scholarly journals Pancreaticobiliary endoscopic ultrasound in England 2007 to 2016: Changing practice and outcomes

2021 ◽  
Vol 09 (11) ◽  
pp. E1731-E1739
Author(s):  
Nigel Trudgill ◽  
Kofi W. Oppong ◽  
Umair Kamran ◽  
Dominic King ◽  
Amandeep Dosanjh ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and study aims Population-level data on the outcomes of pancreaticobiliary endoscopic ultrasound (PB-EUS) are limited. We examined national PB-EUS and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) activity, its relation to pancreatic cancer therapy, associated mortality and adverse events. Patients and methods Adults undergoing PB-EUS in England from 2007–2016 were identified in Hospital Episode Statistics. A pancreatic cancer cohort diagnosed within 6 months of PB-EUS were studied separately. Multivariable logistic regression models examined associations with 30-day mortality and therapies for pancreatic cancer. Results 79,269 PB-EUS in 68,908 subjects were identified. Annual numbers increased from 2,874 (28 % FNA) to 12,752 (35 % FNA) from 2007 to 2016. 8,840 subjects (13 %) were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Sedation related adverse events were coded in 0.5 % and emergency admission with acute pancreatitis in 0.2 % within 48 hours of PB-EUS. 1.5 % of subjects died within 30 days of PB-EUS. Factors associated with 30-day mortality included increasing age (odds ratio 1.03 [95 % CI 1.03–1.04]); male sex (1.38 [1.24–1.56]); increasing comorbidity (1.49 [1.27–1.74]); EUS-FNA (2.26 [1.98–2.57]); pancreatic cancer (1.39 [1.19–1.62]); increasing deprivation (least deprived quintile 0.76 [0.62–0.93]) and lower provider PB-EUS volume (2.83 [2.15–3.73]). Factors associated with surgical resection in the pancreatic cancer cohort included lower provider PB-EUS volume (0.44 [0.26–0.74]) and the least deprived subjects (1.33 [1.12–1.57]). 33 % of pancreatic cancer subjects who underwent EUS, did not subsequently receive active cancer treatment. Conclusions Lower provider PB-EUS volume was associated with higher 30-day mortality and reduced rates of both pancreatic cancer surgery and chemotherapy. These results suggest potential issues with case selection in lower-volume EUS providers.


2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 436-442
Author(s):  
Jun Heo

Although infected pancreatic necrosis can develop as a result of rare conditions involving trauma, surgery, and systemic infection with an uncommon pathogen, it usually occurs as a complication of pancreatitis. Early phase of acute pancreatitis can be either edematous interstitial pancreatitis or necrotizing pancreatitis. The late complications of pancreatitis can be divided into pancreatic pseudocyst due to edematous interstitial pancreatitis or walled-off necrosis due to necrotizing pancreatitis. During any time course of pancreatitis, bacteremia can provoke infection inside or outside the pancreas. The patients with infected pancreatic necrosis may have fever, chills, and abdominal pain as inflammatory symptoms. These specific clinical presentations can differentiate infected pancreatic necrosis from other pancreatic diseases. Herein, I report an atypical case of infected pancreatic necrosis in which abdominal pain, elevation of white blood cell, and fever were not found at the time of admission. Rather, a 10-kg weight loss (from 81 to 71 kg) over 2 months nearly led to a misdiagnosis of pancreatic cancer. The patient was finally diagnosed based on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. This case highlights that awareness of the natural course of pancreatitis and infected pancreatic necrosis is important. In addition, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration should be recommended for the diagnosis and treatment of indeterminate pancreatic lesions in selected patients.





PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (12) ◽  
pp. e0189347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kwang Hyuck Lee ◽  
Eun Young Kim ◽  
Juhee Cho ◽  
Danbee Kang ◽  
Seungmin Bang ◽  
...  


Pancreatology ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 40-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nobumasa Mizuno ◽  
Kazuo Hara ◽  
Susumu Hijioka ◽  
Vikram Bhatia ◽  
Yasuhiro Shimizu ◽  
...  


Suizo ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-28
Author(s):  
Yuya HISADA ◽  
Susumu HIJIOKA ◽  
Shun KAWAHARA ◽  
Takehiko KOGA ◽  
Yumi MURASHIMA ◽  
...  




2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Laanani ◽  
A Weill ◽  
P O Blotière ◽  
J Pouchot ◽  
F Carbonnel ◽  
...  

Abstract Background More than one million colonoscopies are performed every year in France. They are associated with risks of mechanical and systemic serious adverse events (SAEs) which can be associated with patient, procedure, endoscopist, and facility characteristics. We tried to identify the factors associated with colonic perforation, gastrointestinal bleeding, splenic injury, shock, myocardial infarction, stroke, pulmonary embolism, acute renal failure, and urolithiasis after colonoscopy. Methods We analysed data from the French national claims databases (SNDS). A total of 4,088,799 patients, 30 years or older, undergoing a first screening or diagnostic colonoscopy between 2010 and 2015 were identified. SAE rates were estimated, and risk factors associated with SAEs were identified using multilevel logistic regression models, adjusted for patient, colonoscopy, endoscopist, and facility characteristics. Results Increasing age was associated with an increasing incidence of mechanical and systemic SAEs. Cancer and cardiovascular comorbidities were associated with mechanical SAEs, and a higher number of pre-existing conditions was associated with shock and acute renal failure. Polypectomy, especially of polyps larger than 1 cm, was associated with an increased risk of perforation (OR = 4.1; 95% CI, 3.4-5.0) and bleeding (OR = 13.3; 95% CI, 11.7-15.1). Mechanical SAEs were associated with the endoscopist’s experience, while systemic SAEs were more frequent in public hospitals than in private clinics. Conclusions SAEs related to colonoscopy were more frequent in older patients and in those with comorbidities. Mechanical SAEs were more frequent when colonoscopy was performed by less experienced endoscopists. Systemic SAEs were more frequent in public hospitals, reflecting patient selection processes. The risk of both mechanical and systemic SAEs should be taken into account when deciding to perform colonoscopy, particularly in older patients with multiple pre-existing conditions. Key messages Systemic SAEs are not uncommon after colonoscopy and, together with intestinal SAEs, should be considered when considering the need for colonoscopy. Patients at risk of SAEs should be identified and colonoscopy should be performed by experienced endoscopists in these patients. Less invasive alternatives should also be considered in these patients.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document