Faculty Bibliography

Introduction: Esophageal food impactions (EFI) contribute significantly to morbidity and health expenditures. Professional recommendations for endoscopic management have advised a pull or bolus extraction method, noting a risk of perforation with the alternative push or gastric advancement method. Recent studies have suggested non-inferior safety of the push method compared to traditional piecemeal extraction. We sought to systematically compare the rate of significant adverse events of the push and pull from inception to September 2021. Studies with over five adult participants that reported endoscopic outcomes for EFI were selected. The primary outcomes were success and adverse event rates of endoscopic foreign body removal (FBR) via the pull vs push method. All outcomes were assessed with pooled event rates (ER) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model, and groups were compared in a mixed-analysis model, with p < 0.05 considered significant.
Result(s): After reviewing 1567 publications, 17 studies with 3296 patients were included. Of these, 1522 cases were treated with the push method and 983 with the pull method. There were no significant differences in demographic data between the two groups. Our analysis of overall adverse events showed that the pull method had ER of 0.046 (95% CI 0.032-0.067), and push ER of 0.058 (95% CI 0.044-0.076), p= 0.798 for the difference. There was a trend towards increased success rates with the push method [pull 0.860 (95% CI 0.749-0.927), push 0.933 (95% CI 0.982-0.997), p= 0.185]. ER of perforation was 0.009 in the pull group (95% CI 0.004-0.019) and 0.012 in the push group (95% CI 0.007-0.023), p= 0.507. ER of bleeding after pull was 0.039 (95% CI 0.024-0.062) and push 0.057 (95% CI 0.040-0.079). For aspiration, the pull ER was 0.024 (95% CI 0.013-0.042) and push 0.014 (95% CI 0.008-0.025), p= 0.536. Overall success rate for all studies for endoscopic treatment of EFI was 0.985 (95% CI 0.935 - 0.996). (Table)
Conclusion(s): Endoscopic therapy for relieving EFI is effective with low rates of adverse events overall. Based on limited data available, there was a trend for increased success rates with the push technique, and a trend for lower adverse events with the pull method. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to demonstrate that the push method for treatment of EFI is non-inferior to the pull method with respect to both success rates and safety profile. (Table Presented)

Strongyloides stercoralis infection typically presents with nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms and no definitive or pathognomonic endoscopic findings. Disease burden can vary depending on a patient's immune status. Immunocompromised patients with strongyloidiasis can develop tremendous disease burden, extraintestinal dissemination, and are at risk for coinfection with other organisms. We present the case of an immunocompromised patient presenting with multiple gastrointestinal complaints found to have S. stercoralis hyperinfection and concomitant cytomegalovirus gastroenteritis.

Barrett esophagus (BE) is the precursor lesion to adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. The current surveillance strategy of 4-quadrant Seattle protocol biopsies has been associated with sampling error and missing higher-risk lesions, and there is often less adherence to endoscopic surveillance with long segments. Advancements in endoscopic imaging and sampling techniques allow for better surveillance of BE, particularly when assessing for dysplasia. This article highlights the key endoscopic imaging and sampling advancements in the evaluation of dysplasia in BE.

BACKGROUND:The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has described 6 core competencies with which trainees should demonstrate proficiency. Using the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), we aimed to assess 4 of these competencies among Pediatric Gastrointestinal (GI) fellows (PGs). METHODS:Eight first-year PGs from 6 medical centers in the New York area participated in a 4-station OSCE with trained standardized patient (SP) actors. The cases included an emergency department (ED) consult, or "ED Consult" for lower gastrointestinal bleeding; "Breaking Bad News" focusing on CF nutritional complications; "Second Opinion" for abdominal pain; "Transition of Care" for inflammatory bowel disease. At each station, attending faculty observed the encounters behind a 1-way mirror. SPs and faculties provided immediate feedback to the examined fellows. Previously validated OSCE checklists were used to assess performance. On completion, fellows attended debriefing sessions and completed surveys about the educational value. RESULTS:Median overall milestone competency scores were 6.9 (PC1), 4.8 (PC2), 5.9 (MK1), 5.7 (MK2), 6.4 (ICS1), 6.9 (Prof1), and 6.7 (Prof3). Overall, fellows score highest (7/9) on the inflammatory bowel disease "Transition of Care" case, found the "Breaking Bad News" Cystic Fibrosis OSCE to be the most challenging, and were most comfortable with the "ED Consult" OSCE, as a commonly encountered scenario. Overall, the fellows rated the educational value of the program highly. CONCLUSIONS:To our knowledge, although the OSCE has been validated in other medical fields, this is the first OSCE program developed for PGs fellows. These OSCEs have included Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education competencies, serving to assess fellows' skills in these areas while exposing them to challenging medical and psychosocial cases that they may not frequently encounter.