Background and AimAcute gastrointestinal bleeding carries poor outcomes unless prompt endoscopic hemostasis is achieved. Mortality in these patients remains significant. Hemospray is a novel intervention that creates a mechanical barrier over bleeding sites. We report the largest dataset of patient outcomes after treatment with Hemospray from an international multicenter registry.Patients and MethodsProspective data (Jan 2016–May 2018) from 12 centers across Europe were collected. Immediate hemostasis was defined as endoscopic cessation of bleeding within 5 min after application of Hemospray. Rebleeding was defined as subsequent drop in hemoglobin, hematemesis, persistent melena with hemodynamic compromise post‐therapy.ResultsThree hundred and fourteen cases were recruited worldwide (231 males, 83 females). Median pretreatment Blatchford score was 11 (IQR: 8–14) and median complete Rockall score (RS) was 7 (IQR: 6–8) for all patients. Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) was the most common pathology (167/314 = 53%) and Forrest Ib the most common bleed type in PUD (100/167 = 60%). 281 patients (89.5%) achieved immediate hemostasis after successful endoscopic therapy with Hemospray. Rebleeding occurred in 29 (10.3%) of the 281 patients who achieved immediate hemostasis. Seven‐day and 30‐day all‐cause mortality were 11.5% (36/314) and 20.1% (63/314), respectively (lower than the predicted rates as per the RS). Similar hemostasis rates were noted in the Hemospray monotherapy (92.4%), combination therapy (88.7%) and rescue therapy (85.5%) groups.ConclusionsThese data show high rates of immediate hemostasis overall and in all subgroups. Rebleeding and mortality rates were in keeping/lower than predicted rates.

ObjectivesScreening in selected high risk populations for Barrett’s oesophagus (BO) and oesophageal varices (OVs) has been proposed, but there are obstacles with conventional oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (C-OGD), including patient acceptability. Portable and disposable office-based transnasal endoscopy (TNE) is a feasible and accurate alternative to C-OGD that may have use in primary and secondary care. This article outlines a qualitative analysis of patient experiences of TNE and C-OGD in order to gain an insight into an acceptable delivery of an endoscopic screening service.DesignPurposeful sampling identified 23 participants who then underwent semi-structured interviews to determine their experiences of both procedures. Thematic analysis was conducted to derive meaning from their lived experiences.SettingA secondary care endoscopy unit, clinic room and interview room.ParticipantsPatients referred for BO or OV surveillance and for endoscopy to investigate dyspepsia underwent unsedated TNE using the EG Scan II device followed by C-OGD with or without sedation (patient choice), as part of a clinical trial.ResultsThe themes that arose from our analysis were: inclusivity in one’s own healthcare, comfort level and convenience, validity of the procedure and application to a screening population and a sense of altruism and reciprocity. Positive aspects of TNE included participant empowerment, reduced discomfort and avoidance of conscious sedation. Participants felt that if TNE screening was of proven efficacy it would be welcomed, though views on use in a community setting were mixed.ConclusionsMost patients preferred TNE to unsedated C-OGD and the reasons they gave featured strongly in the emerging themes. Preferences between TNE and sedated C-OGD were more subtle, with equivalent comfort scores but merits and drawbacks of both being discussed. This information identifies opportunities and challenges in establishing an endoscopic screening service. Trial registration number ISRCTNregistry identifier: 70595405; Pre-results.

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma and current practice is to establish endoscopic surveillance once diagnosed, in order to identify early dysplasia and neoplasia that has the potential to undergo endoscopic eradication therapy (EET). Before embarking upon EET the clinical team has a duty to consider all viable options and come to a plan based on recent evidence. The therapeutic approach varies greatly but largely adheres to the mantra of 'Detect-Resect-Ablate', in which high-quality endoscopy identifies BE associated pathology, associated lesions (if present) undergo safe endoscopic resection and remaining intestinal metaplasia in the esophagus is ablated to prevent recurrence of dysplasia. In this review, current practice, pitfalls, complications, and the future perspectives on practice in this field are discussed. The Western perspective is focused on here, with an outline of the differences in clinical practice with Asian nations and attempts to bridge these differences.

Since its original application, gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has undergone many innovative transformations aimed at expanding the scope, safety, accuracy, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of this area of clinical practice. One method of achieving this has been to reduce the caliber of endoscopic devices. We propose the collective term “Miniature GI Endoscopy”. In this Opinion Review, the innovations in this field are explored and discussed. The progress and clinical use of the three main areas of miniature GI endoscopy (ultrathin endoscopy, wireless endoscopy and scanning fiber endoscopy) are described. The opportunities presented by these technologies are set out in a clinical context, as are their current limitations. Many of the positive aspects of miniature endoscopy are clear, in that smaller devices provide access to potentially all of the alimentary canal, while conferring high patient acceptability. This must be balanced with the costs of new technologies and recognition of device specific challenges. Perspectives on future application are also considered and the efforts being made to bring new innovations to a clinical platform are outlined. Current devices demonstrate that miniature GI endoscopy has a valuable place in investigation of symptoms, therapeutic intervention and screening. Newer technologies give promise that the potential for enhancing the investigation and management of GI complaints is significant.

Radiation therapy is a long-established and essential modality in the treatment of many cancers. It is well known that tissue within a field of radiation can suffer indiscriminate effects, leading to acute and chronic problems. The gastrointestinal tract may be adversely affected by radiation. From the mouth to the rectum, patients can experience troublesome symptoms that require the concerted input of specialist teams. Interventions range from nursing care, dietetic optimization, pharmacological management, and mechanical procedures through endoscopy and surgery. Quality evidence exists mainly for radiation induced effects in four distinct areas of the gastrointestinal tract: oral mucosa, esophagus, small bowel, and rectum. This review explores the experiences of oncology and gastrointestinal teams in managing the most common conditions and some of the different practices for radiation associated morbidity.

No abstract

Introduction CONTACT is a national multidisciplinary study assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon diagnostic and treatment pathways among patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods The treatment of consecutive patients with newly diagnosed PDAC from a pre-COVID-19 pandemic cohort (07/01/2019-03/03/2019) were compared to a cohort diagnosed during the first wave of the UK pandemic (‘COVID’ cohort, 16/03/2020-10/05/2020), with 12-month follow-up. Results Among 984 patients (pre-COVID: n = 483, COVID: n = 501), the COVID cohort was less likely to receive staging investigations other than CT scanning (29.5% vs. 37.2%, p = 0.010). Among patients treated with curative intent, there was a reduction in the proportion of patients recommended surgery (54.5% vs. 76.6%, p = 0.001) and increase in the proportion recommended upfront chemotherapy (45.5% vs. 23.4%, p = 0.002). Among patients on a non-curative pathway, fewer patients were recommended (47.4% vs. 57.3%, p = 0.004) or received palliative anti-cancer therapy (20.5% vs. 26.5%, p = 0.045). Ultimately, fewer patients in the COVID cohort underwent surgical resection (6.4% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.036), whilst more patients received no anti-cancer treatment (69.3% vs. 59.2% p = 0.009). Despite these differences, there was no difference in median overall survival between the COVID and pre-COVID cohorts, (3.5 (IQR 2.8–4.1) vs. 4.4 (IQR 3.6–5.2) months, p = 0.093). Conclusion Pathways for patients with PDAC were significantly disrupted during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, with fewer patients receiving standard treatments. However, no significant impact on survival was discerned.

No abstract