Michael J. Bartel

Endoscopic Management of Pancreatic Cysts

Management of pancreatic cystic lesions relies on patients’ clinical presentation, imaging, and endoscopic ultrasound. Current research in basic science, radiology, and endoscopy is evolving and making progress in this condition which is relatively common in the general population. This review focuses on the recent endoscopic ultrasound approaches to the diagnosis of these pancreatic disorders.

Selective application of fully covered biliary stents and narrow-diameter esophageal stents for proximal esophageal indications

BACKGROUND Proximal esophageal stents are poorly tolerated and have a high risk of complications. We report our experience using fully covered, biliary, self-expandable metal stents (B-SEMS) and narrow-diameter, esophageal, self-expandable metal stents (NDE-SEMS) for this group of patients. METHODS 24 patients underwent placement of B-SEMS or NDE-SEMS for proximal esophageal lesions between 1 January 2011 and 31 July 2016. The outcomes included improvement of dysphagia, healing of fistulas, and adverse events. RESULTS 10 patients received B-SEMS and 14 had NDE-SEMS. Median follow-up time was 11.5 months (range 0.5 - 62 months). In both cohorts, stents were left in place for a mean of 6 weeks. The dysphagia score decreased in 7 (70 %) and 10 (71.4 %) patients, and fistulas resolved in 3/5 (60.0 %) and 5/8 (62.5 %) patients with B-SEMS and NDE-SEMS, respectively. Stent migration occurred in three patients (30.0 %) with B-SEMS and five patients (35.7 %) with NDE-SEMS. CONCLUSIONS Both stents were well tolerated and resulted in overall improvement of dysphagia in 70.8 % of patients. B-SEMS appeared to be more favorable for cervical esophageal lesions with narrower diameters, while NDE-SEMS may be better for more distal lesions.

High rate of over-staging of Barrett's neoplasia with endoscopic ultrasound: Systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND The use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) to stage patients with Barretts esophagus (BE) with suspected neoplasia is controversial due to high rates of over-staging. However, this rate of over-staging has not been adequately investigated or quantified. AIM To determine the rate of over-staging related EUS in this population. METHODS Search included Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central ending on 9/30/2016. The primary effect-estimate of interest was the false positive rate of advanced disease on EUS at the tumor level (T1a vs. T1b). Secondary outcomes included false detection rate, false negative rate, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. Study heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 and Cochranes Q. RESULTS Of 1872 studies, 11 met our inclusion criteria totaling 895 patients. Based on random effects models, the pooled FPR for advanced disease was 9.1% ([6.5-12.5%], p<0.001). Tests of heterogeneity showed no significant heterogeneity for this outcome. The pooled false negative rate was 9.2% [95%CI: 4.7-17.3%], p<0.01. Overall, the pooled accuracy of EUS results in BE neoplasia patients was low at 74.6% [58.7-85.8%], p=0.004. CONCLUSIONS The use of EUS in BE patients with dysplasia and early neoplasia results in a large proportion of patients falsely over-staged and under-staged.