Digestive System
Online Learning Platform

Based on the KSGE (Korean society of GI endoscopy) 2021 guidelines : Repeat EUS-guided acquisition provides a conclusive diagnosis in the majority of cases with indeterminate cytopathological diagnoses and, therefore, should be strongly recommended ahead of other modalities, such as biopsy under computed tomography-guidance or diagnostic surgical exploration.

Also common sense will tell us repeating EUS is the less invasive option and has high chances of being successful in tissue adquisition. If persisting negative/inconclusive material, MDT re-discussion should take place and possibly surgical team should speak to the patient regarding risks and benefits of  laparoscopic examination or even proceeding to pancreatectomy -the incidence of benign disease among patients undergoing pancreatic resection for suspicion of malignancy is extremely variable, ranging  from roughly 4-13% , but in some series has been reported up to 35%.

Check AGA guidelines and ESGE, BSG  and Asia Pacific and  international consensus group

This is a Forrest III (clean based) duodenal ulcer in a healthy and stable patient. (Rebleeding risk <5% )

Patient could be discharged if stable and toleranting oral diet (AGA recommends in low risk endoscopic findings considerning discharge in stable cases with stable vitals and Hb and  no other reason for hospitalization).  PPI should be initiated orally, but given it is a low risk finding (F-III) only standard dose would be enough.  If it was a high risk such as Forrest I-IIa, then 72h of  IV PPI (Or oral high dose PPI in selected cases) is recommended as well as keeping the patient under observation.

In high risk (Forrest I-IIb) American and International guidelines advise commencing a two week course of twice daily high dose PPI,  based on a trial that showed 40 mg esomeprazole BD significantly reduced rebleeding compared  40 mg esomeprazole once daily  ( 10.8% v 28.7%,)

So the endoscopist gave good advice in general. So why is it false then? Because:

•  ESGE recommends in bleeding secondary to peptic ulceration,H pylori test at index endoscopy.   In the event of a negative result,  like this case, advise  retesting within four weeks and eradication of H pylori if positive (given the low-ish sensitivity of clotest or histology in acute bleeding, about 0.7)
• Do not forget iron replacement, either orally or if patient does not tolerate, then iron infusion to correct the anaemia.
• Smoke cessation is advised too!  Especially if Hpylori is really negative, then smoking could be a main trigger factor.

 Low amplitude propagated contractions (LAPC) Haustral contractions, triggered by chyme, facilitate the slow movement and mixing of food to enhance water absorption. Those are slow, segmenting movements that further mix chyme, most comoon in proximal colon.  (5 to 40 mm Hg) and last about 3  seconds.They happen  about every 30 minutes. 

See AASLD  and BSG guidelines

Difficult case. In this patient, option A is false- This is a very early stage ≤2cm (BCLC 0)

HCC requieres always an individualised treatment. Knowing that patient is fit and wihtout portal hypertension, he could be amenable for resection. However ablation has been proved to be as effective as surgery with less adverse events, so it would probably be indicated in such as small lesion as first line. The bigger the lesions, the less efficacious ablation is as can leave tumoral tissue untreated. In this case, transplant  certainly could be considered but would not be an ideal first line option as still is <2cm and Child A does not warrant the inclusion in list.

If this HCC was between 2-5cm, treatment could be trasplant (however Child A has per se no indication for transplant, being in the list with modify MELD can be tricky and has risk of tumour progression) surgical resection or ablation, based on radiological features , patient background and preferences

If multifocal HCC,  transplant is ususally the recommended 1st line therapy, whereas TACE/SIRT would be an option in non transplant candidates, unless the lesions are in the same lobe and accesible, in which case occasionally surgical resection can be offered.

If mass>7cm, this surpasses even the Expanded Milan criteria, and we know the risks of HCC invasion, recurrence and mortality after transplant are too high, therefore TACE/ SIRT/ Stereotactic resection or surgical resection are options based on patients features.

ESGE recommends offering treatment to all the patients with CBD stones (symptomatic or not) who are fit enough to undergo procedure.
This is true that we should explain always the option of intervention, and we should at least talk about risks of complication from leaving untreated biliary stones (Roughly about 25%  - biliary colic, pancreatitis, cholangitis- vs 12% if we clear the bile stones) this is  based on this  Gallrisk sweddish cohort   where they followed 3969 patients with untreated CBD stones, during follow-up ranging from 0 to 4 years. 

In summary: Explain why there is an indication to treat, which risks ERCP associates, what the alternatives may be  (ie Cholecystectomy plus surgical bile duct exploration in the same setting when approppriate) and their own risks.  And last but not least, explain the alternative of not treating and only monitoring, and the risks of this approach as well.

Andexanet is factor Xa inhibitor which is approved to reverse Rivaroxaban and Apixaban. However, it has not being proved to be efficacious against Edoxaban. Dabigatran is  a direct thrombin (factor IIa) inhibitor, not a Xa inhibitor.

The lower cutoff for FIB 4   >1.3.  Less than 1.3 rules out advanced fibrosis, and >1.3 needs further investigations.

In elderly patients (>65 yo) this threlsholds has low especificity (many false positive patients who do not really have advanced fibrosis) therefore the cutoff proposed in those is 2 (Fib 4 <2 rules out significant fibrosis)

>2.67 is the upper threshold for advanced fibrosis. Patients scoring this have high chance of advance fibrosis and should be referred to liver clinic

Scores of 8-14 represent Hazardous or Harmful range. In those cases, the recommendation is to explain to the patient that they may be drinking too much on occasions, and the likely negative impact the alcohol can cause as it is carcinogenic, can help developing cardiovascular disease, can cause dependence and can put you or others at risk.

Any  score of 15 or above associates high risk (drinking could cause harm and it is important a clear determination to cut down or stop alcohol). Any score of 20 or above indicates likely dependence and needs referral to specialist and supervised detoxification