Alexander, Jeffrey A.

Summary Topical steroids are commonly used in treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), but currently there is lack of data to clarify most effective regimen. We aimed to study the achievement of histologic remission using the same dose of budesonide in two different delivery formulations. Patients with established EoE treated with pharmacy compounded budesonide capsule or budesonide Rincinol gel (both 3 mg twice daily) were studied retrospectively. Those with pre-treatment and post-treatment histologic assessment were included with main endpoint being histologic remission. 103 patients (62 gel, 41 capsule) were included, with higher rate of histologic remission with gel (84 vs. 59%, P=0.004). A subset of patients in both groups had lack of steroid response (<50% drop in eosinophils) (15% for gel, 32% for capsule). Formulation/delivery vehicle of steroid treatments to esophageal mucosa in EoE appears important for treatment efficacy, with budesonide gel having higher likelihood of histologic remission compared to budesonide capsules in our population. A truly steroid refractory group appears likely in our population. Larger, prospective studies may help clarify best regimen of topical steroids in EoE and may work to identify patients likely to benefit from alternative therapies.

AbstractBackgroundOpioid‐induced esophageal dysfunction (OIED) is a recognized complication of chronic opioid use. However, the impact of acute opioid administration on esophageal motility remains unclear.MethodsOpioid naïve patients with high‐resolution manometry (HRM) <480 min following esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) (opioid‐HRM) and a control group with HRM <36 h prior to EGD between January 1, 2016, and November 10, 2018, from a single institution were identified. EGDs were performed exclusively with versed and fentanyl.Key ResultsOne hundred and seventy‐four patients were identified, with 83 (47.7%) opioid‐HRM and 91 (52.3%) controls. Mean time from EGD to HRM was 229 (78–435) min. Baseline clinical features and HRM indications were similar between opioid‐HRM and controls. Chicago classification v3.0 defined HRM findings were similar between groups. Major motility disorders as defined by the Chicago classification v3.0 occurred at a similar frequency among opioid‐HRM and controls (27.7% vs. 36.3%, p = 0.23). Mean distal contractile integrity (DCI) was higher in opioid‐HRM (1939.3 ± 1318.9 vs. 1792.2 ± 2062.3 mmHg∙cm∙s, p = 0.043), but maximum DCI, distal latency, and integrated relaxation pressure did not differ between groups. Subgroup analysis assessing time and dose dependency did not identify differences in individual manometric parameters and Chicago classification v3.0 diagnosis between patients with HRM <240 min after EGD, >240 min after EGD, ≥125 mcg of IV fentanyl, <125 mcg IV fentanyl and controls.Conclusions and InferencesSame‐day acute opioid administration did not affect HRM findings in opioid naïve patients. Studies assessing the pathophysiology of and duration‐dependent relationship with opioids in OIED are needed.

INTRODUCTION: Histologic response rates to steroids for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) vary from < 50% to >90% in controlled trials. We have used varied steroid preparations and higher doses than typically used and aimed to study if steroid dose and delivery vehicle might explain the wide variation in response. METHODS: A database of patients with EoE created in our esophageal clinic was reviewed and patients treated with at least an 8 week course of topical steroid therapy and undergoing pre and post-steroid histologic evaluation were included. Histologic remission was defined as eosinophil count < 15/hpf. Symptomatic remission was defined as complete resolution of symptoms and eating an unlimited diet. Endoscopy reports were reviewed. RESULTS: 94 patients were included, 45 on 3 mg budesonide-Rincinol gel twice daily (HBRG), 29 on 3 mg budesonide capsules BID (BC), and 20 on lower doses of BRG (1.5 mg daily to 2 mg BID) (LBRG). 88.5% had dysphagia at time of steroid initiation. Mean eosinophil count before steroids was 58.6/hpf. 38.3% had esophageal dilation just prior to steroids. Average EFERS prior to steroid treatment was 1.8. There were not significant differences between the groups in terms of demographics, initial eosinophil counts, symptoms, visual EoE assessment (EREFS) or dilation rates. Histologic remission rate for HBRG was 82.2% vs 55.1% for all others combined ( P < 0.001), 51.7% for BC ( P = 0.005 vs 3 mg BRG BID), and 60.0% for LBRG ( P = 0.06 vs 3 mg BRG BID). Symptomatic remission was similar between groups, as was change in EREFS and change in eosinophil counts. Non-responders to HBRG had mean decrease in eosinophil count of only 0.3/hpf (vs 53.2/hpf for responders, P < 0.003) and mean change in EREFS of +1.6 (vs −1.1 for responders, P < 0.001). 62.5% of non-responders to HBRG actually had increase in eosinophil count after steroids. Response rate to HBRG at < 5 eos/hpf was 77.8% overall and 94.6% in those achieving remission. CONCLUSION: A higher remission rate achieved with a more viscous steroid preparation compared to other formulations suggests the importance of both dose and esophageal delivery in treatment of EoE. Further, with adequate mucosal delivery and dosing of topical steroids, steroid refractory EoE appears to be uncommon. On the other hand, these results suggest the existence of a small truly steroid refractory group of EoE patients with negligible histologic, symptomatic and endoscopic response to high dose steroids that warrant further investigation.

Abstract Background Capsule endoscopy (CE) is frequently hindered by intra-luminal debris. Our aim was to determine whether a combination bowel preparation would improve small-bowel visualization, diagnostic yield, and the completion rate of CE. Methods Single-blind, prospective randomized–controlled study of outpatients scheduled for CE. Bowel-preparation subjects ingested 2 L of polyethylene glycol solution the night prior to CE, 5 mL simethicone and 5 mg metoclopramide 20 minutes prior to CE and laid in the right lateral position 30 minutes after swallowing CE. Controls had no solid food after 7 p.m. the night prior to CE and no liquids 4 hours prior to CE. Participants completed a satisfaction survey. Capsule readers completed a small-bowel-visualization assessment. Results Fifty patients were prospectively enrolled (56% female) with a median age of 54.4 years and 44 completed the study (23 patients in the control group and 21 in the preparation group). There was no significant difference between groups on quartile-based small-bowel visualization (all P &gt; 0.05). There was no significant difference between groups in diagnostic yield (P = 0.69), mean gastric (P = 0.10) or small-bowel transit time (P = 0.89). The small-bowel completion rate was significantly higher in the preparation group (100% vs 78%; P = 0.02). Bowel-preparation subjects reported significantly more discomfort than controls (62% vs 17%; P = 0.01). Conclusions Combined bowel preparation did not improve small-bowel visualization but did significantly increase patient discomfort. The CE completion rate improved in the preparation group but the diagnostic yield was unaffected. Based on our findings, a bowel preparation prior to CE does not appear to improve CE performance and results in decreased patient satisfaction (ClinicalTrials.gov, No. NCT01243736).

Background Esophageal food impaction is relatively common and increasing over time. Treatment ranges from medications to invasive endoscopic therapies. The endoscopic push technique has been advised against in favor of endoscopic retrieval for safety concerns. We sought to assess use patterns and safety of treatments for food impaction in a population‐based retrospective review. Methods A database of recorded esophageal food impactions in Olmsted County, MN, USA, from 1975–2011 was reviewed for patient demographics, treatment, and complications. Results A total of 645 impactions occurred, with increasing incidence over time, peaking at 23.2 per year (2000–2004). Medications (almost exclusively glucagon) were successful in relieving impactions 34.5% of the time when trialed. Urgent endoscopy was common (74.0%), as was the need for endoscopic therapy (67.1%). Endoscopic therapy increased over time, with the endoscopic push technique becoming most common. Esophageal complications (deep mucosal injury or perforation) increased over time but remained rare (peak 11%). There was no difference in complications between push and retrieval techniques. Conclusions The endoscopic push technique is safe in comparison to endoscopic retrieval in esophageal food impactions. While complications surrounding impaction have increased, they remain rare. Medication trials are reasonable, as long as they do not delay endoscopy, and may prevent the need for emergent endoscopy in one‐third of cases.

Abstract Background/aims The rate of recurrent small-bowel bleeding (SBB) remains high despite the advent of balloon assisted enteroscopy (BAE). The study aims were to determine: (1) the diagnostic and therapeutic yields, and adverse event rate of repeat BAE in SBB, and (2) the predictors of a positive repeat BAE. Methods A retrospective review of a BAE database was conducted. Patients who had > 1 BAE for SBB were included. Primary outcomes were diagnostic yield, therapeutic yield, and adverse events of repeat BAE. Secondary outcomes were predictors of a positive repeat BAE. Results A total of 175 patients (55 % men; mean age 64.1 ± 16.3 years) were included. The diagnostic and therapeutic yields of repeat BAE were 55 % and 42 %, respectively. Repeat BAE adverse events occurred in 5 % with self-limited abdominal pain being most common. Patients with a positive repeat BAE were significantly older than the negative group (68.6 ± 13.9 vs. 60.9 ± 17.1; P = 0.001) and were more likely to have cardiac comorbidities (OR 2.4, 95 %CI: 1.3 – 4.6; P = 0.01), chronic kidney disease (OR 2.3, 95 %CI: 1.1 – 4.9; P = 0.04), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 3.3, 95 %CI: 1.3 – 8.1; P = 0.01), positive initial BAE (OR 3.6, 95 %CI: 1.9 – 6.8; P < 0.001), and antegrade procedure (OR 3.3, 95 %CI: 1.7 – 6.1; P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, a positive initial BAE and antegrade route were the only significant predictive factors. Conclusions Performing a repeat BAE for SBB appears safe and provided modest yields. A positive initial BAE and antegrade route were predictive of a positive repeat BAE.

SummaryBackgroundCurrent management of refractory benign oesophageal strictures with endoscopic dilations and stenting leads to resolution of dysphagia in only 30% of patients. Oesophageal self‐dilation may be an alternative.AimTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of oesophageal self‐dilation at a tertiary referral centre.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective review of patients with refractory benign oesophageal strictures who participated in oesophageal self‐dilation at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN, USA) between 2003 and 2017. Clinical data including stricture characteristics, Dakkak and Bennett Dysphagia Score, number and dates of endoscopies, and complications were collected. A two‐tailed paired Student's t test was used to compare the measures of efficacy, with differences considered significant at a 5% probability level.ResultsWe identified 52 patients with refractory strictures treated with self‐dilation. The median number of endoscopic interventions was reduced from 9.5 (range 5‐30) to 0 (range 0‐3) within 12 months before and after self‐dilation, respectively (P < 0.0001). A median intervention‐free interval of 417 days (IQR 256‐756 days) was observed. The mean dysphagia score at baseline was 2.5 (95% CI 2.2‐2.8) and 0.33 (95% CI 0.11‐0.53) after self‐dilation. 23 of 27 (85%) patients who received enteral nutrition prior to self‐dilation had their feeding tubes removed.ConclusionsOesophageal self‐dilation is an effective way of maintaining oesophageal patency in refractory benign oesophageal strictures, with safety comparable to current standard of care. Prospective studies are needed to further validate the role of self‐dilation in treatment of refractory benign oesophageal strictures.