Journal of clinical gastroenterology最新文献

Objective: We assessed the real-world performance of stool-based tests (SBTs) for colorectal cancer screening.

Materials and methods: Retrospective review of average-risk individuals with positive SBT for advanced neoplasia (adenocarcinoma, advanced adenoma, and/or advanced serrated lesions) detection at follow-up colonoscopy.

Results: There was no statistical difference in the detection of advanced neoplasia (P= 0.16) between SBTs [30.7% for multitargeted stool DNA (mt-sDNA) vs 22.8% for fecal immunochemical test]. However, there was a significant difference in the detection of advanced serrated lesions (11.3% for mt-sDNA vs 1.8% for fecal immunochemical test, P< 0.001).

Conclusion: There was no difference between SBTs for advanced neoplasia detection, though mt-sDNA detected significantly more advanced serrated lesions.

Background: Among patients with alcoholic liver disease (ALD), homelessness poses significant medical and psychosocial risks; however, less is known about the effects of race and sex on the hospital outcomes of admitted homeless patients with ALD.

Methods: The National Inpatient Sample database from 2012 to 2017 was used to isolate homeless patients with ALD, and the cohort was further stratified by race and sex for comparisons. Propensity score matching was utilized to minimize covariate confounding. The primary endpoints of this study include mortality, hospital length of stay, and hospital costs; secondary endpoints included the incidence of liver complications.

Results: There were 3972 females/males postmatch, as well as 2224 Blacks/Whites and 4575 Hispanics/Whites postmatch. In multivariate, there were no significant differences observed in mortality rate, length of stay, and costs between sexes. Comparing liver outcomes, females had a higher incidence of hepatic encephalopathy [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.04, P <0.001]. In comparing Blacks versus Whites, Black patients had higher hospitalization costs (aOR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.03-1.24, P =0.01); however, there were no significant differences in mortality, length of stay, or liver complications. In comparing Hispanics versus Whites, Hispanic patients had longer length of hospital stay (aOR 1.12, 95% CI: 1.06-1.19, P <0.001), greater costs (aOR 1.15, 95% CI: 1.09-1.22, P <0.001), as well as higher prevalence of liver complications including varices (aOR 1.04, 95% CI: 1.02-1.06, P <0.001), hepatic encephalopathy (aOR 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02-1.04, P <0.001), and hepatorenal syndrome (aOR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.01, P =0.03). However, there was no difference in mortality between White and Hispanic patients.

Conclusions: Black and Hispanic ALD patients experiencing homelessness were found to incur higher hospital charges; furthermore, Hispanic patients also had greater length of stay and higher incidence of liver-related complications compared with White counterparts.

Objective: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) may be unsuccessful in patients with duodenal stenosis or malignant ampullary infiltration. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has been proposed as an alternative. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD for malignant distal bile duct obstruction using the newly introduced smaller caliber 6 or 8 mm cautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stent.

Methods: A multicenter retrospective study was performed on patients with unresectable malignant distal bile duct obstruction who underwent EUS-BD between 2021 and 2022 after unsuccessful ERCP.

Results: Thirty-two patients were included [7 (53.13%) males], with a mean age of 72.2 ± 12.5 years. The technical success rate was 100%. Altered anatomy was present in 2 (6.25%). The indication for drainage was biliary obstruction from pancreatic cancer in 26 patients (84.5%), cholangiocarcinoma in 3 (9.4%), and ampullary mass in 3 (9.4%). The procedure was performed mostly in an outpatient setting (n = 19, 59.38%). The clinical success rate was 92.3% [bilirubin: 14.1 (SD: 8.9) preprocedure vs 4.9 (SD: 1.1) postprocedure; P = 0.0001]. There was one early adverse event of a perforation, which was closed endoscopically and drained percutaneously. Delayed adverse events included food impaction of the stent (n = 1), which was resolved with a repeat procedure and insertion of a double pigtail stent.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates the feasibility of EUS-BD drainage using smaller caliber 6 or 8 mm lumen-apposing metal stent to relieve malignant distal bile duct obstruction in patients who fail conventional ERCP.

Background: Microscopic colitis (MC) is an inflammatory bowel disease of autoimmune origin that causes chronic watery diarrhea. Medications, including budesonide, mesalamine, loperamide, cholestyramine, and bismuth subsalicylate, are first-line therapies. Meanwhile, azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine, and methotrexate are indicated for refractory MC.

Objective: We aim to assess the efficacy and safety of budesonide compared with mesalamine for induction of remission in MC patients.

Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed for relevant clinical trials comparing either mesalamine or budesonide with a control group. We included the following outcomes: clinical remission (3 or fewer stools/day), daily stool weight, daily stool frequency, number of patients with clinical response <50% in the disease activity, and daily stool consistency. Safety end points included: any adverse event, serious adverse events, any adverse event-related discontinuation, abdominal discomfort, constipation, flatulence, nausea, dizziness, headache, bronchitis, nasopharyngitis, and depression. We conducted a meta-analysis model using the generic inverse variance method and performed a subgroup analysis based on the intervention administered.

Results: Nineteen randomized clinical trials were included. We found that after 6 weeks of follow-up, budesonide is associated with increased clinical remission rates compared with mesalamine [RR=2.46 (2.27, 2.67), and RR=2.24 (1.95, 2.57), respectively]. However, the test of subgroup difference revealed that the difference is not significant (P=0.25). After 8 weeks of follow-up, budesonide showed significantly higher clinical remission rates than mesalamine RR=2.29 (2.14, 2.45), and RR=1.7 (1.41, 2.05), respectively (P=0.003). Regarding the daily stool weight, patients in the budesonide group showed nonsignificant less stool weight [MD=-351.62 (-534.25, -168.99)] compared with mesalamine [MD=-104.3 (-372.34, 163.74)], P=0.14. However, daily stool frequency was significantly less in the budesonide group compared with mesalamine (P<0.001). Budesonide is associated with a significantly lower incidence of adverse events compared with mesalamine (P=0.002). Analysis of other safety endpoints was not significant between both groups.

Conclusions: Budesonide was found to be better than mesalamine in MC patients in terms of clinical remission rate, especially after 8 weeks of follow-up. Budesonide also showed less incidence of adverse events. There is an urgent need for randomized, double-blinded clinical trials to provide direct and reliable evidence.

Background: Gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is a precancerous condition. Limited data exist on real-world clinical practice relative to guidelines.

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate adherence to GIM risk stratification and identify factors associated with follow-up endoscopy.

Materials and methods: We conducted manual chart review of patients with histologically confirmed GIM at an urban, tertiary medical center were identified retrospectively and details of their demographics, Helicobacter pylori, biopsy protocol, endoscopic/histologic findings, and postendoscopy follow-up were recorded. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with follow-up endoscopy.

Results: Among 253 patients, 59% were female, 37% non-Hispanic White (NHW), 26% Hispanic, 16% non-Hispanic Black (NHB). The median age at index endoscopy was 63.4 years (IQR: 55.9 to 70.0), with median follow-up of 65.1 months (IQR: 44.0 to 72.3). H. pylori was detected in 21.6% patients at index EGD. GIM extent and subtype data were frequently missing (22.9% and 32.8%, respectively). Based on available data, 26% had corpus-extended GIM and 28% had incomplete/mixed-type GIM. Compared with NHW, Hispanic patients had higher odds of follow-up EGD (OR=2.48, 95% CI: 1.23-5.01), while NHB patients had 59% lower odds of follow-up EGD (OR=0.41, 95% CI: 0.18-0.96). Corpus-extended GIM versus limited GIM (OR=2.27, 95% CI: 1.13-4.59) was associated with follow-up EGD, but GIM subtype and family history of gastric cancer were not.

Conclusions: We observed suboptimal risk stratification among patients with GIM and notable race and ethnic disparities with respect to endoscopic surveillance. Targeted interventions are needed to improve practice patterns and mitigate observed disparities.

Background and aims: EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) performed with a Franseen needle or Fork-tip needle enables greater tissue acquisition. However, it is unknown whether EUS-FNB could contribute to lymphadenopathy genomic profiling. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of EUS-FNB using a Franseen or Fork-tip needle for tissue acquisition and genomic profiling in patients with lymphadenopathy.

Patients and methods: Patients with abdominal lymphadenopathy who underwent EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA)/EUS-FNB were included in this study. The amount of acquired tissue and its suitability for genomic profiling were compared between FNA and FNB. Specimen quality was evaluated by a widely used pathologic adequacy scoring system (0: insufficient; 1 to 2: cytologic; 3: limited histologic; 4 to 5: sufficient histologic). The criteria of FoundationOne CDx (F1CDx) and NCC Oncopanel (NOP) were used to assess the suitability for genomic profiling.

Results: In total, 72 patients underwent EUS-FNA, and the other 20 patients underwent EUS-FNB. The pathologic adequacy score and suitability for genomic profiling based on the criteria were significantly higher for FNB than for FNA [histologic adequacy score: 5 (4 to 5) versus 3 (0 to 5), P<0.01; F1CDx: 16.7% vs. 0%, P=0.01; NOP: 66.7% vs. 7.5%, P<0.01]. In multivariate analysis, EUS-FNB was identified as the only factor that influenced the suitability for genomic profiling based on the above-mentioned criteria (odds ratio 19.5, 95% CI: 3.74-102, P<0.01).

Conclusions: EUS-FNB performed using Franseen or Fork-tip needles may result in greater lymphadenopathy tissue acquisition and thus enhanced suitability for genomic profiling compared with EUS-FNA.

Despite advancements in treatment strategies, the mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC) remains high. Evidence suggests that aspirin (ASA) may have a protective effect on CRC incidence and metastasis through various mechanisms. The 2016 to 2020 National Inpatient Sample was used to identify adult patients (age above 18 y) with the principal diagnosis of CRC. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on ASA use. The outcomes studied were in-hospital mortality and rates of total, gastrointestinal (GI), non-GI, and lymphoid metastasis. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of ASA use on outcomes after adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, and the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI). Of the 814,270 patients, 88,620 (10.8%) used ASA, with the majority being aged above 65 years (78%), male (57%), white (77.6%), and had Medicare insurance (74.5%). There was a higher prevalence of Diabetes mellitus, Hypertension, Chronic pulmonary disease, Coronary artery disease, Chronic kidney disease, Chronic heart failure, Obesity, and Smoking among aspirin users than among non-ASA users. Patients who used ASA had a lower prevalence of total (47.3% vs. 32.5%, P<0.001), GI (22.2% vs. 32.4%, P<0.001), non-GI (9.9% vs. 15.3%, P<0.001), and lymphoid (9.3% vs. 10.9%, P<0.001) metastasis compared with those who did not use ASA. After adjusting for confounding factors, patients with ASA use had lower odds of total (aOR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.72-0.78, P<0.001), GI (aOR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.71-0.77, P<0.001), non-GI (aOR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.68-0.77, P<0.1), and statistically insignificant odds of lymphoid (aOR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.90-1.00, P=0.098) metastasis. The use of ASA is associated with a decrease in the prevalence of metastasis among individuals diagnosed with CRC, but additional studies are required to elucidate the mechanism and duration of therapy needed to be effective.

Background: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is common. Treatment is to manage symptoms, but medication nonadherence is common. To date, little emphasis has been on understanding patient behaviors and reasons for medication nonadherence.

Methods: We performed a cross-sectional survey study among expert gastroenterologists specializing in esophageal disease. Survey studies consisted of a 6-item questionnaire measuring physician knowledge of patient activation, the Clinician Support for Patient Activation Measure (CS-PAM), and an adapted 20-item Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC). All question stems were specified to GERD management.

Results: Thirty-six experts participated. Most indicated hearing the term patient engagement before this survey (88.9%), but fewer were aware of the term patient activation (33.3%). Respondents were then made aware of the clinical significance of patient activation and asked, based on this knowledge, the likelihood that patients' activation level before the clinic would impact their communication. Responses varied between "to a great extent" and "not at all." Overall, CS-PAM activation scores were high, indicating a high level of support for patient activation. Lastly, respondents indicated their frequency of participating in partnership-building behaviors with patients. More than half (52.8%) of expert physicians "almost always" asked how GERD affected their lives, while less often asked patients about their health habits (22.2%), help set specific goals to improve their eating or exercise lifestyle (19.4%), or refer patients to a dietician, health educator, or counselor for their GERD (11.1%).

Conclusion: Patient activation is an important strategy and may provide a behavioral approach to address medication adherence in GERD.

Background and goals: The therapy of buried bumper syndrome (BBS) is difficult. The aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to analyze the treatment methods with focus on effectiveness and safety of endoscopic techniques.

Methods: The analysis of all therapies and a comparison of the papillotome technique (PT) and needle knife-based nonpapillotome technique (NPT) were performed. Primary endpoint was technical success in one session, secondary endpoints overall technical success, number and duration of treatment sessions, SAE, and mortality.

Results: The primary treatment of 160 BBS cases, diagnosed between 2003 and 2021, was NPT in 60 (37.5%), PT in 43 (26.9%), push/pull technique (PPT) in 40 (25.0%), no removal in 9 (5.6%), laparotomy in 7 (4.4%) cases, and external incision in 1 (0.6%) case. For PT and NPT rates of technical success in one session were 95.5% and 45.0% (P<0.01), rates of overall technical success 100% and 88.3% (P=0.02), and mean number and duration of treatment sessions 1.05 (±0.21) versus 1.70 (±0.91) (P<0.01) and 32.17 (±21.73) versus 98,00 (±62.28) minutes (P<0.01), respectively. No significant differences between PT and NPT were found for SAE (15.9% vs. 25.0%) and mortality (2.3% vs. 1.7%). For PPT, laparotomy and external incision rates of technical success in one session and overall technical success were 100%, rates of SAE 2.5%, 50.0%, and 0% and mortality 0%, 10.0%, and 0%.

Conclusions: Endoscopic therapy of BBS is treatment of choice in most cases with removal of incomplete BB by PPT. In case of complete BB PT appears more effective than NPT.

Objective: Recently, a through-the-scope suturing (TTSS) system has received FDA approval and has been evaluated for closing mucosal defects postintervention. We hereby performed a systematic review and pooled meta-analysis of available studies to assess the safety and efficacy of this intervention.

Methods: We queried the following databases through April 26, 2023: Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science Core Collection. Endoscopists utilizing TTSS for the following reasons were included: endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, peroral endoscopic myotomy, perforation, fistula closure, and/or stent fixation. The outcomes assessed were technical success, primary clinical success (closure of defect without additional intervention), and overall clinical success (closure of defect with/without additional intervention). Random effects model with the DerSimonian Laird approach was used to report event rates expressed as proportions with a 95% CI.

Results: A total of 12 studies with 512 patients (mean age of 61.5 ± 18.4 y, 54.6% females) were included. The technical success rate was 96.0% (CI: 94.3%-97.7%). The primary clinical success rate was 74.8% (CI: 65.5%-84.1%). The overall clinical success rate was 95.4% (CI: 92.6-98.2%). Only 1 mortality case unrelated to intervention was reported.

Conclusion: The TTSS appears safe and effective for closing mucosal defects after therapeutic endoscopic interventions. Further cost-effective studies should be performed comparing with endoclips for use in clinical settings.