[Impact Analysis of a new, Cross-sector Service Provision of Gastroenterologic Endoscopic Services in Accordance with 115f SGB V (Hybrid-DRG): Allocation Matrix and Cost Analysis]. / Auswirkungsanalyse einer neuen, sektorenübergreifenden Erbringung bisher stationärer endoskopischer gastroenterologischer Leistungen entsprechend §115f SGB V (Hybrid-DRG): Zuordnungsmatrix und Kostenanalyse.

BACKGROUND: With the introduction of §115f SGB V, the prerequisites for "sector-equal remuneration" ('Hybrid DRG') have been created. In an impact analysis, we assigned inpatient gastroenterological endoscopic (GAEN) cases in a matrix of future hybrid DRG versus outpatient surgery (AOP) or inpatient treatment. METHODS: In selected DRGs (G47B, G67A, G67B, G67C, G71Z, H41D, H41E) an allocation matrix of GAEN cases was created on medical grounds. For this purpose, service groups from the DGVS service catalog ('Leistungskatalog') were assigned to the groups: 'Hybrid-DRG', 'AOP' and 'Inpatient' by a group of experts based on the DGVS position paper. Cost data from the DGVS-DRG project for the 2022 data year from 36 InEK calculation hospitals with a total of 232,476 GAEN cases were evaluated. RESULTS: 26 service groups from the DGVS service catalog were assigned to a "Hybrid-DRG", 24 to the "inpatient" group, and 12 to the "AOP" group. 7 performance groups were splitted "depending on the OPS code" and classified at this level. Cases with additional fees were excluded from a hybrid DRG because these cannot be agreed there.The cost analysis shows that services that are already in the AOP have a similar cost level to services that have been classified as 'Hybrid-DRG'. With the cost calculation, a cost level could be presented for the hybrid DRGs formed. CONCLUSION: Based on clearly defined structural, procedural and personnel requirements, services from suitable DRGs can be transferred to a hybrid DRG. Assigning services without the involvement of clinical experts seems extremely difficult. Case assignment based on arbitrary contextual factors increases complexity without demonstrably increasing the quality of the assignment and needs to be further developed. A cost analysis can be derived from the known inpatient costs and must serve as the basis for the 2025 Hybrid DRG catalog.

[Costs of potentially outpatient endoscopic procedures in cases with a 1-day hospital stay versus a longer stay]. / Kosten potenziell ambulant erbringbarer endoskopischer Leistungen in Fällen mit 1-Tages-Verweildauer gegenüber einer längeren Verweildauer.

INTRODUCTION: The transfer of patient care and medical interventions that was previously provided on an inpatient basis to outpatient settings is a stated goal of health politics. It is unclear to what extent costs of an endoscopic procedure and the disease severity depend on the duration of inpatient treatment. We therefore examined whether endoscopic services for cases with a one-day length of stay (VWD) are comparably expensive to cases with a longer VWD. METHODS: Outpatient services were selected from the DGVS service catalog. Day cases with exactly one such gastroenterological endoscopic (GAEN) service were compared with cases with VWD>1 day regarding their patient clinical complexity levels (PCCL) and mean costs. Data from the DGVS-DRG project with §21-KHEntgG cost data from a total of 57 hospitals from 2018 and 2019 served as the basis. Endoscopic costs were taken from cost center group 8 of the InEK cost matrix and plausibility checked. RESULTS: A total of 122,514 cases with exactly one GAEN service were identified. Statistically equal costs were shown in 30 of 47 service groups. In 10 groups, the cost difference was not relevant (<10%). Cost differences >10% existed only for EGD with variceal therapy, insertion of a self-expanding prosthesis, dilatation/bougienage/exchange with PTC/PTCD in place, non-extensive ERCP, endoscopic ultrasound in the upper gastrointestinal tract, and colonoscopy with submucosal or full thickness resection, or foreign object removal. PCCL differed in all but one group. CONCLUSION: Gastroenterology endoscopy services provided as part of inpatient care but potentially performable on an outpatient basis are predominantly equally expensive for day cases as for patients with a length of stay greater than one day. The disease severity is lower. Calculated §21-KHEntgG cost data thus form a reliable basis for the calculation of appropriate reimbursement for hospital services to be provided as outpatient services under the AOP in the future.

Digital single-operator pancreatoscopy for the treatment of symptomatic pancreatic duct stones: a prospective multicenter cohort trial.

BACKGROUND: Digital single-operator pancreatoscopy (DSOP)-guided lithotripsy is a novel treatment modality for pancreatic endotherapy, with demonstrated technical success in retrospective series of between 88 % and 100 %. The aim of this prospective multicenter trial was to systematically evaluate DSOP in patients with chronic pancreatitis and symptomatic pancreatic duct stones. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis and three or fewer stones ≥ 5mm in the main pancreatic duct (MPD) of the pancreatic head or body were included. The primary end point was complete stone clearance (CSC) in three or fewer treatment sessions with DSOP. Current guidelines recommend extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for MPD stones > 5 mm. A performance goal was developed to show that the CSC rate of MPD stones using DSOP was above what has been previously reported for ESWL. Secondary end points were pain relief measured with the Izbicki pain score (IPS), number of interventions, and serious adverse events (SAEs). RESULTS: 40 chronic pancreatitis patients were included. CSC was achieved in 90 % of patients (36/40) on intention-to-treat analysis, after a mean (SD) of 1.36 (0.64) interventions (53 procedures in total). The mean (SD) baseline IPS decreased from 55.3 (46.2) to 10.9 (18.3). Overall pain relief was achieved in 82.4 % (28/34) after 6 months of follow-up, with complete pain relief in 61.8 % (21/34) and partial pain relief in 20.6 % (7/34). SAEs occurred in 12.5 % of patients (5/40), with all treated conservatively. CONCLUSION: DSOP-guided endotherapy is effective and safe for the treatment of symptomatic MPD stones in highly selected patients with chronic pancreatitis. It significantly reduces pain and could be considered as an alternative to standard ERCP techniques for MPD stone treatment in these patients.

Technical feasibility and clinical success of direct "free hand" EUS-guided gastroenterostomy in patients with gastric outlet obstruction.

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) with lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) appears to be a promising intervention in management of gastroduodenal out obstruction (GOO), particularly for patients for whom surgery is high risk or in a palliative setting. This study aimed to evaluate the technical feasibility, procedure-associated adverse events (AEs), and clinical outcome of direct "free hand" EUS-GE. Patients and methods This retrospective two-center study included patients who underwent direct "free hand" EUS-GE (April 2017 to March 2021) investigating technical success (correctly placed LAMS), clinical outcome (successful oral nutrition), and management of procedure-associated AEs. "Free hand" was defined as the use of the electrocautery enhanced stent delivery system alone without additional guidewire-assistance for EUS-GE creation. Results Forty-five patients (58 % women/42 % men; mean age 65 years) with malignant (n = 39), benign (n = 4) or unclear (n = 2) GOO underwent direct "free hand" EUS-GE. The technical success rate was 98 % (44/45). Of the patients, 95% (42/44) had less vomiting and increased ability to tolerate oral food intake after the intervention. In one patient, a second EUS-GE was necessary to achieve sufficient clinical improvement. Procedure-associated AEs were observed in 24 % (11/45) of cases including stent misplacement (n = 7), leakage (n = 1), development of a gastrojejunocolic fistula (n = 1), and bleeding (n = 2), which could be all managed endoscopically. Conclusions Direct EUS-GE has a favorable risk-benefit profile for patients with GOO, showing high technical success rates, manageable AEs, and rapid symptom relief.

Percutaneous transhepatic or endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage in malignant distal bile duct obstruction using a self-expanding metal stent: Study protocol for a prospective European multicenter trial (PUMa trial).

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) was associated with better clinical success and a lower rate of adverse events (AEs) than fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in recent single center studies with mainly retrospective design and small case numbers (< 50). The aim of this prospective European multicenter study is to compare both drainage procedures using ultrasound-guidance and primary metal stent implantation in patients with malignant distal bile duct obstruction (PUMa Trial). METHODS: The study is designed as a non-randomized, controlled, parallel group, non-inferiority trial. Each of the 16 study centers performs the procedure with the best local expertise (PTBD or EUS-BD). In PTBD, bile duct access is performed by ultrasound guidance. EUS-BD is performed as an endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS), EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) or EUS-guided antegrade stenting (EUS-AGS). Insertion of a metal stent is intended in both procedures in the first session. Primary end point is technical success. Secondary end points are clinical success, duration pf procedure, AEs graded by severity, length of hospital stay, re-intervention rate and survival within 6 months. The target case number is 212 patients (12 calculated dropouts included). DISCUSSION: This study might help to clarify whether PTBD is non-inferior to EUS-BD concerning technical success, and whether one of both interventions is superior in terms of efficacy and safety in one or more secondary endpoints. Randomization is not provided as both procedures are rarely used after failed endoscopic biliary drainage and study centers usually prefer one of both procedures that they can perform best. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03546049 (22.05.2018).

Endoscopic management of difficult common bile duct stones.

INTRODUCTION: Common bile duct stones are a very frequent problem in the western world and endoscopic stone clearance is the method of choice for treatment. Despite its common use, endoscopic clearance of common bile duct stones is not always trivial especially in cases involving large or multiple stones. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A literature review regarding different endoscopic techniques was performed for this article and a recommended therapeutic algorithm developed based on the guidelines of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the German Gastroenterological Society. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: This review gives an overview of currently applied endoscopic techniques, their success and complication rates as well as alternative methods used for cases involving anatomic anomalies. The purpose of this review is to recommend a therapeutic algorithm for the treatment of difficult common bile duct stones (DCBDS). CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of DCBDS, combined sphincterotomy and endoscopic large balloon dilation should be first choice. Mechanical lithotripsy and cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy are close alternatives with nearly equal clearance rates and should be used if accessible. The insertion of a temporary plastic stent is a good choice to gain time to explore further treatment options. Enteroscopy-based endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, percutaneous transhepatic cholangioscopy or endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy and stone treatment, while good alternatives for select cases involving anatomic anomalies, should be performed at specialized units.

A structured Endoscopic Ultrasound training program in Germany improves knowledge and competence.

AIMS: Limited evidence on how to organize pre-patient training in Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) and how to evaluate its effect on knowledge and skills are available. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of a structured multi-site training program on EUS competence in Germany. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a prospective study design, evaluation of 64 trainees was conducted during four three-day training courses with equal curricula at three sites. Participants completed a structured pre- and post-test questionnaire consisting of 4 items to evaluate the relevance and acceptance of the training components (theoretical teaching, video sessions, live demonstration, hands-on experience) on a 5-point Likert scale, as well as a Likert scale to judge the self-rated improvement in EUS competence. To assess knowledge, 12 multiple choice (MC) questions had to be answered by all participants in a pre- and a post-test design. Also differences between beginners and advanced learners were analysed. RESULTS: Overall evaluation on acceptance received above-average results with a median of 4 or 5 (IQR 1-2) on Likert scale (1=completely disagree, 5=completely agree). In the post-test self-rated EUS skills improved from 4 to 2 on the Likert scale (IQR=1, p=0.001, 1=excellent EUS skills, 5=no EUS skills). Results of the MC-test of all trainees showed significant improvement in theoretical knowledge from 7.9±1.9 to 8.8±1.9 points (mean±SD, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides arguments for the usefulness of a structured EUS training program resulting in a positive acceptance and high self-rated EUS competence by the participants and significant improvements in knowledge.

Endoscopic and percutaneous biliary interventions in patients with altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy-the Munich Multicenter Experience.

BACKGROUND: In patients with altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy, conventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiography is often not possible and different techniques, like enteroscopy-assisted or percutaneous approaches are required. Aim of this study was to analyze success and complication rates of these techniques in a large collective of patients in the daily clinical practice in a pre-endosonographic biliary drainage era. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy with biliary interventions between March 1st, 2006, and June 30th, 2014 in four tertiary endoscopic centers in Munich, Germany were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: At least one endoscopic-assisted biliary intervention was successful in 234/411 patients (56.9%)-in 192 patients in the first, in 34 patients in the second and in 8 patients in the third attempt. Success rates for Billroth-II/Whipple-/Roux-en-Y reconstruction were 70.5%/56.7%/49.5%. Complication rates for these reconstructions were 9.3%/6.5%/6.3%, the overall complication rate was 7.1%. Success rates were highest in patients with Billroth-II reconstruction where use of a duodenoscope was possible, complication rates were also highest in this scenario. Success rates were lowest in longer-limb anatomy like Roux-en-Y reconstruction. Percutaneous biliary drainages (PTBD) were inserted 268 times with substantially higher success (90.7%) as well as complication rates (11.6%) compared to the endoscopic approach. Compared to patients treated endoscopically, patients with PTBD had a lower performance status, more severe cholestasis and a significant higher rate of malignant underlying disease. CONCLUSION: In patients with altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy, success rates of endoscopic-assisted biliary interventions are lower compared to PTBD. Still, due to the beneficial complication rates of the endoscopic approach, this technique should be preferred whenever possible and in selected patients who still need to be defined in detail, repeated endoscopic attempts are useful to help achieve the desired result.

The safety and efficacy of a new 20-mm lumen apposing metal stent (lams) for the endoscopic treatment of pancreatic and peripancreatic fluid collections: a large international, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Lumen apposing metal stent (LAMS) allows an easy access to peripancreatic fluid collections (PPFCs) and the possibility of performing direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN). The aim of our study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a new 20-mm LAMS in the management of PPFCs. This novel stent represents the largest diameter LAMS available on the market to date. METHODS: This is an international, multicenter retrospective study involving 20 centers. Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-guided PPFC drainage using a 20-mm LAMS were included. Primary outcomes were technical and clinical success. Secondary outcomes were rate and the severity of adverse events. RESULTS: A total 105 patients underwent PPFC drainage using the new 20-mm LAMS and 106 LAMS were placed. Technical success was 100% (106/106). 7/105 patients died due to causes not related to the stent. Clinical success was achieved in 92/98 patients (93.9%). Significant adverse events occurred in 8/98 patients (8.16%): 4 cases (4.08%) of bleeding, 3 cases (3.06%) of suprainfection, 1 case of gastric outlet obstruction. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study demonstrated acceptable rates of technical and clinical success using a new 20-mm LAMS for PPFC, including walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN). The results of our study suggest that a new 20-mm LAMS is non-inferior in terms of safety, efficacy, and adverse events as compared to smaller diameter LAMS in the management of PPFCs, including pancreatic psuedocysts (PP) and WOPN. Randomized controlled studies will be needed to determine the ideal size of LAMS need to achieve the greatest clinical benefit with the minimized risk exposure for this high-risk patient population.

Technical success, resection status, and procedural complication rate of colonoscopic full-wall resection: a pooled analysis from 7 hospitals of different care levels.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD®) is a novel minimally invasive procedure that allows the resection of various lesions in the gastrointestinal tract including the colorectum. Real-world data outside of published studies are limited. The aim of this study was a detailed analysis of the outcomes of colonoscopic eFTR in different hospitals from different care levels in correlation with the number of endoscopists performing eFTR. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this case series, the data of all patients who underwent eFTR between November 2014 and June 2019 (performed by a total of 22 endoscopists) in 7 hospitals were analyzed retrospectively regarding rates of technical success, R0 resection, and procedure-related complications. RESULTS: Colonoscopic eFTR was performed in 229 patients (64.6% men; average age 69.3 ± 10.3 years) mainly on the basis of the following indication: 69.9% difficult adenomas, 21.0% gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas, and 7.9% subepithelial tumors. The average size of the lesions was 16.3 mm. Technical success rate of eFTR was achieved in 83.8% (binominal confidence interval 78.4-88.4%). Overall, histologically complete resection (R0) was achieved in 77.2% (CI 69.8-83.6%) while histologically proven full-wall excidate was confirmed in 90.0% (CI 85.1-93.7%). Of the resectates obtained (n = 210), 190 were resected en bloc (90.5%). We did not observe a clear improvement of technical success and R0 resection rate over time by the performing endoscopists. Altogether, procedure-related complications were observed in 17.5% (mostly moderate) including 2 cases of acute gangrenous appendicitis requiring operation. DISCUSSION: In this pooled analysis, eFTR represents a feasible, effective, and safe minimally invasive endoscopic technique.

Risk factors for bleeding from gastrointestinal angiodysplasia: a case-control study in patients with bleeding and non-bleeding angiodysplasia.

OBJECTIVES: Angiodysplasia (AD) is a common source of gastrointestinal bleeding. Yet, little is known about factors forwarding bleeding in these vascular malformations. The presented study aims to determine risk factors for bleeding that occurs only in patients with symptomatic, but not with asymptomatic, AD. METHODS: Case-control study in patients with AD and either a positive or a negative history of gastrointestinal bleeding in Munich, Germany. Groups were compared by clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic features. RESULTS: 80 patients with (58, f 31, med. age 72) or without bleeding AD (22, f 12, med. age 61) were included. Bleeding from AD was significantly associated with the total number of AD (OR 1.4 (95 % CI 1.1-1.7) p = 0.01) and closure time in PFA/collagen-epinephrine test (OR 1.0 (95 % CI 1.0-1.0) p < 0.01). The total number of AD correlated significantly with age (r = 0.36; p = 0.01). AD were mainly detected in the upper small intestine (> 30 %). Although patients with aortic stenosis suffered not significantly more frequently from bleeding from AD, they demonstrated a loss of high molecular multimers of VWF. CONCLUSIONS: The amount of AD is clearly correlated to the age of the patient. A higher number of ADs and inhibition of primary hemostasis increase the risk of bleeding.

Lumen apposing metal stents are superior to plastic stents in pancreatic walled-off necrosis: a large international multicenter study.

Background and study aims The use of lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) during EUS-guided transmural drainage (EUS-TD) of pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON) has gained popularity. Data supporting their use in WON over plastic stents (PS), however, remain scarce. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of LAMS (Axios, Boston Scientific) with PS in WON. Patients and methods This was a multicenter, retrospective study involving 14 centers. Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-TD of WON (2012 - 2016) were included. The primary end point was clinical success defined as WON size ≤ 3 cm within a 6-month period without need for percutaneous drainage (PCD) or surgery. Results A total of 189 patients (mean age 55.2 ±â€Š15.6 years, 34.9 % female) were included (102 LAMS and 87 PS). Technical success rates were similar: 100 % in LAMS and 98.9 % in PS ( P  = 0.28). Clinical success was attained in 80.4 % of LAMS and 57.5 % of PS ( P  = 0.001). Rate of PCD was similar (13.7 % LAMS vs. 16.3 % PS, P  = 0.62), while PS was associated with a greater need for surgery (16.1 % PS vs. 5.6 % LAMS, P  = 0.02). Adverse events (AEs) were observed in 9.8 % of LAMS and 10.3 % of PS ( P  = 0.90) and were rated as severe in 2.0 % and 6.9 %, respectively ( P  = 0.93). After excluding patients with < 6 months follow-up, the rate of WON recurrence following initial clinical success was greater with PS (22.9 % PS vs. 5.6 % LAMS, P  = 0.04). Conclusions When compared to PS, LAMS in WON is associated with higher clinical success, shorter procedure time, lower need for surgery, and lower rate of recurrence.

Acute sedation-associated complications in GI endoscopy (ProSed 2 Study): results from the prospective multicentre electronic registry of sedation-associated complications.

OBJECTIVES: Sedation has been established for GI endoscopic procedures in most countries, but it is also associated with an added risk of complications. Reported complication rates are variable due to different study methodologies and often limited sample size. DESIGNS: Acute sedation-associated complications were prospectively recorded in an electronic endoscopy documentation in 39 study centres between December 2011 and August 2014 (median inclusion period 24 months). The sedation regimen was decided by each study centre. RESULTS: A total of 368 206 endoscopies was recorded; 11% without sedation. Propofol was the dominant drug used (62% only, 22.5% in combination with midazolam). Of the sedated patients, 38 (0.01%) suffered a major complication, and overall mortality was 0.005% (n=15); minor complications occurred in 0.3%. Multivariate analysis showed the following independent risk factors for all complications: American Society of Anesthesiologists class >2 (OR 2.29) and type and duration of endoscopy. Of the sedation regimens, propofol monosedation had the lowest rate (OR 0.75) compared with midazolam (reference) and combinations (OR 1.0-1.5). Compared with primary care hospitals, tertiary referral centres had higher complication rates (OR 1.61). Notably, compared with sedation by a two-person endoscopy team (endoscopist/assistant; 53.5% of all procedures), adding another person for sedation (nurse, physician) was associated with higher complication rates (ORs 1.40-4.46), probably due to higher complexity of procedures not evident in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This large multicentre registry study confirmed that severe acute sedation-related complications are rare during GI endoscopy with a very low mortality. The data are useful for planning risk factor-adapted sedation management to further prevent sedation-associated complications in selected patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: DRKS00007768; Pre-results.

Comparison of cap-assisted endoscopy vs. side-viewing endoscopy for examination of the major duodenal papilla: a randomized, controlled, noninferiority crossover study.

BACKGROUND : Use of a side-viewing endoscope is currently mandatory to examine the major duodenal papilla; however, previous studies have used cap-assisted endoscopy for complete examination of the papilla. The aim of this study was to compare cap-assisted endoscopy with side-viewing endoscopy for examination of the major duodenal papilla. METHODS : This was a prospective, randomized, blinded, controlled, noninferiority crossover study. Patients were randomized to undergo either side-viewing endoscopy followed by cap-assisted endoscopy or cap-assisted endoscopy followed by side-viewing endoscope. Photographs of the major duodenal papilla were digitally edited to mask the cap area before they were evaluated by three blinded external examiners. Our primary end point was complete visualization of the major duodenal papilla. Secondary end points were the ability to examine the mucosal pattern, the overview of the periampullary region, overall satisfaction, and time to locate the papilla. RESULTS : 62 patients completed the study. Complete visualization of the major duodenal papilla was achieved in 60 examinations by side-viewing endoscopy and in 59 by cap-assisted endoscopy (97 % vs. 95 %). The difference between the two examinations was 1.6 % with a two-sided 95 % confidence interval of -4.0 % to 7.3 %, which did not exceed the noninferiority margin of 8 %. Cap-assisted endoscopy achieved better scores regarding the examination of mucosal pattern and overall satisfaction, whereas side-viewing endoscopy had a better overview score (P < 0.001, P = 0.004, and P < 0.001, respectively). There was no relevant difference in the median times to locate the major duodenal papilla. CONCLUSION : Cap-assisted endoscopy and side-viewing endoscopy had similar success rates for complete visualization of the major duodenal papilla. Cap-assisted endoscopy is superior to side-viewing endoscopy regarding the mucosal pattern and overall satisfaction. Side-viewing endoscopy gives a better overview of the periampullary region.

Lumen-apposing stents versus plastic stents in the management of pancreatic pseudocysts: a large, comparative, international, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Larger caliber lumen-apposing stents (LAMSs) have been increasingly used in the management of pancreatic fluid collections, specifically when solid debris is present; however, their advantages over smaller caliber plastic stents in the management of pancreatic pseudocysts are unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of LAMS specifically in the management of pancreatic pseudocysts compared with double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPSs). METHODS: We performed a multicenter, international, retrospective study between January 2012 and August 2016. A total of 205 patients with a diagnosis of pancreatic pseudocysts were included, 80 patients received LAMSs and 125 received DPPSs. Measured outcomes included clinical success, technical success, adverse events, stent dysfunction, pancreatic pseudocyst recurrence, and need for surgery. RESULTS: Technical success was similar between the LAMS and the DPPS groups (97.5 % vs. 99.2 %; P = 0.32). Clinical success was higher for LAMSs than for DPPSs (96.3 % vs. 87.2 %; P = 0.03). While the need for surgery was similar between the two groups (1.3 % vs. 4.9 %, respectively; P = 0.17), the use of percutaneous drainage was significantly lower in the LAMS group (1.3 % vs. 8.8 %; P = 0.03). At 6-month follow-up, the recurrence rate was similar between the groups (6.7 % vs 18.8 %, respectively; P = 0.12). The rate of adverse events was significantly higher in the DPPS group (7.5 % vs. 17.6 %; P = 0.04). There was no difference in post-procedure mean length of hospital stay (6.3 days [standard deviation 27.9] vs. 3.7 days [5.7]; P = 0.31). CONCLUSION: When compared to DPPSs, LAMSs are a safe, feasible, and effective modality for the treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts and are associated with a higher rate of clinical success, shorter procedure time, less need for percutaneous interventions, and a lower overall rate of adverse events.

[Endoscopic submucosal dissection for mucosal low-risk early gastric cancer - a retrospective, unicentric study]. / Endoskopische Submukosa-Dissektion bei mukosalen Low-Risk-Magenfrühkarzinomen ­ eine retrospektive, unizentrische Studie.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the standard-procedure in Asia for the treatment of early gastric cancer (EGC) within defined criteria. In Europe, this technique is being used more and more frequently. In the context of risk constellations (submucosal invasion, lymphangioinvasion, poorly differentiated carcinoma), the occurrence of lymph node metastases is possible. We defined a low-risk group (differentiated, mucosal EGC without ulceration and vascular infiltration, size independent) to investigate the endoscopic outcome and the long-term course of this special group with excellent prognosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with untreated low-risk EGC were included in this retrospective evaluation. Patient data (age, gender distribution), carcinoma parameters (number, size, location, Paris-Classification), histological parameters, resection data (including en bloc resection, R-status), follow-up (including local recurrence, survival) and complication data were evaluated. RESULTS: In 55 patients, ESD was used to remove 61 low-risk EGC. In 93.4 %, the En-bloc resection succeeded, in 91.8 % of cases, an R0 status was documented. In 8 cases (13.1 %), intervention-dependent complications occurred: 5 delayed bleeding (8.2 %), two microperforations (3.3 %, no surgery required) and one non-ST-elevated myocardial infarciation (1.6 %). During the follow-up (mean: 54.3 months) there were 4 cases (6.6 %) of local recurrences, of which at least 2 could be successfully treated endoscopically. The other 2 patients died after repeated endoscopy before the first control. Overall, 4 patients (7.8 %) died during the follow up, none of them tumor-associated. In 9 patients (16.4 %) syn- or metachronous lesions were detected, all of which could be treated endoscopically. Lymphnode metastases did not occur. CONCLUSION: In the low-risk group that we defined, a high rate of en bloc and R0 resections were achieved with ESD; the detected local recurrences could be treated endoscopically. Metastases were not detected, no tumor-associated patient deaths occured. ESD is, therefore, recommended for this group as a standard therapy. The study provides no data on the endoscopic and clinical follow up in the presence of risk factors of both mucosal and other EGCs from the so-called Expanded Group (including lymphangio-invasion, submucosal invasive EGC, poorly differentiated G3 carcinomas).

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided entero-enterostomy for the treatment of afferent loop syndrome: a multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND: Afferent loop syndrome (ALS) is traditionally managed surgically and, more recently, endoscopically. The role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided entero-enterostomy (EUS-EE) has not been well described. The aim of this study was to assess the technical and clinical success and safety of EUS-EE. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective series at six centers in patients with ALS treated by EUS-EE. Data on patients treated with enteroscopy-assisted luminal stenting (EALS) at a single center were also collected. RESULTS: 18 patients (mean age 64.2 years, 72 % post-pancreaticoduodenectomy, 10 female) underwent EUS-EE. The most common symptoms were vomiting (27.8 %) and jaundice (33.3 %). Clinical success included resolution of symptoms in 88.9 % and improvement to allow hospital discharge in 11.1 %. Technical success was achieved in 100 % of cases, with a mean procedure time of 29.7 minutes. The most common procedure was a gastro-jejunostomy (72.2 %). Three adverse events (16.7 %) occurred (two mild, one moderate). When compared with data on EALS, patients treated with EUS-EE needed fewer re-interventions (16.6 % vs. 76.5 %; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: EUS-EE seems to be safe and effective in the treatment of ALS. Indirect comparison with EALS suggested that EUS-EE is associated with a reduced need for re-intervention.

[Cost assessment for endoscopic procedures in the German diagnosis-related-group (DRG) system - 5 year cost data analysis of the German Society of Gastroenterology project]. / Kosten endoskopischer Leistungen der Gastroenterologie im deutschen DRG-System ­ 5-Jahres-Kostendatenanalyse des DGVS-Projekts.

Background In the German hospital reimbursement system (G-DRG) endoscopic procedures are listed in cost center 8. For reimbursement between hospital departments and external providers outdated or incomplete catalogues (e. g. DKG-NT, GOÄ) have remained in use. We have assessed the cost for endoscopic procedures in the G-DRG-system. Methods To assess the cost of endoscopic procedures 74 hospitals, annual providers of cost-data to the Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System (InEK) made their data (2011 - 2015; §â€Š21 KHEntgG) available to the German-Society-of-Gastroenterology (DGVS) in anonymized form (4873 809 case-data-sets). Using cases with exactly one endoscopic procedure (n = 274 186) average costs over 5 years were calculated for 46 endoscopic procedure-tiers. Results Robust mean endoscopy costs ranged from 230.56 € for gastroscopy (144 666 cases), 276.23 € (n = 32 294) for a simple colonoscopy, to 844.07 € (n = 10 150) for ERCP with papillotomy and plastic stent insertion and 1602.37 € (n = 967) for ERCP with a self-expanding metal stent. Higher costs, specifically for complex procedures, were identified for University Hospitals. Discussion For the first time this catalogue for endoscopic procedure-tiers, based on §â€Š21 KHEntgG data-sets from 74 InEK-calculating hospitals, permits a realistic assessment of endoscopy costs in German hospitals. The higher costs in university hospitals are likely due to referral bias for complex cases and emergency interventions. For 46 endoscopic procedure-tiers an objective cost-allocation within the G-DRG system is now possible. By international comparison the costs of endoscopic procedures in Germany are low, due to either greater efficiency, lower personnel allocation or incomplete documentation of the real expenses.