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.
SEMS can effectively decompress high-grade, benign colonic obstruction, thereby allowing elective surgery. The use of SEMS can offer medium-term symptom relief for benign colorectal strictures, but this approach is associated with a high rate of delayed complications. Thus, if elective surgery is planned, data from this small study suggest that it should be performed within 7 days of stent placement.
Background & Aims
Barrett’s esophagus (BE) with low-grade dysplasia (LGD) can progress to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been shown to be an effective treatment for LGD in clinical trials but its effectiveness in clinical practice is unclear. We compared the rate of progression of LGD following RFA to that with endoscopic surveillance alone in routine clinical practice.
Methods
We performed a retrospective study of patients who either underwent RFA (n=45) or surveillance endoscopy (n=125) for LGD, confirmed by at least 1 expert pathologist, from October 1992 through December 2013 at 3 medical centers in the US. Cox regression analysis was used to assess the association between progression and RFA.
Results
Data were collected over median follow-up periods of 889 days (inter-quartile range, 264–1623 days) after RFA and 848 days (inter-quartile range, 322–2355 days) after surveillance endoscopy (P=.32). The annual rates of progression to HGD or EAC was 6.6% in the surveillance group and 0.77% in the RFA group. The risk of progression to HGD or EAC was significantly lower among patients who underwent RFA than those who underwent surveillance (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.008–0.48).
Conclusions
Among patients with BE and confirmed LGD, rates of progression to a combined endpoint of HGD and EAC were lower among those treated with RFA than among untreated patients. Although selection bias cannot be excluded, these findings provide additional evidence for the use of endoscopic ablation therapy for LGD.
Background and study aims: How enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (e-ERCP) and
endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) compare in patients with
surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy is currently unknown. The aims
of this study were to compare efficacy and safety of both techniques and study
predictors of these outcomes.
Patients and methods: This was an international, multicenter comparative
cohort study at 10 tertiary centers. Outcomes data included technical success
(biliary access with cholangiography and stent placement [when indicated]),
clinical success (resolution of biliary obstruction) and adverse events (AEs)
(graded according to the ASGE lexicon).
Results: A total of 98 patients underwent EUS-BD (n = 49) or e-ERCP
(n = 49). Technical success was achieved in 48 (98 %) patients in the EUS-BD
group as compared to 32 (65.3 %) patients in the e-ERCP group (OR 12.48,
P = 0.001). Clinical success was attained in 88 % of patients in
EUS-BD group as compared to 59.1 % in the e-ERCP group (OR 2.83,
P = 0.03). Procedural time was significantly shorter in the EUS-BD group
(55 min vs 95 min, P < 0.0001). AEs occurred more commonly in the
EUS-BD group (20 % vs. 4 %, P = 0.01). However, the majority (90 %) of
AEs were mild/moderate. Length of stay was significantly longer in the EUS-BD
group (6.6 d vs. 2.4 d, P < 0.0001).
Conclusions: EUS-BD can be performed with a higher degree of clinical
efficacy and shorter procedure time than e-ERCP in patients with
surgically-altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy. Whether or not this approach
should be first-line therapy in this patient population is highly dependent on
the indication for the procedure, the patient’s anatomy, and local practice and
expertise.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.