Safety and efficacy of metal stents for malignant colonic obstruction in patients treated with bevacizumab

Management of obstructed colorectal carcinoma in an emergency setting: An update

Colorectal carcinoma is common, particularly on the left side. In 20% of patients, obstruction and ileus may be the first clinical manifestations of a carcinoma that has advanced (stage II, III or even IV). Diagnosis is based on clinical presentation, plain abdominal radiogram, computed tomography (CT), CT colonography and positron emission tomography/CT. The best management strategy in terms of short-term operative or interventional and long-term oncological outcomes remains unknown. For the most common left-sided obstruction, the first choice should be either emergency surgery or endoscopic decompression by self-expendable metal stents or tubes. The operative plan should be either one-stage or two-stage resection. One-stage resection with on-table bowel decompression and irrigation can be accompanied or not accompanied by proximal defunctioning stoma (colostomy or ileostomy). Primary anastomosis is more convenient but has increased risks of anastomotic leakage and morbidity. Two-stage resection (Hartmann's procedure) is safer and the most widely used despite temporally affecting quality of life. Damage control surgery in high-risk frail patients is less frequently performed since it can be successfully substituted with endoscopic stenting or tubing. For the less common right-sided obstruction, one-stage surgical resection is more beneficial than endoscopic decompression. The role of minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic or robotic) is a subject of debate. Emergency laparoscopic-assisted management is advantageous to some extent but requires much expertise due to inherent difficulties in dissecting the distended colon and the risk of rupture and subsequent septic complications. The decompressing stent as a bridge to elective surgery more substantially decreases the risks of morbidity and mortality than emergency surgery for decompression and has equivalent medium-term overall survival and disease-free survival rates. Its combination with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiation may have a positive effect on long-term oncological outcomes. Management plans are crucial and must be individualized to better fit each case.

Malignant Acute Colonic Obstruction: Multidisciplinary Approach for Endoscopic Management

Patients presenting with acute colonic obstruction are usually evaluated in the emergency department and multiple specialties are involved in the patients' management. Pre-treatment evaluation is essential in order to establish the correct endoscopic indication for stent implantation. Contrast-enhanced imaging could allow the exclusion of benign causes of colonic obstruction and evaluation of the length of malignant stricture. Endoscopic stenting is the gold standard of treatment for palliative indications whereas there are still concerns about its use as a bridge to surgery. Different meta-analyses showed that stenting as a bridge to surgery improves short-term surgical outcomes but has no role in improving long-term outcomes. Multidisciplinary evaluation is also essential in patients that may be started on or are currently receiving antiangiogenic agents because endoscopic stenting may increase the risk of perforation. Evidence in the literature is weak and based on retrospective data. Here we report on how to correctly evaluate a patient with acute colonic malignant obstruction in collaboration with other essential specialists including a radiologist, surgeon and oncologist, and how to optimize the technique of endoscopic stenting.

Successful management of malignant colovesical fistula using covered colonic self-expanding metallic stent: a case report

BACKGROUND

A colovesical fistula (CVF) is commonly treated by resection of the intestine containing the fistula or creation of a defunctioning stoma. We herein report a case of successful fistula closure and avoidance of colostomy after placement of a covered colonic self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) as a palliative treatment for a malignant CVF.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 75-year-old man undergoing infusional 5-fluorouracil and irinotecan chemotherapy plus bevacizumab for recurrent peritoneal dissemination of rectal cancer was admitted to our hospital because of fecaluria with a high-grade fever. Blood tests showed a moderate inflammatory reaction (white blood cell count, 9200/mm3; C-reactive protein, 11.03 mg/dL; procalcitonin, 1.33 ng/mL). Urinary sediment examination showed severe bacteriuria. Abdominal contrast-enhanced computed tomography showed intravesical gas, thickening of the posterior wall of the bladder, and irregular thickening of the sigmoid colon wall contiguous with the posterior bladder wall. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) clearly showed a fistula between the bladder and sigmoid colon. Colonoscopy revealed a circumferential malignant stricture 15 cm from the anal verge, and a fistula to the bladder was identified by water-soluble contrast medium. We diagnosed a complicated urinary tract infection (UTI) associated with a CVF due to peritoneal dissemination and started empirical treatment with sulbactam/ampicillin. Given the absence of active inflammatory findings around the fistula on MRI and the patient's physical frailty, we decided to place a covered SEMS to close the fistula. Under fluoroscopic and endoscopic guidance, a covered colonic SEMS of 80-mm length and 20-mm diameter was successfully deployed, and the fistula was sealed immediately after placement. Urine culture on day 3 after stenting was negative for bacteria, and a contrast study on day 5 showed no fistula. The patient was discharged home on day 6 with no complications. The UTI did not recur for 4 months after discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

A covered colonic SEMS was useful for sealing a malignant CVF in a patient unfit for surgery, and MRI was valuable to determine the status of the fistula. A covered colonic SEMS could be an alternative to surgical treatment for CVFs in patients who require palliative care.

Oncologic impact of colonic stents for obstructive left-sided colon cancer

Colonic stenting has had a significant positive impact on the management of obstructive left-sided colon cancer (OLCC) in terms of both palliative treatment and bridge-to-surgery (BTS). Notably, many studies have convincingly demonstrated the effectiveness of stenting as a BTS, resulting in improvements in short-term outcomes and quality of life, safety, and efficacy in subsequent curative surgery, and increased cost-effectiveness, whereas the safety of chemotherapy after stenting and the long-term outcomes of stenting as a BTS are controversial. Several studies have suggested an increased risk of perforation in patients receiving bevacizumab chemotherapy after colonic stenting. In addition, several pathological analyses have suggested a negative oncological impact of colonic stenting. In contrast, many recent studies have demonstrated that colonic stenting for OLCC does not negatively impact the safety of chemotherapy or long-term oncological outcomes. The updated version of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines released in 2020 included colonic stenting as a BTS for OLCC as a recommended treatment. It should be noted that the experience of endoscopists is involved in determining technical and clinical success rates and possibly oncological outcomes. This review discusses the positive and negative impacts of colonic stenting on OLCC treatment, particularly in terms of oncology.

Medications and the risk of perforated appendicitis: an adverse event report system (FAERS) database analysis

OBJECTIVE

Different classes of medication have been reported in the literature to be associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal perforation. However, little is known about the risk of drug-induced perforated appendicitis.

METHODS

We analyzed the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), a large national database of reported adverse events associated with post-market FDA-approved medications from January 2011 to October 2021. Patients of any age group with appendiceal perforation were included. Duplicated reports and other anatomical areas of gastrointestinal tract perforation outside the appendix were excluded.

RESULTS

During the study period, 474 event cases met inclusion criteria, of which 284 were females. Most reports of perforation occurred in patients 40-49 years (n = 110) and 50-59 years (n = 144). Cases of perforated appendicitis occurred in patients being treated for multiple sclerosis (31.5%) and rheumatoid arthritis (17.1%). Perforation occurred in patients receiving interferon beta 1a (23.6%), adalimumab (17.9%), etanercept (14.1%), natalizumab (12.2%), clozapine (10.1%), infliximab (9.9%), bevacizumab (7.2%), and calcium chloride (4.9%). Sixteen fatal outcomes were reported.

CONCLUSION

Findings from the FAERS database highlight the risk of appendiceal perforation in the context of different classes of drugs. Larger pharmacovigilance studies are needed to confirm these observations.

Safety of endoscopy in patients undergoing treatments with antiangiogenic agents: A 5-year retrospective review

BACKGROUND

Antiangiogenic agents (AAs) are increasingly used to treat malignant tumors and have been associated with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and perforation. Elective surgeries and endoscopy are recommended to be delayed for 31 d until after AAs treatment. Data regarding the safety of endoscopy while on antiangiogenic agents is extremely limited. No guidelines are in place to address the concern about withholding these anti-angiogenic drugs.

AIM

To evaluate the risks of endoscopy in patients on antiangiogenic agents from 2015 to 2020 at our institution.

METHODS

This is a single centered retrospective study approved by the institutional review board statement of the institution. Patients that underwent endoscopy within 28 d of antiangiogenic agents’ treatment were included in the study. Primary outcome of interest was death, and secondary outcomes included perforation and GI bleeding. Data were analyzed utilizing descriptive statistics. Fifty-nine patients were included in the final analysis and a total of eighty-five procedures were performed that were characterized as low risk and high risk.

RESULTS

Among the 59 patients a total of 85 endoscopic procedures were performed with 24 (28.2%) categorized as high-risk and 61 (71.8%) procedures as low-risk. Of the total number of patients, (50%) were on bevacizumab and the rest were on imatinib (11.7%), lenvatinib (6.7%) and, ramucirumab (5%). The average duration between administration of AAs and the performance of endoscopic procedures was 9.9 d. No procedure-related adverse events were noted among our study population. We did observe two deaths with one patient, on lenvatinib for metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, who had persistent bleeding despite esophageal variceal banding and died 4 d later from hemorrhagic shock. Another patient was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia died 24 d after an esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsy after transition to comfort care.

CONCLUSION

As per this single center retrospective study, the rate of endoscopic procedure-related adverse events and death within 28 d of AA administration appears to be low.

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).

AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Optimal Management of the Malignant Alimentary Tract Obstruction: Expert Review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The purpose of this expert review is to describe the current methodologies available to manage malignant alimentary tract obstructions as well the evidence behind the various methods (including their efficacy and safety), indications, and appropriate timing of interventions.

METHODS

This is not a formal systematic review but is based on a review of the literature to provide best practice advice statements. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendation is carried out. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: For all patients with alimentary tract obstruction, the decision about specific interventions should be made in a multidisciplinary setting including oncologists, surgeons, and endoscopists and take into account the characteristics of the obstruction, patient's expectations, prognosis, expected subsequent therapies, and functional status. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer and who are potential candidates for resection or chemoradiation, clinicians should not routinely insert a self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) without multidisciplinary review because of high rates of stent migration, higher morbidity and mortality, and potentially lower R0 (microscopically negative margins) resection rates. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer who are potential candidates for resection and who have concerns of malnutrition, clinicians may consider the use of enteral feeding tubes (via nasogastric or percutaneous route). Clinicians should be aware of the potential risk of abdominal wall tumor seeding as well as making subsequent gastric conduit formation difficult with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer who are not candidates for resection, clinicians should consider either SEMS insertion or brachytherapy as sole therapy or in combination. Clinicians should not consider the use of laser therapy or photodynamic therapy because of the lack of evidence of better outcomes and superior alternatives. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: For patients with malignant esophageal obstruction who are undergoing SEMS placement, clinicians should use a fully covered or partially covered SEMS and not an uncovered SEMS, with consideration of a stent-anchoring/fixation method. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who have a life expectancy greater than 2 months, have good functional status, and who are surgically fit, surgical gastrojejunostomy should be considered. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who are undergoing surgical gastrojejunostomy, a laparoscopic approach is favored over an open approach because of lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who are not candidates for gastrojejunostomy (surgical or endoscopic ultrasound-guided), clinicians should consider the insertion of an enteral stent. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Enteral stents should not be used in patients with multiple luminal obstructions or severely impaired gastric motility because of the limited benefit in these scenarios. Clinicians can consider placement of a venting gastrostomy in these patients. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Depending on the experience of the endoscopist, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy is an acceptable alternative to surgical gastrojejunostomy and enteral stent placement. Clinicians should be aware that there are currently no dedicated Food and Drug Administration-approved devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: For patients with malignant colonic obstruction who are candidates for resection, insertion of SEMS is a reasonable choice as a "bridge to surgery" to allow for one-stage, elective resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: For patients with malignant colonic obstruction who are not candidates for resection, either SEMS placement or a diverting colostomy are reasonable choices depending on the patient's goals and functional status. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: SEMS is a reasonable option for patients with proximal (or right-sided) malignant obstructions, both as a "bridge to surgery" and in the palliative setting. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: SEMS placement is a reasonable alternative for patients with extracolonic malignancy who are not candidates for surgery, although their placement is more technically challenging, clinical success rates are more variable, and complications (including stent migration) are more frequent.

Factors Associated with Clinical Outcomes of Palliative Stenting for Malignant Colonic Obstruction

Background/Aims

Self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) can be applied to relieve colorectal obstruction secondary to incurable primary colorectal cancer or extracolonic malignancy. We aimed to identify factors associated with clinical success and the reintervention-free survival (RFS) after palliative stenting.

Methods

Cases of palliative SEMS placement between 2005 and 2019 were retrieved from the institutional database and reviewed retrospectively. Logistic regression and log-rank testing followed by Cox proportional hazard analyses were performed to investigate the predictors of the clinical success of palliative stenting and factors associated with RFS, respectively.

Results

A total of 593 patients underwent palliative stenting for malignant colonic obstruction (MCO). The technical and clinical success rates were 92.9% and 83.5%, respectively. Peritoneal carcinomatosis was a predictor of clinical failure (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17 to 0.65) in the multivariate analysis. Peritoneal carcinomatosis (hazard ratio [HR], 2.48; 95% CI, 1.69 to 3.64) and stent expansion >90% on day 1 (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.05 to 2.50) were associated with a shorter RFS. Neither clinical success nor RFS was associated with extracolonic malignancy. Re-obstruction, stent migration, and perforation were responsible for most reinterventions after clinically successful palliative stenting.

Conclusions

In patients requiring palliative stenting for MCO, peritoneal carcinomatosis was associated with both clinical failure and short RFS. Stent expansion >90% on postprocedural day 1 was another predictor of a short RFS after clinically successful stenting. A large prospective study is warranted to establish factors associated with RFS after successful palliative stenting for MCO.

The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland consensus guidelines in emergency colorectal surgery

AIM

There is a requirement for an expansive and up to date review of the management of emergency colorectal conditions seen in adults. The primary objective is to provide detailed evidence-based guidelines for the target audience of general and colorectal surgeons who are responsible for an adult population and who practise in Great Britain and Ireland.

METHODS

Surgeons who are elected members of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland Emergency Surgery Subcommittee were invited to contribute various sections to the guidelines. They were directed to produce a pathology-based document using literature searches that were systematic, comprehensible, transparent and reproducible. Levels of evidence were graded. Each author was asked to provide a set of recommendations which were evidence-based and unambiguous. These recommendations were submitted to the whole guideline group and scored. They were then refined and submitted to a second vote. Only those that achieved >80% consensus at level 5 (strongly agree) or level 4 (agree) after two votes were included in the guidelines.

RESULTS

All aspects of care (excluding abdominal trauma) for emergency colorectal conditions have been included along with 122 recommendations for management.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines provide an up to date and evidence-based summary of the current surgical knowledge in the management of emergency colorectal conditions and should serve as practical text for clinicians managing colorectal conditions in the emergency setting.

Efficacy of uncovered colonic stents for extrinsic versus intrinsic malignant large bowel obstruction

BACKGROUND

Previous studies evaluating self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) for management of malignant extrinsic colon obstruction have yielded conflicting results. We evaluated the efficacy of uncovered SEMS for extrinsic colon malignancy (ECM) versus intrinsic colon malignancy (ICM).

METHODS

Retrospective review of all patients referred for colonic SEMS at a tertiary cancer center between 2007 and 2018 was performed. Primary outcome measures were technical success, clinical success, intervention rate, and overall survival.

RESULTS

138 patients with ECM and 119 patients with ICM underwent attempted stent placement. The rectum and/or sigmoid colon was the most common stricture site. Technical success was lower in the ECM group [86% vs 96% (p = .009)]. Clinical success was lower in the ECM group both at 7 days [82% vs 95% (p = .004)] and at 90 days [60% vs 86% (p < .001)]. Subsequent intervention was required more frequently [44% vs 35%; p = .23] and earlier [median 9 vs 132 days; p < .001] in the ECM group. Median overall survival in the ECM group was 92 vs 167 days. Among predictive variables analyzed, the ECM group had a higher frequency of peritoneal metastasis (87% vs 32%; p < .001), multifocal strictures with requirement for multiple stents (20% vs 6%; p = .002), sharp angulated strictures (39% vs 25%; p = .04) , and radiation therapy (21% vs 10%; p = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Colonic SEMS for ECM is associated with lower technical and clinical success with earlier intervention rates compared with ICM. Our findings can be used to better inform patients and referring providers as well as guide new stent design to enhance efficacy in this population.

Comprehensive literature review of randomized clinical trials examining novel treatment advances in patients with colon cancer

The treatment of colon cancer has had numerous recent advances, in terms of surgical approach, adjuvant therapies, and more. In this review, the authors examine randomized clinical trials comparing open surgery to laparoscopic surgery (including total mesocolic excision), and also examine the role of robotic surgery. Novel surgical techniques including the no-touch technique, side-to-side anastomosis, suture technique, complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL), and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) are outlined. The role of placing endoscopic self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) for colonic obstruction is compared and contrasted with the surgical approach, and the effect that the anti-VEGF inhibitor bevacizumab may have on this side effect profile is further explored. The role of the resection of the primary tumor in the setting of metastatic disease is examined with respect to survival benefit. Pathways of perioperative care which can accelerate post-surgical recovery, including enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) are examined. The role of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with high-risk stage II and patients with stage III disease is examined, along with the role on circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) as well as with the biologic targeted agents cetuximab and bevacizumab. Lastly, the authors detail the postoperative surveillance schedules after surgical resection with respect to survival outcomes.

Treatment option of endoscopic stent insertion or gastrojejunostomy for gastric outlet obstruction due to gastric cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

There are currently two treatment options for gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) due to gastric cancer, endoscopic stenting and surgical gastrojejunostomy. However, their therapeutic effects have not yet been established. Therefore, the present study was undertaken to examine these effects.

METHODS

The Japanese Gastric Cancer Association invited its delegates to participate in a retrospective multicenter cohort study on patients with GOO due to gastric cancer who underwent stent therapy or gastrojejunostomy in 2015.

RESULTS

We obtained data from 85 patients undergoing stent therapy and 94 undergoing gastrojejunostomy from 42 hospitals. Baseline data revealed that stent patients had lower food intake, poorer performance status, and worse prognostic indices than gastrojejunostomy patients. Postoperative food intake and survival times were worse in stent patients than in gastrojejunostomy patients. We performed propensity score matching to select pairs of patients with similar baseline characteristics in the two treatment groups. After matching, the frequency of postoperative complications was significantly less in stent patients (3%, 1/33) than in gastrojejunostomy patients (21%, 7/34; p = 0.03). A low residue or full diet was achieved by 97% of stent patients (32/33) and 97% of gastrojejunostomy patients (33/34) (p = 0.98). Median survival times were 7.8 months in stent patients and 4.0 months in gastrojejunostomy patients (p = 0.38).

CONCLUSIONS

Propensity score matching demonstrated that endoscopic stent placement resulted in less postoperative morbidity than and a similar food intake and equivalent survival times to gastrojejunostomy. These results suggest the utility of stent therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of palliative emergent surgery versus endoscopic stenting for acute malignant colonic obstruction

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic stenting has demonstrated value over emergent surgery as a palliative intervention for patients with acute large bowel obstruction due to advanced colorectal cancer. However, concerns regarding high reintervention rates and the risk of perforation have brought into question its cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

A decision tree analysis was performed to analyze costs and survival in patients with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer who present with acute large bowel obstruction. The model was designed with two treatment arms: self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) placement and emergent surgery. Costs were derived from medicare reimbursement rates (US$), while effectiveness was represented by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The model was tested for validation using one-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Endoscopic stenting resulted in an average cost of $43,798.06 and 0.68 QALYs. Emergent surgery cost $5865.30 more, while only yielding 0.58 QALYs. This resulted in an ICER of - $58,653.00, indicating that SEMS placement is the dominant strategy. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that emergent surgery would require an improved survival rate in comparison to endoscopic stenting to become the favored treatment modality. In 100,000 probabilistic simulations, endoscopic stenting was favored 96.3% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with acute colonic obstruction in the presence of unresectable or metastatic disease, endoscopic stenting is a more cost-effective palliative intervention than emergent surgery. This recommendation would favor surgery over SEMS placement with improved surgical survival, or if the majority of patients undergoing stenting required reintervention.

A Meta-Analysis of Cardiovascular Events Associated with Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Treatment in Patients with Retinal Vein Occlusion

Purpose: Retinal vein occlusion is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor has been widely used as a treatment option. However, the systemic safety of intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor for retinal vein occlusion patients is still unclear.Materials and Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate all randomized controlled trials published up to February 2019 of retinal vein occlusion patients who received intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor vs. control treatments. Fixed effect models were used and results were reported as odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.Results: Eight trials that evaluated 2320 patients were retrieved. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor did not significantly increase the risks of cardiovascular events (odds ratio,1.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-3.57), hypertension (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.33), or heart rate disorders (odds ratio,1.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-6.28) when compared with control treatment. Subgroup analyses did not show a significant increase of cardiovascular events in aflibercept (odds ratio,1.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-8.81) vs. ranibizumab trials (odds ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-4.02); 0.5 mg ranibizumab trials (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-4.96) vs. 0.3 mg ranibizumab trials (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-3.59); nor branch retinal vein occlusion (odds ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-4.33) vs. central retinal vein occlusion trials (odds ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-6.29).Conclusions: Intravitreal administration of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor did not significantly increase the risks of cardiovascular events, hypertension or heart rate disorders in retinal vein occlusion patients.