Lars Aabakken

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration biopsy: a large single centre experience

BACKGROUND Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) is a recent innovation in the evaluation of gastrointestinal and pulmonary malignancies. AIMS To review the experience with EUS-FNA of a large single centre. METHODS 333 consecutive patients underwent EUS-FNA. Follow up data were available on 327 lesions in 317 patients, including 160 lymph nodes, 144 pancreatic lesions, 15 extraintestinal masses, and eight intramural tumours. RESULTS A primary diagnosis of malignancy was obtained by EUS-FNA in 62% of patients with clinically suspicious lesions. The overall accuracy of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of malignancy was 86%, with sensitivity of 84% and specificity of 96%. With respect to lesion types, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 85%, 100%, and 89% for lymph nodes; 82%, 100%, and 85% for pancreatic lesions; 88%, 100%, and 90% for perirectal masses; and 50%, 25%, and 38% for intramural lesions, respectively. Compared with size and sonographic criteria, EUS-FNA in the evaluation of lymph nodes provided superior accuracy and specificity, without compromising sensitivity. Inadequate specimens were obtained from only six patients, including 3/5 with stromal tumors. Only one complication occurred. CONCLUSIONS EUS-FNA is safe and can readily obtain tissue specimens adequate for cytopathological diagnoses. Compared with size and sonographic criteria, it is a superior modality for the detection of nodal metastases. While providing accurate diagnosis of pancreatic and perirectal malignancies, results suggest the technique is less useful for intramural lesions.

A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop

Patients and practitioners expect that their endoscopy procedures will go smoothly and according to plan. There are several reasons why they may be disappointed. The procedure may fail technically (eg, incomplete colonoscopy, failed biliary cannulation). It may seem to be successful technically but turn out to be clinically unhelpful (eg, a diagnosis missed, an unsuccessful treatment), or there may be an early relapse (eg, stent dysfunction). In addition, some patients and relatives may be disappointed by a lack of courtesy and poor communication, even when everything otherwise works well. The most feared negative outcome is when something ‘‘goes wrong’’ and the patient experiences a ‘‘complication.’’ This term has unfortunate medicolegal connotations and is perhaps better avoided. Describing these deviations from the plan as ‘‘unplanned events’’ fits nicely

Diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH). Main Recommendations MR1. ESGE recommends immediate assessment of hemodynamic status in patients who present with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH), with prompt intravascular volume replacement initially using crystalloid fluids if hemodynamic instability exists (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR2. ESGE recommends a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy that aims for a target hemoglobin between 7 g/dL and 9 g/dL. A higher target hemoglobin should be considered in patients with significant co-morbidity (e. g., ischemic cardiovascular disease) (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR3. ESGE recommends the use of the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Outpatients determined to be at very low risk, based upon a GBS score of 0 - 1, do not require early endoscopy nor hospital admission. Discharged patients should be informed of the risk of recurrent bleeding and be advised to maintain contact with the discharging hospital (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR4. ESGE recommends initiating high dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPI), intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (80 mg then 8 mg/hour), in patients presenting with acute UGIH awaiting upper endoscopy. However, PPI infusion should not delay the performance of early endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR5. ESGE does not recommend the routine use of nasogastric or orogastric aspiration/lavage in patients presenting with acute UGIH (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR6. ESGE recommends intravenous erythromycin (single dose, 250 mg given 30 - 120 minutes prior to upper gastrointestinal [GI] endoscopy) in patients with clinically severe or ongoing active UGIH. In selected patients, pre-endoscopic infusion of erythromycin significantly improves endoscopic visualization, reduces the need for second-look endoscopy, decreases the number of units of blood transfused, and reduces duration of hospital stay (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR7. Following hemodynamic resuscitation, ESGE recommends early (≤ 24 hours) upper GI endoscopy. Very early (< 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy may be considered in patients with high risk clinical features, namely: hemodynamic instability (tachycardia, hypotension) that persists despite ongoing attempts at volume resuscitation; in-hospital bloody emesis/nasogastric aspirate; or contraindication to the interruption of anticoagulation (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR8. ESGE recommends that peptic ulcers with spurting or oozing bleeding (Forrest classification Ia and Ib, respectively) or with a nonbleeding visible vessel (Forrest classification IIa) receive endoscopic hemostasis because these lesions are at high risk for persistent bleeding or rebleeding (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR9. ESGE recommends that peptic ulcers with an adherent clot (Forrest classification IIb) be considered for endoscopic clot removal. Once the clot is removed, any identified underlying active bleeding (Forrest classification Ia or Ib) or nonbleeding visible vessel (Forrest classification IIa) should receive endoscopic hemostasis (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR10. In patients with peptic ulcers having a flat pigmented spot (Forrest classification IIc) or clean base (Forrest classification III), ESGE does not recommend endoscopic hemostasis as these stigmata present a low risk of recurrent bleeding. In selected clinical settings, these patients may be discharged to home on standard PPI therapy, e. g., oral PPI once-daily (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR11. ESGE recommends that epinephrine injection therapy not be used as endoscopic monotherapy. If used, it should be combined with a second endoscopic hemostasis modality (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR12. ESGE recommends PPI therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with adherent clot not receiving endoscopic hemostasis. PPI therapy should be high dose and administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR13. ESGE does not recommend routine second-look endoscopy as part of the management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH). However, in patients with clinical evidence of rebleeding following successful initial endoscopic hemostasis, ESGE recommends repeat upper endoscopy with hemostasis if indicated. In the case of failure of this second attempt at hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) or surgery should be considered (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR14. In patients with NVUGIH secondary to peptic ulcer, ESGE recommends investigating for the presence of Helicobacter pylori in the acute setting with initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy when H. pylori is detected. Re-testing for H. pylori should be performed in those patients with a negative test in the acute setting. Documentation of successful H. pylori eradication is recommended (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR15. In patients receiving low dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis who develop peptic ulcer bleeding, ESGE recommends aspirin be resumed immediately following index endoscopy if the risk of rebleeding is low (e. g., FIIc, FIII). In patients with high risk peptic ulcer (FIa, FIb, FIIa, FIIb), early reintroduction of aspirin by day 3 after index endoscopy is recommended, provided that adequate hemostasis has been established (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

Single- vs. double-balloon enteroscopy in small-bowel diagnostics: a randomized multicenter trial

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS Double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) is the first choice endoscopic technique for small-bowel visualization. However, preparation and handling of the double-balloon enteroscope is complex. Recently, a single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) system has been introduced as being a simplified, less-complex balloon-assisted enteroscopy system. PATIENTS AND METHODS This study was a randomized international multicenter trial comparing two balloon-assisted enteroscopy systems: DBE vs. SBE. Consecutive patients referred for balloon-assisted enteroscopy were randomized to either DBE or SBE. Patients were blinded with regard to the type of instrument used. The primary study outcome was oral insertion depth. Secondary outcomes included complete small-bowel visualization, anal insertion depth, patient discomfort, and adverse events. Patient discomfort during and after the procedure was scored using a visual analog scale. RESULTS A total of 130 patients were included over 12 months: 65 with DBE and 65 with the SBE technique. Patient and procedure characteristics were comparable between the two groups. Mean oral intubation depth was 253 cm with DBE and 258 cm with SBE, showing noninferiority of SBE vs. DBE. Complete visualization of the small bowel was achieved in 18 % and 11 % of procedures in the DBE and SBE groups, respectively. Mean anal intubation depth was 107 cm in the DBE group and 118 cm in the SBE group. Diagnostic yield and mean pain scores during and after the procedures were similar in the two groups. No adverse events were observed during or after the examinations. CONCLUSIONS This head-to-head comparison study shows that DBE and SBE have a comparable performance and diagnostic yield for evaluation of the small bowel.

Outcome of four weeks’ intervention with probiotics on symptoms and endoscopic appearance after surgical reconstruction with a J-configurated ileal-pouch-anal-anastomosis in ulcerative colitis

Objective Pouchitis is a common and troublesome condition in patients operated on with ileal-pouch-anal-anastomosis (IPAA). A disturbed microecology in the pouch has been suggested as one possible explanation. In a previous double-blind, randomized, controlled study we demonstrated clinical improvement of symptoms in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) operated on with IPAA, during intervention with live probiotic microbes Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteriae. The aim of the present study was to confirm our previous results in a much larger material, including clinical symptoms, faecal flora and endoscopic evaluation, and to compare the results in UC/IPAA patients with those of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) with IPAA and UC patients with ileorectal anastomosis (IRA). Material and methods Five hundred millilitres of a fermented milk product (Cultura) containing live lactobacilli (La-5) and bifidobacteriae (Bb-12) was given daily for 4 weeks to 51 UC patients and 10 patients with FAP, operated on with IPAA, and six UC patients operated on for IRA. Stool samples were cultured for examination of lactobacilli, bifidobacteriae, fungi and pH before, during and after intervention. Before, during and after intervention, endoscopic evaluation was performed. Categorized symptomatology was examined prospectively using diary cards in addition to an interview, before and on the last day of intervention. Results The number of lactobacilli and bifidobacteriae increased significantly during intervention in the UC patients operated on with IPAA and remained significantly increased one week after intervention. Involuntary defecation, leakage, abdominal cramps and the need for napkins (category I), faecal number and consistency (category II) and mucus and urge to evacuate stools (category III) were significantly decreased during intervention in the UC/IPAA group. In the FAP group there was a significant decrease in faecal leakage, abdominal cramps and use of napkins (category I) during intervention. The median endoscopic score of inflammation was significantly decreased during intervention in the UC/IPAA patients. Blood tests, faecal fungi and faecal pH did not change significantly during intervention. Conclusions Results of this extended study, showing an effect of probiotics on symptoms and endoscopic inflammation in UC patients operated on with IPAA confirm our previously reported effect of probiotics on clinical symptoms and endoscopic score in a smaller, double-blind, randomized, controlled study. The significantly higher response to probiotics in families with increased risk of IBD will have to be repeated in future studies.

Changes in the gastrointestinal mucosa after long-distance running.

Two groups of long-distance runners were investigated for the effect of marathon running on the gastrointestinal mucosa. In one group gastric erosions with bleeding were found in five of nine subjects, mostly localized to the corpus region. The relative gastric blood flow measured by endoscopic laser Doppler flowmetry was slightly decreased in the cardia region (from 7.0 to 5.8; p less than 0.05) but unchanged in the other parts of the stomach, including the erosive lesions. In another group (n = 8) all the subjects showed a substantial increase in the urinary excretion of 51Cr-labeled ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid after oral intake, which indicates an increase in the intestinal permeability. There is reason to suggest that long-distance running affects the integrity of the gastric and the intestinal mucosa.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and endoscopic papillotomy in patients with a previous Billroth-II resection.

Methods for endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) and endoscopic papillotomy (EPT) in patients with Billroth-II operations are described, and experience with their use during the last four years (since 1980) is presented. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was successful in 134 of 147 patients (92%) and endoscopic papillotomy was successful in 46 of 50 patients. The described methods were used in two different hospitals by two different endoscopists and there was no difference in the results. We conclude that patients with a Billroth-II operation may undergo endoscopic diagnostic as well as therapeutic procedures with a high rate of success, with similar results as in ordinary patients and with no greater risk of complications.

Faecal Calprotectin Shedding after Short-Term Treatment with Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs

BACKGROUND Increased faecal calprotectin shedding indicates gastrointestinal mucosal inflammation. METHODS We studied the effect of short-term treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on faecal calprotectin shedding in two randomized crossover studies, with treatment regimens of indomethacin or naproxen for 14 days in the first study (n = 16) and lornoxicam or naproxen for 7 days in the second study (n = 18). RESULTS The methods reproducibility and stability were satisfactory. Indomethacin and naproxen increased the faecal calprotectin significantly from a base line of 4.7 mg/l to 9.0 mg/l and 8.0 mg/l, respectively. Lornoxicam failed to increase the faecal calprotectin. Shedding after 7 days of naproxen treatment was positively correlated to gastroduodenal mucosal inflammation assessed by endoscopy. CONCLUSIONS Although seemingly influenced by concurrent upper airway infections, the study indicates that the calprotectin test may be useful for monitoring the inflammatory response to NSAID treatment, even in short-term setting.

Papillary cannulation and sphincterotomy techniques at ERCP: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline.

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It provides practical advice on how to achieve successful cannulation and sphincterotomy at minimum risk to the patient. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations 1 ESGE suggests that difficult biliary cannulation is defined by the presence of one or more of the following: more than 5 contacts with the papilla whilst attempting to cannulate; more than 5 minutes spent attempting to cannulate following visualization of the papilla; more than one unintended pancreatic duct cannulation or opacification (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). 2 ESGE recommends the guidewire-assisted technique for primary biliary cannulation, since it reduces the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). 3 ESGE recommends using pancreatic guidewire (PGW)-assisted biliary cannulation in patients where biliary cannulation is difficult and repeated unintentional access to the main pancreatic duct occurs (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). ESGE recommends attempting prophylactic pancreatic stenting in all patients with PGW-assisted attempts at biliary cannulation (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). 4 ESGE recommends needle-knife fistulotomy as the preferred technique for precutting (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). ESGE suggests that precutting should be used only by endoscopists who achieve selective biliary cannulation in more than 80 % of cases using standard cannulation techniques (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). When access to the pancreatic duct is easy to obtain, ESGE suggests placement of a pancreatic stent prior to precutting (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation). 5 ESGE recommends that in patients with a small papilla that is difficult to cannulate, transpancreatic biliary sphincterotomy should be considered if unintentional insertion of a guidewire into the pancreatic duct occurs (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation).In patients who have had transpancreatic sphincterotomy, ESGE suggests prophylactic pancreatic stenting (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). 6 ESGE recommends that mixed current is used for sphincterotomy rather than pure cut current alone, as there is a decreased risk of mild bleeding with the former (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). 7 ESGE suggests endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) as an alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) for extracting CBD stones < 8 mm in patients without anatomical or clinical contraindications, especially in the presence of coagulopathy or altered anatomy (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). 8 ESGE does not recommend routine biliary sphincterotomy for patients undergoing pancreatic sphincterotomy, and suggests that it is reserved for patients in whom there is evidence of coexisting bile duct obstruction or biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation). 9 In patients with periampullary diverticulum (PAD) and difficult cannulation, ESGE suggests that pancreatic duct stent placement followed by precut sphincterotomy or needle-knife fistulotomy are suitable options to achieve cannulation (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE suggests that EST is safe in patients with PAD. In cases where EST is technically difficult to complete as a result of a PAD, large stone removal can be facilitated by a small EST combined with EPBD or use of EPBD alone (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). 10 For cannulation of the minor papilla, ESGE suggests using wire-guided cannulation, with or without contrast, and sphincterotomy with a pull-type sphincterotome or a needle-knife over a plastic stent (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).When cannulation of the minor papilla is difficult, ESGE suggests secretin injection, which can be preceded by methylene blue spray in the duodenum (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). 11 In patients with choledocholithiasis who are scheduled for elective cholecystectomy, ESGE suggests intraoperative ERCP with laparoendoscopic rendezvous (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation). ESGE suggests that when biliary cannulation is unsuccessful with a standard retrograde approach, anterograde guidewire insertion either by a percutaneous or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided approach can be used to achieve biliary access (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). 12 ESGE suggests that in patients with Billroth II gastrectomy ERCP should be performed in referral centers, with the side-viewing endoscope as a first option; forward-viewing endoscopes are the second choice in cases of failure (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). A straight standard ERCP catheter or an inverted sphincterotome, with or without the guidewire, is recommended by ESGE for biliopancreatic cannulation in patients who have undergone Billroth II gastrectomy (low quality evidence, strong recommendation). Endoscopic papillary ballon dilation (EPBD) is suggested as an alternative to sphincterotomy for stone extraction in the setting of patients with Billroth II gastrectomy (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).In patients with complex post-surgical anatomy ESGE suggests referral to a center where device-assisted enteroscopy techniques are available (very low quality evidence, weak recommendation).

Use of Sedation for Routine Diagnostic Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Survey of National Endoscopy Society Members

Background/Aims: Sedation rates may vary among countries, depending on patients’ and endoscopists’ preferences. The aim of this survey was to investigate the rate of using premedication for routine diagnostic upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy in endoscopy societies, members of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Methods: We evaluated a multiple-choice questionnaire which was e-mailed to representatives of national endoscopy societies, which are members of the ESGE. The questionnaire had 14 items referring to endoscopy practices in each country and the representatives’ endoscopy units. Results: The response rate was 76% (34/45). In 47% of the countries, less than 25% of patients undergo routine diagnostic UGI endoscopy with conscious sedation. In 62% of the responders’ endoscopy units, patients are not asked their preference for sedation and do not sign a consent form (59%). Common sedatives in use are midazolam (82%), diazepam (38%) or propofol (47%). Monitoring equipment is not available ‘in most of the endoscopy units’ in 46% (13/28) of the countries. Though they were available in 91% of the national representatives’ endoscopy units, they are rarely (21%) used to monitor unsedated routine diagnostic UGI endoscopy. Conclusions: In about 50% of ESGE-related countries, less than 25% of patients are sedated for routine diagnostic UGI endoscopy. Major issues to improve include availability of monitoring equipment and the use of a consent form.