The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of on-site cytopathological evaluation on the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) for the differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses in an unselected series of consecutive patients. Patients undergoing EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic lesions over a 2-year study period were included. Samples were either evaluated on site by a cytopathologist or processed by the endoscopist and sent to the pathology department for evaluation. Diagnostic accuracy for malignancy, number of needle passes, adequate-specimen collection rate, cytological diagnosis, and final diagnosis, and complication rate according to the presence or absence of on-site cytopathologist were evaluated. A total of 182 patients were included. An on-site cytopathologist was available in 95 cases (52.2%). There was no difference between groups in terms of age, sex, location, and size of the lesions. A significantly higher number of needle passes was performed when an on-site cytopathologist was not available (3.5±1.0 vs. 2.0±0.7; P<0.001). The presence of an on-site cytopathologist was associated with a significantly lower number of inadequate samples (1.0 vs. 12.6%, P=0.002), and a significantly higher diagnostic sensitivity (96.2 vs. 78.2%; P=0.002) and overall accuracy (96.8 vs. 86.2%; P=0.013) for malignancy. Three patients developed complications (two acute pancreatitis, one local bleeding), all of them belonging to the group without on-site cytopathology. On-site cytopathological evaluation improves the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided FNA for the cytological diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. This is associated with a significantly lower number of inadequate samples and a lower number of needle passes.

Background and aims: Mucosal healing in ulcerative colitis (UC) has become a common endpoint in most clinical trials and a relevant therapeutic goal in clinical practice. Despite important differences between endoscopic Mayo scores 0 and 1, both scores are considered as mucosal healing in most important trials. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the risk of relapse in UC patients according to the degree of mucosal healing (endoscopic Mayo scores of 0 and 1). Methods: A prospective longitudinal cohort study was designed. All UC patients who presented with mucosal healing at colonoscopy were consecutively included. Mucosal healing was defined as an endoscopic Mayo score of 0 or 1. Clinical relapse was defined as the need for therapy to induce remission, any treatment escalation, hospitalization or colectomy. All clinical relapses were evaluated at months 6 and 12 after study entry. Results were subjected to unconditional stepwise logistic and Kaplan–Meier regression analysis. Results: One hundred and eighty-seven consecutive UC patients (126 [67.3%] with Mayo score 0 and 61 [32.7%] with Mayo score 1) were included. Of patients with Mayo scores 0 and 1, 9.4 and 36.6% respectively presented a relapse during the first 6 months of follow-up (p < 0.001). The only factor independently associated with UC relapses in the multivariate analysis was an endoscopic Mayo score of 1 (odds ratio6.27, 95% confidence interval 2.73–14.40, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Patients with an endoscopic Mayo score of 1 have a higher risk of relapse than those with a score of 0. The concept of mucosal healing should be limited to patients with an endoscopic Mayo score of 0.

Objective: The benefits of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) in chronic pancreatitis (CP) are inadequately defined. We have undertaken a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of PERT to determine the efficacy of PERT in exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) from CP. Design: Major databases were searched from 1966 to 2015 inclusive. The primary outcome was coefficient of fat absorption (CFA). Effects of PERT versus baseline and versus placebo, and of different doses, formulations and schedules were determined. Results: A total of 17 studies (511 patients with CP) were included and assessed qualitatively (Jadad score). Quantitative data were synthesised from 14 studies. PERT improved CFA compared with baseline (83.7±6.0 vs 63.1±15.0, p<0.00001; I²=89%) and placebo (83.2±5.5 vs 67.4±7.0, p=0.0001; I²=86%). PERT improved coefficient of nitrogen absorption, reduced faecal fat excretion, faecal nitrogen excretion, faecal weight and abdominal pain, without significant adverse events. Follow-up studies demonstrated that PERT increased serum nutritional parameters, improved GI symptoms and quality of life without significant adverse events. High-dose or enteric-coated enzymes showed a trend to greater effectiveness than low-dose or non-coated comparisons, respectively. Subgroup, sensitive and meta-regression analyses revealed that sample size, CP diagnostic criteria, study design and enzyme dose contributed to heterogeneity; data on health inequalities were lacking. Conclusions: PERT is indicated to correct EPI and malnutrition in CP and may be improved by higher doses, enteric coating, administration during food and acid suppression. Further studies are required to determine optimal regimens, the impact of health inequalities and long-term effects on nutrition.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways are multimodal, evidence-based approaches to optimize patient outcome after surgery. However, the use of ERAS protocols to improve morbidity and recovery time without compromising safety following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) remains to be elucidated.We conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of ERAS protocols compared with conventional perioperative care (CPC) in patients following PD.PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library were searched between January 2000 and June 2015.The patients who underwent PD with ERAS protocols or CPC were eligible. The studies that compared postoperative length of hospital stay (PLOS), postoperative complications, or in-hospital costs in the 2 groups were included.A meta-analysis, meta-regression, sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis were performed to estimate the postoperative outcomes between the 2 groups and identified the potential confounders. We used the methodological index for nonrandomized studies checklist to assess methodological qualities. Weighted mean differences (WMD) or odds ratios (OR) were calculated with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). The publication bias tests were also performed through the funnel plots.In total, 14 nonrandomized comparative studies with 1409 ERAS cases and 1310 controls were analyzed. Implementation of an ERAS protocol significantly reduced PLOS (WMD: -4.17 days; 95%CI: -5.72 to -2.61), delayed gastric emptying (OR: 0.56; 95%CI: 0.44-0.71), overall morbidity (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.54-0.74), and in-hospital costs compared to CPC (all P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in other postoperative outcomes. Age, gender, and ERAS component implementation did not significantly contribute to heterogeneity for PLOS as shown by meta-regression analysis.Our study suggested that ERAS was as safe as CPC and improved recovery of patients undergoing PD, thus reducing in-hospital costs. General adoption of ERAS protocols during PD should be recommended.