PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-3 (3)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Authors
more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Factors associated with esophageal stricture formation after endoscopic mucosal resection for neoplastic Barrett’s esophagus 
Gastrointestinal endoscopy  2011;74(4):753-760.
Background
EMR for early neoplastic Barrett’s esophagus is gaining favor over esophagectomy. Esophageal stricture development has been reported as a common complication of EMR, photodynamic therapy, and combination endoscopic therapy.
Objective
To determine clinical and procedural predictors of symptomatic stricture formation after EMR.
Design
Retrospective analysis.
Setting
Tertiary-care referral university hospital.
Patients
Data were retrospectively reviewed on 73 patients at our institution who underwent EMR monotherapy for Barrett’s esophagus with high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal cancer since January 2006.
Intervention
EMR.
Main Outcome Measurements
Symptomatic esophageal stricture formation.
Results
Symptomatic esophageal stricture formation was noted in 24.7% of patients undergoing EMR. Stricture formation on univariate analysis was associated with percentage of circumference of esophageal lumen resected, total pieces resected, number of EMR sessions, and tobacco use. A threshold effect was found at 50% of esophageal circumference resected (66.7% vs 27.2% developed strictures above and below the threshold, respectively; P = .004). A 25-pack-year or greater history of tobacco use had a threshold effect on esophageal stricture formation (77.8% vs 7.2% developed strictures above and below the threshold, respectively; P =.02). In multivariate analysis, resection of >50% of the circumference was strongly associated with stricture formation (odds ratio [OR] 4.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27–13.7). A 25-pack-year or greater history of tobacco use also trended toward stricture formation (OR 3.33; 95% CI, 0.929–12.1).
Limitations
Retrospective design, sample size.
Conclusion
Resection of at least 50% of the esophageal mucosal circumference is strongly associated with stricture formation. Patients with strong histories of tobacco use also may be more likely to develop esophageal strictures following EMR.
doi:10.1016/j.gie.2011.05.031
PMCID: PMC3481547  PMID: 21820109
2.  A survey of expert follow-up practices after successful endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia and intramucosal adenocarcinoma 
Gastrointestinal endoscopy  2013;78(5):696-701.
Background
Despite the increasing number of patients undergoing endoscopic therapy for Barrett's esophagus (BE) with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or intramucosal cancer (IMC), there are few data to guide clinical decision making and research initiatives in the area of posttreatment follow-up.
Objectives
We aimed to define expert practice patterns regarding follow-up after endoscopic treatment of BE with HGD and IMC.
Design
Electronic survey.
Subjects
Forty-eight endoscopists in the United States with expertise in BE endotherapy based on high-impact publications and national reputation.
Intervention
A 21-item Web-based survey inquiring about post-BE endotherapy follow-up practices.
Results
Of 48 expert endoscopists, 42 completed the survey. After successful treatment of BE with HGD or IMC, all experts perform surveillance upper endoscopy, most commonly at 3-month intervals in the first posttreatment year, every 6 months during the second year, and annually thereafter. None of the experts perform surveillance EUS after treatment of HGD, and only 19% perform EUS after treatment of IMC. After cancer eradication, only 36% of experts refer patients for CT, and 24% refer patients for positron emission tomography. Thirty-eight percent of experts refer patients for a surgical opinion when IMC extends into the muscularis mucosa; 100% refer when IMC extends into submucosa.
Limitations
Not a consensus document; only U.S. experts included.
Conclusions
This study reports the follow-up practices of expert endoscopists after successful endotherapy for BE with HGD and IMC. Additional research is necessary to establish optimal surveillance intervals, the role of follow-up EUS, CT, and positron emission tomography, as well as the surgical implications of low-risk IMC extending into the muscularis mucosa.
doi:10.1016/j.gie.2013.04.196
PMCID: PMC3961573  PMID: 23711553
3.  A Randomized Trial of Rectal Indomethacin to Prevent Post-ERCP Pancreatitis 
The New England Journal of Medicine  2012;366(15):1414-1422.
Background
Preliminary research suggests that rectally administered nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs may reduce the incidence of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).
Methods
In this multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial, we assigned patients at elevated risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis to receive a single dose of rectal indomethacin or placebo immediately after ERCP. Patients were determined to be at high risk on the basis of validated patient- and procedure-related risk factors. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis, which was defined as new upper abdominal pain, an elevation in pancreatic enzymes to at least three times the upper limit of the normal range 24 hours after the procedure, and hospitalization for at least 2 nights.
Results
A total of 602 patients were enrolled and completed follow-up. The majority of patients (82%) had a clinical suspicion of sphincter of Oddi dysfunction. Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in 27 of 295 patients (9.2%) in the indomethacin group and in 52 of 307 patients (16.9%) in the placebo group (P = 0.005). Moderate-to-severe pancreatitis developed in 13 patients (4.4%) in the indomethacin group and in 27 patients (8.8%) in the placebo group (P = 0.03).
Conclusions
Among patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis, rectal indomethacin significantly reduced the incidence of the condition. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00820612.)
doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1111103
PMCID: PMC3339271  PMID: 22494121

Results 1-3 (3)