Krishnamoorthi, Rajesh

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided gastroenterostomy (GE) is emerging as an alternative to enteral stenting and surgical GE for management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). With advances in EUS technology and availability of dedicated devices/stents for EUS scopes, the use of EUS-GE is expected to increase in the future. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the success rate and adverse events associated with EUS-GE. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases (from inception through May 2019) to identify studies that reported success rate and adverse events of EUS-GE. The primary outcome was to estimate the pooled rates of technical and clinical success of EUS-GE. The secondary outcome was to estimate the rate of adverse events. RESULTS: 9 studies with a total of 268 patients were included. The pooled rate of technical success of EUS-GE was 91.7 % (95% CI 87.5 – 94.5; I2 = 0). The pooled rate of clinical success of EUS-GJ was 87.8% (95% CI 83.1 – 91.3; I 2 = 0). The pooled rate of overall adverse events was 12.6% (95% CI 9.0- 17.6; I 2 = 0). The pooled rate of individual adverse events – perforation, bleeding, peritonitis and stent migration / misdeployment were 2% (95% CI 0.7 – 5.1), 3.2% (95% CI 1.5 – 6.5), 2.6% (95% CI 1.1-6.1) and 8.9 % (95% CI 4.3-17.5) respectively.The rate of surgical intervention for adverse events was 2%. CONCLUSION: While the rates of technical success (92%) and clinical success (88%) of EUS-GJ is promising, the risk of adverse events is considerable at 12.6%, with stent misdeployment (9%) being the most common adverse event. Hence, EUS-GJ should be performed at tertiary referral centers in a multidisciplinary (surgery, oncology, gastroenterology) team-based approach.

INTRODUCTION: Detailed recommendations and guidelines for acute pancreatitis (AP) management currently exist. However, quality indicators (QIs) are required to measure performance in health care. The goal of the Acute Pancreatitis Task Force on Quality was to formally develop QIs for the management of patients with known or suspected AP using a modified version of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology. METHODS: A multidisciplinary expert panel composed of physicians (gastroenterologists, hospitalists, and surgeons) who are acknowledged leaders in their specialties and who represent geographic and practice setting diversity was convened. A literature review was conducted, and a list of proposed QIs was developed. In 3 rounds, panelists reviewed literature, modified QIs, and rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, bias, interpretability, validity, necessity, and proposed performance targets. RESULTS: Supporting literature and a list of 71 proposed QIs across 10 AP domains (Diagnosis, Etiology, Initial Assessment and Risk Stratification, etc.) were sent to the expert panel to review and independently rate in round 1 (95% of panelists participated). Based on a round 2 face-to-face discussion of QIs (75% participation), 41 QIs were classified as valid. During round 3 (90% participation), panelists rated the 41 valid QIs for necessity and proposed performance thresholds. The final classification determined that 40 QIs were both valid and necessary. DISCUSSION: Hospitals and providers managing patients with known or suspected AP should ensure that patients receive high-quality care and desired outcomes according to current evidence-based best practices. This physician-led initiative formally developed 40 QIs and performance threshold targets for AP management. Validated QIs provide a dependable quantitative framework for health systems to monitor the quality of care provided to patients with known or suspected AP.

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.

SummaryBackgroundThe proportion of oesophageal adenocarcinoma that is detected concurrently with initial Barrett's oesophagus diagnosis is not well studied.AimTo compare the proportion of prevalent adenocarcinoma vs. incident adenocarcinoma found during surveillance of Barrett's.MethodsWe performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science (from their inception to 31 May 2015) for cohort studies in adults with Barrett's (nondysplastic Barrett's ± Barrett's with low‐grade dysplasia) with minimum average follow‐up of 3 years, and providing numbers of prevalent adenocarcinoma detected (concurrently with Barrett's diagnosis and up to 1 year afterwards) vs. incident adenocarcinoma detected (greater than 1 year after Barrett's diagnosis). Pooled weighted proportions of prevalent and incident adenocarcinoma were calculated, using a random effects model.ResultsOn meta‐analysis of 13 studies reporting on 603 adenocarcinomas in 9657 Barrett's patients, 85.1% of adenocarcinomas were classified as prevalent [95% confidence interval (CI), 78.1–90.2%) and 14.9% as incident (95% CI, 9.8–21.9%), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 66%). Among nine studies reporting on 787 high‐grade dysplasia and oesophageal adenocarcinomas in 8098 Barrett's patients, the proportion of prevalent high‐grade dysplasia‐oesophageal adenocarcinoma was similar at 80.5% (95% CI, 68.1–88.8%, I2 = 87%). These results remained stable across multiple subgroup analyses including study quality, setting, duration of follow‐up and presence of baseline dysplasia.ConclusionsIn our meta‐analysis, four of five patients diagnosed with adenocarcinoma or high‐grade dysplasia at index endoscopy or within 1 year of Barrett's follow‐up were considered to be prevalent cases. Continued efforts are needed to identify patients with Barrett's before the development of adenocarcinoma.