Christian Ell

Background and Study Aims: The incidence of premalignant and malignant lesions in specialized intestinal metaplasia of the esophagus has increased dramatically in the industrialized world in recent years. This report evaluates the efficacy and safety of local endoscopic therapy for high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN) in Barrett’s esophagus. Patients and Methods: Over a 5-year period between October 1996 and September 2001, a total of 379 patients were referred with a suspicion of early Barrett’s cancer. In a prospective study, 44 patients with HGIN in Barrett’s esophagus were selected for local endoscopic treatment. Endoscopic resection was carried out in 14 patients in whom the HGIN was re-detectable, and 27 patients in whom the HGIN was not re-detectable underwent photodynamic therapy (PDT). Endoscopic resection and PDT were combined in three patients. Results: Complete remission was achieved in 43 of the 44 patients (97.7 %). No major complications occurred. A mean of 1 session was needed to achieve complete local remission. During a mean follow-up period of 36 months (range 7 - 61 months), recurrent or metachronous lesions were observed in six patients (17.1 %), all of whom received a second successful endoscopic treatment. Conclusions: Endoscopic therapy is a safe alternative treatment regimen for HGIN in Barrett’s esophagus, providing a middle way between the widely promulgated options of a ”watch-and-wait” policy and radical esophagectomy.

Background and Study Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and clinical impact of push-and-pull enteroscopy (PPE) in patients with suspected or documented small-bowel diseases, in a prospective multicenter trial in three European medical centers. Patients and Methods: A total of 100 patients (mean age 56 ± 16 years; range 13 - 90) were included at the three institutions between July and November 2004. The leading symptoms were: acute recurrent or chronic gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 64), polyposis syndrome (n = 8), chronic abdominal pain (n = 7), chronic diarrhea (n = 7), and others (n = 14). Results: No major PPE-associated complications such as perforation, bleeding, or relevant injury to the small-bowel tissue or mesentery were encountered. Minor complications occurred in 12 %. The mean time required to carry out the procedure from the oral and anal approaches was 75 ± 19 min (32 - 150min). The average insertion depths into the small bowel were 200 ± 70 cm per PPE session (220 ± 90 cm with the oral approach and 130 ± 80 cm with the anal approach). The average radiation exposure (including diagnostic and therapeutic interventions) was 2.1 ± 2.4 min and 155 ± 159 dGy/cm². PPE was fully diagnostic in 72 % of cases. The majority of the patients (34 %) were suffering from angiodysplasias; ulcerations and erosions of various etiologies were seen in 16 %, and polyps and tumors in 13 %. The PPE findings played a role in the subsequent treatment in 62 % of the patients. Endoscopic treatments, including argon plasma coagulation, polypectomy, dilation, and foreign-body extraction, were carried out in 42 %. Medical treatment was given in 12 %, and patients were referred for surgery in 8 % of cases. Conclusions: This prospective analysis shows that PPE is safe and has a high diagnostic and therapeutic yield in patients with suspected or known small-bowel disease.

Background and Study Aims: There are conflicting data regarding the optimal bowel preparation for colonoscopy. This study was carried out to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of three widely used bowel lavage solutions: the standard polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution based on the GoLytely formulation (PEG-EL1; Klean-Prep); a sulphate-free PEG-EL solution based on the NuLytely formulation (PEG-EL2, Endofalk); and a sodium phosphate preparation (NaP, Fleet Phospho-Soda). Patient and Methods: A total of 185 consecutive patients scheduled for elective colonoscopy were prospectively randomly assigned to undergo pre-colonoscopic bowel cleansing with either 4 l of PEG-EL1 (n = 64), 3 l of PEG-EL2 (n = 59), or 90 ml of NaP (n = 62). The quality of preparatory colonic cleansing for each segment from the rectum to the ascending colon was scored on a five-level rating scale (1, very good to 5, very poor) by endoscopists who were blinded with regard to the type of preparation used. The primary outcome measure for the comparison of treatments was the “worst” score in any of the rated bowel segments. Safety and tolerability were evaluated by means of a symptom questionnaire completed by each patient immediately before the procedure. Results: Of the 185 patients who were randomly assigned to one of the three treatments, 175 underwent colonoscopy and 173 were evaluable with regard to efficacy - 59, 54, and 60 patients treated with PEG-EL1, PEG-EL2, and NaP, respectively. The treatment groups were comparable with regard to the baseline characteristics. PEG-EL1 was statistically significantly superior to the other treatments in relation to the “worst cleansing” score (P ≤ 0.003). In addition, colonoscopic visualization was markedly better in each of the five bowel segments and general “very good” or “good” ratings were achieved in more than 90 % of patients treated with PEG-EL1. The percentages were consistently lower in the other two groups, particularly in the ascending colon. With the exception of the sigmoid, the differences in all segments of the large bowel were statistically significant (P ≤ 0.04). Patient satisfaction was comparable between the treatment groups. Adverse events (mainly nausea/vomiting and abdominal pain) and deviations in laboratory values occurred more frequently in the NaP group. Conclusions: Preparatory PEG-EL1 (Klean-Prep) was significantly superior to PEG-EL2 (Endofalk) and NaP (Fleet Phospho-Soda) in achieving effective cleansing of the entire colon prior to colonoscopy. On the basis of these data, PEG-EL1 can be regarded as the “gold standard” for bowel cleansing prior to colonoscopy.