Impact of COVID-19 Infection on Pancreato-Biliary Diseases Requiring Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography.

BACKGROUND: Viral infections are known to impact the pancreato-biliary system; however, there are limited data showing that the same is true of COVID-19. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) can safely be performed in patients with COVID-19 infection, but outcomes of patients with COVID-19 infections and concomitant pancreatic and biliary disease requiring endoscopic intervention are unknown. AIMS: This study aims to evaluate the severity of pancreaticobiliary diseases and post-ERCP outcomes in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Patients with pancreato-biliary disease that required inpatient ERCP from five centers in the United States and South America between January 1, 2020, and October 31, 2020 were included. A representative cohort of patients from each month were randomly selected from each site. Disease severity and post-ERCP outcomes were compared between COVID-19 positive and COVID-19 negative patients. RESULTS: A total of 175 patients were included: 95 COVID positive and 80 COVID negative. Mean CTSI score for the patients who had pancreatitis was higher in COVID-positive cohort by 3.2 points (p < .00001). The COVID-positive group had more cases with severe disease (n = 41) versus the COVID-negative group (n = 2) (p < .00001). Mortality was higher in the COVID-19 positive group (19%) compared to COVID-negative group (7.5%) even though the COVID-19-negative group had higher incidence of malignancy (n = 17, 21% vs n = 7, 7.3%) (p = 0.0455). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that patients with COVID infection have more severe pancreato-biliary disease and worse post-ERCP outcomes, including longer length of stay and higher mortality rate. These are important considerations when planning for endoscopic intervention. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: (NCT05051358).

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Gallbladder Drainage Versus Percutaneous Drainage in Patients With Acute Cholecystitis Undergoing Elective Cholecystectomy.

INTRODUCTION: Cholecystectomy (CCY) is the gold standard treatment of acute cholecystitis (AC). Nonsurgical management of AC includes percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD). This study aims to compare outcomes of patients who undergo CCY after having received EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD. METHODS: A multicenter international study was conducted in patients with AC who underwent EUS-GBD or PT-GBD, followed by an attempted CCY, between January 2018 and October 2021. Demographics, clinical characteristics, procedural details, postprocedure outcomes, and surgical details and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine patients were included: EUS-GBD in 46 patients (27% male, mean age 74 years) and PT-GBD in 93 patients (50% male, mean age 72 years). Surgical technical success was not significantly different between the 2 groups. In the EUS-GBD group, there was decreased operative time (84.2 vs 165.4 minutes, P < 0.00001), time to symptom resolution (4.2 vs 6.3 days, P = 0.005), and length of stay (5.4 vs 12.3 days, P = 0.001) compared with the PT-GBD group. There was no difference in the rate of conversion from laparoscopic to open CCY: 5 of 46 (11%) in the EUS-GBD arm and 18 of 93 (19%) in the PT-GBD group ( P value 0.2324). DISCUSSION: Patients who received EUS-GBD had a significantly shorter interval between gallbladder drainage and CCY, shorter surgical procedure times, and shorter length of stay for the CCY compared with those who received PT-GBD. EUS-GBD should be considered an acceptable modality for gallbladder drainage and should not preclude patients from eventual CCY.

EUS-Guided Biliary Drainage Versus ERCP in Malignant Biliary Obstruction Before Hepatobiliary Surgery: An International Multicenter Comparative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is the procedure of choice for patients who cannot undergo endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The outcomes of patients undergoing surgery after EUS-BD for malignancy are unknown. METHODS: We conducted an international, multicenter retrospective comparative study of patients who underwent hepatobiliary surgery after having undergone EUS-BD or ERCP from 6 tertiary care centers. Patient demographics, procedural data, and follow-up care were collected in a registry. RESULTS: One hundred forty-five patients were included: EUS-BD n=58 (mean age 66, 45% male), ERCP n=87 (mean age 68, 53% male). The majority of patients had pancreatic cancer, cholangiocarcinoma, or gallbladder malignancy. In the EUS-BD group, 29 patients had hepaticogastrostomy, 24 had choledochoduodenostomy, and 5 had rendezvous technique done. The most common surgery was Whipple in both groups (n=41 EUS-BD, n=56 ERCP) followed by partial hepatectomy (n=7 EUS-BD, n=14 ERCP) and cholecystectomy (n=2 EUS-BD, n=2 ERCP). Endoscopy clinical success was comparable in both groups (98% EUS-BD, 94% ERCP). Adverse event rates were similar in both groups: EUS-BD (n=10, 17%) and ERCP (n=23, 26%). Surgery technical success and clinical success were significantly higher in the EUS-BD group compared with the ERCP group (97% vs. 83%, 97% vs. 75%). Total Hospital stay from surgery to discharge was significantly higher in the ERCP group (19 d vs. 10 d, P =0.0082). DISCUSSION: Undergoing EUS-BD versus ERCP before hepatobiliary surgery is associated with fewer repeat endoscopic interventions, shorter duration between endoscopy and surgical intervention, higher rates of surgical clinical success, and shorter length of hospital stay after surgery.

Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Two Commercially Available Single-Use Duodenoscopes: A Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Single-use disposable duodenoscopes (SDD) have been developed to mitigate infectious risks related to reusable duodenoscopes. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of the two available SDDs in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a comparative study of 2 SDD in consecutive ERCP procedures performed by expert endoscopists from 9 academic centers. Performance ratings, procedure details, and adverse events were collected. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients were included: 129 patients underwent ERCP with Exalt (mean age 63, Males- 66 (51%), 72 with aScope Duodeno (mean age 65, males=30 (42%). A majority of endoscopists had performed >2000 ERCPs in both groups (71% Exalt, 93% aScope Duodeno). Technical success was 92% in both groups (n=119 Exalt-group, n=66 aScope-Duodeno-group). The procedural complexity for the ERCP cases performed were: Grade 1: 35 cases (18%), Grade 2: 83 cases (41%), Grade 3: 65 cases (32%), and Grade 4: 18 cases (9%). Thirteen patients (10%) from the Exalt group and 16 patients (22%) from the aScope Duodeno group required conversion to a reusable duodenoscope. On a scale of 1 to 5, Exalt and aScope Duodeno, respectively, were rated: 2.31 versus 2.60 for location and visualization quality, 1.38 versus 1.57 for maneuverability based on papillary orientation, 1.48 versus 1.15 for suction/air control, and 2.31 versus 2.34 for elevator efficiency. None of the adverse events were related to the SDDs. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 SDDs were comparable. Further ongoing enhancements to these devices will improve maneuverability and clinical effectiveness.

Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on turnover time and revenue in the endoscopy unit: single-center experience.

Background and study aims The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic heavily impacted the New York metro area causing most institutions to either reduce case volume or fully close remaining open units incorporated specific guidelines for procedures lockdown potentially leading to a greater turn-over time. We analyzed the quantitative and financial impact of this lost time on our tertiary care center's endoscopy unit. Patients and methods This single-center, retrospective study included demographics, procedure details and turn-over times (TOT) from all endoscopic procedures between December 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020. Cases were categorized as pre-COVID-19 group from December 1, 2019 to March 15, 2020 and during COVID-19 (lockdown) group from March 16, 2020 to June 30, 2020. The financial impact was assessed using national averages for reimbursement of outpatient endoscopic procedures provided by Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Results A total of 3622 procedures were performed during the study period: 2297 in the pre-COVID-19 period, 1325 in the COVID-19 period, representing a 42.32 % decrease. In the COVID-19 lockdown group, there was a significant increase in TOT in both the general endoscopy cases (18.11 minutes, P  = 0.000) and advanced endoscopy cases (17.7 minutes, P  = 0.000). The 42.3 % decrease in volume equated to at least $1.6 million USD in lost revenue during the lockdown. Conclusions COVID-19 pandemic led to an increase in TOT with overall reduced procedure volume and a negative effect on revenue. Providing continued endoscopic management during a pandemic avoids delays in reopening the endoscopy unit and hampers the post-pandemic surge of delayed cases and its financial impact.