Silvio W. De Melo

Randomized pragmatic trial of nasogastric tube placement in patients with upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding

The value of nasogastric (NG) tube placement in patients with upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding (UGIB) is unclear. We therefore aimed to determine the usefulness of NG tube placement in patients with UGIB. The study was a single-blind, randomized, prospective, non-inferiority study comparing NG placement (with aspiration and lavage) to no NG placement (control). The primary outcome was the probability that physicians could predict the presence of a high-risk lesion (ie, requiring endoscopic therapy). 140 patients in each arm were included; baseline clinical features were similar in each group. The probability that there would be a high-risk lesion in the control arm was predicted to be 35% compared with 39% in the NG arm (after NG placement)—a probability difference of −4% (95% CI −12% to 3%), which confirmed non-inferiority of the 2 arms (p=0.002). All patients underwent endoscopy and all patients with high-risk lesions had endoscopic therapy. Physicians predicted the specific culprit lesion in 38% (53/140) and 39% (55/140) of patients in the control and NG (after NG placement) groups, respectively. The presence of coffee grounds or red blood in the NG aspirate did not change physician assessments. Pain, nasal bleeding, or failure of NG occurred in 47/140 (34%) patients. There were no differences in rebleeding rates or mortality. In patients with acute UGIB, the ability of physicians to predict culprit bleeding lesions and/or the presence of high-risk lesions was poor. Routine NG placement did not improve physicians predictive ability, did not affect outcomes, and was complicated in one-third of patients. Trail Registration Number: NCT00689754.

Percutaneous transhepatic vs. endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage for suspected malignant hilar obstruction: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundThe optimal approach to the drainage of malignant obstruction at the liver hilum remains uncertain. We aim to compare percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) to endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) as the first intervention in patients with cholestasis due to suspected malignant hilar obstruction (MHO).MethodsThe INTERCPT trial is a multi-center, comparative effectiveness, randomized, superiority trial of PTBD vs. ERC for decompression of suspected MHO. One hundred and eighty-four eligible patients across medical centers in the United States, who provide informed consent, will be randomly assigned in 1:1 fashion via a web-based electronic randomization system to either ERC or PTBD as the initial drainage and, if indicated, diagnostic procedure. All subsequent clinical interventions, including crossover to the alternative procedure, will be dictated by treating physicians per usual clinical care. Enrolled subjects will be assessed for successful biliary drainage (primary outcome measure), adequate tissue diagnosis, adverse events, the need for additional procedures, hospitalizations, and oncological outcomes over a 6-month follow-up period. Subjects, treating clinicians and outcome assessors will not be blinded.DiscussionThe INTERCPT trial is designed to determine whether PTBD or ERC is the better initial approach when managing a patient with suspected MHO, a common clinical dilemma that has never been investigated in a randomized trial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT03172832. Registered on 1 June 2017.

Clinical Judgment Does Not Circumvent the Need for Diagnostic Endoscopy in Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage

Background To better understand the ability of physicians to predict the need for endoscopic therapy and to accurately predict specific endoscopic lesions, we performed a prospective, nonrandomized, observational cohort study in patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) who were undergoing endoscopy. Aim We aimed to evaluate the pre-endoscopy diagnostic accuracy and the correct prediction of high-risk lesions in patients with UGIH according to the level of clinical expertise. Methods One hundred twenty-one patients presenting with hematemesis and/or melena within 48 hours were studied. A questionnaire was given to primary physicians, gastroenterology fellows, and gastroenterology faculty, asking them to predict the need for endoscopic therapy and the cause of the bleed. Results The need for endoscopic therapy was predicted accurately by 68% of the primary physicians, 70% of the fellows, and 74% of the faculty physicians (P = 0.61). The faculty were able to predict which patients did not need therapy more accurately than the fellows and the residents: 85%, 78%, and 68%, respectively (P = 0.03). The diagnostic accuracy of the clinicians—that is, the ability to accurately predict the bleeding lesion among the primary physicians, fellows, and faculty physicians, was similar at 46%, 52%, and 48%, respectively (P = 0.65). Conclusions The accuracy of predicting the need for endoscopic therapy and the culprit cause of UGIH, based on clinical evaluation, was similar across levels of expertise. However, the faculty gastroenterologists were better than the gastroenterology fellows and the primary providers in predicting which patients do not require endoscopic treatment. We conclude that the relative inability of any group of physicians to accurately predict the presence of high-risk lesions requiring endoscopic therapy suggests that most patients with UGIH should undergo upper endoscopy for diagnosis and possible therapy.

Intestinal Spirochetosis: An Obscure Cause of Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Adherence of spirochetes to the apical membrane of the colonic epithelium has been well-described in the literature, but the exact pathogenesis leading to symptomatic clinical manifestations is poorly understood. Most cases are found incidentally on the pathological evaluation of colonic biopsies taken during diagnostic or therapeutic colonoscopies. However, whether the colonization of the intestinal mucosa can be attributed to clinical symptoms is a matter of debate. Here, we present a case of intermittent hematochezia attributed to the overwhelming invasion of the colonic mucosa by intestinal spirochetes.

Patients Come Clean: How Patient Factors and theBowel Preparation Experience Influence BowelPreparation Quality

Joshua M Anderson1, Lauren Stemboroski2, Petra Aldridge3, Asim Shuja1, Miguel Malespin1 and Silvio W de Melo Jr1* 1Division of Gastroenterology, University of Florida College of Medicine and UF Health, Florida 2Department of Internal Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine and UF Health, Florida 3Center for Health Equity and Quality Research, University of Florida College of Medicine, Florida Received: June 14, 2018; Published: July 18, 2018

Location of colorectal cancer: colonoscopy versus surgery. Yield of colonoscopy in predicting actual location

Background and study aims  Recent studies suggest that differences in biological characteristics and risk factors across cancer site within the colon and rectum may translate to differences in survival. It can be challenging at times to determine the precise anatomical location of a lesion with a luminal view during colonoscopy. The aim of this study is to determine if there is a significant difference between the location of colorectal cancers described by gastroenterologists in colonoscopies and the actual anatomical location noted on operative and pathology reports after colon surgery. Patients and methods  A single-center retrospective analysis of colonoscopies of patient with reported colonic masses from January 2005 to April 2014 (n = 380) was carried. Assessed data included demography, operative and pathology reports. Findings were compared: between the location of colorectal cancers described by gastroenterologists in colonoscopies and the actual anatomical location noted on operative reports or pathology samples. Results  We identified 380 colonic masses, 158 were confirmed adenocarcinomas. Of these 123 underwent surgical resection, 27 had to be excluded since no specific location was reported on their operative or pathology report. An absolute difference between endoscopic and surgical location was found in 32 cases (33 %). Of these, 22 (23 %) differed by 1 colonic segment, 8 (8 %) differed by 2 colonic segments and 2 (2 %) differed by 3 colonic segments. Conclusion  There is a significant difference between the location of colorectal cancers reported by gastroenterologists during endoscopy and the actual anatomical location noted on operative or pathology reports after colon surgery. Endoscopic tattooing should be used when faced with any luminal lesions of interest.

Four Approaches to Reinvigorate Learning for the 21st Century Gastroenterologist

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Prateek Sharma, Section Editor 61 62 63 64 65 Four Approaches to Reinvigorate Learning for the 21st Century Gastroenterologist 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 Brijen J. Shah, Silvio W. de Melo Jr, and Gary W. Falk