Introduction: Since the rise of the COVID-19 pandemic there has been widespread concern regarding the possible delay in the diagnosis/treatment of cancer patients. We aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the diagnosis, treatment, and outcome of patients with digestive cancer. Methods: This was a retrospective study including patients with an inaugural digestive cancer diagnosis discussed for the first time at our center during the weekly digestive oncology reunion (DOR) meeting. The study group was enlisted from March to August 2020, and a control group was sourced from the equivalent period of 2018. Patients with a previous digestive cancer diagnosis/discussion in the DOR were excluded. The following data were collected: demographics, referral origin, tumor staging, first DOR discussion timing, treatment, and outcome. Results: A total of 235 patients were included: 107 in the study group (65.4% male, mean age 71.59 years); 128 in the control group (54.7% male, mean age 68.16 years). The mean number of clinical discussions per week was higher in 2018 (13.65 vs. 10.67, p = 0.040), without a difference in the mean number of patients discussed for the first time (inaugural diagnosis) between groups (p = 0.670). In the 2020 study group, more patients were referred to DOR from the emergency room (ER), fewer from the outpatient clinic/hospital wards (p < 0.001), and more were referred after urgent surgery (p = 0.022). There was no difference in the mean waiting time from diagnosis to first DOR discussion (p = 0.087). Tumor staging in colorectal, gastric, and esophageal cancer was not significantly different between the groups (p = 0897, p = 0.168, and p = 0.717). More patients in the study group presented with stage IV pancreatic cancer (p = 0.043). There was no difference in the time span from DOR until the beginning of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.680) or elective surgery (p = 0.198), or from surgery until adjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.396). Also, there was no difference in 30-day mortality from the first DOR date between the groups (p = 0.742). Conclusion: During the COVID-19 era there was a reduced number of clinical discussions in the DOR, but the number of debated patients with an inaugural digestive cancer diagnosis was similar. In the study group more patients were referred to DOR from the ER, and were referred after urgent surgery, suggesting a delayed demand for clinical attention. Study group patients were not significantly affected by the pandemic regarding timely DOR discussion, beginning of treatment, or 30-day mortality, reflecting the maintenance of the quality of care for digestive cancer patients.

Introduction and aims: Patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) may present protein-energy malnutrition, anemia and deficiencies of hematopoietic factors, e.g., iron, folate and vitamin B12. There are no comprehensive studies on anemia or other hematological changes in PEG-patients. Our aim was to evaluate the hematological status of dysphagic patients that had undergone PEG and its association with clinical outcome. Methods: This research comprises a retrospective study of patients followed by our Artificial Feeding Team, submitted to PEG from 2010 to 2018. Patients were divided into two etiological groups: neurological dysphagia (ND) and head/neck or esophageal disorders (HNE). Laboratory data included serum albumin, hemoglobin, mean corpuscular volume, ferritin, transferrin, iron, vitamin B12 and folate. Survival after PEG was recorded in months, until death or December 2018. Results: We evaluated 472 patients; 250 (53%) presented anemia at the moment of gastrostomy, mostly normocytic (n = 219), with laboratory data suggestive of anemia of chronic disease (ACD). Six patients (1.3%) presented vitamin B12 deficiency and 57 (12.1%) presented folate deficit. No statistically significant difference in hemoglobin was found between the etiological groups (p = 0.230). Folate and vitamin B12 levels were lower in the HNE group (p < 0.01). A positive correlation between hemoglobin and survival was present (p < 0.01, r = 0.289), and hemoglobin levels were lower in the deceased population (p < 0.01). Conclusion: Anemia is frequent in PEG-patients, mostly with the features of ACD or multifactorial. It is associated with significant decrease in survival and may be viewed as a marker of severe metabolic distress, signaling poor outcome.

Introduction: Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) and/or home parenteral hydration (HPH) are the gold-standard treatment for patients with long-term intestinal failure (IF). The authors aimed to assess the impact of HPN/HPH on nutritional status and survival of long-term IF patients, as well as HPN/HPH-related complications. Methods: This was a retrospective study including IF patients under HPN/HPH followed in a single large tertiary Portuguese hospital. The data collected included demographics, underlying conditions, anatomical characteristics, type and duration of parenteral support, IF functional, pathophysiological, and clinical classifications, body mass index (BMI) at the beginning and end of follow-up, complications/hospitalizations, current patient status (deceased, alive with HPN/HPH, and alive without HPN/HPH), and cause of death. Survival after HPN/HPH beginning, until death or August 2021, was recorded in months. Results: Overall 13 patients were included (53.9% female, mean age 63.46 years), and 84.6% of patients presented type III IF and 15.4% type II. Short bowel syndrome caused 76.9% of IF. Nine patients received HPN and 4 HPH. Eight patients (61.5%) were underweight at the beginning of HPN/HPH. At the end of follow-up, 4 patients were alive without HPN/HPH, 4 maintained HPN/HPH, and 5 died. All patients improved their BMI (mean initial BMI 18.9 vs. 23.5 at the end, p < 0.001). Eight patients (61.5%) were hospitalized due to catheter-related complications, mainly infectious (mean hospitalization episodes 2.25, mean hospital stay of 24.5 days). No deaths were related to HPN/HPH. Conclusion: HPN/HPH significantly improved IF patients’ BMI. HPN/HPH-related hospitalizations were common, however causing no deaths, reinforcing that HPN/HPH is an adequate and safe therapy for long-term IF patients.

Introduction: Dieulafoy’s lesion (DL) is a rare but important cause of acute, severe, life-threatening, and recurrent upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). It is frequently difficult to diagnose DL with upper GI endoscopy (UGIE), and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) may be valuable. There are only 2 reported bleeding cases caused by two synchronous DL but no reported cases of two metachronous DL. Case Report: A 28-year-old healthy male presented with acute severe UGIB. UGIE was inconclusive. Systematic EUS mapping identified a gastric DL. After several attempts of EUS-guided hemostasis, DL was marked using a through-the-scope clip and the patient underwent successful transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE). Three years later, a new severe UGIB episode was caused by a second gastric DL in a different location, which was identified and marked by EUS and further successfully treated through TAE. The patient maintained follow-up without evidence of further bleeding. Discussion/Conclusion: The authors report a unique case of severe, recurrent UGIB caused by two metachronous gastric DL lesions. The importance of systematic EUS scanning for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of DL is emphasized, as well as the potential influence in the outcome of other techniques like angiographic embolization.

BACKGROUND: Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding is a common cause of hospital admission. NOBLADS is a lower gastrointestinal bleeding clinical risk score. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to externally validate NOBLADS in predicting severe acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding and clinical outcome. DESIGN: Observational retrospective study. SETTING: This study was performed in a single large tertiary hospital. PATIENTS: Patients who were admitted with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding during a 15-month period and underwent endoscopic evaluation were included. Patients with chronic lower gastrointestinal bleeding or acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding who were admitted for other conditions were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was acute severe lower gastrointestinal bleeding (classified as severe if requires transfusion of >2 units of packed red blood cells and/or produces a >20% hematocrit fall). Secondary outcomes: red blood cells requirement, therapeutic intervention and hospital stay duration. NOBLADS score was applied to all patients. Its accuracy to predict acute severe bleeding and secondary outcomes were studied using receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 173 patients (50.3% males, age 69 ± 17 years) were included. The most common lower gastrointestinal bleeding etiologies were diverticular bleeding (18.5%) and ischemic colitis (15.6%). Fifty patients (28.9%) presented criteria for severe bleeding and 33 patients required instrumental intervention: endoscopic (n = 28), surgical (n = 4), and radiologic (n = 1) therapy. NOBLADS score was significantly different according with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding causes (p < 0.001) and accurately predicted severe bleeding (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.923 ± 0.018 (p < 0.001)). NOBLADS ≥2 detected acute severe lower gastrointestinal bleeding with 100% sensitivity/62.4% specificity, identifying the need for higher red blood cells requirement (3.6 vs 0.08, p < 0.001), therapeutic intervention (38% vs 13%, p < 0.001), and longer hospital stay (12.8 vs 3 days, p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: Unicenter retrospective study; number of unprepared sigmoidoscopies/left side colonoscopies; comparison between NOBLADS and other scoring systems was not performed. CONCLUSION: NOBLADS is a practical, highly accurate tool and predicts the need of in-hospital management, early colonoscopy, red blood cells transfusion, and longer hospital stay in patients admitted with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B748. NOBLADS: VALIDACIÓN EXTERNA DE UN SISTEMA DE PUNTUACIÓN DE RIESGO PARA HEMORRAGIA DIGESTIVA BAJA AGUDA GRAVE ANTECEDENTES: La hemorragia digestiva baja aguda es causa común de admisión hospitalaria. NOBLADS es una puntuación de riesgo clínico de hemorragia gastrointestinal baja. OBJETIVO: Este estudio tuvo como objetivo validar externamente NOBLADS en la predicción de hemorragia digestiva baja aguda grave y sus resultados clínicos. DISEÑO: Estudio observacional retrospectivo. AJUSTE: Realizado en un gran hospital terciario. PACIENTES: Se incluyeron todas aquellas personas ingresados con hemorragia digestiva baja aguda durante un período de 15 meses y que fueron sometidos a evaluación endoscópica. Se excluyó la hemorragia digestiva baja crónica o la hemorragia digestiva baja aguda en pacientes ingresados por otras afecciones. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: El resultado pricipal fue la hemorragia digestiva baja grave aguda (clasificada como grave si requiere >2 transfusiones de glóbulos rojos y / o produce una caída del hematocrit >20%). Las medidas de resultados secundarias fueron: requerimiento de glóbulos rojos, intervención terapéutica y duración de la estancia hospitalaria. Se aplicó la puntuación NOBLADS a todos los pacientes. Se estudió su precisión para predecir la hemorragia aguda grave y los resultados secundarios mediante análisis ROC. RESULTADOS: Se incluyeron 173 pacientes (50,3% varones, edad 69 ± 17 años). La etiología de hemorragia digestiva baja más frecuentes fueron: la hemorragia de orígen diverticular (18,5%) y la colitis isquémica (15,6%). 50 pacientes (28,9%) presentaron criterios de sangrado severo y 33 pacientes requirieron intervención instrumental: terapia endoscópica (n = 28), quirúrgica (n = 4), radiológica (n = 1). La puntuación NOBLADS fue significativamente diferente según las causas de hemorragia digestiva baja aguda (p <0,001), siendo precisa para predecir hemorragia grave (AUC 0,923 ± 0,018 (p <0,001). NOBLADS ≥2 detectó hemorragia digestiva baja aguda grave con 100% de sensibilidad / 62,4 % de especificidad, identificando la necesidad de mayor requerimiento de glóbulos rojos (3.6 vs 0.08, p <0.001), intervención terapéutica (38% vs 13%, p <0.001) y estadía hospitalaria más prolongada (12.8 vs 3 días, p <0.001). LIMITACIONES: Estudio retrospectivo Unicentrico; número de sigmoidoscopias / colonoscopias del lado izquierdo no preparadas; no se realizó comparación entre NOBLADS y otros sistemas de puntuación. CONCLUSIÓN: NOBLADS es una herramienta práctica y altamente precisa que predice la necesidad de manejo hospitalario, colonoscopia precoz, transfusión de glóbulos rojos y estadía hospitalaria más prolongada en pacientes ingresados con hemorragia digestiva baja aguda. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B748. (Traducción—Dr. Xavier Delgadillo)

Introduction: Anastomotic leak (AL) is a dangerous complication in the early postoperative period after total gastrectomy or esophagectomy being associated with high mortality. Self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) play a significant role in AL management. Only one case report described the use of Mega-Stent in AL setting. The authors report a two-case series with different applications of a Niti-S esophageal Mega-Stent in AL management. Case Report: Case 1 is a 67-year-old male who underwent an esophagectomy due to a squamous cell carcinoma of the distal esophagus. The early postoperative period was complicated with AL and gastropleural fistula. Initially, an OTSC was deployed in the dehiscence but failed to resolve AL. The esophageal Mega-Stent was further placed in-between the esophagus and the bulbus. Post-stenting contrast studies confirmed no further AL.Case 2 is an 86-year-old woman who underwent total gastrectomy with roux-en-y esophagojejunostomy due to a gastric adenocarcinoma, complicated with AL. A partially covered metal stent (PCMS) was placed to cover the anastomosis. Computed tomography confirmed leakage persistence and a second PCMS was deployed, resolving the AL. Several weeks later, both PCMSs presented ingrowth from granulation tissue. An esophageal Mega-Stent was placed (stent-in-stent technique) and 2 weeks later, all stents were removed, with no AL recurrence. Discussion/Conclusion: SEMS placement for AL is a safe, well-established therapeutic technique. Limitations include stent migration and incomplete cover of large AL. Mega-Stent can be an emerging tool for endoscopic AL management.