Snare Tip Soft Coagulation vs Argon Plasma Coagulation vs No Margin Treatment After Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyp Resection: a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Thermal treatment of the defect margin after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions reduces the recurrence rate. Both snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) and argon plasma coagulation (APC) have been used for thermal margin treatment, but there are few data directly comparing STSC with APC for this indication. METHODS: We performed a randomized 3-arm trial in 9 US centers comparing STSC with APC with no margin treatment (control) of defects after EMR of colorectal nonpedunculated lesions ≥15 mm. The primary end point was the presence of residual lesion at first follow-up. RESULTS: There were 384 patients and 414 lesions randomized, and 308 patients (80.2%) with 328 lesions completed ≥1 follow-up. The proportion of lesions with residual polyp at first follow-up was 4.6% with STSC, 9.3% with APC, and 21.4% with control subjects (no margin treatment). The odds of residual polyp at first follow-up were lower for STSC and APC when compared with control subjects (P = .001 and P = .01, respectively). The difference in odds was not significant between STSC and APC. STSC took less time to apply than APC (median, 3.35 vs 4.08 minutes; P = .019). Adverse event rates were low, with no difference between arms. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial STSC and APC were each superior to no thermal margin treatment after EMR. STSC was faster to apply than APC. Because STSC also results in lower cost and plastic waste than APC (APC requires an additional device), our study supports STSC as the preferred thermal margin treatment after colorectal EMR. (Clinicaltrials.gov, Number NCT03654209.).

Celiac Plexus Neurolysis Is Associated With Decreased Survival in Patients With Pancreatic Cancer: A Propensity Score Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate survival in patients who received celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) compared with patients who received opioids. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database was used to identify patients older than 65 years diagnosed with pancreatic cancer between 2007 and 2015. We used claims data to identify patients with a history of CPN and opioid use within 1 year of diagnosis, and other demographic, clinical, and treatment variables. Kaplan-Meier analyses and inverse propensity-weighted adjusted Cox proportional hazard ratios were used to evaluate survival. RESULTS: We identified 648 patients who underwent CPN (19.0%) compared with 2769 patients who received opioids (81.0%). The median survival and interquartile range for patients who received CPN was 4.0 months (2.0-8.0 months) compared with 7.0 months (3.0-12.0 months) for opioid users (P < 0.0001). After adjusting for confounders and propensity score, the patients who received CPN showed worsened survival (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.59-1.79). CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic cancer patients who underwent CPN had decreased survival compared with opioid users. This suggests that opioid sparing methods to reduce pancreatic cancer pain may actually be harmful. Future prospective studies should investigate whether other opioid sparing therapies impact pancreatic cancer survival.

Use of endoscopic ultrasound for pancreatic cancer from 2000 to 2016.

Background and study aims Pancreatic cancer (PC) is the fourth most common cause of cancer death in the United States. Previous studies have suggested a survival benefit for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), an important tool for diagnosis and staging of PC. This study aims to describe EUS use over time and identify factors associated with EUS use and its impact on survival. Patients and methods This was a retrospective review of the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database linked with Medicare claims. EUS use, clinical and demographic characteristics were evaluated. Chi-squared analysis, Cochran-Armitage test for trend, and logistic regression were used to identify associations between sociodemographic and clinical factors and EUS. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard ratios were used for survival analysis. Results EUS use rose during the time period, from 7.4 % of patients in 2000 to 32.4 % in 2015. Patient diversity increased, with a rising share of older, non-White patients with higher Charlson comorbidity scores. Both clinical (receipt of other therapies, PC stage) and nonclinical factors (region of country, year of diagnosis) were associated with receipt of EUS. While EUS was associated with a survival improvement early in the study period, this effect did not persist for PC patients diagnosed in 2012 to 2015 (median survival 3 month ± standard deviation [SD] 9.8 months without vs. 4 months ± SD 8 months with EUS). Conclusions Our data support previous studies, which suggest a survival benefit for EUS when it was infrequently used, but finds that benefit was attenuated as EUS became more widely available.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on informed consent for GI endoscopic procedures.

Informed consent is the cornerstone of the ethical practice of procedures and treatments in medicine. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an update on best practice of the informed consent process and other issues around informed consent and shared decision-making for endoscopic procedures. The principles of informed consent are based on longstanding legal doctrine. Several new concepts and clinical trials addressing the best practice of informed consent will help guide practitioners of the burgeoning field of GI endoscopic procedures. After a literature review and an iterative discussion and voting process by the ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, this document was produced to update our guidance on informed consent for the practicing endoscopist. Because this document was designed by considering the laws and broad practice of endoscopy in the United States, legal requirements may differ by state and region, and it is the responsibility of the endoscopist, practice managers, and other healthcare organizations to be aware of local laws. Our recommendations are designed to improve the informed consent experience for both physicians and patients as they work together to diagnose and treat GI diseases with endoscopy.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage in benign biliary pathology with normal foregut anatomy: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Biliary drainage using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS-BD) has been developed as a novel technique to obtain biliary access and drainage when ERCP fails. Numerous studies have demonstrated its safety and efficacy specifically pertaining to those with malignant distal biliary obstruction or altered foregut anatomy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EUS-BD in benign indications in patients with normal foregut anatomy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective comparative study from 5 academic medical centers (2008-2018) involving patients with benign biliary obstruction and native foregut anatomy who had an initial failed ERCP with subsequent attempt at biliary decompression via EUS-BD or by repeating ERCP. RESULTS: 36 patients (mean age 61.6 ± 2.2, 38.9% female) who underwent attempted EUS-BD following initial failed ERCP were compared to 50 patients (mean age 62.7 ± 2.3, 73.5% female) who underwent repeat ERCP following an initial failed cannulation. EUS-BD was technically successful in 28 (77.8%) patients with rendezvous being the most common approach (86.1%). A higher level of pre-procedural bilirubin was found to be associated with technical success of EUS-BD (3.65 ± 0.63 versus 1.1 ± 0.4, p value 0.04). Success of repeat ERCP following failed cannulation was 86%. Adverse events were significantly more frequent in the EUS-BD cohort when compared to the repeat ERCP (10 (27.8%) versus 4 (8.0%), p = 0.02, OR 4.32. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-BD remains a viable therapeutic option in the setting of benign biliary disease, with success rates of 77.8%. Adverse events were significantly more common with EUS-BD vs. repeat ERCP, emphasizing the need to perform in expert centers with appropriate multidisciplinary support and to strongly consider the urgency of biliary decompression before considering same session EUS-BD after failed initial biliary access.

Endoscopic resection outcomes and predictors of failed en bloc endoscopic mucosal resection of colorectal polyps ≤ 20 mm among advanced endoscopy trainees.

Background and study aims En bloc endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is preferred over piecemeal resection for polyps ≤ 20 mm. Data on colorectal EMR training are limited. We aimed to evaluate the en bloc EMR rate of polyps ≤ 20 mm among advanced endoscopy trainees and to identify predictors of failed en bloc EMR. Methods This was a multicenter prospective study evaluating trainee performance in EMR during advanced endoscopy fellowship. A logistic regression model was used to identify the number of procedures and lesion cut-off size associated with an en bloc EMR rate of ≥ 80 %. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of failed en bloc EMR. Results Six trainees from six centers performed 189 colorectal EMRs, of which 104 (55 %) were for polyps ≤ 20 mm. Of these, 57.7 % (60/104) were resected en bloc. Trainees with ≥ 30 EMRs (OR 6.80; 95 % CI: 2.80-16.50; P  = 0.00001) and lesions ≤ 17 mm (OR 4.56;95 CI:1.23-16.88; P  = 0.02) were more likely to be associated with an en bloc EMR rate of ≥ 80 %. Independent predictors of failed en bloc EMR on multivariate analysis included: larger polyp size (OR:6.83;95 % CI:2.55-18.4; P  = 0.0001), right colon location (OR:7.15; 95 % CI:1.31-38.9; P  = 0.02), increased procedural difficulty (OR 2.99; 95 % CI:1.13-7.91; P  = 0.03), and having performed < 30 EMRs (OR: 4.87; 95 %CI: 1.05-22.61; P  = 0.04). Conclusions In this pilot study, we demonstrated that a relatively low proportion of trainees achieved en bloc EMR for polyps ≤ 20 mm and identified procedure volume and lesion size thresholds for successful en bloc EMR and independent predictors for failed en bloc resection. These preliminary results support the need for future efforts to define EMR procedure competence thresholds during training.

Direct Endoscopic Necrosectomy With and Without Hydrogen Peroxide for Walled-off Pancreatic Necrosis: A Multicenter Comparative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic necrosectomy has emerged as the preferred treatment modality for walled-off pancreatic necrosis. This study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of direct endoscopic necrosectomy with and without hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) lavage. METHODS: Retrospective chart reviews were performed for all patients undergoing endoscopic transmural management of walled-off pancreatic necrosis at 9 major medical centers from November 2011 to August 2018. Clinical success was defined as the resolution of the collection by imaging within 6 months, without requiring non-endoscopic procedures or surgery. RESULTS: Of 293 patients, 204 met the inclusion criteria. Technical and clinical success rates were 100% (204/204) and 81% (166/189), respectively. For patients, 122 (59.8%) patients had at least one H2O2 necrosectomy (H2O2 group) and 82 (40.2%) patients had standard endoscopic necrosectomy. Clinical success was higher in the H2O2 group: 106/113 (93.8%) vs 60/76 (78.9%), P = 0.002. On a multivariate analysis, the use of H2O2 was associated with higher clinical success rate (odds ratio 3.30, P = 0.033) and earlier resolution (odds ratio 2.27, P < 0.001). During a mean follow-up of 274 days, 27 complications occurred. Comparing procedures performed with and without H2O2 (n = 250 vs 183), there was no difference in post-procedure bleeding (7 vs 9, P = 0.25), perforation (2 vs 3, P = 0.66), infection (1 vs 2, P = 0.58), or overall complication rate (n = 13 [5.2%] vs 14 [7.7%], P = 0.30). DISCUSSION: H2O2-assisted endoscopic necrosectomy had a higher clinical success rate and a shorter time to resolution with equivalent complication rates relative to standard necrosectomy.See the visual abstract at http://links.lww.com/AJG/B714.(Equation is included in full-text article.).

ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the management of benign and malignant gastroduodenal obstruction.

This American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the endoscopic management of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). We applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to address key clinical questions. These include the comparison of (1) surgical gastrojejunostomy to the placement of self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) for malignant GOO, (2) covered versus uncovered SEMS for malignant GOO, and (3) endoscopic and surgical interventions for the management of benign GOO. Recommendations provided in this document were founded on the certainty of the evidence, balance of benefits and harms, considerations of patient and caregiver preferences, resource utilization, and cost-effectiveness.

Evaluating learning curves and competence in colorectal EMR among advanced endoscopy fellows: a pilot multicenter prospective trial using cumulative sum analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data on colorectal EMR (C-EMR) training are lacking. We aimed to evaluate C-EMR training among advanced endoscopy fellows (AEFs) by using a standardized assessment tool (STAT). METHODS: This multicenter prospective study used a STAT to grade AEF training in C-EMR during their 12-month fellowship. Cumulative sum analysis was used to establish learning curves and competence for cognitive and technical components of C-EMR and overall performance. Sensitivity analysis was performed by varying failure rates. AEFs completed a self-assessment questionnaire to assess their comfort level with performing C-EMR at the completion of their fellowship. RESULTS: Six AEFs (189 C-EMRs; mean per AEF, 31.5 ± 18.5) were included. Mean polyp size was 24.3 ± 12.6 mm, and mean procedure time was 22.6 ± 16.1 minutes. Learning curve analyses revealed that less than 50% of AEFs achieved competence for key cognitive and technical C-EMR endpoints. All 6 AEFs reported feeling comfortable performing C-EMR independently at the end of their training, although only 2 of them achieved competence in their overall performance. The minimum threshold to achieve competence in these 2 AEFs was 25 C-EMRs. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively low proportion of AEFs achieved competence on key cognitive and technical aspects of C-EMR during their 12-month fellowship. The relatively low number of C-EMRs performed by AEFs may be insufficient to achieve competence, in spite of their self-reported readiness for independent practice. These pilot data serve as an initial framework for competence threshold, and suggest the need for validated tools for formal C-EMR training assessment.

Primary EUS-guided biliary drainage versus ERCP drainage for the management of malignant biliary obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has been used as a salvage modality for relief of malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) after a failed ERCP. Multiple recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies have been published to assess the suitability of EUS-BD as a first-line modality for achieving palliative BD. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing primary EUS-BD versus ERCP for MBO. We searched PubMed, Medline, and Embase up to January 1, 2019, to identify RCTs and observational studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of primary EUS-BD (without a prior attempted ERCP) versus ERCP. Quality of RCTs and observational studies was assessed using Jadad and Newcastle-Ottawa scores, respectively. The outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, odds of requiring a repeat intervention, and procedure-related adverse events. Odds ratios (ORs) and standard mean difference were calculated for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model in RevMan 5.3 (the Cochrane Collaboration, the Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark). Five studies (three RCTs and two observational studies) with 361 patients were included. Both procedures achieved comparable technical success (OR: 1.20 [0.44-3.24], I2 = 0%) and clinical success (OR: 1.44, confidence interval [CI]: 0.63-3.29, I2 = 0%). The overall adverse outcomes (OR: 1.59 [0.89-2.84]) did not differ between the two groups. In the ERCP group, 9.5% of patients developed procedure-related pancreatitis versus zero in the EUS group (risk difference = 0.08%, P = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference in nonpancreatitis-related adverse events. The odds of requiring reintervention for BD (1.68 [0.76-3.73], I2 = 42%) did not differ significantly. The ERCP group had significantly higher odds of requiring reintervention due to tumor overgrowth (5.35 [1.64-17.50], I2 = 0%). EUS-BD has comparable technical and clinical success to ERCP and can potentially be used as a first-line palliative modality for MBO where expertise is available. ERCP-related pancreatitis which can cause significant morbidity can be completely avoided with EUS.

Elevated hemoglobin A1c is associated with the presence of pancreatic cysts in a high-risk pancreatic surveillance program.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence demonstrates that surveillance of individuals at high-risk (HRIs) of developing pancreatic adenocarcinoma allows for identification and treatment of resectable tumors with improved survival. Population-based data suggest that hyperglycemia may be present up to three years before the development of pancreatic cancer. We investigated whether elevated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is associated with the development of pancreatic cysts in a pancreatic surveillance program. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of HRIs who underwent pancreatic surveillance at a single institution between May 2013 and March 2019, according to published criteria. We collected demographic information, clinical data including HbA1c, and imaging results. We compared data using univariable and multivariable analyses. Our primary outcome was the presence of pancreatic cysts on initial surveillance in patients with elevated HbA1c. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients underwent surveillance imaging via EUS or MRCP and seventy-four patients met inclusion criteria. Thirty patients were found to have cysts on initial imaging. Older age (p < 0.01) and HbA1c in the prediabetic range or higher (p = 0.01) were associated with the presence of cysts or solid lesions on univariable analysis. After controlling for confounders, age (aOR 9.08, 95% CI 2.29-36.10), and HbA1c > 5.7% (aOR 5.82, 95% CI 1.50-22.54) remained associated with presence of cysts and solid lesions in HRIs. In patients with cysts or solid lesions there was a strong association between increased age and elevated HbA1c (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: HRIs with elevated HbA1c were more likely to have pancreatic cysts compared to individuals with lower HbA1c on initial imaging in a pancreatic surveillance program. These findings may help tailor the surveillance protocols for those at increased risk of developing pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

EUS-guided confocal laser endomicroscopy: prediction of dysplasia in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Previous studies have validated EUS-guided needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE) diagnosis of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs). We sought to derive EUS-guided nCLE criteria for differentiating IPMNs with high-grade dysplasia/adenocarcinoma (HGD-Ca) from those with low/intermediate-grade dysplasia (LGD). METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of consecutive IPMNs with a definitive diagnosis from a prospective study evaluating EUS-guided nCLE in the diagnosis of pancreatic cysts. Three internal endosonographers reviewed all nCLE videos for the patients and identified potential discriminatory EUS-guided nCLE variables to differentiate HGD-Ca from LGD IPMNs (phase 1). Next, an interobserver agreement (IOA) analysis of variables from phase 1 was performed among 6 blinded external nCLE experts (phase 2). Last, 7 blinded nCLE-naïve observers underwent training and quantified variables with the highest IOA from phase 2 using dedicated software (phase 3). RESULTS: Among 26 IPMNs (HGD-Ca in 16), the reference standard was surgical histopathology in 24 and cytology confirmation of metastatic liver lesions in 2 patients. EUS-guided nCLE characteristics of increased papillary epithelial "width" and "darkness" were the most sensitive variables (90%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 84%-94% and 91%; 95% CI, 85%-95%, respectively) and accurate (85%; 95% CI, 78%-90% and 84%; 95% CI, 77%-89%, respectively) with substantial (κ = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.71) and moderate (κ = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45-0.65) IOAs for detecting HGD-Ca, respectively (phase 2). Logistic regression models were fit for the outcome of HGD-Ca as predictor variables (phase 3). For papillary width (cut-off ≥50 µm), the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for detection of HGD-Ca were 87.5% (95% CI, 62%-99%), 100% (95% CI, 69%-100%), and 0.95, respectively. For papillary darkness (cut-off ≤90 pixel intensity), the sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for detection of HGD-Ca were 87.5% (95% CI, 62%-99%), 100% (95% CI, 69%-100%), and 0.90, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this derivation study, quantification of papillary epithelial width and darkness identified HGD-Ca in IPMNs with high accuracy. These quantifiable variables can be used in multicenter studies for risk stratification of IPMNs. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02516488.).

American Gastroenterological Association Clinical Practice Update: Management of Pancreatic Necrosis.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update is to review the available evidence and expert recommendations regarding the clinical care of patients with pancreatic necrosis and to offer concise best practice advice for the optimal management of patients with this highly morbid condition. METHODS: This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. This review is framed around the 15 best practice advice points agreed upon by the authors, which reflect landmark and recent published articles in this field. This expert review also reflects the experiences of the authors, who are advanced endoscopists or hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons with extensive experience in managing and teaching others to care for patients with pancreatic necrosis. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Pancreatic necrosis is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality and optimal management requires a multidisciplinary approach, including gastroenterologists, surgeons, interventional radiologists, and specialists in critical care medicine, infectious disease, and nutrition. In situations where clinical expertise may be limited, consideration should be given to transferring patients with significant pancreatic necrosis to an appropriate tertiary-care center. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Antimicrobial therapy is best indicated for culture-proven infection in pancreatic necrosis or when infection is strongly suspected (ie, gas in the collection, bacteremia, sepsis, or clinical deterioration). Routine use of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infection of sterile necrosis is not recommended. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: When infected necrosis is suspected, broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics with ability to penetrate pancreatic necrosis should be favored (eg, carbapenems, quinolones, and metronidazole). Routine use of antifungal agents is not recommended. Computed tomography-guided fine-needle aspiration for Gram stain and cultures is unnecessary in the majority of cases. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: In patients with pancreatic necrosis, enteral feeding should be initiated early to decrease the risk of infected necrosis. A trial of oral nutrition is recommended immediately in patients in whom there is absence of nausea and vomiting and no signs of severe ileus or gastrointestinal luminal obstruction. When oral nutrition is not feasible, enteral nutrition by either nasogastric/duodenal or nasojejunal tube should be initiated as soon as possible. Total parenteral nutrition should be considered only in cases where oral or enteral feeds are not feasible or tolerated. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Drainage and/or debridement of pancreatic necrosis is indicated in patients with infected necrosis. Drainage and/or debridement may be required in patients with sterile pancreatic necrosis and persistent unwellness marked by abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and nutritional failure or with associated complications, including gastrointestinal luminal obstruction; biliary obstruction; recurrent acute pancreatitis; fistulas; or persistent systemic inflammatory response syndrome. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Pancreatic debridement should be avoided in the early, acute period (first 2 weeks), as it has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Debridement should be optimally delayed for 4 weeks and performed earlier only when there is an organized collection and a strong indication. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Percutaneous drainage and transmural endoscopic drainage are both appropriate first-line, nonsurgical approaches in managing patients with walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). Endoscopic therapy through transmural drainage of WON may be preferred, as it avoids the risk of forming a pancreatocutaneous fistula. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Percutaneous drainage of pancreatic necrosis should be considered in patients with infected or symptomatic necrotic collections in the early, acute period (<2 weeks), and in those with WON who are too ill to undergo endoscopic or surgical intervention. Percutaneous drainage should be strongly considered as an adjunct to endoscopic drainage for WON with deep extension into the paracolic gutters and pelvis or for salvage therapy after endoscopic or surgical debridement with residual necrosis burden. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Self-expanding metal stents in the form of lumen-apposing metal stents appear to be superior to plastic stents for endoscopic transmural drainage of necrosis. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: The use of direct endoscopic necrosectomy should be reserved for those patients with limited necrosis who do not adequately respond to endoscopic transmural drainage using large-bore, self-expanding metal stents/lumen-apposing metal stents alone or plastic stents combined with irrigation. Direct endoscopic necrosectomy is a therapeutic option in patients with large amounts of infected necrosis, but should be performed at referral centers with the necessary endoscopic expertise and interventional radiology and surgical backup. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Minimally invasive operative approaches to the debridement of acute necrotizing pancreatitis are preferred to open surgical necrosectomy when possible, given lower morbidity. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Multiple minimally invasive surgical techniques are feasible and effective, including videoscopic-assisted retroperitoneal debridement, laparoscopic transgastric debridement, and open transgastric debridement. Selection of approach is best determined by pattern of disease, physiology of the patient, experience and expertise of the multidisciplinary team, and available resources. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: Open operative debridement maintains a role in the modern management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis in cases not amenable to less invasive endoscopic and/or surgical procedures. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: For patients with disconnected left pancreatic remnant after acute necrotizing mid-body necrosis, definitive surgical management with distal pancreatectomy should be undertaken in patients with reasonable operative candidacy. Insufficient evidence exists to support the management of the disconnected left pancreatic remnant with long-term transenteric endoscopic stenting. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: A step-up approach consisting of percutaneous drainage or endoscopic transmural drainage using either plastic stents and irrigation or self-expanding metal stents/lumen-apposing metal stents alone, followed by direct endoscopic necrosectomy, and then surgical debridement is reasonable, although approaches may vary based on the available clinical expertise.

Impact of EUS-guided microforceps biopsy sampling and needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy on the diagnostic yield and clinical management of pancreatic cystic lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided microforceps biopsy sampling (MFB) and needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE) are emerging diagnostic tools for pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs). There is a paucity of data regarding their performance and impact. The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic outcomes and changes in clinical management resulting from MFB and nCLE use in PCLs. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study of patients with PCLs who underwent combined EUS-guided FNA, MFB, and nCLE. Primary outcomes included diagnostic yield (specific PCL type) and change in clinical management for each modality compared with the current "composite standard" (CS) obtained by combining clinical, morphologic, cyst fluid cytology, and chemical analysis. RESULTS: Forty-four cysts were studied in 44 patients. Technical success was 100% for EUS-FNA, 88.6% for MFB, and 97.7% for nCLE. Of 44 procedures, there was 1 adverse event (2.3%, an infected pseudocyst). Diagnostic yield for each individual modality was 34.1% for CS, 75.0% for MFB (P < .05 vs CS), and 84.1% for nCLE (P < .05 vs CS). Diagnostic yield for combined tests was 79.5% for CS/MFB, 88.6% for CS/nCLE, and 93.2% for CS/MFB/nCLE (P = not significant). Compared with the CS, the use of MFB, nCLE, and their combination led to overall change in clinical management in 38.6%, 43.2%, and 52.3% of cases, respectively. MFB and nCLE led to an overall increase in discontinuation of surveillance (MFB, 34.1% [P < .05]; nCLE, 31.8% [P < .05]), led by a reduction in the indication for follow-up radiologic or endoscopic studies (MFB, 34.1% [P < .05]; nCLE, 38.6% [P < .05]). Based on MFB and nCLE, 2 of 28 (7.1%) and 3 of 28 (10.7%) patients who would have undergone further surveillance were referred for surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In the evaluation of PCLs, the use of combined EUS-guided FNA, MFB, and nCLE is safe. MFB and nCLE led to significant improvements in specific PCL diagnosis, which in turn has major impacts in clinical management.

Fully covered self-expanding metal stents for refractory pancreatic duct strictures in symptomatic chronic pancreatitis, US experience.

Background and study aims Fully covered self-expanding metal stents (FCSEMS) have been used to treat refractory pancreatic duct strictures. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of FCSEMS in chronic pancreatitis with refractory pancreatic duct strictures. Patients and methods This was a retrospective multicenter cases series of patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with FCSEMS placement in the main pancreatic duct (MPD) at five tertiary care centers between February 2010 and June 2016. Primary endpoints were technical success, clinical success, and procedure-related morbidity. Secondary endpoints were pain relief at the end of follow-up and resolution of the pancreatic stricture on ERCP. Results Thirty-three patients with previously drained stents, 76 % of whom were male, underwent ERCP with FCSEMS placement. Mean duration of follow-up was 14 months. All of the patients had prior therapy. The technical success rate for FCSEMS placement was 100 % (n = 33) and the clinical success rate was 93 % (was n = 31). Stents were removed after a median duration of 14.4 weeks. After stent removal, the diameter of the narrowest MPD stricture had increased significantly from 1 mm to 4.5 mm ( P  < 0.001). There was a statistically significant improvement on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) from a median of 8.5 to 2.5. At the end of the study, (n = 27) 87.1 % of patients reported significant pain reduction with reduced narcotic use. Conclusion FCSEMS appeared to be a feasible, safe, and potentially effective Intervention in patients who had not responded to endoscopic therapy with plastic stents.

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Gallbladder Drainage.

"Gallbladder disease is one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases encountered in clinical practice. Surgical removal and percutaneous drainage are both widely available and effective in the management of acute cholecystitis. Several endoscopic approaches exist as an alternative to these interventions. These include transpapillary approaches via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), transmural drainage and access approaches via endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and endoscopic surgical approaches using natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) techniques. This article reviews the epidemiology and pathophysiology of gallbladder diseases and discusses the various percutaneous, surgical, and endoscopic approaches to managing gallbladder disease."