Retrospective multicenter study on endoscopic treatment of upper GI postsurgical leaks.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Therapeutic endoscopy plays a critical role in the management of upper GI (UGI) postsurgical leaks. Data are scarce regarding clinical success and safety. Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of endoscopic therapy for UGI postsurgical leaks and associated adverse events (AEs) and to identify factors associated with successful endoscopic therapy and AE occurrence. METHODS: This was a retrospective, multicenter, international study of all patients who underwent endoscopic therapy for UGI postsurgical leaks between 2014 and 2019. RESULTS: Two hundred six patients were included. Index surgery most often performed was sleeve gastrectomy (39.3%), followed by gastrectomy (23.8%) and esophagectomy (22.8%). The median time between index surgery and commencement of endoscopic therapy was 16 days. Endoscopic closure was achieved in 80.1% of patients after a median follow-up of 52 days (interquartile range, 33-81.3). Seven hundred seventy-five therapeutic endoscopies were performed. Multimodal therapy was needed in 40.8% of patients. The cumulative success of leak resolution reached a plateau between the third and fourth techniques (approximately 70%-80%); this was achieved after 125 days of endoscopic therapy. Smaller leak initial diameters, hospitalization in a general ward, hemodynamic stability, absence of respiratory failure, previous gastrectomy, fewer numbers of therapeutic endoscopies performed, shorter length of stay, and shorter times to leak closure were associated with better outcomes. Overall, 102 endoscopic therapy-related AEs occurred in 81 patients (39.3%), with most managed conservatively or endoscopically. Leak-related mortality rate was 12.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Multimodal therapeutic endoscopy, despite being time-consuming and requiring multiple procedures, allows leak closure in a significant proportion of patients with a low rate of severe AEs.

EUS-guided gallbladder drainage with a lumen-apposing metal stent versus endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage for the treatment of acute cholecystitis (with videos).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is an evolving role for EUS-guided transmural gallbladder (GB) drainage. Endoscopic transpapillary GB drainage is a well-established, nonoperative treatment for acute cholecystitis. We compared the outcomes of 78 cases of EUS-guided versus transpapillary GB drainage at a single, U.S.-based, high-volume endoscopy center. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis performed from May 2013 to January 2018, identified from a database of nonoperative patients with acute cholecystitis. Both electrocautery-enhanced and nonelectrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents were used. For transpapillary drainage, guidewire access was obtained and then a transpapillary 7F × 15-cm double-pigtail plastic stent was placed. RESULTS: In patients who had successful transpapillary or transmural drainage, demographics data were similar. Technical success was observed in 39 of 40 patients (97.5%) who underwent first attempt at EUS-guided drainage versus 32 of 38 patients (84.2%) for first-attempt transpapillary drainage (adjusted odds ratio, 9.83; 95% confidence interval, .93-103.86). Clinical success was significantly higher with EUS drainage in 38 of 40 patients (95.0%) versus transpapillary drainage in 29 of 38 patients (76.3%) (adjusted odds ratio, 7.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-38.52). Recurrent cholecystitis was lower in the EUS-guided drainage group (2.6% vs 18.8%, respectively; P = .023) on univariate analysis but only trended to significance in a multiple regression model. Duration of follow-up, reintervention rates, hospital length of stay, and overall adverse event rates were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided GB drainage results in a higher clinical success rate compared with transpapillary drainage and may be associated with a lower recurrence rate of cholecystitis. However, transpapillary drainage should be considered as the first-line treatment for patients who are surgical candidates but require temporizing measures or require an ERCP for alternative reasons.

Outcomes of Infected versus Symptomatic Sterile Walled-Off Pancreatic Necrosis Treated with a Minimally Invasive Therapy.

Background/Aims: Acute pancreatitis complicated by walled-off necrosis (WON) is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and if infected, typically necessitates intervention. Clinical outcomes of infected WON have been described as poorer than those of symptomatic sterile WON. With the evolution of minimally invasive therapy, we sought to compare outcomes of infected to symptomatic sterile WON. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study examining patients who were undergoing dual-modality drainage as minimally invasive therapy for WON at a high-volume tertiary pancreatic center. The main outcome measures included mortality with a drain in place, length of hospital stay, admission to intensive care unit, and development of pancreatic fistulae. Results: Of the 211 patients in our analysis, 98 had infected WON. The overall mortality rate was 2.4%. Patients with infected WON trended toward higher mortality although not statistically significant (4.1% vs 0.9%, p=0.19). Patients with infected WON had longer length of hospitalization (29.8 days vs 17.3 days, p<0.01), and developed more spontaneous pancreatic fistulae (23.5% vs 7.8%, p<0.01). Multivariate analysis showed that infected WON was associated with higher odds of spontaneous pancreatic fistula formation (odds ratio, 2.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.20 to 5.85). Conclusions: This study confirms that infected WON has worse outcomes than sterile WON but also demonstrates that WON, once considered a significant cause of death, can be treated with good outcomes using minimally invasive therapy.

Endoscopic therapy and surveillance versus esophagectomy for early esophageal adenocarcinoma: A review of early outcomes and cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic therapy is considered to be comparable to esophagectomy with respect to oncologic outcomes in early (cT1) esophageal adenocarcinoma (EC). The current study aims to compare early outcomes and financial costs, associated with endoscopic versus surgical therapy for early esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients undergoing either endoscopic or surgical therapy for cT1 EC between 2010 and 2015. RESULTS: Age, BMI, and Charlson Comorbidity Scores were similar in patients undergoing endoscopic therapy (N = 20) and esophagectomy (N = 23). For patients undergoing endoscopic therapy a median of 6 endoscopic interventions, were performed per patient (range 2-18). Esophagectomy was associated with a median hospital stay of 9 (8-13) days and greater procedure specific morbidity compared to endoscopic therapy. Costs related to endoscopic therapy were significantly lower compared to esophagectomy ($22,640 vs. $53,849, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic treatment is associated with decreased morbidity and financial costs when compared to esophagectomy.

Endoscopic Management of Gastrointestinal Fistulae.

A gastrointestinal fistula is a common occurrence, especially after surgery. Patients who develop a fistula may have an infection, surgically altered anatomy, nutritional deficiency, or organ failure, making surgical revision more difficult. With advancements in flexible endoscopic devices and technology, new endoscopic options are available for the management of gastrointestinal fistulae. Endoscopically deployable stents, endoscopic suturing devices, through-the-scope and over-the-scope clips, sealants, and fistula plugs can be used to treat fistulae. These therapies are even more effective in combination. Despite the inherent challenges in patients with fistulae, endoscopic therapies for treatment of fistulae have demonstrated safety and efficacy, allowing many patients to avoid surgical fistula repair. In this paper, we review the emerging role of endoscopy in the management of gastrointestinal fistulae.

Determination of the relationship between gastric wall thickness and body mass index with endoscopic ultrasound.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between gastric wall thickness and BMI. METHODS: Bariatric surgery patients undergoing a pre-operative screening EGD and patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasound for non-gastric pathology were prospectively enrolled in the study. Patients underwent endoscopic ultrasound evaluation with measurements of gastric wall thickness at six areas of the stomach. The primary outcome was the correlation of BMI and mean gastric wall thickness. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were enrolled in the study. Eight patients were excluded due to endoscopic abnormalities of the stomach (five) or intolerance to the procedure (three). Ten patients with a normal BMI and six obese patients were included in the analysis. BMI in the non-obese group was 23.8 ± 2.5 kg/m(2) compared to 54.7 ± 14.6 kg/m(2) in the obese population. The average gastric wall thickness amongst all subjects was 3.27 ± 0.42 mm. Mean gastric thickness in the non-obese group was 3.25 ± 0.45 mm compared to 3.30 ± 0.39 mm in the obese group (p = 0.41). When both groups were combined, there did not appear to be a linear relationship between mean thickness and BMI (R (2) = 0.005). There was no linear relationship between gastric wall thickness and waist circumference (R (2) = 0.02). CONCLUSION: There was no significant correlation between gastric wall thickness and BMI. Mean gastric wall thickness of endoscopically normal stomachs was in the range of 3-4 mm.