Bacteremia following operative endoscopy of the upper gastrointestinal tract

Efficacy and safety of self-expandable metal stent placement for treatment of primary and metastatic gastric outlet obstruction

BACKGROUND AND GOALS: Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) usually occurs at the pylorus or the duodenum through primary gastric, duodenal, or pancreatic tumors. However, metastatic GOO is relatively rare. Although self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement is often performed as an alternative and practical palliative approach for primary GOO, there are few reports of metastatic GOO treatment with SEMS. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy, safety, stent patency, and complications of SEMS for treating primary and metastatic GOO.

METHODS

The data of 42 patients with GOO who received SEMS from November 2016 to April 2022 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were divided into primary group (n = 25) and metastatic group (n = 17) according to the cause of GOO. The rates of technical and clinical success, stent patency, and complications were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The overall technical and clinical success rates were 97.9% and 93.5%, respectively. The total SEMS implantation time was 48.2 ± 33.5 (10.0-140.0) minutes. The primary technical success rate was 100.0% in both primary and metastatic groups, and the primary clinical success rate was 96.0% (24/25) in the primary group vs 88.2% (15/17) in the metastatic group (P = 0.350). After reintervention, the secondary technical success rate was 100.0% (27/27) in the primary group vs 95.0% (19/20) in the metastatic group (P = 0.330); and the secondary clinical success rate was 96.3% (26/27) in the primary group vs 89.5% (17/19) in the metastatic group (P = 0.367). No serious complications, such as gastrointestinal perforation, stent migration, bleeding, or aspiration pneumonia, were observed in these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

SEMS under fluoroscopic guidance is an effective and safe treatment for primary and metastatic GOO. The etiology of obstruction did not influence stent patency or complications. Therefore, stent implantation is recommended for patients with metastatic GOO caused by multiple peritoneal metastases to improve their quality of life.

Transmission of infection by flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy

Flexible endoscopy is a widely used diagnostic and therapeutic procedure. Contaminated endoscopes are the medical devices frequently associated with outbreaks of health care-associated infections. Accurate reprocessing of flexible endoscopes involves cleaning and high-level disinfection followed by rinsing and drying before storage. Most contemporary flexible endoscopes cannot be heat sterilized and are designed with multiple channels, which are difficult to clean and disinfect. The ability of bacteria to form biofilms on the inner channel surfaces can contribute to failure of the decontamination process. Implementation of microbiological surveillance of endoscope reprocessing is appropriate to detect early colonization and biofilm formation in the endoscope and to prevent contamination and infection in patients after endoscopic procedures. This review presents an overview of the infections and cross-contaminations related to flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy and illustrates the impact of biofilm on endoscope reprocessing and postendoscopic infection.

Frequency of bacteremia after linear EUS of the upper GI tract with and without FNA

BACKGROUND

Few data are available concerning the frequency of bacteremia after diagnostic EUS or EUS-guided FNA. This study was undertaken to provide these data and to determine whether present guidelines for prophylactic administration of antibiotics to prevent endocarditis during upper endoscopy are applicable to EUS and EUS-guided FNA.

METHODS

A total of 100 patients who were to undergo diagnostic EUS of the upper-GI tract and 50 who were to have upper-GI EUS-guided FNA were enrolled in this prospective study. Blood cultures were obtained before and within 5 minutes after the conclusion of the procedure. In case of bacterial growth, patients were observed for at least 3 days for signs of infection.

RESULTS

After diagnostic EUS, significant bacteremia was found in two patients with esophageal carcinoma (2%: 95% CI[0%, 4.8%]) and after EUS-guided FNA in two patients (4%: 95% CI[0%, 9.6%]). The difference was not statistically significant. None of these patients developed clinical signs of infection. Risk factors predisposing to bacteremia could not be identified.

CONCLUSION

The frequency of bacteremia after EUS, with and without FNA, is within the range of that for diagnostic upper endoscopy. Therefore, the same recommendations for prophylactic administration of antibiotics to prevent endocarditis may be applied in patients undergoing EUS and EUS-guided FNA. The role of esophageal cancer as a predisposing factor to EUS-associated infection remains uncertain.

Safety of technology: infection control standards in endoscopy

Transmission of infection related to gastrointestinal endoscopy continues to be a subject of much discussion. The principles of infection control during endoscopy are reviewed. Guidelines set forth by a number of gastrointestinal endoscopy associations have emphasized the need for meticulous cleaning of endoscopes immediately after use, followed by appropriate disinfection, rinsing and drying. Most, if not all, episodes of transmission of infection during endoscopy are associated with lapses in cleaning and disinfection protocols. The need for universal compliance with infection control standards, and for the development of strategies to achieve such compliance, is highlighted.

Shoulder girdle abscess due to Streptococcus agalactiae complicating esophageal dilation

Bacteremia can result very unusually in significant complications after esophageal dilation. Procedure-related mucosal trauma may be a determinant, whereas pathogenic bacteria primarily originate from the patient's oropharyngeal flora. We describe an unusual case of Streptococcus agalactiae bacteremia and shoulder girdle abscess complicating esophageal bougienage. Consideration of specific risk factors and use of scrupulous procedural technique are warranted and will likely reduce pyogenic sequelae.

Endoscopy water source: tap or sterile water?

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the endoscopic water source holds potential for transmission of pathogens. Phase I of the study used tap water and clean water bottles; Phase II used sterile water and steam-sterilized water bottles. In both phases, a control bottle filled with water from the appropriate source was set up. Cultures were taken from both the controls and endoscopy water sources before the day's procedures were started and at the end of the day. Each phase contained 100 to 106 sets of samples. Many of the tap water samples were positive for normal flora found in city water sources. No clinically significant complications were identified during either phase of the study. The use of tap water and clean water bottles was found to carry no greater risk than using sterile water and sterile bottles. The practice of using tap water will result in significant cost savings. Further study will be needed to look at the integrity of the endoscope and water bottle design in preventing transmission of pathogens.

[Antibiotic prophylaxis in digestive endoscopy]

The increasing use of endoscopy in diseases of the digestive tract has been associated with an increase in complications related to is technique. Because of this, various authors have recommended the administration of prophylactic antibiotics in an attempt to avoid infectious complications. This attitude has however been largely empirical, without a real assessment of the benefits and disadvantages. Although no prospective study has shown any clear benefit, it is generally accepted that prophylactic antibiotics should be given systematically whenever a digestive endoscopy is to be performed in a patient with a cardiac valvular disease or a history of bacterial endocarditis. Apart from these situations, prophylactic antibiotics may be indicated for sclerotherapy of actively bleeding oesophageal varices and prior to colonoscopy in immunodepressed patients or in those with an inflammatory disease of the colon.

A prospective study of septic complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Prophylactic antibiotics are used in an attempt to avoid the septic complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We prospectively performed blood cultures and surveyed patients for complications. The aims were first, to determine the incidence of bacteraemia associated with ERCP, second, to assess the incidence of clinical sepsis following the procedure and third, to evaluate the effectiveness of our antibiotic prophylaxis. One hundred and fifty successive patients underwent 179 ERCP. Bacteraemia related to the procedure or the underlying pathology was found in nine procedures (5.2%). Bacteraemias were more likely to complicate therapeutic procedures (P = 0.015), biliary obstruction (P = 0.045) or underlying pathology (P = 0.022). Although 61% of ERCP received antibiotics, 22 septic events occurred. Five bacteraemic patients were septic despite antibiotics. Septic complications were associated with the same factors as bacteraemia. It was concluded that patients with biliary obstruction and undergoing therapeutic endoscopic procedures are at greatest risk of bacteraemia. Single dose prophylactic antibiotics may not prevent sepsis in these patients and longer-acting drugs or repeated dosing may be necessary.

Bacteremia following diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP

The occurrence of bacteremia in association with diagnostic or therapeutic ERCP was studied in 180 patients undergoing a total of 194 examinations. Nineteen (15%) of 126 diagnostic procedures and 18 (27%) of 68 therapeutic procedures were associated with bacteremia (p less than 0.1). Nine patients had polymicrobial bacteremia and a total of 16 species were detected. Different streptococci, mainly alpha-hemolytic, were the most common bacteria which were identified in 38% of the bacteremic patients. There were no significant differences with regard to the occurrence of fever, pancreatitis, or septic complications between the diagnostic and therapeutic groups of patients. Neither did the complication rate in patients with bacteremia differ from that in patients without bacteremia, whether the procedure was diagnostic or therapeutic. Complication rates did not differ between patients with and patients without pancreaticobiliary obstruction. However, the majority of patients with biliary stasis had drainage with relief of the obstruction at the time of the diagnostic ERCP. We conclude that general routine antibiotic prophylaxis is not indicated in patients undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic ERCP. The question whether such prophylaxis should be given with certain diagnoses or treatments, or in patients with valvular heart disease, remains to be answered in controlled randomized studies.