Prophylactic Versus Endoscopy-driven Treatment of Crohn's Postoperative Recurrence: A Retrospective, Multicentric, European Study [PORCSE Study].

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: No consensus exists on optimal strategy to prevent postoperative recurrence [POR] after ileocaecal resection [ICR] for Crohn's disease [CD]. We compared early medical prophylaxis versus expectant management with treatment driven by findings at elective endoscopy 6-12 months after ICR. METHODS: A retrospective, multicentric, observational study was performed. CD patients undergoing first ICR were assigned to Cohort 1 if a biologic or immunomodulator was [re]started prophylactically after ICR, or to Cohort 2 if no postoperative prophylaxis was given and treatment was started as reaction to elective endoscopic findings. Primary endpoint was rate of endoscopic POR [Rutgeerts >i1]. Secondary endpoints were severe endoscopic POR [Rutgeerts i3/i4], clinical POR, surgical POR, and treatment burden during follow-up. RESULTS: Of 346 included patients, 47.4% received prophylactic postoperative treatment [proactive/Cohort 1] and 52.6% did not [reactive/Cohort 2]. Endoscopic POR [Rutgeerts >i1] rate was significantly higher in Cohort 2 [41.5% vs 53.8%, OR 1.81, p = 0.039] at endoscopy 6-12 months after surgery. No significant difference in severe endoscopic POR was found [OR 1.29, p = 0.517]. Cohort 2 had significantly higher clinical POR rates [17.7% vs 35.7%, OR 3.05, p = 0.002] and numerically higher surgical recurrence rates [6.7% vs 13.2%, OR 2.59, p = 0.051]. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis showed no significant difference in time to surgical POR of proactive versus expectant/reactive approach [HR 2.50, p = 0.057]. Quasi-Poisson regression revealed a significantly lower treatment burden for immunomodulator use in Cohort 2 [mean ratio 0.53, p = 0.002], but no difference in burden of biologics or combination treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The PORCSE study showed lower rates of endoscopic POR with early postoperative medical treatment compared with expectant management after first ileocaecal resection for Crohn's disease.

EUS-guided versus PTC-guided rendezvous in case of failed ERCP: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) is a recently added alternative salvage technique to percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography rendezvous (PTC-RV) for achieving biliary cannulation in failed ERCP. Comparative data on these two techniques are lacking. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-RV versus PTC-RV in a tertiary referral center. METHODS: A case-control study was conducted in the tertiary referral center, Ghent University Hospital. All consecutive patients that underwent a rendezvous procedure between February 2014 and March 2022 for failed biliary cannulation were included. Patients that underwent PTC-RV (between February 2014 and February 2018) were compared to those who underwent EUS-RV (between March 2018 and March 2022). A sub-analysis was performed for malignant biliary strictures (MBO), benign biliary strictures (BBO) and common bile duct stones (CBDS). The primary endpoints of interest were technical success rate and complication rate. These outcome variables were compared among techniques using Fisher's exact test. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA version 15. RESULTS: A total of 59 consecutive procedures in 57 patients were included for analysis; 20/59 (33.9%) were PTC-RV; the remaining 39/59 (66.1%) procedures were EUS-RV. Two patients in the PTC-RV group underwent two procedures. Of the PTC-RV procedures, 18/20 (90.0%) were technically successful, as compared to 28/39 EUS-RV procedures (71.8%) (P = 0.184; Fig. 1). Adverse events were reported in 7/20 PTC-RV procedures (35.0%) and in 13/39 EUS-RV procedures (33.3%) (P = 1.000). In 5/20 PTC-RV procedures (25.0%) and 4/39 EUS-RV procedures (10.3%), the adverse event was considered major (defined as AGREE classification of 3 or more; P = 0.249). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-RV has an acceptable success rate and is not associated with an increased risk of adverse events as compared to PTC-RV.