Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society最新文献

Objectives: We aimed to develop and validate a simple scoring system to predict in-hospital mortality after endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) for esophageal variceal bleeding.

Methods: Data from a 13-year study involving 46 Japanese institutions were split into development (initial 7 years) and validation (last 6 years) cohorts. The study subjects were patients hospitalized for esophageal variceal bleeding and treated with EVL. Variable selection was performed using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression, targeting in-hospital all-cause mortality as the outcome. We developed the Hospital Outcome Prediction following Endoscopic Variceal Ligation (HOPE-EVL) score from β coefficients of multivariate logistic regression and assessed its discrimination and calibration.

Results: The study included 980 patients: 536 in the development cohort and 444 in the validation cohort. In-hospital mortality was 13.6% and 10.1% for the respective cohorts. The scoring system used five variables: systolic blood pressure (<80 mmHg: 2 points), Glasgow Coma Scale (≤12: 1 point), total bilirubin (≥5 mg/dL: 1 point), creatinine (≥1.5 mg/dL: 1 point), and albumin (<2.8 g/dL: 1 point). The risk groups (low: 0-1, middle: 2-3, high: ≥4) in the validation cohort corresponded to observed and predicted mortality probabilities of 2.0% and 2.5%, 19.0% and 22.9%, and 57.6% and 71.9%, respectively. In this cohort, the HOPE-EVL score demonstrated excellent discrimination ability (area under the curve [AUC] 0.890; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.850-0.930) compared with the Model for End-stage Liver Disease score (AUC 0.853; 95% CI 0.794-0.912) and the Child-Pugh score (AUC 0.798; 95% CI 0.727-0.869).

Conclusions: The HOPE-EVL score practically and effectively predicts in-hospital mortality. This score could facilitate the appropriate allocation of resources and effective communication with patients and their families.

Objectives: There are several types of colorectal cancer (CRC) according to the detection methods and intervals, including interval CRC (iCRC) and postcolonoscopy CRC (PCCRC). We aimed to examine their proportions and characteristics.

Methods: We conducted a multicenter prospective study using questionnaires in Japan ("C-DETECT study"), in which differences in CRC characteristics according to detection methods and intervals were examined from consecutive adult patients. Because the annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) was used in population-based screening, the annual FIT-iCRC was assessed.

Results: In total, 1241 CRC patients (1064 with invasive CRC) were included. Annual FIT-iCRC (a), 3-year PCCRC (b), and CRC detected within 1 year after a positive FIT with noncompliance to colonoscopy (c) accounted for 4.5%, 7.0%, and 3.9% of all CRCs, respectively, and for 3.9%, 5.4%, and 4.3% of invasive CRCs, respectively. The comparison among these (a, b, c) and other CRCs (d) demonstrated differences in the proportions of ≥T2 invasion ([a] 58.9%, [b] 44.8%, [c] 87.5%, [d] 73.0%), metastasis ([a] 33.9%, [b] 21.8%, [c] 54.2%, [d] 43.9%), right-sided CRC ([a] 42.9%, [b] 40.2%, [c] 18.8%, [d] 28.6%), and female sex ([a] 53.6%, [b] 49.4%, [c] 27.1%, [d] 41.6%). In metastatic CRC, (a) and (b) showed a higher proportions of BRAF mutations ([a] [b] 12.0%, [c] [d] 3.1%).

Conclusions: Annual FIT-iCRC and 3-year PCCRC existed in nonnegligible proportions. They were characterized by higher proportions of right-sided tumors, female sex, and BRAF mutations. These findings suggest that annual FIT-iCRC and 3-year PCCRC may have biological features different from those of other CRCs.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) vs. EUS-gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) in cases of failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for jaundice resulting from malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO).

Methods: This multicenter retrospective study included patients with obstructive jaundice secondary to MDBO who underwent EUS-GBD or EUS-CDS with lumen-apposing metal stents after failed ERCP. The primary end-point was clinical success rate. Secondary end-points were technical success, periprocedural adverse events rate (<24 h), late adverse events rate (>24 h), overall survival, and time to recurrent biliary obstruction.

Results: A total of 78 patients were included: 41 underwent EUS-GBD and 37 underwent EUS-CDS. MDBO was mainly the result of pancreatic cancer (n = 63/78, 80.7%). Clinical success rate was similar for both procedures: 87.8% for EUS-GBD and 89.2% for EUS-CDS (P = 0.8). Technical success rate was 100% for EUS-GBD and 94.6% for EUS-CDS (P = 0.132). Periprocedural morbidity (<24 h) rates were similar between both groups: 4/41 (9.8%) for EUS-GBD and 5/37 (13.5%) for EUS-CDS (P = 0.368). There was a significantly higher rate of late morbidity (>24 h) among patients in the EUS-CDS group (8/37 [21.6%]) than in the EUS-GBD group (3/41 [7.3%]) (P = 0.042). The median follow-up duration was 4.7 months. Overall survival and time to recurrent biliary obstruction did not significantly differ between the groups.

Discussion: After failed ERCP for MDBO, EUS-GBD and EUS-CDS show comparable clinical success rates and technical success. EUS-GBD appears to be a promising alternative for MDBO, even as a second-line treatment after failed ERCP. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and compare the long-term outcomes of EUS-GBD and EUS-CDS.