RESUMO
BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, several questions have arisen about which endoscopic procedures (EPs) must be performed and which ones can be postponed. The aim of this study was to conduct a nationwide survey regarding the appropriate timing of EPs during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This prospective study was performed through a nationwide electronic survey. The survey consisted of 15 questions divided into three sections. The first evaluated the agreement for EPs classified as "time sensitive" and "not time sensitive". Two other sections assessed "high-priority" and "low-priority" scenarios. Agreement was considered when > 75% of respondents answered a question in the same direction. RESULTS: The response rate was 27.2% (214/784). Among the respondents, agreement for the need to perform EP in < 72 h was only reached for variceal bleeding (93.4%). Dysphagia with alarm symptoms was the scenario in which the highest percentage of physicians (95.9%) agreed that an EP needed to be performed within a month. Less than 30% of endoscopists would perform an EP within the first 72 h for patients with mild cholangitis, non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding without hemodynamic instability, or severe anaemia without overt bleeding. In time-sensitive clinical scenarios suggestive of benign disease, none of the scenarios reached agreement in any sense. Among the time-sensitive clinical scenarios suggestive of malignancy, > 90% of the surveyed respondents considered that EP could not be postponed for > 8 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: There was no consensus among endoscopists about the timing of EPs in patients with pathologies considered time sensitive or in those with high-priority pathologies. Agreement was only reached in five (17%) of the evaluated clinical scenarios.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Varizes Esofágicas e Gástricas , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/epidemiologia , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/etiologia , Humanos , Pandemias , Estudos Prospectivos , SARS-CoV-2RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Patients with unexplained dilated common bile duct (CBD) and/or dilated main pancreatic duct (MPD) on noninvasive abdominal imaging tests are often referred for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in order to rule out biliopancreatic cancer. The aim of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of EUS in this patient group. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted. Patients with unexplained dilated CBD and/or MPD on abdominal imaging, who underwent EUS, were enrolled. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients underwent EUS (CBD dilation n=38, MPD dilation n=5 or both n=11). In 31/54 patients (57.4%), EUS revealed pathologic findings. Sixteen patients (29.6%) had EUS evidence of biliopancreatic cancer and 15 patients (27.7%) had benign pathology. Ten (62.5%) of the patients with biliopancreatic cancer had MPD dilation. MPD dilation was significantly associated with malignancy (P=0.017). CONCLUSION: Patients with unexplained dilated MPD on noninvasive image have a high risk of biliopancreatic malignancy detected by EUS.
Assuntos
Endossonografia , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Ductos Pancreáticos/diagnóstico por imagem , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/diagnóstico por imagem , Estudos Prospectivos , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) biliary drainage is considered the reference standard in patients with biliary obstruction, but it is not free of complications. EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is considered an alternative in patients with failed ERCP; however, data are scarce as to whether EUS-BD could be considered a first option. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to compare the need for reintervention and cost between ERCP biliary drainage vs. EUS-BD. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective and comparative study of patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction with biliary drainage with ERCP + plastic stent (ERCP-PS) vs. ERCP + metal stent (ERCP-MS) vs. EUS-BD. RESULTS: 124 patients were included, divided into three groups: ERCP-PS, 60 (48.3%) patients; ERCP-MS, 40 (32.2%) patients; and EUS-BD, 24 (19.3%) patients. The need for reinterventions (67 vs. 37 vs. 4%, respectively), the number of procedures [3 (1-10) vs. 2 (1-7) vs. 1 (1-2)], and the costs (4550 ± 3130 vs. 5555 ± 3210 vs. 2375 ± 1020 USD) were lower in the EUS-BD group. No differences in terms of complications were detected. CONCLUSION: EUS-BD requires fewer reinterventions and has a lower cost compared to drainage by ERCP with metal or plastic stents.
Assuntos
Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica , Colestase , Colestase/etiologia , Colestase/cirurgia , Drenagem , Endossonografia , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Stents , Ultrassonografia de IntervençãoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The pre-colonoscopy diet traditionally involves 24 h of a clear liquid diet (CLD) in combination with a lavage solution; however, this preparation is poorly tolerated. AIM: To compare the impact on the quality of bowel cleansing and tolerability of a CLD versus a low-residue diet (LRD). METHODS: We performed a randomized trial. Subjects were randomized to CLD or LRD the day before of elective colonoscopy. All subjects received a 4-L preparation of single-dose PEG beginning 16 h prior to colonoscopy. The Boston bowel preparation scale was used to evaluate bowel cleansing; an adequate-quality preparation was defined as a score ≥ 2 per segment. RESULTS: A total of 205 subjects were included with a mean age (SD) of 55.6 (12.6) years; 133 (64.9%) of them were female. A total of 105 subjects were randomized to receive CLD and 100 to LRD. No significant differences in bowel preparation quality were observed between groups according to the section of colon: right colon (70% vs. 73%, p = 0.08), transverse colon (82% vs. 79%, p = 0.062), or left colon (80% vs. 78.7%, p = 0.28). There was a tendency toward less-frequent nausea (p = 0.08) and vomiting (p = 0.07) in patients with LRD. No differences between groups regarding ADR (12% vs. 10%) were noted. CONCLUSIONS: An LRD before colonoscopy resulted in a tendency toward improved tolerability by patients, with no differences in the quality of bowel preparation.
Assuntos
Colonoscopia/métodos , Dieta/métodos , Cuidados Pré-Operatórios/métodos , Idoso , Colo/diagnóstico por imagem , Colonoscopia/efeitos adversos , Fibras na Dieta/administração & dosagem , Ingestão de Energia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Polietilenoglicóis/administração & dosagem , Cuidados Pré-Operatórios/efeitos adversos , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is no consensus about the ideal method for diagnosis in patients who have already undergone endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), and the inconclusive material is often obtained. The aim was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of the second EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients with EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions is performed. All patients who underwent more than one EUS-FNA for the evaluation of suspected pancreatic cancer over a 7-year period were included in the analysis. RESULTS: A total of 296 EUS-FNAs of the pancreas were performed in 257 patients. The diagnostic yield with the first EUS-FNA was 78.6% (202/257). Thirty-nine (13.3%) FNAs were repeated in 34 patients; 17 (50%) patients were women. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) age was 58.8 ± 16.1 years. The location of the lesions in the pancreatic gland, from which the second biopsies were taken, was head of the pancreas, n = 28 (82.4%), body of the pancreas, n = 3 (8.8%), and tail, n = 3 (8.8%). The mean ± SD of the size of the lesion was 36.3 ± 14.6 mm. The second EUS-FNA was more likely to be positive for diagnosis in patients with an "atypical" histological result in the first EUS-FNA (odds ratio [OR]: 4.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9-18.3), in contrast to patients with a first EUS-FNA reported as "normal" (OR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.06-0.71). Overall, the diagnostic yield of the second EUS-FNA was 58.8% (20/34) with an increase to 86.3% overall (222/257). CONCLUSION: Repeat EUS-FNA in pancreatic lesions is necessary in patients with a negative first EUS-FNA because it improves the diagnostic yield.