Endoscopic En Bloc Versus Piecemeal Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colonic Adenomas : A Randomized Comparative Trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic resection of adenomas prevents colorectal cancer, but the optimal technique for larger lesions is controversial. Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has a low adverse event (AE) rate but a variable recurrence rate necessitating early follow-up. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can reduce recurrence but may increase AEs. OBJECTIVE: To compare ESD and EMR for large colonic adenomas. DESIGN: Participant-masked, parallel-group, superiority, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03962868). SETTING: Multicenter study involving 6 French referral centers from November 2019 to February 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with large (≥25 mm) benign colonic lesions referred for resection. INTERVENTION: The patients were randomly assigned by computer 1:1 (stratification by lesion location and center) to ESD or EMR. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was 6-month local recurrence (neoplastic tissue on endoscopic assessment and scar biopsy). The secondary end points were technical failure, en bloc R0 resection, and cumulative AEs. RESULTS: In total, 360 patients were randomly assigned to ESD (n = 178) or EMR (n = 182). In the primary analysis set (n = 318 lesions in 318 patients), recurrence occurred after 1 of 161 ESDs (0.6%) and 8 of 157 EMRs (5.1%) (relative risk, 0.12 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.96]). No recurrence occurred in R0-resected cases (90%) after ESD. The AEs occurred more often after ESD than EMR (35.6% vs. 24.5%, respectively; relative risk, 1.4 [CI, 1.0 to 2.0]). LIMITATION: Procedures were performed under general anesthesia during hospitalization in accordance with the French health system. CONCLUSION: Compared with EMR, ESD reduces the 6-month recurrence rate, obviating the need for systematic early follow-up colonoscopy at the cost of more AEs. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: French Ministry of Health.

Systematic Resection of the Visible Scar After Incomplete Endoscopic Resection of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors.

INTRODUCTION: When initial resection of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (r-NETs) is not R0, persistence of local residue could lead to disease recurrence. This study aimed to evaluate the interest of systematic resection of non-R0 r-NET scars. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all the consecutive endoscopic revisions and resections of the scar after non-R0 resections of r-NETs. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were included. Salvage endoscopic procedure using endoscopic submucosal dissection or endoscopic full-thickness resection showed an R0 rate of near 100%. Residual r-NET was found in 43% of cases. DISCUSSION: In case of non-R0 resected r-NET, systematic scar resection by endoscopic full-thickness resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection seems necessary.

Impact of Annual Case Volume on Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Outcomes in a Large Prospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: The adoption of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is still limited in the West. A recent randomized trial showed that ESD is more effective and only slightly riskier than piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection; reproducibility outside expert centers was questioned. We evaluated the results according to the annual case volume in a multicentric prospective cohort. METHODS: Between September 2019 and September 2022, colorectal ESD was consecutively performed at 13 participating centers classified as low volume (LV), middle volume (MV), and high volume (HV). The main procedural outcomes were assessed. Multivariate and propensity score matching analyses were performed. RESULTS: Three thousand seven hundred seventy ESDs were included. HV centers treated larger and more often colonic lesions than MV and LV centers. En bloc , R0, and curative resection rates were 95.2%, 87.4%, and 83.2%, respectively, and were higher at HV than at MV and LV centers. HV centers also achieved a faster dissection speed. Delayed bleeding and surgery for complications rates were 5.4% and 0.8%, respectively, without significant differences. The perforation rate (overall: 9%) was higher at MV than at LV and HV centers. Lesion characteristics, but not volume center, were independently associated with both R1 resection and perforation. However, after propensity score matching, R0 rates were significantly higher at HV than at LV centers, and perforation rates were significantly higher at MV than at HV centers. DISCUSSION: Colorectal ESD can be successfully implemented in the West, even in nonexpert centers. However, difficult lesions must still be referred to experts.

Factors associated with early failure of peroral endoscopic myotomy in achalasia.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Achalasia can be treated very effectively with peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), but factors associated with early failure remain to be determined, especially in European cohorts. METHODS: All consecutive adult patients who underwent a first POEM to treat primary achalasia were included in this multicenter retrospective study. Early failure was defined by an Eckardt score (ES) >3 at 3 months after POEM. When evaluating factors predictive of early failure, 2 cohorts were considered: one consisted of the total population, for whom only basic variables were collected, and the other a cohort built for a case-control study that included matched early-failure and early-success patients (ratio, 1:2). RESULTS: Among 746 patients, the early failure rate was 9.4%. Predictive factors were age ≤45 years (P = .019), achalasia types I and III (P < .001), and the development of a severe adverse event during the procedure (P = .023). In the case-control study, the only additional independent risk factor for early failure was a high pre-POEM ES (P = .001). Only the retrosternal pain subscore was significantly associated with the early failure rate. CONCLUSION: The early failure rate of POEM used to treat primary achalasia is <10%. Younger age, type I/III achalasia, and a high pre-POEM ES were significantly associated with failure.

Impact of surgery after endoscopically resected high-risk T1 colorectal cancer: results of an emulated target trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of patients with high-risk T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) resected endoscopically who received either additional surgery or surveillance. METHODS: We used data from routine care to emulate a target trial aimed at comparing 2 strategies after endoscopic resection of high-risk T1 CRC: surgery with lymph node dissection (treatment group) versus surveillance alone (control group). All patients from 14 tertiary centers who underwent an endoscopic resection for high-risk T1 CRC between March 2012 and August 2019 were included. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of cancer recurrence or death at 48 months. RESULTS: Of 197 patients included in the analysis, 107 were categorized in the treatment group and 90 were categorized in the control group. From baseline to 48 months, 4 of 107 patients (3.7%) died in the treatment group and 6 of 90 patients (6.7%) died in the control group. Four of 107 patients (3.7%) in the treatment group experienced a cancer recurrence and 4 of 90 patients (4.4%) in the control group experienced a cancer recurrence. After balancing the baseline covariates by inverse probability of treatment weighting, we found no significant difference in the rate of death and cancer recurrence between patients in the 2 groups (weighted hazard ratio, .95; 95% confidence interval, .52-1.75). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that patients with high-risk T1 CRC initially treated with endoscopic resection may not benefit from additional surgery.

Computer-aided diagnosis improves characterization of Barrett's neoplasia by general endoscopists (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Characterization of visible abnormalities in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) can be challenging, especially for inexperienced endoscopists. This results in suboptimal diagnostic accuracy and poor interobserver agreement. Computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) systems may assist endoscopists. We aimed to develop, validate, and benchmark a CADx system for BE neoplasia. METHODS: The CADx system received pretraining with ImageNet and then consecutive domain-specific pretraining with GastroNet, which includes 5 million endoscopic images. It was subsequently trained and internally validated using 1758 narrow-band imaging (NBI) images of early BE neoplasia (352 patients) and 1838 NBI images of nondysplastic BE (173 patients) from 8 international centers. CADx was tested prospectively on corresponding image and video test sets with 30 cases (20 patients) of BE neoplasia and 60 cases (31 patients) of nondysplastic BE. The test set was benchmarked by 44 general endoscopists in 2 phases (phase 1, no CADx assistance; phase 2, with CADx assistance). Ten international BE experts provided additional benchmark performance. RESULTS: Stand-alone sensitivity and specificity of the CADx system were 100% and 98% for images and 93% and 96% for videos, respectively. CADx outperformed general endoscopists without CADx assistance in terms of sensitivity (P = .04). Sensitivity and specificity of general endoscopists increased from 84% to 96% and 90% to 98% with CAD assistance (P < .001). CADx assistance increased endoscopists' confidence in characterization (P < .001). CADx performance was similar to that of the BE experts. CONCLUSIONS: CADx assistance significantly increased characterization performance of BE neoplasia by general endoscopists to the level of expert endoscopists. The use of this CADx system may thereby improve daily Barrett surveillance.

Clinical outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy with and without septotomy for management of epiphrenic diverticula: an international multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There are few data favoring the need for septotomy at the time of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) or if POEM alone is sufficient. Our aim was to compare POEM outcomes with and without septotomy (POEM+S or POEM-S) in patients with symptomatic epiphrenic diverticula (ED) and an underlying motility disorder. METHODS: This was an international, multicenter retrospective study involving 21 centers between January 2014 and January 2023. Patients with ED and an underlying motility disorder who underwent POEM were included. The primary outcome was clinical success (Eckardt score [ES] ≤3 or a 1-point drop in ES for patients with baseline ES <3) without the need for repeat surgical/endoscopic interventions during follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 85 patients (mean age, 64.29 ± 17.1 years; 32 [37.6%] female) with ED and underlying motility disorder underwent POEM+S (n = 47) or POEM-S (n = 38). Patients in the POEM+S group had a significantly higher mean pre-POEM ES (7.3 ± 2.1 vs 5.8 ± 2; P = .002). The most common indication for POEM was achalasia (51% in the POEM+S cohort and 51.8% in the POEM-S cohort; P = .7). A posterior approach was favored in the POEM+S group (76.6% vs 52.6%; P = .02). A similar rate of technical success was seen in both groups (97.9% vs 100%; P = .1). The rate of adverse events was similar between the 2 cohorts (4.2% vs 8.1%; P = .6). The median length of hospital stay after POEM-S was significantly longer compared with POEM+S (2 days [interquartile range (IQR), 1-4 days] vs 1 day [IQR, 1-2 days]; P = .005). Clinical success was equivalent between the 2 groups (83% vs 86.8%; P = .6) at a median follow-up duration of 8 months (IQR, 3-19 months). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ED and an underlying motility disorder, both POEM+S and POEM-S are equally safe and effective, with similar procedure duration and a low recurrence rate at short-term follow-up. Future comparative prospective studies with long-term follow-up are required to validate these findings.

Safety and efficacy of salvage endoscopic submucosal dissection for Barrett's neoplasia recurrence after radiofrequency ablation.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of salvage endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for Barrett's neoplasia recurrence after radiofrequency ablation (RFA). METHODS: Data from patients at 16 centers were collected for a multicenter retrospective study. Patients who underwent at least one RFA treatment for Barrett's esophagus and thereafter underwent further esophageal ESD for neoplasia recurrence were included. RESULTS: Data from 56 patients who underwent salvage ESD between April 2014 and November 2022 were collected. Immediate complications included one muscular tear (1.8%) treated with stent (Agree classification: grade IIIa). Two transmural perforations (3.6%; treated with clips) and five muscular tears (8.9%; two treated with clips) had no clinical impact and were not considered as adverse events. Seven patients (12.5%) developed strictures (grade IIIa), which were treated with balloon dilation. Histological analysis showed 36 adenocarcinoma, 17 high grade dysplasia, and 3 low grade dysplasia. En bloc and R0 resection rates were 89.3% and 66.1%, respectively. Resections were curative in 33 patients (58.9%), and noncurative in 22 patients (39.3%), including 11 "local risk" (19.6%) and 11 "high risk" (19.6%) resections. At the end of follow-up with a median time of 14 (0-75) months after salvage ESD, and with further endoscopic treatment if necessary (RFA, argon plasma coagulation, endoscopic mucosal resection, ESD), neoplasia remission ratio was 37/53 (69.8%) and the median remission time was 13 (1-75) months. CONCLUSION: In expert hands, salvage ESD was a safe and effective treatment for recurrence of Barrett's neoplasia after RFA treatment.

Endoscopic resection of early esophageal tumors in patients with cirrhosis or portal hypertension: a multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND: Liver cirrhosis and esophageal cancer share several risk factors, such as alcohol intake and excess weight. Endoscopic resection is the gold standard treatment for superficial tumors. Portal hypertension and coagulopathy may increase the bleeding risk in these patients. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of endoscopic resection for early esophageal neoplasia in patients with cirrhosis or portal hypertension. METHODS: This retrospective multicenter international study included consecutive patients with cirrhosis or portal hypertension who underwent endoscopic resection in the esophagus from January 2005 to March 2021. RESULTS: 134 lesions in 112 patients were treated, including by endoscopic submucosal dissection in 101 cases (75 %). Most lesions (128/134, 96 %) were in patients with liver cirrhosis, with esophageal varices in 71 procedures. To prevent bleeding, 7 patients received a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, 8 underwent endoscopic band ligation (EBL) before resection, 15 received vasoactive drugs, 8 received platelet transfusion, and 9 underwent EBL during the resection procedure. Rates of complete macroscopic resection, en bloc resection, and curative resection were 92 %, 86 %, and 63 %, respectively. Adverse events included 3 perforations, 8 delayed bleedings, 8 sepsis, 6 cirrhosis decompensations within 30 days, and 22 esophageal strictures; none required surgery. In univariate analysis, cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection was associated with delayed bleeding (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with liver cirrhosis or portal hypertension, endoscopic resection of early esophageal neoplasia appeared to be effective and should be considered in expert centers with choice of resection technique, following European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines to avoid undertreatment.

Use of endoscopic submucosal dissection or full-thickness resection device to treat residual colorectal neoplasia after endoscopic resection: a multicenter historical cohort study.

INTRODUCTION : Residual colorectal neoplasia (RCN) after previous endoscopic mucosal resection is a frequent challenge. Different management techniques are feasible including endoscopic full-thickness resection using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) system and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of these two techniques for the treatment of such lesions. METHODS : All consecutive patients with RCN treated either using the FTRD or by ESD were retrospectively included in this multicenter study. The primary outcome was the R0 resection rate, defined as an en bloc resection with histologically tumor-free lateral and deep margins. RESULTS : 275 patients (median age 70 years; 160 men) who underwent 177 ESD and 98 FTRD procedures for RCN were included. R0 resection was achieved in 83.3 % and 77.6 % for ESD and FTRD, respectively (P = 0.25). Lesions treated by ESD were however larger than those treated by FTRD (P < 0.001). The R0 rates for lesions of 20-30 mm were 83.9 % and 57.1 % in the ESD and FTRD groups, respectively, and for lesions of 30-40 mm were 93.6 % and 33.3 %, respectively. On multivariable analysis, ESD procedures were associated with statistically higher en bloc and R0 resection rates after adjustment for lesion size (P = 0.02 and P < 0.001, respectively). The adverse event rate was higher in the ESD group (16.3 % vs. 5.1 %), mostly owing to intraoperative perforations. CONCLUSION: ESD is effective in achieving R0 resection for RCN whatever the size and location of the lesions. When residual lesions are smaller than 20 mm, the FTRD is an effective alternative.

Diagnosis and management of Barrett esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

MR1 : ESGE recommends the following standards for Barrett esophagus (BE) surveillance:- a minimum of 1-minute inspection time per cm of BE length during a surveillance endoscopy- photodocumentation of landmarks, the BE segment including one picture per cm of BE length, and the esophagogastric junction in retroflexed position, and any visible lesions- use of the Prague and (for visible lesions) Paris classification- collection of biopsies from all visible abnormalities (if present), followed by random four-quadrant biopsies for every 2-cm BE length.Strong recommendation, weak quality of evidence. MR2: ESGE suggests varying surveillance intervals for different BE lengths. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 1 cm and < 3 cm, BE surveillance should be repeated every 5 years. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 3 cm and < 10 cm, the interval for endoscopic surveillance should be 3 years. Patients with BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 10 cm should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance endoscopies. For patients with an irregular Z-line/columnar-lined esophagus of < 1 cm, no routine biopsies or endoscopic surveillance are advised.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR3: ESGE suggests that, if a patient has reached 75 years of age at the time of the last surveillance endoscopy and/or the patient's life expectancy is less than 5 years, the discontinuation of further surveillance endoscopies can be considered. Weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence. MR4: ESGE recommends offering endoscopic eradication therapy using ablation to patients with BE and low grade dysplasia (LGD) on at least two separate endoscopies, both confirmed by a second experienced pathologist.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR5: ESGE recommends endoscopic ablation treatment for BE with confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD) without visible lesions, to prevent progression to invasive cancer.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR6: ESGE recommends offering complete eradication of all remaining Barrett epithelium by ablation after endoscopic resection of visible abnormalities containing any degree of dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. MR7: ESGE recommends endoscopic resection as curative treatment for T1a Barrett's cancer with well/moderate differentiation and no signs of lymphovascular invasion.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR8: ESGE suggests that low risk submucosal (T1b) EAC (i. e. submucosal invasion depth ≤ 500 µm AND no [lympho]vascular invasion AND no poor tumor differentiation) can be treated by endoscopic resection, provided that adequate follow-up with gastroscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and computed tomography (CT)/positrion emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is performed in expert centers.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR9: ESGE suggests that submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (tumor invasion > 500 µm into the submucosa), and/or (lympho)vascular invasion, and/or a poor tumor differentiation should be considered high risk. Complete staging and consideration of additional treatments (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy and/or surgery) or strict endoscopic follow-up should be undertaken on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR10 A: ESGE recommends that the first endoscopic follow-up after successful endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) of BE is performed in an expert center.Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence. B: ESGE recommends careful inspection of the neo-squamocolumnar junction and neo-squamous epithelium with high definition white-light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy during post-EET surveillance, to detect recurrent dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. C: ESGE recommends against routine four-quadrant biopsies of neo-squamous epithelium after successful EET of BE.Strong recommendation, low level of evidence. D: ESGE suggests, after successful EET, obtaining four-quadrant random biopsies just distal to a normal-appearing neo-squamocolumnar junction to detect dysplasia in the absence of visible lesions.Weak recommendation, low level of evidence. E: ESGE recommends targeted biopsies are obtained where there is a suspicion of recurrent BE in the tubular esophagus, or where there are visible lesions suspicious for dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. MR11: After successful EET, ESGE recommends the following surveillance intervals:- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of HGD or EAC:at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of LGD:at 1, 3, and 5 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.

High proficiency of esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection with a "tunnel + clip traction" strategy: a large French multicentric study.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the gold standard for the treatment of precancerous lesions or superficial esophageal cancers. This procedure is currently performed by expert endoscopists only, and poorly standardized. We aimed to assess the technical results and outcomes of a "tunnel + clip" strategy for esophageal ESD procedures performed by less experienced operators for the treatment of superficial neoplasms. METHODS: All consecutive esophageal ESDs performed with the "tunnel + clip" technique for patients with early esophageal cancer in 3 centers were enrolled. Procedural characteristics, clinical outcomes, and complications were recorded. RESULTS: Among 195 esophageal ESD procedures performed, early adenocarcinomas or high-grade dysplasia complicating Barrett's esophagus were predominant (132/195, 67.7%) compared with early squamous cell carcinomas (63/195, 32.3%). The en bloc, R0 and curative resection rates were 100% (195/195), 78.5% (153/195) and 67.2% (131/195), respectively. The mean rate of ESD was 29.7 mm2/min. One (0.5%) perprocedural perforation and 7 (3.6%) postprocedural bleedings occurred, all managed endoscopically. No delayed perforation occurred. Overall, 31 patients (31/195; 15.9%) of patients developed stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: The "tunnel + clip" strategy is safe, and allows to achieve high en bloc, R0 and curative resection rates. This standardized procedure could be used by physicians with little experience and might help spreading esophageal ESD in Western countries.

The Role of Clips in Preventing Delayed Bleeding After Colorectal Polyp Resection: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Nonpedunculated colorectal polyps are normally endoscopically removed to prevent neoplastic progression. Delayed bleeding is the most common major adverse event. Clipping the resection defect has been suggested to reduce delayed bleedings. Our aim was to determine if prophylactic clipping reduces delayed bleedings and to analyze the contribution of polyp characteristics, extent of defect closure, and antithrombotic use. METHODS: An individual patient data meta-analysis was performed. Studies on prophylactic clipping in nonpedunculated colorectal polyps were selected from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane database (last selection, April 2020). Authors were invited to share original study data. The primary outcome was delayed bleeding ≤30 days. Multivariable mixed models were used to determine the efficacy of prophylactic clipping in various subgroups adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: Data of 5380 patients with 8948 resected polyps were included from 3 randomized controlled trials, 2 prospective, and 8 retrospective studies. Prophylactic clipping reduced delayed bleeding in proximal polyps ≥20 mm (odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.88; number needed to treat = 32), especially with antithrombotics (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35-0.99; number needed to treat = 23; subgroup of anticoagulants/double platelet inhibitors: n = 226; OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.16-1.01; number needed to treat = 12). Prophylactic clipping did not benefit distal polyps ≥20 mm with antithrombotics (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.79-2.52). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic clipping reduces delayed bleeding after resection of nonpedunculated, proximal colorectal polyps ≥20 mm, especially in patients using antithrombotics. No benefit was found for distal polyps. Based on this study, patients can be identified who may benefit from prophylactic clipping. (PROSPERO registration number CRD42020104317.).

Endoscopic internal drainage and low negative-pressure endoscopic vacuum therapy for anastomotic leaks after oncologic upper gastrointestinal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic internal drainage (EID) with double-pigtail stents or low negative-pressure endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) are treatment options for leakage after upper gastrointestinal oncologic surgery. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of these techniques. METHODS: Between 2016 and 2019, patients treated with EID in five centers in France and with EVT in Göttingen, Germany were included and retrospectively analyzed using univariate analysis. Pigtail stents were changed every 4 weeks; EVT was repeated every 3-4 days until leak closure. RESULTS: 35 EID and 27 EVT patients were included, with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) leak size of 0.75 cm (0.5-1.5). Overall treatment success was 100 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 90 %-100 %) for EID vs. 85.2 % (95 %CI 66.3 %-95.8 %) for EVT (P = 0.03). The median (IQR) number of endoscopic procedures was 2 (2-3) vs. 3 (2-6.5; P = 0.003) and the median (IQR) treatment duration was 42 days (28-60) vs. 17 days (7.5-28; P < 0.001), for EID vs. EVT, respectively. CONCLUSION: EID and EVT provide high closure rates for upper gastrointestinal anastomotic leaks. EVT provides a shorter treatment duration, at the cost of a higher number of procedures.

Per Oral Endoscopic Myotomy for Zenker's Diverticulum: A Novel and Superior Technique Compared With Septotomy?

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic management of Zenker diverticuli (ZD) has traditionally been via septotomy technique. The recent development of tunneling technique has shown to be both efficacious and safe. The aim of this study is to evaluate the tunneling technique using per oral endoscopic myotomy (Z-POEM) versus septotomy. METHODS: Patients who underwent endoscopic management of ZD either by Z-POEM or septotomy from March 2017 until November 2020 from 9 international academic centers were included. Demographics, clinical data preprocedure and postprocedure, procedure time, adverse events, and hospital length of stay were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients (mean age 74.9 y old, 55.4% male) were included: septotomy (n=49), Z-POEM (n=52). Preprocedure Functional Oral Intake Scale score and Eckardt score was 5.3 and 5.4 for the septotomy group and 5.9 and 5.15 for the Z-POEM group. Technical success was achieved in 98% of the Z-POEM group and 100% of the septotomy group. Clinical success was achieved in 84% and 92% in the septotomy versus Z-POEM groups. Adverse events occurred in 30.6% (n=15) in septotomy group versus 9.6% (n=5) in the Z-POEM group (P=0.017). Reintervention for ongoing symptoms occurred in 7 patients in the septotomy group and 3 patients in the Z-POEM group. Mean hospital length of stay was shorter for the Z-POEM group, at 1.5 versus 1.9 days. CONCLUSIONS: A tunneling technique via the Z-POEM procedure is an efficacious and safe endoscopic treatment for ZD. Z-POEM is a safer procedure with a statistically significant reduction in adverse events compared with traditional septotomy technique.

Endoscopic radiofrequency ablation or surveillance in patients with Barrett's oesophagus with confirmed low-grade dysplasia: a multicentre randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: Due to an annual progression rate of Barrett's oesophagus (BO) with low-grade dysplasia (LGD) between 9% and 13% per year endoscopic ablation therapy is preferred to surveillance. Since this recommendation is based on only one randomised trial, we aimed at checking these results by another multicentre randomised trial with a similar design. DESIGN: A prospective randomised study was performed in 14 centres comparing radiofrequency ablation (RFA) (maximum of 4 sessions) to annual endoscopic surveillance, including patients with a confirmed diagnosis of BO with LGD. Primary outcome was the prevalence of LGD at 3 years. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of LGD at 1 year, the complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) at 3 years, the rate of neoplastic progression at 3 years and the treatment-related morbidity. RESULTS: 125 patients were initially included, of whom 82 with confirmed LGD (76 men, mean age 62.3 years) were finally randomised, 40 patients in the RFA and 42 in the surveillance group. At 3 years, CE-IM rates were 35% vs 0% in the RFA and surveillance groups, respectively (p<0.001). At the same time, the prevalence LGD was 34.3% (95% CI 18.6 to 50.0) in the RFA group vs 58.1% (95% CI 40.7 to 75.4) in the surveillance group (OR=0.38 (95% CI 0.14 to 1.02), p=0.05). Neoplastic progression was found in 12.5% (RFA) vs 26.2% (surveillance; p=0.15). The complication rate was maximal after the first RFA treatment (16.9%). CONCLUSION: RFA modestly reduced the prevalence of LGD as well as progression risk at 3 years. The risk-benefit balance of endoscopic ablation therapy should therefore be carefully weighted against surveillance in patients with BO with confirmed LGD. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01360541.

Water-assisted colonoscopy: an international modified Delphi review on definitions and practice recommendations.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Since 2008, a plethora of research studies has compared the efficacy of water-assisted (aided) colonoscopy (WAC) and underwater resection (UWR) of colorectal lesions with standard colonoscopy. We reviewed and graded the research evidence with potential clinical application. We conducted a modified Delphi consensus among experienced colonoscopists on definitions and practice of water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), and UWR. METHODS: Major databases were searched to obtain research reports that could potentially shape clinical practice related to WAC and UWR. Pertinent references were graded (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Extracted data supporting evidence-based statements were tabulated and provided to respondents. We received responses from 55 (85% surveyed) experienced colonoscopists (37 experts and 18 nonexperts in WAC) from 16 countries in 3 rounds. Voting was conducted anonymously in the second and third round, with ≥80% agreement defined as consensus. We aimed to obtain consensus in all statements. RESULTS: In the first and the second modified Delphi rounds, 20 proposed statements were decreased to 14 and then 11 statements. After the third round, the combined responses from all respondents depicted the consensus in 11 statements (S): definitions of WI (S1) and WE (S2), procedural features (S3-S5), impact on bowel cleanliness (S6), adenoma detection (S7), pain score (S8), and UWR (S9-S11). CONCLUSIONS: The most important consensus statements are that WI and WE are not the same in implementation and outcomes. Because studies that could potentially shape clinical practice of WAC and UWR were chosen for review, this modified Delphi consensus supports recommendations for the use of WAC in clinical practice.

One-year results of gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy for refractory gastroparesis: a French multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Data on the long-term outcomes of gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) for refractory gastroparesis are lacking. We report the results of a large multicenter long-term follow-up study of G-POEM for refractory gastroparesis. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicenter study of all G-POEM operations performed in seven expert French centers for refractory gastroparesis with at least 1 year of follow-up. The primary endpoint was the 1-year clinical success rate, defined as at least a 1-point improvement in the Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI). RESULTS: 76 patients were included (60.5 % women; age 56 years). The median symptom duration was 48 months. The median gastric retention at 4 hours (H4) before G-POEM was 45 % (interquartile range [IQR] 29 % - 67 %). The median GCSI before G-POEM was 3.6 (IQR 2.8 - 4.0). Clinical success was achieved in 65.8 % of the patients at 1 year, with a median rate of reduction in the GCSI score of 41 %. In logistic regression analysis, only a high preoperative GCSI satiety subscale score was predictive of clinical success (odds ratio [OR] 3.41, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.01 - 11.54; P = 0.048), while a high rate of gastric retention at H4 was significantly associated with clinical failure (OR 0.97, 95 %CI 0.95 - 1.00; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm the efficacy of G-POEM for the treatment of refractory gastroparesis, as evidenced by a 65.8 % clinical success rate at 1 year. Although G-POEM is promising, prospective sham-controlled trials are urgently needed to confirm its efficacy and identify the patient populations who will benefit most from this procedure.

Endoscopic tissue sampling - Part 2: Lower gastrointestinal tract. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE suggests performing segmental biopsies (at least two from each segment), which should be placed in different specimen containers (ileum, cecum, ascending, transverse, descending, and sigmoid colon, and rectum) in patients with clinical and endoscopic signs of colitis.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends taking two biopsies from the right hemicolon (ascending and transverse colon) and, in a separate container, two biopsies from the left hemicolon (descending and sigmoid colon) when microscopic colitis is suspected.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends pancolonic dye-based chromoendoscopy or virtual chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsies of any visible lesions during surveillance endoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 4: ESGE suggests that, in high risk patients with a history of colonic neoplasia, tubular-appearing colon, strictures, ongoing therapy-refractory inflammation, or primary sclerosing cholangitis, chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsies can be combined with four-quadrant non-targeted biopsies every 10 cm along the colon. Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that, if pouch surveillance for dysplasia is performed, visible abnormalities should be biopsied, with at least two biopsies systematically taken from each of the afferent ileal loop, the efferent blind loop, the pouch, and the anorectal cuff.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 6: ESGE recommends that, in patients with known ulcerative colitis and endoscopic signs of inflammation, at least two biopsies be obtained from the worst affected areas for the assessment of activity or the presence of cytomegalovirus; for those with no evident endoscopic signs of inflammation, advanced imaging technologies may be useful in identifying areas for targeted biopsies to assess histologic remission if this would have therapeutic consequences. Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 7: ESGE suggests not biopsying endoscopically visible inflammation or normal-appearing mucosa to assess disease activity in known Crohn's disease.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that adequately assessed colorectal polyps that are judged to be premalignant should be fully excised rather than biopsied.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 9: ESGE recommends that, where endoscopically feasible, potentially malignant colorectal polyps should be excised en bloc rather than being biopsied. If the endoscopist cannot confidently perform en bloc excision at that time, careful representative images (rather than biopsies) should be taken of the potential focus of cancer, and the patient should be rescheduled or referred to an expert center.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 10: ESGE recommends that, in malignant lesions not amenable to endoscopic excision owing to deep invasion, six carefully targeted biopsies should be taken from the potential focus of cancer.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.

Endoscopic tissue sampling - Part 1: Upper gastrointestinal and hepatopancreatobiliary tracts. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE recommends that, where there is a suspicion of eosinophilic esophagitis, at least six biopsies should be taken, two to four biopsies from the distal esophagus and two to four biopsies from the proximal esophagus, targeting areas with endoscopic mucosal abnormalities. Distal and proximal biopsies should be placed in separate containers.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends obtaining six biopsies, including from the base and edge of the esophageal ulcers, for histologic analysis in patients with suspected viral esophagitis.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends at least six biopsies are taken in cases of suspected advanced esophageal cancer and suspected advanced gastric cancer.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 4: ESGE recommends taking only one to two targeted biopsies for lesions in the esophagus or stomach that are potentially amenable to endoscopic resection (Paris classification 0-I, 0-II) in order to confirm the diagnosis and not compromise subsequent endoscopic resection.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends obtaining two biopsies from the antrum and two from the corpus in patients with suspected Helicobacter pylori infection and for gastritis staging.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 6: ESGE recommends biopsies from or, if endoscopically resectable, resection of gastric adenomas.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7: ESGE recommends fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles equally for sampling of solid pancreatic masses.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests performing peroral cholangioscopy (POC) and/or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition in indeterminate biliary strictures. For proximal and intrinsic strictures, POC is preferred. For distal and extrinsic strictures, EUS-guided sampling is preferred, with POC where this is not diagnostic.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE suggests obtaining possible non-neoplastic biopsies before sampling suspected malignant lesions to prevent intraluminal spread of malignant disease.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 10: ESGE suggests dividing EUS-FNA material into smears (two per pass) and liquid-based cytology (LBC), or the whole of the EUS-FNA material can be processed as LBC, depending on local experience.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.