Rajan, Elizabeth

Background and Study Aims. The presence of an implantable electromechanical cardiac device (IED) has long been considered a relative contraindication to the performance of video capsule endoscopy (CE). The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of CE in patients with IEDs. A secondary purpose was to determine whether IEDs have any impact on images captured by CE.Patients and Methods.A retrospective chart review of all patients who had a capsule endoscopy at Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, AZ, USA, or Rochester, MN, USA, (January 2002 to June 2010) was performed to identify CE studies done on patients with IEDs. One hundred and eighteen capsule studies performed in 108 patients with IEDs were identified and reviewed for demographic data, method of preparation, and study data.Results.The most common indications for CE were obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (77%), anemia (14%), abdominal pain (5%), celiac disease (2%), diarrhea (1%), and Crohn’s disease (1%). Postprocedure assessments did not reveal any detectable alteration on the function of the IED. One patient with an ICD had a 25-minute loss of capsule imaging due to recorder defect. Two patients with LVADs had interference with capsule image acquisition.Conclusions.CE did not interfere with IED function, including PM, ICD, and/or LVAD and thus appears safe. Additionally, PM and ICD do not appear to interfere with image acquisition but LVAD may interfere with capsule images and require that capsule leads be positioned as far away as possible from the IED to assure reliable image acquisition.

AbstractBackground and AimHamartomatous polyposis syndromes (HPS) are a group of rare inherited autosomal dominant disorders. Small bowel polyposis is one of the manifestations of HPS. Double‐balloon enteroscopy (DBE) with polypectomy may obviate repeated small bowel surgeries for polyp intussusception, obstruction, or bleeding. The efficacy and safety of DBE‐assisted polypectomy in HPS patients with clinically significant small bowel polyposis were evaluated.MethodsAll HPS patients who underwent DBE from January 2007 to April 2011 were identified using a prospectively maintained database. Data on patient demographics, pre‐DBE radiological studies, polyp characteristics, procedural outcomes, and complications were abstracted.ResultsTwenty‐two patients underwent a total of 34 DBE procedures. Pre‐DBE imaging included computed tomography enterography (n = 15), computed tomography enteroclysis (n = 5), small bowel follow‐through (n = 1), and magnetic resonance enterography (n = 1). Any small bowel polyp ≥ 1 cm in size on radiological imaging was referred for DBE‐assisted polypectomy. Antegrade and retrograde DBE were successful in reaching and resecting targeted polyps in 90% (18/20) and 71.4% (10/14) of procedures, respectively. The overall success rate for DBE‐assisted polypectomy was 82.3% (95% confidence interval: 66.5–91.6%). The median size of resected polyps was 2 cm (range 1–5 cm) and all were hamartomas. Minor adverse events occurred in four (11.8%) procedures, including abdominal pain (n = 2), immediate post‐polypectomy bleeding (n = 1), and self‐limited hematochezia (n = 1).ConclusionsDBE‐assisted polypectomy was successful in over 80% of HPS patients with an acceptable margin of safety. To the knowledge of the authors, this is one of the largest single‐center studies to report on the performance and safety of DBE‐assisted polypectomy in HPS patients.

Pelvic lymph node dissection is the gold standard for assessing nodal disease in prostate or bladder cancer and is superior to CT, MRI and PET staging. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) provides an alternative, less invasive method of cytohistologic material acquisition, but its performance in pelvic urologic malignancy is unknown. Therefore, our aim was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EUS guided tissue sampling for these malignancies when compared to a composite cytohistologic and surgical gold standard. A median of 3 FNA passes were performed (n=19 patients) revealing a sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 94.4% (72–99), 100% (2–100), 100% (80–100) and 50% (1–98) respectively. The perirectal space was the most frequently sampled location irrespective of the primary urological cancer origin. Final diagnosis established by EUS tissue sampling included bladder cancer (n=1), bladder cancer local recurrence (n=8), bladder cancer extra pelvic metastases (n=1), prostate cancer (n=2), prostate cancer local recurrence (n=4), prostate cancer extra pelvic metastases (n=1), testicular cancer extra pelvic metastases (n=1) and a benign seminal vesicle (n=1). EUS guided sampling of the gut wall, lymph nodes, or perirectal space yields suitable diagnostic material to establish the presence of primary, local recurrence or extra pelvic metastases of pelvic urologic malignancy.