Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection under general anesthesia

Association of local steroid injection as a risk factor for electrocoagulation syndrome after esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

Postendoscopic submucosal dissection electrocoagulation syndrome (PEECS) is commonly observed after performing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for esophageal neoplasia. However, data on the incidence and risk factors for PEECS in the esophagus are lacking due to an unclear definition of PEECS and varied clinical settings. Therefore, we aimed to determine the risk factors for PEECS in patients undergoing ESD for esophageal neoplasia.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data of relevant clinical and endoscopy-specific parameters from 202 consecutive patients with esophageal neoplasias (139 carcinomas and 63 dysplasias) who underwent ESD under general anesthesia. Esophageal PEECS was defined by satisfying at least two of the following criteria: fever ≥ 37.8 °C, leukocytosis ≥ 10,800/mm3, and localized chest pain ≥ 5/10 points as assessed on a numeric rating scale within 24 h after ESD. Significant factors associated with PEECS were determined by regression analysis.

RESULTS

PEECS was recorded in 98 of 202 (48.5%) patients. Patients with PEECS exhibited a larger tumor size (25.0 vs. 17.0 mm, P = 0.002), longer procedure (40.0 vs. 29.5 min, P = 0.021) and hemostasis times (5.0 vs. 3.5 min, P = 0.004), required greater submucosal injection volume (60.0 mL vs. 50.0 mL, P = 0.030), and had a lower rate of local steroid injection (4.1% vs. 12.5%, P = 0.029) than those without PEECS. Multivariate regression analysis revealed tumor size ≥ 17 mm (P = 0.047), procedure time ≥ 33 min (P = 0.027), and hemostasis time ≥ 5 min (P = 0.007) as risk factors for PEECS. In addition, local steroid injection was a significant negatively associated factor (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a large tumor, prolonged procedure and hemostasis times are at a high risk of PEECS occurrence. Further, local steroid injection is a negatively associated factor.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in advanced therapeutic flexible endoscopy: Introducing the concept of enhanced recovery after therapeutic endoscopy (ERATE)

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) guidelines are evidence-based recommendations designed to improve patient outcomes and reduce complications after surgery. Although the ERAS guidelines focus primarily on surgical procedures, many of the principles could be applied also to therapeutic endoscopy as well. An extensive literature research on Embase and PubMed was thus made to reviewed articles regarding ERAS protocols applied to therapeutic endoscopy, organized by specific endoscopic field. Out of 214 papers, only 6 were relevant to the topic. Few studies explored in real life and in trial setting the hypothesized significance of ERAS principles applied to endoscopic procedures, mostly retrospective, not even covering the entire field of therapeutic endoscopy. This field of knowledge appears neglected so far by scientific community and endoscopic organizations. We believe that endoscopy units could benefit anyway from developing and implementing structured enhanced recovery pathways for their patients, therefore we subsequently created and suggested a simply and easily applicable, Enhanced Recovery protocol After Therapeutic Endoscopy which include preoperative preparation, anesthesia and sedation, nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis, and postoperative care.

Feasibility of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols Implemented Perioperatively in Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Gastric Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

Background: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC) has advantages over traditional radical gastrectomy. We investigated whether enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are appropriate in the ESD perioperative period. Materials and Methods: We screened 129 consecutive patients, and 12 were excluded. All study patients underwent ESD for EGC. Of the 117 included patients, 57 received traditional perioperative care between January 2017 and December 2018, and 60 patients received perioperative care according to ERAS protocols between January 2019 and September 2020. The primary study endpoint was ESD-related complications. Secondary endpoints included the following postoperative parameters: anal exhaust time, incidence of nausea or vomiting, length of hospitalization, fever rate, abdominal pain on the visual analog scale (VAS), and reported perioperative satisfaction. Results: Complications were comparable between the 2 groups. In the ERAS group, no patients experienced delayed bleeding or perforation. One traditional group patient bled, and one perforated. Postoperative anal exhaust time, nausea or vomiting incidence, hospitalization, fever rate, and VAS pain scores were significantly lower, and perioperative satisfaction rate was significantly higher in the ERAS group. Conclusions: ERAS protocols are both feasible and safe for patients undergoing ESD. ERAS protocols enhance the advantages of ESD for EGC without increasing complications.

Efficacy of dexmedetomidine on postoperative pain in patients undergoing gastric and esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a study protocol for a randomized controlled prospective trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely used as an effective treatment of early gastric and esophageal tumors, as it is minimally invasive, safe, and convenient. Epigastric pain is a common complication of ESD. In the traditional cognition, the postoperative pain of ESD is not serious and does not attach too much attention. However, previous studies found that the incidence of moderate to severe pain after ESD can be as high as 44.9~62.8%. At present, there is no unified understanding of how to carry out good postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing ESD of stomach and esophagus. The purpose of present study is to investigate the efficacy of intraoperative dexmedetomidine (DEX) using on postoperative pain though observing the postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score within 48 h after ESD surgery, so as to explore an effective analgesia and anesthetic method in patients undergoing gastric and esophagus ESD.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study is a prospective, single-center, two-arm, randomized control trail. In total, 120 patients undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection were stratified by type of surgery (i.e., gastric or esophagus ESD) and randomized into two treatment groups, DEX group (group D, n = 60) and control group (group C, n = 60). Patients in the experimental group (DEX group) will be administrated a loading dose of DEX at 1 μg/kg for 15 min and a continuous infusion at 0.6 μg/kg/h until 30 min before the end of operation. In control group, the same volume of normal saline was infused. The primary outcome is VAS at 2 h after ESD surgery. The secondary outcome will be VAS at 1 h, 4 h, 6 h,18 h, 24 h, and 48 h, the status of perioperative hemodynamics, the use of remedial analgesics, sedation score, shivering, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and satisfaction scores of patient and complication of ESD (such as bleeding, perforation, aspiration pneumonia).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study will demonstrate that intraoperative application of DEX is beneficial for postoperative pain treatment in patients undergoing ESD. This study will not only confirm that postoperative pain treatment is necessary for patients undergoing ESD but also provides an effective anesthesia method for postoperative analgesia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ID: ChiCTR2100043837 , registered on March 4, 2021, http://www.chictr.org.cn .

Fecal incontinence and oral regurgitation during duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection using the water pressure method

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the duodenum is challenging. The water pressure method (WP-ESD) has been developed with a decreased rate of perforation. However, details of perioperative adverse events of WP-ESD are unknown. The purpose of this study was to clarify the frequency and related factors of fecal incontinence and oral regurgitation during WP-ESD.

METHODS

A chart-based retrospective analysis was performed on 43 patients who underwent duodenal WP-ESD. The saline volume given into the body was calculated in all cases. All adverse events during WP-ESD until 6 weeks were extracted, and factors related to intraoperative fecal incontinence or oral regurgitation were analyzed. The frequency of fecal incontinence and oral regurgitation was also compared to those of 83 conventional ESD cases.

RESULTS

In WP-ESD, intraoperative fecal incontinence occurred in 12 (28%), oral regurgitation in six (14%), and aspiration pneumonia in one patient. For fecal incontinence, the infusion speed (saline volume divided by resection time) around 17 mL/min was a significant factor in multivariable analysis. For oral regurgitation, only tumor size was a significant factor in univariate analysis (P = 0.027). Significant difference was observed in the frequency of fecal incontinence between WP-ESD and conventional ESD (28% vs. 0%, P < 0.001), but no difference was observed in oral regurgitation or aspiration pneumonia.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative fecal incontinence is a unique adverse event of WP-ESD related to the infusion speed. WP-ESD did not pose a risk for oral regurgitation, but we should be aware of the risk in large tumor cases.

Long-term endoscopic submucosal dissection with postoperative lung injury: a case report

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been recognized as a safe and minimally invasive technique for the removal of early gastric cancer. Here, we describe a case of extended-duration ESD for a gastric tumor associated with intraoperative perforation and bleeding. Unfortunately, the patient developed acute lung injury (ALI) after the operation.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 72-year-old woman received ESD for a gastric tumor under general anesthesia. Preoperatively, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) showed a 3.1 × 3.5 cm hypoechoic, well-defined mass at the junction of the antrum and body of the stomach on the greater curvature, originating in the muscularis propria layer. During the ESD procedure, when the submucosal mass was stripped, it was found to be closely adhered to the muscular layer and serosa layer, and a full-thickness incision was performed. The abdominal cavity was gradually filled with carbon dioxide gas, and abdominal puncture was performed to reduce intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH). Because the mass adhered to the greater omentum and there was more bleeding during the operation, a long duration of hemostasis and suturing of the wound was required. The whole operation lasted nearly 9 h, and total blood loss was 800 ml. After surgery, acute lung injury was suspected, and the patient was sent to the intensive care unit (ICU) for further treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The operation time of ESD and IAH caused by perforation are closely related to a poor prognosis. We should pay attention to the impact of operation time on patients and improve awareness regarding protecting important organ functions.

Clinical Outcomes and Adverse Events of Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of the Mid to Upper Stomach under General Anesthesia and Monitored Anesthetic Care

Background/Aims

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of gastric tumors in the mid-to-upper stomach is a technically challenging procedure. This study compared the therapeutic outcomes and adverse events of ESD of tumors in the mid-to-upper stomach performed under general anesthesia (GA) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC).

Methods

Between 2012 and 2018, 674 patients underwent ESD for gastric tumors in the midbody, high body, fundus, or cardia (100 patients received GA; 574 received MAC). The outcomes of the propensity score (PS)-matched (1:1) patients receiving either GA or MAC were analyzed.

Results

The PS matching identified 94 patients who received GA and 94 patients who received MAC. Both groups showed high rates ofen bloc resection (GA, 95.7%; MAC, 97.9%; p=0.68) and complete resection (GA, 81.9%; MAC, 84.0%; p=0.14). There were no significant differences between the rates of adverse events (GA, 16.0%; MAC, 8.5%; p=0.18) in the anesthetic groups. Logistic regression analysis indicated that the method of anesthesia did not affect the rates of complete resection or adverse events.

Conclusions

ESD of tumors in the mid-to-upper stomach at our high-volume center had good outcomes, regardless of the method of anesthesia. Our results demonstrate no differences between the efficacies and safety of ESD performed under MAC and GA.

Efficacy of sedation with dexmedetomidine plus propofol during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIM

During endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal cancer, patient body movement can sometimes occur, which may cause discontinuation of the procedure. Propofol and dexmedetomidine have recently been found to be useful sedatives for endoscopic submucosal dissection. This study investigated whether sedation using propofol plus dexmedetomidine can suppress the patient's body movements during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection and compared this combination with sedation using propofol alone.

METHODS

This was a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial. Patients with superficial esophageal cancers who underwent esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection at Yokohama City University Hospital were prospectively enrolled and were randomly assigned to the propofol and the propofol plus dexmedetomidine groups. The primary endpoint was the incidence of restlessness. The secondary endpoints were the satisfaction score, maintenance dose of propofol, and number of rescue propofol injections.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients (propofol group: n = 33; combination group: n = 33) were included. The combination group had a significantly lower incidence of restlessness than the propofol group (3.0% vs 27.3%, P = 0.02). In the combination group, the satisfaction scores of the endoscopists were significantly higher, the maintenance dose of propofol was significantly lower, and the number of rescue propofol injections was lower than those in the propofol group (3.0% vs 18.2%, P < 0.001). Although the incidence of bradycardia was significantly higher in the combination group (30.3% vs 3.0%, P < 0.01), no serious adverse effects occurred.

CONCLUSION

The propofol plus dexmedetomidine combination provided excellent sedation that effectively suppressed the patient's body movements during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Incidence rates, risk factors, and outcomes of aspiration pneumonia after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The risk and prognosis of aspiration pneumonia (AP) after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are inconsistent among studies. We aim to estimate the incidence, risk factors, and outcome of AP in patients after gastric ESD.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Knowledge were searched for relevant articles from inception until April 2020. Data involving the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes were extracted. Pooled incidence, odds ratios (ORs), or standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Forty records involving 48 674 subjects were finally included. The pooled incidence of AP after gastric ESD was 1.9% (95% CI, 1.2-2.7) via the double arcsine transformation method and 1.6% (1.1-2.5%) via the logit transformation method. Risk factors analyses revealed that old age (OR, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.99-3.18), comorbid pulmonary disease (2.49; 1.66-3.74), comorbid cerebrovascular disease (2.68; 1.05-6.85), remnant stomach (4.91; 1.83-13.14), sedation with propofol (2.51; 1.48-4.28), and long procedural duration (count data: 5.20, 1.25-21.7; measurement data: 1.01, 1.01-1.02) were related to the occurrence of AP. Patients with AP had a longer hospital stay (SMD, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.25-0.87) than those without AP.

CONCLUSIONS

About 1.9% (1.2-2.7%) of the patients who receive gastric ESD may develop AP, resulting in prolonged hospital stay. More attention should be paid in patients who are older; have comorbidities such as pulmonary diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, or gastric remnant; or require a long procedural duration or deep sedation with propofol.

Bilateral tension pneumothorax during endoscopic submucosal dissection under general anesthesia diagnosed by point-of-care ultrasound - A case report

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection has become popular. However, this can cause serious complications. In this case, esophageal perforation caused bilateral tension pneumothorax.

CASE

A 60-year-old man with esophageal adenoma underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection under general anesthesia. The peak airway pressure was 25 cmH2O after induction but abruptly increased to 40 cmH2O after 30 min. Respiratory sounds were barely heard. The lack of lung sliding in either (right-dominant) lung on ultrasound. Within minutes, oxygen saturation and systolic blood pressure decreased to 52% and 70 mmHg. Emergent needle thoracostomy, followed by chest tube insertion, was performed on right chest and his vital signs stabilized. Upon transfer to intensive care unit, oxygen saturation and blood pressure decreased again; therefore, a left chest tube was inserted.

CONCLUSIONS

Pneumothorax due to esophageal perforation can lead to life-threatening tension pneumothorax. Anesthesiologists should be aware of the risks and emergency treatment. Ultrasound can be useful for immediate bedside patient-care decisions.

Perforation of a Gastric Tear during Esophageal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection under General Anesthesia

Mallory-Weiss tears (MWT) are occasionally encountered during endoscopic procedures. Esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely performed under general anesthesia to avoid unexpected body movements. We present the case of a 68-year-old woman with squamous cell carcinoma. Although ESD was performed under general anesthesia, a gastric perforation at the MWT caused by gastric inflation was observed after the procedure. The perforation was closed endoscopically, and she was discharged without any sequelae. Although general anesthesia is useful for esophageal ESD, it should be noted that it can cause MWT, and in rare cases, gastric perforation, due to gastric inflation during the procedure.

Invisible perforation during an endoscopic procedure of the esophagus under general anesthesia - A case report -

Background

Endoscopic procedures of the esophagus are more complicated than those of other regions of the gastrointestinal tract. They have a relatively long procedure time and high risk of complications, such as perforation and bleeding. Perforations that occur during the procedure can accompany pneumoperitoneum and pneumomediastinum through leakage of insufflation air and cause severe ventilatory impairment.

Case

A 58-year-old male patient underwent enucleation of leiomyoma in the esophagus using endoscopy under general anesthesia. Ventilatory impairment occurred 15 min after commencement of the procedure. Subsequently, subcutaneous emphysema and severe abdominal distension were observed. We suggested the possibility of microperforation during the procedure to the endoscopist, and he performed endoscopic clipping around the excision site of leiomyoma.

Conclusions

Providing anesthetic care by anesthesiologists during endoscopic procedures is considered necessary for patient safety. Complications of endoscopic procedures can be detected and managed early without sequelae during anesthetic care.

Comparison of general anesthesia and conscious sedation in procedure-related complications during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has a favorable outcome, compared to esophagectomy, for early esophageal neoplasia. Recent studies used general anesthesia for esophageal ESD to minimize complications due to insufficient sedation and patient movement. We aimed to evaluate the safety of general anesthesia in comparison with conscious sedation provided by anesthesiologists for esophageal ESD.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records of 158 patients who underwent esophageal ESD under general anesthesia or conscious sedation provided by anesthesiologists. We evaluated the incidence of procedure-related complications, including perforation, post-ESD bleeding, cardiopulmonary adverse events (arrhythmia, hypotension, and hypoxemia), procedure failure, stricture, and new lung consolidation after ESD. Cases of frank perforation, post-ESD bleeding requiring a vigorous diagnostic approach, and cardiopulmonary adverse events were regarded as acute complications of ESD.

RESULTS

Acute complications occurred only in the conscious sedation group (8/83 [9.6%] vs. 0/75 [0.0%]; p value = 0.007). The numbers of patients with frank perforation, post-ESD bleeding, and cardiopulmonary adverse events were four, one, and three, respectively. Moreover, new lung consolidation after ESD developed only in the conscious sedation group (7/83 [8.4%] vs. 0/75 [0.0%]; p value = 0.014). ESD failed in four patients in the conscious sedation group. The incidences of stricture that required stent insertion and hospital stay after ESD were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

General anesthesia is associated with a lower incidence of acute procedure-related complications in esophageal ESD compared to conscious sedation provided by anesthesiologists. Therefore, we recommend general anesthesia as a safer option for esophageal ESD.

Feasibility of the lidocaine injection method during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Background and Aim

Esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is often technically difficult due to intraoperative body movements. The level of sedation can be increased to suppress body movements, but this may not be successful in all cases. Using local analgesics for submucosal injection during ESD may aid in conscious sedation. This study evaluated the feasibility of the lidocaine injection method (LIM) during esophageal ESD.

Methods

Twenty‐nine patients with superficial esophageal cancer were enrolled in this study at Osaka Saiseikai Nakatsu Hospital, and 1% lidocaine + 0.4% hyaluronate sodium was injected into the submucosa underneath the lesion during esophageal ESD. The main outcome was body movements that disturbed the procedure.

Results

Most patients were male (90%), with a median age of 70 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 66–75 years old), and the median lesion size was 17 mm (IQR: 12–21 mm). The median injection volume of lidocaine was 70 mg (IQR: 55–79 mg). All lesions were successfully removed en bloc. In all cases, there were no body movements that disturbed the procedure. Regarding adverse events of sedation, five patients (17%) had hypotension, four patients (14%) had bradycardia, and seven patients (24%) had hypoxemia during ESD. Convulsions or arrhythmia as adverse events associated with lidocaine were not observed.

Conclusions

Esophageal ESD with LIM did not cause body movements that disturbed the procedure. LIM may help create a stable conscious sedation method for esophageal ESD.

Efficacy of novel sedation using the combination of dexmedetomidine and midazolam during endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the preferred treatment for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, ESD can be difficult when patients move due to insufficient sedation. We conducted a prospective confirmatory single arm study to evaluate the efficacy of using dexmedetomidine (DEX) in combination with midazolam as a novel sedation for ESD.

METHODS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection was performed without intubation in 65 patients. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who did not move or require restraint during ESD, compared to historical control of ESD performed under midazolam sedation. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of complications and self-report questionnaires from patients and endoscopists.

RESULTS

Restraint was not required in 97% of patients sedated using the combination of DEX and midazolam. Depressed respiration, low blood pressure, and bradycardia occurred in 23, 37, and 26% of patients, respectively. All patients recovered without severe complication. Occurrence of low blood pressure and bradycardia were higher, while respiratory depression was lower for the combination group than for the historical control group. The amount of midazolam used was significantly lower than in the control. Of note, 94% of patients had no painful sensations, with 3 reporting chest pain and 3 having a recollection of the procedure. Endoscopists were satisfied with the sedation in 94% of cases. All lesions were resected in en bloc fashion, without perforation.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of DEX and midazolam provided effective sedation for ESD for ESCC.

Efficacy of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Esophageal Neoplasms under General Anesthesia

Background/Aims

Evidence that general anesthesia (GA) reduces the operative time of esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is currently insufficient. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of esophageal ESD under GA.

Methods

A total of 227 lesions from 198 consecutive patients with superficial esophageal neoplasms treated by ESD at 3 Japanese institutions between April 2011 and September 2017 were included in this retrospective study. For ESD, GA and deep sedation (DS) were used in 102 (51.5%, GA group) and 96 patients (48.5%, DS group), respectively.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in age, sex, or comorbidities between the groups. In the GA group, the tumor size was larger (21 [3–77] mm vs. 14 [3–63] mm, p<0.001), luminal circumference was larger (≥2/3; 13.9% vs. 5.4%, p=0.042), procedure time was shorter (28 [5–202] min vs. 40 [8–249] min, p<0.001), and submucosal dissection speed was faster (25.2 [7.8–157.2] mm² /min vs. 16.2 [2.4–41.3] mm² /min, p<0.001). The rates of intraoperative perforation and aspiration pneumonia were lower in the GA group, but the difference did not achieve statistical significance (p=0.242 and p=0.242).

Conclusions

GA shortens the procedure time of esophageal ESD.

Propofol sedation without endotracheal intubation is safe for endoscopic submucosal dissection in the esophagus and stomach

Background

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early esophageal and stomach cancer is usually performed under general anesthesia. However, propofol sedation without endotracheal intubation has been suggested as a viable alternative.

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety of propofol sedation without endotracheal intubation during ESD in the upper gastrointestinal tract.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent ESD for upper gastrointestinal tumors with propofol-remifentanil analgosedation in a tertiary referral center in the Netherlands between October 2013 and February 2018. Primary endpoints were the rates of intraprocedural endoscopy- and anesthesia-related complications. Secondary endpoints were the postprocedural complication rates within 30 days and endotracheal intubation conversion rates.

Results

Of 88 patients, intraprocedural ESD-related complications occurred in three patients (3.4%). Intraprocedural anesthesia-related complications occurred in two patients (2.3%), one of whom required conversion to endotracheal intubation. Postprocedural ESD-related complications occurred in 14 patients (15.9%), and minor postprocedural complications occurred in two patients (2.3%). Eighty-two (93.2%) patients were discharged within one day after ESD. No patient was readmitted for anesthesia-related complications.

Conclusion

Propofol-based sedation without endotracheal intubation is safe for ESD procedures in the esophagus and stomach with low anesthesia-related complication rates and short hospital stay.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection under general anesthesia for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is associated with better clinical outcomes

Background

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been widely accepted for treating superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SESCC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ESD for SESCC and the effect of different sedation methods on their clinical outcomes.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed a total of 169 patients (175 lesions) who underwent ESD for SESCC at Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea. Short-term and long-term clinical outcomes were evaluated and compared according to the sedation method (conscious sedation [CS] vs general anesthesia [GA]).

Results

En bloc resection, complete resection, and curative resection (CuR) were achieved in 93.7, 74.9, and 58.9% of cancers, respectively. Perforation and stricture occurred in 8.0 and 12.0% of lesions, respectively. During a mean follow-up period of 33.7 months for survival, 3 (3.0%) patients died without evidence of recurrence after achieving CuR. During a mean follow-up period of 32.5 months for recurrence, 1 (1.0%) patient experienced lymph node metastasis. Synchronous and metachronous cancer were found in 1.0% and in 3.0% of patients, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that GA was associated with a higher complete resection rate and a lower perforation rate as compared to CS (odds ratio 3.401, 95% confidence interval 1.317–8.785, P = 0.011 and odds ratio 0.067, 95% confidence interval 0.006–0.775, P = 0.030, respectively).

Conclusions

ESD is an oncologically effective treatment modality for SESCC, particularly when CuR is achieved. Applying GA for esophageal ESD could improve the clinical outcomes of ESD in patients with SESCC.

[Endoscopic Treatment for Esophageal Cancer]

Esophageal cancer incidence rate per 100,000 is 4.7 in 2013, which accounts for 1.1% of the total cancer incidence in Korea. Superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is frequently detected in persons undergoing upper endoscopy for gastrointestinal symptoms or for gastric cancer screening. Esophagectomy with lymph node dissection is the standard treatment for esophageal cancer. However, given the considerable morbidity and mortality of esophagectomy, endoscopic resection has become the standard of care for most cases of superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma without metastasis. In addition, endoscopic submucosal dissection has increased the cure rate, even when the tumor is large, compared to endoscopic mucosal resection. Thus, endoscopic submucosal dissection is the treatment of choice for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with a negligible risk of lymph node metastasis. Endoscopic resection is usually associated with a low risk of morbidity and no mortality, and has also shown favorable long-term outcomes. However, the long-term risk of metastasis remains after endoscopic resection, which varies according to the characteristics of tumor. This review describes the indication and outcomes of endoscopic resection, complications of endoscopic resection, and management after treatment.

The safety of endoscopic esophageal procedures under general anesthesia

BACKGROUND

With the increasing demand for general anesthesia for endoscopic esophageal procedures, anesthesiologists should understand the clinical characteristics of post-procedural complications (PPCs).

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated the incidence of and risk factors associated with PPCs of endoscopic esophageal procedures performed under general anesthesia from July 2013 to November 2016. The final analysis included 129 patients; 114 who underwent esophageal endoscopic dissection for esophageal tumors and 15 cases of peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia. Frank perforation during the procedure was defined as an endoscopically recognizable or clinically detected perforation during the procedures. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify independent risk factors for PPCs.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of PPCs was 19.4% (25/129). All of the PPCs were managed successfully with conservative measures. The most common PPC was symptomatic, radiologically documented atelectasis (11/25, 44.0%), followed by esophageal perforation-related PPCs (symptomatic pneumomediastinum or pneumoperitoneum; 9/25, 36.0%). In the multivariable analysis, frank perforation during the procedure was the only independent risk factor for PPCs (odds ratio, 8.470, 95% CI, 2.051-34.974, P = 0.003). Although frank perforation during the procedure occurred in 13 patients, 38.5% (5/13) of them did not develop any clinical sequelae after their procedures. Compared with patients without PPCs, patients who developed PPCs took longer to their first oral intake and had prolonged hospital stays (P = 0.047 and 0.026, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Iatrogenic perforation during endoscopic esophageal procedures under general anesthesia was the only independent risk factor for PPCs; therefore, proactive measures and close follow-up are necessary.