Management of colonoscopic perforation: a systematic review and treatment algorithm

Association of mean arterial pressure and in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients with acute pancreatitis-associated acute kidney injury: a retrospective cohort study

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common gastrointestinal disorder, and acute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent and severe complication, significantly increasing mortality risk. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) is crucial for maintaining organ perfusion in critically ill patients. However, the optimal MAP target for minimizing mortality in AP patients complicated by AKI (AP-AKI) remains unclear. This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from the MIMIC-IV database, including 934 critically ill adult patients diagnosed with AP-AKI between 2008 and 2019. We investigated the relationship between MAP and in-hospital mortality using logistic regression models, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, disease severity scores and intensive care interventions. Smooth curve fitting was used to explore potential non-linear associations. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess the impact of MAP across different clinical and demographic groups. Our analysis revealed a non-linear, L-shaped relationship between MAP and in-hospital mortality, with an inflection point at 71.32 mmHg. Below this threshold, increasing MAP was associated with significantly decreased odds of mortality (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.87-0.99, p = 0.026). However, above this threshold, the association was no longer significant (OR: 1.015, 95% CI: 0.98-1.03, p = 0.699). Subgroup analyses showed consistent trends across most subgroups, with the benefit of maintaining MAP above the threshold being most pronounced in AKI stage 1 and 2 patients. This study suggests a potential association between maintaining specific MAP levels, particularly above 71.32 mmHg, and reduced in-hospital mortality in critically ill AP-AKI patients.

Endoscopic management of colonic perforations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We will review the current management of colonic perforations, with particular emphasis on iatrogenic perforations caused by colonoscopy, the leading etiology. We will focus on recently developed endoscopic techniques and technologies that obviate morbid emergency surgery (the standard management approach in years past).

RECENT FINDINGS

Colonic perforations are rare but potentially fatal complications of both diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy resulting in death in approximately 5% of cases with the mortality increasing with delay in diagnosis and treatment. As novel endoscopic techniques and tools have flourished in recent years, our approach to management of these perforations has evolved. With the availability of newer tools such as over the scope clips, enhanced through the scope clips and novel endoscopic suturing devices, colonic perforations can be managed effectively in many or most patients without the morbidity of surgical interventions.

SUMMARY

With expanding use of colonoscopy, inadvertent outcomes such as perforations are bound to increase as well. Early diagnosis permits minimally invasive, nonsurgical, endoscopic management in most cases if the expertise and tools are available. Centers with high colonoscopy volumes including therapeutic procedures would be well served to invest in the requisite technologies and expertise.

Predictors of En Bloc, R0 Resection, and Postprocedural Complications After Advanced Endoscopic Resections for Colorectal Neoplasms: Results of 1213 Procedures

BACKGROUND

Advanced endoscopic resection techniques are used to treat colorectal neoplasms that are not amenable to conventional colonoscopic resection. Literature regarding the predictors of the outcomes of advanced endoscopic resections, especially from a colorectal surgical unit, is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the predictors of short-term and long-term outcomes after advanced endoscopic resections.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

SETTINGS

Tertiary care center.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent advanced endoscopic resections for colorectal neoplasms from November 2011 to August 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection, and combined endoscopic laparoscopic surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Predictors of en bloc and R0 resection, bleeding, and perforation were determined using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models. Cox regression models were used to determine the predictors of tumor recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 1213 colorectal lesions from 1047 patients were resected (median age 66 [interquartile range, 58-72] years, 484 women [46.2%], median BMI 28.6 [interquartile range, 24.8-32.6]). Most neoplasms were in the proximal colon (898; 74%). The median lesion size was 30 (interquartile range, 20-40; range, 0-120) mm. Nine hundred eleven lesions (75.1%) underwent previous interventions. The most common Paris and Kudo classifications were 0 to IIa flat elevation (444; 36.6%) and IIIs (301; 24.8%), respectively. En bloc and R0 resection rates were 56.6% and 54.3%, respectively. Smaller lesions, rectal location, and procedure type (endoscopic submucosal dissection) were associated with significantly higher en bloc and R0 resection rates. Bleeding and perforation rates were 5% and 6.6%, respectively. Increased age was a predictor for bleeding (OR 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09; p < 0.0001). Lesion size was a predictor for perforation (OR 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03; p = 0.03). The tumor recurrence rate was 6.6%. En bloc (HR 1.41; 95% CI, 1.05-1.93; p = 0.02) and R0 resection (HR 1.49; 95% CI, 1.11-2.06; p = 0.008) were associated with decreased recurrence risk.

LIMITATIONS

Single-center, retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of advanced endoscopic resections can be predicted by patient-related and lesion-related characteristics. See Video Abstract .

PREDICTORES DE LA RESECCION R, EN BLOQUE Y LAS COMPLICACIONES POR RESECCIONES ENDOSCPICAS AVANZADAS EN CASOS DE NEOPLASIA COLORRECTAL RESULTADOS DE PROCEDIMIENTOS

ANTECEDENTES:Las técnicas avanzadas de resección endoscópica se utilizan para el tratamiento de neoplasias colorrectales que no son susceptibles de resección colonoscópica convencional. La literatura sobre los predictores de los resultados de las resecciones endoscópicas avanzadas, especialmente en una unidad de cirugía colorrectal, es limitada.OBJETIVO:Determinar los predictores de resultados a corto y largo plazo después de resecciones endoscópicas avanzadas.DISEÑO:Serie de casos retrospectivos.LUGAR:Centro de tercer nivel de atención.PACIENTES:Pacientes sometidos a resecciones endoscópicas avanzadas por neoplasias colorrectales desde noviembre de 2011 hasta agosto de 2022.INTERVENCIÓNES:Resección endoscópica de la mucosa, disección endoscópica submucosa (ESD), ESD híbrida, cirugía laparoscópica endoscópica combinada.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los predictores de resección en bloque y R0, sangrado y perforación se determinaron mediante modelos de regresión logística univariables y multivariables. Se utilizaron modelos de regresión de Cox para determinar los predictores de recurrencia del tumor.RESULTADOS:Se resecaron 1.213 lesiones colorrectales en 1.047 pacientes [edad media 66 (58-72) años, 484 (46,2%) mujeres, índice de masa corporal medio 28,6 (24,8-32,6) kg/m 2 ]. La mayoría de las neoplasias se encontraban en el colon proximal (898, 74%). El tamaño medio de la lesión fue de 30mm (RIC: 20-40, rango: 0-120). 911 (75,1%) lesiones tenían intervenciones previas. Las clasificaciones de París y Kudo más comunes fueron 0-IIa elevación plana (444, 36,6%) y III (301, 24,8%), respectivamente. Las tasas de resección en bloque y R0 fueron del 56,6% y 54,3%, respectivamente. Las lesiones más pequeñas, la ubicación rectal y el tipo de procedimiento (ESD) se asociaron con tasas de resección en bloque y R0 significativamente más altas. Las tasas de sangrado y perforación fueron del 5% y 6,6%, respectivamente. La edad avanzada [1,06 (1,03-1,09), p < 0,0001] fue un predictor de sangrado. El tamaño de la lesión [1,02 (1,00-1,03), p = 0,03] fue un predictor de perforación. La tasa de recurrencia del tumor fue del 6,6%. En bloque [HR 1,41 (IC 95% 1,05-1,93), p = 0,02] y la resección R0 [HR 1,49 (IC 95% 1,11-2,06), p = 0,008] se asociaron con un menor riesgo de recurrencia.LIMITACIONES:Estudio unicéntrico, retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:Los resultados de las resecciones endoscópicas avanzadas pueden predecirse según las características del paciente y de la lesión. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Up to 15% of colorectal polyps are amenable for conventional polypectomy. Advanced endoscopic resection techniques are introduced for the treatment of those polyps. They provide higher en bloc resection rates compared with conventional techniques, while helping patients to avoid the complications of surgery. Note that 20 mm is considered as the largest size of a polyp that can be resected by polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in an en bloc fashion. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is recommended for polyps larger than 20 mm. Intramucosal carcinomas and carcinomas with limited submucosal invasion can also be resected with ESD. EMR is snare resection of a polyp following submucosal injection and elevation. ESD involves several steps such as marking, submucosal injection, incision, and dissection. Bleeding and perforation are the most common complications following advanced endoscopic procedures, which can be treated with coagulation and endoscopic clipping. En bloc resection rates range from 44.5 to 63% for EMR and from 87.9 to 96% for ESD. Recurrence rates following EMR and ESD are 7.4 to 17% and 0.9 to 2%, respectively. ESD is considered enough for the treatment of invasive carcinomas in the presence of submucosal invasion less than 1000 μm, absence of lymphovascular invasion, well-moderate histological differentiation, low-grade tumor budding, and negative resection margins.

Laparoscopic management of iatrogenic colon perforation

BACKGROUND

Iatrogenic colon perforation (ICP) due to colonoscopy is a severe complication and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The global estimated incidence of ICP is 0.03% and up to 3% for diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopies, respectively. Treatment options include endoscopic repair, conservative therapy, and surgery. Treatment decision is based on the time and the setting of the diagnosis, the type, and location of the perforation, the presence of related pathologies, the clinical status and characteristic of the patient, and surgeon's skills. We present our experience in the treatment of ICPs.

METHODS

A retrospective review was undertaken of all patients suffering from ICP at Bnai-Zion Medical Center between 1/1/2010 and 1/3/2021. Clinical presentation, therapeutic approach, and short-term outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 51 cases of ICPs. Fourteen (27%) were diagnosed by the gastroenterologist during the procedure, 2 of whom were treated with endoscopic clips. The rest of the patients (72.5%) were diagnosed in the ER after a CT scan. Forty-three patients (84%) went on to operative management: 5 (11%) operations started with laparotomy-all were conducted in the early study period (until 2013). All other operations (88%) started with a diagnostic laparoscopy, 4 of whom (10%) were converted to laparotomy. Out of the 38 laparoscopic cases 29 (80%) were treated with primary suturing. Seven patients went on to colon resection (5 of whom with primary anastomosis). Six patients required ICU admission-with 1/38 (2%) from the laparoscopic cases, and 5/9 (55%) from the laparotomy cases. A total of 49/51 (96%) patients recovered and were discharged after 5 ± 2 for conservative and laparoscopic cases, and 12 ± 9 for open cases.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic treatment of ICP is safe and feasible in most cases. Our data supports a laparoscopic attempt at any such scenario.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for colonoscopic perforation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of laparoscopic surgery (LS) for the treatment of colonoscopic perforation is still controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of LS versus open surgery (OS) for colonoscopic perforation.

METHODS

All clinical trials that compared laparoscopic with OS for colonoscopic perforation published in English were identified in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library searches. A modified scale was used to assess the quality of the literature. We analyzed the age, sex ratio, aim of colonoscopy, history of abdominopelvic surgery, type of procedure, size of perforation, operation time, postoperative fasting time, hospital stay, postoperative complication morbidity, and postoperative mortality. Meta-analyses were performed using weighted mean differences for continuous variables, and odds ratios for dichotomous variables.

RESULTS

No eligible randomized trials were identified, but eleven nonrandomized trials were analyzed. In the pooled data of 192 patients who underwent LS and 131 OS, there were no significant differences in age, sex ratio, aim of colonoscopy, history of abdominopelvic surgery, perforation size, and operative time between the groups. LS group had shorter time of hospital stay and postoperative fasting time, less postoperative complication morbidity, but there were no significant difference in postoperative mortality rate between LS group and OS group.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current meta-analysis, we conclude that LS is a safe and efficacious technique for colonoscopic perforation, with fewer postoperative complications, less hospital mortality, and faster recovery compared with OS.

Endoluminal management of colon perforations during advanced endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND

Advanced endoscopic procedures are gaining attraction despite a steep learning curve, need for high dexterity, and potential complications. Colonic perforation is the most concerning adverse event during advanced endoscopic procedures. This study presents our experience on endoluminal management of iatrogenic colonic perforations.

METHODS

Patients who underwent advanced endoscopic procedures at a quaternary center from 2016 to 2021 were identified. Patients who had colonic perforations during advanced procedures and treated with endoscopic closure/clipping were included. Retrospective chart review was performed. Figures represent frequency (proportion) or median (interquartile range/range).

RESULTS

There were 22 (2.3%) immediate colonic perforations treated with endoscopic clipping out of 964 advanced endoscopic resections. The median age was 64 (interquartile range = 57-71) years and 50% of the patients were female; 16 (73%) resections were proximal to the splenic flexure. Median polyp size was 36 (20-55) mm. Closure was performed with endoscopic clips in 18 (82%) patients, and over-the-scope clips in 4 patients. Median hospital stay was 0.8 (0-4) days, and 13 (59%) patients were discharged the same day; 2 patients were admitted to the emergency department ≤24 hours of procedure. They underwent subsequent laparoscopic suture repair the same day. No one had segmental colon resection, and there were no complications within postoperative 30 days. Pathology revealed 9 (41%) tubular adenomas, 7 (32%) tubulovillous adenomas, 6 (27%) sessile serrated lesions, and no adenocarcinoma. No recurrence was observed with median follow-up of 24 months (range = 0-90 months).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic management is an effective treatment approach for the management of iatrogenic colonic perforations.

Characteristics and endoscopic treatment of interventional and non-interventional iatrogenic colorectal perforations in centers with high endoscopic expertise: a retrospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Iatrogenic colorectal perforation is a rare event with a relevant mortality and the need for surgical therapy in around ¾ of cases.

METHODS

In this retrospective multicentric cohort study iatrogenic colorectal perforations from 2004 to 2021 were analyzed. Primary outcome parameters were incidence and clinical success of 1st line endoscopic treatment. Comparative analysis of interventional and non-interventional perforations was performed and predictors for clinical success of endoscopic therapy were identified.

RESULTS

From 103,570 colonoscopies 213 (0.2%) iatrogenic perforations were identified. 68.4% were interventional (80 during polypectomy/EMR, 54 during ESD and 11 for other reasons) and 31.6% non-interventional perforations (39 by the tip, 19 by the shaft, 7 by inversion, two by biopsy and one by distension). Incidence of 1st line endoscopic therapy was 61.0% and clinical success 81.5%. Other non-surgical therapies were conducted in 8.9% with clinical success in 94.7% of cases. In interventional perforations both incidence and clinical success of 1st line endoscopic therapy were significantly higher compared to non-interventional perforations [71.7% vs. 38.2% (p < 0.01) resp. 86.5% vs. 61.5% (p < 0.01)]. Mortality was 2.3% and significantly lower in the group of interventional perforations (0.7% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.037). Multivariable analysis revealed perforation size < 5 mm as only independent predictor for clinical success of 1st line endoscopic treatment [OR 14.85 (1.57-140.69), p = 0.019].

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic therapy is treatment of choice in the majority of iatrogenic colorectal perforations. In case of interventional perforations it is highly effective but only a minority of non-interventional perforations are good candidates for endoscopic treatment.

Iatrogenic colon perforation during colonoscopy, diagnosis/treatment, and follow-up processes: A single-center experience

Objectives

latrogenic colon perforation (ICP) is one of the most feared complications of colonoscopy and causes unwanted morbidity and mortality. In this study, we aimed to discuss the characteristics of the cases of ICP we encountered in our endoscopy clinic, its etiology, our treatment approaches, and results in the light of the current literature.

Material and Methods

We retrospectively evaluated the cases of ICP among 9.709 lower gastrointestinal system endoscopy procedures (colonoscopy + rectosigmoidoscopy) performed for diagnostic purposes in our endoscopy clinic during 2002-2020.

Results

A total of seven cases of ICP were detected. The diagnosis was made during the procedure in six patients and after eight hours in one patient, and their treatment was performed urgently. Whereas surgical procedures were performed in all patients, the type of the procedure varied; laparoscopic primary repair was performed in two patients and laparotomy in five patients. In the patients who underwent laparotomy, primary repair was performed in three patients, partial colon resection and end-to-end anastomosis in one patient, and loop colostomy in one patient. The patients were hospitalized for an average of 7.14 days. The patients who did not develop complications in the postoperative follow-up were discharged with full recovery.

Conclusion

Prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment of ICP is crucial to prevent morbidity and mortality.

[Factors Associated with the Clinical Outcomes of Iatrogenic Colonic Perforation]

Background/Aims

This study evaluated the incidence of iatrogenic colonic perforation (ICP) in a high-volume center and analyzed the clinical outcomes and associated factors.

Methods

As a retrospective study of the electronic medical records, the whole data of patients who underwent colonoscopy from June 2004 to May 2020 were reviewed.

Results

During 16 years, 69,458 procedures were performed, of which 60,288 were diagnostic and 9,170 were therapeutic. ICP occurred in 0.027% (16/60,288) for diagnostic colonoscopies and in 0.076% (7/9,170) for therapeutic purposes (p=0.015; hazard ratio 2.878; 95% CI, 1.184-6.997). Fifty-two percent (12 cases) were managed with endoscopic clip closure, and 43.5% (10 cases) required surgery. The reasons for the procedure and the procedure timing appeared to affect the treatment decision. Perforations during therapeutic colonoscopy were treated with surgery more often than those for diagnostic purposes (66.7% [4/6] vs. 37.5% [6/16], p=0.221). Regarding the timing of the procedure, ICP that occurred in the afternoon session was more likely treated surgically (56.3% [9/16] vs. 0/5, p=0.027). Mortality occurred in two patients (2/23, 8.7%). Both were aged (mean age 84.0±1.4 vs. 65.7±10.5, p<0.001) and lately recognized (mean elapsed time [hours], 43.8±52.5 vs. 1.5±3.0, p<0.001) than the surviving patients.

Conclusions

ICP occurs in less than 0.1% of cases. The events that occurred during the morning session were more likely managed endoscopically. Age over 80 years and a longer time before perforation recognition were associated with mortality.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Endoscopic Management of Perforations in Gastrointestinal Tract: Expert Review

BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: For all procedures, especially procedures carrying an increased risk for perforation, a thorough discussion between the endoscopist and the patient (preferably together with the patient's family) should include details of the procedural techniques and risks involved. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: The area of perforation should be kept clean to prevent any spillage of gastrointestinal contents into the perforation by aspirating liquids and, if necessary, changing the patient position to bring the perforation into a non-dependent location while minimizing insufflation of carbon dioxide to avoid compartment syndrome. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Use of carbon dioxide for insufflation is encouraged for all endoscopic procedures, especially any endoscopic procedure with increased risk of perforation. If available, carbon dioxide should be used for all endoscopic procedures. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: All endoscopists should be aware of the procedures that carry an increased risk for perforation such as any dilation, foreign body removal, any per oral endoscopic myotomy (Zenker's, esophageal, pyloric), stricture incision, thermal coagulation for hemostasis or tumor ablation, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, ampullectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoluminal stenting with self-expanding metal stent (SEMS), full-thickness endoscopic resection, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in surgically altered anatomy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary and pancreatic access, EUS-guided cystogastrostomy, and endoscopic gastroenterostomy using a lumen apposing metal stent (LAMS). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Urgent surgical consultation should be highly considered in all cases with perforation even when endoscopic repair is technically successful. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: For all upper gastrointestinal perforations, the patient should be considered to be admitted for observation, receive intravenous fluids, be kept nothing by mouth, receive broad-spectrum antibiotics (to cover Gram-negative and anaerobic organisms), nasogastric tube (NGT) placement (albeit some exceptions), and surgical consultation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: For upper gastrointestinal tract perforations, a water-soluble upper gastrointestinal series should be considered to confirm the absence of continuing leak at the perforation site before initiating a clear liquid diet. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopic closure of esophageal perforations should be pursued when feasible, utilizing through-the-scope clips (TTSCs) or over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) for perforations <2 cm and endoscopic suturing for perforations >2 cm, reserving esophageal stenting with SEMS for cases where primary closure is not possible. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Endoscopic closure of gastric perforations should be pursued when feasible, utilizing TTSCs or OTSCs for perforations <2 cm and endoscopic suturing or combination of TTSCs and endoloop for perforations >2 cm. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: For large type 1 duodenal perforations (lateral duodenal wall tear >3 cm), being cognizant of the difficulty in closing them endoscopically, urgent surgical consultation should be made while the feasibility of endoscopic closure is assessed. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Because type 2 periampullary (retroperitoneal) perforations are subtle and can be easily missed, the endoscopist should carefully assess the gas pattern on fluoroscopy to avoid delays in treatment and request a computed tomography scan if there is a concern for such a perforation; identified perforations of this type at the time of ERCP may be closed with TTSCs if feasible and/or by placing a fully covered SEMS into the bile duct across the ampulla. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: For the management of large duodenal polyps, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) should only be performed by experienced endoscopists and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) only by experts because both EMR and ESD in the duodenum require proficiency in resection and mucosal defect closure techniques to manage immediate and/or delayed perforations (caused by the proteolytic enzymes of the pancreas). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: Endoscopists should be aware that colon perforations occurring during diagnostic colonoscopy are most commonly located in the sigmoid colon due to direct trauma from forceful advancement of the colonoscope. Such tears recognized at the time of colonoscopy may be closed by TTSCs or OTSCs if the bowel preparation is good and the patient is stable. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Although colon perforation is responsive to various endoscopic tools such as TTSC, OTSC, and endoscopic suturing, perforations in the right colon, especially in the cecum, have been relegated to using only TTSCs because of inability to reach the site of the perforation with an endoscopic suturing device or OTSC if the colon is tortuous or unclean. Recently a new suture-based device for defect closure has been introduced allowing deep submucosal and intramuscular enhanced fixation through a standard gastroscope or colonoscope. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: Patients with perforations who are hemodynamically unstable or who have suffered a delayed perforation with peritoneal signs or frank peritonitis should be surgically managed without any attempt at endoscopic closure. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 16: In any adverse event including perforation, it is paramount to ensure accurate documentation, prompt discussion with the patient and family, and swift reporting to the quality officer (or equivalent) and risk management team of the institution (in major adverse events).

Minocycline attenuates oxidative and inflammatory injury in a intestinal perforation induced septic lung injury model via down-regulating lncRNA MALAT1 expression

BACKGROUND

Oxidative stress and inflammatory responses play an important role in acute lung injury (ALI). Although minocycline (MINO) has anti-inflammatory effects and is a promising candidate in treating inflammatory diseases, the effect of MINO on ALI during sepsis is still unclear.

METHODS

In the present study, a mouse model with intestinal perforation was established. C57BL/6 mice received cecal ligation and puncture (CLP) to induce sepsis-associated ALI. MINO was used to treat the mice via intraperitoneal injection at different doses (negative control, 20 mg/kg, 50 mg/kg and 100 mg/kg, respectively) 24 h after CLP. The severity of lung injury was evaluated by pathological examination, and lung wet / dry weight ratio was calculated to evaluate the severity of pulmonary edema. The changes of TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6, PGE2, MDA, NF-κB, Nrf2, Keap1 and lncRNA MALAT1 levels in lung tissues of the mice were detected with ELISA, chemical colorimetry, Western blot or qRT-PCR.

RESULTS

MINO ameliorated the lung edema and lung injury of the mice induced by CLP in a dose-dependent manner. MINO administration could significantly down-regulate expressions of TNF-α, IL-6, IL-1β, PGE2 and MDA in lung tissues of the mice. Mechanistically, MINO exerted the effects of anti-inflammation and anti-oxidative stress through down-regulating the expression of MALAT1 and regulating Nrf2/Keap1 and NF-κB signaling pathways.

CONCLUSION

MINO represses oxidative stress and inflammatory response during sepsis-induced ALI via down-regulating MALAT1 expression, and it has the potential to treat septic ALI.

Comparison of risk factors and treatments for intestinal perforation after colonoscopic treatment

BACKGROUND

In recent years, colonoscopy, as the most important tool for the diagnosis and treatment of colorectal diseases, has been widely used in clinical practice, but it is somewhat invasive and may lead to a series of serious complications such as gastrointestinal bleeding and perforation. Among them, gastrointestinal perforation, if not detected and treated timely, can cause septic shock, and even endanger life.

AIM

To analyze the risk factors that may lead to colonoscopy-related perforation and explore the reasonable treatment for patients with perforation.

METHODS

A total of 41642 patients who underwent electronic colonoscopy at our hospital from January 2012 to December 2020 were statistically analyzed. The general information of the patients (gender, age, past history, body mass index, anesthesia, intestinal cleanliness, operating time, perforation site, etc.) was reviewed, and the risk factors for colonoscopy-related perforation were analyzed. The clinical efficacy and prognosis were compared between laparoscopic surgery (LS) and open surgery (OS).

RESULTS

Intestinal perforation occurred in 21 (0.05%) patients, including 13 cases of perforation caused by colonoscopy and 8 cases caused by treatment (including entrapment polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection, balloon dilation, and other invasive procedures). The most common perforation sites were the sigmoid colon (47.6%) and rectum (28.6%). Laparoscopic surgery was performed in 13 cases, open surgery in 7, conservative treatment in 1, and enterostomy in 3. Logistic regression analysis indicated that intestinal cleanliness, anesthesia, and abdominal operation history were the risk factors for colonoscopy-related perforation (P < 0.05), while gender, age, body mass index, examination, and treatment were not (P < 0.05).The postoperative length of stay, postoperative pain score, wound infection rate, and hospitalization cost in the LS group were significantly different from those in the OS group.

CONCLUSION

Colonoscopy-related perforation more commonly occurs in the sigmoid colon and rectum. Roughness of operation, weak local intestinal wall, and abnormal anatomical structure are three important factors leading to intestinal perforation. Poor intestinal cleanliness and previous history of abdominal surgery are high risk factors for perforation, while early detection and active surgery are the basic principles for the treatment of intestinal perforation, and laparoscopic perforation repair is the first choice. If bowel preparation is ready, it is safe and feasible to avoid a prophylactic enterostomy in most patients with colonoscopy perforation.

Diagnosis and management of iatrogenic endoscopic perforations: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement - Update 2020

1:  ESGE recommends that each center implements a written policy regarding the management of iatrogenic perforations, including the definition of procedures that carry a higher risk of this complication. This policy should be shared with the radiologists and surgeons at each center. 2 : ESGE recommends that in the case of an endoscopically identified perforation, the endoscopist reports its size and location, with an image, and statement of the endoscopic treatment that has been applied. 3:  ESGE recommends that symptoms or signs suggestive of iatrogenic perforation after an endoscopic procedure should be rapidly and carefully evaluated and documented with a computed tomography (CT) scan. 4 : ESGE recommends that endoscopic closure should be considered depending on the type of the iatrogenic perforation, its size, and the endoscopist expertise available at the center. Switch to carbon dioxide (CO2) endoscopic insufflation, diversion of digestive luminal content, and decompression of tension pneumoperitoneum or pneumothorax should also be performed. 5 : ESGE recommends that after endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, further management should be based on the estimated success of the endoscopic closure and on the general clinical condition of the patient. In the case of no or failed endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, and in patients whose clinical condition is deteriorating, hospitalization and surgical consultation are recommended.

Delayed perforation after endoscopic resection of a colonic laterally spreading tumor: A case report and literature review

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) have been widely used for the treatment of early gastrointestinal cancer. Endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection (EPMR) is derived from the combination of EMR and ESD. Delayed perforation with peritonitis after colonic EPMR is a rare but severe complication, sometimes requiring surgery. There are some associated risk factors, including patient- (location, diameter, and presence of fibrosis) and procedure-related factors. Early recognition and timely treatment are crucial for its management.

CASE SUMMARY

We report a case in which delayed perforation with peritonitis was treated using endoscopic closure. A 54-year-old man was diagnosed with a 30-mm-diameter laterally spreading tumor in the colonic hepatic curvature. Fifteen hours after endoscopic resection, peritonitis caused by delayed perforation occurred and gradually aggravated. Conservative treatment was ineffective and no obvious perforation was observed. After timely endoscopic closure, the patient was discharged on postoperative day 4.

CONCLUSION

In occasion of localized peritonitis aggravating without macroscopic perforation, endoscopic closure is an effective treatment for delayed perforation with stable vital signs in the early stage.