High-flow nasal oxygenation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The use of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) has the potential to improve patient safety by limiting hypoxaemia during gastrointestinal endoscopy. The degree of benefit is not adequately established.

Methods

English language literature searches of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were performed to identify randomised controlled trials comparing HFNO and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) for patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy under deep sedation. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hypoxic events observed during endoscopic procedures. The secondary endpoints were the incidence of recourse to rescue manoeuvres, procedure interruption, and adverse events. A meta-analysis and a post hoc trial sequence analysis were performed.

Results

A total of 2867 patients from six randomised controlled trials were considered. Desaturation was observed in 5.2% and 27.2% of patients receiving HFNO and COT, respectively. Desaturation <90% was observed in 1.8% and 12.6% of the patients receiving HFNO and COT, respectively. In the subgroup analysis, desaturation occurrence was lower during HFNO than during COT in non-obese patients (2.2% vs 25.2%) and obese patients (22.9% vs 43.3%). Desaturation occurrence was lower during maximum (3.6% vs 26.9%) and minimum (15.9% vs 29.8%) HFNO therapy than during COT. HFNO showed a lower recurrence to rescue manoeuvres rate (4.7% vs 34.3%), a lower procedure interruption rate (0.4% vs 6.7%), and a lower adverse events rate (18.7% vs 21%) than COT. A high level of heterogeneity between the studies precluded confidence in drawing inference from the meta-analysis.

Conclusions

The evidence reviewed suggests that compared with COT, HFNO has fewer hypoxaemic events during gastrointestinal endoscopy, but this may not apply to all patients and clinical scenarios.

Screening for Barrett's Esophagus in Patients with Cirrhosis Using WATS3D

The prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux disease and neoplastic progression in patients with cirrhosis is higher compared to patients without liver disease. The gold standard for screening for Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is esophagogastroduodenoscopy with forceps biopsy using the Seattle protocol. However, many physicians refrain from taking biopsies in cirrhotic patients and rely solely on endoscopic findings to avoid hemorrhagic complications secondary to variceal bleeding or coagulopathy. In this case series, we present seven cirrhotic patients at high risk of bleeding that underwent screening for BE by upper endoscopy using WATS3D with no postprocedural complications.

[Ingestion of magnetic foreign bodies during the paediatric age. Case report, location and endoscopic extraction aided by a magnet]

The ingestion of more than one magnet can cause multiple complications. Current protocols recommend endoscopic extraction if possible. We report a patient who swallowed two magnets and the endoscopic extraction technique. An 11-yearold boy presented at the Emergency Room after ingesting two small magnets, being asymptomatic. In the abdominal x-ray two radiopaque bodies were identified at the gastric chamber, apparently together. A gastroscopy was done in the operating room under general anaesthesia. To enable the extraction, a neodymium magnet was placed externally at the abdominal wall. In the endoscopic image, the two magnets were fixed to the anterior gastric wall. Once located, the neodymium magnet was removed and the two magnets were retrieved with an endoscopic basket.

Sequence of same-day upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy does not affect total procedure' time or medication use: A randomized trial

Background and Aim

Same‐day double upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy is frequently performed due to overlapping indications. However, it is unclear whether an upper–lower (U‐L) or lower–upper (L‐U) sequence is optimal. We analyzed the effect of sequence on total procedure time and sedation use.

Methods

A total of 100 patients scheduled for same‐day double endoscopy were randomized to the U‐L or L‐U sequence arm. Primary outcomes, mean total procedure time, and sedative dosages were compared using a t‐test. We also explored associations of the primary outcomes with patient‐related and procedure‐related factors.

Results

Comparing U‐L and L‐U sequences, mean total procedure time was 41.9 (16.2) versus 43.0 (14.5) min (P = 0.73), diphenhydramine dose 5.5 (15.4) versus 4.5 (14.0) mg (P = 0.74), fentanyl dose 71.5 (119.3) versus 77.6 (164.02) μg (P = 0.83), midazolam dose 1.6 (2.5) versus 1.4 (2.7) mg (P = 0.69), and propofol dose 437.4 (351.4) versus 444.5 (256.0) mg (P = 0.91), respectively. Total procedure and upper endoscopy times were significantly longer with trainee presence (P = 0.0002) and shorter with conscious sedation (P = 0.003). Upper endoscopy time was longer with higher body mass index (P = 0.001), and lower endoscopy time was longer in patients with cirrhosis or chronic kidney disease (P = 0.002 and 0.009, respectively). Time between procedures was significantly longer in the L‐U sequence (7.4 [2.9] vs 5.3 [1.1] min, [P < 0.001]). The study had 80% power to detect an 8 min difference in total procedure time.

Conclusions

The sequence of same‐day double gastrointestinal endoscopy does not affect total procedure time or medication use. Longer total procedure and upper endoscopy times were associated with trainee presence and use of conscious sedation.

Double-balloon endoscopy is safe and effective for the diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: prospective multicenter study carried out by expert and non-expert endoscopists in Japan

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Double-balloon endoscopy (DBE) has enabled direct, detailed examination of the entire small bowel with interventional capabilities. Although its usefulness is recognized, efficacy and safety have not been extensively evaluated by prospective multicenter studies. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of DBE carried out by expert and non-expert endoscopists, a prospective, multicenter study was conducted in five university hospitals and a general hospital in Japan.

METHODS

A total of 120 patients who underwent 179 procedures were enrolled in the study. Experts carried out 129 procedures and non-experts carried out 50 procedures. Primary and secondary end points were evaluation of safety, the rate of achievement of procedural objectives, namely, identification of a new lesion, detailed examination to establish a therapeutic strategy, or exclusion of significant lesions by total enteroscopy, and rate of successful examination of the entire small bowel and evaluation of safety.

RESULTS

Overall rate of achievement of procedural objectives was 82.5% (99/120). Overall success rate for examination of the entire small bowel was 70.8% (34/48). Incidence of adverse events was 1.1% (a mucosal injury and an episode of pyrexia in two of 179 examinations). No severe adverse events were encountered. There were no significant differences in any of the outcome measures comparing expert and non-expert operators.

CONCLUSIONS

DBE is effective and safe for patients with suspected small bowel diseases, and can be safely carried out even by a non-expert under the supervision of an expert, following a simple training program.

Diagnosis of small bowel Crohn's disease: a prospective comparison of capsule endoscopy with magnetic resonance imaging and fluoroscopic enteroclysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy (CE) compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in small bowel Crohn's disease is not well established. We prospectively investigated CE, MRI, and double contrast fluoroscopy in patients with suspected small bowel Crohn's disease.

METHODS

Fifty two consecutive patients (39 females, 13 males) were investigated by MRI, fluoroscopy and--if bowel obstruction could be excluded--by CE. In 25, Crohn's disease was newly suspected while the diagnosis of Crohn's disease (non-small bowel) had been previously established in 27.

RESULTS

Small bowel Crohn's disease was diagnosed in 41 of 52 patients (79%). CE was not accomplished in 14 patients due to bowel strictures. Of the remaining 27 patients, CE, MRI, and fluoroscopy detected small bowel Crohn's disease in 25 (93%), 21 (78%), and 7 (of 21; 33%) cases, respectively. CE was the only diagnostic tool in four patients. CE was slightly more sensitive than MRI (12 v 10 of 13 in suspected Crohn's disease and 13 v 11 of 14 in established Crohn's disease). MRI detected inflammatory conglomerates and enteric fistulae in three and two cases, respectively.

CONCLUSION

CE and MRI are complementary methods for diagnosing small bowel Crohn's disease. CE is capable of detecting limited mucosal lesions that may be missed by MRI, but awareness of bowel obstruction is mandatory. In contrast, MRI is helpful in identifying transmural Crohn's disease and extraluminal lesions, and may exclude strictures.