Search

Helicobacter pyloriInfection is formally recognised as an infectious disease, an entity that is now included in the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision. This in principle leads to the recommendation that all infected patients should receive treatment. In the context of the wide clinical spectrum associated with Helicobacter pylori gastritis, specific issues persist and require regular updates for optimised management.The identification of distinct clinical scenarios, proper testing and adoption of effective strategies for prevention of gastric cancer and other complications are addressed. H. pylori treatment is challenged by the continuously rising antibiotic resistance and demands for susceptibility testing with consideration of novel molecular technologies and careful selection of first line and rescue therapies. The role of H. pylori and antibiotic therapies and their impact on the gut microbiota are also considered.Progress made in the management of H. pylori infection is covered in the present sixth edition of the Maastricht/Florence 2021 Consensus Report, key aspects related to the clinical role of H. pylori infection were re-evaluated and updated. Forty-one experts from 29 countries representing a global community, examined the new data related to H. pylori infection in five working groups: (1) indications/associations, (2) diagnosis, (3) treatment, (4) prevention/gastric cancer and (5) H. pylori and the gut microbiota. The results of the individual working groups were presented for a final consensus voting that included all participants. Recommendations are provided on the basis of the best available evidence and relevance to the management of H. pylori infection in various clinical fields.

Scores in upper GI bleeding (UGIB) are used to stratify death risk and need for hospitalization at admission, but a tool that incorporates dynamic changes during the hospital stay is lacking. We aimed to develop a death risk score that considers changes in clinical status during hospitalization and compare its performance with existing ones.A multicenter cohort study enrolling patients with UGIB in 50 Italian hospitals from January 2014 to December 2015 was conducted. Data were collected and used to develop a risk score using logistic regression analyses. Performance curves (area under the receiver-operating characteristic [AUROC] curves), sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative predictive values, and outcomes classified as low, intermediate, and high death risk were calculated. The score's performance was externally validated and then compared with other scores.We included 1852 patients with nonvariceal UGIB in the development cohort and 912 in the validation cohorts. The new score, which we named the Re.Co.De (rebleeding-comorbidities-deteriorating) score, included 10 variables depicting the changes in clinical conditions while in the hospital. The mortality AUROC curves were .93 (95% confidence interval, .91-.96) in the derivation cohort and .94 (95% confidence interval, .91-.98) in validation cohort. In a comparison of AUROC curves with other scores, the new score showed a significant performance compared with pre- and postendoscopy scores. Patients with low and high scores had 30-day mortality rates of .001% and 48.2%, respectively.The Re.Co.De score has a higher performance for predicting mortality in patients with UGIB compared with other scores, correctly identifying patients at low and high death risk while in the hospital through a dynamic re-evaluation of clinical status.

Background Although evidence suggests frequent gastrointestinal (GI) involvement during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), endoscopic findings are scarcely reported. Aims We aimed at registering endoscopic abnormalities and potentially associated risk factors among patients with COVID-19. Methods All consecutive patients with COVID-19 undergoing endoscopy in 16 institutions from high-prevalence regions were enrolled. Mann-Whitney U, χ 2 or Fisher's exact test were used to compare patients with major abnormalities to those with negative procedures, and multivariate logistic regression to identify independent predictors. Results Between February and May 2020, during the first pandemic outbreak with severely restricted endoscopy activity, 114 endoscopies on 106 patients with COVID-19 were performed in 16 institutions (men=70.8%, median age=68 (58-74); 33% admitted in intensive care unit; 44.4% reporting GI symptoms). 66.7% endoscopies were urgent, mainly for overt GI bleeding. 52 (45.6%) patients had major abnormalities, whereas 13 bled from previous conditions. The most prevalent upper GI abnormalities were ulcers (25.3%), erosive/ulcerative gastro-duodenopathy (16.1%) and petechial/haemorrhagic gastropathy (9.2%). Among lower GI endoscopies, 33.3% showed an ischaemic-like colitis. Receiver operating curve analysis identified D-dimers >1850 ng/mL as predicting major abnormalities. Only D-dimers >1850 ng/mL (OR=12.12 (1.69-86.87)) and presence of GI symptoms (OR=6.17 (1.13-33.67)) were independently associated with major abnormalities at multivariate analysis. Conclusion In this highly selected cohort of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring endoscopy, almost half showed acute mucosal injuries and more than one-third of lower GI endoscopies had features of ischaemic colitis. Among the hospitalisation-related and patient-related variables evaluated in this study, D-dimers above 1850 ng/mL was the most useful at predicting major mucosal abnormalities at endoscopy. Trial registration number ClinicalTrial.gov (ID: NCT04318366). ©

Barrett’s esophagus is a precancerous condition associated with an increased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma. A diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus may cause psychological stress with a negative impact on patients’ quality of life. In line with the increasing prevalence of gastro-esophageal reflux disease, the incidence of Barrett’s esophagus has raised dramatically over the last decades, particularly in Europe. Several international guidelines and experts consensus on the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus have been published over the last years. There are still areas of controversy surrounding the diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus, in particular concerning the histological type of metaplastic epithelium, and treatment modalities, including medical therapy for chemoprevention and endoscopic techniques. The purpose of this review is to examine the current guidelines and recommendations, and report recent evidence from systematic reviews and clinical trials on epidemiology, diagnosis, surveillance and treatment of Barrett’s esophagus.

Given the increasing prevalence and incidence of colorectal cancer, more patients will suffer from colonic obstruction and therefore need appropriate treatment. Currently, patients can undergo either emergency surgery (ES), which encompasses colostomy, or endoscopic self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement. However, ES carries a substantial risk of morbidity and mortality; therefore, attention has been increasingly drawn on the endoscopic placement of SEMS. SEMS can be inserted under endoscopic and/or fluoroscopic view. Main adverse events encompass stent failure, perforation, migration, and re-obstruction. As a bridge to surgery, SEMS placement is controversial due to concern on long-term oncological outcomes. However, recent studies have shown a similar survival rate as compared to surgery, when stenting is carried out in highly experienced centers. In the palliative setting, SEMS placement is contraindicated in patients treated or planned to be treated with bevacizumab or other antiangiogenic drugs. Nevertheless, we will discuss the existing evidence showing conflicting results. In summary, this review will focus on the technique of SEMS insertion, indications, outcomes, and adverse events, both as a bridge-to-surgery strategy and in the palliative setting, disserting the most recent evidence. © 2020 Elsevier Inc.

Importance: Several techniques are used for surgical treatment of gallstone disease with biliary duct calculi, but the safety and efficacy of these approaches have not been compared. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of 4 surgical approaches to gallstone disease with biliary duct calculi. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Scopus, and ISI-Web of Science databases, articles published between 1950 and 2017 and searched from August 12, 2017, to September 14, 2017. Search terms used were LCBDE, LC, preoperative, ERCP, postoperative, period, cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic, retrograde, rendezvous, intraoperative, one-stage, two-stage, single-stage, gallstone, gallstones, calculi, stone, therapy, treatment, therapeutics, surgery, surgical, procedures, clinical trials as topic, random, and allocation in several logical combinations. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials comparing at least 2 of the following strategies: preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (PreERCP) plus laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC); LC with laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCDBE); LC plus intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (IntraERCP); and LC plus postoperative ERCP (PostERCP). Data Extraction and Synthesis: A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis was performed. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to show the probability that each approach would be the best for each outcome. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were the safety to efficacy ratio using overall mortality and morbidity rates as the main indicators of safety and the success rate as an indicator of efficacy. Secondary outcomes were acute pancreatitis, biliary leak, overall bleeding, operative time, length of hospital stay, total cost, and readmission rate. Results: The 20 trials comprised 2489 patients (and 2489 procedures). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus IntraERCP had the highest probability of being the most successful (SUCRA, 87.2%) and safest (SUCRA, 69.7%) with respect to morbidity. All approaches had similar results regarding overall mortality. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus LCBDE was the most successful for avoiding overall bleeding (SUCRA, 83.3%) and for the shortest operative time (SUCRA, 90.2%) and least total cost (SUCRA, 98.9%). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus IntraERCP was the best approach for length of hospital stay (SUCRA, 92.7%). Inconsistency was found in operative time (indirect estimate, 19.05; 95% CI, 2.44-35.66; P = .02) and total cost (indirect estimate, 17.06; 95% CI, 3.56-107.21; P = .04). Heterogeneity was observed for success rate (τ, 0.8), operative time (τ, >1), length of stay (τ, >1), and total cost (τ, >1). Conclusions and Relevance: The combined LC and IntraERCP approach had the greatest odds to be the safest and appears to be the most successful. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy plus LBCDE appears to reduce the risk of acute pancreatitis but may be associated with a higher risk of biliary leak.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Outcomes of endoscopic surveillance after surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) vary with the incidence and timing of CRC detection at anastomoses or non-anastomoses in the colorectum. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the incidence of CRCs identified during surveillance colonoscopies of patients who have already undergone surgery for this cancer. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials through January 1, 2018 to identify studies investigating rates of CRCs at anastomoses or other locations in the colorectum after curative surgery for primary CRC. We collected data from published randomized controlled, prospective, and retrospective cohort studies. Data were analyzed by multivariate meta-analytic models. RESULTS: From 2373 citations, we selected 27 studies with data on 15,803 index CRCs for analysis (89% of patients with stage I-III CRC). Overall, 296 CRCs at non-anastomotic locations were reported over time periods of more than 16 years (cumulative incidence, 2.2% of CRCs; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8%-2.9%). The risk of CRC at a non-anastomotic location was significantly reduced more than 36 months after resection compared with before this time point (odds ratio for non-anastomotic CRCs at 36-48 months vs 6-12 months after surgery, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37-0.98; P = .031); 53.7% of all non-anastomotic CRCs were detected within 36 months of surgery. One hundred and fifty-eight CRCs were detected at anastomoses (cumulative incidence of 2.7%; 95% CI, 1.9%-3.9%). The risk of CRCs at anastomoses was significantly lower 24 months after resection than before (odds ratio for CRCs at anastomoses at 25-36 months after surgery vs 6-12 months, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.32-0.98; P = .036); 90.8% of all CRCs at anastomoses were detected within 36 months of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: After surgery for CRC, the highest risk of CRCs at anastomoses and at other locations in the colorectum is highest during 36 months after surgery-risk decreases thereafter. Patients who have undergone CRC resection should be evaluated by colonoscopy more closely during this time period. Longer intervals may be considered thereafter.