Indomethacin with or without prophylactic pancreatic stent placement to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP: a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of rectally administered indomethacin and placement of a prophylactic pancreatic stent is recommended to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients. Preliminary evidence suggests that the use of indomethacin might eliminate or substantially reduce the need for stent placement, a technically complex, costly, and potentially harmful intervention. METHODS: In this randomised, non-inferiority trial conducted at 20 referral centres in the USA and Canada, patients (aged ≥18 years) at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive rectal indomethacin alone or the combination of indomethacin plus a prophylactic pancreatic stent. Patients, treating clinicians, and outcomes assessors were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis. To declare non-inferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) would have to be less than 5% (non-inferiority margin) in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02476279), and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Sept 17, 2015, and Jan 25, 2023, a total of 1950 patients were randomly assigned. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 145 (14·9%) of 975 patients in the indomethacin alone group and in 110 (11·3%) of 975 in the indomethacin plus stent group (risk difference 3·6%; 95% CI 0·6-6·6; p=0·18 for non-inferiority). A post-hoc intention-to-treat analysis of the risk difference between groups showed that indomethacin alone was inferior to the combination of indomethacin plus prophylactic stent (p=0·011). The relative benefit of stent placement was generally consistent across study subgroups but appeared more prominent among patients at highest risk for pancreatitis. Safety outcomes (serious adverse events, intensive care unit admission, and hospital length of stay) did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: For preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients, a strategy of indomethacin alone was not as effective as a strategy of indomethacin plus prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. These results support prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in addition to rectal indomethacin administration in high-risk patients, in accordance with clinical practice guidelines. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.

Relative Efficacies of Interventions to Improve the Quality of Screening-Related Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Significant variability exists in colonoscopy quality indicators, including adenoma detection rate (ADR). We synthesized evidence from randomized trials in a network meta-analysis on interventions to improve colonoscopy quality. METHODS: We included trials from database inceptions to September 25, 2023, of patients undergoing screening-related colonoscopy and presented efficacies of interventions within domains (periprocedural parameters, endoscopist-directed interventions, intraprocedural techniques, endoscopic technologies, distal attachment devices, and additive substances) compared to standard colonoscopy. The primary outcome was ADR. We used a Bayesian random-effects model using Markov-chain Monte Carlo simulation, with 10,000 burn-ins and 100,000 iterations. We calculated odds ratios with 95% credible intervals and present surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves. RESULTS: We included 124 trials evaluating 37 interventions for the primary outcome. Nine interventions resulted in statistically significant improvements in ADR compared to standard colonoscopy (9-minute withdrawal time, dual observation, water exchange, i-SCAN [Pentax Ltd], linked color imaging, computer-aided detection, Endocuff [Olympus Corp], Endocuff Vision [Olympus Corp], and oral methylene blue). Dual observation (SUCRA, 0.84) and water exchange (SUCRA, 0.78) ranked highest among intraprocedural techniques; i-SCAN (SUCRA, 0.95), linked color imaging (SUCRA, 0.85), and computer-aided detection (SUCRA, 0.78) among endoscopic technologies; WingCap (A&A Medical Supply LLC) (SUCRA, 0.87) and Endocuff (SUCRA, 0.85) among distal attachment devices and oral methylene blue (SUCRA, 0.94) among additive substances. No interventions improved detection of advanced adenomas, and only narrow-band imaging improved detection of serrated lesions (odds ratio, 2.94; 95% credible interval, 1.46-6.25). CONCLUSIONS: Several interventions are effective in improving adenoma detection and overall colonoscopy quality, many of which are cost-free. These results can inform endoscopists, unit managers, and endoscopy societies on relative efficacies.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage of First Intent With a Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent vs Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study (ELEMENT Trial).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy with a lumen-apposing metal stent (EUS-CDS) is a promising modality for management of malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) with potential for better stent patency. We compared its outcomes with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with metal stenting (ERCP-M). METHODS: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, we recruited patients with MDBO secondary to borderline resectable, locally advanced, or unresectable peri-ampullary cancers across 10 Canadian institutions and 1 French institution. This was a superiority trial with a noninferiority assessment of technical success. Patients were randomized to EUS-CDS or ERCP-M. The primary end point was the rate of stent dysfunction at 1 year, considering competing risks of death, clinical failure, and surgical resection. Analyses were performed according to intention-to-treat principles. RESULTS: From February 2019 to February 2022, 144 patients were recruited; 73 were randomized to EUS-CDS and 71 were randomized to ERCP-M. The mean (SD) procedure time was 14.0 (11.4) minutes for EUS-CDS and 23.1 (15.6) minutes for ERCP-M (P < .01); 40% of the former was performed without fluoroscopy. Technical success was achieved in 90.4% (95% CI, 81.5% to 95.3%) of EUS-CDS and 83.1% (95% CI, 72.7% to 90.1%) of ERCP-M with a risk difference of 7.3% (95% CI, -4.0% to 18.8%) indicating noninferiority. Stent dysfunction occurred in 9.6% vs 9.9% of EUS-CDS and ERCP-M cases, respectively (P = .96). No differences in adverse events, pancreaticoduodenectomy and oncologic outcomes, or quality of life were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Although not superior in stent function, EUS-CDS is an efficient and safe alternative to ERCP-M in patients with MDBO. These findings provide evidence for greater adoption of EUS-CDS in clinical practice as a complementary and exchangeable first-line modality to ERCP in patients with MDBO. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT03870386.

Technical factors associated with the benefit of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement during high-risk ERCP: a secondary analysis of the SVI trial dataset.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) is effective for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk cases, but the optimal technical approach to this intervention remains uncertain. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of 787 clinical trial participants who underwent successful stent placement, we studied the impact of: 1) whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP or naturally during the conduct of the case; 2) the amount of effort expended on PSP; 3) stent length; 4) stent diameter; and 5) guidewire caliber. We used logistic regression models to examine the adjusted association between each technical factor and post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). RESULTS: Ninety-one of the 787 patients experienced PEP. There was no clear association between PEP and whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP (vs. occurring naturally; OR 0.82, 95%CI 0.37-1.84), whether substantial effort expended on stent placement (vs. non-substantial effort; OR 1.58, 95%CI 0.73-3.45), stent length (>5 cm vs. ≤5 cm; OR 1.01, 95%CI 0.63-1.61), stent diameter (≥5 Fr vs. <5 Fr; OR 1.13, 95%CI 0.65-1.96), or guidewire caliber (0.035 inch vs. 0.025 inch; 0.83, 95%CI 0.49-1.41). CONCLUSIONS: The 5 modifiable technical factors studied in this secondary analysis of large-scale randomized trial data did not appear to have a strong impact on the benefit of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in preventing PEP after high-risk ERCP. Within the limitations of post hoc subgroup analysis, these findings may have important implications in procedural decision-making and suggest that the benefit of PSP is robust to variations in technical approach.

Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes of Clinically Significant Post-ERCP Bleeding: a Contemporary Multi-center Study.

BACKGROUND AIMS: Clinically significant post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) bleeding (CSPEB) is common. Contemporary estimates of risk are lacking. We aimed to identify risk factors for and outcomes following CSPEB. METHODS: We analyzed multi-center prospective ERCP data between 2018-2023 with 30-day follow-up. The primary outcome was CSPEB, defined as hematemesis, melena, or hematochezia resulting in: hemoglobin drop ≥20 g/L or transfusion and/or endoscopy to evaluate suspected bleeding, and/or unplanned healthcare visitation and/or prolongation of existing admission. Firth logistic regression was employed. P-values <0.05 were significant, with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals reported. RESULTS: CSPEB occurred following 129 (1.5%) of 8,517 ERCPs (mean onset 3.2 days), with 110 of 4,849 events (2.3%) occurring following higher-risk interventions (sphincterotomy, sphincteroplasty, pre-cut sphincterotomy, and/or needle-knife access). CSPEB patients required endoscopy and transfusion in 86.0% and 53.5% of cases, respectively, with three cases (2.3%) being fatal. P2Y12 inhibitors were held for a median of 4 days (IQR 4) prior to higher-risk ERCP. Following higher-risk interventions, P2Y12 inhibitors (OR 3.33, 1.26-7.74), warfarin (OR 8.54, 3.32-19.81), dabigatran (OR 13.40, 2.06-59.96), rivaroxaban (OR 7.42, 3.43-15.24) and apixaban (OR 4.16, 1.99-8.20) were associated with CSPEB. Significant intraprocedural bleeding post sphincterotomy (OR 2.32, 1.06-4.60), but not post sphincteroplasty, was also associated. Concomitant cardiorespiratory events occurred more frequently within 30 days following CSPEB (OR 12.71, 4.75-32.54). CONCLUSIONS: Risks of antiplatelet-related CSPEB may be underestimated by endoscopists based on observations of suboptimal holding before higher-risk ERCP. Appropriate periprocedural antithrombotic management is essential and could represent novel quality initiative targets.

Post-ERCP cholecystitis: Incidence, characteristics, and outcomes from a prospective multicenter biliary endoscopy registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of post-ERCP cholecystitis are poorly described. We aimed to describe cases of post-ERCP cholecystitis from a prospective multicenter registry with protocolized 30-day follow-up. METHODS: Patient- and procedure-related data from 7 centers were obtained. The primary outcome was post-ERCP cholecystitis, defined according to a Delphi-based criteria and causal attribution system. Risk factors and outcomes were described for all cases. RESULTS: Seventeen cases of post-ERCP cholecystitis were identified among 4428 patients with gallbladders undergoing ERCP between 2018 and 2023 (incidence, 0.38%; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.57). In ERCPs with covered metal stenting, 7 of 467 resulted in cholecystitis (incidence, 1.50%; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-2.60). Patients had symptoms at a median of 5 days (interquartile range, 5) after ERCP. Management strategies included cholecystectomy, percutaneous cholecystostomy, and endoscopic stent removal/exchange. CONCLUSIONS: Estimates of post-ERCP cholecystitis incidence can inform discussions around procedural risk.

Aspirin exposure and its association with metal stent patency in malignant distal biliary obstruction: a large international multicenter propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Stent dysfunction is common after ERCP with self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) insertion for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). Chronic aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid; ASA) exposure has been previously shown to potentially decrease this risk. We aim to further ascertain the protective effect of ASA and to identify other predictors of stent dysfunction. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted at 9 sites in Canada and 1 in the United States. Patients with MDBO who underwent ERCP with SEMS placement between January 2014 and December 2019 were included and divided into 2 cohorts: ASA exposed (ASA-E) and ASA unexposed (ASA-U). Propensity-score matching (PSM) was performed to limit selection bias. Matched variables were age, sex, tumor stage, and type of metal stent. The primary outcome was the hazard rate of stent dysfunction. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independent predictors of stent dysfunction. RESULTS: Of 1396 patients assessed, after PSM 496 patients were analyzed (248 ASA-E and 248 ASA-U). ERCP with SEMS placement was associated with a high clinical success of 82.2% in ASA-E and 81.2% in ASA-U cohorts (P = .80). One hundred eighty-four patients had stent dysfunction with a mean stent patency time of 229.9 ± 306.2 days and 245.4 ± 241.4 days in ASA-E and ASA-U groups, respectively (P = .52). On multivariable analysis, ASA exposure did not protect against stent dysfunction (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], .96-1.63). An etiology of pancreatic cancer (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.15-1.61) predicted stent dysfunction, whereas cancer therapy was protective (HR, .73; 95% CI, .55-.96). Chronic ASA use was not associated with an increased risk for adverse events including bleeding, post-ERCP pancreatitis, and perforation. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, multicenter study using PSM, chronic exposure to ASA did not protect against stent dysfunction in MDBO. Instead, the analysis revealed that the etiology of pancreatic cancer was an independent predictor of stent dysfunction and cancer therapy was protective.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of endoscopy in the management of chronic pancreatitis: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for the role of endoscopy in the management of chronic pancreatitis (CP). This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses effectiveness of endoscopic therapies for the management of pain in CP, including celiac plexus block, endoscopic management of pancreatic duct (PD) stones and strictures, and adverse events such as benign biliary strictures (BBSs) and pseudocysts. In patients with painful CP and an obstructed PD, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation in patients without contraindication to surgery before initiation of endoscopic management. In patients who have contraindications to surgery or who prefer a less-invasive approach, the ASGE suggests an endoscopic approach as the initial treatment over surgery, if complete ductal clearance is likely. When a decision is made to proceed with a celiac plexus block, the ASGE suggests an EUS-guided approach over a percutaneous approach. The ASGE suggests indications for when to consider ERCP alone or with pancreatoscopy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy alone or followed by ERCP for treating obstructing PD stones based on size, location, and radiopacity. For the initial management of PD strictures, the ASGE suggests using a single plastic stent of the largest caliber that is feasible. For symptomatic BBSs caused by CP, the ASGE suggests the use of covered metal stents over multiple plastic stents. For symptomatic pseudocysts, the ASGE suggests endoscopic therapy over surgery. This document clearly outlines the process, analyses, and decision processes used to reach the final recommendations and represents the official ASGE recommendations on the above topics.

TEMPORARY REMOVAL: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of therapeutic EUS in the management of biliary tract disorders: summary and recommendations.

The publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal.

Geometry of cold snare polypectomy and risk of incomplete resection.

BACKGROUND: Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is safer than and equally efficacious as hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for the removal of small (<10mm) colorectal polyps. The maximum polyp size that can be effectively managed by piecemeal CSP (p-CSP) without an excessive burden of recurrence is unknown. METHODS: Resection error risks (RERs), defined as the estimated likelihood of incomplete removal of adenomatous tissue for a single snare resection pass, for CSP and HSP were calculated, based on an incomplete resection rate. Polyp area, snare size, estimated number of resections, and optimal resection defect area were modeled. Overall risk of incomplete resection (RIR) was defined as RIR=1 - (1 - p)n, where p is the RER and n the number of resections. RESULTS: A 40-mm polyp has a four times greater area than a 20-mm polyp (314.16mm2 vs. 1256.64mm2), and requires three times more resections (11 vs. 33, respectively, assuming 8-mm piecemeal resection pieces for p-CSP). RIRs for a 40-mm polyp by HSP and p-CSP were 15.1%-23% and 40.74%-60.60% respectively. CONCLUSION: RER is more important with p-CSP than with HSP. The number of resections, n, and consequently RIR increases with increasing polyp size. Given the overwhelming safety of CSP, specific techniques to minimize the RER should be studied and developed.

A computer-aided detection system in the everyday setting of diagnostic, screening, and surveillance colonoscopy: an international, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Computer-aided detection (CADe) has been developed to improve detection during colonoscopy. After initial reports of high efficacy, there has been an increasing recognition of variability in the effectiveness of CADe systems. The aim of this study was to evaluate a CADe system in a varied colonoscopy population. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized trial was conducted at seven hospitals (both university and non-university) in Europe and Canada. Participants referred for diagnostic, non-immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT) screening, or surveillance colonoscopy were randomized (1:1) to undergo CADe-assisted or conventional colonoscopy by experienced endoscopists. Participants with insufficient bowel preparation were excluded from the analysis. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes included adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) and sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) per colonoscopy. RESULTS: 581 participants were enrolled, of whom 497 were included in the final analysis: 250 in the CADe arm and 247 in the conventional colonoscopy arm. The indication was surveillance in 202/497 colonoscopies (40.6 %), diagnostic in 199/497 (40.0 %), and non-iFOBT screening in 96/497 (19.3 %). Overall, ADR (38.4 % vs. 37.7 %; P = 0.43) and APC (0.66 vs. 0.66; P = 0.97) were similar between CADe and conventional colonoscopy. SSLs per colonoscopy was increased (0.30 vs. 0.19; P = 0.049) in the CADe arm vs. the conventional colonoscopy arm. CONCLUSIONS: In this study conducted by experienced endoscopists, CADe did not result in a statistically significant increase in ADR. However, the ADR of our control group substantially surpassed our sample size assumptions, increasing the risk of an underpowered trial.

Factors Associated With Geographic Disparities in Gastrointestinal Cancer Mortality in the United States.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Significant geographic variability in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer-related death has been reported in the United States. We aimed to evaluate both modifiable and nonmodifiable factors associated with intercounty differences in mortality due to GI cancer. METHODS: Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Wide-ranging Online Data for Epidemiologic Research platform were used to calculate county-level mortality from esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, and colorectal cancers. Multivariable linear regression models were fit to adjust for county-level covariables, considering both patient (eg, sex, race, obesity, diabetes, alcohol, and smoking) and structural factors (eg, specialist density, poverty, insurance prevalence, and colon cancer screening prevalence). Intercounty variability in GI cancer-related mortality explained by these covariables was expressed as the multivariable model R2. RESULTS: There were significant geographic disparities in GI cancer-related county-level mortality across the US from 2010-2019 with the ratio of mortality between 90th and 10th percentile counties ranging from 1.5 (pancreatic) to 2.1 (gastric cancer). Counties with the highest 5% mortality rates for gastric, pancreatic, and colorectal cancer were primarily in the Southeastern United States. Multivariable models explained 43%, 61%, 14%, and 39% of the intercounty variability in mortality rates for esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, and colorectal cancer, respectively. Cigarette smoking and rural residence (independent of specialist density) were most strongly associated with GI cancer-related mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Both patient and structural factors contribute to significant geographic differences in mortality from GI cancers. Our findings support continued public health efforts to reduce smoking use and improve care for rural patients, which may contribute to a reduction in disparities in GI cancer-related death.

Global Incidence of Acute Pancreatitis Is Increasing Over Time: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Acute pancreatitis is a common disease with significant associated morbidity and mortality. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies to explore the changing temporal trends of acute pancreatitis incidence globally. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search to identify population-based studies reporting the annual incidence of acute pancreatitis. Abstracts were assessed independently to identify applicable articles for full-text review and data extraction. Joinpoint temporal trend analyses were performed to calculate the average annual percent change (AAPC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The AAPCs were pooled in a meta-analysis to capture the overall and regional trends in acute pancreatitis incidence over time. Temporal data were summarized in a static map and an interactive, web-based map. RESULTS: Forty-four studies reported the temporal incidence of acute pancreatitis (online interactive map: https://kaplan-acute-pancreatitis-ucalgary.hub.arcgis.com/). The incidence of acute pancreatitis has increased from 1961 to 2016 (AAPC, 3.07%; 95% CI, 2.30% to 3.84%; n = 34). Increasing incidence was observed in North America (AAPC, 3.67%; 95% CI, 2.76% to 4.57%; n = 4) and Europe (AAPC, 2.77%; 95% CI, 1.91% to 3.63%; n = 23). The incidence of acute pancreatitis was stable in Asia (AAPC, -0.28%; 95% CI, -5.03% to 4.47%; n = 4). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the global incidence of acute pancreatitis over the last 56 years and demonstrates a steadily rising incidence over time in most countries of the Western world. More studies are needed to better define the changing incidence of acute pancreatitis in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Prolonged Gastrointestinal Manifestations After Recovery From COVID-19.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Acute enteric infections are well known to result in long-term gastrointestinal (GI) disorders. Although COVID-19 is principally a respiratory illness, it demonstrates significant GI tropism, possibly predisposing to prolonged gut manifestations. We aimed to examine the long-term GI impact of hospitalization with COVID-19. METHODS: Nested within a large-scale observational cohort study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 across North America, we performed a follow-up survey of 530 survivors 12-18 months later to assess for persistent GI symptoms and their severity, and for the development of disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBIs). Eligible patients were identified at the study site level and surveyed electronically. The survey instrument included the Rome IV Diagnostic Questionnaire for DGBI, a rating scale of 24 COVID-related symptoms, the Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale, and the Impact of Events-Revised trauma symptom questionnaire (a measure of posttraumatic stress associated with the illness experience). A regression analysis was performed to explore the factors associated with GI symptom severity at follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 530 invited patients, 116 responded (52.6% females; mean age, 55.2 years), and 73 of those (60.3%) met criteria for 1 or more Rome IV DGBI at follow-up, higher than the prevalence in the US general population (P < .0001). Among patients who experienced COVID-related GI symptoms during the index hospitalization (abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea), 42.1% retained at least 1 of these symptoms at follow-up; in comparison, 89.8% of respondents retained any (GI or non-GI) COVID-related symptom. The number of moderate or severe GI symptoms experienced during the initial COVID-19 illness by self-report correlated with the development of DGBI and severity of GI symptoms at follow-up. Posttraumatic stress disorder (Impact of Events-Revised score ≥33) related to the COVID-19 illness experience was identified in 41.4% of respondents and those individuals had higher DGBI prevalence and GI symptom severity. Regression analysis revealed that higher psychological trauma score (Impact of Events-Revised) was the strongest predictor of GI symptom severity at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this follow-up survey of patients 12-18 months after hospitalization with COVID-19, there was a high prevalence of DGBIs and persistent GI symptoms. Prolonged GI manifestations were associated with the severity of GI symptoms during hospitalization and with the degree of psychological trauma related to the illness experience.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on management of post-liver transplant biliary strictures: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for strategies to manage biliary strictures in liver transplant recipients. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses the role of ERCP versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and covered self-expandable metal stents (cSEMSs) versus multiple plastic stents for therapy of post-transplant strictures, use of MRCP for diagnosing post-transplant biliary strictures, and administration of antibiotics versus no antibiotics during ERCP. In patients with post-transplant biliary strictures, we suggest ERCP as the initial intervention and cSEMSs as the preferred stent for extrahepatic strictures. In patients with unclear diagnoses or intermediate probability of a stricture, we suggest MRCP as the diagnostic modality. We suggest that antibiotics should be administered during ERCP when biliary drainage cannot be ensured.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on management of post-liver transplant biliary strictures: methodology and review of evidence.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for strategies to manage biliary strictures in liver transplant recipients. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses the role of ERCP versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and covered self-expandable metal stents (cSEMSs) versus multiple plastic stents for therapy of strictures, use of MRCP for diagnosing post-transplant biliary strictures, and administration of antibiotics versus no antibiotics during ERCP. In patients with post-transplant biliary strictures, we suggest ERCP as the initial intervention and cSEMSs as the preferred stent. In patients with unclear diagnosis or intermediate probability of a stricture, we suggest MRCP as the diagnostic modality. We suggest that antibiotics should be administered during ERCP when biliary drainage cannot be assured.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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