Snyder, Diana L.

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal colon cleansing regimen protocol for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy.Methods: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume solution. Data collection included colon preparation quality based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale and a questionnaire given to all subjects, in which we evaluated the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). Results: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume prep averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (6.6, SD 2.19) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.64. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01.Conclusion: Although not statistically significant, a low-volume colon preparation showed a trend of equivalent quality of bowel preparation measured by BBPS in comparison to traditional volume regimens, with less unpleasant taste, which may contribute to better patient compliance and therefore better bowel preparation in the inpatient setting. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01978509

INTRODUCTION: Epidermal metaplasia is a histological correlate to a white patch on the surface of a mucous membrane that cannot be rubbed off, known as leukoplakia. It is a common finding in oral mucosa, however rare in esophageal mucosa. Etiology of this condition in the esophagus is unclear, thought to be associated with esophageal tobacco and alcohol exposure or possibly an unusual response to chronic acid reflux. In contrast to oral leukoplakia there is a female predominance. Although generally asymptomatic, symptom presentation can include dysphagia. Endoscopic features include slightly elevated whitish surface, which can be translucent or cobblestone-like in appearance. The natural history is unknown though there is concern for an increased risk of squamous cell cancer. Due to paucity of published studies about this condition, we aim to report a case treated with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). CASE DESCRIPTION/METHODS: A 64-year-old Caucasian man with a history of tobacco use and stable weight, presented to Gastroenterology clinic due to an 11-month history of solid food esophageal dysphagia. Physical examination was unremarkable. Upper endoscopy demonstrated white plaques at the gastroesophageal junction (Figure 1A and B). Biopsies obtained from this abnormality showed esophageal epidermoid metaplasia consistent with leukoplakia and mild patchy active chronic inflammation. GMS stain for fungal organisms was negative. An ESD procedure was planned, due to lesion size to ensure complete removal. Chromoscopy with methylene blue was used to mark the borders of the lesion and ESD was accomplished without adverse events (Figure 1C). Histologic examination confirmed hyperplastic squamous esophageal mucosa with marked hyperkeratosis without dysplasia and negative margins. During 2 year follow up, patient reported complete resolution of his dysphagia. DISCUSSION: The management strategy for esophageal leukoplakia is not well defined though reports suggest that endoscopic resection and surveillance are warranted. Here we represent a case where symptoms resolved and the lesion was completely removed by ESD.

INTRODUCTION: We previously showed an association between chronic opioid use and esophageal motor dysfunction characterized by esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, distal esophageal spasm, achalasia type III, and Jackhammer esophagus. Assessment of response to multiple rapid swallows (MRS) during high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) enables detection of impaired inhibition during MRS. Healthy subjects respond to MRS by deglutitive inhibition during MRS followed by an augmented contraction with higher vigor than single swallows. Hypothesis: during MRS, opioids may interfere with deglutitive inhibition and may enhance post MRS contraction. Aim: compare response to MRS in opioid users, non-users and healthy controls. METHODS: Response to MRS was evaluated in 200 patients with esophageal symptoms (100 chronic opioid users on oxycodone, hydrocodone, or tramadol for ≥3 months, 100 not on opioids), and 19 asymptomatic healthy controls that underwent HRM. Patients with prior gastroesophageal surgery, pneumatic dilation, esophageal botulinum toxin injection within 6 months of HRM, esophageal stricture, achalasia type I or II, and scleroderma were excluded. Demographic and symptom data were extracted from a prospectively maintained motility database. Response to MRS was evaluated for complete versus incomplete inhibition (contractility with DCI >100 mmHg-sec-cm during MRS), and presence of post MRS contraction augmentation (DCI post MRS greater than mean DCI for single swallows). Categorical variables were analyzed by chi square. RESULTS: Patients were older than controls (Table 1). HRM indications are shown in Table 2. Incomplete inhibition during MRS was significantly more frequent in chronic opioid users compared to patients not on opioids and healthy controls (26% vs 11% vs 0% P = 0.002; Figure 1). There was a significant difference in the rate of incomplete MRS inhibition for patients on oxycodone, hydrocodone, and tramadol (27% vs 34% vs 22% P = 0.002). The proportion of patients with augmentation post MRS was similar for opioid users, non-opioid users and healthy controls ( P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Impaired deglutitive inhibition during MRS was significantly more frequent among opioid users compared to non-opioid users and healthy controls. This was more common with stronger opioids (oxycodone and hydrocodone) compared to tramadol. These findings support our hypothesis that opioids interfere with inhibitory signals in the esophagus.

INTRODUCTION: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy since these patients are usually older, less mobile, have more medical comorbidities, and often require emergent evaluation. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy. METHODS: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was IRB approved and conducted as a pilot study at a Tertiary Referral Medical Center between September 2013 and March 2019. Hospitalized patients aged 18 years or older undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high-volume solution (GoLYTELY®, medium-volume solution (MoviPrep®) or a low-volume Prepopik® solution. Adverse effects including unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting were scored through a questionnaire using a five-point scale ranging from 0 (no symptoms) to 4 (severe symptoms). Boston Bowel Prep Score (BBPS) was used to evaluate colon cleanliness. Descriptive statistics are presented as mean values ± standard deviation (SD), and P -values were calculated using Chi-Square and Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Mean age was 66.6 years (16.34) and 68% were male (Table 1). Indications for colonoscopy varied and are shown in Table 1. Total BBPS scores were higher in patients who received Prepopik®, 7.4 (1.62), than GoLYTELY® 6.6 (2.19) or MoviPrep® 6.9 (1.55), P = 0.66 (Figure 1). There was no difference in BBPS in right, transverse, or left colon scores. Regarding tolerance to preparation, 100% of the Prepopik® group reported completing the bowel preparation compared to 77.8% of the GoLYTELY® group and 66.4% of the MoviPrep® group ( P = 0.24). The Prepopik® group reported fewer side effects than GoLYTELY®/MoviPrep® groups (Table 2). CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, a low-volume colon preparation demonstrated at least equivalent quality of bowel preparation measured by BBPS in comparison with traditional higher volume regimens, with less adverse effects, and better compliance for cleansing completion. This study suggests small volume purgative may lead to better patient compliance and therefore, better bowel preparation in the inpatient setting. The lack of statistical significance is likely due to a type II error. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.

OBJECTIVE: Data regarding opioid effects on esophageal function are limited. We previously demonstrated an association between chronic opioid use and esophageal motor dysfunction characterized by esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, distal esophageal spasm, achalasia type III, and possibly Jackhammer esophagus. Our aim was to characterize the influence of different opioids and doses on esophageal dysfunction. METHODS: Retrospective review of 225 patients prescribed oxycodone, hydrocodone, or tramadol for >3 months, who completed high-resolution manometry from 2012 to 2017. Demographic and manometric data were extracted from a prospectively maintained motility database. Frequency of opioid-induced esophageal dysfunction (OIED, defined as distal esophageal spasm, esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, achalasia type III, or Jackhammer esophagus on high-resolution manometry, was compared among different opioids. The total 24-hour opioid doses for oxycodone, hydrocodone, and tramadol were converted to a morphine equivalent for dose effect analysis. RESULTS: OIED was present in 24% (55 of 225) of opioid users. OIED was significantly more prevalent with oxycodone or hydrocodone use compared with tramadol (31% vs 28% vs 12%, P = 0.0162), and for oxycodone alone vs oxycodone with acetaminophen (43% vs 21%, P = 0.0482). There was no difference in OIED for patients taking hydrocodone alone vs hydrocodone with acetaminophen. Patients with OIED were taking a higher median 24-hour opioid dose than those without OIED (45 vs 30 mg, P = 0.058). DISCUSSION: OIED is more prevalent in patients taking oxycodone or hydrocodone compared with tramadol. There is greater likelihood of OIED developing with higher doses. Reducing the opioid dose or changing to tramadol may reduce OIED in opioid users.

Objective Surveillance interval protocols after complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) post radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in Barrett’s oesophagus (BE) are currently empiric and not based on substantial evidence. We aimed to assess the timeline, location and patterns of recurrence following CRIM to inform these guidelines. Design Data on patients undergoing RFA for BE were obtained from prospectively maintained databases of five (three USA and two UK) tertiary referral centres. RFA was performed until CRIM was confirmed on two consecutive endoscopies. Results 594 patients achieved CRIM as of 1 May 2017. 151 subjects developed recurrent BE over a median (IQR) follow-up of 2.8 (1.4–4.4) years. There was 19% cumulative recurrence risk of any BE within 2 years and an additional 49% risk over the next 8.6 years. There was no evidence of a clinically meaningful change in the recurrence hazard rate of any BE, dysplastic BE or high-grade dysplasia/cancer over the duration of follow-up, with an estimated 2% (95% CI −7% to 12%) change in recurrence rate of any BE in a doubling of follow-up time. 74% of BE recurrences developed at the gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) (24.1% were dysplastic) and 26% in the tubular oesophagus. The yield of random biopsies from the tubular oesophagus, in the absence of visible lesions, was 1% (BE) and 0.2% (dysplasia). Conclusions BE recurrence risk following CRIM remained constant over time, suggesting that lengthening of follow-up intervals, at least in the first 5 years after CRIM, may not be advisable. Sampling the GOJ is critical to detecting recurrence. The requirement for random biopsies of the neosquamous epithelium in the absence of visible lesions may need to be re-evaluated.