EUS-Guided Choledocho-duodenostomy Using Lumen Apposing Stent Versus ERCP With Covered Metallic Stents in Patients With Unresectable Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (DRA-MBO Trial).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Several studies have compared primary endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with insertion of metal stents in unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) and the results were conflicting. The aim of the current study was to compare the outcomes of the procedures in a large-scale study. METHODS: This was a multicenter international randomized controlled study. Consecutive patients admitted for obstructive jaundice due to unresectable MDBO were recruited. Patients were randomly allocated to receive EUS-guided choledocho-duodenostomy (ECDS) or ERCP for drainage. The primary outcome was the 1-year stent patency rate. Other outcomes included technical success, clinical success, adverse events, time to stent dysfunction, reintervention rates, and overall survival. RESULTS: Between January 2017 and February 2021, 155 patients were recruited (ECDS 79, ERCP 76). There were no significant differences in 1-year stent patency rates (ECDS 91.1% vs ERCP 88.1%, P = .52). The ECDS group had significantly higher technical success (ECDS 96.2% vs ERCP 76.3%, P < .001), whereas clinical success was similar (ECDS 93.7% vs ERCP 90.8%, P = .559). The median (interquartile range) procedural time was significantly shorter in the ECDS group (ECDS 10 [5.75-18] vs ERCP 25 [14-40] minutes, P < .001). The rate of 30-day adverse events (P = 1) and 30-day mortality (P = .53) were similar. CONCLUSION: Both procedures could be options for primary biliary drainage in unresectable MDBO. ECDS was associated with higher technical success and shorter procedural time then ERCP. Primary ECDS may be preferred when difficult ERCPs are anticipated. This study was registered to Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03000855.

Dedicated cautery-enhanced tubular self-expandable metal stent for endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy: feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is an alternative for biliary drainage in patients with obstructive pancreaticobiliary pathology when endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is not feasible. Despite its effectiveness, EUS-HGS is associated with a significant risk of adverse events. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a newly designed dedicated cautery-enhanced tubular self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) for EUS-HGS. METHODS: This multicenter prospective study included patients with malignant biliary obstruction in whom ERCP had failed because of tumor infiltration, inability to drain the intrahepatic ducts, or surgically altered anatomy. A dedicated cautery-enhanced tubular SEMS was used for EUS-HGS. Technical and clinical success rates, procedure times, and adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS: 20 patients underwent EUS-HGS with the dedicated stent. Technical and clinical success rates of 100% were achieved, with no reported severe adverse events or mortality. The median procedure time was 16 minutes. Recurrent biliary obstruction was observed in 1 patient. CONCLUSIONS: The dedicated cautery-enhanced tubular SEMS for EUS-HGS can simplify the procedure and enhance its safety and efficacy. This innovation shows promise for improving patient outcomes, although further studies are needed to validate these findings in a broader patient population.

Endoscopic ultrasound- versus ERCP-guided primary drainage of inoperable malignant distal biliary obstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: We assessed efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) vs. endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) as first-line intervention in malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). METHODS: PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched until 01 /12 /2023 for randomized controlled trials of EUS-BD vs. ERCP for primary biliary drainage in patients with inoperable MDBO. The primary outcome was technical success. Secondary outcomes were clinical success, adverse events, mean procedure time, 1-year stent patency, and overall survival. Relative risk (RR) with 95 %CI were calculated using a random effects model. RESULTS: Five studies (519 patients) were included. RR (95 %CI) for EUS-BD was 1.06 (0.96 to 1.17; P = 0.27) for pooled technical success and 1.02 (0.97 to 1.08; P = 0.45) for clinical success. 1-year stent patency was similar between the groups (RR 1.15, 0.94 to 1.42; P = 0.17), with lower reintervention with EUS-BD (RR 0.58, 0.37 to 0.9; P = 0.01). The RR was 0.85 (0.49 to 1.46; P = 0.55) for adverse events and 0.97 (0.10 to 0.17; P = 0.98) for severe adverse events. On subgroup analysis, EUS-guided placement of lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) outperformed ERCP in terms of technical success (RR 1.17, 1.01 to 1.35; P = 0.03). Procedure time was lower with EUS-BD (standardized mean difference -2.36 minutes [-2.68 to -2.05; P < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-BD showed a statistically significant lower reintervention rate than ERCP, but with similar technical success, stent patency, clinical success, and safety. Technical success of EUS-BD with LAMS was better than ERCP.

Prospective single-arm trial on feasibility and safety of endoscopic robotic system for colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Introduction The development of EndoMaster EASE system aims to enhance safety and efficacy of colonic ESD through two flexible robotic arms for tissue retraction and dissection. This is the first clinical trial to evaluate the performance of colorectal ESD using EndoMaster. Method Patients with early mucosal colorectal neoplasia not feasible for en-bloc resection with snare-based techniques were recruited. The EndoMaster EASE robotic system consisted of an independently designed flexible robotic platform with 2 robotic arms. The primary outcome was complete resection rate using EndoMaster. Secondary outcomes included operating time, hospital stay, procedure-related complications and oncological outcomes. Results From May 2020 to Jan 2022, 43 patients received robotic ESD with median age of 66 years (40-83). The mean robotic dissection time was 62.0 ± 45.1 minutes. All procedures except six were completed using EndoMaster with technical success rate of 86.1% (37/43). The en-bloc resection rate among cases with technical success was 94.6% (35/37) while the complete resection rate was 83.8% (31/37). The median size of specimen was 35mm (15-90mm). The mean hospital stay was 2.6 ± 1.2 days and there was one delayed bleeding 4 days after ESD which was controlled by endoscopy. One patient sustained perforation during procedure which was completely closed using clips without sequelae. 2 patients required salvage surgery due to deep margin involvement by adenocarcinoma in histopathology. Conclusion This first clinical trial confirmed the safety and efficacy of performing colorectal ESD using EndoMaster EASE robotic system (Clinicaltrial.gov: NCT04196062).

Is endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy better than surgical gastrojejunostomy or duodenal stenting?

OBJECTIVES: Gastrojejunostomy is a critical procedure for managing gastric outlet obstruction. While surgical gastrojejunostomy has traditionally been the standard approach, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gastroenterostomy has emerged as a promising endoscopic alternative. This comprehensive review aims to explore the development, techniques, outcomes, and comparative effectiveness of EUS-guided gastroenterostomy in comparison to duodenal stenting and surgical gastrojejunostomy. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using electronic databases to identify relevant studies published up to April 2024. The search included keywords related to EUS-guided gastrojejunostomy, surgical gastrojejunostomy, and duodenal stenting. Studies reporting on technical success, clinical success, complications, recurrence rates, quality of life, and long-term outcomes were included for analysis. RESULTS: The development of EUS-guided gastroenterostomy has evolved significantly over the years, driven by device advancements and improved endoscopic techniques. Comparative studies have shown that the technique offers several advantages, including the ability to create an anastomosis without the need for surgery, reduced invasiveness, shorter hospital stays, and potentially improved patient outcomes as compared to duodenal stenting and surgical gastrojejunostomy. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy represents a promising alternative to surgical gastrojejunostomy and duodenal stenting for the management of gastric outlet obstruction. The technique has evolved significantly, offering a less invasive and more effective treatment option.

Partially covered versus uncovered pyloro-duodenal stents for unresectable malignant gastric outlet obstruction: Randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the current study was to compare the efficacy of partially covered duodenal stent (PCDS) vs. uncovered duodenal stent (UCDS) in patients suffering from unresectable primary malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). METHODS: This was a prospective international randomized controlled study conducted in 10 high-volume institutions. Consecutive patients suffering from malignant GOO were recruited. The primary outcome measurement was the reintervention rate. Secondary outcomes included technical and clinical success, 30-day adverse events, 30-day mortality, causes of stent dysfunction, and the duration of stent patency. RESULTS: Between March 2017 and October 2020, 115 patients (59 PCDS, 56 UCDS) were recruited. The 1-year reintervention was not significantly different (PCDS vs. UDCS = 12/59, 20.3% vs. 14/56, 25%, P = 0.84). There was a trend to fewer patients with tumor ingrowth in the PCDS group (6/59 [10.2%]) vs. 13/56 [23.2%], P = 0.07). There were no significant differences in the technical success (100% vs. 100%, P = 1), clinical success (91.5% vs. 98.2%, P = 0.21), procedural time (21.5 [interquartile range [IQR] 17-30] vs. 20.0 [IQR 15-34.75], P = 0.62), hospital stay (4 [IQR 3-12] vs. 5 [IQR 3-8] days, P = 0.81), 30-day adverse events (18.6% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.62), or 30-day mortality (6.8% vs. 5.2%, P = 1.00). CONCLUSION: The use of PCDS was associated with a lower risk of tumor ingrowth but did not improve on reintervention rates or stent patency. Both kinds of stents could be used in this group of patients.

Use of over-the-scope clip (OTSC) versus standard therapy for the prevention of rebleeding in large peptic ulcers (size ≥1.5 cm): an open-labelled, multicentre international randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Over-the-scope clip (OTSC) has been used recently for primary haemostasis of peptic ulcers. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of OTSC to standard endoscopic therapy in primary treatment of patients with peptic ulcer bleeding that are of size ≥1.5 cm. The target population accounts for only 2.5% of all upper GI bleeders. METHODS: This was a multicentre international randomised controlled trial from July 2017 to October 2020. All patients with Forest IIa or above peptic ulcers of ≥1.5 cm were included. Primary outcome was 30-day clinical rebleeding. Secondary endpoints include 3-day all-cause mortality, transfusion requirement, hospital stay, technical and clinical success, and further interventions. 100 patients are needed to yield a power of 80% to detect a difference of -0.15 at the 0.05 significance level (alpha) using a two-sided Z-test (pooled). RESULTS: 100 patients were recruited. Success in achieving primary haemostasis was achieved in 46/50 (92%) and 48/50 (96%) in the OTSC and conventional arm, respectively. Among patients who had success in primary haemostasis, 2/46 (4.35%) patients in the OTSC arm and 9/48 (18.75%) patients in the conventional arm developed 30-day rebleeding (p=0.03). However, in an intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference in rebleeding within 30 days (5/50 (10%) OTSC vs 9/50 (18%) standard, p=0.23) or all-cause mortality (2/50 (4%) OTSC vs 4/50 (8%) standard, p=0.68; OR=2.09, 95% CI 0.37 to 11.95). There was also no difference in transfusion requirement, hospital stay, intensive care unit admission and further interventions. CONCLUSION: The routine use of OTSC as primary haemostasis in large bleeding peptic ulcers was not associated with a significant decrease in 30-day rebleeding. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03160911.

Timing of Endoscopy for Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

BACKGROUND: It is recommended that patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding undergo endoscopy within 24 hours after gastroenterologic consultation. The role of endoscopy performed within time frames shorter than 24 hours has not been adequately defined. METHODS: To evaluate whether urgent endoscopy improves outcomes in patients predicted to be at high risk for further bleeding or death, we randomly assigned patients with overt signs of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding and a Glasgow-Blatchford score of 12 or higher (scores range from 0 to 23, with higher scores indicating a higher risk of further bleeding or death) to undergo endoscopy within 6 hours (urgent-endoscopy group) or between 6 and 24 hours (early-endoscopy group) after gastroenterologic consultation. The primary end point was death from any cause within 30 days after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 516 patients were enrolled. The 30-day mortality was 8.9% (23 of 258 patients) in the urgent-endoscopy group and 6.6% (17 of 258) in the early-endoscopy group (difference, 2.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.3 to 6.9). Further bleeding within 30 days occurred in 28 patients (10.9%) in the urgent-endoscopy group and in 20 (7.8%) in the early-endoscopy group (difference, 3.1 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.9 to 8.1). Ulcers with active bleeding or visible vessels were found on initial endoscopy in 105 of the 158 patients (66.4%) with peptic ulcers in the urgent-endoscopy group and in 76 of 159 (47.8%) in the early-endoscopy group. Endoscopic hemostatic treatment was administered at initial endoscopy for 155 patients (60.1%) in the urgent-endoscopy group and for 125 (48.4%) in the early-endoscopy group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding who were at high risk for further bleeding or death, endoscopy performed within 6 hours after gastroenterologic consultation was not associated with lower 30-day mortality than endoscopy performed between 6 and 24 hours after consultation. (Funded by the Health and Medical Fund of the Food and Health Bureau, Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01675856.).

Wet-suction versus slow-pull technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy: a multicenter, randomized, crossover trial.

BACKGROUND : It is unknown whether there is an advantage to using the wet-suction or slow-pull technique during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) with new-generation needles. We aimed to compare the performance of each technique in EUS-FNB. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, single-blind, crossover trial including patients with solid lesions of ≥ 1 cm. Four needle passes with 22 G fork-tip or Franseen-type needles were performed, alternating the wet-suction and slow-pull techniques in a randomized order. The primary outcome was the histological yield (samples containing an intact piece of tissue of at least 550 µm). Secondary end points were sample quality (tissue integrity and blood contamination), diagnostic accuracy, and adequate tumor fraction. RESULTS: Overall, 210 patients with 146 pancreatic and 64 nonpancreatic lesions were analyzed. A tissue core was retrieved in 150 (71.4 %) and 129 (61.4 %) cases using the wet-suction and the slow-pull techniques, respectively (P = 0.03). The mean tissue integrity score was higher using wet suction (P = 0.02), as was the blood contamination of samples (P < 0.001). In the two subgroups of pancreatic and nonpancreatic lesions, tissue core rate and tissue integrity score were not statistically different using the two techniques, but blood contamination was higher with wet suction. Diagnostic accuracy and tumor fraction did not differ between the two techniques. CONCLUSION: Overall, the wet-suction technique in EUS-FNB resulted in a higher tissue core procurement rate compared with the slow-pull method. Diagnostic accuracy and the rate of samples with adequate tumor fraction were similar between the two techniques.

The effect of Andrographis paniculata water extract on palliative management of metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma-A phase II clinical trial.

Patients with metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) have a grave prognosis with limited life expectancy. Here, a phase II clinical trial was conducted to investigate the effect of Andrographis paniculata (AP) on the palliative care of patients with metastatic ESCC. Patients with metastatic or locally advanced ESCC deemed unfit for surgery, and who have already completed palliative chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy or are not fit for these treatments, were recruited. These patients were prescribed AP concentrated granules for 4 months. They also received clinical and quality of life assessments for clinical response, as well as positron emission tomography-computed tomography at 3 and 6 months after AP treatment for the assessment of tumor volume. Furthermore, the change in gut microbiota composition after AP treatment was studied. From the results, among the 30 recruited patients, 10 completed the entire course of AP treatment, while 20 received partial AP treatment. Patients who completed the AP treatment achieved significantly longer overall survival periods with the maintenance of the quality of life during the survival period when compared to those who could not complete AP treatment. The treatment effect of AP also contributed to the shift of the overall structure of gut microbiota for ESCC patients towards those of healthy individuals. The significance of this study is the establishment of AP as a safe and effective palliative treatment for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first clinical trial of AP water extract in esophageal cancer patients demonstrating its new medicinal use.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided balloon-occluded gastrojejunostomy bypass, duodenal stent or laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy for unresectable malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

OBJECTIVES: Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) can be relieved by either laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy (LGJ), endoscopic stenting (SEMS) or endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy (endoscopic ultrasound-guided balloon-occluded gastrojejunostomy bypass; EPASS). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of the three treatment methods. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients who suffered from malignant GOO between January 2012 to November 2020 that received either EPASS, LGJ or SEMS. The outcomes included the technical and clinical success, 30-day adverse events and mortality, pre and post stenting GOO scores (GOOSs), stent patency and causes of stent dysfunction. RESULTS: One hundred and fourteen patients were included (30 EPASS, 35 LGJ, 49 SEMS). The technical success of EPASS, LGJ and SEMS were 93.3%, 100%, 100% (P = 0.058) and clinical success rates were 93.3%, 80%, 87.8% (P = 0.276), respectively. Procedural time was longest for the LGJ group (P < 0.001). The EPASS group had the shortest hospital stay (EPASS 1.5 [1-17], LGJ 7 [2-44], SEMS 5 [2-46] days, P < 0.001). EPASS group also had the lowest rates of recurrent obstruction (EPASS 3.3%, LGJ 17.1%, SEMS 36.7%, P = 0.002) and re-intervention (EPASS 3.3%, LGJ 17.1%, SEMS 26.5%, P = 0.031). The 1-month GOOS was highest in the EPASS group (EPASS 3 [1-3], LGJ 3 [0-3], SEMS 2 [0-3], P = 0.028). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy was associated with better clinical outcomes then the other two procedures. The procedure may be the best option provided that the expertise is available.

Droplet nuclei are generated during colonoscopy and are decreased by the use of carbon dioxide and water immersion technique.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has raised concerns on whether colonoscopies (CS) carry a transmission risk. The aim was to determine whether CS are aerosol-generating procedures. METHODS: This was a prospective observational trial including all patients undergoing CS at the Prince of Wales Hospital from 1 June to 31 July 2020. Three particle counters were placed 10 cm from each patient's anus and near the mouth of endoscopists and nurses. The particle counter recorded the number of particles of size 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1, 5, and 10 µm. Patient demographics, seniority of endoscopists, use of CO2 and water immersion technique, and air particle count (particles/cubic foot, dCF) were recorded. Multilevel modeling was used to test all the hypotheses with a post-hoc analysis. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients were recruited. During CS, the level of 5 µm and 10 µm were significantly higher than the baseline period (P = 0.002). Procedures performed by trainees had a higher level of aerosols when compared to specialists (0.3 µm, P < 0.001; 0.5 µm and 0.7 µm, P < 0.001). The use of CO2 and water immersion techniques had significantly lower aerosols generated when compared to air (CO2 : 0.3, 0.5, and 0.7 µm: P < 0.001; water immersion: 0.3 µm: P = 0.048; 0.7 µm: P = 0.03). There were no significant increases in any particle sizes during the procedure at the endoscopists' and nurses' mouth. However, 8/117 (6.83%) particle count tracings showed a simultaneous surge of all particle sizes at the patient's anus and endoscopists' and nurses' level during rectal extubation. CONCLUSION: Colonoscopy generates droplet nuclei especially during rectal extubation. The use of CO2 and water immersion techniques may mitigate these risks.

Worldwide Techniques and Outcomes in Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (RAMIE): Results From the Multicenter International Registry.

OBJECTIVE: This international multicenter study by the Upper GI International Robotic Association aimed to gain insight in current techniques and outcomes of RAMIE worldwide. BACKGROUND: Current evidence for RAMIE originates from single-center studies, which may not be generalizable to the international multicenter experience. METHODS: Twenty centers from Europe, Asia, North-America, and South-America participated from 2016 to 2019. Main endpoints included the surgical techniques, clinical outcomes, and early oncological results of ramie. RESULTS: A total of 856 patients undergoing transthoracic RAMIE were included. Robotic surgery was applied for both the thoracic and abdominal phase (45%), only the thoracic phase (49%), or only the abdominal phase (6%). In most cases, the mediastinal lymphadenectomy included the low paraesophageal nodes (n=815, 95%), subcarinal nodes (n = 774, 90%), and paratracheal nodes (n = 537, 63%). When paratracheal lymphadenectomy was performed during an Ivor Lewis or a McKeown RAMIE procedure, recurrent laryngeal nerve injury occurred in 3% and 11% of patients, respectively. Circular stapled (52%), hand-sewn (30%), and linear stapled (18%) anastomotic techniques were used. In Ivor Lewis RAMIE, robot-assisted hand-sewing showed the highest anastomotic leakage rate (33%), while lower rates were observed with circular stapling (17%) and linear stapling (15%). In McKeown RAMIE, a hand-sewn anastomotic technique showed the highest leakage rate (27%), followed by linear stapling (18%) and circular stapling (6%). CONCLUSION: This study is the first to provide an overview of the current techniques and outcomes of transthoracic RAMIE worldwide. Although these results indicate high quality of the procedure, the optimal approach should be further defined.

EUS-guided fiducial marker insertion for radiotherapy in advanced esophageal carcinoma: submucosal insertion may lead to less migration when compared to intratumoral insertion.

BACKGROUND: The use of radiotherapy is frequently required in the treatment of locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. However, the margins of the tumor are often difficult to ascertain on computed tomography. Thus, EUS-guided fiducial marker insertion can aid the localization of the margins of the tumor. However, the optimal technique of the procedure is still uncertain. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of all patients that received EUS-guided fiducial marker insertion between March 2015 and December 2018. All patients suffering from esophageal squamous cell carcinoma scheduled for radiotherapy underwent the procedure within one week of the scheduled appointment. Gold fiducial markers were inserted under EUS guidance either intratumorally or within the submucosa just proximal and distal to the tumor. Outcome parameters included tumor characteristics, early and late migration rates, and tumor response rates. RESULTS: During the study period, 40 patients were recruited. 10 fiducial markers were placed intratumorally and 30 markers were placed submucosally. When comparing fiducials that were placed in the submucosa versus intratumorally, significantly more fiducials had early (40% vs 0%, RR = 0.6, 95% CI 0.36, 1.00) and late migration (60% vs 0%, RR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.13, 0.84) in the intratumoral group. The submucosal group had significantly more patients intended for curative intent (96.7% vs 70%, RR = 0.34, 95%CI 0.003, 0.361) and more patients with partial and complete response. There was no difference between the gross tumor volume, the clinical target volume, and the total radiation dose. CONCLUSION: In esophageal carcinomas planned for radiotherapy, fiducial markers placed in the submucosa may lead to less migration.

Current status in endoscopic management of upper gastrointestinal perforations, leaks and fistulas.

Recent advancement in endoscopic closure techniques have revolutionized the treatment of gastrointestinal perforations, leaks and fistulas. Traditionally, these have been managed surgically. The treatment strategy depends on the size and location of the defect, degree of contamination, presence of healthy surrounding tissues, patients' condition and the availability of expertise. One of the basic principles of management includes providing a barricade to the flow of luminal contents across the defect. This can be achieved with a wide range of endoscopic techniques. These include endoclips, stenting, suturing, tissue adhesives and glue, and endoscopic vacuum therapy. Each method has their distinct indications and shortcomings. Often, a combination of these techniques is required. Apart from endoscopic closure, drainage procedures by the interventional radiologist and surgical management also play an important role. In this review article, the outcomes of each of these endoscopic closure techniques in the literature is provided in tables, and practical management algorithms are being proposed.

Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 1 and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 During Aerosol-Generating Procedures in Critical Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk of coronavirus transmission to healthcare workers performing aerosol-generating procedures and the potential benefits of personal protective equipment during these procedures. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched using a combination of related MeSH terms and keywords. STUDY SELECTION: Cohort studies and case controls investigating common anesthetic and critical care aerosol-generating procedures and transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 to healthcare workers were included for quantitative analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Qualitative and quantitative data on the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus to healthcare workers via aerosol-generating procedures in anesthesia and critical care were collected independently. The Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions tool was used to assess the risk of bias of included studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seventeen studies out of 2,676 yielded records were included for meta-analyses. Endotracheal intubation (odds ratio, 6.69, 95% CI, 3.81-11.72; p < 0.001), noninvasive ventilation (odds ratio, 3.65; 95% CI, 1.86-7.19; p < 0.001), and administration of nebulized medications (odds ratio, 10.03; 95% CI, 1.98-50.69; p = 0.005) were found to increase the odds of healthcare workers contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The use of N95 masks (odds ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.03-0.39; p < 0.001), gowns (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.73; p < 0.001), and gloves (odds ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.29-0.53; p < 0.001) were found to be significantly protective of healthcare workers from contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. CONCLUSIONS: Specific aerosol-generating procedures are high risk for the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 from patients to healthcare workers. Personal protective equipment reduce the odds of contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

Comparison of EUS-guided endoscopic transpapillary and percutaneous gallbladder drainage for acute cholecystitis: a systematic review with network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The optimal method of gallbladder drainage (GBD) for acute cholecystitis in nonsurgical candidates is uncertain. The aim of the current study was to conduct a network meta-analysis comparing the 3 methods of GBD (percutaneous [PT], endoscopic transpapillary [ETP], and EUS-guided). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search for all comparative studies assessing the efficacy of either 2 or all modalities used for treatment of acute cholecystitis in patients at high risk for cholecystectomy was performed. Primary outcomes of technical and clinical success and postprocedure adverse events were assessed. Secondary outcomes were reintervention, unplanned readmissions, recurrent cholecystitis, and mortality. RESULTS: Ten studies were identified, comprising 1267 patients (472 EUS-GBD, 493 PT-GBD, and 302 ETP-GBD). In the network ranking estimate, PT-GBD and EUS-GBD had the highest likelihood of technical success (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 2.00 vs 1.02 vs 2.98) and clinical success (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 1.48 vs 1.55 vs 2.98). EUS-GBD had the lowest risk of recurrent cholecystitis (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 1.089 vs 2.02 vs 2.891). PT-GBD had the highest risk of reintervention (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 1.81 vs 2.99 vs 1.199) and unplanned readmissions (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 1.582 vs 2.944 vs 1.474), whereas ETP-GBD was associated with the lowest rates of mortality (EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD vs ETP-GBD: 2.62 vs 2.09 vs 1.29). CONCLUSIONS: The 3 modalities of GBD have their respective advantages and disadvantages. Selection of technique will depend on available expertise. In centers with expertise in endoscopic GBD, the techniques are preferred over PT-GBD with improved outcomes. (Clinical trial registration number: CRD42020181972.).

EUS-guided gallbladder drainage versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a propensity score analysis with 1-year follow-up data.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) is a safe alternative to percutaneous cholecystostomy (PT-GBD) for acute cholecystitis. How the procedure compares with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is uncertain. The aim of the current study is to compare the outcomes of EUS-GBD with LC for acute cholecystitis. METHODS: This was propensity score analysis of all patients admitted for acute cholecystitis between 2012 and 2018. Consecutive patients who received EUS-GBD or LC were included. Patients were matched for age, sex, and age-adjusted Charlson score. Outcome measurements included 30-day adverse events, mortality, recurrent cholecystitis, recurrent biliary events, reinterventions, and readmissions. RESULTS: During the study period, 60 patients were selected (30 EUS-GBD vs 30 LC) after propensity score matching. Technical success rates (100% vs 100%), clinical success rates (93.3% vs 100%, P = 1), lengths of hospital stay (6.8 [8.1] vs 5.5 [2.7], P = 1), 30-day adverse events (4 [13.3%] vs 4 [13.3%], P = 1), and mortality rates (2 [6.7%] vs 0 [0%], P = .492) were similar. The rates of recurrent biliary events (3 [10%] vs 3 [10%], P = .784), reinterventions (4 [13.3%] vs 3 [10%], P = 1), and unplanned readmissions (3 [10%] vs 3 [10%], P = .784) in 1 year were also similar. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of EUS-GBD for acute cholecystitis were comparable with LC with acceptable rates of recurrent acute cholecystitis. These results support the role of EUS-GBD as an alternative to LC in patients who may or may not be surgically fit to undergo definitive cholecystectomy.

Use of a novel lumen apposing metallic stent for drainage of the bile duct and gallbladder: Long term outcomes of a prospective international trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term placement of lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) with high lumen apposing force may result in adverse events. The aim of the current study was to assess the long-term efficacy and safety of a self-approximating LAMS with lower lumen apposing force for endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) and -gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD). METHODS: Five Asian institutions participated in this study. Consecutive patients suffering from obstructive jaundice with failed ERCP or acute cholecystitis that were at high risk for cholecystectomy were recruited. We evaluated the technical and clinical success rates, adverse events rates, types of interventions through the stent and the patency profile. RESULTS: From June 2017 to Oct 2018, a total of 53 patients received EUS-CDS (26) and EUS-GBD (27). The technical and clinical success rates were similar between the two groups (88.5% vs 88.9%, P = 1 and 88.5% vs 88.9%, P = 1 respectively). The differences in 30-day mortality rates [2 (7.7%) vs 2 (7.7%), P = 1] and adverse events [3 (11.5%) vs 3 (11.5%), P = 1] did not reach significance. Regarding long-term outcomes, two patients in each group suffered from adverse events (P = 1). One patient in the EUS-GBD group who was on direct oral anticoagulant suffered from stent induced bleeding. CONCLUSION: The self-approximating LAMS with lower lumen apposing force was effective and safe with a low risk of buried stent syndrome and bleeding in the longer term. The ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier was NCT03002051.

Endosonography-guided gallbladder drainage versus percutaneous cholecystostomy in very high-risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis: an international randomised multicentre controlled superiority trial (DRAC 1).

OBJECTIVE: The optimal management of acute cholecystitis in patients at very high risk for cholecystectomy is uncertain. The aim of the current study was to compare endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) to percutaneous cholecystostomy (PT-GBD) as a definitive treatment in these patients under a randomised controlled trial. DESIGN: Consecutive patients suffering from acute calculous cholecystitis but were at very high-risk for cholecystectomy were recruited. The primary outcome was the 1-year adverse events rate. Secondary outcomes include technical and clinical success, 30-day adverse events, pain scores, unplanned readmissions, re-interventions and mortalities. RESULTS: Between August 2014 to February 2018, 80 patients were recruited. EUS-GBD significantly reduced 1 year adverse events (10 (25.6%) vs 31 (77.5%), p<0.001), 30-day adverse events (5 (12.8%) vs 19 (47.5%), p=0.010), re-interventions after 30 days (1/39 (2.6%) vs 12/40 (30%), p=0.001), number of unplanned readmissions (6/39 (15.4%) vs 20/40 (50%), p=0.002) and recurrent cholecystitis (1/39 (2.6%) vs 8/40 (20%), p=0.029). Postprocedural pain scores and analgesic requirements were also less (p=0.034). The technical success (97.4% vs 100%, p=0.494), clinical success (92.3% vs 92.5%, p=1) and 30-day mortality (7.7% vs 10%, p=1) were statistically similar. The predictor to recurrent acute cholecystitis was the performance of PT-GBD (OR (95% CI)=5.63 (1.20-53.90), p=0.027). CONCLUSION: EUS-GBD improved outcomes as compared to PT-GBD in those patients that not candidates for cholecystectomy. EUS-GBD should be the procedure of choice provided that the expertise is available after a multi-disciplinary meeting. Further studies are required to determine the long-term efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02212717.