Fully covered versus partially covered self-expandable metal stents for palliation of distal malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) are standardly used for distal malignant biliary obstruction (dMBO). Although data suggest that covered versus uncovered SEMSs increase the time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO), no data are available for fully covered (FC) versus partially covered (PC) designs. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were screened up to January 2023 for studies concerning dMBO treated by an FC- or PC-SEMS and describing adverse events (AEs), recurrences, or TRBO for specific design subpopulations. Pooled proportions or means were calculated using a random-effects model. Several subanalyses were preplanned, including a subanalysis restricted to prospective studies and unresectable diseases. Heterogeneity and publication bias were explored. Standardized differences (d-values) were calculated between groups. RESULTS: From 1290 records, 62 studies (3327 using FC-SEMSs and 2322 using PC-SEMSs) were included. FC- versus PC-SEMSs showed negligible differences in the rate of total AEs (12% vs 9.9%) and all specific AEs, including cholecystitis (2.5% vs 2.6%). In a subanalysis restricted to prospective studies and unresectable diseases, the rate of RBO was comparable between FC-SEMSs (27.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 23.7-31.2], I2 = 35.34%) and PC-SEMSs (25.3% [95% CI, 20.2-30.7], I2 = 85.09%), despite small differences (d-values between .186 and .216) in the rate of ingrowth (.5% vs 2.9%) favoring FC-SEMSs and migration (9.8% vs 4.3%) favoring PC-SEMSs. TRBO was shorter for FC-SEMSs (238 days [95% CI, 191-286], I2 = 63.1%) versus PC-SEMSs (369 days [95% CI, 290-449], I2 = 71.9%; d-value = .116). CONCLUSIONS: Despite considerable heterogeneity and small standardized differences, PC-SEMSs consistently exhibited longer TRBO than FC-SEMSs across analyses, without any other differences in AE rates, potentially proposing PC-SEMSs as the standard comparator and TRBO as the primary outcome for future randomized studies on dMBO. (Clinical trial registration number: CRD42023393965.).

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy: a meta-regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is a valid option for EUS-guided biliary drainage that has been increasingly used in the last decade. The aims of this study were to provide a systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression of the features and outcomes of this procedure. METHODS: The MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for literature pertinent to EUS-HGS. Meta-analysis of the proportions and meta-regression of potential modifiers of the main outcome measures were applied. The main outcome was technical success; secondary outcomes were clinical success and procedure-related adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: 33 studies, including 1644 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) was the underlying cause in almost all cases (99.6%); the main indications for EUS-HGS were duodenal/papillary invasion (34.8%), surgically altered anatomy (18.4%), and hilar stenosis (16.0%). The pooled technical success of EUS-HGS was 97.7% (95%CI 96.1%-99.0%; I 2 = 0%), the intention-to-treat clinical success rate was 88.1% (95%CI 84.7%-91.2%; I 2 = 33.9%), and procedure-related AEs occurred in 12.0% (95%CI 9.8%-14.5%; I 2 = 20.4%), with cholangitis/sepsis (2.8%) and bleeding (2.3%) the most frequent. The rate of procedure-related AEs was lower with the use of dedicated stents on univariable meta-regression analysis. Meta-regression showed that technical success and clinical success rates were modified by the centers' experience (>4/year). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-HGS represents an effective and safe procedure for EUS-guided biliary drainage in patients with MBO. Future studies should address the impact of center experience, patient selection, and the use of dedicated stents to improve performance of this technique.

Technical failure during colorectal endoscopic full-thickness resection: the "through thick and thin" study.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is an effective and safe technique for nonlifting colorectal lesions. Technical issues or failures with the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) system are reported, but there are no detailed data. The aim of our study was to quantify and classify FTRD technical failures. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study involving 17 Italian centers with experience in advanced resection techniques and the required devices. Each center shared and classified all prospectively collected consecutive failures during colorectal EFTR using the FTRD from 2018 to 2022. The primary outcome was the technical failure rate and their classification; secondary outcomes included subsequent management, clinical success, and complications. RESULTS: Included lesions were mainly recurrent (52 %), with a mean (SD) dimension of 18.4 (7.5) mm. Among 750 EFTRs, failures occurred in 77 patients (35 women; mean [SD] age 69.4 [8.9] years). A classification was proposed: type I, snare noncutting (53 %); type II, clip misdeployment (31 %); and type III, cap misplacement (16 %). Among endoscopic treatments completed, rescue endoscopic mucosal resection was performed in 57 patients (74 %), allowing en bloc and R0 resection in 71 % and 64 %, respectively. The overall adverse event rate was 27.3 %. Pooled estimates for the rates of failure, complications, and rescue endoscopic therapy were similar for low and high volume centers (P = 0.08, P = 0.70, and P = 0.71, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal EFTR with the FTRD is a challenging technique with a non-negligible rate of technical failure and complications. Experience in rescue resection techniques and multidisciplinary management are mandatory in this setting.

The outcomes and safety of patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography combining a single-use cholangioscope and a single-use duodenoscope: A multicenter retrospective international study.

BACKGROUND: Duodenoscope-related multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) infections raise concerns. Disposable duodenoscopes have been recently introduced in the market and approved by regulatory agencies with the aim to reduce the risk of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) associated infections. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of procedures performed with single-use duodenoscopes in patients with clinical indications to single-operator cholangiopancreatoscopy. METHODS: This is a multicenter international, retrospective study combining all patients who underwent complex biliopancreatic interventions using the combination of a single-use duodenoscope and a single-use cholangioscope. The primary outcome was technical success defined as ERCP completion for the intended clinical indication. Secondary outcomes were procedural duration, rate of cross-over to reusable duodenoscope, operator-reported satisfaction score (1 to 10) on performance rating of the single-use duodenoscope, and adverse event (AE) rate. RESULTS: A total of 66 patients (26, 39.4% female) were included in the study. ERCP was categorized according to ASGE ERCP grading system as 47 (71.2%) grade 3 and 19 (28.8%) grade 4. The technical success rate was 98.5% (65/66). Procedural duration was 64 (interquartile range 15-189) min, cross-over rate to reusable duodenoscope was 1/66 (1.5%). The satisfaction score of the single-use duodenoscope classified by the operators was 8.6 ± 1.3 points. Four patients (6.1%) experienced AEs not directly related to the single-use duodenoscope, namely 2 post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), 1 cholangitis and 1 bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Single-use duodenoscope is effective, reliable and safe even in technically challenging procedures with a non-inferiority to reusable duodenoscope, making these devices a viable alternative to standard reusable equipment.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: Not All Queries Are Already Solved.

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are well-known complications of acute pancreatitis. The overinfection of these collections leads to a worsening of the prognosis with an increase in the morbidity and mortality rate. The primary strategy for managing infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) or symptomatic PFCs is a minimally invasive step-up approach, with endosonography-guided (EUS-guided) transmural drainage and debridement as the preferred and less invasive method. Different stents are available to drain PFCs: self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs), double pigtail stents (DPPSs), or lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs). In particular, LAMSs are useful when direct endoscopic necrosectomy is needed, as they allow easy access to the necrotic cavity; however, the rate of adverse events is not negligible, and to date, the superiority over DPPSs is still debated. Moreover, the timing for necrosectomy, the drainage technique, and the concurrent medical management are still debated. In this review, we focus attention on indications, timing, techniques, complications, and particularly on aspects that remain under debate concerning the EUS-guided drainage of PFCs.

Italian Survey on Endoscopic Biliary Drainage Approach in Patients with Surgically Altered Anatomy.

Background and Objectives: Biliary drainage (BD) in patients with surgically altered anatomy (SAA) could be obtained endoscopically with different techniques or with a percutaneous approach. Every endoscopic technique could be challenging and not clearly superior over another. The aim of this survey is to explore which is the standard BD approach in patients with SAA. Materials and Methods: A 34-question online survey was sent to different Italian tertiary and non-tertiary endoscopic centers performing interventional biliopancreatic endoscopy. The core of the survey was focused on the first-line and alternative BD approaches to SAA patients with benign or malignant obstruction. Results: Out of 70 centers, 39 answered the survey (response rate: 56%). Only 48.7% of them declared themselves to be reference centers for endoscopic BD in SAA. The total number of procedures performed per year is usually low, especially in non-tertiary centers; however, they have a low tendency to refer to more experienced centers. In the case of Billroth-II reconstruction, the majority of centers declared that they use a duodenoscope or forward-viewing scope in both benign and malignant diseases as a first approach. However, in the case of failure, the BD approach becomes extremely heterogeneous among centers without any technique prevailing over the others. Interestingly, in the case of Roux-en-Y, a significant proportion of centers declared that they choose the percutaneous approach in both benign (35.1%) and malignant obstruction (32.4%) as a first option. In the case of a previous failed attempt at BD in Roux-en-Y, the subsequent most used approach is the EUS-guided intervention in both benign and malignant indications. Conclusions: This survey shows that the endoscopic BD approach is extremely heterogeneous, especially in patients with Roux-en-Y reconstruction or after ERCP failure in Billroth-II reconstruction. Percutaneous BD is still taken into account by a significant proportion of centers in the case of Roux-en-Y anatomy. The total number of endoscopic BD procedures performed in non-tertiary centers is usually low, but this result does not correspond to an adequate rate of referral to more experienced centers.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Surgical Resection for Treatment of Pancreatic Insulinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) is emerging as a safe and effective treatment for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. We aimed to compare EUS-RFA and surgical resection for the treatment of pancreatic insulinoma (PI). METHODS: Patients with sporadic PI who underwent EUS-RFA at 23 centers or surgical resection at 8 high-volume pancreatic surgery institutions between 2014 and 2022 were retrospectively identified and outcomes compared using a propensity-matching analysis. Primary outcome was safety. Secondary outcomes were clinical efficacy, hospital stay, and recurrence rate after EUS-RFA. RESULTS: Using propensity score matching, 89 patients were allocated in each group (1:1), and were evenly distributed in terms of age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, distance between lesion and main pancreatic duct, lesion site, size, and grade. Adverse event (AE) rate was 18.0% and 61.8% after EUS-RFA and surgery, respectively (P < .001). No severe AEs were observed in the EUS-RFA group compared with 15.7% after surgery (P < .0001). Clinical efficacy was 100% after surgery and 95.5% after EUS-RFA (P = .160). However, the mean duration of follow-up time was shorter in the EUS-RFA group (median, 23 months; interquartile range, 14-31 months vs 37 months; interquartile range, 17.5-67 months in the surgical group; P < .0001). Hospital stay was significantly longer in the surgical group (11.1 ± 9.7 vs 3.0 ± 2.5 days in the EUS-RFA group; P < .0001). Fifteen lesions (16.9%) recurred after EUS-RFA and underwent a successful repeat EUS-RFA (11 patients) or surgical resection (4 patients). CONCLUSION: EUS-RFA is safer than surgery and highly effective for the treatment of PI. If confirmed in a randomized study, EUS-RFA treatment can become first-line therapy for sporadic PI.

Performance and safety of motorized spiral enteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The introduction of motorized spiral enteroscopy (mSE) into clinical practice holds diagnostic and therapeutic potential for small-bowel investigations. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the performance of this modality in diagnosing and treating small-bowel lesions. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were performed through September 2022. The primary outcome was diagnostic success, defined as the identification of a lesion relative to the indication. Secondary outcomes were successful therapeutic manipulation, total enteroscopy rate (examination from the duodenojejunal flexion to the cecum), technical success (passage from the ligament of Treitz or ileocecal valve for anterograde and retrograde approach, respectively), and adverse event rates. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model, and the results are reported as percentages with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: From 2016 to 2022, 9 studies (959 patients; 42% women; mean age >45 years; 474 patients [49.4%] investigated for mid-GI bleeding/anemia) were considered eligible and included in analysis. The diagnostic success rate of mSE was 78% (95% CI, 72-84; I2 = 78.3%). Considering secondary outcomes, total enteroscopy was attempted in 460 cases and completed with a rate of 51% (95% CI, 30-72; I2 = 96.2%), whereas therapeutic interventions were successful in 98% of cases (95% CI, 96-100; I2 = 79.8%) where attempted. Technical success rates were 96% (95% CI, 94-97; I2 = 1.5%) for anterograde and 97% (95% CI, 94-100; I2 = 38.6%) for retrograde approaches, respectively. Finally, the incidence of adverse events was 17% (95% CI, 13-21; I2 = 65.1%), albeit most were minor adverse events (16%; 95% CI, 11-20; I2 = 67.2%) versus major adverse events (1%; 95% CI, 0-1; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: mSE provides high rates of diagnostic and therapeutic success with a low prevalence of severe adverse events.

EUS-guided gallbladder drainage using a lumen-apposing metal stent as rescue treatment for malignant distal biliary obstruction: a large multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) with lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) has been reported as a rescue treatment with encouraging results for the relief of jaundice in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) and after failure of both ERCP and EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective analysis of all cases of consecutive EUS-GBD with LAMSs used as a rescue treatment for patients with DMBO in 14 Italian centers from June 2015 to June 2020. Primary endpoints were technical and clinical success, whereas the secondary endpoint was the adverse event (AE) rate. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients (52.1% women) with a mean age of 74.3 ± 11.7 years were included in the study. Biliary stricture was related to pancreatic adenocarcinoma (85.4%), duodenal adenocarcinoma (2.1%), cholangiocarcinoma (4.2%), ampullary cancer (2.1%), colon cancer (4.2%), and metastatic breast cancer (2.1%). The mean diameter of the common bile duct was 13.3 ± 2.8 mm. LAMSs were placed transgastrically in 58.3% of cases and transduodenally in 41.7%. Technical success was 100%, whereas clinical success was 81.3%, with a mean total bilirubin reduction after 2 weeks of 66.5%. The mean procedure time was 26.4 minutes, and the mean hospital stay was 9.2 ± 8.2 days. AEs occurred in 5 patients (10.4%): 3 were classified as intraprocedural and 2 were classified as delayed because they occurred after >15 days. When the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy lexicon was used, 2 AEs were mild and 3 were moderate (2 buried LAMSs). The mean follow-up was 122 days. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that EUS-GBD with LAMSs used as a rescue treatment for patients affected by DMBO represents a valuable option in terms of technical and clinical success rates, with an acceptable AE rate. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest study concerning the use of this procedure. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03903523.).

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy with or without macroscopic on-site evaluation: a randomized controlled noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND : The advantage of using the macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) technique during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) performed with 22G Franseen needles has not been investigated. We aimed to compare EUS-FNB with MOSE vs. EUS-FNB performed with three needle passes. METHODS : This randomized trial involved 10 Italian referral centers. Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNB of pancreatic or nonpancreatic solid lesions were included in the study and randomized to the two groups. MOSE was performed by gross visualization of the collected material by the endoscopists and considered adequate when a white/yellowish aggregate core longer than 10 mm was retrieved. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were specimen adequacy, number of needle passes, and safety. RESULTS : 370 patients with 234 pancreatic lesions (63.2 %) and 136 nonpancreatic lesions (36.8 %) were randomized (190 EUS-FNB with MOSE and 180 with standard EUS-FNB). No statistically significant differences were found between EUS-FNB with MOSE and conventional EUS-FNB in terms of diagnostic accuracy (90.0 % [95 %CI 84.8 %-93.9 %] vs. 87.8 % [95 %CI 82.1 %-92.2 %]; P = 0.49), sample adequacy (93.1 % [95 %CI 88.6 %-96.3 %] vs. 95.5 % [95 %CI 91.4 %-98 %]; P = 0.31), and rate of adverse events (2.6 % vs. 1.1 %; P = 0.28). The median number of passes was significantly lower in the EUS-FNB with MOSE group (1 vs. 3; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS : The accuracy of EUS-FNB with MOSE is noninferior to that of EUS-FNB with three needle passes. MOSE reliably assesses sample adequacy and reduces the number of needle passes required to obtain the diagnosis with a 22G Franseen needle.

Repeated endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions after previous nondiagnostic or inconclusive sampling.

OBJECTIVES: Repeated endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition represents the standard practice for solid pancreatic lesions after previous nondiagnostic or inconclusive results. Since data are lacking, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of repeated EUS fine-needle biopsy (rEUS-FNB) in this setting. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy; sample adequacy, sensitivity, specificity, and safety were secondary outcomes. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing rEUS-FNB for solid pancreatic lesions at 23 Italian centers from 2019 to 2021 were retrieved. Pathology on the surgical specimen, malignant histology together with ≥6-month follow-up, and benign pathology together with ≥12-month follow-up were adopted as gold standards. RESULTS: Among 462 patients, 56.5% were male, with a median age of 68 (59-75) years, malignancy prevalence 77.0%. Tumor size was 26 (20-35) mm. Second-generation FNB needles were used in 89.6% cases. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of rEUS-FNB were 89.2%, 91.4%, and 81.7%, respectively (19 false-negative and 12 false-positive results). On multivariate analysis, rEUS-FNB performed at high-volume centers (odds ratio [OR] 2.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-3.17; P = 0.03) and tumor size (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.00-1.06; P = 0.05) were independently related to diagnostic accuracy. Sample adequacy was 94.2%. Use of second-generation FNB needles (OR 5.42; 95% CI 2.30-12.77; P < 0.001) and tumor size >23 mm (OR 3.04; 95% CI 1.31-7.06; P = 0.009) were independently related to sample adequacy. CONCLUSION: Repeated EUS-FNB allowed optimal diagnostic performance after nondiagnostic or inconclusive results. Patients' referral to high-volume centers improved diagnostic accuracy. The use of second-generation FNB needles significantly improved sample adequacy over standard EUS-FNB needles.

PERcutaneous transhepatic CHOLangioscopy using a new single-operator short cholangioscope (PERCHOL): European feasibility study.

OBJECTIVES: A new short device for percutaneous endoscopic cholangioscopy was recently developed. However, feasibility and safety has not yet been evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess clinical success, technical success, and adverse events (AEs). METHODS: This observational multicenter retrospective study included all patients who underwent percutaneous cholangioscopy using a short cholangioscope between 2020 and 2022. The clinical success, defined as the complete duct clearance or obtaining at least one cholangioscopy-guided biopsy, was assessed. The histopathological accuracy, technical success, and the AE rate were also evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients (60 ± 15 years, 45.1% male) were included. The majority of patients had altered anatomy (n = 40, 78.4%), and biliary stones (n = 34, 66.7%) was the commonest indication. The technique was predominantly wire-guided (n = 44, 86.3%) through a percutaneous sheath (n = 36, 70.6%) following a median interval of 8.5 days from percutaneous drainage. Cholangioscopy-guided electrohydraulic lithotripsy was performed in 29 cases (56.9%), combined with a retrieval basket in eight cases (27.6%). The clinical success was 96.6%, requiring a median of one session (range 1-3). Seventeen patients (33.3%) underwent cholangioscopy-guided biopsies. There were four (7.8%) cholangioscopy-related AEs (cholangitis and peritonitis). Overall, the technical success and AE rates were 100% and 19.6%, respectively, in a median follow-up of 7 months. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous endoscopic cholangioscopy with a new short device is effective and safe, requiring a low number of sessions to achieve duct clearance or accurate histopathological diagnosis.

The Use of PuraStat® in the Management of Walled-Off Pancreatic Necrosis Drained Using Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents: A Case Series.

Background and Objectives: Bleeding is one of the most feared and frequent adverse events in the case of EUS-guided drainage of WOPN using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) and of direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN). When it occurs, its management is still controversial. In the last few years, PuraStat, a novel hemostatic peptide gel has been introduced, expanding the toolbox of the endoscopic hemostatic agents. The aim of this case series was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PuraStat in preventing and controlling bleeding of WOPN drainage using LAMSs. Materials and Methods: This is a multicenter, retrospective pilot study from three high-volume centers in Italy, including all consecutive patients treated with the novel hemostatic peptide gel after LAMSs placement for the drainage of symptomatic WOPN between 2019 and 2022. Results: A total of 10 patients were included. All patients underwent at least one session of DEN. Technical success of PuraStat was achieved in 100% of patients. In seven cases PuraStat was placed for post-DEN bleeding prevention, with one patient experiencing bleeding after DEN. In three cases, on the other hand, PuraStat was placed to manage active bleeding: two cases of oozing were successfully controlled with gel application, and a massive spurting from a retroperitoneal vessel required subsequent angiography. No re-bleeding occurred. No PuraStat-related adverse events were reported. Conclusions: This novel peptide gel could represent a promising hemostatic device, both in preventing and managing active bleeding after EUS-guided drainage of WON. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm its efficacy.

Endoscopic Management of Postoperative Esophageal and Upper GI Defects-A Narrative Review.

Anastomotic defects are deleterious complications after either oncologic or bariatric surgery, leading to high morbidity and mortality. Besides surgical revision in early stages or instable patients, endoscopic treatment has become the mainstay. To date, many options for endoscopic treatment in this setting exist, including fully covered metal stent placement, endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT), endoscopic internal drainage with pigtail placement (EID), leak closure with through the scope or over the scope clips, endoluminal suturing, fibrin glue sealing and a combination of all these techniques. Current evidence is mostly based on retrospective single and multicenter studies. No guidelines exist in this important field. Treatment options have to be chosen upon each case individually, taking into account clinical and anatomic criteria, such as timing, size, infectious wound complications and hemodynamic stability. Local expertise and availability of treatment devices need to be taken into account whenever choosing a treatment strategy. This review aimed to present current treatment options in terms of effectiveness, advantages and disadvantages in order to guide the clinician for his decision making. Additionally, we aimed to provide a treatment algorithm.

Endoscopic Management of Bleeding in Altered Anatomy after Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery.

Postoperative non variceal upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage may occur early or late and affect a variable percentage of patients-up to about 2%. Most cases of intraluminal bleeding are an indication for urgent Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and require endoscopic haemostatic treatment. In addition to the approach usually adopted in non-variceal upper haemorrhages, these cases may be burdened with difficulties in terms of anastomotic tissue, angled positions, and the risk of further complications. There is also extreme variability related to the type of surgery performed, in the context of oncological disease or bariatric surgery. At the same time, the world of haemostatic devices available in digestive endoscopy is increasing, meeting high efficacy rates and attempting to treat even the most complex cases. Our narrative review summarises the current evidence in terms of different approaches to endoscopic haemostasis in upper bleeding in altered anatomy after surgery, proposing an up-to-date guidance for endoscopic clinicians and at the same time, highlighting areas of future scientific research.

Trial sequential analysis of EUS-guided gallbladder drainage versus percutaneous cholecystostomy in patients with acute cholecystitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Meta-analytic comparison of EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) versus percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) for acute cholecystitis (AC) brings the risk of spurious results if too few studies are included. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) can overcome this, providing information about its credibility. METHODS: Comparative studies between EUS-GBD, using lumen-apposing metal stents, and PT-GBD for AC until July 2021 were used for conventional meta-analysis and TSA, which allowed the use of monitoring boundaries and the estimation of the required information size (RIS) needed to prove credibility. RESULTS: Four studies accrued 535 patients. Technical success was in favor of PT-GBD (relative risk [RR], .967; P = .036), but TSA estimated that 1663 participants would be needed to avoid a Type I error (false positive). Clinical success was similar (RR, .965; P = .146), and TSA supported the absence of any demonstrable superiority of one therapy rather than a Type II error (false negative). EUS-GBD reduced overall adverse events (RR, .424; P < .001) and unplanned readmissions (RR, .215; P < .001), and TSA confirmed the avoidance of a Type I error, with early RIS achievement, providing necessary credibility. EUS-GBD had fewer reinterventions (RR, .244; P < .001), but a Type I error was not avoided, needing additional 97 patients to the accrued 535 to prove credibility. CONCLUSIONS: PT-GBD can provide superior technical success than EUS-GBD if a very large sample size is accrued, thus limiting the single-patient benefit. Clinical success is probably equivalent. EUS-GBD convincingly decreased overall adverse events and unplanned readmissions, whereas the need for reinterventions requires additional studies.

EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy for malignant distal biliary obstruction after failed ERCP: a retrospective nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) with a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) has been proposed as an alternative procedure in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) and failed ERCP. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective analysis included all cases of EUS-CDS with LAMS performed in patients with DMBO and failed ERCP in 23 Italian centers from January 2016 to July 2020. Primary endpoints were technical and clinical success. Secondary endpoints were the assessment of the adverse event (AE) rate and variables associated with technical success. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-six patients (44.9% women) with a mean age of 73.9 ± 12.6 years were included in the study. The most common etiology of DMBO was pancreatic adenocarcinoma (75%), followed by ampullary cancer (8.6%) and cholangiocarcinoma (6.6%). The common bile duct median diameter was 17.3 ± 3.9 mm. Technical and clinical success were achieved in 239 of 256 (93.3%), and 230 of 239 (96.2%) patients, respectively. The mean follow-up was 151 ± 162 days. Twenty-seven AEs occurred in 25 of 239 patients (10.5%) (3 mild, 21 moderate, and 3 severe). No fatal AEs occurred. Reinterventions to manage AEs with endoscopic or radiologic procedures occurred in 22 patients (9.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study show that EUS-CDS with LAMSs in patients with DMBO and failed ERCP represent a viable alternative in terms of effectiveness and safety with acceptable AE rates. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03903523.).

Definition of a hospital volume threshold to optimize outcomes after drainage of pancreatic fluid collections with lumen-apposing metal stents: a nationwide cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is increasing interest in expanding the use of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) in patients with pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). The aim of this study was to determine whether there is a hospital volume threshold for which patient outcomes could be optimized. METHODS: Data from a large multicenter series of patients with PFCs treated with LAMSs were retrieved. Rate of adverse events (AEs) was the primary outcome. Multivariable models with restricted cubic splines were used to identify a hospital volume threshold by plotting hospital volume against the log odds ratio (OR) of AE rate. Propensity score matching was applied to obtain 2 well-balanced groups according to hospital volume, and univariate/multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify significant predictors of AEs. RESULTS: Overall, 516 patients were included. Increasing hospital volume was associated with a reduced AE rate (P = .03), and the likelihood of experiencing an AE declined as hospital volume increased up to 15 cases. After propensity score matching, 175 patients in the high-volume (>15 cases) and 132 in the low-volume hospital group were compared. Overall, 41 AEs were observed (13.3%), of which 14 (8%) and 27 (20.4%) occurred at high-volume and low-volume centers, respectively (P = .001). Severe and fatal events were observed more frequently in low-volume centers (6% vs 1.7% and 2.2% vs 0%, respectively; P = .05). In multivariate analysis, main pancreatic duct injury (OR, 2.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-4.67; P = .02), presence of abnormal vessels (OR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.41-5.02; P = .006), and institutional experience (OR, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.48-5.90; P = .002) were significant predictors of AEs. CONCLUSIONS: With 15 procedures representing the minimum number of cases associated with the lowest risk for postprocedural AEs, hospital volume is associated with improved outcomes. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03903523.).

Impact of colonoscopy on working productivity: a prospective multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients undergoing colonoscopy are often in the workforce. Therefore, colonoscopy may affect patients' work productivity in terms of missed working days and/or reduced working efficiency. We aimed to investigate the impact of colonoscopy on work productivity and factors influencing this impact. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational, multicenter study in 10 Italian hospitals between 2016 and 2017. We collected information on individual characteristics, work productivity, symptoms, and conditions before, during, and after the procedure from patients undergoing colonoscopy for several indications using validated tools. Outcomes were interference of preparation with work, absenteeism, and impaired work performance after the procedure. We fitted multivariate logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for potential predictors of the outcomes. RESULTS: Among 1137 subjects in the study, 30.5% reported at least 1 outcome. Impaired work performance was associated with bowel preparation regimen (full dose on the day of colonoscopy vs split dose: OR, 4.04; 95% CI, 1.43-11.5), symptoms during bowel preparation (high symptom score: OR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.15-8.95), and pain during the procedure (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.40-4.35). Increasing number of working hours and less comfortable jobs were associated with absenteeism (P for trend = .06) and impairment of working performance (P for trend = .01) and GI symptoms both before and after colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational and individual characteristics of patients should be considered when scheduling colonoscopy because this procedure may impair work productivity in up to one-third of patients. Split-dose bowel preparation, performing a painless colonoscopy, and preventing the occurrence of GI symptoms may minimize the impact of colonoscopy on work productivity.

The endoscopic ultrasound features of pancreatic fluid collections and their impact on therapeutic decisions: an interobserver agreement study.

BACKGROUND: A validated classification of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) morphological characteristics and consequent therapeutic intervention(s) in pancreatic and peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) is lacking. We performed an interobserver agreement study among expert endosonographers assessing EUS-related PFC features and the therapeutic approaches used. METHODS: 50 EUS videos of PFCs were independently reviewed by 12 experts and evaluated for PFC type, percentage solid component, presence of infection, recognition of and communication with the main pancreatic duct (MPD), stent choice for drainage, and direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) performance and timing. The Gwet's AC1 coefficient was used to assess interobserver agreement. RESULTS: A moderate agreement was found for lesion type (AC1, 0.59), presence of infection (AC1, 0.41), and need for DEN (AC1, 0.50), while fair or poor agreements were stated for percentage solid component (AC1, 0.15) and MPD recognition (AC1, 0.31). Substantial agreement was rated for ability to assess PFC-MPD communication (AC1, 0.69), decision between placing a plastic versus lumen-apposing metal stent (AC1, 0.62), and timing of DEN (AC1, 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver agreement between expert endosonographers regarding morphological features of PFCs appeared suboptimal, while decisions on therapeutic approaches seemed more homogeneous. Studies to achieve standardization of the diagnostic endosonographic criteria and therapeutic approaches to PFCs are warranted.