Neal Mehta1, Andrew T Strong2, Matheus Franco3, Tyler Stevens3, Prabhleen Chahal3, Sunguk Jang3, Rocio Lopez4, Deepa Patil5, Seichiiro Abe6, Yutaka Saito6, Toshio Uraoka7, John Vargo3, Amit Bhatt3. 1. Internal Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA. 2. Section of Surgical Endoscopy, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA. 3. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA. 4. Quantitative Health Sciences, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA. 6. Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. 7. Department of Gastroenterology, National Hospital Organization, Tokyo Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: When carrying out endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), procedural safety increases with greater tissue elevation and efficiency increases with longer-lasting submucosal cushion. Fluids specifically developed for ESD in Asia are not commercially available in the West, leaving endoscopists to use a variety of injectable fluids off-label. To determine the optimal fluid available in the West, we compared commonly used fluids for Western ESD. METHODS: All phases were carried out in an ex vivo porcine stomach model. Phase 1 compared tissue elevation and duration of submucosal cushions produced by various standard volumes of various injectable solutions used for ESD. The two best-performing solutions used off-label were tested head-to-head in ESD in Phase 2. Phase 3 compared the best solution from Phase 2 to Eleview® , currently the only submucosal injection fluid approved in the USA. In Phases 2 and 3, five ESD were carried out with each solution. The solutions were randomized and the endoscopist blinded to the solution. RESULTS: The best-performing solutions in Phase 1 were 0.4% hyaluronic acid, 6% hydroxyethyl starch (HES), and Eleview® . Phase 2 compared 6% HES and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC), showing that ESD with 6% HES was easier (P = 0.007), faster (P = 0.041) and required less injection volume (P = 0.003). In Phase 3, resection speed, ease of ESD and total volume per area resected were comparable between 6% HES and Eleview® . CONCLUSIONS: Of the submucosal injection fluids currently available in the West, Eleview® and 6% HES are the best-performing solutions for ESD in a porcine model.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: When carrying out endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), procedural safety increases with greater tissue elevation and efficiency increases with longer-lasting submucosal cushion. Fluids specifically developed for ESD in Asia are not commercially available in the West, leaving endoscopists to use a variety of injectable fluids off-label. To determine the optimal fluid available in the West, we compared commonly used fluids for Western ESD. METHODS: All phases were carried out in an ex vivo porcine stomach model. Phase 1 compared tissue elevation and duration of submucosal cushions produced by various standard volumes of various injectable solutions used for ESD. The two best-performing solutions used off-label were tested head-to-head in ESD in Phase 2. Phase 3 compared the best solution from Phase 2 to Eleview® , currently the only submucosal injection fluid approved in the USA. In Phases 2 and 3, five ESD were carried out with each solution. The solutions were randomized and the endoscopist blinded to the solution. RESULTS: The best-performing solutions in Phase 1 were 0.4% hyaluronic acid, 6% hydroxyethyl starch (HES), and Eleview® . Phase 2 compared 6% HES and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC), showing that ESD with 6% HES was easier (P = 0.007), faster (P = 0.041) and required less injection volume (P = 0.003). In Phase 3, resection speed, ease of ESD and total volume per area resected were comparable between 6% HES and Eleview® . CONCLUSIONS: Of the submucosal injection fluids currently available in the West, Eleview® and 6% HES are the best-performing solutions for ESD in a porcine model.
Authors: Yan Pang; Jinyao Liu; Zaina L Moussa; Joy E Collins; Shane McDonnell; Alison M Hayward; Kunal Jajoo; Robert Langer; Giovanni Traverso Journal: Adv Sci (Weinh) Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 16.806
Authors: Han Jo Jeon; Hyuk Soon Choi; Eun Ju Bang; Kang Won Lee; Sang Hyun Kim; Jae Min Lee; Eun Sun Kim; Bora Keum; Yoon Tae Jeen; Hong Sik Lee; Hoon Jai Chun; Seung Jeong; Jong Hyuk Kim Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-12-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Vinay Chandrasekhara; Nikhil A Kumta; Barham K Abu Dayyeh; Manoop S Bhutani; Pichamol Jirapinyo; Kumar Krishnan; John T Maple; Joshua Melson; Rahul Pannala; Mansour A Parsi; Amrita Sethi; Guru Trikudanathan; Arvind J Trindade; David R Lichtenstein Journal: VideoGIE Date: 2021-04-02
Authors: E Wedi; P Koehler; J Hochberger; J Maiss; S Milenovic; M Gromski; N Ho; C Gabor; U Baulain; V Ellenrieder; C Jung Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2019-05-02
Authors: Han Jo Jeon; Seung Jeong; Hyuk Soon Choi; Se Hyun Jang; Sang Hoon Kim; Seung Han Kim; Jae Min Lee; Eun Sun Kim; Bora Keum; Yoon Tae Jeen; Hong Sik Lee; Hoon Jai Chun; Jong Hoon Chung; Seong Nam Kim Journal: Gut Liver Date: 2021-03-15 Impact factor: 4.519