Mariam Naveed

Evaluation of Pharmacologic Prevention of Pancreatitis After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND & AIMS There is controversy over the efficacy of pharmacologic agents for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (PEP). We performed a systematic review of PEP pharmacoprevention to evaluate safety and efficacy. METHODS We performed a systematic search of the literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of PEP pharmacoprevention through February 2014. After identifying relevant studies, 2 reviewers each extracted information on study characteristics, clinical outcomes, and risk of bias. A research classification scale was developed to identify pharmacologic agents ready for clinical use, agents for which a confirmatory RCT should be considered a high priority, agents for which exploratory studies are still necessary, and agents for which additional research should be of low priority. Clinical and research recommendations for each agent were made by consensus after considering research classification results and other important factors such as magnitude of benefit, safety, availability, and cost. RESULTS After screening 851 citations and 263 potentially relevant articles, 2 reviewers identified 85 RCTs and 28 meta-analyses that were eligible. On the basis of these studies, rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were found to be appropriate for clinical use, especially for high-risk cases. Sublingual nitroglycerin, bolus-administered somatostatin, and nafamostat were found to be promising agents for which confirmatory research is warranted. Additional research was found to be required to justify confirmatory RCTs for topical epinephrine, aggressive intravenous fluids, gabexate, ulinastatin, secretin, and antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS On the basis of a systematic review, NSAIDs are appropriate for use in prevention of PEP, especially for high-risk cases. Additional research is necessary to clarify the role of other pharmacologic agents. These findings could inform future research and guide clinical decision-making and policy.

Endoscopic imaging of Barrett's esophagus.

The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has dramatically increased in the United States as well as Western European countries. The majority of esophageal adenocarcinomas arise from a backdrop of Barretts esophagus (BE), a premalignant lesion that can lead to dysplasia and cancer. Because of the increased risk of EAC, GI society guidelines recommend endoscopic surveillance of patients with BE. The emphasis on early detection of dysplasia in BE through surveillance endoscopy has led to the development of advanced endoscopic imaging technologies. These techniques have the potential to both improve mucosal visualization and characterization and to detect small mucosal abnormalities which are difficult to identify with standard endoscopy. This review summarizes the advanced imaging technologies used in evaluation of BE.

A Multicenter comparative trial of a novel EUS-guided core biopsy needle (SharkCore™) with the 22-gauge needle in patients with solid pancreatic mass lesions

Background and Objectives: The ability to obtain adequate tissue of solid pancreatic lesions by EUS-guided remains a challenge. The aim of this study was to compare the performance characteristics and safety of EUS-FNA for evaluating solid pancreatic lesions using the standard 22-gauge needle versus a novel EUS biopsy needle. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective study of EUS-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions between 2009 and 2015. Patients underwent EUS-guided sampling with a 22-gauge SharkCore (SC) needle or a standard 22-gauge FNA needle. Technical success, performance characteristics of EUS-FNA, the number of needle passes required to obtain a diagnosis, diagnostic accuracy, and complications were compared. Results: A total of 1088 patients (mean age = 66 years; 49% female) with pancreatic masses underwent EUS-guided sampling with a 22-gauge SC needle (n = 115) or a standard 22-gauge FNA needle (n = 973). Technical success was 100%. The frequency of obtaining an adequate cytology by EUS-FNA was similar when using the SC and the standard needle (94.1% vs. 92.7%, respectively). The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for tissue diagnosis were not significantly different between two needles. Adequate sample collection leading to a definite diagnosis was achieved by the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd pass in 73%, 92%, and 98% of procedures using the SC needle and 20%, 37%, and 94% procedures using the standard needle (P < 0.001), respectively. The median number of passes to obtain a tissue diagnosis using the SC needle was significantly less as compared to the standard needle (1 and 3, respectively; P< 0.001). Conclusions: The EUS SC biopsy needle is safe and technically feasible for EUS-FNA of solid pancreatic mass lesions. Preliminary results suggest that the SC needle has a diagnostic yield similar to the standard EUS needle and significantly reduces the number of needle passes required to obtain a tissue diagnosis.

Endoscopic Treatment of Early-Stage Esophageal Cancer

Purpose of ReviewEsophageal cancer is a leading cause of global cancer-related mortality. Here, we discuss the major endoscopic treatment modalities for management of early esophageal cancer (EEC).Recent FindingsAdvances in endoscopic imaging and therapy have shifted the paradigm of managing early esophageal cancers. Though esophagectomy remains the preferred management for advanced cancers, guidelines now recommend endoscopic resection followed by ablative therapy for early (Tis and T1a) cancers. Available data suggests endoscopic treatment is comparable to surgery with regard to overall and cancer-specific survival with lower procedural morbidity and mortality.SummaryEndoscopic modalities are emerging as frontline treatment options for patients with early esophageal cancers. Accurate clinical staging with assessment of disease extent, tumor grade, and risk of nodal metastases is crucial when determining eligibility for endoscopic management of EEC. High-quality routine surveillance endoscopy is critical in patients who have undergone resection and/or ablation.

Accuracy of Referring Provider and Endoscopist Impressions of Colonoscopy Indication

Background: Referring provider and endoscopist impressions of colonoscopy indication are used for clinical care, reimbursement, and quality reporting decisions; however, the accuracy of these impressions is unknown. This study assessed the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and overall accuracy of methods to classify colonoscopy indication, including referring provider impression, endoscopist impression, and administrative algorithm compared with gold standard chart review. Methods: We randomly sampled 400 patients undergoing a colonoscopy at a Veterans Affairs health system between January 2010 and December 2010. Referring provider and endoscopist impressions of colonoscopy indication were compared with gold-standard chart review. Indications were classified into 4 mutually exclusive categories: diagnostic, surveillance, high-risk screening, or average-risk screening. Results: Of 400 colonoscopies, 26% were performed for average-risk screening, 7% for high-risk screening, 26% for surveillance, and 41% for diagnostic indications. Accuracy of referring provider and endoscopist impressions of colonoscopy indication were 87% and 84%, respectively, which were significantly higher than that of the administrative algorithm (45%; P<.001 for both). There was substantial agreement between endoscopist and referring provider impressions (κ=0.76). All 3 methods showed high sensitivity (>90%) for determining screening (vs nonscreening) indication, but specificity of the administrative algorithm was lower (40.3%) compared with referring provider (93.7%) and endoscopist (84.0%) impressions. Accuracy of endoscopist, but not referring provider, impression was lower in patients with a family history of colon cancer than in those without (65% vs 84%; P=.001). Conclusions: Referring provider and endoscopist impressions of colonoscopy indication are both accurate and may be useful data to incorporate into algorithms classifying colonoscopy indication.

Diagnosis and Management of an Esophagogastric Fistula as a Rare Complication of Nissen Fundoplication

Esophagogastric fistula is a rare complication following Nissen fundoplication, with symptoms usually developing within weeks to 3 years postoperatively.1-3 Proposed mechanisms include recalcitrant reflux, erosion of sutures with Teflon pledgets, and damage associated with repeat procedures.1-3 Past reports describe management of the esophagogastric fistulae with antireflux medications, dilation of both lumens, and repeat fundoplication.1-3