Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: The role of upper endoscopy (EGD) in obese patients prior to bariatric surgery is controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield and cost of routine EGD before bariatric surgery. METHODS: The medical records of consecutive obese patients who underwent EGD prior to bariatric surgery between May 2000 and September 2002 were reviewed. Two experienced endoscopists reviewed all EGD reports, and findings were divided into 4 groups based on predetermined criteria: group 0 (normal study), group 1 (abnormal findings that neither changed the surgical approach nor postponed surgery), group 2 (abnormal findings that changed the surgical approach or postponed surgery), and group 3 (results that were an absolute contraindication to surgery). Clinically important findings included lesions in groups 2 and 3. The cost of EGD (430.72 US dollars) was estimated using the endoscopist fee under Medicare reimbursement. RESULTS: During the 28-month study period, 195 patients were evaluated by EGD prior to bariatric surgery. One or more lesions were identified in 89.7% of patients, with 61.5% having a clinically important finding. The prevalence of endoscopic findings using the classification system above was as follows: group 0 (10.3%), group 1 (28.2%), group 2 (61.5%), and group 3 (0.0%). Overall, the most common lesions identified were hiatal hernia (40.0%), gastritis (28.7%), esophagitis (9.2%), gastric ulcer (3.6%), Barrett's esophagus (3.1%), and esophageal ulcer (3.1%). The cost of performing routine endoscopy on all patients prior to bariatric surgery was 699.92 US dollars per clinically important lesion detected. CONCLUSIONS: Routine upper endoscopy before bariatric surgery has a high diagnostic yield and has a low cost per clinically important lesion detected

OBJECTIVE: Herbal therapies are used by a substantial proportion of persons in the United States, and use of these supplements may be even higher in those with chronic liver disease. The aims of this study were to prospectively determine the proportion of US veterans with chronic hepatitis C that are currently taking vitamins and herbal medications and to evaluate factors associated with use of herbal preparations. METHODS: Patients with hepatitis C who were seen in the gastroenterology, infectious disease, and primary care clinics at the VA New York Harbor Healthcare System were invited to participate in this prospective study. For comparison, healthy patients without hepatitis C were enrolled from the primary care clinics at the same medical center. Patients were interviewed by trained research coordinators who obtained detailed demographic and clinical data, as well as information on the use of antioxidants (vitamin C and E), multivitamins, and herbal medications. RESULTS: Use of vitamin C (34.8% vs. 19.6%, P < 0.001), vitamin E (25.8% vs. 13.2%, P < 0.001), multivitamins (43.6% vs. 28.0%, P < 0.001), and herbal therapies (21.0% vs. 10.4%, P < 0.001) was significantly higher in the 500 patients with hepatitis C compared with the 250 healthy controls. The most common herbal medications taken by hepatitis C patients were milk thistle (12.2%), ginseng (4.6%), and echinacea (3.0%). After adjusting for age and gender, multivariate logistic regression identified 12 or more years of education (OR 2.7; 95% CI 1.6-4.3; P < 0.001) and annual income of at least 20,000 US dollars (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.3-3.2; P = 0.004) as the only significant predictors of herbal medication use in patients with hepatitis C. CONCLUSIONS: The use of herbal preparations is prevalent among veterans with chronic hepatitis C, especially those with higher levels of education and higher incomes. Obtaining a detailed medical history and documentation of the use of these supplements is critical to determine the potential for herbal-drug interactions and hepatotoxicity

BACKGROUND: The role of upper GI series (UGIS) before bariatric surgery is controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield and cost of routine UGIS prior to bariatric surgery. METHODS: The medical records of consecutive obese patients who underwent UGIS before bariatric surgery between April 2001 and October 2002 were reviewed. UGIS reports were reviewed by 2 experienced gastroenterologists, and the findings were divided into 4 groups based on predetermined criteria: group 0 (normal study), group 1 (abnormal findings that neither changed the surgical approach nor postponed surgery), group 2 (abnormal findings that changed the surgical approach or postponed surgery), and group 3 (results which were an absolute contraindication to surgery). Clinically important findings included lesions in groups 2 and 3. The cost of an upper GI series (154.80 USD) was estimated from the published 2002 New York State Medicare reimbursement schedule. RESULTS: During the 18-month study period, 171 patients were evaluated by UGIS prior to bariatric surgery. One or more lesions were identified in 48.0% of patients, with only 5.3% having clinically important findings. The prevalence of radiologic findings using the classification system above was as follows: group 0 (52.0%), group 1 (42.7%), group 2 (5.3%), and group 3 (0.0%). The most common findings identified were esophageal reflux (21.6%) and hiatal hernias (18.7%). The cost of performing routine UGIS on all patients before bariatric surgery was 2,941.20 USD per clinically important finding detected. CONCLUSIONS: Routine preoperative upper GI series before bariatric surgery had a low diagnostic yield, rarely revealing pathology that changed the surgical approach or postponed surgery

BACKGROUND: The 30-day frequency of negative outcomes after outpatient endoscopy performed by gastroenterology fellows is unknown. METHODS: Questionnaires were mailed to 1000 consecutive patients 30 days after endoscopy to evaluate procedure-related negative outcomes (serious and minor adverse events) and patient satisfaction. Serious adverse events were defined as follows: oversedation requiring administration of a reversal agent, and those that resulted in a physician visit, emergency department visit, admission to the hospital, or death. Minor adverse events were defined as all problems other than serious adverse events that patients related to their endoscopic procedure. RESULTS: The 30-day frequency of negative outcomes in the 869 patients who responded was 14.3%, of which 0.6% were serious and 13.7% were minor adverse events. The frequency of negative outcomes was 17.1% for EGD, 15.0% for colonoscopy, 24.4% for combined EGD and colonoscopy, and 7.8% for flexible sigmoidoscopy. One hundred percent of the serious adverse events were known to us, but only 16.0% of minor adverse events (p < 0.001). Multiple logistic regression identified midazolam dose (OR for each 1 mg increase in dose 4.5; 95% CI [2.7, 7.3]; p < 0.001), treatment with warfarin (OR 3.0; 95% CI [1.4, 6.2]; p = 0.003), comorbid disease (OR 2.1; 95% CI [1.3, 3.4]; p = 0.001), endoscopy performed in July or August (OR 2.0; 95% CI [1.1,3.7]; p = 0.02), and age (OR for each 1 year increase in age 1.03; 95% CI [1.01, 1.05]; p = 0.01) as independent predictors of negative outcomes. There was a significant association between negative outcomes and decreased patient satisfaction, and patients who reported negative outcomes were less likely to agree to endoscopy in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Serious adverse events were rare after endoscopy performed by gastroenterology fellows. Contacting patients 30 days after outpatient endoscopy significantly improved the detection of negative outcomes. Although the majority of negative outcomes were minor, these adverse events were associated with decreased patient satisfaction