Endoscopic Gallbladder Stenting to Prevent Recurrent Cholecystitis in Deferred Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder stenting (ETGS) has been proposed as one of the adjunctive treatments, apart from antibiotics, before surgery in patients with acute cholecystitis whose cholecystectomy could not be performed or was deferred. Currently, there are no comparative data on the outcomes of ETGS in those who receive and do not receive ETGS. We aimed to compare the rates of recurrent cholecystitis at 3 and 6 months in these 2 groups. METHODS: Between 2020 and 2023, eligible acute calculous cholecystitis patients with a high probability of common bile duct stone, who were surgical candidates but could not have an early cholecystectomy during COVID-19 surgical lockdown, were randomized into groups A (received ETGS) and B (did not receive ETGS). A definitive cholecystectomy was performed at 3 months or later in both groups. RESULTS: A total of 120 eligible patients were randomized into group A (n = 60) and group B (n = 60). In group A, technical and clinical success rates were 90% (54 of 60) and 100% (54 of 54), respectively. Based on intention-to-treat analysis, group A had a significantly lower rate of recurrence than group B at 3 months (0% [0 of 60] vs 18.3% [11 of 60]; P = .001). At 3-6 months, group A showed a nonsignificantly lower rate of recurrent cholecystitis compared to group B (0% [0 of 32] vs 10% [3 of 30]; P = .11). CONCLUSIONS: ETGS could prevent recurrent cholecystitis in acute cholecystitis patients with common bile duct stone whose cholecystectomy was deferred for 3 months. In those who did not receive ETGS, the majority of recurrences occurred within 3 months. (Thaiclinicaltrials.org, Number TCTR20200913001).

Performance comparison between two computer-aided detection colonoscopy models by trainees using different false positive thresholds: a cross-sectional study in Thailand.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study aims to compare polyp detection performance of "Deep-GI," a newly developed artificial intelligence (AI) model, to a previously validated AI model computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) using various false positive (FP) thresholds and determining the best threshold for each model. METHODS: Colonoscopy videos were collected prospectively and reviewed by three expert endoscopists (gold standard), trainees, CADe (CAD EYE; Fujifilm Corp.), and Deep-GI. Polyp detection sensitivity (PDS), polyp miss rates (PMR), and false-positive alarm rates (FPR) were compared among the three groups using different FP thresholds for the duration of bounding boxes appearing on the screen. RESULTS: In total, 170 colonoscopy videos were used in this study. Deep-GI showed the highest PDS (99.4% vs. 85.4% vs. 66.7%, p<0.01) and the lowest PMR (0.6% vs. 14.6% vs. 33.3%, p<0.01) when compared to CADe and trainees, respectively. Compared to CADe, Deep-GI demonstrated lower FPR at FP thresholds of ≥0.5 (12.1 vs. 22.4) and ≥1 second (4.4 vs. 6.8) (both p<0.05). However, when the threshold was raised to ≥1.5 seconds, the FPR became comparable (2 vs. 2.4, p=0.3), while the PMR increased from 2% to 10%. CONCLUSION: Compared to CADe, Deep-GI demonstrated a higher PDS with significantly lower FPR at ≥0.5- and ≥1-second thresholds. At the ≥1.5-second threshold, both systems showed comparable FPR with increased PMR.

The synergistic role of virtual coaching with simulation-based mastery learning for upper endoscopy.

Introduction: Our simulation-based mastery learning (SBML) curriculum, delivered in person, has been shown to successfully train novices in structured esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). SBML with virtual coaching (VC) has the potential to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of endoscopy training and expand access to trainees from around the world. We share our observations conducting an EGD training course using SBML with VC. Methods: We conducted a 1-week virtual SBML course for novice trainees across seven academic centers in the USA and Asia. The cognitive component was delivered using an online learning platform. For technical skills, a virtual coach supervised hands-on training and local coaches provided assistance when needed. At the end of training, an independent rater assessed simulation-based performance using a validated assessment tool. We assessed the clinical performance of 30 EGDs using the ASGE Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy tool. We compared the trainees' scores to our cohort trained using in-person SBML training using non-inferiority t-tests. Results: We enrolled 21 novice trainees (mean age: 30.8 ± 3.6 years; female: 52%). For tip deflection, the trainees reached the minimum passing standard after 31 ± 29 runs and mastery after 52 ± 37 runs. For structured EGD, the average score for the overall exam was 4.6 ± 0.6, similar to the in-person cohort (4.7 ± 0.5, p = 0.49). The knowledge-based assessment was also comparable (virtual coaching: 81.9 ± 0.1; direct coaching: 78.3 ± 0.1; p = 0.385). Over time, our novice trainees reached clinical competence at a similar rate to our historical in-person control. Conclusions: VC appears feasible and effective for training novice gastroenterology trainees. VC allowed us to scale our SBML course, expand access to experts, and administer SBML simultaneously across different sites at the highest standards.