FROM THE LITERATURE

Famotidine Use in COVID-19

Read Article

To compare outcomes in patients hospitalized with Coronavirus (COVID-19), receiving famotidine therapy with those not receiving famotidine, a retrospective, propensity-matched observational study of consecutive COVID-19 positive patients was carried out between 2/24/2020 and 5/13/2020.

Of 878 patients in the analysis, 83 (9.5%), received famotidine. In comparison to patients not treated with famotidine, the patients treated with famotidine were younger (63.5 vs. 67.5 years), but did not differ with respect to baseline demographics or preexisting comorbidities. Use of famotidine was associated with a decreased risk of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.37), and combined death or intubation (OR 0.47). Propensity score matching to adjust for age difference between groups did not alter the effect on either outcome. In addition, patients receiving famotidine despite lower levels of serum markers for severe disease, including lower median peak CRP levels (9.4 vs. 12.7 mg/ dL), lower median procalcitonin levels (0.16 vs. 0.30 ng/mL), and a nonsignificant trend to lower median mean ferritin levels (797.5 vs. 964 ng/mL).

Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that famotidine was an independent predictor of both lower mortality and combined death/ intubation, whereas older age, BMI greater than 30 kg, chronic kidney disease, national early warning score, and higher neutrophil/ lymphocyte ratio were all predictors of adverse outcomes.

It was concluded that famotidine use in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is associated with a lower risk of mortality, lower risk of combined outcome of mortality and intubation, and lower levels of serum markers for severe disease in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Mather, J., Seip, R., McKay, R. “Impact of Famotidine Use on Clinical Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.” American Journal of Gastroenterology 2020; Vol. 115, pp. 1617-1623.

Download Tables, Images & References

FROM THE LITERATURE

Minimally Invasive Endoscopic Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux

Read Article

Endoscopic management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is being employed increasingly. A scoping review was published, assessing the volume of available evidence on the benefits of endoscopic and minimally invasive surgical therapies for GERD.

Criteria were used to perform an extensive literature search of data regarding the reported benefits of endoscopic therapies and GERD randomized control studies were utilized when available. However, data from observed observational studies were also reviewed.

A formal review of evidence was performed in 22 studies. Inclusion and exclusion criteria and study duration were noted and tabulated. Assessment of outcomes was based on symptoms and objective criteria reported by investigators reported outcomes for the interventions tabulated under the heading of subjective (symptom scores), quality of life metrics, and change in proton pump inhibitor use, objective metrics (pH parameters, endoscopic signs and lower esophageal sphincter pressure changes).

Adverse events were noted and tabulated. The majority of studies showed symptomatic and objective improvement of GERD with device therapies. Adverse events were minimal. However, normalization of acid exposure occurred in about 50% of patients and for some modalities, long-term durability is uncertain.

It was concluded that this scoping review revealed that the endoluminal and minimallyinvasive surgical devices for GERD therapy are a promising alternative to proton pump inhibitor therapy. Their place in the treatment algorithm for GERD will be better defined when important clinical parameters, especially durability of effect, are better understood.

Vaezi, M., Shaheen, N., Muthusamy, V. “State of Evidence in Minimally-Invasive Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux: Findings of a Scoping Review.” Gastroenterology 2020; Vol. 159, pp. 1504-1525.

Download Tables, Images & References

FROM THE LITERATURE

Response to Bariatric Surgery in Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis

Read Article

To determine the long-term effects of bariatric surgery for patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), sequential liver samples were evaluated that were collected at the time of bariatric surgery and 1 and 5 years later to assess the long-term effects of that surgery in patients with NASH.

A prospective study of 180 severely obese patients with biopsy-proven NASH defined by the NASH clinical research network histologic scores was performed. Patients underwent bariatric surgery at a single center in France and were followed for 5 years. Liver samples were obtained from 125 of 169 patients (76%), having reached 1 year in 64 of 94 patients (68%), having reached 5 years after surgery. The primary endpoint was resolution of NASH without worsening of fibrosis at 5 years. Secondary endpoints were improvement in fibrosis (reduction of 1 or greater stage at 5 years and regression of fibrosis and NASH at 1 and 5 years).

At 5 years after bariatric surgery, NASH was resolved without worsening fibrosis in samples from 84% of patients (N=64). Fibrosis decreased compared with baselines, in samples from 70.2% of patients. Fibrosis disappeared from samples from 56% of all patients and from samples from 45.5% of patients with baseline bridging fibrosis. Persistence of NASH was associated with no decrease in fibrosis unless weight loss (reduction in BMI of 6.3 kg/m² in patients with persistent NASH vs. reduction of 13.4 kg/m² with resolution of NASH). Resolution of NASH was observed at 1 year after bariatric surgery in biopsies from 84% of patients with no significant recurrence between 1 and 5 years. Fibrosis began to decrease from year 1 after surgery and continued to decrease until 5 years.

It was concluded in a long-term followup study of patients with NASH who underwent bariatric surgery, observation revealed resolution of NASH in liver samples from 84% of patients 5 years later. The reduction of fibrosis is progressive, beginning the first year and continuing through 5 years.

Lassailly, G., Caiazzo, R., NtandjaWandji, L. et al. “Bariatric Surgery Provides Long-Term Resolution of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis and Regression of Fibrosis.” Gastroenterology 2020; Vol. 159, pp. 1290-1301.

Download Tables, Images & References

FROM THE LITERATURE

Hemochromatosis and Hepatic Malignancy

Read Article

The predominant cause of hereditary hemochromatosis is HFE p.C282Y homozygous pathogenic variant. Liver carcinoma and mortality risks are increased in individuals with clinically diagnosed hereditary hemochromatosis, but risks are unclear in mostly diagnosed HFE p.C282Y homozygousidentified community genotyping.

To estimate the incidence of primary hepatic carcinoma and death by HFE variant status, a cohort study of 451,186 UK Biobank participants of European ancestry aged 40 to 70 years old, followed up from baseline assessment (2006-2010), until January 2018 was carried out.

Men and women with HFE p.C282Y and p.H63D genotypes was compared with those with neither HFE variants. Two linked coprimary outcomes (incident primary liver carcinoma and death from any cause), were ascertained from followup by way of inpatient hospital records, national cancer registry, and death certificate records, and from primary care data among a subset of participants for whom data was available. Associations between genotype and outcomes were tested using Cox regression adjusted for age, assessment center, genotyping array, and population genetic substructure.

Kaplan-Meier lifetable probabilities of incident diagnoses were estimated from age 40 to 75 years by HFE genotype and sex. A total of 451,186 participants had a mean age of 56.8 years; 54.3% women, and were followed up for a median of 8.9 years. Among the 1294 male p.C282Y homozygotes, there were 21 incident hepatic malignancies, 10 of which were in participants without a diagnosis of hemochromatosis in baseline and pC2827 homozygous men had a higher risk of hepatic malignancies (HR 10.5), and all cause of mortality (N = 88; HR 1.2) compared with men with neither HFE variant.

In lifetable projections for male p.C282Y homozygotes to 75 years, the risk of primary hepatic malignancy was 7.2% compared with 0.6% for men with neither variant and the risk of death was 19.5%, compared with 15.1% among men with neither variant.

Among female p.C282Y homozygotes (N = 1596), there were 3 incident hepatic malignancies and 60 deaths, but the associations between homozygosity and hepatic malignancy and death were not statistically significant (HR 2.1 and 1.2, respectively).

It is concluded that among men with HFE p.C282Y homozygosity, there was a significant increased risk of incident primary hepatic malignancy and death. Compared with men without p.C282Y or p.H63D variant, there was not a significant association for women. The effects of early diagnosis and treatment require further research.

Atkins, J., Pilling, L., Masoli, J., et al. “Association of Hemochromatosis HFE pC282Y Homozygosity With Hepatic Malignancy.” JAMA 2020; Vol. 324, pp. 20, 2048-2057.

Download Tables, Images & References

FRONTIERS IN ENDOSCOPY, SERIES #68

Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Tissue Acquisition from Unusual Targets:A Review of Less Commonly Biopsied Sites

Read Article

Since the first described case of endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) nearly 30 years ago, EUS guided tissue acquisition has become a preferable diagnostic method that allows for high resolution imaging of the gastrointestinal tract and nearby structures as well as the means for biopsy in real time. The aim of this review is to assess the diagnostic accuracy and safety profiles of less commonly biopsied sites under EUS guidance, which includes lesions of the head and neck, the lungs, the adrenal glands and the pelvis.

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic guided ultrasound (EUS) has become an invaluable tool for providing highresolution imaging of the gastrointestinal tract as well as adjacent structures while providing the ability of real-time tissue acquisition via endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy (EUSFNB). Common indications for EUS guided tissue acquisition include: pancreatic lesions, biliary strictures, liver lesions, mediastinal and abdominal lymph node assessment, splenic masses, and subepithelial gastrointestinal tumors.1 This article aims to review unusual or less common indications for EUS and unusual sites for EUS guided biopsies including head and neck masses, adrenal gland lesions, and lesions of the pelvis with a particular emphasis on diagnostic accuracy and safety profiles associated with tissue acquisition from these sites.

Head and Neck Malignancies

The utility and high diagnostic accuracy of EUS in detecting mediastinal masses has been welldescribed.2,3 However, there is less research regarding EUS-guided tissue acquisition in patients with lesions of the head and neck. Most research examining EUS-FNA in this region describes how EUS may be used to stage malignancies that originate in the head and neck. For example, one study showed that EUS-FNA may play a role in staging squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, and their mediastinal spread. The study included cancers originating in the salivary gland, oropharynx, larynx and thyroid. Although the study only included 17 patients, it found that EUS was able to diagnose and stage head and neck malignancies by demonstrating esophageal invasion, lymph node involvement and, on two occasions, provide the initial tissue diagnosis.4 Similarly, a prospective study conducted in Japan showed that EUS can have greater diagnostic specificity and accuracy than MRI or barium swallow study for assessing the esophopharyngeal involvement of thyroid cancer.5 Of the 52 patients included in this analysis, EUS had a specificity and accuracy of 82.9% and 82.7%, respectively, for determining invasion into the muscularis propria when compared to MRI (which had corresponding rates of 60% and 65.4%, respectively) or barium swallow study (58.8% and 60%, respectively).4 However, the authors noted that diagnostic accuracy was decreased for thyroid cancer invasion of the upper lobe.4

Another retrospective study of 100 cases analyzed the frequency of thyroid gland masses among patients undergoing routine EUS.6 Twelve cases were identified with abnormal lesions of the thyroid with three patients receiving a new diagnosis of thyroid cancer; two with papillary thyroid cancer and one with poorly differentiated thyroid cancer.5 Ultimately, the authors concluded that routine EUS examination of the thyroid should be performed to identify potentially unexpected thyroid lesions.

EUS-FNA can also be utilized to directly biopsy the thyroid gland itself. The authors of the aforementioned study noted that of their twelve identified cases, only two cases underwent EUSFNA. The remaining cases were either referred for transcutaneous ultrasound guided biopsy or followed clinically.5

A small number of case reports exist describing direct tissue acquisition from the thyroid gland via EUS-FNA. One representative case report describes a case of 3x4cm mass in the left thyroid lobe that was not amenable to conventional, transcutaneous ultrasound guided biopsy due to a large amount of adjacent blood vessels, per the authors report. The authors noted that technical success was achieved and the patient was diagnosed with Hurtle cell neoplasm of the thyroid.7 Another case report, published in 2004, described a patient with a 5.7cm x 3.9cm superior mediastinal mass, who was ultimately diagnosed with a benign nodular goiter after undergoing EUS-FNA.8 In 2014, a case of primary papillary thyroid cancer was diagnosed via EUS-FNA after the authors initially noted a 1.7cm x 1.5cm hypoechoic lesion upon withdrawal of the echoendoscope during an evaluation for mediastinal adenopathy.9

EUS-FNA has also been used to diagnose a parathyroid adenoma in a case report detailing a patient who presented with pancreatitis as well as a mass extending from the right inferior aspect of the thyroid gland into the mediastinum. The diagnosis of parathyroid adenoma was confirmed from EUS-FNA biopsy and the patient subsequently underwent surgical resection.10

Head and Neck Infections

Case reports have also described EUS-FNA as a useful technique for diagnosing abscesses in the head and neck. One such report described a case of a soft tissue mass, approximately 5cm x 3cm, located between C7 and T1. Following EUS-FNA, the patient was diagnosed with a paraspinal abscess and underwent successful treatment with surgical drainage and debridement and long-term parenteral antibiotics.11 Similarly, parapharyngeal abscesses have also been drained using EUS via a transoral approach in place of the traditional ultrasound guided transcutaneous drainage.12

Lung Masses

Traditionally, tissue biopsy from the lung is acquired via bronchoscopy or endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS), usually performed by interventional pulmonologists, interventional radiologists or thoracic surgeons. EUS has been shown to provide tissue diagnosis in cases where bronchoscopy samples were non-diagnostic or where lesions were not within reach of a bronchoscope.13

The literature contains a relative paucity of studies regarding EUS-guided tissue acquisition from the lung, most likely due to concerns about inadvertently causing a pneumothorax. A study of 32 patients found a high diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for establishing the diagnosis of lung cancer in 31 patients (97%) with periesophageal lung lesions.14 The authors reported no significant adverse events following EUS-FNA.13 Another study published in 2019, which included 19 patients, found a similar efficacy with diagnostic EUS-FNA in 100% of cases, without reported complications.15 In seven cases, EUS-FNA had the added advantage of obtaining tissue from distant metastatic sites (adrenal glands, mediastinal lymph nodes and liver metastasis), during the same session.14

A review of the literature yielded an additional 15 patients who underwent EUS-FNA for lung lesions and nodules as reported in case reports or as a subset of larger cohorts.16,17,18 Additionally, two cases of successful endoscopic ultrasound fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) of periesophageal, intraparenchymal, lung masses have been described, neither of which were associated with adverse events.19 (Figure 1) This last study suggests that intraparenchymal lesions can be biopsied without causing a pneumothorax, although the rate with which this adverse event arises in this setting remains unknown given the small number of patients treated in this manner to date.

Lastly, one case of pulmonary aspergillosis diagnosed by EUS-FNA has been reported. The authors describe 74-year-old patient with a history of acute myeloid leukemia who presented with febrile neutropenia as well as a 3cm x 2.2cm mass in the right upper lung on CT imaging. After EUS-FNA, microbiology ultimately proved positive for Aspergillus fumigatus.20 No post procedural complications were noted, including pneumothorax, and the patient improved after treatment with antifungals.19

Adrenal Glands

As mentioned above, EUS-FNA has been used to diagnose adrenal metastasis in primary lung cancers during the same session.14 Comparatively more evidence is available to document the utility of EUS-FNA with regards to identifying and sampling adrenal lesions. A recent meta-analysis documented the high diagnostic accuracy for EUSFNA for detection of adrenal gland lesions. The study included a total of 360 adrenal lesions, of which 137 were sampled and found to be positive for malignancy. Reported sensitivity and specificity of EUS-FNA for detecting metastatic adrenal gland lesions were 95% and 99%, respectively.21 Of the 25 articles included for meta-analysis, none reported adverse events associated with EUS-FNA for adrenal gland lesions.20 Similarly, a review article, which included 17 original articles and a total of 416 cases also found a low rate of adverse events with a single reported case of adrenal hemorrhage.22 Due to anatomical constraints, the majority of tissue acquisition was obtained from the left adrenal gland. However, in 40 cases from the studies mentioned above, the right adrenal was sampled successfully.20, 21 (Figure 2)

A recent national, multisite study of EUS guided tissue acquisition conducted in Spain found comparable results with regards to diagnostic yield and safety for EUS-FNA of the adrenal glands. The study included a total of 204 cases of tissue acquisition from the adrenal glands obtained in 200 patients. The authors found a diagnostic yield of 91.17%, inclusive of malignant plus benign diagnostic results, with no significant difference between FNA (n=153) or FNB (n=31). Fourteen of the reported cases were obtained from the right adrenal gland. The authors state that no serious adverse events occurred during the study. In two cases, patients were diagnosed with previously undiscovered pheochromocytomas. The patients did not have prior urine studies but did not suffer puncture associated hypertensive events. The authors concluded that urine studies may not be needed, especially in cases with known primary malignancy.23

Pelvic Masses

EUS guided biopsy can be used for a number of intrapelvic pathologies including: malignancy, cysts, abscesses and even endometriosis.24,25,26,27,28 (Figure 3) Several single-center retrospective studies exist in the literature documenting the diagnostic efficacy and safety of EUS guided tissue acquisition for pelvic masses.23,24,25 The largest of these studies included a total of 127 patients with pelvic lesions, of which 44 cases had surgical pathology available for comparision.25 The authors concluded that EUS-FNA of pelvic lesions to have a sensitivity of 89.3%, specificity of 100%, and a diagnostic accuracy of 93.2%.25 Of the cases included for analysis, 45% were positive for malignancy, 4.7% were considered suspicious/ atypical and 50.3% were negative for malignancy.25 Among malignant cases, adenocarcinoma was identified in 18%, undifferentiated carcinoma in 16%, squamous cell carcinoma in 4%, neuroendocrine tumor in 2%, urothelial carcinoma in 2%, gastrointestinal stromal tumor in 1% and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 1%.25 No complications were noted during the study.

One study of 20 patients with pelvic lesions who underwent EUS-FNA found similar sensitivities and specificities (90% and 100%, respectively) when compared to available surgical pathology.24 No early or late complications were noted during this study.24 Another study included 29 patients with pelvic masses, of whom 17 had surgical pathology available for comparison, which found EUS-FNA to have a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 100%.23 The authors also included 5 cases where EUS-FNB was also performed, which had a lower sensitivity of 67% and a specificity of 100%.23 Two patients with cystic lesions developed abscesses after undergoing EUS-FNA, both of which required antibiotic treatment and percutaneous drainage.23

DISCUSSION

Since the initial case report of EUS guided FNA of a pancreatic head lesion in 1992,29 EUS guided tissue acquisition has expanded its utility to a broad range of clinical scenarios. EUS guided tissue acquisition can be used to biopsy virtually any target within close proximity of the gastrointestinal tract including disparate sites all over the mediastinum, abdomen and pelvis. This review has detailed some unusual or less commonly biopsied sites including: thyroid, parathyroid, head and neck masses, lung masses, adrenal glands and pelvic masses. Given the diversity of biopsy sites presented here, successful EUS guided tissue acquisition should involve a detailed understanding of individual patient anatomy and, when appropriate, interdisciplinary discussion with interventional radiology, as well as relevant medical and surgical specialties.30 As EUS guided FNA and FNB continue to be implemented in novel ways, additional research is needed for to further assess the safety profile and diagnostic accuracy of EUS guided tissue acquisition

References

  1. Cazacu IM, Luzuriaga Chavez AA, Saftoiu A, Vilmann P, Bhutani MS. A quarter century of EUS-FNA: Progress, milestones, and future directions. Endosc Ultrasound. 2018 May-Jun;7(3):141-160.
  2. Devereaux BM, Leblanc JK, Yousif E, Kesler K, Brooks J, Mathur P, Sandler A, Chappo J, Lehman GA, Sherman S, Gress F, Ciaccia D. Clinical utility of EUS-guided fineneedle aspiration of mediastinal masses in the absence of known pulmonary malignancy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002 Sep;56(3):397-401.
  3. Eloubeidi MA, Khan AS, Luz LP, Linder A, Moreira DM, Crowe DR, Eltoum IA. Combined use of EUS-guided FNA and immunocytochemical stains discloses metastatic and unusual diseases in the evaluation of mediastinal lymphadenopathy of unknown etiology. Ann Thorac Med. 2012 Apr;7(2):84-91.
  4. Wildi SM, Fickling WE, Day TA, Cunningham CD 3rd, Schmulewitz N, Varadarajulu S, Roberts SS, Ferguson B, Hoffman BJ, Hawes RH, Wallace MB. Endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnosis and staging of neoplasms of the head and neck. Endoscopy. 2004 Jul;36(7):624-30.
  5. Koike E, Yamashita H, Noguchi S, Ohshima A, Yamashita H, Watanabe S, Uchino S, Arita T, Kuroki S, Tanaka M. Endoscopic ultrasonography in patients with thyroid cancer: its usefulness and limitations for evaluating esophagopharyngeal invasion. Endoscopy. 2002 Jun;34(6):457-60.
  6. Alkhatib AA, Mahayni AA, Chawki GR, Yoder L, Elkhatib FA, Al-Haddad M. Endoscopic evaluation of thyroid gland among patients with nonthyroid cancers. Endosc Ultrasound. 2016 Sep-Oct;5(5):328-334.
  7. Sawhney MS, Nelson DB, Debol S. Gastrointest Endosc. The ever-expanding spectrum of GI endoscopy: EUSguided FNA of thyroid cancer. 2007 Feb;65(2):319-20; discussion 320. Epub 2006 Nov 1.
  8. Dewitt J, Youssef W, Leblanc J, McHenry L, McGreevy K, Chappo J, Cramer H, Sherman S. EUS-guided FNA of a thyroid mass. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Feb;59(2):307- 10.
  9. Jalil AA, Elkhatib FA, Mahayni AA, Alkhatib AA. Primary papillary thyroid carcinoma diagnosed using endoscopic ultrasound with fine needle aspiration. Clin Endosc. 2014 Jul;47(4):350-2.
  10. Balekuduru AB, Rao PS, Subbaraj SB. Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Transesophageal Biopsy of Parathyroid Adenoma. J Dig Endosc. 2017;8:187-9.
  11. Clary K, Varadarajulu S, Canon C, Jhala N, Jhala DN. Diagnosis of paraspinal abscess by EUS-guided FNA. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007 Apr;65(4):729-31.
  12. Balekuduru AB, Dutta AK, Subbaraj SB. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transoral drainage of parapharyngeal abscess. Digestive Endosc. 2016; 28: 755-759.
  13. Fickling W, Wallace MB. Gastrointest Endosc. EUS in lung cancer. 2002 Oct;56(4 Suppl):S18-21.
  14. Annema JT, Veseliç M, Rabe KF. EUS-guided FNA of centrally located lung tumours following a non-diagnostic bronchoscopy. Lung Cancer. 2005 Jun;48(3):357-61; discussion 363-4. Epub 2005 Jan 21.
  15. Chira RI, Chira A, Ichim VA, Nagy GA, Florea A, Crisan D, Popovici B. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided aspiration (EUS-FNA) of paraesophageal lung tmors – diagnostic yield and added value. Med Ultrason. 2019 Nov 24;21(4):377-381.
  16. Dincer HE, Gliksberg EP, Andrade RS. Endoscopic ultrasound and/or endobronchial ultrasound-guided needle biopsy of central intraparenchymal lung lesions not adjacent to airways or esophagus. Endosc Ultrasound. 2015 Jan-Mar;4(1):40-3.
  17. Bugalho A, Ferreira D, Eberhardt R, Dias SS, Videira PA, Herth FJ, Carreiro L. Diagnostic value of endobronchial and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for accessible lung cancer lesions after non-diagnostic conventional techniques: a prospective study. BMC Cancer. 2013 Mar 19;13:130.
  18. Lin LF, Huang PT, Tsai MH, Chen TM, Ho KS. Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in lung and mediastinal lesions. J Chin Med Assoc. 2010 Oct;73(10):523-9.
  19. Adler DG, Gabr M, Taylor LJ, Witt B, Pleskow D. Initial report of transesophageal EUS-guided intraparenchymal lung mass core biopsy: Findings and outcome in two cases. Endosc Ultrasound. 2018 Nov-Dec;7(6):413-417.
  20. Rodrigues-Pinto E, Lopes S, Principe F, Costa J, Macedo G. Pulmonary aspergillosis diagnosed by endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration. Endosc Ultrasound. 2016 Jan-Feb;5(1):58-60.
  21. Patel S, Jinjuvadia R, Devara A, Naylor PH, Anees M, Jinjuvadia K, Al-Haddad M. Performance characteristics of EUS-FNA biopsy for adrenal lesions: a meta-analysis. Endosc Ultrasound. 2019 May-Jun;8(3):180-187.
  22. Rashmee Patil, Mel A. Ona, Charilaos Papafragkakis, Sushil Duddempudi, Sury Anand, Laith H. Jamil Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the diagnosis of adrenal lesions. Ann Gastroenterol. 2016 JulSep; 29(3): 307–311. Published online 2016 May 20.
  23. Martin-Cardona A, Fernandez-Esparrach G, Subtil JC, Iglesias-Garcia J, Garcia-Guix M, Barturen Barroso A, Gimeno-Garcia AZ, Esteban JM, Pardo Balteiro A, Velasco-Guardado A, Vazquez-Sequeiros E, Loras C, Martinez-Moreno B, Castellot A, Huertas C, MartinezLapiedra M, Sanchez-Yague A, Teran A, Morales-Alvarado VJ, Betes M, de la Iglesia D, Sánchez-Montes C, Lozano MD, Lariño-Noia J, Gines A, Tebe C, Gornals JB. EUSguided tissue acquisition in the study of the adrenal glands: results of a nationwide multicenter study. PLoS One. 2019 Jun 6;14(6):e0216658.
  24. Mohamadnejad M, Al-Haddad MA, Sherman S, McHenry L, Leblanc JK, DeWitt J. Utility of EUS-guided biopsy of extramural pelvic masses. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Jan;75(1):146-51.
  25. Rzouq F, Brown J, Fan F, Oropeza-Vail M, Sidorenko E, Gilroy R, Esfandyari T, Bonino J, Olyaee M. The utility of lower endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of benign and malignant pelvic diseases. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014 Feb;48(2):127-30.
  26. Hassan GM, Paquin SC, Albadine R, Gariépy G, Soucy G, Nguyen BN, Sahai AV. Endoscopic-guided FNA of pelvic lesions: a large single-center experience. Cancer Cytopathol. 2016 Nov;124(11):836-841.
  27. Adler DG, Lanke G. Clinical Update on the Role of EUS in Pelvic Abscess. Practical Gastroenterology. 2020 Mar.
  28. Pishvaian AC, Ahlawat SK, Garvin D, Haddad NG. Role of EUS and EUS-guided FNA in the diagnosis of symptomatic rectosigmoid endometriosis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006 Feb;63(2):331-5.
  29. Vilmann P, Jacobsen GK, Henriksen FW et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography with guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in pancreatic disease. Gastrointest Endosc. 1992;38:172-3.
  30. Fujii LL, Levy MJ.Basic techniques in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for solid lesions: adverse events and avoiding them. Endosc Ultrasound. 2014 Jan;3(1):35-45.

Download Tables, Images & References

A CASE REPORT

Incidental Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasm Diagnosed by Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy: A Case Report and Brief Literature Review

Read Article

While a majority of the pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) are benign incidentalomas, many of them can be neoplastic and preneoplastic. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration is commonly utilized for the diagnosis of these lesions; however, the sensitivity and specificity are suboptimal. Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) is a more reliable diagnostic tool that is being increasingly used for the diagnosis of PCL. Cystic neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) of the pancreas are thought to contribute to a very small proportion of all PCL. Nonetheless, they have been found more commonly in recent studies than previously reported. Here, we present a case report of a patient with cystic NEN in the pancreatic tail that was incidentally found, and CLE was used for diagnosis.

INTRODUCTION

With widespread use of abdominal imaging for diagnostic and screening purposes, the prevalence of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) has surged, ranging from less than 1% in an earlier study to 2.6% in a more recent report.1,2 Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is utilized for the diagnosis of these lesions, however, the diagnostic yield is often limited by inadequate cells for analysis in the cystic fluid aspirated. Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE), also known as optical biopsy, is a technique that utilizes low frequency laser beam to obtain real-time pictures of the tissues that mimics histological images. While there is emerging evidence of the application of CLE in the diagnosis of mucinous PCL with sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of approximately 90%, there are only few reports of the use of CLE in the diagnosis of cystic neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) of the pancreas.3-5

Here, we present the case history of a patient with incidentally detected PCL who underwent CLE and was diagnosed to have a NEN of the pancreas.

Case Report

A 76-year-old male with past medical history of arthritis, diabetes type II, hypertension and neuropathy, presented to emergency department for evaluation of acute onset right flank pain and nausea, without vomiting. Physical exam revealed normal vital signs and positive findings included tenderness in the right costovertebral angle. There was no history of weight loss or fever. There was no history of tobacco, alcohol, or drug use. Family history was significant for multiple types of cancer in siblings, including skin, breast, pancreas, and bladder.

Computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis revealed right nephrolithiasis with hydronephrosis, and an incidental finding of a lowdensity lesion in the tail of the pancreas measuring 1.7 x 2.1 x 2.3 cm3 (Figure 1). Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) showed a round rim-enhancing cyst along the pancreatic tail measuring 17 mm x 17 mm axially and 21 mm craniocaudally without definitive communication with the pancreatic duct (Figure 2). Lab results were unremarkable other than elevated serum lipase of 186 U/L and CA19-9 of 54.7 IU/ml.

Following treatment of his nephrolithiasis he was referred for an endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for further evaluation of the pancreatic lesion.

EUS with CLE, FNA and Wall Biopsy

EUS showed normal main pancreatic duct and a 20.5 mm x 19.4 mm well circumscribed anechoic cystic lesion with atypical wall thickening in the tail of the pancreas without internal septations, solid component or mural nodules within the cyst. Under ultrasound guidance, a 19 g Boston Scientific needle was used for cyst puncture. This has been illustrated in Figure 1. Advanced imaging with CLE (Cellvizio) was performed. The wall of the cyst was surveyed and cluster of cells with trabecular pattern was seen consistent with NEN, as shown in Figure 2. Biopsy of the wall was performed with micro-forceps and the cyst was aspirated.

Pathology revealed neuroendocrine cell proliferation with cells positive for synaptophysin (Figure 3), chromogranin, and pancytokeratin by immunostains, Ki-67 proliferation was 1% and mitosis was not identified favoring welldifferentiated neuroendocrine tumor, WHO grade 1.

DISCUSSION

PCL are common and often asymptomatic with a majority discovered as incidental finding on imaging for other indications. They encompass pancreatic pseudocysts, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, serous cystadenomas, and rarely cystic NEN. Imaging features are not characteristic of any cyst and in the absence of specific findings, like presence of a solid component or involvement of the main pancreatic duct, decision to defer further follow up or treatment cannot be made with confidence. Cystic NEN of pancreas account for less than 1% of all PCL (10-17% of NEN).6,7 The prevalence increases with age, the highest being in those 80 years and older (8.7%).1

Current guidelines recommend further evaluation and surveillance of PCL in medically fit patients other than asymptomatic pseudocysts and serous cystadenomas which have very low to no malignant potential. Given rarity of cystic NEN there is no clear guidance, and EUS-FNA is suggested. However, the yield of EUS-FNA is offset by low cellularity and nonspecific nature of the commonly used biomarkers, like carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA).8

CLE has developed as a real-time diagnostic tool for PCL. There is limited data on the utility of CLE in cystic NEN due to infrequent finding of these lesions. Nonetheless, the results from other cystic lesions can be extrapolated to these tumors. Our case report illustrates that not all PCL are benign and pancreatic NEN can present as an incidental cyst. The findings on CLE were characteristic of a cystic pancreatic NEN which was verified on histopathology.

CONCLUSION

Cystic NEN are uncommon, however, they are being recognized more frequently than before, and can present as an incidental cyst typically in the pancreatic body or tail. CLE can provide real-time diagnosis of PCL including cystic NEN. Current evidence for CLE in PCL is evolving and the initial results are encouraging. Future investigations of larger scale are expected to support this novel diagnostic modality as a standard of care.

References

  1. Laffan TA, Horton KM, Klein AP, et al. Prevalence of Unsuspected Pancreatic Cysts on MDCT. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2008/09/01 2008;191(3):802-807. doi:10.2214/AJR.07.3340
  2. Spinelli KS, Fromwiller TE, Daniel RA, et al. Cystic pancreatic neoplasms: observe or operate. Ann Surg. May 2004;239(5):651-7; discussion 657-9. doi:10.1097/01. sla.0000124299.57430.ce
  3. Krishna SG, Brugge WR, Dewitt JM, et al. Needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy for the diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesions: an international external interobserver and intraobserver study (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. Oct 2017;86(4):644-654.e2. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2017.03.002
  4. Krishna SG, Swanson B, Hart PA, et al. Validation of diagnostic characteristics of needle based confocal laser endomicroscopy in differentiation of pancreatic cystic lesions. Endosc Int Open. Nov 2016;4(11):E1124-e1135. doi:10.1055/s-0042-116491
  5. Napoléon B, Lemaistre AI, Pujol B, et al. A novel approach to the diagnosis of pancreatic serous cystadenoma: needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy. Endoscopy. Jan 2015;47(1):26-32. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1390693
  6. Ahrendt SA, Komorowski RA, Demeure MJ, Wilson SD, Pitt HA. Cystic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: is preoperative diagnosis possible? J Gastrointest Surg. Jan-Feb 2002;6(1):66-74. doi:10.1016/s1091-255x(01)00020-8
  7. Kawamoto S, Johnson PT, Shi C, et al. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor with cystlike changes: evaluation with MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(3):W283-W290. doi:10.2214/AJR.12.8941
  8. Elta GH, Enestvedt BK, Sauer BG, Lennon AM. ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Pancreatic Cysts. Am J Gastroenterol. Apr 2018;113(4):464-479. doi:10.1038/ ajg.2018.14

Download Tables, Images & References

Case Report Guidelines for Authors

Practical Gastroenterology Case Report Guidelines for Authors

Read Article

  • The aim of Case Reports is to provide challenging yet clinically relevant and informative cases to primary care physicians.
  • The Case should center around one (1) to three (3) high quality images that are completely described in the report. Images should be endoscopic, pathologic, and/or radiographic (without any patient identifiers) with clear labeling as appropriate.
  • The Case must be a concise report submitted as a Word document consisting of no more than 1250 words.
  • The images must be submitted as .jpg files separate from the Word document.
  • There should be a brief introduction/abstract, relevant presentation of the case,relevant case discussion and conclusion.
  • The conclusion should include one or two clinical pearls that the reader may apply to their practice or add to their knowledge set.
  • References should be limited to 8. References should follow AMA style and journal names should be abbreviated according to Index Medicus practice.
  • Inclusive page ranges should be indicated.
  • Authors should be limited to 3 on each submission. No author photographs are necessary. All authors must provide their names, addresses, phone numbers, complete titles and affiliations.
  • Case Reports must not have been published previously. Each Case Report is subject to review by members of our Editorial Board. Case Reports are subject to final editing. Upon publication, Case Reports will be copyrighted by Practical Gastroenterology Publishing, Inc.
  • Please submit your Case Report to:

Adrien Mahl, Editor
Practical Gastroenterology
practicalgastro@aol.com

Download Tables, Images & References

FRONTIERS IN ENDOSCOPY, SERIES #67

Modifications to Duodenoscopes to Reduce the Risk of Infection Transmission

Read Article

Duodenoscopes are complex and sophisticated medical devices which are used for a variety of procedures involving the pancreatic and biliary ducts. They incorporate a side-viewing camera which provides proceduralists with the ability to directly visualize the major and minor duodenal papillae and perform complex pancreaticobiliary interventions. Duodenoscopes incorporate a moving elevator lever that provides fine control of instruments placed through the instrument channel and allows for biliary or pancreatic duct cannulation and instrumentation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

ERCPs are associated with various adverse events, including pancreatitis, bleeding, perforation, and infections – including cholecystitis and cholangitis. Over the last 20 years, duodenoscopes from all of the major duodenoscope manufacturers have been implicated in a number of contamination and infectious outbreak events.12 Organisms involved in outbreaks have involved multidrug-resistant (MDR) Pseudomonas aeruginosa, carbapenemresistant Enterobaceriaceae (CRE), extendedspectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Klebsiella pneumonia, and ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae.13 These outbreaks have gained widespread national attention, including that of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Center for Disease Control (CDC), and have prompted further research into contamination and disinfection of duodenoscopes.

Duodenoscopes require disinfection between patient procedures. Various methods have been explored, including increased reprocessing quality control, repeated cleaning, forced air drying, or the use of sterilizing agents such as ethylene oxide.24 The FDA has called for duodenoscope designs to incorporate infection mitigating features, including disposable components or endoscopes intended for single-use.2 This review will focus on the technical aspects of duodenoscope design and reprocessing which relate to contamination, and new duodenoscope models and their contaminationmitigating design features.

Review of Current Issues

During routine use, duodenoscopes are heavily exposed to oral and gastrointestinal flora. Normal handling, cleaning, drying, and storage may also expose endoscopes to skin or water-borne flora. Inadequate cleaning and inadequate drying are possible causes of duodenoscope contamination.1 Common sites of contamination include the instrument channel, suction channel, forceps elevator, and the elevator wire channel.1,3,5 Residual body fluids and debris in the vicinity of the elevator have been specifically recognized as a critically important cause of potential infection transmission.1,3,5 The complexity of this elevator mechanism makes it difficult to fully access and can be challenging to clean fully.1,3 Other potential locations of contamination exist, as any site of wear or surface breakdown may allow for bacterial biofilm accumulation.6,7 Normal duodenoscope use may damage the surface of the endoscope sheath or endcap.4,5 The instrument channel may be subjected to abrasion with the passage of a variety of endoscopic accessories.1 Even the elevator wire channel, despite its sealed design in newer duodenoscopes, often shows micro abrasions.6

In 2015, the FDA ordered manufacturers to carry out post marketing surveillance studies examining duodenoscope contamination rates.2,8 Surveillance result updates were released in 2018 and 2019, with higher than expected rates of contamination following reprocessing. Up to 6% of devices were colonized with organisms of concern, while up to 3.6% were found to have low- or moderate-concern organisms.9,10 Other studies have reported duodenoscope contamination rates following disinfection, with results ranging between 4% and 22%.3,4,11,12

The CDC first warned the FDA regarding a potential association between MDR infections and duodenoscopes in 2013.2 Further investigation revealed cases of infectious transmission occurring despite following manufacturer-directed disinfection protocols.2 Duodenoscope reprocessing involves pre-cleaning, leak testing, and manual cleaning immediately following usage. These manufacturer-directed procedures are relatively complicated with many possible points of human error. This is followed by high-level disinfection (HLD) in an automated manufacturer-specific endoscope reprocessor. Finally, duodenoscopes are rinsed then dried in a hanging cabinet with filtered circulating air.1

In 2015, the FDA suggested measures to reduce duodenoscope contamination rates in addition to standard reprocessing.2 Repeated HLD is the most popular of these strategies; however, even this may leave residual bacterial colonization.4,8,13 Sterilization with liquid chemicals or ethylene oxide is utilized by some institutions, but may be no more effective.13 These are time-consuming processes and may necessitate the purchase of extra duodenoscopes depending on the volume of procedures at an institution. Forced air drying, either manually or via automated drying cabinets, is utilized by many institutions, and results in significantly shorter drying times and may prevent growth of hydrophilic organisms.14,15 Reprocessing can also be followed by routine surveillance culture collection, with devices withheld from use until cultures are confirmed to be negative. While it is a resource- and staff-intensive practice, routine surveillance has also been shown to help identify endoscopes with mechanical damage.4,5,12

Endoscope manufacturers have recently begun recommending annual duodenoscope inspections.9,16,17 This may help identify damaged or excessively worn components, which may serve as a nidus for infection. Little data exists to support when to perform inspection and preventative maintenance.9 Other methods to decrease transmission of bacteria during procedures have also been explored.

Changes to device design have been offered as the best solution to the problem of duodenoscoperelated infections.4,6,9,14 Following a 2015 advisory committee meeting, the FDA called for manufacturers to design duodenoscopes with removable or disposable parts to facilitate more effective cleaning.2,8

New Duodenoscopes Designs and Developments

To date, the FDA has approved multiple duodenoscopes with disposable components which facilitate improved reprocessing. These include models from Olympus Medical Systems (Japan), Pentax Medical (Japan), and Fujifilm Corporation (Japan). They have also approved two fully disposable duodenoscopes from Boston Scientific (Massachusetts, USA) and Ambu (Denmark), and one single-use distal cover from GI Scientific (Virginia, USA) for an existing standard duodenoscope.

The Olympus TJF-Q180V, introduced in 2010 prior to the FDA direction to use removable parts, featured a new sealed elevator wire channel.18 Its FDA approval was based on similarity to the preceding XTJF-Q160VF1 endoscope, which was approved in 2008.19 Through 2014, multiple duodenoscope-related outbreaks were associated with use of the Q180V endoscope. Olympus voluntarily recalled the device worldwide after its sealed elevator wire channel mechanism was identified as an infection risk.20 The duodenoscope was reintroduced in 2016 following elevator wire channel modification and received subsequent FDA approval.21

An accompanying sterile, single-use distal duodenoscope cover, the GI Scientific ScopeSeal, was FDA approved in October 2019 (Figure 1).22 It seals the distal end of the device and includes a working channel extension, which provides a protective barrier around the elevator area and channel during use.23,24 The Q180V device with ScopeSeal was assessed by Pasricha et al.25 The first portion of the study involved dye immersion testing, with no leakage occurring during immersion while articulating the endoscope elevator and suction mechanism. The second portion of the study assessed for endoscope contamination. The ScopeSeal device was placed on the distal end of the endoscope, the exterior was inoculated with E. coli, and the endoscope was repeatedly maneuvered to simulate use. After removal of the device, cultures were collected from the distal portion of the endoscope. In a separate test, the area around the elevator was inoculated, an instrument brush was passed repeatedly through the channel, and cultures were collected from the instrument. No contamination was detected in either test; however, this study did not include HLD of devices utilizing ScopeSeal. Of note, GI Scientific provided funding for this study and Dr. Pasricha is an equity holder in GI Scientific.25

Olympus’ newest duodenoscope, the TJFQ190V, was approved in January 2020. It features a single-use, sterile endcap which interfaces with the distal ring of the duodenoscope (Figure 2A).26–28 This cap is removed at the beginning of reprocessing to allow for improved access to the elevator area for manual cleaning and disinfection. This duodenoscope also has a proprietary distalend flushing adapter for cleaning the elevator mechanism and a sealed elevator wire channel (Figure 2B).26,27,29 No duodenoscope infection studies have utilized the Q190V endoscope thus far.

The Pentax ED34-i10T was FDA approved in September 2017 and features a single-use, non-sterile, distal endcap (Figure 3A).30–32 This cover allows for improved access for reprocessing and should be steam sterilized prior to use. It also features a sealed elevator wire channel.30 There has been one study reporting endoscope contamination rates by Rauwers et al., which has included reports of contamination in the Pentax ED34-i10T.3,9 Pentax’s most recent iteration, the ED34-i10T2, was FDA approved in November 2019. It features a sterile, disposable elevator cap which is manipulated by a steel bar at the end of the elevator wire channel (Figure 3B).32 The distal end of the channel is sealed with an O-ring.17,33 In contrast to the other devices mentioned, the elevator mechanism is integrated into the cap, simplifying reprocessing. The Infection Control in ERCP using a duodenoscope with a disposable EndCAP (ICECAP) trial is currently enrolling and will evaluate the ED34-i10T versus the ED34- i10T2 scopes with their distal endcap and distal elevator caps, respectively.34 Investigators plan to collect cultures from the instrument channel and elevator recess followed by standardized postendoscopy reprocessing. Based on the design as reported, the study will not compare fixed endcap and removable endcap duodenoscopes, but two devices with different designs of removable caps.

The Fujifilm ED-580XT was FDA approved in September 2019. It has a disposable distal endcap which allows a brush to access the back of the elevator mechanism (Figure 4).35 It also features a sealed elevator mechanism.36,37 The efficacy of the 580XT distal endcap was explored by Ridtitid et al. who compared elevator site cultures and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) testing following HLD both with the removable endcap detached versus left on prior to cleaning.38 Residual ATP has been used as a marker of the cleaning process of various medical devices and is associated with the presence of both human and bacterial cells. The median ATP value was significantly lower for the cap off group; however, there was only one positive culture (skin flora) out of 108 post-procedural cycles.38 ATP testing may not be as useful of a marker of the HLD process, since it cannot distinguish between human and bacterial contamination, nor high- and low-concern organisms.39 Moreover, this study did not compare fixed vs detachable cap duodenoscope models, but the same device cleaned with and without its endcap. To date, manufacturers Fujifilm, Pentax, and Olympus have submitted a total of 10 reports of device malfunctions, such as removable caps falling off during ERCP. No patient injuries have been reported to the FDA.40

The Boston Scientific EXALT Model D was the first sterile, single-use duodenoscope and was FDA approved in December 2019 (Figure 5).41–43 The Model D was compared to devices from the three major manufacturers in a small anatomical bench model study by Ross et al.44 Various tasks were assessed in the study, including guidewire locking, plastic stent placement and removal, metal stent placement and removal, and basket sweeping. It had comparable performance to a contemporary duodenoscope in all tasks except for navigation and “pushability.” All tasks were completed by participating proceduralists.44 The duodenoscope was also assessed in a clinical setting by Muthusamy et al.45 The maneuverability of the Model D was rated by proceduralists following ERCP biliary cannulation sphincterotomy, stone clearance, placement or removal of stents, and balloon dilation of strictures. Overall, proceduralists were “satisfied” or “neutral” regarding the performance of the endoscope; however, it was noted to be harder to torque and maneuver when advanced more distally in the duodenum. The overall adverse event rate was found to be comparable to standard ERCP practice.45

The Ambu aScope Duodeno is a sterile, singleuse duodenoscope which was FDA approved in June 2020 (Figure 6a-6e).46–48 It has not been examined in any duodenoscope contamination or maneuverability studies thus far. As part of the manufacturer development process, it was tested for equivalence to the Olympus TJF-Q180V in a porcine upper gastrointestinal tract model.46 While single-use endoscopes prevent potential exogenous transmission of infection, they still do not eliminate the risk of translocation of patients’ own oral or gastrointestinal flora and subsequent endogenous infection, recognizing that this is a lower risk transfer. The largest barrier to adoption of singleuse devices is likely cost. Some analysis indicate that the cost of single-use duodenoscopes may be ten-times greater than that of reusable devices even when accounting for rates of infection and the cost of subsequent treatment. These costs may only be tenable by high volume institutions.49

CONCLUSION

Duodenoscope contamination and associated infections have resulted in an increase in research into causes of device contamination and the efficacy of disinfection processes. Manufacturers’ newly designed and re-designed duodenoscopes have attempted to answer the FDA’s call by creating endoscopes with removable or disposable parts to facilitate cleaning of high-risk areas. Because these devices have only been available recently there is a paucity of information regarding the new, removable endcap duodenoscopes discussed above.

No current studies have sufficiently compared the rates of contamination between traditional fixed endcap duodenoscopes and those with removable endcaps. The existing studies, discussed above, have either lacked sufficient control groups or have been relatively underpowered to detect contamination differences between the two devices. Post marketing surveillance, utilizing a large volume of sampling events across institutions, will be essential in establishing the benefits of these new designs. Moreover, it remains to be seen if design elements of the new devices, such as the interface between the sheath and distal endcap, will serve as a novel place of wear and potential nidus for biofilm accumulation.

Following the FDA’s call for duodenoscopes intended only for single-use, there are now two single-use devices available. Further exploration of the cost of single-use duodenoscopes will be of paramount importance if they are to be more broadly adopted. These studies should seek to incorporate all of the hidden costs associated with device reprocessing, surveillance, downtime, outbreak management, and potential lost revenues.

References

  1. Rahman MR, Perisetti A, Coman R, Bansal P, Chhabra R, Goyal H. Duodenoscope-Associated Infections: Update on an Emerging Problem. Dig Dis Sci. 2019;64(6):1409-1418. doi:10.1007/ s10620-018-5431-7
  2. Infections Associated with Reprocessed Duodenoscopes | FDA. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/reprocessing-reusablemedical-devices/infections-associated-reprocessed-duodenoscopes. Accessed August 2, 2020.
  3. Rauwers AW, Voor In ’T Holt AF, Buijs JG, et al. High prevalence rate of digestive tract bacteria in duodenoscopes: A nationwide study. Gut. 2018;67(9):1637-1645. doi:10.1136/ gutjnl-2017-315082
  4. Mark JA, Underberg K, Kramer RE. Results of duodenoscope culture and quarantine after manufacturer-recommended cleaning process. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;91(6):1328-1333. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2019.12.050
  5. Cristina ML, Sartini M, Schinca E, et al. Is post-reprocessing microbiological surveillance of duodenoscopes effective in reducing the potential risk in transmitting pathogens? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(1). doi:10.3390/ijerph17010140
  6. Balan GG, Rosca I, Ursu EL, et al. Duodenoscope-associated infections beyond the elevator channel: Alternative causes for difficult reprocessing. Molecules. 2019;24(12). doi:10.3390/molecules24122343
  7. Rauwers AW, Troelstra A, Fluit AC, et al. Independent rootcause analysis of contributing factors, including dismantling of 2 duodenoscopes, to investigate an outbreak of multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;90(5):793- 804. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2019.05.016
  8. FDA warns duodenoscope manufacturers about failure to comply with required postmarket surveillance studies to assess contamination risk | FDA. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/ press-announcements/fda-warns-duodenoscope-manufacturersabout-failure-comply-required-postmarket-surveillance-studies. Accessed August 2, 2020.
  9. The FDA Provides Interim Results of Duodenoscope Reprocessing Studies Conducted in Real-World Settings: FDA Safety Communication | FDA. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/ safety-communications/fda-provides-interim-results-duodenoscope-reprocessing-studies-conducted-real-world-settings-fda. Accessed August 2, 2020.
  10. The FDA Continues to Remind Facilities of the Importance of Following Duodenoscope Reprocessing Instructions: FDA Safety Communication | FDA. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/ safety-communications/fda-continues-remind-facilities-importance-following-duodenoscope-reprocessing-instructions-fda. Accessed August 2, 2020.
  11. Snyder GM, Wright SB, Smithey A, et al. Randomized Comparison of 3 High-Level Disinfection and Sterilization Procedures for Duodenoscopes. Gastroenterology. 2017;153(4):1018-1025. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2017.06.052
  12. TJ DW, N S, M M, et al. A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Duodenoscope Reprocessing Surveillance Methods. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;2019. doi:10.1155/2019/1959141
  13. Gromski MA, Sieber MS, Sherman S, Rex DK. Double High-Level Disinfection vs. Sterilization for Reprocessing of Duodenoscopes Used for ERCP: A Prospective Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019;114:S1. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000000373
  14. Thaker AM, Muthusamy VR, Sedarat A, et al. Duodenoscope reprocessing practice patterns in U.S. endoscopy centers: a survey study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;88(2):316-322.e2. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2018.04.2340
  15. Perumpail RB, Marya NB, McGinty BL, Muthusamy VR. Endoscope reprocessing: Comparison of drying effectiveness and microbial levels with an automated drying and storage cabinet with forced filtered air and a standard storage cabinet. Am J Infect Control. 2019;47(9):1083-1089. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2019.02.016
  16. FDA 510(k) Summary: EVIS EXERA II Duodenovideoscope Olympus TJF Type Q180V. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/ cdrh_docs/pdf14/K143153.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2020.
  17. Gastroenterology | PENTAX Medical (EMEA). https://www. pentaxmedical.com/pentax/en/95/1/DEC-Video-DuodenoscopeED34-i10T2-. Accessed August 2, 2020.
  18. EVIS EXERA II (TJF-Q180V) | Olympus America | Medical. https://medical.olympusamerica.com/products/evis-exera-ii-tjfq180v. Accessed August 2, 2020.
  19. FDA 510(k) Summary: Duodenovideoscope XTJF Type Q160VF1. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf8/ K080403.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2020.
  20. FDA clears Olympus TJF-Q180V duodenoscope with design modifications intended to reduce infection risk | FDA. https://www. fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-clears-olympustjf-q180v-duodenoscope-design-modifications-intended-reduceinfection-risk. Accessed August 2, 2020.
  21. Class 2 Device Recall Evis Exera II Duodenovideoscope Olympus TJFQ180V. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/ cfRES/res.cfm?id=142937. Accessed August 2, 2020.
  22. GI Scientific. Scopeseal [image]. Accessed October 10, 2020.
  23. ScopeSeal – GI Scientific. https://www.giscientific.com/scopeseal. Accessed August 2, 2020.
  24. FDA 510(k) Summary: ScopeSeal Duodenoscope Protective Device. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf18/ K183171.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2020.
  25. Pasricha PJ, Miller S, Carter F, Humphries R. Novel and effective disposable device that provides 2-way protection to the duodenoscope from microbial contamination. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;92(1). doi:10.1016/j.gie.2020.03.001
  26. TJF-Q190V Duodenoscope | Olympus America | Medical. https:// medical.olympusamerica.com/products/tjf-q190v-duodenoscope. Accessed August 2, 2020.
  27. FDA 510(k) Summary: EVIS EXERA III DUODENOVIDEOSCOPE OLYMPUS TJF-Q190V. https:// www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf19/K193182.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2020.
  28. Olympus Medical Systems. TJF-Q190V CAP ATTACH-217 [image]. Accessed October 10, 2020.
  29. Olympus Medical Systems. Manual Reprocessing Adapter-260 [image]. Accessed October 10, 2020.
  30. FDA 510(k) Summary: PENTAX Medical ED34-I10T, Video Duodenoscope. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/ pdf16/K163614.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2020.
  31. Gastroenterology | PENTAX Medical (EMEA). https:// www.pentaxmedical.com/pentax/en/95/1/ED34-i10T-VideoDuodenoscope. Accessed August 2, 2020.
  32. Pentax Medical. Pentax ED34-i10T2 Elevator Cap [image]. Accessed October 10, 2020.
  33. FDA 510(k) Summary: Pentax Medical Video Duodenoscope ED34-i10T2. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf19/ K192245.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2020.
  34. Forbes N, Elmunzer BJ, Allain T, et al. Infection control in ERCP using a duodenoscope with a disposable cap (ICECAP): Rationale for and design of a randomized controlled trial. BMC Gastroenterol. 2020;20(1). doi:10.1186/s12876-020-01200-7
  35. Fujifilm Corporation. ED-580XT distal end cap near scope tip [image]. Accessed October 10, 2020.
  36. FDA 510(k) Summary: FUJIFILM Duodenoscope Model ED-580XT. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf18/ K181745.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2020.
  37. Fujifilm ED-580XT Duodenoscope | Fujifilm Healthcare. https:// www.fujifilmhealthcare.com/endoscopy/fujifilm-580-seriesinterventional-endoscopes/fujifilm-ed-580xt-duodenoscope. Accessed August 2, 2020.
  38. Ridtitid W, Pakvisal P, Chatsuwan T, et al. A newly designed duodenoscope with detachable distal cap significantly reduces organic residue contamination after reprocessing. Endoscopy. April 2020. doi:10.1055/a-1145-3562
  39. FDA. Duodenoscope Sampling and Culturing Protocols Duodenoscope Surveillance Sampling and Culturing Protocols.
  40. The FDA is Recommending Transition to Duodenoscopes with Innovative Designs to Enhance Safety: FDA Safety Communication | FDA. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/ safety-communications/fda-recommending-transition-duodenoscopes-innovative-designs-enhance-safety-fda-safety-communication. Accessed August 2, 2020.
  41. FDA 510(k) Summary: EXALT Model D Single-Use Duodenoscope; EXALT Controller. https://www.accessdata.fda. gov/cdrh_docs/pdf19/K193202.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2020.
  42. EXALTTM Model D – Boston Scientific. https://www.bostonscientific.com/content/gwc/en-US/products/single-use-scopes/exalt- -model-d.html. Accessed August 2, 2020.
  43. Boston Scientific. Exalt Model D Duodenoscope [image]. Accessed October 10, 2020.
  44. Ross AS, Bruno MJ, Kozarek RA, et al. Novel single-use duodenoscope compared with 3 models of reusable duodenoscopes for ERCP: a randomized bench-model comparison. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;91(2):396-403. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2019.08.032
  45. Muthusamy VR, Bruno MJ, Kozarek RA, et al. Clinical Evaluation of a Single-Use Duodenoscope for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;18(9):2108-2117.e3. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2019.10.052
  46. FDA 510(k) Summary: Ambu AScope Duodeno. https://www. fda.gov/medical-. Accessed August 10, 2020.
  47. Ambu® aScopeTM Duodeno. https://www.ambuusa.com/endoscopy/gastroenterology/duodenoscopes/product/ambu-ascopeduodeno. Accessed August 10, 2020.
  48. Ambu. AMBU aScope Duodeno Duodenoscope [image]. Accessed October 10, 2020.
  49. Bang JY, Sutton B, Hawes R, Varadarajulu S. Concept of disposable duodenoscope: At what cost? Gut. 2019;68(11):1915-1917. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2019-318227

Download Tables, Images & References

NUTRITION ISSUES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY, SERIES #204

Nutrition Considerations in the Cirrhotic Patient

Read Article

Malnutrition is commonly seen in individuals with advanced liver disease, often resulting from a combination of factors including poor oral intake, altered absorption, and reduced hepatic glycogen reserves predisposing to a catabolic state. The consequences of malnutrition can be far reaching, leading to a loss of skeletal muscle mass and strength, a variety of micronutrient deficiencies, and poor clinical outcomes. This review seeks to succinctly describe malnutrition in the cirrhosis population and provide clarity and evidence-based solutions to aid the bedside clinician. Emphasis is placed on screening and identification of malnutrition, recognizing and treating barriers to adequate food intake, and defining macronutrient targets.

INTRODUCTION

The Problem

Individuals with cirrhosis are at high risk of malnutrition for a multitude of reasons. Cirrhotic livers lack adequate glycogen reserves, therefore these individuals rely on muscle breakdown as an energy source during overnight periods of fasting.1 Well-meaning providers often recommend a variety of dietary restrictions—including limitations on fluid, salt, and total calories—that are often layered onto pre-existing dietary restrictions for those with co-existent conditions such as diabetes or renal disease. Furthermore, different underlying etiologies of liver disease, such as heavy alcohol use and chronic cholestasis, predispose cirrhotic patients to a variety of macro- and micronutrient deficiencies as a consequence of poor intake and altered absorption.

As liver disease progresses, its complications further increase the risk for malnutrition. Large volume ascites can lead to early satiety and decreased oral intake. Encephalopathy also contributes to decreased oral intake and may lead to inappropriate recommendations for protein restriction. Frequent hospitalizations and procedures can lead to periods of prolonged fasting. In combination, the physiology of liver disease and its consequences lead to a prevalence of malnutrition in the cirrhotic population that has been described as nearly universal in those awaiting liver transplantation (LT), and so high in all individuals with cirrhosis that current guidelines recommend anticipating malnutrition, protein depletion, and trace element deficiencies.1,2

The consequences of malnutrition are wide ranging. Sarcopenia can become one of the more obvious and discouraging physical changes patients and families notice. An abundance of evidence links low body mass index (BMI), frailty, and progressive sarcopenia with poor outcomes after liver transplantation.3,4 Micronutrient deficiencies can lead to a variety of consequences, ranging from anemia to increased bone fracture risk to altered taste. In this setting, identification of malnourished individuals coupled with targeted nutritional interventions are critical to improving quality of life and optimizing clinical outcomes in individuals with cirrhosis. 5

The Practical Approach to Nutrition in Liver Disease

Screen for Malnutrition

A typical clinical encounter with a patient afflicted by advanced liver disease often requires careful consideration of their primary liver disease, management of liver decompensations, ensuring that appropriate screening of esophageal varices and hepatocellular carcinoma has been completed, and determining whether liver transplantation referral or end-of-life care is appropriate. An important yet often overlooked facet of these complex encounters is consideration of the patient’s nutritional risk.

All patients with advanced liver disease should be screened for malnutrition.6 Decompensated cirrhotics and those with a BMI of ≤ 18.5 kg/m2 are considered high risk regardless of screening. 6,7 If a patient does not meet either of the aforementioned criteria, multiple screening tools can be used to stratify patients according to their nutritional risk. The Royal Free Hospital-Nutrition Prioritizing (RFH-NP) tool is easy to administer, validated in the cirrhotic population, and has been shown to correlate with disease severity. 8,9 In those identified as moderate or high nutritional risk, a comprehensive nutritional assessment should be conducted by a registered dietitian.6

As outlined in Table 1, a comprehensive nutritional assessment should include evaluation for sarcopenia (e.g. lean muscle mass), use of a global assessment tool (GA), and review of the patient’s self-reported dietary intake.6 Sarcopenia, defined as a generalized reduction in muscle mass and function due to age or illness, is likely present when low muscle strength is detected and is confirmed when low muscle quantity or quality is found.6,10 Handgrip strength has been shown to correlate with strength in other body compartments, and is a cheap, fast, and validated method for evaluating muscle strength.10 Handgrip strength has also been shown to predict major complications and mortality in the cirrhotic population.11 An accepted alternative is the chair rise test, defined as the amount of time needed for a patient to rise from a chair five times. 10 The Liver Frailty Index is an increasingly used easy tool that combines hand grip strength, chair rise time, and ability to stand in different positions into a single metric to classify patients as robust, pre-frail, and frail, and has been validated in the liver transplant population (see Table 2; https://liverfrailtyindex.ucsf.edu).12,13 The second component of a comprehensive nutritional assessment are GA tools, which seek to diagnose varying levels of malnourishment from history and physical. The most common GA tools deployed in clinical practice are the subjective global assessment (SGA) and the Royal Free Hospital-global assessment (RFH-GA).14 Given that the RFH-GA is time consuming and requires a registered dietitian, the SGA is generally easier to administer and is a reasonable alternative despite weak validation in the cirrhotic population.1 To complete the nutritional assessment, a review of self-reported dietary intake should be conducted. Dietary intake surveys provide insight into the amount, type, and timing of food consumption and can provide valuable insight into barriers to adequate nutrition.6

Barriers and Routes of Feeding

Oral intake is the desired mode of nutrient consumption for a variety of physiologic and psychologic reasons, and consistent messaging regarding the importance of adequate nutrition should be emphasized in all cirrhotic patient encounters. In general, advice should not focus on dietary restrictions, but rather healthy eating patterns that emphasize high vegetable, fruit, protein, and caloric intake.1,6 Eating a wide variety of enjoyable foods and avoiding the addition of salt or foods with a high sodium content is a reasonable strategy to minimize the consequence of salt restriction’s typical negative impact on caloric and protein intake.1,6 In addition, a variety of disease related barriers are important to consider when discussing nutrition with these patients, each of which has important treatment considerations that can positively impact the patient’s nutritional intake (see Table 3).

In cases where oral intake is insufficient to meet caloric demands, enteral nutrition (EN; via nasoand orogastric tubes) or parenteral nutrition (PN) may be required. The most commonly encountered scenario where oral intake is insufficient occurs in hospitalized patients. For patients who do not have evidence of gastrointestinal bleeding, naso- or orogastric tube placement should occur immediately after intubation and can be considered safe regardless of variceal history.1,6 In those with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding secondary to esophageal varices, it is prudent to wait 48 to 72 hours after banding prior to placing a gastric tube.15 In other types of GI bleeding, gastric tube placement is generally reasonable 24 hours after bleeding cessation. Conversion to postpyloric feeding should occur in those who cannot tolerate gastric feeding despite efforts to improve tolerance or are at high risk for aspiration.16 In the outpatient setting, if oral intake is insufficient, feeding tubes can be maintained for considerable periods of time with minimal supervision, although insurance infrequently covers tube-feeding in the pre-transplant population. Percutaneous enteral gastrostomy (PEG) tubes are generally contraindicated in cirrhosis due to bleeding risks (i.e. gastric varices) and infectious complications (especially in the setting of ascites) and should only rarely be employed.1,6 Parenteral feeding should only be used when enteral feeding cannot meet the patient’s energy demands or is contraindicated.1 In addition to standard trace elements and the multivitamin and mineral supplements provided with PN, all patients requiring PN should receive vitamin K and higher doses of thiamine if actively drinking.

Calorie and Protein Goals and Strategies

Once a patient is determined to be nutritionally at risk or malnourished, they should receive targeted nutritional interventions that provide tailored strategies to achieve proper caloric and protein intake.5,6

Caloric and protein intake recommendations are ideally based on indirect calorimetry, but due to limited availability weight-based targets are typically used. Weights taken after a paracentesis or at a time of euvolemia are considered dry weight, and may be used for weight-based energy and protein provision.1 If no dry weight is available, but the patient is near euvolemia, actual body weight may be used. In decompensated (i.e. hypervolemic) patients, current guidelines are somewhat discordant on the recommended approach. The European Association for Study of the Liver (EASL) recommends using an adjusted body weight based on the amount of ascites and peripheral edema (subtracting 5% if mild ascites, 10% if moderate, and 15% if severe, as well as an additional 5% if pedal edema is present), whereas the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) recommends using the ideal body weight (IBW), which is based on the patient’s gender and height.1,6 When obesity is present, both societies recommend using IBW. With these different approaches in mind, weightbased caloric and protein recommendations can be found in Table 4.

Oral nutrition supplementation and attention to meal timing are important considerations when helping patients achieve recommended protein and calorie goals. Use of protein additives, frequent small meals, and ingestion of high protein foods are common tactics employed in this patient population. Importantly, a late evening snack (LES) has been shown to improve lean muscle mass and should be routinely recommended to cirrhotic patients. The LES should occur between 9pm and 11pm and contain between 500 to 700 kcal with at least 50 grams of carbohydrates.17,18

The When and How of Micronutrients

Macronutrient deficiencies are not the only dietary shortfall in cirrhotics. Micronutrients, a broad nutrient class that includes dietary elements (minerals, trace elements) and organic compounds (vitamins) that are required in small quantities for normal physiologic function, are also commonly deficient. Assessing many of these micronutrients is challenging and not done in routine clinical practice, as guidelines recommend treating micronutrient deficiencies liberally when suspected or confirmed.1,6 In this context, it is reasonable to recommend a daily multivitamin (without manganese, as elevated levels observed in cirrhotics may be associated with hepatic encephalopathy), and to consider individual vitamin and mineral deficiencies in the presence of malnourishment or decompensation,6,19 Among the fat-soluble vitamins requiring consideration, vitamin D should be repleted to a level above 30 ng/ml and vitamin K repleted as needed. Among the water-soluble vitamins, vitamin B1 (thiamine) is routinely deficient and should be aggressively repleted, although other B-vitamins can also quickly become deficient in the setting of decompensation.1,6 Lastly, zinc repletion may be beneficial in hepatic encephalopathy (HE), and while clinical use increases, data continues to be inconclusive.20,21

Caution with Restrictions

One of the more challenging barriers to maintaining adequate nutrition occurs in response to direct advice or orders from providers caring for these patients. Given the many comorbidities commonly associated with advanced liver disease, other dietary restrictions are often present (e.g. hearthealthy, carbohydrate controlled, and renal diets), and providers should offer clear guidance for dietary strategies in these patients. Protein restrictions are never wise and should be avoided in these individuals. Historically, protein restriction was advised in cirrhotics with HE, but subsequent studies have demonstrated normal and high protein intake does not precipitate or worsen HE, and may actually improve mental status.22,23 Fluid restriction is only recommended for individuals who experience significant hyponatremia (less than 125mEq/L).24 Sodium restriction is important in managing ascites and hypervolemia, although providers should recommend a variety of strategies to ensure compliance without increasing the risk of malnutrition.1 Table 5 offers strategies to avoid poor nutritional intake in both the in- and outpatient settings.

Special Groups/Problems

Several subpopulations and groups warrant special considerations regarding nutritional recommendations. These include the following:

Acute Liver Failure (ALF)

By definition, individuals with ALF do not have underlying cirrhosis and are not malnourished at the time of disease onset. Regardless, nutritional support in this population is vital and should be initiated early to prevent metabolic derangements, namely protein catabolism, and potentially decrease risks of gastrointestinal bleeding. Nasogastric tube placement should be performed once patients are intubated to provide EN.

Alcoholic Hepatitis

Most patients with alcoholic hepatitis are malnourished and require nutritional support, with the goal to provide adequate calories and protein as well as micronutrients including vitamins (namely folate and thiamine) and minerals (namely magnesium and phosphate). Calorie counts should be initiated early and, when oral intake cannot be maintained, enteral feeding is preferred over parenteral nutrition.

Hepatic Encephalopathy

Individuals with HE should not have their protein intake restricted. To prevent a catabolic state and resultant ammonia production, these individuals should be instructed to eat small frequent meals and ensure a late-night snack. Some data suggests benefit of branched-chain amino acids (either intravenous or oral) in individuals with HE, including a metaanalysis of 16 trials showing no benefit in mortality but a beneficial effect on manifestations of HE.6,25 Due to costs and conflicting evidence on relatively heterogeneous cohorts, IV infusions are generally not recommended and oral supplements only recommended in protein intolerant individuals.

Hospitalized Patients

Individuals with cirrhosis are commonly kept NPO in the hospital for a variety of reasons and frequently fail to meet caloric goals. Practitioners should prioritize advancing their diet as early as possible, avoiding prolonged fasting, and placing an NG tube for EN at the time of intubation.

Sarcopenic Obesity

As cirrhosis progresses, individuals with obesity are also at risk of muscle catabolism and sarcopenia. Providers must balance preserving muscle mass and function with weight loss goals. Reasonable recommendations include a calorie-restricted, but high protein diet, in combination with an exercise regimen with the goal of achieving greater than 5-10% weight loss.6

CONCLUSION

Malnutrition is a ubiquitous problem in the cirrhotic patient population, negatively impacting quality of life and clinical outcomes. Current guidelines recommend screening for malnutrition, and, if present or at moderate risk, providing comprehensive dietary assessments and targeted dietary interventions. These interventions should focus less on dietary restrictions and more on adequate caloric and protein intake from diverse, healthy sources. Attention to disease-specific symptoms can maximize the impact of these interventions, with an ultimate goal to prolong and improve the cirrhotic patient’s life.

References

  1. Plauth M, Bernal W, Dasarathy S, et al. ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in liver disease. Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland). 2019;38(2):485-521.
  2. McClave SA, Taylor BE, Martindale RG, et al. Guidelines for the Provision and Assessment of Nutrition Support Therapy in the Adult Critically Ill Patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.). JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2016;40(2):159-211.
  3. Dick AA, Spitzer AL, Seifert CF, et al. Liver transplantation at the extremes of the body mass index. Liver Transpl. 2009;15(8):968-77.
  4. Englesbe MJ, Patel SP, He K, et al. Sarcopenia and mortality after liver transplantation. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211(2):271-8.
  5. Iwasa M, Iwata K, Hara N, et al. Nutrition therapy using a multidisciplinary team improves survival rates in patients with liver cirrhosis. Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif). 2013;29(11-12):1418-21.
  6. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on nutrition in chronic liver disease. Journal of hepatology. 2019;70(1):172-93.
  7. Cederholm T, Bosaeus I, Barazzoni R, et al. Diagnostic criteria for malnutrition – An ESPEN Consensus Statement. Clinical nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland). 2015;34(3):335-40.
  8. Borhofen SM, Gerner C, Lehmann J, et al. The Royal Free HospitalNutritional Prioritizing Tool Is an Independent Predictor of Deterioration of Liver Function and Survival in Cirrhosis. Digestive diseases and sciences. 2016;61(6):1735-43.
  9. Arora S, Mattina C, Catherine M, et al. PMO-040 The development and validation of a nutritional prioritising tool for use in patients with chronic liver disease. Gut. 2012;61:A90-A.
  10. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, et al. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing. 2019;48(4):601.
  11. Alvares-da-Silva MR, Reverbel da Silveira T. Comparison between handgrip strength, subjective global assessment, and prognostic nutritional index in assessing malnutrition and predicting clinical outcome in cirrhotic outpatients. Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif). 2005;21(2):113-7.
  12. Lai JC, Covinsky KE, Dodge JL, et al. Development of a novel frailty index to predict mortality in patients with end-stage liver disease. Hepatology. 2017;66(2):564-74.
  13. Wang CW, Lebsack A, Chau S, et al. The Range and Reproducibility of the Liver Frailty Index. Liver Transpl. 2019;25(6):841-7.
  14. Morgan MY, Madden AM, Soulsby CT, et al. Derivation and validation of a new global method for assessing nutritional status in patients with cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2006;44(4):823-35.
  15. McClave SA, Chang WK. When to feed the patient with gastrointestinal bleeding. Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. 2005;20(5):544-50.
  16. McClave SA, DiBaise JK, Mullin GE, et al. ACG Clinical Guideline: Nutrition Therapy in the Adult Hospitalized Patient. The American journal of gastroenterology. 2016;111(3):315-34; quiz 35.
  17. Tsien CD, McCullough AJ, Dasarathy S. Late evening snack: exploiting a period of anabolic opportunity in cirrhosis. Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology. 2012;27(3):430-41.
  18. Plank LD, Gane EJ, Peng S, et al. Nocturnal nutritional supplementation improves total body protein status of patients with liver cirrhosis: a randomized 12-month trial. Hepatology. 2008;48(2):557-66.
  19. Hauser RA, Zesiewicz TA, Martinez C, et al. Blood manganese correlates with brain magnetic resonance imaging changes in patients with liver disease. Can J Neurol Sci. 1996;23(2):95-8.
  20. Takuma Y, Nouso K, Makino Y, et al. Clinical trial: oral zinc in hepatic encephalopathy. Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics. 2010;32(9):1080-90.
  21. Katayama K, Saito M, Kawaguchi T, et al. Effect of zinc on liver cirrhosis with hyperammonemia: a preliminary randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind trial. Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif). 2014;30(11-12):1409-14.
  22. Gheorghe L, Iacob R, Vădan R, et al. Improvement of hepatic encephalopathy using a modified high-calorie high-protein diet. Rom J Gastroenterol. 2005;14(3):231-8.
  23. Cordoba J, Lopez-Hellin J, Planas M, et al. Normal protein diet for episodic hepatic encephalopathy: results of a randomized study. Journal of hepatology. 2004;41(1):38-43.
  24. Runyon BA. Introduction to the revised American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases Practice Guideline management of adult patients with ascites due to cirrhosis 2012. Hepatology. 2013;57(4):1651-3.
  25. Gluud LL, Dam G, Les I, et al. Branched-chain amino acids for people with hepatic encephalopathy. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2017;5(5):Cd001939.

Download Tables, Images & References

CASE REPORT GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS

Practical Gastroenterology Case Report Guidelines for Authors

Read Article

The aim of Case Reports is to provide challenging yet clinically relevant and informative cases to primary care physicians.

The Case should center around one (1) to three (3) high quality images that are completely described in the report. Images should be endoscopic, pathologic, and/or radiographic (without any patient identifiers) with clear labeling as appropriate.

The Case must be a concise report submitted as a Word document consisting of no more than 1250 words.

The images must be submitted as .jpg files separate from the Word document.

There should be a brief introduction/abstract, relevant presentation of the case, relevant case discussion and conclusion.

The conclusion should include one or two clinical pearls that the reader may apply to their practice or add to their knowledge set.

References should be limited to 8. References should follow AMA style and journal names should be abbreviated according to Index Medicus practice. Inclusive page ranges should be indicated.

Authors should be limited to 3 on each submission. No author photographs are necessary. All authors must provide their names, addresses, phone numbers, complete titles and affiliations.

Case Reports must not have been published previously. Each Case Report is subject to review by members of our Editorial Board. Case Reports are subject to final editing. Upon publication, Case Reports will be copyrighted by Practical Gastroenterology Publishing, Inc.

Please submit your Case Report to:

Adrien Mahl, Editor
Practical Gastroenterology
practicalgastro@aol.com

Download Tables, Images & References

jojobethacklinkmarsbahisJojobet GirişcasibomJojobet GirişCasibomCasibomvaycasinoholiganbetcasibommarsbahis girişJojobettaraftarium24madridbet güncel girişmadridbet girişmadridbetGrandpashabet