Accurate and safe diagnosis and treatment of neoplastic biliary lesions using a novel 9F and 11F digital single-operator cholangioscope.

Background and study aims Digital single-operator cholangioscopy (DSOC) allows the diagnosis of biliary duct disorders and treatment for complicated stones. However, these technologies have limitations such as the size of the probe and working channel, excessive cost, and low image resolution. Recently, a novel DSOC system (eyeMAX, Micro-Tech, Nanjing, China) was developed to address these limitations. We aimed to evaluate the usefulness and safety of a novel 9F and 11F DSOC system in terms of neoplastic diagnostic accuracy based on visual examination, ability to evaluate tumor extension and to achieve complete biliary stone clearance, and procedure-related adverse events (AEs). Patients and methods Data from ≥ 18-year-old patients who underwent DSOC from July 2021 to April 2022 were retrospectively recovered and divided into a diagnostic and a therapeutic cohort. Results A total of 80 patients were included. In the diagnostic cohort (n = 49/80), neovascularity was identified in 26 of 49 patients (46.9%). Biopsy was performed in 65.3% patients with adequate tissue sample obtained in 96.8% of cases. Biopsy confirmed neoplasia in 23 of 32 cases. DSOC visual impression achieved 91.6% sensitivity and 87.5% specificity in diagnosing neoplasms. In the therapeutic cohort (n = 43/80), 26 of 43 patients required lithotripsy alone. Total stone removal was achieved in 71% patients in the first session. Neither early nor late AEs were documented in either the diagnostic or therapeutic cohort. Conclusions The novel DSOC device has excellent diagnostic accuracy in distinguishing neoplastic biliary lesions as well as therapeutic benefits in the context of total stone removal, with no documented AEs.

International Consensus Recommendations for Safe Use of LAMS for On- and Off-Label Indications Using a Modified Delphi Process.

INTRODUCTION: The study aimed to develop international consensus recommendations on the safe use of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) for on- and off-label indications. METHODS: Based on the available literature, statements were formulated and grouped into the following categories: general safety measures, peripancreatic fluid collections, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-biliary drainage, EUS-gallbladder drainage, EUS-gastroenterostomy, and gastric access temporary for endoscopy. The evidence level of each statement was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.International LAMS experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi process. When no 80% consensus was reached, the statement was modified based on expert feedback. Statements were rejected if no consensus was reached after the third Delphi round. RESULTS: Fifty-six (93.3%) of 60 formulated statements were accepted, of which 35 (58.3%) in the first round. Consensus was reached on the optimal learning path, preprocedural imaging, the need for airway protection and essential safety measures during the procedure, such as the use of Doppler, and measurement of the distance between the gastrointestinal lumen and the target structure. Specific consensus recommendations were generated for the different LAMS indications, covering, among others, careful patient selection, the preferred size of the LAMS, the need for antibiotics, the preferred anatomic location of the LAMS, the need for coaxial pigtail placement, and the appropriate management of LAMS-related adverse events. DISCUSSION: Through a modified international Delphi process, we developed general and indication-specific experience- and evidence-based recommendations on the safe use of LAMS.

Utilization of an overtube for placement of a lumen-apposing metal stent for removal of a capsule endoscope retained proximal to an ileal stricture.

Video 1Narration of case and demonstration of overture-mediated lumen-apposing metal stent placement for removal of retained capsule endoscopy.

Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review.

1: ESGE recommends a prolonged course of a prophylactic broad-spectrum antibiotic in patients with ascites who are undergoing therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents during EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy for biliary drainage in malignant disease.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be performed in high volume expert centers, owing to the complexity of this technique and the high risk of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends a stepwise approach to EUS-guided PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy, starting with rendezvous-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (RV-ERP), followed by antegrade or transmural drainage only when RV-ERP fails or is not feasible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests performing transduodenal EUS-guided gallbladder drainage with a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS), rather than using the transgastric route, as this may reduce the risk of stent dysfunction.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends using saline instillation for small-bowel distension during EUS-guided gastroenterostomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends the use of saline instillation with a 19G needle and an electrocautery-enhanced LAMS for EUS-directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (EDGE) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends the use of either 15- or 20-mm LAMSs for EDGE, with a preference for 20-mm LAMSs when considering a same-session ERCP.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE recommends the use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) over percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in malignant distal biliary obstruction when local expertise is available.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests EUS-BD with hepaticogastrostomy only for malignant inoperable hilar biliary obstruction with a dilated left hepatic duct when inadequately drained by ERCP and/or PTBD in high volume expert centers.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be considered in symptomatic patients with an obstructed PD when retrograde endoscopic intervention fails or is not possible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends rendezvous EUS techniques over transmural PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy owing to its lower rate of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that, in patients at high surgical risk, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (GBD) should be favored over percutaneous gallbladder drainage where both techniques are available, owing to the lower rates of adverse events and need for re-interventions in EUS-GBD.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6: ESGE recommends EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), in an expert setting, for malignant gastric outlet obstruction, as an alternative to enteral stenting or surgery.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends that EUS-GE may be considered in the management of afferent loop syndrome, especially in the setting of malignancy or in poor surgical candidates. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests that endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) can be offered, in expert centers, to patients with a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass following multidisciplinary decision-making, with the aim of overcoming the invasiveness of laparoscopy-assisted ERCP and the limitations of enteroscopy-assisted ERCP.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy using an oroenteric catheter-assisted technique: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND : This study evaluated an oroenteric catheter (OEC)-assisted technique to distend the enteric loop for endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) in patients with gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). METHODS : Patient outcomes were reviewed. Proximal enteric loops were filled with water via an OEC (7 Fr or 8 Fr), providing a target for EUS-GE using a lumen-apposing metal stent (15-mm caliber). Clinical success was defined as toleration of a non-liquid diet by Day 3. RESULTS : 42 patients (mean age 73.1 [SEM 2.8] years; 23 male) underwent EUS-GE for malignant (n = 37) and benign (n = 5) duodenal strictures. EUS-GE creation was successful in 41/42 (98 %), with mean procedure time of 36 (SEM 3) minutes and no serious complications. Clinical success was achieved in 39/42 (93 %) at 5.7 (SEM 2.6) months' follow-up. Of 14 patients who died, 13 (93 %) maintained oral intake until death. EUS-GE provided good symptom relief in all 28 surviving patients until follow-up. CONCLUSIONS : OEC-assisted EUS-GE provided satisfactory relief of GOO symptoms, with high technical success (98 %) and no serious complications.

Water-assisted colonoscopy: an international modified Delphi review on definitions and practice recommendations.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Since 2008, a plethora of research studies has compared the efficacy of water-assisted (aided) colonoscopy (WAC) and underwater resection (UWR) of colorectal lesions with standard colonoscopy. We reviewed and graded the research evidence with potential clinical application. We conducted a modified Delphi consensus among experienced colonoscopists on definitions and practice of water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), and UWR. METHODS: Major databases were searched to obtain research reports that could potentially shape clinical practice related to WAC and UWR. Pertinent references were graded (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Extracted data supporting evidence-based statements were tabulated and provided to respondents. We received responses from 55 (85% surveyed) experienced colonoscopists (37 experts and 18 nonexperts in WAC) from 16 countries in 3 rounds. Voting was conducted anonymously in the second and third round, with ≥80% agreement defined as consensus. We aimed to obtain consensus in all statements. RESULTS: In the first and the second modified Delphi rounds, 20 proposed statements were decreased to 14 and then 11 statements. After the third round, the combined responses from all respondents depicted the consensus in 11 statements (S): definitions of WI (S1) and WE (S2), procedural features (S3-S5), impact on bowel cleanliness (S6), adenoma detection (S7), pain score (S8), and UWR (S9-S11). CONCLUSIONS: The most important consensus statements are that WI and WE are not the same in implementation and outcomes. Because studies that could potentially shape clinical practice of WAC and UWR were chosen for review, this modified Delphi consensus supports recommendations for the use of WAC in clinical practice.

Underwater vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection in the management of colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background Recently, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has shown promising results in the management of colorectal polyps. Some studies have shown better outcomes compared to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare UEMR and EMR in the management of colorectal polyps. Methods We searched several databases from inception to November 2019 to identify studies comparing UEMR and EMR. Outcomes assessed included rates of en bloc resection, complete macroscopic resection, recurrent/residual polyps on follow-up colonoscopy, complete resection confirmed by histology and adverse events. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence interval were calculated using a fixed effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I 2 statistic. Funnel plots and Egger's test were used to assess publication bias. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessment of quality of observational studies, and the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias for RCTs Results Seven studies with 1291 patients were included; two were randomized controlled trials and five were observational. UEMR demonstrated statistically significantly better efficacy in rates of en bloc resection, pooled RR 1.16 (1.08, 1.26), complete macroscopic resection, pooled RR 1.28 (1.18, 1.39), recurrent/residual polyps; pooled RR 0.26 (0.12, 0.56) and complete resection confirmed by histology; pooled RR 0.75 (0.57, 0.98). There was no significant difference in adverse events (AEs); pooled RR 0.68 (0.44, 1.05). Conclusions This meta-analysis found statistically significantly better rates of en bloc resection, complete macroscopic resection, and lower risk of recurrent/residual polyps with UEMR compared to EMR. We found no significant difference in AEs between the two techniques.

Covid-19 pandemic impact on colonoscopy service and suggestions for managing recovery.

Background and aim As the post-peak phase of the epidemic is approaching, there is an urgent need of an action plan to help resume endoscopy activity. To manage the Covid-19 pandemic-imposed backlog of postponed colonoscopy examinations, an efficient approach is needed. The practice of on-demand sedation with benzodiazepines and/or opiates will allow most patients to complete a water-aided examination with minimal or no sedation. Other methods reported to minimize patient discomfort during colonoscopy can be used, in addition to water-aided techniques. Unsedated or minimally sedated patients who do not require recovery or require a shorter one allow rapid turnaround. The practice obviates the need for assistance with deep sedation from anesthesiologists, who may be in short supply. Trainee education in water-aided colonoscopy has been demonstrated to confer benefits. This review provides some insights into the impact of Covid-19 on endoscopy services, challenges ahead, and possible solutions to help recovery of colonoscopy work and training.

EUS-Guided Choledochoduodenostomy for Distal Malignant Biliary Obstruction Using Electrocautery-Enhanced Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents: First US, Multicenter Experience.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided biliary drainage has emerged as a technique to enable endobiliary drainage in failed ERCP. A newer model, lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), with a cautery-enhanced delivery system became available in the USA in late 2015. This cautery-tipped version may facilitate EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CD), but data using this model are lacking. METHODS: We reviewed outcomes of attempted EUS-CD using cautery-enhanced LAMS from 6, US centers. The following data were collected: patient and procedure details, technical success, adverse events, clinical success (resolution of jaundice or improvement in bilirubin > 50%), and biliary re-interventions. RESULTS: EUS-CD was attempted in 67 patients (mean age 68.8) with malignant obstruction after failed ERCP between September 2015 and April 2018. EUS-CD was technically successful in 64 (95.5%). A plastic or metal stent was inserted through the lumen of the deployed LAMS in 50 of 64 (78.1%) patients to maintain a non-perpendicular LAMS axis into the bile duct. Adverse events occurred in 4 (6.3%) and included: abdominal pain (n = 2), peritonitis that responded to antibiotics (n = 1), and bleeding requiring transfusion (n = 1). Among 40 patients with follow-up of > 4 weeks, clinical success was achieved in 100%. Biliary re-interventions for obstruction were needed in 7(17.5%), in 3 of 6 (50.0%) that underwent EUS-CD with LAMS alone versus 4 of 34 (5%) with LAMS plus an axis-orienting stent (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: EUS-CD using LAMS with cautery-enhanced delivery systems has high technical and clinical success rates, with a low rate of adverse events. Inserting an axis-orienting stent through the lumen of the LAMS may reduce the need for biliary re-interventions.

Endoscopic Management of Portal Hypertension-related Bleeding.

Gastrointestinal bleeding as a sequela of portal hypertension can be catastrophic and fatal. Endoscopic and endosonographic therapy play a critical role in management of such bleeding- both for hemostasis of active bleeding and bleeding prophylaxis. Variceal band ligation is established as the standard intervention for esophageal varices. For other sources of portal hypertension-related bleeding, or for salvage therapy for esophageal varices, a variety of endoscopic techniques are available. Endoscopic ultrasound may be used to enhance endoscopic management, particularly for gastric and ectopic varices.

Direct endoscopic necrosectomy at the time of transmural stent placement results in earlier resolution of complex walled-off pancreatic necrosis: Results from a large multicenter United States trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: EUS-guided drainage, and direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) of walled-off necrosis (WON) using a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) is safe and effective. Early debridement of WON may improve overall clinical outcomes. The aim of this study is to perform a multicenter retrospective study to compare the clinical outcomes and predictors of success for endoscopic drainage of WON with LAMS followed by immediate or delayed DEN performed at standard intervals. METHODS: Patients with WON managed by EUS-guided drainage with LAMS were divided into 2 groups: (1) those that underwent immediate DEN at the time of stent placement and (2) those that underwent delayed DEN 1 week after stent placement. DEN was subsequently performed every 1-2 week (s). Technical success (successful placement of LAMS), adverse events (AEs), and clinical success (complete resolution of the WON) were evaluated. RESULTS: Totally, 271 patients underwent WON drainage with LAMS: 69 who underwent immediate DEN and 202 who underwent delayed DEN. The technical success for LAMS placement was 100% in both groups. There was no significant difference in the overall procedural AEs between the immediate and delayed DEN groups (P = 7.2% vs. 9.4%; P = 0.81). Stent dislodgement during index endoscopy occurred in three patients in the immediate DEN group compared to zero in the delayed DEN group (P = 0.016); all three dislodgements occurred during necrosectomy. Clinical success for WON resolution in the immediate DEN group was 91.3% compared to 86.1% in the delayed DEN group (P = 0.3). The mean number of necrosectomy sessions for WON resolution was significantly lower in the immediate DEN group compared to the delayed DEN group (3.1 vs. 3.9, P < 0.001). Performing DEN at the time of stent placement was an independent predictor for resolution of WON with lesser number of DEN sessions (odds ratio 2.3; P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: DEN at the time of initial stent placement reduces the number of necrosectomy sessions required for successful clinical resolution of WON.