p < 0.02). The cost for each strategy per patient evaluated was

ACCF/ACG/AHA 2010 expert Consensus Document on the concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors and thienopyridines: A focused update of the ACCF/ACG/AHA 2008 expert consensus document on reducing the gastrointestinal risks of antiplatelet therapy and NSAID use

1346 for ERCP,

Low-dose aspirin and upper gastrointestinal damage: epidemiology, prevention and treatment.

1111 for EUS, and

Cyclooxygenase-2 expression in gastric antral mucosa before and after eradication of Helicobacter pylori infection

1145 for MRCP.CONCLUSIONS:In this patient population with a low disease prevalence, EUS was superior to MRCP for choledocholithiasis. EUS was most useful for confirming a normal biliary tree and should be considered a low-risk alternative to ERCP. Although MRCP had the lowest procedural reimbursement, the initial EUS strategy had the greatest cost-utility by avoiding unnecessary ERCP examinations.