The use of novel modified endoscopic vacuum therapies in the management of a transmural rectal wall defect

Homemade endoscopic vacuum therapy device for the management of transmural gastrointestinal defects

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) possesses a unique mechanism of action providing a less invasive alternative for the management of transmural gastrointestinal defects (TGID). This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of a novel homemade EVT (H-EVT) for the treatment of TGID.

METHODS

Retrospective multicenter study including patients who underwent H-EVT for TGID between January 2019 and January 2022. Main outcomes included technical and clinical success as well as safety outcomes. Subgroup analyses were included by defect location and classification. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine predictors for successful closure.

RESULTS

A total of 144 patients were included. Technical success was achieved in all patients, with clinical success achieved in 88.89% after a mean of 3.49 H-EVT exchanges over an average of 23.51 days. After excluding 10 cases wherein it was not possible to achieve negative pressure, successful closure occurred in 95.52% of patients. Time to clinical success was less for defects caused by endoscopic (hazard ratio [HR] 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-1.20) compared to surgical procedures and for patients with simultaneous intracavitary and intraluminal H-EVT placement (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.55-0.91). Location and classification of defect did not impact clinical success rate. Simultaneous placement of both an intraluminal and intracavitary H-EVT (odds ratio 3.08; 95% CI 1.19-7.95) was a significant predictor of clinical success. Three device-related adverse events (2.08%) occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the H-EVT is feasible, safe, and effective for the management of TGID.

Choosing the best endoscopic approach for post-bariatric surgical leaks and fistulas: Basic principles and recommendations

Post-surgical leaks and fistulas are the most feared complication of bariatric surgery. They have become more common in clinical practice given the increasing number of these procedures and can be very difficult to treat. These two related conditions must be distinguished and characterized to guide the appropriate treatment. Leak is defined as a transmural defect with communication between the intra and extraluminal compartments, while fistula is defined as an abnormal communication between two epithelialized surfaces. Traditionally, surgical treatment was the preferred approach for leaks and fistulas and was associated with high morbidity with significant mortality rates. However, with the development of novel devices and techniques, endoscopic therapy plays an increasingly essential role in managing these conditions. Early diagnosis and endoscopic therapy initiation after clinical stabilization are crucial to success since clinical success rates are higher for acute leaks and fistulas when compared to late and chronic leaks and fistulas. Several endoscopic techniques are available with different mechanisms of action, including direct closure, covering/diverting or draining. The treatment should be individualized by considering the characteristics of both the patient and the defect. Although there is a lack of high-quality studies to provide standardized treatment algorithms, this narrative review aims to provide a summary of the current scientific evidence and, based on this data and our extensive experience, make recommendations to help choose the best endoscopic approach for the management of post-bariatric surgical leaks and fistulas.

Cost-effective modified endoscopic vacuum therapy for the treatment of gastrointestinal transmural defects: step-by-step process of manufacturing and its advantages

Video 1Cost-effective modified endoscopic vacuum therapy for GI transmural defects. Step-by-step process of manufacturing and potential advantages.1.Cut half gauze to the ideal size to cover only the fenestrated portion of the nasogastric tube (NGT).2.Wrap the gauze around the fenestrated portion of the NGT. The assistance of another person is important in this process.3.Cut the antimicrobial incise drape to match the size of the fenestrated portion of the NGT. Note that the incise drape is a very strong adhesive; therefore, 3 people are usually required to assemble it properly.4.Next, the suture is used to fix the gauze and drape to the NGT. Perform fixation of the modified sponge in 3 places. The first knot is in the proximal portion, just below the last fenestra of the NGT, as a marker of where the vacuum system starts. The second knot is at the distal end, to avoid migration of the modified sponge. The third knot is in the middle of the modified sponge, which is essential to serve as a guide during endoscopic placement. For example, in cases of defects without collection in which the sponge will be placed in an intraluminal position, it is ideal to place the vacuum system in the middle of the defect; in cases of intracavitary placement, it will work as a guide to how much of the modified sponge will be inside the collection.5.Finally, use a needle to make innumerable punctures in the modified sponge system to obtain adequate aspiration. An 18G needle is recommended because, in addition to having an adequate diameter, it is very sharp, which facilitates perforation of the modified sponge system.6.After creation of the modified endoscopic vacuum therapy, the functionality test is performed. Turn on the wall suction system, connect the distal end of the NGT to the tube of the canister connected on the wall, and place the NGT inside a bowl with a liquid solution. The aspiration of a large amount of liquid indicates proper functioning of the modified endoscopic vacuum therapy system.7.The device is then ready to be positioned endoscopically in the patient. After proper positioning, connect the NGT to the suction tube to avoid migration of the device upon removal of the scope.8.In addition to the cost-effective device as described, in our practice we also use wall suction to reduce costs associated with the use of the vacuum machine.9.Use the antimicrobial incise drape to seal the connection between the NGT and the suction tube to avoid leakage within the connection.10.Last, owing to instability of the negative wall pressure, a 20F intravenous catheter is connected to the tube to maintain a negative pressure between -75 and -150 mmHg, as confirmed by laboratory studies performed by our group.

Preemptive endoluminal vacuum therapy after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A case report

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy is a technically demanding operation, with reported morbidity rates of approximately 40%–50%. A novel idea is to use endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) in a preemptive setting to prevent anastomotic leakage and pancreatic fistulas. In a recent case series, EVT was proven to be effective in preventing leaks in patients with anastomotic ischemia. There have been no previous reports on preemptive EVT after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

CASE SUMMARY

We describe the case of a 71-year-old woman with hypertension and diabetes who was admitted to the emergency room with jaundice, choluria, fecal acholia, abdominal pain, and fever. Admission examinations revealed leukocytosis and hyperbilirubinemia (total: 13 mg/dL; conjugated: 12.1 mg/dL). Abdominal ultrasound showed cholelithiasis and dilation of the common bile duct. Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated a stenotic area, and a biopsy confirmed cholangiocarcinoma. Considering the high risk of leaks after pancreaticoduodenectomy, preemptive endoluminal vacuum therapy was performed. The system comprised a nasogastric tube, gauze, and an antimicrobial incise drape. The negative pressure was 125 mmHg, and no adverse events occurred. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 5 without any symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Preemptive endoluminal vacuum therapy may be a safe and feasible technique to reduce leaks after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Propofol vs midazolam sedation for elective endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Patients with cirrhosis frequently require sedation for elective endoscopic procedures. Several sedation protocols are available, but choosing an appropriate sedative in patients with cirrhosis is challenging.

AIM

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare propofol and midazolam for sedation in patients with cirrhosis during elective endoscopic procedures in an attempt to understand the best approach.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches were performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central Cochrane, LILACS databases. Only randomized control trials (RCTs) were included. The outcomes studied were procedure time, recovery time, discharge time, and adverse events (bradycardia, hypotension, and hypoxemia). The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2). Quality of evidence was evaluated by GRADEpro. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager.

RESULTS

The search yielded 3,576 records. Out of these, 8 RCTs with a total of 596 patients (302 in the propofol group and 294 in the midazolam group) were included for the final analysis. Procedure time was similar between midazolam and propofol groups (MD: 0.25, 95%CI: -0.64 to 1.13, P = 0.59). Recovery time (MD: -8.19, 95%CI: -10.59 to -5.79, P < 0.00001). and discharge time were significantly less in the propofol group (MD: -12.98, 95%CI: -18.46 to -7.50, P < 0.00001). Adverse events were similar in both groups (RD: 0.02, 95%CI: 0-0.04, P = 0.58). Moreover, no significant difference was found for bradycardia (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, P = 0.16), hypotension (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, P = 0.17), and hypoxemia (RD: 0.00, 95%CI: -0.04 to 0.04, P = 0.93). Five studies had low risk of bias, two demonstrated some concerns, and one presented high risk. The quality of the evidence was very low for procedure time, recovery time, and adverse events; while low for discharge time.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis based on RCTs show that propofol has shorter recovery and patient discharge time as compared to midazolam with a similar rate of adverse events. These results suggest that propofol should be the preferred agent for sedation in patients with cirrhosis.