ObjectiveSurveillance interval protocols after complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) post radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in Barrett’s oesophagus (BE) are currently empiric and not based on substantial evidence. We aimed to assess the timeline, location and patterns of recurrence following CRIM to inform these guidelines.DesignData on patients undergoing RFA for BE were obtained from prospectively maintained databases of five (three USA and two UK) tertiary referral centres. RFA was performed until CRIM was confirmed on two consecutive endoscopies.Results594 patients achieved CRIM as of 1 May 2017. 151 subjects developed recurrent BE over a median (IQR) follow-up of 2.8 (1.4–4.4) years. There was 19% cumulative recurrence risk of any BE within 2 years and an additional 49% risk over the next 8.6 years. There was no evidence of a clinically meaningful change in the recurrence hazard rate of any BE, dysplastic BE or high-grade dysplasia/cancer over the duration of follow-up, with an estimated 2% (95% CI −7% to 12%) change in recurrence rate of any BE in a doubling of follow-up time. 74% of BE recurrences developed at the gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) (24.1% were dysplastic) and 26% in the tubular oesophagus. The yield of random biopsies from the tubular oesophagus, in the absence of visible lesions, was 1% (BE) and 0.2% (dysplasia).ConclusionsBE recurrence risk following CRIM remained constant over time, suggesting that lengthening of follow-up intervals, at least in the first 5 years after CRIM, may not be advisable. Sampling the GOJ is critical to detecting recurrence. The requirement for random biopsies of the neosquamous epithelium in the absence of visible lesions may need to be re-evaluated.

OBJECTIVE: Data regarding opioid effects on esophageal function are limited. We previously demonstrated an association between chronic opioid use and esophageal motor dysfunction characterized by esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, distal esophageal spasm, achalasia type III, and possibly Jackhammer esophagus. Our aim was to characterize the influence of different opioids and doses on esophageal dysfunction. METHODS: Retrospective review of 225 patients prescribed oxycodone, hydrocodone, or tramadol for >3 months, who completed high-resolution manometry from 2012 to 2017. Demographic and manometric data were extracted from a prospectively maintained motility database. Frequency of opioid-induced esophageal dysfunction (OIED, defined as distal esophageal spasm, esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, achalasia type III, or Jackhammer esophagus on high-resolution manometry, was compared among different opioids. The total 24-hour opioid doses for oxycodone, hydrocodone, and tramadol were converted to a morphine equivalent for dose effect analysis. RESULTS: OIED was present in 24% (55 of 225) of opioid users. OIED was significantly more prevalent with oxycodone or hydrocodone use compared with tramadol (31% vs 28% vs 12%, P = 0.0162), and for oxycodone alone vs oxycodone with acetaminophen (43% vs 21%, P = 0.0482). There was no difference in OIED for patients taking hydrocodone alone vs hydrocodone with acetaminophen. Patients with OIED were taking a higher median 24-hour opioid dose than those without OIED (45 vs 30 mg, P = 0.058). DISCUSSION: OIED is more prevalent in patients taking oxycodone or hydrocodone compared with tramadol. There is greater likelihood of OIED developing with higher doses. Reducing the opioid dose or changing to tramadol may reduce OIED in opioid users.

INTRODUCTION: Normal response to multiple rapid swallows (MRS) during high-resolution esophageal manometry is deglutitive inhibition; opioids may interfere with this. The aim of this study was to evaluate the response to MRS in patients on opioids, not on opioids, and healthy controls. METHODS: Response to MRS was evaluated for complete vs impaired inhibition in 72 chronic opioid users, 100 patients not on opioids, and 24 healthy controls. RESULTS: Impaired deglutitive inhibition was significantly more frequent in chronic opioid users compared with patients not on opioids and healthy controls (54% vs 14% vs 0%; P < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Impaired deglutitive inhibition during MRS is frequent in opioid users, supporting that opioids interfere with esophageal inhibitory signals.

Purpose of review Chronic opioid use is common and can cause opioid-induced esophageal dysfunction (OIED). We will discuss the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of OIED. Recent findings OIED is diagnosed based on symptoms, opioid use, and manometric evidence of distal esophageal spasm, esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction, achalasia type III, or jackhammer esophagus. Chronic opioid use appears to interfere with inhibitory signals involved in control of esophageal motility, allowing for unchecked excitatory stimuli, and leading to spastic contractility and impaired esophagogastric junction relaxation. Patients may present with dysphagia and chest pain. OIED is significantly more prevalent in patients taking the stronger opioids oxycodone and hydrocodone compared with the weaker opioid tramadol. Based on 24-h morphine equivalent doses, patients with OIED take higher opioid doses than those without OIED. Impaired inhibitory signaling was recently demonstrated in a study showing reduced deglutitive inhibition during multiple rapid swallows in patients taking opioids. Summary OIED is frequent in chronic opioid users undergoing manometry for esophageal symptoms, especially at higher doses or with stronger opioids. OIED appears to be due to impaired inhibitory signals in the esophagus. Opioid cessation or dose reduction is recommended, but studies examining management of OIED are lacking.

Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy. Methods: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). Results: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01. Conclusion: In this pilot study we found that low-volume colon preparation may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings. Trial registration: The Affect of Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Hospitalized Patients Colonoscopies. Trial registration: NCT01978509 (terminated). Retrospectively registered on November 07, 2013.