Combined Drainage and Protocolized Necrosectomy Through a Coaxial Lumen-apposing Metal Stent for Pancreatic Walled-off Necrosis: A Prospective Multicenter Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated a protocolized endoscopic necrosectomy approach with a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) in patients with large symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON) comprising significant necrotic content, with or without infection. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Randomized trials have shown similar efficacy of endoscopic treatment compared with surgery for infected WON. DESIGN: We conducted a regulatory, prospective, multicenter single-arm clinical trial examining the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound -guided LAMS with protocolized necrosectomy to treat symptomatic WON ≥6 cm in diameter with >30% solid necrosis. After LAMS placement, protocolized WON assessment was conducted and endoscopic necrosectomy was performed for insufficient WON size reduction and persistent symptoms. Patients with radiographic WON resolution to ≤ 3 cm and/or 60-day LAMS indwell had LAMS removal, then 6-month follow-up. Primary endpoints were probability of radiographic resolution by 60 days and procedure-related serious adverse events. RESULTS: Forty consecutive patients were enrolled September 2018 to March 2020, of whom 27 (67.5%) were inpatients and 19 (47.5%) had clinical evidence of infection at their index procedure. Mean WON size was 15.0 ± 5.6 cm with mean 53.2% ± 16.7% solid necrosis. Radiographic WON resolution was seen in 97.5% (95% CI, 86.8%, 99.9%) by 60 days, without recurrence in 34 patients with 6-month follow-up data. Mean time to radiographic WON resolution was 34.1 ± 16.8 days. Serious adverse events occurred in 3 patients (7.5%), including sepsis, vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bacteremia and shock, and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. There were no procedure-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage with protocolized endoscopic necrosectomy to treat large symptomatic or infected walled-off necrotic pancreatic collections was highly effective and safe. Clinicaltrials.-gov no: NCT03525808.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Transluminal Gallbladder Drainage in Patients With Acute Cholecystitis: A Prospective Multicenter Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) using a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS). BACKGROUND: For patients with acute cholecystitis who are poor surgical candidates, EUS-GBD using a LAMS is an important treatment alternative to percutaneous gallbladder drainage. METHODS: We conducted a regulatory-compliant, prospective multicenter trial at 7 tertiary referral centers in the United States of America and Belgium. Thirty consecutive patients with mild or moderate acute cholecystitis who were not candidates for cholecystectomy were enrolled between September 2019 and August 2021. Eligible patients had a LAMS placed transmurally with 30 to 60-day indwell if removal was clinically indicated, and 30-day follow-up post-LAMS removal. Endpoints included days until acute cholecystitis resolution, reintervention rate, acute cholecystitis recurrence rate, and procedure-related adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Technical success was 93.3% (28/30) for LAMS placement and 100% for LAMS removal in 19 patients for whom removal was attempted. Five (16.7%) patients required reintervention. Mean time to acute cholecystitis resolution was 1.6±1.5 days. Acute cholecystitis symptoms recurred in 10.0% (3/30) after LAMS removal. Five (16.7%) patients died from unrelated causes. Procedure-related AEs were reported to the FDA in 30.0% (9/30) of patients, including one fatal event 21 days after LAMS removal; however, no AEs were causally related to the LAMS. CONCLUSIONS: For selected patients with acute cholecystitis who are at elevated surgical risk, EUS-GBD with LAMS is an alternative to percutaneous gallbladder drainage. It has high technical and clinical success, with low recurrence and an acceptable AE rate. Clinicaltrials.gov, Number: NCT03767881.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic duodenal stent versus endoscopic or surgical gastrojejunostomy to treat malignant gastric outlet obstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Malignant disease accounts for up to 80 % of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) cases, which may be treated with duodenal self-expanding metal stents (SEMS), surgical gastrojejunostomy (GJ), and more recently endoscopic-ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE). These three treatments have not been compared head-to-head in a randomized trial. Methods We searched the Embase and MEDLINE databases for studies published January 2015-February 2021 assessing treatment of malignant GOO using duodenal SEMS, endoscopic (EUS-GE) or surgical (laparoscopic or open) GJ. Efficacy outcomes assessed included technical and clinical success rates, GOO recurrence and reintervention. Safety outcomes included procedure-related bleeding or perforation, and stent-related events for the duodenal SEMS and EUS-GE arms. Results EUS-GE had a lower rate of technical success (95.3%) than duodenal SEMS (99.4 %) or surgical GJ (99.9%) ( P  = 0.0048). For duodenal SEMS vs. EUS-GE vs. surgical GJ, rates of clinical success (88.9 % vs. 89.0 % vs. 92.3 % respectively, P  = 0.49) were similar. EUS-GE had a lower rate of GOO recurrence based on limited data ( P  = 0.0036), while duodenal SEMS had a higher rate of reintervention ( P  = 0.041). Overall procedural complications were similar (duodenal SEMS 18.7 % vs. EUS-GE 21.9 % vs. surgical GJ 23.8 %, P  = 0.32), but estimated bleeding rate was lowest ( P  = 0.0048) and stent occlusion rate was highest ( P  = 0.0002) for duodenal SEMS. Conclusions Duodenal SEMS, EUS-GE, and surgical GJ showed similar clinical efficacy for the treatment of malignant GOO. Duodenal SEMS had a lower procedure-related bleeding rate but higher rate of reintervention.

Bronchial Thermoplasty in Patients With Severe Asthma at 5 Years: The Post-FDA Approval Clinical Trial Evaluating Bronchial Thermoplasty in Severe Persistent Asthma Study.

BACKGROUND: Bronchial thermoplasty is a device-based treatment for subjects ≥ 18 years of age with severe asthma poorly controlled with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists. The Post-FDA Approval Clinical Trial Evaluating Bronchial Thermoplasty in Severe Persistent Asthma (PAS2) study collected data on patients with severe asthma undergoing this procedure. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the 5-year efficacy and safety results in patients with severe asthma who have undergone bronchial thermoplasty? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a prospective, open-label, observational, multicenter study conducted in the United States and Canada. Subjects 18 to 65 years of age who were taking inhaled corticosteroids ≥ 1,000 µg/d (beclomethasone or equivalent) and long-acting beta-agonists ≥ 80 µg/d (salmeterol or equivalent) were included. Severe exacerbations, hospitalization, ED visits, and medication usage were evaluated for the 12 months prior to and at years 1 through 5 posttreatment. Spirometry was evaluated at baseline and at years 1 through 5 posttreatment. RESULTS: A total of 284 subjects were enrolled at 27 centers; 227 subjects (80%) completed 5 years of follow-up. By year 5 posttreatment, the proportion of subjects with severe exacerbations, ED visits, and hospitalizations was 42.7%, 7.9%, and 4.8%, respectively, compared with 77.8%, 29.4%, and 16.1% in the 12 months prior to treatment. The proportion of subjects on maintenance oral corticosteroids decreased from 19.4% at baseline to 9.7% at 5 years. Analyses of subgroups based on baseline clinical and biomarker characteristics revealed a statistically significant clinical improvement among all subgroups. INTERPRETATION: Five years after treatment, subjects experienced decreases in severe exacerbations, hospitalizations, ED visits, and corticosteroid exposure. All subgroups demonstrated clinically significant improvement, suggesting that bronchial thermoplasty improves asthma control in different asthma phenotypes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01350336; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Bronchial Thermoplasty Global Registry (BTGR): 2-year results.

OBJECTIVES: Bronchial thermoplasty (BT) is a device-based treatment for subjects ≥18 years with severe asthma not well controlled with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists. The Bronchial Thermoplasty Global Registry (BTGR) collected real-world data on subjects undergoing this procedure. DESIGN: The BTGR is an all-comer, prospective, open-label, multicentre study enrolling adult subjects indicated for and treated with BT. SETTING: Eighteen centres in Spain, Italy, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, South Africa and Australia PARTICIPANTS: One hundred fifty-seven subjects aged 18 years and older who were scheduled to undergo BT treatment for asthma. Subjects diagnosed with other medical conditions which, in the investigator's opinion, made them inappropriate for BT treatment were excluded. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Baseline characteristics collected included demographics, Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), Asthma Control Test (ACT), medication usage, forced expiratory volume in one second and forced vital capacity, medical history, comorbidities and 12-month baseline recall data (severe exacerbations (SE) and healthcare utilisation). SE incidence and healthcare utilisation were summarised at 1 and 2 years post-BT. RESULTS: Subjects' baseline characteristics were representative of persons with severe asthma. A comparison of the proportion of subjects experiencing events during the 12 months prior to BT to the 2-year follow-up showed a reduction in SE (90.3% vs 56.1%, p<0.0001), emergency room visits (53.8% vs 25.5%, p<0.0001) and hospitalisations (42.9% vs 23.5 %, p=0.0019). Reductions in asthma maintenance medication dosage were also observed. AQLQ and ACT scores improved from 3.26 and 11.18 at baseline to 4.39 and 15.54 at 2 years, respectively (p<0.0001 for both AQLQ and ACT). CONCLUSIONS: The BTGR demonstrates sustained improvement in clinical outcomes and reduction in asthma medication usage 2 years after BT in a real-world population. This is consistent with results from other BT randomised controlled trials and registries and further supports improvement in asthma control after BT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02104856.

Safety and effectiveness of bronchial thermoplasty after 10 years in patients with persistent asthma (BT10+): a follow-up of three randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Bronchial thermoplasty is an endoscopic treatment for uncontrolled asthma. Previous randomised clinical trials have shown that bronchial thermoplasty reduces severe exacerbations in people with asthma. However, the long-term efficacy and safety of bronchial thermoplasty beyond 5 years is unknown. The BT10+ study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of bronchial thermoplasty after 10 or more years of follow-up. METHODS: BT10+ was an international, multicentre, follow-up study of participants who were previously enrolled in the AIR, RISA, and AIR2 trials and who had 10 or more years of follow-up since bronchial thermoplasty treatment. Data on patient demographics, quality of life, lung function, CT scans (AIR2 participants only), severe exacerbations, and health-care use during the previous year were collected at the BT10+ 10-year outcomes study visit. The primary effectiveness endpoint was durability of the thermoplasty treatment effect, determined by comparing the proportion of participants who had severe exacerbations during the first and fifth years after bronchial thermoplasty treatment with the proportion of participants who had severe exacerbations during the 12-month period before the BT10+ visit. The primary safety endpoint was the absence of clinically significant post-treatment respiratory image changes after bronchial thermoplasty, defined as bronchiectasis or bronchial stenosis as confirmed by pulmonary volumetric high-resolution CT scan at the BT10+ visit (AIR2 participants only). All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03243292. The last patient was enrolled on Dec 11, 2018. The last patient completed follow-up on Jan 10, 2019. FINDINGS: The BT10+ study enrolled 192 (45%) of the 429 participants who were enrolled in the AIR, RISA, and AIR2 trials. The BT10+ participants comprised 136 who received bronchial thermoplasty (52% of the 260 participants who received bronchial thermoplasty in the original trials), and 56 sham or control participants (33% of 169 from the original trials). 18 (32%) sham or control participants received bronchial thermoplasty after the previous trials concluded. The participants included in BT10+ were followed for 10·8-15·6 years (median 12·1 years) post-treatment. Baseline characteristics were similar between participants enrolled in BT10+ and those not enrolled. Participants treated with bronchial thermoplasty had similar proportions of severe exacerbations at the BT10+ visit (34 [25%] of 136 participants) compared with 1 year (33 [24%] of 135 participants; difference 0·6%, 95% CI -9·7 to 10·8) and 5 years (28 [22%] of 130 participants; difference 3·5%, -6·7% to 13·6) after treatment. Quality of life measurements and spirometry were similar between year 1, year 5, and the BT10+ visit. At the BT10+ study visit, pulmonary high-resolution CT scans from AIR2 participants treated with bronchial thermoplasty showed that 13 (13%) of 97 participants had bronchiectasis. When compared with baseline high-resolution CT scans, six (7%) of 89 participants treated with bronchial thermoplasty who did not have bronchiectasis at baseline had developed bronchiectasis after treatment (5 classified as mild, 1 classified as moderate). Participants treated with bronchial thermoplasty after the original study and participants in the sham or control group also had reductions in severe exacerbations at the BT10+ visit compared with baseline. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that efficacy of bronchial thermoplasty is sustained for 10 years or more, with an acceptable safety profile. Therefore, bronchial thermoplasty is a long-acting therapeutic option for patients with asthma that remains uncontrolled despite optimised medical treatment. FUNDING: Boston Scientific.

Safety and efficacy of lumen-apposing metal stents versus plastic stents to treat walled-off pancreatic necrosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are increasingly used for drainage of walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). Recent studies suggested greater adverse event (AE) rates with LAMS for WON. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of LAMS with double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) for endoscopic drainage of WON. The primary aim was to evaluate stent-related AEs. Methods In October 2019, we searched the Ovid (Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane) and Scopus databases for studies assessing a specific LAMS or DPPS for WON drainage conducted under EUS guidance. Safety outcomes were AE rates of bleeding, stent migration, perforation, and stent occlusion. Efficacy outcomes were WON resolution and number of procedures needed to achieve resolution. A subanalysis including non-EUS-guided cases was performed. Results Thirty studies including one randomized controlled trial (total 1,524 patients) were analyzed. LAMS were associated with similar bleeding (2.5 % vs. 4.6 %, P =  0.39) and perforation risk (0.5 % vs. 1.1 %, P =  0.35) compared to DPPS. WON resolution (87.4 % vs. 87.5 %, P =  0.99), number of procedures to achieve resolution (2.09 vs. 1.88, P =  0.72), stent migration (5.9 % vs. 6.8 %, P =  0.79), and stent occlusion (3.8 % vs. 5.2 %, P =  0.78) were similar for both groups. Inclusion of non-EUS-guided cases led to significantly higher DPPS bleeding and perforation rates. Conclusions LAMS and DPPS were associated with similar rates of AEs and WON resolution when limiting analysis to EUS-guided cases. Higher bleeding rates were seen in historical studies of DPPS without EUS guidance. Additional high-quality studies of WON treatment using consistent outcome definitions are needed.

Long-term outcomes of bronchial thermoplasty in subjects with severe asthma: a comparison of 3-year follow-up results from two prospective multicentre studies.

Bronchial thermoplasty is an endoscopic therapy for severe asthma. The previously reported, randomised sham-controlled AIR2 (Asthma Intervention Research 2) trial showed a significant reduction in severe asthma exacerbations, emergency department visits and hospitalisations after bronchial thermoplasty. More "real-world" clinical outcome data is needed.This article compares outcomes in bronchial thermoplasty subjects with 3 years of follow-up from the ongoing, post-market PAS2 (Post-FDA Approval Clinical Trial Evaluating Bronchial Thermoplasty in Severe Persistent Asthma) study with those from the AIR2 trial.279 subjects were treated with bronchial thermoplasty in the PAS2 study. We compared the first 190 PAS2 subjects with the 190 bronchial thermoplasty-treated subjects in the AIR2 trial at 3 years of follow-up. The PAS2 subjects were older (mean age 45.9 versus 40.7 years) and more obese (mean body mass index 32.5 versus 29.3 kg·m-2) and took higher doses of inhaled corticosteroids (mean dose 2301 versus 1961 µg·day-1). More PAS2 subjects had experienced severe exacerbations (74% versus 52%) and hospitalisations (15.3% versus 4.2%) in the 12 months prior to bronchial thermoplasty. At year 3 after bronchial thermoplasty, the percentage of PAS2 subjects with severe exacerbations, emergency department visits and hospitalisations significantly decreased by 45%, 55% and 40%, respectively, echoing the AIR2 results.The PAS2 study demonstrates similar improvements in asthma control after bronchial thermoplasty compared with the AIR2 trial despite enrolling subjects who may have had poorer asthma control.

Efficacy of accelerated dose titration of olanzapine with adjunctive lorazepam to treat acute agitation in schizophrenia.

We conducted a prospective double-blind study of accelerated dose titration of olanzapine in the treatment of newly admitted acutely agitated patients with schizophrenia. Patients were randomized to either oral olanzapine (10 mg per day) or oral haloperidol (10 mg per day), plus lorazepam as needed (up to 12 mg per day). Antipsychotic dosage was increased to 20 mg per day as early as day 3. Patients were evaluated with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Agitation subscale during the first 24 hours of treatment, daily for the first week, then weekly until study completion. Significant within-group improvement was demonstrated in PANSS Agitation scores for both groups as early as 1 hour after initiating therapy (-5.79 +/- 6.30 for olanzapine and -4.89 +/- 6.05 for haloperidol, P <.001). This study demonstrated that accelerated dose titration of oral olanzapine is as efficacious as oral haloperidol in reducing acute agitation in patients with schizophrenia.