Dataset Information

Endoscopic hemostatic spray for uncontrolled bleeding after complicated endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection: a report of 2 cases.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aims

There is a significant bleeding risk after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and EMR cases. This case series describes the use of an endoscopic hemostasis spray, which is not typically used to treat this type of bleeding, after multiple attempts with other modalities failed.

Methods

We present 2 patient cases of ESD and EMR used to treat a gastric adenoma (case 1) and 2 gastric hyperplastic masses (case 2) with refractory bleeding after use of multiple other treatment modalities. Both patients were not surgical candidates because of their medical comorbidities.

Results

Bleeding was eventually controlled with the use of endoscopic hemostasis spray after attempts were made using SB Knife Jr tip, Coagrasper Hemostatic Forceps, Argon Photocoagulation, and scope tamponade.

Conclusions

In very specific cases, endoscopic hemostasis spray may have some utility for refractory bleeding after dissection of gastric lesions. After using this spray, it became technically challenging to suture endoscopically because of the mud-like quality of the hemostasis material.

SUBMITTER: Hartz KM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8503932 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Endoscopic hemostatic spray for uncontrolled bleeding after complicated endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection: a report of 2 cases.

Hartz Kayla M KM Lee Roland Y RY Walsh Leonard T LT Dixon Matthew E B MEB Moyer Matthew T MT

VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 20210622 10

<h4>Background and aims</h4>There is a significant bleeding risk after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and EMR cases. This case series describes the use of an endoscopic hemostasis spray, which is not typically used to treat this type of bleeding, after multiple attempts with other modalities failed.<h4>Methods</h4>We present 2 patient cases of ESD and EMR used to treat a gastric adenoma (case 1) and 2 gastric hyperplastic masses (case 2) with refractory bleeding after use of mult ...[more]

PMID: 34660948

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the treatment effects of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) versus endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for early gastric cancer (EGC).DesignMeta-analysis.MethodsWe systematically searched three electronic databases, including PubMed, EmBase and the Cochrane library for studies published with inception to January 2018. The eligible studies should be evaluated for the efficacy and safety of ESD versus EMR for patients with EGC. The summary ORs and standard mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs were employed as effect estimates. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of single study on overall analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed for investigated outcomes to evaluate the treatment effects of ESD versus EMR for patients with EGC with specific subsets.ResultsEighteen studies, with a total of 6723 patients with EGC, were included in final analysis. The summary ORs indicated that patients with EGC who received ESD were associated with an increased incidence of en bloc resection (OR: 9.00; 95% CI: 6.66 to 12.17; p<0.001), complete resection (OR: 8.43; 95% CI: 5.04 to 14.09; p<0.001) and curative resection (OR: 2.92; 95% CI: 1.85 to 4.61; p<0.001) when compared with EMR. Furthermore, ESD was associated with lower risk of local recurrence (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.34; p<0.001). In addition, there was no significant difference between ESD and EMR for the risk of bleeding (OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.80; p=0.203). Though, ESD was correlated with greater risk of perforation (OR: 2.55; 95% CI: 1.48 to 4.39; p=0.001), and longer operation time (SMD: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.13 to 2.10; p=0.026) as compared with EMR. Additionally, several different features observed in included studies and patients could bias the effectiveness of ESD versus EMR in patients with EGC.ConclusionsESD is superior than EMR for en bloc resection, complete resection, curative resection and local recurrence, while it increased perforation risk and longer operation time.

Project description:BackgroundEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are used to remove esophagogastric junction (EGJ) neoplasm. This study aimed to compare feasibility, safety, and effectiveness between ESD and EMR to help endoscopists choose treatment methods.MethodsA total of 130 patients with EGJ neoplasm underwent endoscopic resection, including 52 patients with EMR and 78 patients with ESD. Cap-assisted EMR (EMRC) was performed with typical sequences. Larger lesions required removal in multiple pieces (i.e., piecemeal EMR). The ESD procedures were included that marking the periphery of the lesion, submucosa injected, circumferentially cutting and submucosal dissection. Resection time, adverse events, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate and recurrence rate were compared between the two groups.ResultsThere were no significant differences in demographic characteristics or histopathological features between the two groups. Resection time was longer in the ESD group than in the EMR group (64.4±33.9 vs. 22.1±8.0 minutes; P<0.01). Adverse events were more common in the ESD group than in the EMR group (16.7% vs. 3.8%; P=0.03), including bleeding (7.7% vs. 3.8%), perforation (5.1% vs. 0%) and stenosis (5.1% vs. 0%). The en bloc resection rate and R0 resection rate were much higher in the ESD group than in the EMR group (98.7% and 92.3% vs. 23.1% and 23.1%, respectively; P<0.01). The 5-year overall survival rate and disease-free survival rate were 100% vs. 92.0% and 100% vs. 90.1% between the ESD and EMR groups, respectively (P=0.01 and P=0.01). The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate was 100% vs. 96.0% between the ESD and EMR groups (P=0.08). The recurrence rate was lower in the ESD group than in the EMR group (0% vs. 9.6%; P=0.01).ConclusionsESD is an acceptable first-line endoscopic treatment for type II EGJ neoplasm, however, it is time-consuming and has a higher rate of adverse events. Furthermore, EMR is a safe and alternative technique, particularly when EMR could achieve en bloc resection.

Dataset Information

Endoscopic hemostatic spray for uncontrolled bleeding after complicated endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection: a report of 2 cases.

Background and aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Endoscopic hemostatic spray for uncontrolled bleeding after complicated endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection: a report of 2 cases.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets