Ramirez, Francisco C.

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen 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 preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating 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 preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. 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: In this pilot study we found that low-volume colon preparation may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01978509

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen 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 preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating 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 preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. 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: In this pilot study, the low-volume colon preparation Prepopik® may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.

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: 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 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.

159 Background: Intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) with small spot size has the potential to reduce dose to normal tissues but also introduces new confounding factors such as setup uncertainty, range uncertainty, and interplay effects due to breathing motion. We investigated plan quality and robustness of IMPT with small spot size for distal esophageal adenocarcinoma (DEA). Methods: 19 patients with DEA treated by IMPT were retrospectively evaluated. Spot sizes ranged from 2 to 6mm, with spot spacing of 5mm. All plans were generated using a commercial treatment planning system. In-house-developed dose-evaluation software modeled time-dependent spot delivery to incorporate interplay effects. Dose-volume-histogram (DVH) indices were used to evaluate plan quality and robustness was evaluated using the DVH band method. Results: For plan quality, median values of clinical target volume D95% and D5%-D95% (normalized to the prescribed doses), total lung mean dose, heart mean dose, and cord Dmax were 1.014, 0.035, 3.82Gy[RBE], 7.73Gy[RBE], 39.16Gy[RBE], respectively. For plan robustness, median band widths of the aforementioned DVH indices were 0.018, 0.048, 0.60Gy[RBE], 4.17Gy[RBE], and 2.36Gy[RBE], respectively. For interplay effects, median values of the aforementioned DVH indices were 0.99, 0.061, 4.07Gy[RBE], 7.87Gy[RBE], and 39.66Gy[RBE], respectively. Seven patients underwent esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiation, and five, three, and one of them achieved downstaging, near complete response, and pathologic complete response, respectively; R0 resection was achieved in all cases. For all patients, acute side effects were mostly limited to grades 1-2 only. The only grade 3 adverse events were related to feeding tube placement (8 patients); there were no RT-induced pneumonitis or other lung-related toxicities. Conclusions: IMPT plans with small spot size for DEA have good target dose coverage, homogeneity and normal tissue protection. Treatment plans are also robust to uncertainties and interplay effects. Early clinical results demonstrate low acute toxicity and encouraging clinical and pathologic response.

AbstractBackgroundThe most recent Chicago Classification expanded the criteria for diagnosis of jackhammer esophagus (JHE) to include the distal contractile integral (DCI) of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES). The clinical impact of the manometric inclusion of LES hypercontractility remains unclear. We aimed to analyze the clinical features and long‐term outcomes of measured LES‐dependent (LD‐JHE) and LES‐independent (LI‐JHE) jackhammer esophagus.MethodsPatients meeting diagnostic criteria for JHE were identified at two academic medical centers. High‐resolution esophageal manometry data were re‐analyzed with inclusion and exclusion of the LES DCI. LD‐JHE was defined by falling outside JHE diagnostic criteria with exclusion of the LES. A telephone survey was conducted for follow‐up utilizing the impact dysphagia (IDQ‐10) questionnaire.Key ResultsEighty‐one patients met study inclusion criteria, with 12 (14.8%) classified as LD‐JHE. LD‐JHE patients had a significantly lower mean DCI and fewer swallows with DCI >8000 mm Hg‐s‐cm. Basal LES pressure was higher in patients with dysphagia to solids than those with dysphagia to solids and liquids. Clinical and manometric parameters were otherwise similar between groups. Sixty‐six patients had clinical or phone follow‐up at a median of 46.6 months. Forty‐one patients (62.1%) received therapies directed at JHE. There was no difference in symptom improvement for treated vs untreated patients or for JHE subtype.Conclusions and InferencesOur findings suggest that LD‐JHE and LI‐JHE are clinically indistinguishable and thus support existing diagnostic criteria. Furthermore, our long‐term follow‐up data suggest that JHE, irrespective of LES involvement, may improve without treatment. Further study is needed to clarify which patients merit therapeutic intervention.

Goals: To investigate factors predictive of progression from nondysplastic Barrett esophagus (NDBE) or low-grade dysplasia (LGD) to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) using a large, prospective cohort of patients, wherein all esophageal biopsies undergo expert gastrointestinal pathologist review. Background: Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic surveillance to detect incident EAC in the setting of Barrett esophagus (BE), particularly in NDBE patients, is questioned. Previous studies have reported factors predictive of progression to EAC to guide surveillance intervals, but their strength is limited by small sample size and absence of expert gastrointestinal pathologist involvement in esophageal biopsy review. Study: NDBE and LGD subjects were identified from a prospective registry in a tertiary care center. “Progressors” were BE subjects who developed HGD/EAC>12 months after the initial NDBE or LGD diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards model were used to identify predictors of progression. Results: In total, 318 with NDBE and 301 with BE-LGD (mean age, 62.6 y, 85% male) were included. The mean follow-up was 5.3 years. The 7 NDBE and 21 LGD subjects progressed to HGD/EAC. BE length [hazards ratio (HR), 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.03-1.29], presence of nodularity (HR, 4.98; 95% CI, 1.80-11.7), and baseline LGD (HR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.13-6.57) were significant predictors of progression on multivariate analysis. Conclusions: In this well-defined cohort of NDBE and BE-LGD subjects, BE length, presence of LGD, and nodularity were independent predictors of progression to HGD/EAC. These factors may aid in identifying high-risk patients who may benefit from closer endoscopic surveillance/therapy.