ABO-compatible transplantation does not result in adverse outcomes with respect to graft survival. Blood type O donor grafts, however, were associated with decreased survival. This has important implications for current graft allocation policies, particularly for type B recipients.

Background and Aim: Intubation of the terminal ileum (TI) demonstrates a complete colonoscopy, but its clinical value during screening exams is unknown. We aimed to determine whether TI intubation during screening colonoscopy is associated with colonoscopy quality measures or identifies subclinical pathology. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study examining average-risk screening colonoscopies performed at an academic health system between July 2016 and October 2017. Data were extracted from an internal colonoscopy quality registry and the electronic health record. Appropriate statistical tests were used for group comparisons, to correlate TI intubation rate (TIIR) with measures of colonoscopy quality and to examine factors associated with the likelihood of TI intubation. Results: There were 7799 colonoscopies performed with adequate prep quality by 28 gastroenterologists. Most patients were female (56.4%) with a median age of 58. The median TIIR was 37.0%, with significant variability among physicians (2-93%). The detection rates for all polyps, adenomas, and sessile serrated polyps were 62.1%, 45.5%, and 7.2%, respectively, and none correlated with TIIR. Intubation of the TI was associated with significantly longer withdrawal times. In a random 10% sample of cases with TI intubation, no clinically significant pathology was found. Conclusions: There is wide variability in TIIR among endoscopists. Except to provide photodocumentation of exam extent when other images may be difficult to obtain, the lack of correlation between TI intubation and meaningful clinical outcomes together with the associated time costs suggest routine TI intubation during screening colonoscopy may not be warranted.

No abstract

Objectives: We describe utilization trends and center volume-outcomes relationship of ER of early stage esophageal cancer using a large hospitalbased registry. Summary of Background Data: ER is increasingly accepted as the preferred treatment for early stage esophageal cancer, however its utilization and the center volume-outcomes relationship in the United States is unknown. Methods: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with cT1N0M0 esophageal cancer treated with ER or esophagectomy between 2004 and 2015. Relative frequencies were plotted over time.Restricted cubic splines and maximally selected rank statistics were used to identify an inflection point of center volume and survival. Results: A total of 1136 patients underwent ER and 2829 patients underwent esophagectomy during the study period. Overall utilization of ER, and relative use compared to esophagectomy, increased throughout the study period. Median annualized center ER volume was 1.9 cases per year (interquartile range 0.5-5.8). Multivariable Cox regression showed increasing annualized center volume by 1 case per year was associated with improved survival. Postoperative 30-or 90-day mortality, 30-day readmission, and pathologic T upstaging rates were similar irrespective of center volume. Conclusions: Utilization of ER compared to esophagectomy for stage I esophageal cancer has increased over the past decade, though many individual centers perform fewer than 1 case annually. increasing annualized center volume by one procedure per year was associated with improved survival. increased volume beyond this was not associated with survival benefit. Referral to higher volume centers for treatment of superficial esophageal cancer should be considered.

Esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) assesses esophageal motor function and is indicated both for evaluation of esophageal symptoms and before antireflux interventions. HRM studies are interpreted and esophageal motor diagnoses made according to the Chicago Classification, version 3.0 algorithm, which is based on ten 5 mL supine water swallows. However, this practice of single liquid swallows performed in the supine position does not reflect typical “real-life” swallowing, and may not reproduce the patient’s presenting symptoms. Therefore, provocative maneuvers at HRM—beyond these 10 standard swallows—can afford additional insights into esophageal motor function with clinically significant implications, and represent areas of exciting investigation and innovation. Accordingly, the 2020 American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines on Esophageal Physiologic Testing conditionally recommend their inclusion in the HRM protocol. In this clinical review, we discuss the supporting data for and clinical utility of provocative maneuvers at HRM that include changes in body position or accessories (upright swallows, “bridge” position, straight leg raise, abdominal compression), bolus consistency (solid swallows, test meals, postprandial high-resolution impedance manometry), bolus frequency (multiple rapid swallows), the volume of bolus (rapid drink challenge/multiple water swallows), and the use of pharmacological agents.