Safety and Efficacy of Endoscopic Full Thickness Resection of Upper Gastrointestinal Lesions Using a Full Thickness Resection Device: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a promising technique that allows for a minimally invasive resection of mucosal and submucosal lesions in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. The data regarding the efficacy and safety of performing EFTR of upper GI lesions using a full-thickness resection device (FTRD) is limited. Hence, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies that evaluated this technique. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive systematic search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings that reported outcomes of EFTR using the FTRD system. The weighted pooled rates of technical success, complete (R0) resection, adverse events (AE), and residual or recurrent lesions were analyzed with 95% CI using the random effects model. RESULTS: Eight studies with a total of 139 patients who underwent EFTR of upper GI lesions were included in the study. The pooled, weighted rate of technical success was 88.2% (95% CI: 81.4-92.7%, I2 : 0). The R0 resection rate was 70.7% (95% CI: 62.5-77.8%, I2 : 0). Overall AE rates were 22.1% (95% CI: 15.8-30.1%, I2 : 0), however, most of the AEs were minor. Of the patients who had follow-up endoscopies, the residual and/or recurrent lesion rate was 6.1% (95% CI: 2.4-14.4%, I2 : 0). Heterogeneity in the analysis was low. CONCLUSIONS: EFTR using the FTRD seems to be effective and safe with acceptable R0 resection rates and low recurrence rates. Further prospective studies are required to validate our results and to compare various modalities of endoscopic resection with this single-step EFTR device.

Benefits of EUS-guided gastroenterostomy over surgical gastrojejunostomy in the palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a large multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (mGOO) allows resumption of peroral intake. Although surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ) provides durable relief, it may be associated with a higher morbidity, interfere with chemotherapy, and require an optimum nutritional status. EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative. We aimed to conduct the largest comparative series to date between EUS-GE and SGJ for mGOO. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study included consecutive patients undergoing SGJ or EUS-GE at 6 centers. Primary outcomes included time to resumption of oral intake, length of stay (LOS), and mortality. Secondary outcomes included technical and clinical success, reintervention rates, adverse events (AEs), and resumption of chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 310 patients were included (EUS-GE, n = 187; SGJ, n = 123). EUS-GE exhibited significantly lower time to resumption of oral intake (1.40 vs 4.06 days, P < .001), at lower albumin levels (2.95 vs 3.33 g/dL, P < .001), and a shorter LOS (5.31 vs 8.54 days, P < .001) compared with SGJ; there was no difference in mortality (48.1% vs 50.4%, P = .78). Technical (97.9% and 100%) and clinical (94.1% vs 94.3%) success was similar in the EUS-GE and SGJ groups, respectively. EUS-GE had lower rates of AEs (13.4% vs 33.3%, P < .001) but higher reintervention rates (15.5% vs 1.63%, P < .001). EUS-GE patients exhibited significantly lower interval time to resumption of chemotherapy (16.6 vs 37.8 days, P < .001). Outcomes between the EUS-GE and laparoscopic (n = 46) surgical approach showed that EUS-GE had shorter interval time to initiation/resumption of oral intake (3.49 vs 1.46 days, P < .001), decreased LOS (9 vs 5.31 days, P < .001), and a lower rate of AEs (11.9% vs 17.9%, P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study to date showing that EUS-GE can be performed among nutritionally deficient patients without affecting the technical and clinical success compared with SGJ. EUS-GE is associated with fewer AEs while allowing earlier resumption of diet and chemotherapy.

Effectiveness and Safety of EUS Rendezvous After Failed Biliary Cannulation With ERCP: A Systematic Review and Proportion Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an alternative to interventional radiology-guided rendezvous ERCP in patients who failed biliary cannulation with conventional ERCP. However, there is significant variation in reported rates of success and adverse events associated with EUS-RV-assisted ERCP. We performed a systematic review and a proportion meta-analysis to reliably assess the effectiveness and safety of the EUS-RV-assisted ERCP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings (from inception through August 2020) to identify studies reporting EUS-RV-assisted ERCP in patients who failed biliary cannulation with conventional ERCP techniques. Using the random-effects model described by DerSimonian and Laird, we calculated the pooled rates of technical success, clinical success, and adverse events of EUS-RV-assisted ERCP. RESULTS: Twelve studies reporting a total of 342 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled rate of technical success (12 studies reporting a total of 342 patients) was 86.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 78.4-91.3]. The pooled rate of clinical success (4 studies reporting a total of 94 patients) was 80.8% (95% CI: 64.1-90.8). The pooled rate of overall adverse events (12 studies; 42 events in 342 patients) was 14% (95% CI: 10.5-18.4). Low to moderate heterogeneity was noted in the analyses. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-RV-assisted ERCP appears to be effective and safe in patients who failed biliary cannulation with conventional ERCP. Given the risk of adverse events, it should be performed in centers with expertise in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound.

Safety and clinical outcomes of early dual modality drainage (< 28 days) compared to later drainage of pancreatic necrotic fluid collections: a propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: Necrotizing pancreatitis can be complicated by Necrotic Fluid Collections (NFC). Guidelines recommend waiting for 4 weeks from the onset of acute pancreatitis (AP) before considering endoscopic drainage. We aimed to compare outcomes and safety in patients undergoing early versus late drainage of NFC. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent Dual Modality Drainage (DMD) [combined endoscopic and percutaneous drainage] for NFC from January 2007 to December 2020. Patients were stratified into the "early" group (DMD < 28 days from AP onset) and were matched to "late" (DMD ≥ 28 days) drainage group using propensity- core-matching. Primary outcomes of interest were technical success and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included clinical success, late complication rates, and mortality. RESULTS: We identified 278 patients who underwent DMD for NFC. Thirty-nine belonged to the early group and were matched to 174 patients from the late group. Technical success was similar in both early and late groups (97.4% vs 99.4%: P = 0.244) as were the procedural and early post-procedural (< 14 days) adverse events rates (23.1% vs 27.6%: P = 0.565). Clinical success (92.3% vs 93.1%; P = 0.861) and late complication rates (23.1% vs 31.6%; P = 0.294) were similar. There were 2 deaths (5.7%) in the early vs. 9 (5.2%) in the late group, P = 0.991. CONCLUSIONS: When performed in a tertiary care center with expertise in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound, early drainage of NFC appears to be feasible and safe. Further studies are needed to validate our results.

Biliary Sphincterotomy Alone versus Biliary Stent with or without Biliary Sphincterotomy for the Management of Post-Cholecystectomy Bile Leak: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic therapy with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is considered the first-line treatment in the management of post-cholecystectomy bile leak (PCBL). Currently, there is no consensus on the most effective endoscopic intervention for PCBL. Hence, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of the two interventional groups (biliary sphincterotomy [BS] alone vs. biliary stent ± BS) in management of PCBL. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings (from inception through January 2021). The primary outcome was to compare the pooled rate of clinical success between the 2 groups. The secondary outcome was to estimate the pooled rate of adverse events. RESULTS: The pooled rate of clinical success with BS alone (5 studies, 299 patients) was 88% (95% confidence interval (CI): 84-92%, I2: 0%) and for biliary stent ± BS (5 studies, 864 patients) was 97% (CI: 93-100%, I2: 79%). The rate of clinical success in biliary stent ± BS group was significantly higher than BS alone group (OR: 3.91 95% CI: 2.29-6.69, p < 0.001, I2: 13%). The rate of adverse events was numerically lower in biliary stent ± BS group compared to BS alone (3 studies; OR: 0.65 95% CI: 0.41-1.03, p = 0.07) without statistical significance. Low heterogeneity was noted in the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Biliary stent ± BS is more effective in endoscopic management of PCBL compared to BS alone. This may be related to inter-endoscopist variation in completeness of sphincterotomy and post-sphincterotomy edema, which can influence the preferential trans-papillary flow of bile.

Effectiveness and Safety of Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents in Endoscopic Interventions for Off-Label Indications.

BACKGROUND: Although released only for drainage of pseudocyst and walled-off necrosis (WON) with ≤ 30% solid debris, the utilization of lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) in "real-world" practice has deviated from approved indications. We evaluated the contemporary use of LAMS and associated clinical, procedural outcomes in the setting of a tertiary referral center in the USA. METHODS: Data from 303 consecutive patients who underwent LAMS placement were analyzed. Outcomes included technical and clinical success rates and adverse events. RESULTS: Of 303 patients, 190 (62.7%) received LAMS for off-label indications. The latter included gallbladder drainage (n = 56, 18.5%), gastroenterostomy (n = 52, 17.2%), treatment of gastrointestinal strictures (n = 37, 12.2%), biliary drainage (n = 20, 6.6%), temporary gastric access for endoscopy (n = 13, 4.3%), symptomatic WON with > 30% solid debris (n = 8, 2.6%), and miscellaneous (n = 4, 1.3%). Technical success rates in the on- and off-label arm were 98.2% and 95.8%, respectively (P = .331; 95% CI 0.08 to 1.96). Clinical success rates in the on- and off-label arm were 89.4% and 83.2%, respectively (P = .137; 95% CI 0.28 to 1.19). The rate of adverse events was 20.5% (n = 39) in the off-label arm and 16.8% (n = 19) in the on-label arm (P = .242; 95% CI 0.69 to 2.34). CONCLUSION: Off-label use of LAMS out-numbered on-label use in our practice. The safety profile between the groups was similar and with the exception of refractory stricture treatment, efficacy was comparable.

Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients Who Are Difficult to Sedate.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients who chronically use alcohol, marijuana, or opioids, or suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), can be difficult to sedate with midazolam and fentanyl, and often are referred for monitored anesthesia care during endoscopy. Nurse-administered propofol continuous infusion sedation (NAPCIS), which confers the benefit of propofol-based sedation without the added expense of anesthesia, is effective and safe for sedation of healthy patients. We investigated whether NAPCIS also is effective for patients who are difficult to sedate. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent upper endoscopy or colonoscopy with NAPCIS at a single center from January 2018 through April 2018. We reviewed records from patients who were heavy users of alcohol (n = 105), daily users of marijuana (n = 267) or opioids (n = 178), had a diagnosis of PTSD (n = 91), or were none of these (controls, n = 786). We compared mean fentanyl and propofol doses (adjusted for body weight), procedure and recovery times, procedure success rates, and adverse events. RESULTS: Compared with the controls, the marijuana group required higher mean adjusted sedative doses for colonoscopies (0.6 vs 0.4 mcg/kg fentanyl and 5.0 vs 4.7 mg/kg propofol; P ≤ .025 for both) and upper endoscopies (0.8 vs 0.3 mcg/kg fentanyl and 3.7 vs 3.2 mg/kg propofol; P ≤ .021 for both), the PTSD group required a higher dose of fentanyl for colonoscopies (0.6 vs 0.4 mcg/kg; P = .009), and the alcohol group required a higher dose of fentanyl for upper endoscopies (0.7 vs 0.3 mcg/kg; P < .001). Procedure success rates were high (95.1%-100%) and did not differ significantly between the difficult-to-sedate groups and controls; mean procedure times (7.0-9.0 minutes for upper endoscopies, 21.1-22.9 minutes for colonoscopies) and recovery times (22.5-29.6 minutes) also were similar among groups. Upper endoscopies were associated with lower sedative doses and shorter procedure and recovery times than colonoscopies. Sedation-related adverse events were rare in all groups (only 26 cases total), and there were no serious complications or deaths. CONCLUSIONS: NAPCIS seems to be a safe and effective means of providing sedation for endoscopy to patients who may be difficult to sedate owing to alcohol, marijuana, or opioid use, or PTSD.

Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation: A New Paradigm for Gastrointestinal Procedural Sedation.

INTRODUCTION: Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation (NAPCIS) is a new nonanesthesia propofol delivery method for gastrointestinal endoscopy. NAPCIS is adopted from the computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) protocol. We evaluated the effectiveness, efficiency, and safety of NAPCIS in low-risk subjects. METHODS: Between December 2016 and July 2017, patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy with NAPCIS at our center were compared against 2 historical control groups of similar patients who had undergone procedures with CAPS or midazolam and fentanyl (MF) sedation. RESULTS: The mean age of the NAPCIS cohort (N = 3,331) was 55.2 years (45.8% male) for 945 esophagogastroduodenoscopies and 57.8 years (48.7% male) for 2,386 colonoscopies. The procedural success rates with NAPCIS were high (99.1%-99.2%) and similar to those seen in 3,603 CAPS (98.8%-99.0%) and 3,809 MF (99.0%-99.3%) controls. NAPCIS recovery times were shorter than both CAPS and MF (24.8 vs 31.7 and 52.4 minutes, respectively; P < 0.001). On arrival at the recovery unit, 86.6% of NAPCIS subjects were recorded as "Awake" compared with 82.8% of CAPS and 40.8% of MF controls (P < 0.001). Validated clinician and patient satisfaction scores were generally higher for NAPCIS compared with CAPS and MF subjects. For NAPCIS, there were only 4 cases of oxygen desaturation requiring transient mask ventilation and no serious sedation-related complications. These low complication rates were similar to those seen with CAPS (8 cases of mask ventilation) and MF (3 cases). DISCUSSION: NAPCIS seems to be a safe, effective, and efficient means of providing moderate sedation for upper endoscopy and colonoscopy in low-risk patients.

Single-use duodenoscope for ERCP performed by endoscopists with a range of experience in procedures of variable complexity.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Expert endoscopists previously reported ERCP outcomes for the first commercialized single-use duodenoscope. We aimed to document usability of this device by endoscopists with different levels of ERCP experience. METHODS: Fourteen "expert" (>2000 lifetime ERCPs) and 5 "less-expert" endoscopists performed consecutive ERCPs in patients without altered pancreaticobiliary anatomy. Outcomes included ERCP completion for the intended indication, rate of crossover to another endoscope, device performance ratings, and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Two hundred ERCPs including 81 (40.5%) with high complexity (American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy grades 3-4) were performed. Crossover rate (11.3% vs 2.5%, P = .131), ERCP completion rate (regardless of crossovers) (96.3% vs 97.5%, P = .999), median ERCP completion time (25.0 vs 28.5 minutes, P = .130), mean cannulation attempts (2.8 vs 2.8, P = .954), and median overall satisfaction with the single-use duodenoscope (8.0 vs 8.0 [range, 1.0-10.0], P = .840) were similar for expert versus less-expert endoscopists, respectively. The same metrics were similar by procedural complexity except for shorter median completion time for grades 1 to 2 versus grades 3 to 4 (P < .001). Serious adverse events were reported in 13 patients (6.5%). CONCLUSIONS: In consecutive ERCPs including high complexity procedures, endoscopists with varying ERCP experience had good procedural success and reported high device performance ratings. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04223830.).

Development and Pilot Testing of Decision Aid for Shared Decision Making in Barrett's Esophagus With Low-Grade Dysplasia.

GOALS: To develop an encounter decision aid [Barrett's esophagus Choice (BE-Choice)] for patients and clinicians to engage in shared decision making (SDM) for management of BE with low-grade dysplasia (BE-LGD) and assess its impact on patient-important outcomes. BACKGROUND: Currently, there are 2 strategies for management of BE-LGD-endoscopic surveillance and ablation. SDM can help patients decide on their preferred management option. STUDY: Phase-I: Patients and clinicians were engaged in a user-centered design approach to develop BE-Choice. Phase-I included review of evidence on BE-LGD management, observation of usual care (UC), creation, field-testing, and iterative development of BE-Choice in clinical settings. Phase-II: Impact of BE-Choice on patient-important outcomes (patient knowledge, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in decision making) was assessed using a controlled before-after study design (UC vs. BE-Choice). RESULTS: Phase-I: Initial prototype was designed with observation of 8 clinical encounters. With field-testing, 3 successive iterations were made before finalizing BE-Choice. BE-Choice was paper based and fulfilled the qualifying criteria of International patient decision aid standards. Phase II: 29 patients were enrolled, 8 to UC and 21 to BE-Choice. Compared with UC, use of BE-Choice improved patient knowledge (90.4% vs. 70.5%; P=0.03), decisional comfort (89.6 vs. 71.9; P=0.01), and patient involvement (OPTION score: 27.1 vs. 19.2; P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: BE-Choice is a feasible and effective decision aid to promote SDM in the management of BE-LGD. On pilot testing, BE-Choice had promising impact on patient-important outcomes. A larger multicenter trial is needed to confirm our results and promote widespread use of BE-Choice.

Outcomes of Radiofrequency Ablation versus Endoscopic Surveillance for Barrett's Esophagus with Low-Grade Dysplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic therapy using radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a recommended treatment for Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia (BE-HGD) without a visible lesion which is managed by resection. However, currently, there is no consensus on the management of BE with low-grade dysplasia (BE-LGD) - RFA versus endoscopic surveillance. Hence, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of these comparative studies to compare the risk of progression to HGD or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) among patients with BE-LGD treated with RFA versus endoscopic surveillance. METHODS: The primary outcome was to compare the risk of progression to HGD or EAC among patients with BE-LGD treated with RFA versus endoscopic surveillance. RESULTS: Four comparative studies reporting a total of 543 patients with BE-LGD were included in the meta-analysis (234 in RFA and 309 in endoscopic surveillance). The progression of BE-LGD to either HGD or EAC was significantly lower in patients treated with RFA compared to endoscopic surveillance (OR: 0.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.04-0.65, p = 0.01). The progression to HGD alone was significantly lower in patients treated with RFA versus endoscopic surveillance (OR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.08-0.61, p = 0.003). The progression to EAC alone was numerically lower in RFA than endoscopic surveillance without statistical significance (OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.17-1.16, p = 0.09). Moderate heterogeneity was noted in the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our meta-analysis, there was a significant reduction in the risk of progression to HGD or EAC among patients with BE-LGD treated with RFA compared with those undergoing endoscopic surveillance. Endoscopic eradication therapy with RFA should be the preferred management approach for BE-LGD.

Risk of progression in Barrett's esophagus indefinite for dysplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Risk of progression in Barrett's esophagus (BE) with low-grade dysplasia (LGD) and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) has been established. However, the natural history of BE with indefinite dysplasia (BE-IND) remains unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the pooled risk of progression to HGD and/or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in BE-IND. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of multiple databases to June 2018 to identify studies reporting the incidence of HGD, EAC, or HGD/EAC as an outcome in patients with BE-IND undergoing endoscopic surveillance. The pooled incidence rate of HGD and/or EAC and EAC alone was estimated. RESULTS: We identified 8 studies reporting the incidence of HGD and/or EAC and 5 studies reporting the incidence of EAC in BE-IND. The pooled incidence of HGD and/or EAC (89 cases in 1441 patients over 5306.2 person-years) was 1.5 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-2.0). The pooled incidence of EAC (40 cases in 1266 patients over 4520.2 person-years) was 0.6 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 0.1-1.1). Substantial heterogeneity was noted in the analyses. On subgroup analysis, the incidence of EAC was higher in studies from Europe compared with North America (0.9% vs 0.1%, P = .01). The pooled incidence of LGD was 11.4 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 0.06-0.2). CONCLUSION: The estimated incidence of HGD and/or EAC and EAC alone in BE-IND is similar to the previously reported progression risk in BE-LGD. Based on these risk estimates, patients with BE-IND should be placed on active endoscopic surveillance.

ERCP with overtube-assisted enteroscopy in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass anatomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) anatomy is challenging. Overtube-assisted enteroscopy (OAE) is usually needed to perform ERCP in these patients. There is significant variation in the reported rates of success and adverse events across published studies. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to reliably estimate the pooled rates of success and adverse events. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of multiple electronic databases through February 2020 to identify studies reporting outcomes of OAE-ERCP in post-RYGB patients. The pooled rates of enteroscopy success, technical success, and adverse events were estimated for OAE-ERCP. The pooled rates of success and adverse events were also estimated for ERCP using double-balloon enteroscopes (DBE) alone. RESULTS: 10 studies reporting a total of 398 procedures were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled rates of enteroscopy and technical success of OAE-ERCP were 75.3 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 64.5 - 83.6) and 64.8 % (95 %CI 53.1 - 74.9) respectively. The pooled rate of adverse events was 8.0 % (95 %CI 5.2 - 12.2). The pooled rates of enteroscopy and technical success of DBE-ERCP (four studies) were 83.5 % (95 %CI 68.3 - 92.2) and 72.5 % (95 %CI 52.3 - 86.4), respectively. The pooled rate of adverse events with DBE-ERCP was 9.0 % (95 %CI 5.4 - 14.5). Substantial heterogeneity was noted. CONCLUSIONS: OAE-ERCP appears to be effective and safe in post-RYGB patients. Among the currently available techniques, OAE-ERCP is the least invasive approach in this challenging group of patients. Future studies comparing the effectiveness and safety of alternative novel techniques, such as endosonography-directed transgastric ERCP, with OAE-ERCP are needed.

Long-Term Outcomes of Endoscopic Papillectomy for Ampullary Adenomas.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic papillectomy is a safe and effective treatment for ampullary adenomas and has mostly replaced surgical local resection. Recent data have discussed the role of endoscopic removal of laterally spreading adenomas associated with ampullary adenomas. We evaluated our long-term results of endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary adenomas. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent endoscopic papillectomy of biopsy-proven adenomas at our tertiary center between 1994 and 2017. Clinical success was defined as complete excision of an adenoma with no evidence of recurrence during follow-up, no evidence of cancer, and without the need for surgery. RESULTS: A total of 161 patients (73M/88F) with a mean age of 61 (range 19-93) were included. Mean adenoma size was 20 mm (range 5-70). In total, 114/161 patients continued endoscopic surveillance for a minimum of 6 months with a median follow-up of 30 months (range 6-283). Recurrent adenomas were diagnosed in 8 patients (7%) after a median of 36 months (range 12-138). Clinical success was 83%; 35 laterally spreading adenomas were treated, which were larger than adenomas confined to the papilla (mean size 38 mm vs 15 mm, P < 0.05) and required more piecemeal resections (77% vs 15%, P < 0.05). However, no difference was found in recurrence rates between the two groups (8% vs 4%, P = 0.26); 24/161 (15%) of patients had adverse events including bleeding (6%) and pancreatitis (7%). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic papillectomy is a safe and effective treatment for ampullary adenomas, including laterally spreading ones. Long-term surveillance demonstrates low recurrence rates at expert centers.

EUS-guided versus endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage in high-risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute cholecystitis who are deemed high risk for cholecystectomy, percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) was historically performed for gallbladder drainage (GBD). There are several limitations associated with PC. Endoscopic GBD [Endoscopic transpapillary GBD (ET-GBD) and EUS-guided GBD (EUS-GBD)] is an alternative to PC. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of EUS-GBD versus ET-GBD. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of multiple databases through May 2019 to identify studies that compared outcomes of EUS-GBD versus ET-GBD in the management of acute cholecystitis in high-risk surgical patients. Pooled odds ratios (OR) of technical success, clinical success and adverse events between EUS-GBD and ET-GBD groups were calculated. RESULTS: Five studies with a total of 857 patients (EUS-GBD vs ET-GBD: 259 vs 598 patients) were included in the analysis. EUS-GBD was associated with higher technical [pooled OR 5.22 (95% CI 2.03-13.44; p = 0.0006; I2 = 20%)] and clinical success [pooled OR 4.16 (95% CI 2.00-8.66; p = 0.0001; I2 = 19%)] compared to ET-GBD. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of overall adverse events [pooled OR 1.30 (95% CI 0.77-2.22; p = 0.33, I2 = 0%)]. EUS-GBD was associated with lower rate of recurrent cholecystitis [pooled OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.14-0.79; p = 0.01; I2 = 0%)]. There was low heterogeneity in the analyses. CONCLUSION: EUS-GBD has higher rate of technical and clinical success compared to ET-GBD. While the rates of overall adverse events are statistically similar, EUS-GBD has lower rate of recurrent cholecystitis. Hence, EUS-GBD is preferable to ET-GBD for endoscopic management of acute cholecystitis in select high-risk surgical patients.

Effectiveness and safety of EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (CDD) is emerging as an alternative technique for biliary drainage in patients who fail conventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are being increasingly used for CDD. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of CDD using LAMS. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of multiple databases through May 2019 to identify studies on CDD using covered self-expanding metal stents. Pooled rates of technical success, clinical success, adverse events, and recurrent jaundice associated with CDD using LAMS were estimated. A subgroup analysis was performed based on use of LAMS with electrocautery-enhanced delivery system (EC-LAMS). RESULTS: Seven studies on CDD using LAMS (with 284 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled rates of technical and clinical success (per-protocol analysis) were 95.7% (95% CI 93.2-98.1) and 95.9% (95% CI 92.8-98.9), respectively. Pooled rate of post-procedure adverse events was 5.2% (95% CI 2.6-7.9). Pooled rate of recurrent jaundice was 8.7% (95% CI 4.5-12.8). On subgroup analysis of CDD using EC-LAMS (5 studies with 201 patients), the pooled rates of technical and clinical success (per-protocol analysis) were 93.8% (95% CI 90.4-97.1) and 95.9% (95% CI 91.9-99.9), respectively. Pooled rate of post-procedure adverse events was 5.6% (95% CI 1.7-9.5). Pooled rate of recurrent jaundice was 11.3% (95% CI 6.9-15.7). Heterogeneity (I2) was low to moderate in the analyses. CONCLUSION: CDD using LAMS/EC-LAMS is an effective and safe technique for biliary decompression in patients who failed ERCP. Further studies are needed to assess CDD using LAMS as primary treatment modality for biliary obstruction.

Acute Pancreatitis Task Force on Quality: Development of Quality Indicators for Acute Pancreatitis Management.

INTRODUCTION: Detailed recommendations and guidelines for acute pancreatitis (AP) management currently exist. However, quality indicators (QIs) are required to measure performance in health care. The goal of the Acute Pancreatitis Task Force on Quality was to formally develop QIs for the management of patients with known or suspected AP using a modified version of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Methodology. METHODS: A multidisciplinary expert panel composed of physicians (gastroenterologists, hospitalists, and surgeons) who are acknowledged leaders in their specialties and who represent geographic and practice setting diversity was convened. A literature review was conducted, and a list of proposed QIs was developed. In 3 rounds, panelists reviewed literature, modified QIs, and rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, bias, interpretability, validity, necessity, and proposed performance targets. RESULTS: Supporting literature and a list of 71 proposed QIs across 10 AP domains (Diagnosis, Etiology, Initial Assessment and Risk Stratification, etc.) were sent to the expert panel to review and independently rate in round 1 (95% of panelists participated). Based on a round 2 face-to-face discussion of QIs (75% participation), 41 QIs were classified as valid. During round 3 (90% participation), panelists rated the 41 valid QIs for necessity and proposed performance thresholds. The final classification determined that 40 QIs were both valid and necessary. DISCUSSION: Hospitals and providers managing patients with known or suspected AP should ensure that patients receive high-quality care and desired outcomes according to current evidence-based best practices. This physician-led initiative formally developed 40 QIs and performance threshold targets for AP management. Validated QIs provide a dependable quantitative framework for health systems to monitor the quality of care provided to patients with known or suspected AP.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage versus percutaneous cholecystostomy for high risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) is an effective and safe alternative to percutaneous drainage (PT-GBD). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare these two procedures in high risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis. METHODS: A comprehensive electronic literature search was conducted for all articles published up to October 2017 to identify comparative studies between EUS-GBD and PT-GBD. A meta-analysis was performed on outcomes including technical success, clinical success, post-procedure adverse events, length of hospital stay, unplanned hospital readmission, need for reintervention, recurrent cholecystitis, and disease- or treatment-related mortality for these two procedures. RESULTS: Five comparative studies (206 patients in the EUS-GBD group vs. 289 patients in the PT-GBD group), were included in the final analysis. There were no statistically significant differences in technical success (odds ratio [OR] 0.43, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.12 to 1.58; P  = 0.21; I 2 = 0 %) and clinical success (OR 1.07, 95 %CI 0.36 to 3.16; P  = 0.90; I 2 = 44 %) between the two procedures. EUS-GBD had fewer adverse events than PT-GBD (OR 0.43, 95 %CI 0.18 to 1.00; P  = 0.05; I 2 = 66 %). Moreover, patients undergoing EUS-GBD had shorter hospital stays, with pooled standard mean difference of - 2.53 (95 %CI - 4.28 to - 0.78; P = 0.005; I 2 = 98 %), and required significantly fewer reinterventions (OR 0.16, 95 %CI 0.04 to 0.042; P <  0.001; I 2 = 32 %) resulting in significantly fewer unplanned readmissions (OR 0.16, 95 %CI 0.05 to 0.53; P  = 0.003; I 2 = 79 %). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GBD was associated with lower rates of post-procedure adverse events, shorter hospital stays, and fewer reinterventions and readmissions compared with PT-GBD in patients with acute cholecystitis who were unfit for surgery.

Barrett Esophagus Length, Nodularity, and Low-grade Dysplasia are Predictive of Progression to Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

GOALS: To investigate factors predictive of progression from nondysplastic Barrett esophagus (NDBE) or low-grade dysplasia (LGD) to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) using a large, prospective cohort of patients, wherein all esophageal biopsies undergo expert gastrointestinal pathologist review. BACKGROUND: Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic surveillance to detect incident EAC in the setting of Barrett esophagus (BE), particularly in NDBE patients, is questioned. Previous studies have reported factors predictive of progression to EAC to guide surveillance intervals, but their strength is limited by small sample size and absence of expert gastrointestinal pathologist involvement in esophageal biopsy review. STUDY: NDBE and LGD subjects were identified from a prospective registry in a tertiary care center. "Progressors" were BE subjects who developed HGD/EAC>12 months after the initial NDBE or LGD diagnosis. Cox proportional hazards model were used to identify predictors of progression. RESULTS: In total, 318 with NDBE and 301 with BE-LGD (mean age, 62.6 y, 85% male) were included. The mean follow-up was 5.3 years. The 7 NDBE and 21 LGD subjects progressed to HGD/EAC. BE length [hazards ratio (HR), 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.03-1.29], presence of nodularity (HR, 4.98; 95% CI, 1.80-11.7), and baseline LGD (HR, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.13-6.57) were significant predictors of progression on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In this well-defined cohort of NDBE and BE-LGD subjects, BE length, presence of LGD, and nodularity were independent predictors of progression to HGD/EAC. These factors may aid in identifying high-risk patients who may benefit from closer endoscopic surveillance/therapy.