Indomethacin with or without prophylactic pancreatic stent placement to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP: a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of rectally administered indomethacin and placement of a prophylactic pancreatic stent is recommended to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients. Preliminary evidence suggests that the use of indomethacin might eliminate or substantially reduce the need for stent placement, a technically complex, costly, and potentially harmful intervention. METHODS: In this randomised, non-inferiority trial conducted at 20 referral centres in the USA and Canada, patients (aged ≥18 years) at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive rectal indomethacin alone or the combination of indomethacin plus a prophylactic pancreatic stent. Patients, treating clinicians, and outcomes assessors were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis. To declare non-inferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) would have to be less than 5% (non-inferiority margin) in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02476279), and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Sept 17, 2015, and Jan 25, 2023, a total of 1950 patients were randomly assigned. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 145 (14·9%) of 975 patients in the indomethacin alone group and in 110 (11·3%) of 975 in the indomethacin plus stent group (risk difference 3·6%; 95% CI 0·6-6·6; p=0·18 for non-inferiority). A post-hoc intention-to-treat analysis of the risk difference between groups showed that indomethacin alone was inferior to the combination of indomethacin plus prophylactic stent (p=0·011). The relative benefit of stent placement was generally consistent across study subgroups but appeared more prominent among patients at highest risk for pancreatitis. Safety outcomes (serious adverse events, intensive care unit admission, and hospital length of stay) did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: For preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients, a strategy of indomethacin alone was not as effective as a strategy of indomethacin plus prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. These results support prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in addition to rectal indomethacin administration in high-risk patients, in accordance with clinical practice guidelines. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.

Threshold evaluation for optimal number of endoscopic treatment sessions to achieve complete eradication of Barrett's metaplasia.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is the standard of care for Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated neoplasia. Previous data suggest the mean number of EET sessions required to achieve complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) is 3. This study aimed to define the threshold of EET sessions required to achieve CE-IM. METHODS: The TREAT-BE Consortium is a multicenter outcomes cohort including prospectively enrolled patients with BE undergoing EET. All patients achieving CE-IM were included. Demographic, endoscopic, and histologic data were recorded at treatment onset along with treatment details and surveillance data. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to define a threshold of EET sessions, with 95 %CI, required to achieve CE-IM. A secondary analysis examined predictors of incomplete response to EET using multiple logistic regression and recurrence rates. RESULTS: 623 patients (mean age 65.2 [SD 11.6], 79.6 % male, 86.5 % Caucasian) achieved CE-IM in a mean of 2.9 (SD 1.7) EET sessions (median 2) and a median total observation period of 2.7 years (interquartile range 1.4-5.0). After three sessions, 73 % of patients achieved CE-IM (95 %CI 70 %-77 %). Age (odds ratio [OR] 1.25, 95 %CI 1.05-1.50) and length of BE (OR 1.24, 95 %CI 1.17-1.31) were significant predictors of incomplete response. CONCLUSION: The current study found that a threshold of three EET sessions would achieve CE-IM in the majority of patients. Alternative therapies and further diagnostic testing should be considered for patients who do not have significant response to EET after three sessions.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage in benign biliary pathology with normal foregut anatomy: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Biliary drainage using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS-BD) has been developed as a novel technique to obtain biliary access and drainage when ERCP fails. Numerous studies have demonstrated its safety and efficacy specifically pertaining to those with malignant distal biliary obstruction or altered foregut anatomy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EUS-BD in benign indications in patients with normal foregut anatomy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective comparative study from 5 academic medical centers (2008-2018) involving patients with benign biliary obstruction and native foregut anatomy who had an initial failed ERCP with subsequent attempt at biliary decompression via EUS-BD or by repeating ERCP. RESULTS: 36 patients (mean age 61.6 ± 2.2, 38.9% female) who underwent attempted EUS-BD following initial failed ERCP were compared to 50 patients (mean age 62.7 ± 2.3, 73.5% female) who underwent repeat ERCP following an initial failed cannulation. EUS-BD was technically successful in 28 (77.8%) patients with rendezvous being the most common approach (86.1%). A higher level of pre-procedural bilirubin was found to be associated with technical success of EUS-BD (3.65 ± 0.63 versus 1.1 ± 0.4, p value 0.04). Success of repeat ERCP following failed cannulation was 86%. Adverse events were significantly more frequent in the EUS-BD cohort when compared to the repeat ERCP (10 (27.8%) versus 4 (8.0%), p = 0.02, OR 4.32. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-BD remains a viable therapeutic option in the setting of benign biliary disease, with success rates of 77.8%. Adverse events were significantly more common with EUS-BD vs. repeat ERCP, emphasizing the need to perform in expert centers with appropriate multidisciplinary support and to strongly consider the urgency of biliary decompression before considering same session EUS-BD after failed initial biliary access.

Characteristics of Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography for Sphincter of Oddi Disorders.

The concept that sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) can cause attacks of biliary-type pain in postcholecystectomy patients and those with unexplained recurrent acute pancreatitis, and that endoscopic sphincterotomy can ameliorate symptoms, remains unproven. The Evaluating Predictors and Interventions in Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction (EPISOD) study of patients without objective evidence for biliary obstruction showed no difference in outcomes between those who underwent sphincterotomy or sham treatment.1 To date, there have been no studies examining the characteristics of patients who still are being offered endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for SOD since the EPISOD publication, although the absolute number appears to have declined.2.

Validation of choledocholithiasis predictors from the "2019 ASGE Guideline for the role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of choledocholithiasis."

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Identifying patients likely to have CDL is an important clinical dilemma because endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), carries a 5-7% risk of adverse events. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic test performance of the 2010 and 2019 ASGE criteria used to help risk stratify patients with suspected CDL. METHODS: Consecutive patients evaluated for possible CDL from 2013 to 2019 were identified from surgical, endoscopic, and radiologic databases at a single academic center. Inclusion criteria included all patients who underwent ERCP and/or cholecystectomy with intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) for suspected CDL. We calculated the diagnostic test performance of criteria from both guidelines and compared their discrimination using the receiver operator curve. Univariate and multivariate analysis was used to identify the strongest component predictors. RESULTS: 1098 patients [age 57.9 ± 19.0 years, 62.8% (690) F] were included. 66.3% (728) were found to have CDL on ERCP and/or IOC. When using the 2019 guidelines, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy are 65.8, 78.9, 86.3, 54.1, and 70.4%, respectively. Using the 2010 guidelines, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy are 50.5, 78.9, 82.5, 44.8, and 60.1%, respectively. The AUC for high-risk criteria using the 2019 guidelines [0.726 (0.695, 0.758)] was greater than for the 2010 guidelines [0.647 (0.614, 0.681)]. The key difference providing the increased discrimination was the inclusion of stones on any imaging modality, which increased the sensitivity to 55.0% from 29.1%. Not including CDL on imaging or cholangitis, a dilated CBD was the strongest individual predictor of CDL on multivariate analysis (OR 3.70, CI 2.80, 4.89). CONCLUSION: Compared to 2010, the 2019 high-risk criterion improves diagnostic test performance, but still performs suboptimally. Less invasive tests, such as EUS or MRCP, should be considered in patients with suspected CDL prior to ERCP.

Hemostatic powder TC-325 treatment of malignancy-related upper gastrointestinal bleeds: International registry outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Upper gastrointestinal tumors account for 5% of upper gastrointestinal bleeds. These patients are challenging to treat due to the diffuse nature of the neoplastic bleeding lesions, high rebleeding rates, and significant transfusion requirements. TC-325 (Cook Medical, North Carolina, USA) is a hemostatic powder for gastrointestinal bleeding. The aim of this study was to examine the outcomes of upper gastrointestinal bleeds secondary to tumors treated with Hemospray therapy. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected on the use of Hemospray from 17 centers. Hemospray was used during emergency endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeds secondary to tumors at the discretion of the endoscopist as a monotherapy, dual therapy with standard hemostatic techniques, or rescue therapy. RESULTS: One hundred and five patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeds secondary to tumors were recruited. The median Blatchford score at baseline was 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 7-12). The median Rockall score was 8 (IQR, 7-9). Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 102/105 (97%) patients, 15% of patients had a 30-day rebleed, 20% of patients died within 30 days (all-cause mortality). There was a significant improvement in transfusion requirements following treatment (P < 0.001) when comparing the number of units transfused 3 weeks before and after treatment. The mean reduction was one unit per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Hemospray achieved high rates of immediate hemostasis, with comparable rebleed rates following treatment of tumor-related upper gastrointestinal bleeds. Hemospray helped in improving transfusion requirements in these patients. This allows for patient stabilization and bridges towards definitive surgery or radiotherapy to treat the underlying tumor.

Hemostatic spray powder TC-325 in the primary endoscopic treatment of peptic ulcer-related bleeding: multicenter international registry.

BACKGROUND: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a leading cause of morbidity and is associated with a 2 % - 17 % mortality rate in the UK and USA. Bleeding peptic ulcers account for 50 % of UGIB cases. Endoscopic intervention in a timely manner can improve outcomes. Hemostatic spray is an endoscopic hemostatic powder for GI bleeding. This multicenter registry was created to collect data prospectively on the immediate endoscopic hemostasis of GI bleeding in patients with peptic ulcer disease when hemostatic spray is applied as endoscopic monotherapy, dual therapy, or rescue therapy. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively (January 2016 - March 2019) from 14 centers in the UK, France, Germany, and the USA. The application of hemostatic spray was decided upon at the endoscopist's discretion. RESULTS: 202 patients with UGIB secondary to peptic ulcers were recruited. Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 178/202 patients (88 %), 26/154 (17 %) experienced rebleeding, 21/175 (12 %) died within 7 days, and 38/175 (22 %) died within 30 days (all-cause mortality). Combination therapy of hemostatic spray with other endoscopic modalities had an associated lower 30-day mortality (16 %, P < 0.05) compared with monotherapy or rescue therapy. There were high immediate hemostasis rates across all peptic ulcer disease Forrest classifications. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest case series of outcomes of peptic ulcer bleeding treated with hemostatic spray, with high immediate hemostasis rates for bleeding peptic ulcers.

Performance and Predictors of Migration of Partially and Fully Covered Esophageal Self-Expanding Metal Stents for Malignant Dysphagia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are routinely used to palliate malignant dysphagia. However esophageal SEMS can migrate or obstruct due to epithelial hyperplasia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the rates and factors predicting migration and obstruction, and the nutritional outcomes in partially covered (pc) vs. fully covered (fc) SEMS vs. fcSEMS with antimigration fins (AF) placed for malignant dysphagia. METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing SEMS placement for malignant dysphagia at three academic medical centers. RESULTS: Among 357 patients, there were 55 (15.4%) stent migrations, 45 (12.6%) obstructions from epithelial hyperplasia, and 20 (5.6%) food impactions. Median overall survival was 79 days (IQR 41,199). The percent weight change/change in albumin at 30 and 60 days after SEMS placement were -2.24%/-0.544 g/dL and -2.98%/-0.55 g/dL, respectively. Stent migration occurred significantly more often with fcSEMS than pcSEMS (25.3% vs 10.9%; P < .003), but there was no difference when either group was compared to fcSEMS-AF (19.3%). The overall rate of epithelial hyperplasia resulting in stent obstruction was low (12.6%) and not different between stent types. Factors associated with increased risk of SEMS migration on multivariable logistic regression included stricture traversability with a diagnostic endoscope (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.29-4.35) and use of fcSEMS (OR, 2.56; 1.31-5.00) or fcSEMS-AF (OR, 2.30, 1.03-5.14). CONCLUSIONS: Traversability of a malignant esophageal stenosis predicts SEMS migration. In these patients with a limited overall survival, pcSEMS are associated with lower rates of stent migration and similar rates of obstruction compared to fcSEMS.

Development and initial validation of an instrument for video-based assessment of technical skill in ERCP.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The accurate measurement of technical skill in ERCP is essential for endoscopic training, quality assurance, and coaching of this procedure. Hypothesizing that technical skill can be measured by analysis of ERCP videos, we aimed to develop and validate a video-based ERCP skill assessment tool. METHODS: Based on review of procedural videos, the task of ERCP was deconstructed into its basic components by an expert panel that developed an initial version of the Bethesda ERCP Skill Assessment Tool (BESAT). Subsequently, 2 modified Delphi panels and 3 validation exercises were conducted with the goal of iteratively refining the tool. Fully crossed generalizability studies investigated the contributions of assessors, ERCP performance, and technical elements to reliability. RESULTS: Twenty-nine technical elements were initially generated from task deconstruction. Ultimately, after iterative refinement, the tool comprised 6 technical elements and 11 subelements. The developmental process achieved consistent improvements in the performance characteristics of the tool with every iteration. For the most recent version of the tool, BESAT-v4, the generalizability coefficient (a reliability index) was .67. Most variance in BESAT scores (43.55%) was attributed to differences in endoscopists' skill, indicating that the tool can reliably differentiate between endoscopists based on video analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Video-based assessment of ERCP skill appears to be feasible with a novel instrument that demonstrates favorable validity evidence. Future steps include determining whether the tool can discriminate between endoscopists of varying experience levels and predict important outcomes in clinical practice.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Endoscopic Therapies for Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update is to review the available evidence and best practice advice statements regarding the use of endoscopic therapies in treating patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. METHODS: This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. This review is framed around the 10 best practice advice points agreed upon by the authors, which reflect landmark and recent published articles in this field. This expert review also reflects the experiences of the authors who are gastroenterologists with extensive experience in managing and teaching others to treat patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Endoscopic therapy should achieve hemostasis in the majority of patients with NVUGIB. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Initial management of the patient with NVUGIB should focus on resuscitation, triage, and preparation for upper endoscopy. After stabilization, patients with NVUGIB should undergo endoscopy with endoscopic treatment of sites with active bleeding or high-risk stigmata for rebleeding. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Endoscopists should be familiar with the indications, efficacy, and limitations of currently available tools and techniques for endoscopic hemostasis, and be comfortable applying conventional thermal therapy and placing hemoclips. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Monopolar hemostatic forceps with low-voltage coagulation can be an effective alternative to other mechanical and thermal treatments for NVUGIB, particularly for ulcers in difficult locations or those with a rigid and fibrotic base. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Hemostasis using an over-the-scope clip should be considered in select patients with NVUGIB, in whom conventional electrosurgical coagulation and hemostatic clips are unsuccessful or predicted to be ineffective. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Hemostatic powders are a noncontact endoscopic option that may be considered in cases of massive bleeding with poor visualization, for salvage therapy, and for diffuse bleeding from malignancy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Hemostatic powder should be preferentially used as a rescue therapy and not for primary hemostasis, except in cases of malignant bleeding or massive bleeding with inability to perform thermal therapy or hemoclip placement. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopists should understand the risk of bleeding from therapeutic endoscopic interventions (eg, endoluminal resection and endoscopic sphincterotomy) and be familiar with the endoscopic tools and techniques to treat intraprocedural bleeding and minimize the risk of delayed bleeding. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: In patients with endoscopically refractory NVUGIB, the etiology of bleeding (peptic ulcer disease, unknown source, post surgical); patient factors (hemodynamic instability, coagulopathy, multi-organ failure, surgical history); risk of rebleeding; and potential adverse events should be taken into consideration when deciding on a case-by-case basis between transcatheter arterial embolization and surgery. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Prophylactic transcatheter arterial embolization of high-risk ulcers after successful endoscopic therapy is not encouraged.

Recurrence Is Rare Following Complete Eradication of Intestinal Metaplasia in Patients With Barrett's Esophagus and Peaks at 18 Months.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There have been few studies describing the long-term durability of complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE)-related neoplasia who received endoscopic eradication therapy (EET). Data are needed to guide surveillance interval protocols and identify patients at risk for recurrence. We assessed the rate of recurrence of intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia, histologic features, and outcomes after recurrence of CE-IM, and identified factors associated with recurrence. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 807 patients with BE who underwent EET, which produced CE-IM, at 4 tertiary-care referral centers, from January 2013 to October 2018. Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative incidence rates (IR) of recurrence were calculated for up to 5 years following CE-IM and were stratified by baseline level of histology. Density estimates of recurrence were used to determine the change in the rate of recurrence over time. We conducted logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with recurrence. RESULTS: Intestinal metaplasia recurred in 121 patients (15%; IR, 5.2/100 person-years), and dysplasia recurred in 41 patients (5.1%; IR, 1.8/100 person-years), after a median follow-up time of 2317 person-years. The rate of recurrence was not constant and the time to any recurrence converged to a normal distribution; recurrences peaked at 1.6 y after patients had CE-IM. Baseline high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal cancer (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.19), presence of reflux symptoms (aOR, 12.1) or hiatal hernia (aOR, 13.8), and number of sessions required to achieve CE-IM (aOR, 1.8) were associated with recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study of a large cohort of patients with BE undergoing EET, we found a low rate of recurrence after CE-IM. The rate of recurrence peaked at 1-2 y after CE-IM. These findings indicate that aggressive surveillance might not be necessary more than 1 y after CE-IM and should be considered in surveillance guidelines. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT02634645.

Trends in Treatment of T1N0 Esophageal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore nationwide trends in treatment and outcomes of T1N0 esophageal cancer. BACKGROUND: Endoscopic treatment has become an accepted option for early-stage esophageal cancer, but nationwide utilization rates and outcomes are unknown. METHODS: T1N0 esophageal cancers were identified in the National Cancer Database from 2004 to 2014. We assessed trends in treatment; compared endoscopic therapy, esophagectomy, chemoradiation, and no treatment; and performed a subgroup analysis of T1a and T1b patients from 2010 to 2014 (AJCC 7). RESULTS: A total of 12,383 patients with clinical T1N0 esophageal cancer were analyzed. Over a decade, use of endoscopic therapy increased from 12.7% to 33.6%, whereas chemoradiation and esophagectomy decreased, P < 0.01. The rise in endoscopic treatment of T1a disease from 42.7% to 50.6% was accompanied by a decrease in esophagectomies from 21.7% to 12.8% (P < 0.01). For T1b disease, the rise in endoscopic treatment from 16.9% to 25.1% (P = 0.03) was accompanied by decreases in no treatment and chemoradiation, whereas the rate of esophagectomies remained approximately 50%. Unadjusted median survival was longer for patients undergoing resection: esophagectomy, 98.6 months; endoscopic therapy, 77.7 months; chemoradiation, 17.3 months; no treatment, 8.2 months; P < 0.01. Risk-adjusted Cox modeling showed esophagectomy was associated with improved survival [hazard ratio (HR): 0.85], and chemoradiation (HR: 1.79) and no treatment (HR: 3.57) with decreased survival, compared to endoscopic therapy (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Use of endoscopic therapy for T1 esophageal cancer has increased significantly: for T1a, as an alternative to esophagectomy; and for T1b, as an alternative to no treatment or chemoradiation. Despite upfront risks, long-term survival is highest for patients who can undergo esophagectomy.

Outcomes of endoscopic treatment of leaks and fistulae after sleeve gastrectomy: results from a large multicenter U.S. cohort.

BACKGROUND: Sleeve gastrectomy is the most commonly performed bariatric surgery in the United States. Leaks after sleeve gastrectomy (SGL) occur in 1% to 3% of patients. Endoscopic therapies are increasingly used for treatment of SGLs, but few data exist on their outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess technical success, leak resolution, and reoperation rates of patients undergoing endoscopic therapy for repair SGLs. SETTING: Eight high-volume academic endoscopy centers. METHODS: Patients undergoing endoscopic therapy for SGLs from 2007 to 2017 were identified. Patients were excluded if the index endoscopic therapy for SGL was performed elsewhere or if no follow-up data were available. Leaks were classified as acute (≤7 d of SG), early (1-6 wk), late (7-12 wk), and chronic (>12 wk). Leak resolution was defined as lack of extraluminal air, extravasation on oral contrast radiography, cross-sectional imaging, or resolution of percutaneous drain output. Demographic and procedural data were recorded as rates of additional therapy, adverse events, and surgical revision. RESULTS: A total of 85 patients met criteria for analysis (70 women, age 42.6 ± 10.8 yr). A total of 295 endoscopic sessions (median 3, range 1-14) were performed across the cohort. SGLs resolved after index endoscopic therapy in 43 (50.1%) patients. The primary outcome of endoscopic resolution of SGL was observed in 62 patients (72.9%). There were 34 (11.5%) PRAE (the majority occurring with self-expandable metal stents), all but 1 of which were managed endoscopically. Surgical revision was required in 23 (21.7%) patients. On univariate analyses independent variables associated with the need for surgical revision included both acute and chronic SGLs (P = .028), loculated subphrenic collections/abscesses (P = .03), and intraabdominal sepsis (P = .03). On multivariable logistic regression using statistically significant predictors from the univariate analyses, acute SGLs were significantly associated with a need for surgical revision (odds ratio 4.8, 95% confidence interval 1.2-18.9, P = .025). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic therapy for SGLs is associated with good clinical success, avoiding the need for surgical revision in 73% of patients, with an acceptable adverse event profile. Patients with acute or chronic SGLs and those with loculated abscesses or intraabdominal sepsis are more likely to undergo surgical revision. Endoscopic therapy is an appropriate first-line modality for the management of SGLs, especially those not classified as acute or chronic.

Anatomic location of Barrett's esophagus recurrence after endoscopic eradication therapy: development of a simplified surveillance biopsy strategy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Surveillance endoscopy is recommended after endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) for Barrett's esophagus (BE) because of the risk of recurrence. Currently recommended biopsy protocols are based on expert opinion and consist of sampling visible lesions followed by random 4-quadrant biopsy sampling throughout the length of the original BE segment. Despite this protocol, some recurrences are not visibly identified. We aimed to identify the anatomic location and histology of recurrences after successful EET with the goal of developing a more efficient and evidence-based surveillance biopsy protocol. METHODS: We performed an analysis of a large multicenter database of 443 patients who underwent EET and achieved complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) from 2005 to 2015. The endoscopic location of recurrence relative to the squamocolumnar junction (SCJ), visible recurrence identified during surveillance endoscopy, and time to recurrence after CE-IM were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty patients with BE recurrence were studied in the final analysis. Seventeen patients (34%) had nonvisible recurrences. In this group, biopsy specimens demonstrating recurrence were taken from within 2 cm of the SCJ in 16 of these 17 patients (94%). Overall, 49 of 50 recurrences (98%) occurred either within 2 cm of the SCJ or at the site of a visible lesion. Late recurrences (>1 year) were more likely to be visible than early (<1 year) recurrences (P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence after EET detected by random biopsy sampling is identified predominately in the distal esophagus and occurs earlier than visible recurrences. As such, we suggest a modified biopsy protocol with targeted sampling of visible lesions followed by random biopsy sampling within 2 cm of the SCJ to optimize detection of recurrence after EET. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02634645.).

Stenting for Benign and Malignant Biliary Strictures.

Benign and malignant biliary strictures are common indications for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Diagnosis involves high-quality cross-sectional imaging and cholangiography with various endoscopic sampling techniques. Treatment options include placement of plastic biliary stents and self-expanding metal stents, which differ in patency duration and cost effectiveness. Whether the etiology is benign or malignant, a multidisciplinary strategy should be implemented. This article will discuss general principles of biliary stenting in both benign and malignant conditions.

Setting minimum standards for training in EUS and ERCP: results from a prospective multicenter study evaluating learning curves and competence among advanced endoscopy trainees.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Minimum EUS and ERCP volumes that should be offered per trainee in "high quality" advanced endoscopy training programs (AETPs) are not established. We aimed to define the number of procedures required by an "average" advanced endoscopy trainee (AET) to achieve competence in technical and cognitive EUS and ERCP tasks to help structure AETPs. METHODS: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE)-recognized AETPs were invited to participate; AETs were graded on every fifth EUS and ERCP examination using a validated tool. Grading for each skill was done using a 4-point scoring system, and learning curves using cumulative sum analysis for overall, technical, and cognitive components of EUS and ERCP were shared with AETs and trainers quarterly. Generalized linear mixed-effects models with a random intercept for each AET were used to generate aggregate learning curves, allowing us to use data from all AETs to estimate the average learning experience for trainees. RESULTS: Among 62 invited AETPs, 37 AETs from 32 AETPs participated. Most AETs reported hands-on EUS (52%, median 20 cases) and ERCP (68%, median 50 cases) experience before starting an AETP. The median number of EUS and ERCPs performed per AET was 400 (range, 200-750) and 361 (range, 250-650), respectively. Overall, 2616 examinations were graded (EUS, 1277; ERCP-biliary, 1143; pancreatic, 196). Most graded EUS examinations were performed for pancreatobiliary indications (69.9%) and ERCP examinations for ASGE biliary grade of difficulty 1 (72.1%). The average AET achieved competence in core EUS and ERCP skills at approximately 225 and 250 cases, respectively. However, overall technical competence was achieved for grade 2 ERCP at about 300 cases. CONCLUSION: The thresholds provided for an average AET to achieve competence in EUS and ERCP may be used by the ASGE and AETPs in establishing the minimal standards for case volume exposure for AETs during their training. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02509416.).