Management of small subepithelial tumors by endoscopic banding without resection and single-incision needle-knife-assisted biopsy sampling: a prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) without resection combined with single-incision needle-knife (SINK) biopsy sampling may have a positive impact on small GI subepithelial tumor (SET) management, but the method needs to be tested. The aim was to evaluate the feasibility of this strategy in small-sized SETs. METHODS: This prospective multicenter observational cohort study in 7 centers included patients with SETs ≤15 mm (confirmed by EUS) between March 2017 and March 2020. The primary outcome was clinical success at 4 weeks, defined as complete SET disappearance on EUS. Secondary outcomes were long-term (1-year) clinical success, technical difficulty level, clinical impact, yield pathology, and safety. RESULTS: Of 273 patients screened, 122 (62.3% women; mean age, 60.9 ± 13.2 years) were included with SETs (mean size, 9 ± 2.8 mm; gastric location, 77%; superficial layer dependence, 63%). The primary endpoint was achieved in 73.6% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.8-81.2). At the 1-year follow-up, the success rate was 68.4% (95% CI, 59.1-76.8). A favorable clinical impact was observed in 97 cases (79.5%; 95% CI, 71.3-86.3). Pathology diagnosis was known in 70%. Potentially malignant lesions were present in 24.7%. The related adverse events rate was 4.1% (95% CI, 1.3-9.3; all mild: 2 bleeding, 2 abdominal pain). On multivariable analysis, the ≤10-mm SET group was associated with a greater success rate (1 year, 87%; relative risk, 5.07; 95% CI, 2.63-9.8) and clinical impact rate (92.7%; relative risk, 6.15; 95% CI, 2.72-13.93). CONCLUSIONS: EBL plus SINK biopsy sampling seems to be feasible and safe, and it may offer a favorable clinical impact in small-sized SETs. In particular, SETs ≤10 mm are the best candidates. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03247231.).

Underwater cap-suction pseudopolyp formation for endoscopic mucosal resection: a simple technique for treating flat, appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve colorectal lesions.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the safety and technical success of an easy-to-use technique that applies underwater cap suction pseudopolyp formation to facilitate the resection of flat lesions or those at the appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a register of consecutive cap suction underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (CAP-UEMR) procedures performed at two centers between September 2020 and December 2021. Procedures were performed using a cone-shaped cap, extending 7 mm from the endoscope tip, to suction the lesion while submerged underwater, followed by underwater snare resection. Our primary end point was technical success, defined as macroscopic complete resection. RESULTS: We treated 83 lesions (median size 20 mm; interquartile range [IQR] 15-30 mm) with CAP-UEMR: 64 depressed or flat lesions (18 previously manipulated, 9 with difficult access), 11 from the appendix, and 8 from the ileocecal valve. Technical success was 100 %. There were seven intraprocedural bleedings and two delayed bleedings, all managed endoscopically. No perforations or other complications occurred. Among the 64 lesions with follow-up colonoscopy, only one recurrence was detected, which was treated endoscopically. CONCLUSIONS: CAP-UEMR was a safe and effective technique for removing nonpolypoid colorectal lesions, including those arising from the appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve.

Endoscopic removal of lumen-apposing metal stents - risk factors for stent embedment, complex removals, and adverse events: analysis from a multicenter prospective case series.

BACKGROUND: Removing lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) may be difficult and even harmful, but these features have seldom been analyzed. We aimed to generate a comprehensive assessment of the feasibility and safety of LAMS retrieval procedures. METHODS: A prospective multicenter case series including all technically successfully deployed LAMSs between January 2019 and January 2020 that underwent endoscopic stent removal. All retrieval-related data were prospectively recorded using standardized telephone questionnaires as part of centralized follow-up that ended after stent removal had been performed. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed the potential risk factors for complex removal. RESULTS: For the 407 LAMSs included, removal was attempted in 158 (38.8 %) after an indwell time of 46.5 days (interquartile range [IQR] 31-70). The median (IQR) removal time was 2 (1-4) minutes. Removal was labelled as complex in 13 procedures (8.2 %), although advanced endoscopic maneuvers were required in only two (1.3 %). Complex removal risk factors were stent embedment (relative risk [RR] 5.84, 95 %CI 2.14-15.89; P = 0.001), over-the-wire deployment (RR 4.66, 95 %CI 1.60-13.56; P = 0.01), and longer indwell times (RR 1.14, 95 %CI 1.03-1.27; P = 0.01). Partial and complete embedment were observed in 14 (8.9 %) and five cases (3.2 %), respectively. The embedment rate during the first 6 weeks was 3.1 % (2/65), reaching 15.9 % (10/63) during the following 6 weeks (P = 0.02). The adverse event rate was 5.1 %, including seven gastrointestinal bleeds (5 mild, 2 moderate). CONCLUSIONS: LAMS removal is a safe procedure, mostly requiring basic endoscopic techniques attainable in conventional endoscopy rooms. Referral to advanced endoscopy units should be considered for stents with known embedment or long indwell times, which may require more technically demanding procedures.

Appropriateness of routine pre-endoscopic SARS-CoV-2 screening with RT-PCR in asymptomatic individuals and its impact on delayed diagnosis.

AIMS: Endoscopy units are considered to be at an increased risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2. Our aim is to assess the correlation between pre-endoscopic screening with reverse-transcription-polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR) in asymptomatic individuals scheduled for elective endoscopy and the epidemiological data published by the local Health Administration. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Observational retrospective study collecting the results of our screening strategy spanning June/2020-June/2021, the effective potential growth (EPG), an index measuring the outbreak risk, and the 7 and 14-day cumulative incidence (CI). Indication, delay and the findings of the endoscopic examinations were registered for RT-PCR positive patients. RESULTS: A total of 5808 tests were performed, yielding 125 positive results (2.15%). All positive tests occurred in weeks of high/very high risk (EPG>100) with the highest monthly rate being 9.36%, recorded in January/2021. A significant correlation (rho=0.796; p<0.001) between weekly positive rates and EPG was observed, and a significantly lower weekly number of positive tests was recorded when EPG<100. Planning the screening strategy one week ahead according to EPG>100 would have avoided up to 826 tests with only one positive result to account for. One hundred and thirteen individuals tested positive and 89 endoscopies were delayed. The most common findings were colon polyps, colorectal cancer and gastric metaplasia. Oncological diagnosis was delayed 50±3 days. CONCLUSIONS: No positive RT-PCR test were registered out of high-risk periods. Epidemiological administrative data in the preceding two weeks showed a significant correlation with screening results and could be useful to plan pre-endoscopic screening and avoid unnecessary tests.

Location, morphology and invasiveness of lateral spreading tumors in the colorectum differ between two large cohorts from an eastern and western country.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Data from Japanese series show that surface morphology of laterally spreading tumors (LST) in the colon identifies lesions with different incidence and pattern of submucosal invasion. Such data from western countries are scarce. We compared clinical and histological features of LST in a western country and an eastern country, with special interest on mucosal invasiveness of LST, and investigated the effect of clinical factors on invasiveness in both countries. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with LST lesions ≥20mm were included from a multicenter prospective registry in Spain and from a retrospective registry from the National Cancer Center Hospital East, Japan. The primary outcome was the presence of submucosal invasion in LST. The secondary outcome was the presence of high-risk histology, defined as high-grade dysplasia or submucosal invasion. RESULTS: We evaluated 1102 patients in Spain and 663 in Japan. Morphological and histological characteristics differed. The prevalence of submucosal invasion in Japan was six-fold the prevalence in Spain (Prevalence Ratio PR=5.66; 95%CI: 3.96, 8.08), and the prevalence of high-risk histology was 1.5 higher (PR=1.44; 95%CI: 1.31, 1.58). Compared to the granular homogeneous type and adjusted by clinical features, granular mixed, flat elevated, and pseudo-depressed types were associated with higher odds of submucosal invasion in Japan, whereas only the pseudo-depressed type showed higher risk in Spain. Regarding high-risk histology, both granular mixed and pseudo-depressed were associated with higher odds in Japan, compared with only the granular mixed type in Spain. CONCLUSION: This study reveals differences in location, morphology and invasiveness of LST in an eastern and a western cohort.

Predictors of the need for necrosectomy in patients with walled-off pancreatic necrosis treated with lumen apposition metal stents.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic necrosectomy through lumen apposition metal stents (LAMS) is increasingly being used for complicated walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN), but the need for necrosectomy after stent placement is not well understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical, endoscopic, and radiologic predictors of the need for necrosectomy in patients treated with LAMS. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients with WOPN treated with LAMS from 2014 to 2017. Necrosectomy was performed only in patients who had recurrent fever or hemodynamic instability during follow-up. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: We included 15 patients, 67% men and median age was 75 (54-76) years. Two (13%) presented adverse events, one immediate and one delayed. In the first case, the stent migrated to the gastric cavity during deployment but was relocated in the same procedure. In the second case, the patient presented bleeding on day 36 due to a pseudoaneurysm that was successfully treated with embolization. Clinical success was 100%, but five patients (33%) required endoscopic necrosectomy (4 mechanical and 1 irrigation) and one (7%) required surgical necrosectomy of distant collections. The percentage of necrosis in the collection detected in a previous CT scan (45 [35-66]% vs 10 [5-17]%) was the only factor to predict the need for necrosectomy in the multivariate analysis (OR 1.18 [1.01-1.39]). CONCLUSION: LAMS is efficient to treat WOPN but more than a third will need necrosectomy. The percentage of necrosis in the collection detected in the CT scan seems to predict the need for necrosectomy.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis Is Not Required for Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions, Based on a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guidelines recommend routine antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic cysts, but there is conflicting evidence for its necessity. We investigated whether performing the procedure without antimicrobial prophylaxis increases the incidence of infection. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial to compare prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin vs placebo in patients with a pancreatic cyst requiring EUS-FNA at multiple centers in Spain. From September 2014 to June 2018, patients were randomly assigned to groups that received the prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin (n = 112) or saline solution (n = 114, placebo). We recorded patients' demographic data, lesion characteristics, and procedure data and followed patients for 21 days. A total of 205 patients completed the trial (90.7%), receiving ciprofloxacin or the control, with no statistically significant differences in demographics, baseline data, or procedure characteristics between groups. The primary outcome was FNA-related infection. Secondary outcomes were incidence of fever, procedure complications, and medication-related adverse events. RESULTS: The only case of FNA-related infection (0.44%) occurred in a patient in the placebo group (0.87%); this patient developed acute pancreatitis and bacteremia after the procedure. Prevention of infection was not inferior in the control group; the difference between proportions was 0.87% (95% confidence interval, -0.84% to 2.59%). There were no differences between groups in fever (2 patients in each group: 1.78% vs 1.76%; P = 1.00) or other adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of patients undergoing EUS-FNA for pancreatic cyst evaluation, we found the risk of infection to be low. The incidence of infections did not differ significantly with vs without ciprofloxacin prophylaxis. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02261896).

Clinical validation of risk scoring systems to predict risk of delayed bleeding after EMR of large colorectal lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Endoscopic Resection Group of the Spanish Society of Endoscopy (GSEED-RE) model and the Australian Colonic Endoscopic Resection (ACER) model were proposed to predict delayed bleeding (DB) after EMR of large superficial colorectal lesions, but neither has been validated. We validated and updated these models. METHODS: A multicenter cohort study was performed in patients with nonpedunculated lesions ≥20 mm removed by EMR. We assessed the discrimination and calibration of the GSEED-RE and ACER models. Difficulty performing EMR was subjectively categorized as low, medium, or high. We created a new model, including factors associated with DB in 3 cohort studies. RESULTS: DB occurred in 45 of 1034 EMRs (4.5%); it was associated with proximal location (odds ratio [OR], 2.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-6.16), antiplatelet agents (OR, 2.51; 95% CI, .99-6.34) or anticoagulants (OR, 4.54; 95% CI, 2.14-9.63), difficulty of EMR (OR, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.41-7.40), and comorbidity (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, .99-4.47). The GSEED-RE and ACER models did not accurately predict DB. Re-estimation and recalibration yielded acceptable results (GSEED-RE area under the curve [AUC], .64 [95% CI, .54-.74]; ACER AUC, .65 [95% CI, .57-.73]). We used lesion size, proximal location, comorbidity, and antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy to generate a new model, the GSEED-RE2, which achieved higher AUC values (.69-.73; 95% CI, .59-.80) and exhibited lower susceptibility to changes among datasets. CONCLUSIONS: The updated GSEED-RE and ACER models achieved acceptable prediction levels of DB. The GSEED-RE2 model may achieve better prediction results and could be used to guide the management of patients after validation by other external groups. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03050333.).

Optimal timing for a second ERCP after failure of initial biliary cannulation following precut sphincterotomy: an analysis of experience at two tertiary centers.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Precut sphincterotomy increases the success of deep biliary cannulation, but the method fails at the initial ERCP in 5-12% of cases. Although other invasive strategies are often used to access the bile duct, a second ERCP may be effective and safe. We evaluated the efficacy, safety, and factors related to a second ERCP after failed cannulation using a precut sphincterotomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed all patients that underwent an ERCP with native papilla from 2006 to 2014 at two tertiary institutions. Efficacy was based on the cannulation rate of the second ERCP, and safety was assessed in terms of adverse events. RESULTS: We identified 112 patients with failed cannulation after precut, and a second ERCP was performed in 72 (64.3%). Median time between procedures was 7 days (IQR 5-11). Deep cannulation was achieved in 54 cases (75%). The only factor associated with cannulation failure was an ERCP within 4 days after the initial precut (cannulation success 44.4 vs. 79.4% after 4 days, p = 0.026). Adverse events were recorded after the first ERCP in 13 of 112 patients (11.8%): delayed bleeding in four, pancreatitis in five, and perforation in four. After the second ERCP, three of 72 patients (4.2%) presented adverse events: two delayed bleeding and one pancreatitis. CONCLUSIONS: A second ERCP after failure of initial biliary cannulation following precut appears to be safe and effective. A second ERCP should be delayed at least 4 days if feasible.