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.

EUS-Guided Choledochoduodenostomy for Distal Malignant Biliary Obstruction Using Electrocautery-Enhanced Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents: First US, Multicenter Experience.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided biliary drainage has emerged as a technique to enable endobiliary drainage in failed ERCP. A newer model, lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), with a cautery-enhanced delivery system became available in the USA in late 2015. This cautery-tipped version may facilitate EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CD), but data using this model are lacking. METHODS: We reviewed outcomes of attempted EUS-CD using cautery-enhanced LAMS from 6, US centers. The following data were collected: patient and procedure details, technical success, adverse events, clinical success (resolution of jaundice or improvement in bilirubin > 50%), and biliary re-interventions. RESULTS: EUS-CD was attempted in 67 patients (mean age 68.8) with malignant obstruction after failed ERCP between September 2015 and April 2018. EUS-CD was technically successful in 64 (95.5%). A plastic or metal stent was inserted through the lumen of the deployed LAMS in 50 of 64 (78.1%) patients to maintain a non-perpendicular LAMS axis into the bile duct. Adverse events occurred in 4 (6.3%) and included: abdominal pain (n = 2), peritonitis that responded to antibiotics (n = 1), and bleeding requiring transfusion (n = 1). Among 40 patients with follow-up of > 4 weeks, clinical success was achieved in 100%. Biliary re-interventions for obstruction were needed in 7(17.5%), in 3 of 6 (50.0%) that underwent EUS-CD with LAMS alone versus 4 of 34 (5%) with LAMS plus an axis-orienting stent (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: EUS-CD using LAMS with cautery-enhanced delivery systems has high technical and clinical success rates, with a low rate of adverse events. Inserting an axis-orienting stent through the lumen of the LAMS may reduce the need for biliary re-interventions.

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

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

The Clinical Utility of Evaluating the Luminal Upper Gastrointestinal Tract During Linear Endoscopic Ultrasonography.

BACKGROUND: The clinical utility of performing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) before linear endoscopic ultrasonography (L-EUS) to evaluate the luminal upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract is not well established. GOALS: The study was aimed to determine the prevalence of clinically meaningful luminal abnormalities (any luminal finding requiring further evaluation with mucosal biopsy or initiation of treatment) in patients undergoing L-EUS. The study also sought to compare the ability of the gastroscope and the linear echoendoscope in identifying these lesions. STUDY: A prospective, multicenter cohort study enrolled patients undergoing L-EUS for nonluminal indications. All patients underwent EGD followed by L-EUS by 2 different endoscopists. The second endoscopist was blinded to the results of the initial EGD. The identification of clinically meaningful luminal lesions and quality of endoscopic visualization of the upper GI tract were measured. RESULTS: In the cohort of 175 patients, 52 (29.7%) patients had clinically meaningful luminal findings seen in the upper GI tract. There was no significant difference in the number of clinically meaningful lesions identified on EGD and L-EUS (25.1% vs. 22.9%, P=0.39). No significant difference was found in the miss rate of clinically meaningful lesions between the 2 modalities (EGD: 4.5% vs. EUS: 6.9%, P=0.39). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial minority of patients undergoing L-EUS for nonluminal indications will have clinically meaningful luminal findings. The endoscopic evaluation of the luminal upper GI tract can be adequately achieved using the linear echoendoscope.

Underwater EMR of adenomas of the appendiceal orifice (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EMR of adenomas involving the appendiceal orifice (AO) is controversial because of a high risk of perforation and incomplete resection. We evaluated the feasibility, safety, and outcomes of underwater EMR (UEMR) without submucosal injection for the treatment of adenomas involving the AO. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study of a standardized UEMR technique without submucosal injection for adenomas involving the AO in 27 consecutive patients meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria. Surveillance colonoscopy included biopsy sampling of the EMR site and base of the AO. Main outcome measurements include technical success, histology, resection time, adverse events, and follow-up data. RESULTS: Over 42 months, UEMR of adenomas involving the AO (rim, 5 patients; inside, 22 patients) was attempted in 27 consecutive patients. Median adenoma size was 15 mm (range, 8 to 50). UEMR was successful in 24 patients (89%). Four patients were referred to surgery, 3 with UEMR failure because of an inability to exclude the adenoma extending into the appendix at the index procedure and 1 with invasive adenocarcinoma in the UEMR specimen. The median resection time was 3 minutes (range, 1 to 75). Adverse events consisted of postpolypectomy syndrome in 2 patients (7%). There was no perforation, bleeding requiring transfusion, or appendicitis. Final histology was tubular adenoma (7), tubulovillous adenoma (4), sessile serrated adenoma (15), and invasive adenocarcinoma (1). Twenty-one of 23 patients (91%), not referred to surgery, had follow-up colonoscopy with biopsy sampling of the resection site after a median of 29 weeks (range, 12 to 139) after resection. Residual adenoma was found in 2 of 21 patients (10%). CONCLUSION: On an intention-to-treat basis, UEMR without submucosal injection enabled safe and complete endoscopic resection of AO lesions. Close surveillance for residual or recurrence is warranted. ( CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01750619.).

EUS-guided treatment of gastric fundal varices with combined injection of coils and cyanoacrylate glue: a large U.S. experience over 6 years (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Conventional endoscopic treatment of gastric fundal varices (GFV) with cyanoacrylate (CYA) glue may be complicated by embolization and rebleeding. We evaluated the long-term outcomes of EUS-guided injection of coils and CYA glue for therapy of GFV. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients treated for GFV was performed. The main outcomes measured were hemostasis, obliteration on surveillance EUS, post-treatment bleeding rate, and adverse events. RESULTS: From March 2009 to 2015, 152 patients with GFV were treated. Seven (5%) had active hemorrhage, 105 (69%) had recent bleeding, and 40 (26%) were treated for primary prophylaxis. Treatment was technically successful in 151 patients (>99%). Mean number of coils was 1.4 (range, 1-4 coils), and mean volume of CYA was 2 mL (range, 0.5-6). Follow-up was available for 125 patients with treated GFV (mean, 436 days; range, 30-2043). Among 100 patients with follow-up EUS examinations, complete obliteration (on Doppler study) of GFV was confirmed in 93 (93%). Post-treatment bleeding from obliterated GFV occurred in 3 of 93 patients (3%). Twenty-five patients who had clinical and/or EGD follow-up had 3 post-treatment bleeding episodes after a median follow-up of 324 days (range, 41-486). Among the 40 patients treated for primary prophylaxis, 28 underwent follow-up EUS and 27 (96%) had confirmed obliteration. Mild postprocedure abdominal pain occurred in 4 of 125 patients (3%), and clinical signs of pulmonary embolization were seen in 1 patient (1%). Another 4 of 125 patients (3%) presented with minor delayed upper GI bleeding from coil/glue extrusion. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided combined coil and CYA glue injection of high-risk GFV appears to be highly effective for hemostasis in active bleeding and primary and secondary bleeding prophylaxis. Once obliteration was achieved, post-treatment bleeding from GFV occurred in only 3% during long-term follow-up. Combination therapy appears safe and may reduce the risk of CYA embolization.

Yield and performance characteristics of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for diagnosing upper GI tract stromal tumors.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-FNA is a means of sampling suspected GI stromal tumors (GIST). However, there are limited published data on factors influencing the sampling yield, and on the performance characteristics of this technique in comparison with resection pathology. We analyzed the yield of EUS-FNA for submucosal lesions of the upper GI tract, and determined the performance characteristics of EUS-FNA for diagnosing GISTs. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed procedural and pathology data from consecutive patients undergoing EUS-FNA of submucosal lesions from two medical centers over a 4-year period. We analyzed the yield of EUS-FNA, and calculated performance characteristics of EUS-FNA for GIST based on resection pathology. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients underwent EUS-FNA of 66 submucosal lesions during the study period. EUS-FNA was either diagnostic (68%) or suspicious (12%) in a total of 80%. EUS-FNA yielded the following diagnoses: GIST based on cytology and immunohistochemistry (56%), suspected GIST (12%), leiomyoma (9%), other neoplasm (3%), and non-diagnostic (20%). Larger lesion size, gastric location, and presence of on-site cytopathology were associated with higher yield in univariate analysis. Larger needle size and number of FNA passes were not associated with improved yield. Based on resection pathology from 28 specimens, the EUS-FNA performance characteristics for diagnosing GISTs included a sensitivity of 82%, a specificity of 100%, and an overall accuracy of 86%. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNA provides a high yield for sampling submucosal lesions and is highly accurate for diagnosing GISTs. EUS-FNA has an important role in the evaluation of suspected GISTs.