Training and quality indicators in interventional endoscopic ultrasound.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has transformed the landscape of minimally invasive gastrointestinal procedures, necessitating specialized training for proficiency in interventional EUS (iEUS). This study evaluates the effectiveness of iEUS training, focusing on learning curves, success rates, and the associated risks in various procedures, aiming to recommend practices for standardizing training and ensuring competency. Key metrics such as procedure type, learning curve for proficiency, success rates, and risk of adverse events were analyzed to establish benchmarks for training programs. Proficiency in pancreatic fluid collection drainage was achieved after 20-30 procedures, with a 100% success rate and a complication rate ranging from 1.5 to 80%. Gallbladder drainage required 19 cases to reach an 86% success rate, with adverse events reported in 19% of cases. Choledocoduodenostomy mastery was observed after approximately 100 cases, with postintervention pancreatitis affecting 5.3-6.6% of all cases. Hepaticogastrostomy showed a 93% success rate after 33 cases, with a 24.8% adverse event rate. Hepaticoenterostomy reached 100% success beyond the 40th patient, with a 20% rate of postsurgical strictures. Pancreatic duct drainage achieved 89% technical and 87% clinical success after 27 cases, with 12-15% adverse events. Gastro-enteric anastomosis required 25 cases for proficiency and approximately 40 cases for mastery, with 5.5% immediate and 1% late adverse events. iEUS training outcomes vary significantly across different procedures, highlighting the importance of structured, procedure-specific training programs to achieve proficiency. These findings provide a foundation for developing universal competency benchmarks in iEUS, facilitating consistent and effective training worldwide.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrointestinal anastomosis: Are we there yet?

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is increasingly used as a therapeutic approach for gastrointestinal diseases, especially with the advent of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS). This has led to a rise in of EUS-guided gastrointestinal anastomosis procedures. Due to the reliability of intestinal conduits with LAMS, indications for EUS-guided gastrointestinal anastomosis are becoming more common and trend to potentially be standard care for gastric outlet obstruction, afferent loop syndrome, and EUS-directed transgastric interventions such as EUS-directed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Retrospective and prospective data indicate that the procedure is becoming widely adopted with promising outcomes. This article aims to review the existing literature on EUS-guided gastrointestinal anastomosis and predict its future developments.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided gastroenterostomy versus uncovered duodenal metal stenting for unresectable malignant gastric outlet obstruction (DRA-GOO): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel endoscopic method to palliate malignant gastric outlet obstruction. We aimed to assess whether the use of EUS-GE with a double balloon occluder for malignant gastric outlet obstruction could reduce the need for reintervention within 6 months compared with conventional duodenal stenting. METHODS: The was an international, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial conducted at seven sites in Hong Kong, Belgium, Brazil, India, Italy, and Spain. Consecutive patients (aged ≥18 years) with malignant gastric outlet obstruction due to unresectable primary gastroduodenal or pancreatobiliary malignancies, a gastric outlet obstruction score (GOOS) of 0 (indicating an inability in intake food or liquids orally), and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 3 or lower were included and randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either EUS-GE or duodenal stenting. The primary outcome was the 6-month reintervention rate, defined as the percentage of patients requiring additional endoscopic intervention due to stent dysfunction (ie, restenosis of the stent due to tumour ingrowth, tumour overgrowth, or food residue; stent migration; or stent fracture) within 6 months, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Prespecified secondary outcomes were technical success (successful placement of a stent), clinical success (1-point improvement in gastric outlet obstruction score [GOOS] within 3 days), adverse events within 30 days, death within 30 days, duration of stent patency, GOOS at 1 month, and quality-of-life scores. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03823690) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2020, and Feb 28, 2022, 185 patients were screened and 97 (46 men and 51 women) were recruited and randomly allocated (48 to the EUS-GE group and 49 to the duodenal stent group). Mean age was 69·5 years (SD 12·6) in the EUS-GE group and 64·8 years (13·0) in the duodenal stent group. All randomly allocated patients completed follow-up and were analysed. Reintervention within 6 months was required in two (4%) patients in the EUS-GE group and 14 (29%) in the duodenal stent group [p=0·0020; risk ratio 0·15 [95% CI 0·04-0·61]). Stent patency was longer in the EUS-GE group (median not reached in either group; HR 0·13 [95% CI 0·08-0·22], log-rank p<0·0001). 1-month GOOS was significantly better in the EUS-GE group (mean 2·41 [SD 0·7]) than the duodenal stent group (1·91 [0·9], p=0·012). There were no statistically significant differences between the EUS-GE and duodenal stent groups in death within 30 days (ten [21%] vs six [12%] patients, respectively, p=0·286), technical success, clinical success, or quality-of-life scores at 1 month. Adverse events occurred 11 (23%) patients in the EUS-GE group and 12 (24%) in the duodenal stent group within 30 days (p=1·00); three cases of pneumonia (two in the EUS-GE group and one in the duodenal stent group) were considered to be procedure related. INTERPRETATION: In patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction, EUS-GE can reduce the frequency of reintervention, improve stent patency, and result in better patient-reported eating habits compared with duodenal stenting, and the procedure should be used preferentially over duodenal stenting when expertise and required devices are available. FUNDING: Research Grants Council (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China) and Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva.

Partially covered versus uncovered pyloro-duodenal stents for unresectable malignant gastric outlet obstruction: Randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the current study was to compare the efficacy of partially covered duodenal stent (PCDS) vs. uncovered duodenal stent (UCDS) in patients suffering from unresectable primary malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). METHODS: This was a prospective international randomized controlled study conducted in 10 high-volume institutions. Consecutive patients suffering from malignant GOO were recruited. The primary outcome measurement was the reintervention rate. Secondary outcomes included technical and clinical success, 30-day adverse events, 30-day mortality, causes of stent dysfunction, and the duration of stent patency. RESULTS: Between March 2017 and October 2020, 115 patients (59 PCDS, 56 UCDS) were recruited. The 1-year reintervention was not significantly different (PCDS vs. UDCS = 12/59, 20.3% vs. 14/56, 25%, P = 0.84). There was a trend to fewer patients with tumor ingrowth in the PCDS group (6/59 [10.2%]) vs. 13/56 [23.2%], P = 0.07). There were no significant differences in the technical success (100% vs. 100%, P = 1), clinical success (91.5% vs. 98.2%, P = 0.21), procedural time (21.5 [interquartile range [IQR] 17-30] vs. 20.0 [IQR 15-34.75], P = 0.62), hospital stay (4 [IQR 3-12] vs. 5 [IQR 3-8] days, P = 0.81), 30-day adverse events (18.6% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.62), or 30-day mortality (6.8% vs. 5.2%, P = 1.00). CONCLUSION: The use of PCDS was associated with a lower risk of tumor ingrowth but did not improve on reintervention rates or stent patency. Both kinds of stents could be used in this group of patients.

Impact and assessment of training models in interventional endoscopic ultrasound.

Interventional endoscopic ultrasound (IEUS) has gained significant popularity in recent years because of its diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities. The proper training of endoscopists is critical to ensure safe and effective procedures. This review study aims to assess the impact of different training models on the competence of trainees performing IEUS. Eight studies that evaluated simulators for IEUS were identified in the medical literature. Various training models have been used, including the EASIE-R, Mumbai EUS, EUS Magic Box, EndoSim, Thai Association for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy model, and an ex vivo porcine model (HiFi SAM). The trainees underwent traditional didactic lectures, hands-on training using simulators, and direct supervision by experienced endoscopists. The effectiveness of these models has been evaluated based on objective and subjective parameters such as technical proficiency, operative time, diagnostic success, and participant feedback. As expected, the majority of skills were improved after the training sessions concluded, although the risk of bias is high in the absence of external validation. It is difficult to determine the ideal simulator among the existing ones because of the wide variation between them in terms of costs, reusability, design, fidelity of anatomical structures and feedback, and types of procedures performed. There is a need for a standardized approach for the evaluation of IEUS simulators and the ways skills are acquired by trainees, as well as a clearer definition of the key personal attributes necessary for developing a physician into a skilled endoscopist capable of performing basic and advanced therapeutic EUS interventions.

Position statement from the Indian Society of Gastroenterology, Cardiological Society of India, Indian Academy of Neurology and Vascular Society of India on gastrointestinal bleeding and endoscopic procedures in patients on antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapy.

Antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant agents (collectively known as antithrombotic agents) are used to reduce the risk of thromboembolic events in patients with conditions such as atrial fibrillation, acute coronary syndrome, recurrent stroke prevention, deep vein thrombosis, hypercoagulable states and endoprostheses. Antithrombotic-associated gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is an increasing burden due to the growing population of advanced age with multiple comorbidities and the expanding indications for the use of antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants. GI bleeding in antithrombotic users is associated with an increase in short-term and long-term mortality. In addition, in recent decades, there has been an exponential increase in the use of diagnostic and therapeutic GI endoscopic procedures. Since endoscopic procedures hold an inherent risk of bleeding that depends on the type of endoscopy and patients' comorbidities, in patients already on antithrombotic therapies, the risk of procedure-related bleeding is further increased. Interrupting or modifying doses of these agents prior to any invasive procedures put these patients at increased risk of thromboembolic events. Although many international GI societies have published guidelines for the management of antithrombotic agents during an event of GI bleeding and during urgent and elective endoscopic procedures, no Indian guidelines exist that cater to Indian gastroenterologists and their patients. In this regard, the Indian Society of Gastroenterology (ISG), in association with the Cardiological Society of India (CSI), Indian Academy of Neurology (IAN) and Vascular Society of India (VSI), have developed a "Guidance Document" for the management of antithrombotic agents during an event of GI bleeding and during urgent and elective endoscopic procedures.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided balloon-occluded gastrojejunostomy bypass, duodenal stent or laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy for unresectable malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

OBJECTIVES: Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) can be relieved by either laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy (LGJ), endoscopic stenting (SEMS) or endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy (endoscopic ultrasound-guided balloon-occluded gastrojejunostomy bypass; EPASS). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of the three treatment methods. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients who suffered from malignant GOO between January 2012 to November 2020 that received either EPASS, LGJ or SEMS. The outcomes included the technical and clinical success, 30-day adverse events and mortality, pre and post stenting GOO scores (GOOSs), stent patency and causes of stent dysfunction. RESULTS: One hundred and fourteen patients were included (30 EPASS, 35 LGJ, 49 SEMS). The technical success of EPASS, LGJ and SEMS were 93.3%, 100%, 100% (P = 0.058) and clinical success rates were 93.3%, 80%, 87.8% (P = 0.276), respectively. Procedural time was longest for the LGJ group (P < 0.001). The EPASS group had the shortest hospital stay (EPASS 1.5 [1-17], LGJ 7 [2-44], SEMS 5 [2-46] days, P < 0.001). EPASS group also had the lowest rates of recurrent obstruction (EPASS 3.3%, LGJ 17.1%, SEMS 36.7%, P = 0.002) and re-intervention (EPASS 3.3%, LGJ 17.1%, SEMS 26.5%, P = 0.031). The 1-month GOOS was highest in the EPASS group (EPASS 3 [1-3], LGJ 3 [0-3], SEMS 2 [0-3], P = 0.028). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy was associated with better clinical outcomes then the other two procedures. The procedure may be the best option provided that the expertise is available.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Interventions.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary interventions have evolved to become an integral part of advanced gastrointestinal endoscopy units. EUS-guided biliary drainage is an accepted alternative for patients with failed ERCP or altered surgical anatomy. The potential advantages of EUS-guided interventions include choice of biliary access from stomach or duodenum, choice of stent exit in stomach and duodenum, and possibility of avoiding traversing through the obstruction. A variety of procedures have been described depending on the level of obstruction. Maximum evidence is available for distal malignant obstruction, and more studies are needed for hilar obstruction and benign indications.

Evaluation of an all-in-one hybrid model (EUS Magic Box) for stepwise teaching and training in multiple interventional EUS procedures.

Background and study aims While multiple interventional endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided procedures have evolved over the past two decades, there is no model that allows for training in all of these procedures. We aimed to develop and validate an all-in-one hybrid model for stepwise learning in multiple EUS interventions. Methods A hybrid model was created utilizing a pig esophagus and stomach, a silicon-based duodenum and pancreato-biliary system, a pseudocyst, and biopsy targets. This model was designed to provide hands-on training in multiple interventional EUS procedures, such as EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB), biliary drainage (BD), pancreatic duct drainage (PD), pseudocyst drainage (PSD), and gastro-enterostomy (GE). Thirty-six trainees underwent training on this model over 6 days, in two batches. Lumen apposing metal stents were used for PSD and GE. Trainees were assessed for objective criteria of technical difficulties. Subjective assessment by trainees was done via a questionnaire. Results All the trainees were able to complete the requisite steps for all the procedures under supervision. On subjective assessment, 30 trainees (83 %) graded the model as good or excellent. A total of 107 technical difficulties were noted (scope position 55, duct puncture 27, guidewire-related problems 25). Time taken to complete the requisite steps of biopsy, PSD, and GE (10.5 minutes; range 3.5 to 22) was significantly less than that for BD and PD (28 minutes; range 17 to 40) ( P  < 0.001). Conclusions The hybrid model provided training for multiple EUS interventions with good acceptance by trainees. Stepwise mentoring with the possibility of performing multiple procedures in a single model with or without X-ray could prove useful in conference as well as institutional settings.

Feasibility of an EUS e-training course with live cases.

Background and study aims One-on-one endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) mentorship was not possible at most institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic. We decided to test the feasibility of structured training in EUS with virtual e-classes with live cases. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of a virtual EUS training course with objective end points. Patients and methods Twenty-one trainees were trained on a virtual platform over 16 classes of 90 minutes each, over 3 months. The virtual training screen had two equal parts, one showing the endoscopist's hand movements, and another the resultant EUS display. The course curriculum included EUS anatomy of the mediastinum, pancreatico-biliary region and rectum. The assessment was done on videos of procedures performed by trainees. Results Twenty trainees performed 251 EUS procedures (range 8-25, mean 12.5 ±â€Š4.9) at their institutions. At the end of the course, all students (100 %) could maneuver the echo-endoscope through to the duodenum. Fifteen trainees sent a video for final assessment. The successful specified area identification rates were 12 of 15 (80 %) for the subcarinal space, 10 of15 (66.6 %) for the head of the pancreas, 10 of 15 (66.6 %) for the common bile duct, and nine of 15 (60 %) for the tail of pancreas. The success rate of ability to get appropriate windows was 10 of 15 (67 %) for the subcarinal space, eight of 15 (53.3 %) for the head of the pancreas, seven of 15 (46.6 %) for the common bile duct and six of 15 (40 %) for the tail of pancreas. No adverse events were reported. Conclusions A virtual EUS training course with live cases appears feasible. It allows the possibility of training a large number of students. Further evaluation is needed, especially of virtual assessment methods and training benchmarks.

EUS-guided biliary drainage for malignant hilar biliary obstruction: A concise review.

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative to ERCP for distal biliary obstruction in expert hands. Various routes for EUS-guided access in distal biliary obstruction include EUS choledochoduodenostomy, EUS-guided rendezvous, and EUS-antegrade (EUS-AG) stent placement. While percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and ERCP are established modalities in management of malignant hilar biliary obstruction, the role of EUS-BD is emerging. Various methods of drainage in hilar obstruction include EUS hepaticogastrostomy, EUS hepaticoduodenostomy, EUS-guided bridging stent placement, and combined ERCP and EUS-guided biliary drainage. In this review, we discuss the role of EUS-BD in malignant hilar biliary obstruction with the currently available evidence, along with the limitations and challenges to the use of this modality in management of these patients.

Defining the endoscopic ultrasound features of chronic pancreatitis in Asians: a multicenter validation study.

BACKGROUND: Although endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) features and criteria have been described in chronic pancreatitis, challenges remain with interoperator variability and ease of adoption. The aim of this study was to define and validate the EUS features of chronic pancreatitis in a multicenter prospective study in Asia. METHOD: The study was divided into two parts: the first part was conducted to derive the EUS features of chronic pancreatitis with adequate interoperator agreement; the second was to prospectively evaluate these features in a multicenter cross-sectional study and determine the optimal combination of features for the diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis. Prospectively enrolled cases had standard internationally validated radiologic or histologic features of chronic pancreatitis, and controls were patients without chronic pancreatitis who underwent EUS examination. RESULTS: The top six EUS features that had good interobserver agreement (mean kappa 0.73, range 0.60 - 0.90) were selected to be further evaluated in part II of the study. These included: hyperechoic foci with shadowing, lobularity with honeycombing, cysts, dilated main pancreatic duct, dilated side branches, and calculi in the main pancreatic duct. A total of 284 subjects (132 cases, 152 controls) were enrolled from 12 centers in Asia. All six features had high accuracy ranging from 63.3 % to 89.1 %. Two or more of these six EUS features accurately defined chronic pancreatitis (sensitivity 94.7 %, specificity 98.0 %), with an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.986. CONCLUSION: This multicenter Asian study characterized and defined the EUS features of chronic pancreatitis. This provides a useful tool in clinical practice and further research in pancreatic cancer surveillance.

Palliative Endoscopic Ultrasound Biliary Drainage for Advanced Malignant Biliary Obstruction: Should It Replace the Percutaneous Approach?

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) are the standard of care in malignant biliary obstruction cases. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has been widely used after unsuccessful ERCP. However, the patient's clinical impact of EUS-BD over PTBD is still not obvious. Therefore, this case series study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients with advanced malignant biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-BD after failed ERCP. A retrospective database study was performed between January 2016 and June 2018 in patients with advanced malignant biliary obstruction. Patients were consecutively enrolled without randomization. Treatment options consisted of ERCP and PTBD or EUS-BD if ERCP failed. Based on 144 biliary obstruction cases, 38 patients were enrolled; 24 (63.2%) were men. The patients' mean age was 66.8 ± 12.36 years. The most common cause of malignant biliary obstruction was pancreatic cancer (44.7%). Biliary drainage was achieved by ERCP (39.5%), PTBD (39.5%), and EUS-BD (21.1%). The technical success rate was 86.7% by PTBD and 87.5% by EUS-BD (p = 1.000), while the clinical success rate was 93.3% by PTBD and 62.5% by EUS-BD (p = 0.500). The median survival in patients who underwent PTBD versus those wo underwent EUS-BD was 11 versus 3 months (log-rank p = 0.455). In conclusion, there is no significant advantage of EUS-BD when compared to PTBD in terms of clinical success and survival benefit in advanced malignant biliary obstruction.

An international, multi-institution survey of the use of EUS in the diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesions.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Currently, pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are recognized with increasing frequency and have become a more common finding in clinical practice. EUS is challenging in the diagnosis of PCLs and evidence-based decisions are lacking in its application. This study aimed to develop strong recommendations for the use of EUS in the diagnosis of PCLs, based on the experience of experts in the field. METHODS: A survey regarding the practice of EUS in the evaluation of PCLs was drafted by the committee member of the International Society of EUS Task Force (ISEUS-TF). It was disseminated to experts of EUS who were also members of the ISEUS-TF. In some cases, percentage agreement with some statements was calculated; in others, the options with the greatest numbers of responses were summarized. RESULTS: Fifteen questions were extracted and disseminated among 60 experts for the survey. Fifty-three experts completed the survey within the specified time frame. The average volume of EUS cases at the experts' institutions is 988.5 cases per year. CONCLUSION: Despite the limitations of EUS alone in the morphologic diagnosis of PCLs, the results of the survey indicate that EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration is widely expected to become a more valuable method.

Radial EUS imaging of the liver: A pictorial guide.

Systematic radial EUS imaging can provide a detailed evaluation of most of the liver segments, liver hilum, and hilar and intra-hepatic vascular and ductal anatomy. Innumerable scan planes are possible, and the endosonographers must reference the intra-hepatic vascular structures and ligaments, surface landmarks such as the gallbladder, and adjacent organs such as cardiac chambers and kidneys to define the liver segments. There is no strict demarcation between the adjacent segments, and all estimates are rough approximations. Radial EUS cannot sample detected lesions but can comprehensively evaluate the liver for any pathology. In particular, the superior part of the right anterior sector (S8), S4, and S6 are better seen with the radial than linear EUS probe. Unlike common belief, the liver hilum can also be well evaluated with the radial EUS probe from the mid and upper gastric body, similar to linear probe EUS imaging. Radial EUS imaging of the liver is carried out from three stations: gastroesophageal junction, upper-mid gastric body, and antrum-duodenal bulb. We describe a step-by-step approach to radial EUS description of liver anatomy in this pictorial review.

Periampullary Diverticula and ERCP Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Periampullary diverticulum (PAD) is most often asymptomatically found in elderly population. ERCP in the presence of PAD is technically challenging since the location and orientation of the ampulla could be altered. Various studies have reported differing results on the technical success and safety outcomes of ERCP in the presence of PAD. We aimed at a meta-analysis of such studies to assess the technical success and the occurrence of complications during ERCP in patients with PAD. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases (earliest inception to October 2017). The search was done in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to identify studies. Studies that reported on the ERCP outcomes based on the presence of PAD were included. Both prospective and retrospective studies, manuscripts and abstracts were included. Only articles in English literature were included. The primary analysis focused on the overall technical success of ERCP in the presence of PAD, and the secondary analysis was to estimate the risk of occurrence of complications. RESULTS: Our search resulted in 16 studies that were included for final analysis. These 16 studies reported on 2794 patients, who had PAD, and the control group included 13,032 patients, who did not have a PAD during ERCP. Our meta-analysis of this data showed an Odd's ratio estimate of having a successful ERCP procedure in patients with PAD to be 0.51 [95% C.I. (0.35-0.72)] when compared to patients without it. This was statistically significant, with a p value 0.00. Considerable heterogeneity was noted among the studies. The heterogeneity proportion was quantified at 74.6% based on I2 statistic. The secondary outcomes measured were complications. We analyzed the pooled Post-ERCP Pancreatitis (PEP), cholangitis, perforation, and bleeding. Only those studies that had the data for these complications in both the study and the control groups were selected. PEP: The pooled Odd's estimate of having PEP was 1.28, [95% C.I (0.88-1.87)] from 12 studies reporting on 1863 patients with PAD in comparison with 7803 patients without it. The risk of PEP occurrence tended to be more in the group without PAD, though it was not statistically significant, with a p value 0.20. There was some heterogeneity observed between the studies, with the quantification I2 statistic being 28.6%. Our analysis shows that having PAD does not put a patient at increased risk for PEP. Bleeding: The pooled Odds estimate was 1.69, 95% C.I. 0.88-3.25 from nine studies reporting on 1816 patients with PAD in comparison with 5327 patients without it. This was not statistically significant, p value 0.11. Considerable heterogeneity was noted, with I2 being 55.7%. The risk of having a bleed was noted to be more in control group, and having PAD did not put patients at increased risk for bleeding during an ERCP procedure. Perforation: Patients with PAD undergoing ERCP were not at increased risk for perforation. Seven studies reported on this complication. This was noted in seven patients out of 1245 in study group, and 19 patients out of 4912 in control group. The pooled Odd's estimate was 1.24, 95% C.I. 0.54-2.87. There was no statistical significance, p value 0.61. No heterogeneity was noted among the studies included in this analysis. Cholangitis: Only four studies reported on this complication. In a total of 778 patients in study group, four had cholangitis and eight had this complication out of 3886 patients in the control group. The pooled Odd's was 2.12, 95% C.I. 0.61-7.33. There was no statistical significance, p value 0.24. No heterogeneity was noted. CONCLUSION: ERCP is technically feasible and increasingly successful when performed by experts in the presence of PAD. The risk of complications such as PEP, bleeding, perforation and cholangitis does not differ between ERCP done in patients with and without PAD.