Diagnosis of subepithelial tumors in the GI tract. Endoscopy, EUS, and histology: bronze, silver, and gold standard?
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Wahid Wassef.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review is an update of key issues in gastric interventional endoscopy. It focuses on the areas of patient preparation, endoscopic mucosal resection, gastroduodenal stenting, and endoscopic placement of enteric feeding tubes. RECENT FINDINGS: Clopidogel (Plavix), a newer antiplatelet agent, can increase the risk of bleeding. Therefore, in selected cases, it should be held for 7-10 days prior to interventional procedures. In experienced hands, endoscopic mucosal resection (success rate, 76-100%; complication rate, 4-28%) and gastroduodenal stenting (success rate, 81-92%; complication rate, 1-17%) seem to be safe and effective techniques. SUMMARY: The field of interventional endoscopy continues to advance and to conquer new frontiers. These advances create new problems that need to be addressed and studied by researchers, however. It is only through these types of reviews that our state of knowledge can be updated to help provide the latest information for clinicians in the field and to challenge researchers with future problems that need to be studied.
The needs placed on today's physician to improve efficiency in the endoscopy unit are nowhere more apparent than in transcribing endoscopy reports. In spite of the constant progress made in currently available electronic endoscopy information systems, the systems lack efficiency and ease of use. Both of these problems could be addressed through the linkage of electronic endoscopy information systems to currently available accessory systems. W review how the linkage of tablet personal computers, voice recognition systems, and web connectivity software, which facilitates communication with electronic-based medical records, can be helpful. The final answer, however, will have to await clinical trials.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review discusses key issues in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding including patient preparation, sedation, hemostatic techniques, disposition, and recommended pharmacologic interventions. RECENT FINDINGS: Optimal resuscitation before endoscopy and proper pharmacologic interventions after endoscopy seem to be as crucial to the management of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding as meticulous hemostatic techniques during the procedure. In a retrospective evaluation of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, multivariate analysis demonstrated significantly reduced morbidity and mortality in those who underwent aggressive preendoscopic resuscitation. In a prospective, randomized clinical trial, patients who received intravenous proton pump inhibitor therapy after endoscopic intervention had a significantly reduced rebleeding rate compared with their placebo control group. SUMMARY: The algorithms described in this review can be applied clinically today and should directly lead to improved outcome. Nevertheless, even with the latest care available, results are not optimal. This review points to two major areas where we can benefit from improvement: primary hemostasis and recurrent bleeding. By pointing to these limitations, it is hoped that this review can help stimulate research in the field by applying new technologies to solve these problems. Endoscopic ultrasound, for example, could be used to help identify feeding vessels that can be treated endoscopically, thus potentially decreasing the incidence of failed primary hemostasis. Endoscopic suturing, when more fully developed, may provide a better hemostatic technique that can reduce the incidence of recurrent bleeding. It is only through these reviews that our state of knowledge in the field can be constantly reevaluated to update today's clinician with the latest knowledge and stimulate tomorrow's researchers with challenging problems.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review provides an updated summary of gastric interventional endoscopy. Relevant original articles and topic reviews are highlighted in the areas of infection control, light sedation, hemostasis, endoscopic mucosal resection, and endoscopic placement of enteric devices. RECENT FINDINGS: Several key findings are worth noting: the increased use of propofol by nonanesthesiologists for deep sedation with minimal adverse side effects, the adaptation of tissue adhesive agents for the treatment of bleeding gastric varices, the successful treatment of early gastric cancer by endoscopic mucosal resection, and the development of direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tubes for patients at high risk of aspiration. SUMMARY: These recent developments in the field of interventional endoscopy have already made a great impact on clinical care. More advanced procedures can be performed safely while the patient is under deep sedation. Yet, these developments have not slowed down the need for improvement in interventional endoscopy. Researchers continue to look for smaller instruments, better optics, and more advanced accessories. This constant state of flux marks the field of interventional endoscopy and ensures its progress.
BACKGROUND: EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has significantly expanded the diagnostic capability of GI EUS. FNA technology can also be helpful in the diagnosis of non-GI disorders. The role of EUS-guided FNA in the diagnosis of mediastinal lymphadenopathy of unknown etiology has not been described. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and impact on subsequent evaluation and therapy of EUS-FNA in mediastinal lymphadenopathy of unknown cause. METHODS: Sixty-two patients (40 men, 22 woman; mean age 56 years, range 16-91 years) with mediastinal lymphadenopathy of unknown etiology underwent EUS-FNA at 6 tertiary referral centers. Presenting symptoms included the following: dysphagia, 6 patients; night sweats, 14; cough, 8; chest pain, 10; odynophagia, 10; fever, 6; weight loss, 8; and asymptomatic/abnormal radiograph, 12. A final diagnosis by EUS-FNA, surgery, autopsy, or long-term follow-up was available for all patients. EUS-FNA results were classified under 3 disease categories: (1) benign/infectious; (2) malignant pulmonary; and (3) malignant mediastinal (e.g., lymphoma, metastatic malignancy). Four EUS features were used as criteria for lymph node metastases: size greater than 1 cm, round shape, sharp border, and homogeneous/hypoechoic echo pattern. RESULTS: Final diagnoses included benign/infectious lymph nodes, 26; malignant pulmonary, 24; and malignant mediastinal, 12. EUS-FNA established a tissue diagnosis in 56 of 62 patients (90%). EUS criteria for malignant lymph nodes were more frequently present in malignant pulmonary (mean 2.6 features) and malignant mediastinal (mean 2.8) than benign/infectious (mean 1.9) lymph nodes. EUS results influenced subsequent evaluation in 87% and therapy in 87% of patients. There was no complication of EUS-FNA. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA in patients with mediastinal lymphadenopathy is safe and guides subsequent therapy in the great majority of cases. Transesophageal EUS-FNA of mediastinal lymph nodes provides minimally invasive tissue sampling, obviating the need for mediastinoscopy or bronchoscopy.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.