Complementary roles of interventional radiology and therapeutic endoscopy in gastroenterology

Direct Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Versus Radiological Gastrostomy in Patients Unable to Undergo Transoral Endoscopic Pull Gastrostomy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A subset of patients needing long-term enteral access are unable to undergo a conventional transoral "pull" percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). We assessed the safety and efficacy of an introducer-style endoscopic direct PEG (DPEG) and an interventional radiologist guided gastrostomy (IRG) among patients unable to undergo a pull PEG.

METHODS

In this single center, non-randomized, pilot study, patients unable to undergo a transoral Pull PEG were prospectively recruited for a DPEG during the index endoscopy. IRG procedures performed at our center served as the comparison group. The primary outcome was technical success and secondary outcomes included 30-day and 90-day all-cause mortality, procedure duration, dosage of medications, adverse events, and 30-day all-cause hospitalization. The Charlson comorbidity index was used to compare comorbidities.

RESULTS

A total of 47 patients (68.3 ± 7.13 years) underwent DPEG and 45 patients (68.6 ± 8.23 years) underwent IRG. The respective Charlson comorbidity scores were 6.37 ± 2 and 6.16 ± 1.72 (P = 0.59). Malignancies of the upper aerodigestive tract were the most common indications for DPEG and IRG (42 vs. 37; P = 0.38). The outcomes for DPEG and IRG were as follows: technical success: 96 vs. 98%; P = 1; 30-day all-cause mortality: 0 vs 15%, P < 0.01; 90-day all-cause mortality: 0 vs. 31%, P < 0.001; 30-day hospitalization: 19 vs. 38%; P = 0.06; procedure duration: 23.8 ± 1.39 vs. 29.5 ± 2.03 min, P = 0.02; midazolam dose: 4.5 ± 1.6 vs. 1.23 ± 0.6 mg; P < 0.001, and opiate dose: 105.6 ± 38.2 vs. 70.7 ± 34.5 µg, P < 0.001, respectively. Perforation of the colon during IRG was the sole serious adverse event.

CONCLUSION

DPEG is a safe and effective alternative to IRG in patients unable to undergo a conventional transoral pull PEG and may be considered as a primary modality for enteral support.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov Identifier: NCT04151030.

Percutaneous Biliary Endoscopy

Biliary endoscopy is underutilized by interventional radiologists and has the potential to become an effective adjunctive tool to help both diagnose and treat a variety of biliary pathology. This is particularly true in cases where endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography fails or is not feasible due to surgically altered anatomy. Both preoperative clinical and technical procedural factors must be taken into consideration prior to intervention. In this article, clinical evaluation, perioperative management, and procedural techniques for percutaneous biliary endoscopy are reviewed.

Medical care setting is associated with survival in acute upper gastro-intestinal bleeding: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on the effect of the medical care setting on survival in patients admitted with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

AIMS

To identify the organisational and care setting which provides the optimal survival in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

METHODS

A retrospective observational study of administrative data from a cohort of patients admitted to a Regional or Local hospital, and cared for in a gastroenterology or general ward.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

30 day survival for non-variceal bleeding and 42 day survival for variceal bleeding.

RESULTS

Out of 3368 patients, the source of bleeding was non-variceal in 2980 (88.5%). Survival, adjusted for clinical and organisational factors, was higher in patients admitted to a gastroenterology ward vs other wards (OR = 2.02 p < 0.0006). Management in a gastroenterology ward in a Regional hospital provided a higher survival rate (95.6% ± 0.08) vs a non-gastroenterology ward in a Local hospital (92.9% ± 0.05 p < 0.01) or a non-gastroenterology ward in a Regional hospital (89.5% ± 0.01 p < 0.0001). Survival (94.0% ± 1.6) in a Local hospital with a gastroenterology ward was significantly higher than in a Regional hospital without (89.5% ± 1.1) p < 0.01.

CONCLUSION

Survival was optimal for patients treated in a gastroenterology ward independently of Regional or Local hospital setting.

Interventional radiology-operated endoscopy using the LithoVue disposable endoscope: Approach, technical success, clinical outcomes, and complications

Purpose:

To report the approach, technical success, clinical outcomes, and complications of interventional radiology-operated endoscopy using the LithoVue disposable endoscope.

Materials and Methods:

12 patients, 6 (50%) males and 6 (50%) females, underwent interventional radiology-operated endoscopy using the LithoVue disposable endoscope between April 2016 and August 2017. Presenting complaint, reason for endoscopic evaluation, technical success, clinical success, procedure time, fluoroscopy time, hospital length of stay, and complications were recorded.

Results:

Interventional radiology-operated endoscopy using the LithoVue disposable endoscope was used in 8 (67%) biliary, 2 (16.5%) urologic, and 2 (16.5%) gastrointestinal procedures. Five (42%) patients required endoscopy to locate an ostium that could not be cannulated under fluoroscopy. Five (42%) patients had a biliary-enteric anastomosis with postoperative anatomy of the bowel which precluded endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and underwent endoscopy for removal of calculi. One (8%) patient underwent treatment of a stricture and one (8%) underwent biopsy. Technical success was 92% (11/12). Clinical success was 83% (10/12). Two complications, a perinephric hematoma and sepsis, occurred.

Conclusion:

Disposable endoscopes, including the LithoVue, may be used in a variety of procedures to improve patient care and limit fluoroscopy.