Aggressive or Moderate Fluid Resuscitation in Acute Pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Early aggressive hydration is widely recommended for the management of acute pancreatitis, but evidence for this practice is limited. METHODS: At 18 centers, we randomly assigned patients who presented with acute pancreatitis to receive goal-directed aggressive or moderate resuscitation with lactated Ringer's solution. Aggressive fluid resuscitation consisted of a bolus of 20 ml per kilogram of body weight, followed by 3 ml per kilogram per hour. Moderate fluid resuscitation consisted of a bolus of 10 ml per kilogram in patients with hypovolemia or no bolus in patients with normovolemia, followed by 1.5 ml per kilogram per hour in all patients in this group. Patients were assessed at 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours, and fluid resuscitation was adjusted according to the patient's clinical status. The primary outcome was the development of moderately severe or severe pancreatitis during the hospitalization. The main safety outcome was fluid overload. The planned sample size was 744, with a first planned interim analysis after the enrollment of 248 patients. RESULTS: A total of 249 patients were included in the interim analysis. The trial was halted owing to between-group differences in the safety outcomes without a significant difference in the incidence of moderately severe or severe pancreatitis (22.1% in the aggressive-resuscitation group and 17.3% in the moderate-resuscitation group; adjusted relative risk, 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 2.18; P = 0.32). Fluid overload developed in 20.5% of the patients who received aggressive resuscitation and in 6.3% of those who received moderate resuscitation (adjusted relative risk, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.36 to 5.94, P = 0.004). The median duration of hospitalization was 6 days (interquartile range, 4 to 8) in the aggressive-resuscitation group and 5 days (interquartile range, 3 to 7) in the moderate-resuscitation group. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial involving patients with acute pancreatitis, early aggressive fluid resuscitation resulted in a higher incidence of fluid overload without improvement in clinical outcomes. (Funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III and others; WATERFALL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04381169.).

ChatGPT4 Outperforms Endoscopists for Determination of Postcolonoscopy Rescreening and Surveillance Recommendations.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Large language models including Chat Generative Pretrained Transformers version 4 (ChatGPT4) improve access to artificial intelligence, but their impact on the clinical practice of gastroenterology is undefined. This study compared the accuracy, concordance, and reliability of ChatGPT4 colonoscopy recommendations for colorectal cancer rescreening and surveillance with contemporary guidelines and real-world gastroenterology practice. METHODS: History of present illness, colonoscopy data, and pathology reports from patients undergoing procedures at 2 large academic centers were entered into ChatGPT4 and it was queried for the next recommended colonoscopy follow-up interval. Using the McNemar test and inter-rater reliability, we compared the recommendations made by ChatGPT4 with the actual surveillance interval provided in the endoscopist's procedure report (gastroenterology practice) and the appropriate US Multisociety Task Force (USMSTF) guidance. The latter was generated for each case by an expert panel using the clinical information and guideline documents as reference. RESULTS: Text input of de-identified data into ChatGPT4 from 505 consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy between January 1 and April 30, 2023, elicited a successful follow-up recommendation in 99.2% of the queries. ChatGPT4 recommendations were in closer agreement with the USMSTF Panel (85.7%) than gastroenterology practice recommendations with the USMSTF Panel (75.4%) (P < .001). Of the 14.3% discordant recommendations between ChatGPT4 and the USMSTF Panel, recommendations were for later screening in 26 (5.1%) and for earlier screening in 44 (8.7%) cases. The inter-rater reliability was good for ChatGPT4 vs USMSTF Panel (Fleiss κ, 0.786; 95% CI, 0.734-0.838; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Initial real-world results suggest that ChatGPT4 can define routine colonoscopy screening intervals accurately based on verbatim input of clinical data. Large language models have potential for clinical applications, but further training is needed for broad use.

A machine learning-based choledocholithiasis prediction tool to improve ERCP decision making: a proof-of-concept study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies demonstrated limited accuracy of existing guidelines for predicting choledocholithiasis, leading to overutilization of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). More accurate stratification may improve patient selection for ERCP and allow use of lower-risk modalities. METHODS: A machine learning model was developed using patient information from two published cohort studies that evaluated performance of guidelines in predicting choledocholithiasis. Prediction models were developed using the gradient boosting model (GBM) machine learning method. GBM performance was evaluated using 10-fold cross-validation and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Important predictors of choledocholithiasis were identified based on relative importance in the GBM. RESULTS: 1378 patients (mean age 43.3 years; 61.2% female) were included in the GBM and 59.4% had choledocholithiasis. Eight variables were identified as predictors of choledocholithiasis. The GBM had accuracy of 71.5% (SD 2.5%) (AUC 0.79 [SD 0.06]) and performed better than the 2019 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines (accuracy 62.4% [SD 2.6%]; AUC 0.63 [SD 0.03]) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines (accuracy 62.8% [SD 2.6%]; AUC 0.67 [SD 0.02]). The GBM correctly categorized 22% of patients directed to unnecessary ERCP by ASGE guidelines, and appropriately recommended as the next management step 48% of ERCPs incorrectly rejected by ESGE guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: A machine learning-based tool was created, providing real-time, personalized, objective probability of choledocholithiasis and ERCP recommendations. This more accurately directed ERCP use than existing ASGE and ESGE guidelines, and has the potential to reduce morbidity associated with ERCP or missed choledocholithiasis.

Comparative outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection for laterally spreading lesions in inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: The role of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for laterally spreading lesions (LSLs) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains controversial despite its effectiveness in the general population. We aimed to characterize outcomes of EMR for IBD-associated LSLs compared with controls without IBD. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational cohort study of patients with IBD who underwent EMR and endoscopic follow-up for LSLs, compared with a control group without IBD. The primary outcome was histologic recurrence. Secondary outcomes included en bloc resection and adverse events. Factors associated with recurrence were identified using multivariate mixed effects logistic regression. RESULTS: 210 premalignant lesions in 155 patients were included. By histology, 91.0% were adenoma/low grade dysplasia or sessile serrated lesions. Median (IQR) lesion size was 25 (12-30) mm in the IBD group and 20 (12-30) mm in the control group. Recurrence was detected in 30.4% of IBD-associated lesions (7/23) compared with 20.9% of controls (39/187; odds ratio [OR] 2.51, 95%CI 0.59-10.71). En bloc resection was less common in the IBD group (2/23 [8.7%], 95%CI 1.1-28.0) versus controls (106/187 [56.7%], 95%CI 50.4-65.2). After adjusting for lesion size and histology, recurrence appeared more common in patients with IBD compared with controls (OR 3.08, 95%CI 1.04-9.13). CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence of LSLs after EMR appeared to be more frequent in patients with IBD. Given the added complexity, EMR in patients with IBD should be performed in expert centers with close endoscopic surveillance.

Increasing Antibiotic-Resistant Infections With Inpatient Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangioscopies (ERCP) Is Associated With Higher Mortality in the United States: A Cross-sectional Cohort Study.

GOALS: This study aims to investigate associated mortality with inpatient endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with and without resistant infections. The co-primary objective compares frequencies of inpatient ERCP with resistant infections to overall hospitalizations with resistant infections. BACKGROUND: The risks of inpatient antibiotic-resistant organisms are known, but the associated mortality for inpatient ERCP is unknown. We aim to use a national database of hospitalizations and procedures to understand trends and mortality for patients with antibiotic-resistant infections during inpatient ERCP. STUDY: The largest publicly available all-payer inpatient database in the United States (National Inpatient Sample) was used to identify hospitalizations associated with ERCPs and antibiotic-resistant infections for MRSA, VRE, ESBL, and MDRO. National estimates were generated, frequencies were compared across years, and multivariate regression for mortality was performed. RESULTS: From 2017 to 2020, national weighted estimates of 835,540 inpatient ERCPs were generated, and 11,440 ERCPs had coincident resistant infections. Overall resistant infection, MRSA, VRE, and MDRO identified at the same hospitalization of inpatient ERCPs were associated with higher mortality (OR CI(95%): Overall: 2.2(1.77-2.88), MRSA: 1.90 (1.34-2.69), VRE: 3.53 (2.16-5.76), and MDRO: 2.52 (1.39-4.55)). While overall hospitalizations with resistant infections have been decreasing annually, there has been a yearly increase in admissions requiring ERCPs with simultaneous resistant infections ( P =0.001-0.013), as well as infections with VRE, ESBL, and MDRO ( P =0.001-0.016). Required Research Practices for Studies Using the NIS scoring was 0, or the most optimal. CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient ERCPs have increasing coincident resistant infections and are associated with higher mortality. These rising infections during ERCP highlight the importance of endoscopy suite protocols and endoscopic infection control devices.

A Preliminary Controlled Trial of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fiducial Markers to Guide Pancreas Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is routinely used for fiducial marker placement (FMP) to guide stereotactic radiation of pancreatic tumors, but EUS-FMP explicitly to guide surgery has not been studied in a prospective, controlled manner. Multipurpose EUS systems have been developed that facilitate simultaneous EUS-FMP at the time of biopsy. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of EUS-FMP to guide pancreatic resection. METHODS: In this prospective trial, we enrolled patients with resectable pancreas masses undergoing tissue sampling and placed preloaded fiducials immediately after biopsy. Intraprocedure confirmation of carcinoma, neuroendocrine, and nonlymphomatous neoplasia by rapid on-site evaluation and lesion size <4 cm was required. The main outcomes were the feasibility and ease of preoperative placement and intraoperative detection of the markers using predefined Likert scales. RESULTS: In 20 patients, EUS-FMP was successful before planned surgery and placement was technically straightforward (Likert Scale: 9.1 ± 1.3; range: 1, most challenging to 10, most facile). Intraoperative detection was feasible and improved when compared with a pre-established comparator of 5 representing an equivalent lesion without a marker (Likert Scale: 7.8 ± 2.2; range: 1, most difficult to 10, most facile; P = 0.011). The mean tumor size on EUS was 1.7 ± 0.9 (range: 0.5 to 3.6) cm. CONCLUSION: EUS-FMP is feasible and safe for resectable pancreatic tumors before surgery and may assist in perioperative detection. Preloaded fiducials may be considered for placement at the time of initial referral for EUS-fine needle biopsy.

Female patients delay seeking medical care with alcohol-associated acute pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Alcohol consumption is increasing in women, who more frequently report abdominal symptoms compared to men. We aimed to examine differences in presentation of acute pancreatitis [AP] in male and female patients hospitalized with alcohol-associated AP. METHODS: We analyzed 138 patients enrolled in an ongoing case-crossover study of alcohol-associated AP conducted across 5 medical centers in the U.S. Patients meeting the Revised Atlanta Classification of AP and who scored 3 or higher on the AUDIT-C instrument were invited to participate in the study and were interviewed while hospitalized with AP. Sex differences in the timing and type of pancreas-associated pain, alcohol consumption, clinical presentation, and quality of life were examined by Chi-squared tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests and t-tests. RESULTS: Female patients reported significantly longer interval from onset of pain to deciding to seek medical attention (median 40 h, interquartile range [IQR] 14, 74) as compared to males (14 h, IQR 4, 50; p = 0.005). While male patients were more likely to have been admitted to the intensive care unit [ICU] (21%) as compared to female patients (7%; p = 0.04), the incidence of SIRS or severe AP did not differ by sex. Quality of life measures as reported through the PROMIS-29 instrument were equally suboptimal in both sexes. Anxiety disorders were diagnosed more frequently among females (61%) than in males (41%, p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: In a large case series of alcohol-associated AP, we found that female patients delayed seeking medical care compared to males. However, there were no differences in the type, location and intensity of abdominal pain.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of ergonomics for prevention of endoscopy-related injury: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach to strategies to prevent endoscopy-related injury (ERI) in GI endoscopists. It is accompanied by the article subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline estimates the rates, sites, and predictors of ERI. Additionally, it addresses the role of ergonomics training, microbreaks and macrobreaks, monitor and table positions, antifatigue mats, and use of ancillary devices in decreasing the risk of ERI. We recommend formal ergonomics education and neutral posture during the performance of endoscopy, achieved through adjustable monitor and optimal procedure table position, to reduce the risk of ERI. We suggest taking microbreaks and scheduled macrobreaks and using antifatigue mats during procedures to prevent ERI. We suggest the use of ancillary devices in those with risk factors predisposing them to ERI.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: methodology and review of evidence.

This document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides a full description of the methodology used in the review of the evidence used to inform the final guidance outlined in the accompanying Summary and Recommendations document regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. This guideline used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation over endosic approaches.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. It is accompanied by the document subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well- or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, we suggest surgical evaluation over endoscopic approaches.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis of malignancy in biliary strictures of undetermined etiology: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses the role of fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS in the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures. In the endoscopic workup of these patients, we suggest the use of fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling in addition to brush cytology over brush cytology alone, especially for hilar strictures. We suggest the use of cholangioscopic and EUS-guided biopsy sampling especially for patients who undergo nondiagnostic sampling, cholangioscopic biopsy sampling for nondistal strictures and EUS-guided biopsy sampling distal strictures or those with suspected spread to surrounding lymph nodes and other structures.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on role of endoscopy in the diagnosis of malignancy in biliary strictures of undetermined etiology: methodology and review of evidence.

Biliary strictures of undetermined etiology pose a diagnostic challenge for endoscopists. Despite advances in technology, diagnosing malignancy in biliary strictures often requires multiple procedures. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to rigorously review and synthesize the available literature on strategies used to diagnose undetermined biliary strictures. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis of each diagnostic modality, including fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS-guided FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Committee provides this guideline on modalities used to diagnose biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document summarizes the methods used in the GRADE analysis to make recommendations, whereas the accompanying article subtitled "Summary and Recommendations" contains a concise summary of our findings and final recommendations.

Consensus guidelines for the perioperative management of patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Deep sedation without tracheal intubation (monitored anaesthesia care) and general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation are commonly used anaesthesia techniques for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). There are distinct pathophysiological differences between monitored anaesthesia care and general anaesthesia that need to be considered depending on the nature and severity of the patient's underlying disease, comorbidities, and procedural risks. An international group of expert anaesthesiologists and gastroenterologists created clinically relevant questions regarding the merits and risks of monitored anaesthesia care vs general anaesthesia in specific clinical scenarios for planning optimal anaesthetic approaches for ERCP. Using a modified Delphi approach, the group created practical recommendations for anaesthesiologists, with the aim of reducing the incidence of perioperative adverse outcomes while maximising healthcare resource utilisation. In the majority of clinical scenarios analysed, our expert recommendations favour monitored anaesthesia care over general anaesthesia. Patients with increased risk of pulmonary aspiration and those undergoing prolonged procedures of high complexity were thought to benefit from general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation. Patient age and ASA physical status were not considered to be factors for choosing between monitored anaesthesia care and general anaesthesia. Monitored anaesthesia care is the favoured anaesthesia plan for ERCP. An individual risk-benefit analysis that takes into account provider and institutional experience, patient comorbidities, and procedural risks is also needed.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on informed consent for GI endoscopic procedures.

Informed consent is the cornerstone of the ethical practice of procedures and treatments in medicine. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an update on best practice of the informed consent process and other issues around informed consent and shared decision-making for endoscopic procedures. The principles of informed consent are based on longstanding legal doctrine. Several new concepts and clinical trials addressing the best practice of informed consent will help guide practitioners of the burgeoning field of GI endoscopic procedures. After a literature review and an iterative discussion and voting process by the ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, this document was produced to update our guidance on informed consent for the practicing endoscopist. Because this document was designed by considering the laws and broad practice of endoscopy in the United States, legal requirements may differ by state and region, and it is the responsibility of the endoscopist, practice managers, and other healthcare organizations to be aware of local laws. Our recommendations are designed to improve the informed consent experience for both physicians and patients as they work together to diagnose and treat GI diseases with endoscopy.

ASGE guideline on the management of cholangitis.

Cholangitis is a GI emergency requiring prompt recognition and treatment. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's (ASGE) Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an evidence-based approach for management of cholangitis. This document addresses the modality of drainage (endoscopic vs percutaneous), timing of intervention (<48 hours vs >48 hours), and extent of initial intervention (comprehensive therapy vs decompression alone). Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology was used to formulate recommendations on these topics. The ASGE suggests endoscopic rather than percutaneous drainage and biliary decompression within 48 hours. Additionally, the panel suggests that sphincterotomy and stone removal be combined with drainage rather than decompression alone, unless patients are too unstable to tolerate more extensive endoscopic treatment.

ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the management of malignant hilar obstruction.

This clinical guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for the management of patients with malignant hilar obstruction (MHO). This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses primary drainage modality (percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage [PTBD] vs endoscopic biliary drainage [EBD]), drainage strategy (unilateral vs bilateral), and stent selection (plastic stent [PS] vs self-expandable metal stent [SEMS]). Regarding drainage modality, in patients with MHO undergoing drainage before potential resection or transplantation, the panel suggests against routine use of PTBD as first-line therapy compared with EBD. In patients with unresectable MHO undergoing palliative drainage, the panel suggests PTBD or EBD. The final decision should be based on patient preferences, disease characteristics, and local expertise. Regarding drainage strategy, in patients with unresectable MHO undergoing palliative stent placement, the panel suggests placement of bilateral stents compared with a unilateral stent in the absence of liver atrophy. Finally, regarding type of stent, in patients with unresectable MHO undergoing palliative stent placement, the panel suggests placing SEMSs or PSs. However, in patients who have a short life expectancy and who place high value on avoiding repeated interventions, the panel suggests using SEMSs compared with PSs. If optimal drainage strategy has not been established, the panel suggests placing PSs. This document clearly outlines the process, analyses, and decision processes used to reach the final recommendations and represents the official ASGE recommendations on the above topics.

ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the management of benign and malignant gastroduodenal obstruction.

This American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the endoscopic management of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). We applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to address key clinical questions. These include the comparison of (1) surgical gastrojejunostomy to the placement of self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) for malignant GOO, (2) covered versus uncovered SEMS for malignant GOO, and (3) endoscopic and surgical interventions for the management of benign GOO. Recommendations provided in this document were founded on the certainty of the evidence, balance of benefits and harms, considerations of patient and caregiver preferences, resource utilization, and cost-effectiveness.

Dynamic changes in the pancreatitis activity scoring system during hospital course in a multicenter, prospective cohort.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The primary aim was to validate the Pancreatitis Activity Scoring System (PASS) in a multicenter prospectively ascertained acute pancreatitis (AP) cohort. Second, we investigated the association of early PASS trajectories with disease severity and length of hospital stay (LOS). METHODS: Data were prospectively collected through the APPRENTICE consortium (2015-2018). AP severity was categorized based on revised Atlanta classification. Delta PASS (ΔPASS) was calculated by subtracting activity score from baseline value. PASS trajectories were compared between severity subsets. Subsequently, the cohort was subdivided into three LOS subgroups as short (S-LOS): 2-3 days; intermediate (I-LOS): 3-7 days; and long (L-LOS): ≥7 days. The generalized estimating equations model was implemented to compare PASS trajectories. RESULTS: There were 434 subjects analyzed including 322 (74%) mild, 86 (20%) moderately severe, and 26 (6%) severe AP. Severe AP subjects had the highest activity levels and the slowest rate of decline in activity (P = 0.039). Focusing on mild AP, L-LOS subjects (34%) had 28 points per day slower decline; whereas, S-LOS group (13%) showed 34 points per day sharper decrease compared with I-LOS (53%; P < 0.001). We noticed an outlier subset with a median admission-PASS of 466 compared with 140 in the rest. Morphine equivalent dose constituted 80% of the total PASS in the outliers (median morphine equivalent dose score = 392), compared with only 25% in normal-range subjects (score = 33, P value < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted that PASS can quantify AP activity. Significant differences in PASS trajectories were found both in revised Atlanta classification severity and LOS groups, which can be harnessed in AP monitoring/management (ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT03075618).

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of endoscopy in the management of acute colonic pseudo-obstruction and colonic volvulus.

Colonic volvulus and acute colonic pseudo-obstruction (ACPO) are 2 causes of benign large-bowel obstruction. Colonic volvulus occurs most commonly in the sigmoid colon as a result of bowel twisting along its mesenteric axis. In contrast, the exact pathophysiology of ACPO is poorly understood, with the prevailing hypothesis being altered regulation of colonic function by the autonomic nervous system resulting in colonic distention in the absence of mechanical blockage. Prompt diagnosis and intervention leads to improved outcomes for both diagnoses. Endoscopy may play a role in the evaluation and management of both entities. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an update on the evaluation and endoscopic management of sigmoid volvulus and ACPO.