The endoscopic cap and upper GI bleeding

Cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection as a salvage technique for challenging colorectal laterally spreading tumors

BACKGROUND

Cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-c) has emerged as a potential alternative to standard piecemeal wide-field EMR (WF-EMR) for the resection of laterally spreading tumors (LSTs). However, clear indications for this technique are still lacking. Our objective was to investigate the performance of salvage EMR-c after WF-EMR failure in the resection of large colorectal LSTs.

METHODS

The data of consecutive patients undergoing WF-EMR for large colorectal LSTs (2015-2021) were analyzed in this single-center, retrospective, observational study. In the event of a WF-EMR failure, the procedure was switched to EMR-c in the same session. The efficacy of the two techniques was evaluated in terms of complete endoscopic resection, R0 resection, and recurrence rate. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, the data from 81 WF-EMRs were collected. Eighteen cases of WF-EMR failure were switched to EMR-c in the same session and complete endoscopic resection was achieved in 17/18 patients (94.4%). No statistically significant difference was observed between WF-EMR and salvage EMR-c in terms of macroscopic radicality (P = 0.40) and R0 resection (P = 0.12). However, recurrence was more common with EMR-c (44.4% vs. 23.5%; P = 0.05), as were adverse events, particularly intraprocedural bleeding (27.8% vs. 7.9%; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

EMR-c is an effective salvage technique for challenging colorectal LSTs following WF-EMR failure. Due to the elevated risk of adverse events associated with this procedure, careful patient selection, endoscopic expertise, and close follow-up are strongly recommended.

The use of the cap and underwater technique as an aid in endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of upper gastrointestinal bleeding: case series

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Upper GI bleeding (UGIB) is a medical emergency associated with elevated mortality and significant costs to the health care system. EGD is currently the method of choice for the diagnosis and management of these conditions. However, the location of bleeding lesions and technical difficulties in achieving endoscope stability may challenge even the most experienced endoscopists. Herein, we demonstrate the use of the cap and underwater technique as a helpful aid in these situations.

METHODS

We present a case series of 4 patients with acute UGIB who underwent EGD with suboptimal endoscopic visualization or technical difficulties in identifying the source of bleeding. A transparent plastic cap was attached to the distal tip of the gastroscope, and the water immersion technique (underwater) was used for endoscopic re-evaluation of the bleeding site.

RESULTS

Three patients presented with duodenal bleeding, and 1 was diagnosed with diffuse bleeding from the esophagus. The clear and accurate identification of the source of bleeding and effective hemostasis were possible after cap and underwater technique evaluation in all patients.

CONCLUSION

The use of the cap and underwater technique is a simple, safe, and low-cost strategy that improves the identification and control of UGIB in locations with poor visibility and technical challenges during endoscopic evaluation.