Endoscopic management of pancreatic collections. Endoscopic Ultrasound Group from the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy (GSEED-USE) Clinical Guidelines.

Acute pancreatitis is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. It can develop complications such as fluid collections and necrosis. Infection of necrosis occurs in about 20-40% of patients with severe acute pancreatitis, and is associated with organ failure and worse prognosis. In the past years, the treatment of pancreatic collections has shifted from open surgery to minimally invasive techniques, such as endoscopic ultrasound guided drainage. These guidelines from a selection of experts among the Endoscopic Ultrasound Group from the Spanish Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (GSEED-USE) have the purpose to provide advice on the management of pancreatic collections based on a thorough review of the available scientific evidence. It also reflects the experience and clinical practice of the authors, who are advanced endoscopists or clinical pancreatologists with extensive experience in managing patients with acute pancreatitis.

EUS-guided gastroenterostomy versus duodenal self-expandable metal stent for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: results from a nationwide multicenter retrospective study (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Traditionally, palliative treatment of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) has been surgical, but surgical treatment carries significant morbidity and mortality rates. Endoscopic placement of a duodenal self-expandable metal stent (D-SEMS) has been proven to be successful for this indication in the short term. However, D-SEMSs are likely to malfunction over time. EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) may help overcome these limitations. We aimed to evaluate stent failure-free survival at 3 months. METHODS: A nationwide multicenter, observational study of D-SEMS and EUS-GE procedures for patients with malignant GOO was conducted at 7 academic centers from January 2015 to June 2020. Stent failure-free survival at 1, 3, and 6 months; technical and clinical success; adverse events (AEs); and patient survival were evaluated in both groups and compared. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients were included in the D-SEMS group and 79 in the EUS-GE group. Pancreatic cancer was the main underlying malignancy in 53.4%. No statistically significant differences regarding technical (92.8% vs 93.7%) or clinical success (83.5% vs 92.4%) were found. AE rates did not differ between groups (10.3% vs 10.1%), although 2 events in the EUS-GE group required surgical management. Patients in the EUS-GE group had improved stent patency when compared with those patients in the D-SEMS group at 3 months (92.23% vs 80.6%; adjusted hazard ratio, .37; P = .033). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GE seems to have improved patency outcomes when compared with D-SEMS placement for palliative treatment of malignant GOO. Prospective trials are needed to fully compare their efficacy and AE profile.

The role of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) in iatrogenic esophageal perforations secondary to endoscopic dilation of benign short esophageal strictures.

81 year-old male had an asymptomatic iatrogenic perforation after balloon dilation of esophageal strictures. After the migration of the full covered self expandable metal stent (FCSEMS), a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) was placed and no esophageal leak was seen after. LAMS could be an appropiate first-line approach to benign short esophageal strictures complicated with iatrogenic small perforation but further prospective studies are needed.

Complete Barrett's esophagus eradication by endoscopic techniques: remission or cure?

The prevalence of Barrett's esophagus has been estimated to be 1 % to 2 % of all patients referred for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, and up to 15% amongst patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux symptoms.

EUS-guided coil versus cyanoacrylate therapy for the treatment of gastric varices: a multicenter study (with videos).

BACKGROUND: Therapy of gastric varices (GV) is still challenging. Cyanoacrylate (CYA) injection is the recommended treatment for bleeding GV, but has a known adverse event rate, which could be reduced if EUS is used for guidance. Otherwise, EUS-guided coil application (ECA) may be an alternative. OBJECTIVES: To compare CYA and ECA embolization of feeding GV for feasibility, safety, and applicability. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database. SETTING: Multicenter study, tertiary referral centers. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Thirty consecutive patients with localized GV who received either CYA injection or ECA were included with follow-up for 6 months after treatment. RESULTS: There were 11 patients in the coil group and 19 patients in the CYA group. The GV obliteration rate was 94.7% CYA versus 90.9% ECA; mean number of endoscopy sessions was 1.4 ± 0.1 (range 1-3). Adverse events occurred in 12 of 30 patients (40%) (CYA, 11/19 [57.9%]; ECA, 1/11 [9.1%]; P < .01); only 3 were symptomatic, and an additional 9 (CYA group) had glue embolism on a CT scan but was asymptomatic. No further adverse events occurred during follow-up. Six patients (20%) died unrelated to the procedures or bleeding. LIMITATIONS: Nonrandomized; EUS expertise necessary. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided therapy for GV by using CYA or ECA is effective in localized GV. ECA required fewer endoscopies and tended to have fewer adverse events compared with CYA injection. Larger comparative studies are needed to prove these data.

[Utility of endoscopic ultrasonography in the etiological diagnosis of patients with acute idiopathic pancreatitis]. / Utilidad de la ecoendoscopia en el diagnóstico etiológico de los pacientes con pancreatitis aguda idiopática.

UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of endoscopic ultrasonography in the etiological diagnosis of patients initially diagnosed with acute idiopathic pancreatitis and to determine the clinical and laboratory factors related to the results of this technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We studied 73 patients initially diagnosed with acute idiopathic pancreatitis and referred to our service for biliopancreatic endoscopic ultrasonography. A positive result was considered to be identification of at least one possible cause of pancreatitis, excluding patients in whom the only echoendoscopic finding was chronic pancreatitis. The clinical characteristics and clinical course of these patients were compared with the results of the technique. RESULTS: Endoscopic ultrasonography diagnosed at least one possible cause of acute pancreatitis in 32 patients (44%). The most frequent diagnoses were cholelithiasis (16%) and biliary sludge (20%). The diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography was lower in patients with prior cholecystectomy (16% vs. 49%; p=0.037) while a positive result was more likely in patients with elevated glutamyl oxaloacetic transaminase (GOT) or glutamyl pyruvic transaminase (GPT) levels at diagnosis of acute pancreatitis (GOT: 68 vs. 31%; p=0.002; GPT: 63 vs. 26%; p=0.001). No differences were found in diagnostic yield according to whether endoscopic ultrasonography was performed during the first episode of pancreatitis (48%) or in recurrent episodes (37%) (p=0.40). Over a mean follow-up period of 28 months, recurrence of new episodes of pancreatitis was significantly lower in patients with an etiological diagnosis (3 vs. 22%; p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic ultrasonography is a useful technique in the etiological diagnosis of acute pancreatitis of unknown origin, especially in patients with elevated transaminase levels and/or without cholecystectomy. This technique should be used in the first episode of acute idiopathic pancreatitis.

[Value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of hepatocarcinoma in focal lesions detected in patients with liver disease]. / Valor de los contrastes ecográficos en el diagnóstico de hepatocarcinoma en lesiones ocupantes de espacio detectadas en pacientes con hepatopatía.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the detection of arterial hypervascularity as a diagnostic criterion of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with focal lesions and liver disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective study included patients with chronic liver disease and focal liver lesions on ultrasound (US) examination. SonoVue was used as contrast agent. We employed a US imaging technique with contrast-specific software operating at a low mechanical index (< 0.14) (Hitachi EUB 6500). The contrast enhancement pattern was analyzed during the arterial phase and classified as diffuse (homogeneous or heterogeneous), peripheral, adjacent parenchyma-like enhancement, and absent. The diagnostic procedure was completed by combined study with computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, histologic data and clinical features. RESULTS: A total of 23 nodules in 22 patients were included in the study (one patient had two different US lesions). The final diagnosis was hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in 12 patients, benign lesions in nine, metastases in one and cholangiocarcinoma in one. In the 10 patients with diffuse contrast enhancement, the lesion was malignant and in the eight patients with diffuse homogeneous enhancement, the lesion was a HCC. Seventy-five percent of the patients with HCC had a diffuse enhancement pattern during the arterial phase. This pattern involved malignancy with 71.4% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100% positive predictive value, 69.2% negative predictive value, and 82.6% accuracy. The diffuse homogeneous pattern involved HCC with 66.7% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100% positive predictive value, 73.3% negative predictive value and 82.6% accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast-enhanced US with SonoVue allows the vascularity of focal liver lesions to be assessed. In our study, 75% of patients with HCC showed arterial hypervascularity. A diffuse homogeneous enhancement pattern during the arterial phase was highly specific to HCC. In cirrhotic patients, this arterial pattern could avoid the need for further investigations, although clinical staging should be completed with another diagnostic test.