Samuel Han
Anschutz Medical Campus
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Samuel Han.
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology | 2017
Sachin Wani; Matthew Hall; Samuel Han; Meer Akbar Ali; Brian C. Brauer; Linda Carlin; Amitabh Chak; Dan Collins; Gregory A. Cote; David L. Diehl; Christopher J. DiMaio; Andrew M. Dries; Ihab I. El-Hajj; Swan Ellert; Kimberley Fairley; Ashley L. Faulx; Larissa L. Fujii-Lau; Srinivas Gaddam; Seng Ian Gan; Jonathan P. Gaspar; Chitiki Gautamy; Stuart R. Gordon; Cynthia L. Harris; Sarah Hyder; Ross Jones; Stephen Kim; Srinadh Komanduri; Ryan Law; Linda Lee; Rawad Mounzer
BACKGROUND & AIMS: On the basis of the Next Accreditation System, trainee assessment should occur on a continuous basis with individualized feedback. We aimed to validate endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) learning curves among advanced endoscopy trainees (AETs) by using a large national sample of training programs and to develop a centralized database that allows assessment of performance in relation to peers. METHODS: ASGE recognized training programs were invited to participate, and AETs were graded on ERCP and EUS exams by using a validated competency assessment tool that assesses technical and cognitive competence in a continuous fashion. Grading for each skill was done by using a 4‐point scoring system, and a comprehensive data collection and reporting system was built to create learning curves by using cumulative sum analysis. Individual results and benchmarking to peers were shared with AETs and trainers quarterly. RESULTS: Of the 62 programs invited, 20 programs and 22 AETs participated in this study. At the end of training, median number of EUS and ERCP performed/AET was 300 (range, 155–650) and 350 (125–500), respectively. Overall, 3786 exams were graded (EUS, 1137; ERCP‐biliary, 2280; ERCP‐pancreatic, 369). Learning curves for individual end points and overall technical/cognitive aspects in EUS and ERCP demonstrated substantial variability and were successfully shared with all programs. The majority of trainees achieved overall technical (EUS, 82%; ERCP, 60%) and cognitive (EUS, 76%; ERCP, 100%) competence at conclusion of training. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the feasibility of establishing a centralized database to report individualized learning curves and confirm the substantial variability in time to achieve competence among AETs in EUS and ERCP. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02509416.
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology | 2018
Bryan Brimhall; Samuel Han; Philip Tatman; Toshimasa J. Clark; Sachin Wani; Brian C. Brauer; Steven A. Edmundowicz; Mihir S. Wagh; Augustin Attwell; Hazem T. Hammad; Raj J. Shah
Background & Aims There have been few studies that compared the effects of lumen‐apposing metal stents (LAMS) and double‐pigtail plastic stents (DPS) in patients with peripancreatic fluid collections from pancreatitis. We aimed to compare technical and clinical success and adverse events in patients who received LAMS vs DPS for pancreatic pseudocysts and walled‐off necrosis. Methods We performed a retrospective study of endoscopic ultrasound–mediated drainage in 149 patients (65% male; mean age, 47 y) with pancreatic pseudocysts or walled‐off necrosis (97 received LAMS and 152 received DPS), from January 2011 through September 2016 at a single center. We collected data on patient characteristics, outcomes, hospitalizations, and imaging findings. Technical success was defined as LAMS insertion or a minimum of 2 DPS. Clinical success was defined as resolution of pancreatic pseudocysts or walled‐off necrosis based on imaging results. The primary outcome was resolution of peripancreatic fluid collection with reduced abdominal pain or obstructive signs or symptoms. Secondary outcomes included the identification and management of adverse events, number of additional procedures required to resolve fluid collection, and the recurrence of fluid collection. Results Patients who received LAMS had larger peripancreatic fluid collections than patients who received DPS prior to intervention (P = .001), and underwent an average 1.7 interventions vs 1.9 interventions for patients who received DPS (P = .93). Technical success was achieved for 90 patients with LAMS (92.8%) vs 137 patients with DPS (90.1%) (odds ratio [OR] for success with DPS, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.33–2.0; P = .67). Despite larger fluid collections in the LAMS group, there was no significant difference in proportions of patients with clinical success following placement of LAMS (82 of 84 patients, 97.6%) vs DPS (118 of 122 patients, 96.7%) (OR for clinical success with DPS, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.13–4.0; P = .71). Adverse events developed in 24 patients who received LAMS (24.7%) vs 27 patients who received DPS (17.8%) (OR for an adverse event in a patient receiving a DPS, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.33–2.0; P = .67). However, patients with LAMS had a higher risk of pseudoaneurysm bleeding than patients with DPS (OR, 10.0; 95% CI, 1.19–84.6; P = .009). Conclusions In a retrospective study of patients undergoing drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts or walled‐off necrosis, we found LAMS and DPS to have comparable rates of technical and clinical success and adverse events. Drainage of walled‐off necrosis or pancreatic pseudocysts using DPS was associated with fewer bleeding events overall, including pseudoaneurysm bleeding, but bleeding risk with LAMS should be weighed against the trend of higher actionable perforation and infection rates with DPS.
Clinical Endoscopy | 2018
Samuel Han; Sachin Wani
The push for high quality care in all fields of medicine highlights the importance of establishing and adhering to quality indicators. In response, several gastrointestinal societies have established quality indicators specific to Barrett’s esophagus, which serve to create thresholds for performance while standardizing practice and guiding value-based care. Recent studies, however, have consistently demonstrated the lack of adherence to these quality indicators, particularly in surveillance (appropriate utilization of endoscopy and obtaining biopsies using the Seattle protocol) and endoscopic eradication therapy practices. These findings suggest that innovative interventions are needed to address these shortcomings in order to deliver high quality care to patients with Barrett’s esophagus.
Techniques in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2018
Samuel Han; Sachin Wani
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2018
Samuel Han; Amneet K. Hans; Jennifer M. Kolb; James R. Burton; Augustin Attwell; Sachin Wani; Brian C. Brauer; Steven A. Edmundowicz; Hazem T. Hammad; Mihir S. Wagh; Raj J. Shah
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2018
Zachary L. Smith; Jeffrey A. Elsner; Riddhi S. Patel; Thomas Hollander; Robert T. Simril; Sindhu Barola; Lea Fayad; Kenneth Park; Melinda Rogers; Samuel Han; Lorna Kang; Divya Kodali; Gregory A. Cote; Vivek Kumbhari; Sachin Wani; Srinivas Gaddam; Vladimir M. Kushnir
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2018
Samuel Han; Raj J. Shah; Brian C. Brauer; Steven A. Edmundowicz; Hazem T. Hammad; Mihir S. Wagh; Sachin Wani; Augustin Attwell
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2018
Sachin Wani; Dayna S. Early; Samuel Han; Eva Aagaard; Violette C. Simon; Linda Carlin; Swan Ellert; Michael J. Bartel; Erik Bowman; Hemant Chatrath; Abhishek Choudhary; Bradley Confer; Gregory A. Cote; Koushik K. Das; Christopher J. DiMaio; Abdul Hamid El Chafic; Steven A. Edmundowicz; Jason Ferriera; Bhargava Gannavarapu; Hazem T. Hammad; Sujai Jalaj; Sri Komanduri; Gabriel Lang; V. Raman Muthusamy; Kavous Pakseresht; Amit Rastogi; Brian P. Riff; Shreyas Saligram; Raj J. Shah; Rishi Sharma
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2018
Samuel Han; Raj J. Shah; Philip D. Tatman; Brian C. Brauer; Sachin Wani; Steven A. Edmundowicz; Hazem T. Hammad; Mihir S. Wagh; Augustin Attwell
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2018
Samuel Han; Jennifer M. Kolb; Amneet K. Hans; Augustin Attwell; Brian C. Brauer; Steven A. Edmundowicz; Hazem T. Hammad; Mihir S. Wagh; Sachin Wani; Raj J. Shah