Prophylactic antibiotics may be unnecessary in gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection due to the low incidence of bacteremia

Incidence and risk factors for fever after endoscopic submucosal dissection and its derivative technology for gastric lesions

Introduction

Fever is one of the postoperative complications of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and its derivative technology. However, there are few studies on risk factors for fever after ESD and its derivative technology. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence and related risk factors after ESD and its derivative technology for gastric lesions.

Materials and methods

A retrospective review of patients with gastric lesions who were treated by ESD and its derivative technology in our hospital from January 2014 to January 2019 was conducted.

Results

A total of 1955 patients were included in the present study. A total of 451 (23.1 %) patients presented with fever after ESD and its derived techniques. The highest fever temperature was 37.6 ± 3.12 °C, and the number of days with fever was 1.48 ± 0.85. Through single factor and multiple factor analysis, age (OR: 1.261, 95% CI: 1.009-1.576, p < 0.05), procedure time (OR: 1.457, 95% CI: 1.053-2.016, p < 0.05), postoperative gastric tube placement (OR: 2.098, 95% CI: 1:616-2.723, p < 0.05), intraoperative hemorrhage (OR: 1.537, 95% CI: 1.196-1.974, p < 0.05) and perforation (OR: 1.970, 95% CI: 1.531-2.535, p < 0.05) were independent risk factors for postoperative fever.

Conclusion

Age ≥56 years old, procedure time ≥60 min, gastric tube placement, intraoperative hemorrhage and perforation were independent risk factors for postoperative fever after gastric ESD and its derivative technology. Attention should be given to such patients to minimize the risk of postoperative fever.

A nomogram for predicting the risk of postoperative fever in elderly patients undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection of the upper gastrointestinal tract

To explore the risk factors of postoperative fever in elderly patients undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). A total of 439 patients who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled in this study and randomly divided into training (n = 311) and validation (n = 128) cohorts at a ratio of 7:3. Independent risk factors were screened by single-factor and multiple-factor logistic regression analyses, and a nomogram was established using them. The nomogram was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, decision curve analysis, and calibration plot using the "rms" package in R software (R4.2.1). The study included 439 patients. Female (OR = 2.55, 95% CI: 1.5-4.33), diabetes (OR = 2.38, 95% CI: 1.17-4.85), operation time (OR = 1.01, 95% CI: 1-1.02) were lesion located in the esophagus (OR = 2.37, 95% CI: 1.44-3.88), maximum tumor diameter (OR = 1.3, 95% CI: 1.07-1.57), and placement of a urinary catheter (OR = 7.09, 95%CI: 1.43-35.17) were independent risk factors for postoperative fever in elderly ESD patients (P < .05). Female sex, diabetes, lesions located in the esophagus, lesion size, operation time, and placement of a urinary catheter are risk factors for postoperative fever in ESD patients, and patients with these risk factors should be vigilant for postoperative fever and receive appropriate treatment.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection techniques and technology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review

ESGE suggests conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD; marking and mucosal incision followed by circumferential incision and stepwise submucosal dissection) for most esophageal and gastric lesions. ESGE suggests tunneling ESD for esophageal lesions involving more than two-thirds of the esophageal circumference. ESGE recommends the pocket-creation method for colorectal ESD, at least if traction devices are not used. The use of dedicated ESD knives with size adequate to the location/thickness of the gastrointestinal wall is recommended. It is suggested that isotonic saline or viscous solutions can be used for submucosal injection. ESGE recommends traction methods in esophageal and colorectal ESD and in selected gastric lesions. After gastric ESD, coagulation of visible vessels is recommended, and post-procedural high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (or vonoprazan). ESGE recommends against routine closure of the ESD defect, except in duodenal ESD. ESGE recommends corticosteroids after resection of  > 50 % of the esophageal circumference. The use of carbon dioxide when performing ESD is recommended. ESGE recommends against the performance of second-look endoscopy after ESD. ESGE recommends endoscopy/colonoscopy in the case of significant bleeding (hemodynamic instability, drop in hemoglobin > 2 g/dL, severe ongoing bleeding) to perform endoscopic hemostasis with thermal methods or clipping; hemostatic powders represent rescue therapies. ESGE recommends closure of immediate perforations with clips (through-the-scope or cap-mounted, depending on the size and shape of the perforation), as soon as possible but ideally after securing a good plane for further dissection.

Pyogenic spondylitis following endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer

A man in his 80s who had a history of diabetes mellitus and aortic valve replacement was referred to our hospital for treatment of early gastric cancer and underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Three days after ESD, the patient presented with low back pain and fever (38.7°). We initially considered adverse events associated with gastric ESD such as delayed perforation. Moreover, thromboembolism and infectious endocarditis were suspected because of his medical history. However, there were no remarkable findings suggestive of these diseases. Finally, based on the results of blood cultures and MRI, the diagnosis of pyogenic spondylitis (PS) was made. We administered antibiotics for 12 weeks, and the patient improved without neurological impairments. This case indicates that bacteraemia and subsequent PS can occur following gastric ESD. Physicians should not overlook the patient's physical signs related to various adverse events after ESD.

Features of post-endoscopic submucosal dissection electrocoagulation syndrome for early gastric neoplasm

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Post-endoscopic submucosal dissection electrocoagulation syndrome (PECS) has become a common adverse event after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and esophageal ESD. However, little is known about PECS after gastric ESD. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the clinical features of PECS after gastric ESD.

METHODS

Patients who underwent ESD for gastric cancer or adenoma between January 2016 and December 2017 were retrospectively investigated. PECS was clinically diagnosed based on the presence of upper abdominal pain and localized abdominal tenderness with a temperature of >37.5°C, without perforation. We analyzed the clinical features of PECS.

RESULTS

A total of 637 ESD cases were enrolled; PECS occurred in 32 patients (5.0%), all of whom were diagnosed on postoperative Day 1. Among PECS cases, unplanned prolongation of hospitalization or fasting period was observed in 15 patients (47%). As a result, the median durations of hospitalization and fasting period were significantly longer in PECS cases (P = 0.008 and P < 0.001, respectively); however, the mean differences were less than a day. Additionally, all PECS cases recovered with conservative treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

PECS is considered a common adverse event after gastric ESD. More than half of patients with PECS could start diets and be discharged as well as those without PECS.

Antibiotics for fever in patients without perforation after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic submucosal excavation may be unnecessary: a propensity score-matching analysis

Background

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE) have been widely used and have gradually become the main endoscopic treatment for gastrointestinal mucosal and submucosal lesions. Whether antibiotics are necessary for fever after gastric ESD and ESE remain unclear. The aim of this study was to analyse the value of using antibiotics in patients without perforation after ESD or ESE with fever.

Methods

In this retrospective study, patients with fever without perforation after ESD or ESE from January 2014 to January 2019 were included and divided into 2 groups: the antibiotic group and the non-antibiotic group. Fever and hospitalization time were compared between the 2 groups after propensity score matching.

Results

Overall, 253 patients meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the present study, with 186 patients in the non-antibiotic group and 67 patients in the antibiotic group before matching, 55 patients in the non-antibiotic group and 55 patients in the antibiotic group after matching with all baseline characteristics balanced (p > 0.05). The duration of fever was not significantly different between the 2 groups (p = 0.12). However, the median hospitalization stay in the antibiotic group was longer than that in the non-antibiotic group (8 vs 7, p = 0.007).

Conclusions

Antibiotics may be unnecessary for fever in patients without perforation and without serious co-morbidities after gastric ESD or ESE.