Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy for Upper Gastrointestinal Leaks and Perforations: Analysis From a Multicenter Spanish Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) is a novel technique for closing upper gastrointestinal (UGI) defects. Available literature includes single-center retrospective cohort studies with small sample sizes. Furthermore, evidence about factors associated with EVT failure is scarce. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of EVT for the resolution of UGI defects in a multicenter study and to investigate the factors associated with EVT failure and in-hospital mortality. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study in which consecutive EVT procedures for the treatment of UGI defects from 19 Spanish hospitals were recorded in the national registry between November 2018 and March 2022. RESULTS: We included 102 patients: 89 with anastomotic leaks and 13 with perforations. Closure of the defect was achieved in 84 cases (82%). A total of 6 patients (5.9%) had adverse events related to the EVT. The in-hospital mortality rate was 12.7%. A total of 6 patients (5.9%) died because of EVT failure and 1 case (0.9%) due to a fatal adverse event. Time from diagnosis of the defect to initiation of EVT was the only independent predictor for EVT failure (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.05, P = 0.005). EVT failure (OR 24.5, 95% CI 4.5-133, P = 0.001) and development of pneumonia after EVT (OR 246.97, 95% CI 11.15-5,472.58, P = 0.0001) were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. DISCUSSION: EVT is safe and effective in cases of anastomotic leak and perforations of the upper digestive tract. The early use of EVT improves the efficacy of this technique.

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.

Motorized Spiral Enteroscopy Is Effective in Patients with Prior Abdominal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Motorized Spiral Enteroscopy (MSE) reduces procedure time and increases insertion depth into the small bowel; however, there is scarce evidence on factors affecting MSE efficacy. AIMS: To evaluate diagnostic yield and adverse events of MSE including patients with prior major abdominal surgery. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted on patients undergoing MSE from June 2019 to December 2021. Demographic characteristics, procedure time, depth of maximum insertion (DMI), technical success, diagnostic yield, and adverse events were collected. RESULTS: Seventy-four anterograde (54.4%) and 62 retrograde (45.6%) enteroscopies were performed in 117 patients (64 males, median age 67 years). Fifty patients (42.7%) had prior major abdominal surgery. Technical success was 91.9% for anterograde and 90.3% for retrograde route. Diagnostic yield was 71.6% and 61.3%, respectively. The median DMI was 415 cm (264-585) for anterograde and 120 cm (37-225) for retrograde enteroscopy. In patients with prior major abdominal surgery, MSE showed significantly longer small bowel insertion time (38 vs 29 min, p = 0.004), with similar diagnostic yield (61 vs 71.4%, p = 0.201) and DMI (315 vs 204 cm, p = 0.226). The overall adverse event rate was 10.3% (SAE 1.5%), with no differences related to prior abdominal surgery (p = 0.598). Patients with prior surgeries directly involving the gastrointestinal tract showed lower DMI (189 vs 374 cm, p = 0.019) with equal exploration time (37.5 vs 38 min, p = 0.642) compared to those with other abdominal surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: MSE is effective and safe in patients with major abdominal surgery, although longer procedure times were observed. A lower depth of insertion was detected in patients with gastrointestinal surgery.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Biopsy With or Without Rapid On-site Evaluation for Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The benefit of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has never been evaluated in a randomized study. This trial aimed to test the hypothesis that in solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB without ROSE was not inferior to that of EUS-FNB with ROSE. METHODS: A noninferiority study (noninferiority margin, 5%) was conducted at 14 centers in 8 countries. Patients with SPLs requiring tissue sampling were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo EUS-FNB with or without ROSE using new-generation FNB needles. The touch-imprint cytology technique was used to perform ROSE. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy, and secondary endpoints were safety, tissue core procurement, specimen quality, and sampling procedural time. RESULTS: Eight hundred patients were randomized over an 18-month period, and 771 were analyzed (385 with ROSE and 386 without). Comparable diagnostic accuracies were obtained in both arms (96.4% with ROSE and 97.4% without ROSE, P = .396). Noninferiority of EUS-FNB without ROSE was confirmed with an absolute risk difference of 1.0% (1-sided 90% confidence interval, -1.1% to 3.1%; noninferiority P < .001). Safety and sample quality of histologic specimens were similar in both groups. A significantly higher tissue core rate was obtained by EUS-FNB without ROSE (70.7% vs. 78.0%, P = .021), with a significantly shorter mean sampling procedural time (17.9 ± 8.8 vs 11.7 ± 6.0 minutes, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNB demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy in evaluating SPLs independently on execution of ROSE. When new-generation FNB needles are used, ROSE should not be routinely recommended. (ClinicalTrial.gov number NCT03322592.).

Antibiotic Prophylaxis Is Not Required for Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions, Based on a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guidelines recommend routine antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic cysts, but there is conflicting evidence for its necessity. We investigated whether performing the procedure without antimicrobial prophylaxis increases the incidence of infection. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial to compare prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin vs placebo in patients with a pancreatic cyst requiring EUS-FNA at multiple centers in Spain. From September 2014 to June 2018, patients were randomly assigned to groups that received the prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin (n = 112) or saline solution (n = 114, placebo). We recorded patients' demographic data, lesion characteristics, and procedure data and followed patients for 21 days. A total of 205 patients completed the trial (90.7%), receiving ciprofloxacin or the control, with no statistically significant differences in demographics, baseline data, or procedure characteristics between groups. The primary outcome was FNA-related infection. Secondary outcomes were incidence of fever, procedure complications, and medication-related adverse events. RESULTS: The only case of FNA-related infection (0.44%) occurred in a patient in the placebo group (0.87%); this patient developed acute pancreatitis and bacteremia after the procedure. Prevention of infection was not inferior in the control group; the difference between proportions was 0.87% (95% confidence interval, -0.84% to 2.59%). There were no differences between groups in fever (2 patients in each group: 1.78% vs 1.76%; P = 1.00) or other adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of patients undergoing EUS-FNA for pancreatic cyst evaluation, we found the risk of infection to be low. The incidence of infections did not differ significantly with vs without ciprofloxacin prophylaxis. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02261896).

Colon capsule endoscopy versus CT colonography in FIT-positive colorectal cancer screening subjects: a prospective randomised trial-the VICOCA study.

BACKGROUND: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) and CT colonography (CTC) are minimally invasive techniques for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Our objective is to compare CCE and CTC for the identification of patients with colorectal neoplasia among participants in a CRC screening programme with positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT). Primary outcome was to compare the performance of CCE and CTC in detecting patients with neoplastic lesions. METHODS: The VICOCA study is a prospective, single-centre, randomised trial conducted from March 2014 to May 2016; 662 individuals were invited and 349 were randomised to CCE or CTC before colonoscopy. Endoscopists were blinded to the results of CCE and CTC. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-nine individuals were included: 173 in the CCE group and 176 in the CTC group. Two hundred ninety individuals agreed to participate: 147 in the CCE group and 143 in the CTC group. In the intention-to-screen analysis, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values for the identification of individuals with colorectal neoplasia were 98.1%, 76.6%, 93.7% and 92.0% in the CCE group and 64.9%, 95.7%, 96.8% and 57.7% in the CTC group. In terms of detecting significant neoplastic lesions, the sensitivity of CCE and CTC was 96.1% and 79.3%, respectively. Detection rate for advanced colorectal neoplasm was higher in the CCE group than in the CTC group (100% and 93.1%, respectively; RR = 1.07; p = 0.08). Both CCE and CTC identified all patients with cancer. CCE detected more patients with any lesion than CTC (98.6% and 81.0%, respectively; RR = 1.22; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Although both techniques seem to be similar in detecting patients with advanced colorectal neoplasms, CCE is more sensitive for the detection of any neoplastic lesion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02081742 . Registered: September 16, 2013.

Evaluation of long-term adherence to oesophagogastroduodenoscopy quality indicators. / Evaluación del cumplimiento a largo plazo de los indicadores de calidad en la esofagogastroduodenoscopia.

INTRODUCTION: In a previous study we demonstrated that a simple training programme improved quality indicators of Oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) achieving the recommended benchmarks. However, the long-term effect of this intervention is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of OGDs performed 3 years after of having completed a training programme. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comparative study of 2 cohorts was designed as follows: Group A included OGDs performed in 2016 promptly after a training programme and Group B with OGDs performed from January to March 2019, this group was also divided into 2 subgroups: subgroup B1 of Endoscopists who had participated in the previous training programme and subgroup B2 of Endoscopists who had not. The intra-procedure quality indicators proposed by ASGE-ACG were used. RESULTS: A total of 1236 OGDs were analysed, 600 from Group A and 636 from Group B (439 subgroup B1 and 197 subgroup B2). The number of complete examinations was lower in Group B (566 [94.3%] vs. 551 [86.6%]; p<0.001). A significant decrease was observed in nearly all quality indicators and they did not reach the recommended benchmarks: retroflexion in the stomach (96% vs. 81%; p<0.001); Seattle biopsy protocol (86% vs. 50%; p=0.03), description of the upper GI bleeding lesion (100% vs. 62%; p<0.01), sufficient intestinal biopsy specimens (at least 4) in suspected coeliac disease (92.5% vs. 18%; p<0.001), photo documentation of the lesion (94% vs. 90%; p<0.05). Regarding the overall assessment of the procedure (including correct performance and adequate photo documentation), a significant decrease was also observed (90.5% vs. 62%; p<0.001). There were no differences between subgroups B1 and B2. CONCLUSIONS: The improvement observed in 2016 after a training programme did not prevail after 3 years. In order to keep the quality of OGDs above the recommended benchmarks, it is necessary to implement continuous training programmes.

Adverse Events and Acute Chronic Liver Failure in Patients With Cirrhosis Undergoing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Multicenter Matched-Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Data on the outcome of adverse events (AEs) and the risk of developing acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) after ERCP in patients with cirrhosis are unknown. We examined the incidence and risk factors of post-ERCP AEs in patients with cirrhosis and the appearance of ACLF after ERCP. METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective, matched-cohort study, we evaluated ERCPs performed from January 2002 to 2015. A group of patients with cirrhosis with non-ERCP interventions and one without interventions was also analyzed for the development of ACLF. RESULTS: A total of 441 ERCPs were analyzed; 158 in patients with cirrhosis (cases) and 283 in patients without cirrhosis (controls). The overall rate of AEs after all ERCPs was significantly higher in cases compared to controls (17% vs 9.5, p = 0.02). Cholangitis developed more in cases compared to controls (6.3% vs 1.8%; p = 0.01). In a subanalysis of those with sphincterotomy, the rate of bleeding was higher in those with cirrhosis (9.4% vs 3.4%; p = 0.03). Logistic regression identified cirrhosis (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.36-4.53; p = 0.003) and sphincterotomy (OR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.23-5.72; p = 0.01) as risk factors of AEs. A total of 18/158 (11.4%) cases developed ACLF after ERCP. ACLF occurred in 7/27 cases with post-ERCP AEs and in 11/131 without post-ERCP AEs (25.9% vs 8.3%; p = 0.01). A total of 3.2% (13/406) patients without interventions developed ACLF compared to 17.5% (102/580) who developed ACLF after non-ERCP interventions. Patients with decompensated cirrhosis at ERCP had a higher risk of developing ACLF (17% vs 6.8%; p = 0.04). Patients with a MELD score ≥ 15 were 3.1 times more likely (95% CI: 1.14-8.6; p = 0.027) to develop ACLF after ERCP. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of AEs after ERCP is higher in patients with cirrhosis compared to the non-cirrhotic population. The incidence of ACLF is higher in those with AEs after ERCP compared to those without AEs, especially cholangitis. The development of ACLF is common after ERCP and other invasive procedures. ACLF can be precipitated by numerous factors which include preceding events before the procedure, including manipulation of the bile duct, and AEs after an ERCP.

State of endoscopic ultrasonography in Spain in 2017. / Estado de la ecoendoscopia en España en 2017.

AIM: To understand the current state of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in Spain. METHODS: Descriptive analysis from a national survey with 11 questions: 10 related to technique and 1 to the training and experience of the endoscopists. RESULTS: Sixty endoscopists from 48 of the 97 (49.5%) hospitals that perform EUS in Spain responded to the survey. A total of 28,678 procedures (20,311 diagnostic, 7,446 with puncture and 921 therapeutic) were recorded over the course of one year. Approximately 64% of the hospitals perform between 300 and 999 tests per year. All have radial and sectorial echoendoscopes, with a median of 2 (2-8) scopes. For cytological diagnosis, the 22-gauge needle is the most commonly used (98%) and, for histological diagnosis, the Procore (72%). The study of the pancreas and bile duct is the most common indication for diagnostic EUS (60%), followed by the staging of digestive tract neoplasms (20%). Approximately 72% of the hospitals perform on-site cytopathology evaluations and sedation is administered in equal parts by both endoscopists and anaesthetists. In terms of experience, 45% of echoendoscopists perform fewer than 300 annual exams and the median training duration is 6months (0.5-36). CONCLUSIONS: EUS is adequately implemented in Spain and good equipment is available. However, it is necessary to establish a standardised EUS training program since the one undertaken by many echoendoscopists could prove insufficient according to the standards established by Scientific Societies.

Endoscopic ultrasonography can avoid unnecessary laparotomies in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and undetected peritoneal carcinomatosis.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between the presence of ascites detected by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent a EUS for preoperative staging of a pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 1998 and 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. The diagnosis of PC was confirmed by histopathology or peritoneal fluid cytology. The main outcome of the study was the relationship of ascites at EUS and PC in patients with pancreatic cancer. Secondarily, to evaluate the relationship between this finding and survival as well as the development of PC during follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 136 patients were included: 30 patients with local unresectable tumor or metastatic disease and 106 potentially-resectable candidates based on CT staging. EUS showed ascites in 27 (20%) patients, of whom 8 (29.6%) had PC. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of ascites by EUS in the detection of PC in this group of patients were 67%, 85%, 30%, 96% and 83%, respectively. Ascites detected by EUS was the only independent predictive factor of PC with an OR of 11 (CI 95%: 3-40). The detection of ascites by EUS was associated with a shorter survival (median survival time 7,3 months; range 0-60 vs 14.2 months; range 0-140) (p = 0.018) and earlier development of PC during follow-up (median 3.2 months, range 1.4-18.1 vs 12.7 months, range 5.4-54.8; p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The finding of ascites at EUS in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma is highly associated with PC and a poor outcome.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary access versus precut papillotomy in patients with failed biliary cannulation: a retrospective study.

Background and aims Precut papillotomy is widely used after failed biliary cannulation. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary access techniques are newer methods to facilitate access and therapy in failed cannulation. We evaluated the impact of EUS-guided biliary access on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) success and compared these techniques to precut papillotomy. Patients and methods We retrospectively compared two ERCP cohorts. One cohort consisted of biliary ERCPs (n = 1053) attempted in patients with native papillae and surgically unaltered anatomy in whom precut papillotomy and/or EUS-guided biliary access were routinely performed immediately after failed cannulation. This cohort was compared with a similar ERCP cohort (n = 1062) in which only precut papillotomy was available for failed cannulation. The following outcomes were compared: conventional cannulation success, rates of attempted advanced access techniques (precut or EUS), precut success, EUS-guided biliary access success, and ERCP failure rates. Results Although conventional cannulation success, rates of attempted advanced access technique (precut or EUS), and precut success were similar, the ERCP failure rate was lower when both EUS-guided biliary access and precut were available (1.0 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.4 - 1.6]), compared with when only precut was possible for failed access (3.6 % [95 %CI 2.5 - 4.7]; P < 0.001). Success for EUS-guided biliary access (95.1 % [95 %CI 89.7 - 100]) was significantly higher than for precut (75.3 % [95 %CI 68.2 - 82.4]; P < 0.001), and mainly due to superiority in malignant obstruction (93.5 % vs. 64 %; P < 0.001). Conclusions EUS-guided biliary access decreases the rate of therapeutic biliary ERCP failure. Our results support the use of EUS-guided biliary access to optimize single-session ERCP success. In experienced hands, these techniques appear as effective, if not more so, than precut papillotomy.

Optimal timing for a second ERCP after failure of initial biliary cannulation following precut sphincterotomy: an analysis of experience at two tertiary centers.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Precut sphincterotomy increases the success of deep biliary cannulation, but the method fails at the initial ERCP in 5-12% of cases. Although other invasive strategies are often used to access the bile duct, a second ERCP may be effective and safe. We evaluated the efficacy, safety, and factors related to a second ERCP after failed cannulation using a precut sphincterotomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed all patients that underwent an ERCP with native papilla from 2006 to 2014 at two tertiary institutions. Efficacy was based on the cannulation rate of the second ERCP, and safety was assessed in terms of adverse events. RESULTS: We identified 112 patients with failed cannulation after precut, and a second ERCP was performed in 72 (64.3%). Median time between procedures was 7 days (IQR 5-11). Deep cannulation was achieved in 54 cases (75%). The only factor associated with cannulation failure was an ERCP within 4 days after the initial precut (cannulation success 44.4 vs. 79.4% after 4 days, p = 0.026). Adverse events were recorded after the first ERCP in 13 of 112 patients (11.8%): delayed bleeding in four, pancreatitis in five, and perforation in four. After the second ERCP, three of 72 patients (4.2%) presented adverse events: two delayed bleeding and one pancreatitis. CONCLUSIONS: A second ERCP after failure of initial biliary cannulation following precut appears to be safe and effective. A second ERCP should be delayed at least 4 days if feasible.

Gastric polyps: Retrospective analysis of 41,253 upper endoscopies. / Pólipos gástricos: análisis retrospectivo de 41.253 endoscopias digestivas altas.

INTRODUCTION: Gastric polyps are usually asymptomatic lesions incidentally discovered during endoscopy. OBJECTIVE: To study the frequency of different types of gastric polyps in our population and their possible association with other factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective study of gastroscopies performed in a tertiary hospital over a ten-year period. Demographics, medical history, indication for gastroscopy and morphological and histological characteristics of polyps were collected. RESULTS: Gastric polyps were found in 827 out of 41253 (2%) reviewed gastroscopies, corresponding to 709 patients. Mean age was 65.6 years, and 62% were female. 53.9% of patients had multiple polyps. The most common location was the fundus and 83.3% were smaller than 1cm. Histopathology was obtained in 607 patients: hyperplastic polyps were the most common (42.8%), followed by fundic gland polyps (37.7%). Factors independently associated with hyperplastic polyps were age and single polyp, size ≥6mm and location other than fundus. In contrast, fundic gland polyps were associated with reflux and multiple polyps, size <6mm and located in fundus. Adenomas were independently associated with single polyp. CONCLUSIONS: Fundic gland and hyperplastic polyps are the most common in our population and have characteristic features that can guide histological diagnosis. With single polyps it is advisable to take biopsies to rule out adenoma.

Quality indicators for esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A comparative study of outcomes after an improvement programme in a tertiary hospital. / Indicadores de calidad en la esofagogastroduodenoscopia: estudio comparativo de los resultados tras un programa de mejora en un hospital terciario.

INTRODUCTION: There is an opportunity for improvement in the recording and measuring of quality indicators. However, no previous experiences exist in our field in terms of their compliance in esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). OBJECTIVE: To analyse compliance with EGD quality criteria and evaluate improvement after conducting a training programme. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Comparative study of 2 cohorts: one retrospective (control group) and one prospective (intervention group), before and after a training programme consisting of an information session and the report writing improvement programme. The quality indicators proposed by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the American College of Gastroenterology were used. RESULTS: A total of 1,200 EGDs were included in a sequential manner (600 in each group). Following the training programme, a significant improvement was observed in the following indicators: documented indication (93 vs. 99.8%; P<0.01), documented full examinations (94.7 vs. 97.3%; P<0.01), correct performance (63.7 vs. 87.9%; P<0.01), appropriate biopsies according to protocols (57.9 vs. 83.8%; P<0.01), photo-documentation of described lesions (84.1 vs. 94.9%; P<0.01), photo-documentation per segment (52.9 vs. 70.5%; P<0.01) and correct overall assessment (56,9 vs. 90.5%; P<0.01). Biopsies for coeliac disease, documented indication, full examination and correct performance, if it went ahead, exceeded the recommended standard. CONCLUSION: A very simple training programme improves EGD quality indicators, with the majority reaching the standards recommended by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the American College of Gastroenterology.

Adverse events of EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic cystic and solid lesions by using the lexicon proposed in an ASGE workshop: a prospective and comparative study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pancreatic cysts and solid lesions are routinely examined by EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA). The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of adverse events (AEs) of this procedure by using the lexicon recommended by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE). METHODS: This was a prospective and comparative study of patients who underwent EUS-FNA in which a 22-gauge needle was used. In the pancreatic cystic lesions group (group I), complete fluid evacuation in a single needle pass was attempted, and ciprofloxacin was given during the procedure and for 3 days after. In the pancreatic solid lesions group (group II), the number of passes was determined by the on-site evaluation of the sample. AEs were defined and graded according to the lexicon recommended by the ASGE. Patients were followed for 48 hours, 1 week, and 1 month after the procedure. RESULTS: A total of 146 patients were included, 73 in group I and 73 in group II. Potential factors influencing the incidence of AEs (ie, access route for FNA) were similar in both groups. AEs occurred in 5 of 146 patients (3.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3%-8%): 4 in group I (5.5%; 95% CI, 1.7%-13.7%) and 1 in group II (1.4%; 95% CI, -0.5% to 8.1%) (P = .03). Severity was mild in 1 of 5 patients (20%) and moderate in 3 of 5 patients (60%). One patient with a solid mass in the head of the pancreas had a duodenal perforation after EUS and died after surgery. All other AEs occurred in the first 48 hours and resolved with medical therapy. There were 3 incidents of transient hypoxia and self-limited abdominal pain in 1 and 2 patients, respectively. No patients were lost to follow-up. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNA of pancreatic cysts has an AEs rate similar to that of solid pancreatic masses, which is small enough to consider this procedure a safe and effective method for managing patients with both types of lesions. AEs occurred early after EUS-FNA, and patients should be closely followed during the first 2 days after the procedure.

Evaluation of the short- and long-term effectiveness and safety of fully covered self-expandable metal stents for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: results of a Spanish nationwide registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Initial reports suggest that fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FCSEMSs) may be better suited for drainage of dense pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), such as walled-off pancreatic necrosis. The primary aim was to analyze the effectiveness and safety of FCSEMSs for drainage of different types of PFCs in a large cohort. The secondary aim was to investigate which type of FCSEMS is superior. METHODS: This was a retrospective, noncomparative review of a nationwide database involving all hospitals in Spain performing EUS-guided PFC drainage. From April 2008 to August 2013, all patients undergoing PFC drainage with an FCSEMS were included in a database. The main outcome measurements were technical success, short-term (2 weeks) and long-term (6 months) effectiveness, adverse events, and need for surgery. RESULTS: The study included 211 patients (pseudocyst/walled-off pancreatic necrosis, 53%/47%). The FCSEMSs used were straight biliary (66%) or lumen-apposing (34%). Technical success was achieved in 97% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 93%-99%). Short-term- and long-term clinical success was obtained in 94% (95% CI, 89%-97%) and 85% (95% CI, 79%-89%) of patients, respectively. Adverse events occurred in 21% of patients (95% CI, 16%-27%): infection (11%), bleeding (7%), and stent migration and/or perforation (3%). By multivariate analysis, patient age (>58 years) and previous failed drainage were the most important factors associated with negative outcome. CONCLUSIONS: An FCSEMS is effective and safe for PFC drainage. Older patients with a history of unsuccessful drainage are more likely to fail EUS-guided drainage. The type of FCSEMS does not seem to influence patient outcome.

Endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Can they be successfully combined?

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) have much in common, including their main indications (biliopancreatic disorders), powerful therapeutic capacities and a steep learning curve. Over the years they have evolved from novel diagnostic procedures to interventional therapeutic techniques, but along different paths (different scopes or devices and endoscopists specializing exclusively in one or the other technique). However, EUS has gradually developed into a therapeutic technique that requires skills in the use of ERCP devices and stents, leading some ERCP specialists to explore the therapeutic potential of EUS. The corresponding literature, which has grown exponentially, includes recent experiments on combining the two techniques, which have gradually come to be used in routine care in a number of centers, with positive technical, clinical and financial outcomes. We review EUS and ERCP as individual or combined procedures for managing biliopancreatic disorders.