RESUMO
This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic masses. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses needle selection (fine-needle biopsy [FNB] needle vs FNA needle), needle caliber (22-gauge vs 25-gauge needles), FNB needle type (novel or contemporary [fork-tip and Franseen] vs alternative FNB needle designs), and sample processing (rapid on-site evaluation [ROSE] vs no ROSE). In addition, this guideline addresses stent selection (self-expandable metal stent [SEMS] vs plastic stent), SEMS type (covered [cSEMS] vs uncovered [uSEMS]), and pain management (celiac plexus neurolysis [CPN] vs medical analgesic therapy). In patients with solid pancreatic masses undergoing EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA), the ASGE recommends FNB needles over FNA needles. With regard to needle caliber, the ASGE suggests 22-gauge over 25-gauge needles. When an FNB needle is used, the ASGE recommends using either a fork-tip or a Franseen needle over alternative FNB needle designs. After a sample has been obtained, the ASGE suggests against the routine use of ROSE in patients undergoing an initial EUS-TA of a solid pancreatic mass. In patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction undergoing drainage with ERCP, the ASGE suggests using SEMSs over plastic stents. In patients with proven malignancy undergoing SEMS placement, the ASGE suggests using cSEMSs over uSEMSs. If malignancy has not been histopathologically confirmed, the ASGE recommends against the use of uSEMSs. Finally, in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer and abdominal pain, the ASGE suggests the use of CPN as an adjunct for the treatment of abdominal pain. This document outlines the process, analyses, and decision approaches used to reach the final recommendations and represents the official ASGE recommendations on the above topics.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To determine if mild-moderate hypertriglyceridemia (HTG) is associated with increased development of chronic pancreatitis (CP) or pancreatitis-associated complications in children with acute recurrent or CP. STUDY DESIGN: Longitudinal data from the INternational Study group of Pediatric Pancreatitis: In search for a cuRE-2 (INSPPIRE-2) cohort of children with acute recurrent or CP (n = 559) were analyzed. Subjects were divided into normal triglycerides (<150 mg/dL; 1.7 mmol/L), any HTG (≥150 mg/dL; ≥1.7 mmol/L), mild-moderate HTG (150-499 mg/dL; 1.7-5.6 mmol/L), moderate HTG (500-999 mg/dL; 5.6-11.3 mmol/L), and severe HTG groups (≥1000 mg/dL; ≥11.3 mmol/L), based on highest serum triglyceride value. Laboratory, imaging, pancreatitis and hospital events, complications, and quality of life data were analyzed. RESULTS: In children with acute recurrent or CP and HTG, there was no increase in the number of pancreatitis attacks per person-years, nor an increase in CP prevalence. However, HTG severity was associated with increased pancreatic inflammation, pancreatic cysts, pain, hospital days, number of hospitalizations, intensive care, and missed school days. CONCLUSIONS: Mild-moderate HTG in children with acute recurrent or CP was not associated with increased pancreatitis frequency, nor increased development of CP, but was associated with increased pancreatitis complications and disease burden. As a treatable condition, treatment of mild-moderate HTG may be considered to reduce pancreatitis-associated complications and medical burden in children with acute recurrent or CP.
RESUMO
This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for the role of endoscopy in the management of chronic pancreatitis (CP). This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses effectiveness of endoscopic therapies for the management of pain in CP, including celiac plexus block, endoscopic management of pancreatic duct (PD) stones and strictures, and adverse events such as benign biliary strictures (BBSs) and pseudocysts. In patients with painful CP and an obstructed PD, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation in patients without contraindication to surgery before initiation of endoscopic management. In patients who have contraindications to surgery or who prefer a less-invasive approach, the ASGE suggests an endoscopic approach as the initial treatment over surgery, if complete ductal clearance is likely. When a decision is made to proceed with a celiac plexus block, the ASGE suggests an EUS-guided approach over a percutaneous approach. The ASGE suggests indications for when to consider ERCP alone or with pancreatoscopy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy alone or followed by ERCP for treating obstructing PD stones based on size, location, and radiopacity. For the initial management of PD strictures, the ASGE suggests using a single plastic stent of the largest caliber that is feasible. For symptomatic BBSs caused by CP, the ASGE suggests the use of covered metal stents over multiple plastic stents. For symptomatic pseudocysts, the ASGE suggests endoscopic therapy over surgery. This document clearly outlines the process, analyses, and decision processes used to reach the final recommendations and represents the official ASGE recommendations on the above topics.
Assuntos
Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica , Endossonografia , Bloqueio Nervoso , Pancreatite Crônica , Humanos , Pancreatite Crônica/terapia , Pancreatite Crônica/complicações , Pancreatite Crônica/diagnóstico por imagem , Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica/métodos , Constrição Patológica/terapia , Bloqueio Nervoso/métodos , Litotripsia/métodos , Ductos Pancreáticos/diagnóstico por imagem , Pseudocisto Pancreático/terapia , Pseudocisto Pancreático/diagnóstico por imagem , Plexo Celíaco/diagnóstico por imagem , Stents , Cálculos/terapia , Cálculos/diagnóstico por imagem , Colestase/terapia , Colestase/etiologia , Colestase/diagnóstico por imagem , Endoscopia Gastrointestinal/métodos , Endoscopia Gastrointestinal/normasRESUMO
This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for the role of therapeutic EUS in the management of biliary tract disorders. This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses the following: 1: The role of EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in resolving biliary obstruction in patients after failed ERCP. 2: The role of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy versus EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy in resolving distal malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP. 3: The role of EUS-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) versus laparoscopic-assisted ERCP and enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (E-ERCP) in resolving biliary obstruction in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) anatomy. 4: The role of EUS-BD versus E-ERCP and PTBD in resolving biliary obstruction in patients with surgically altered anatomy other than RYGB. 5: The role of EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) versus percutaneous gallbladder drainage and endoscopic transpapillary transcystic gallbladder drainage in resolving acute cholecystitis in patients who are not candidates for cholecystectomy.
RESUMO
This document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides a full description of the methodology used in the review of the evidence used to inform the final guidance outlined in the accompanying Summary and Recommendations document regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. This guideline used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation over endosic approaches.
Assuntos
Adenocarcinoma , Ressecção Endoscópica de Mucosa , Neoplasias Esofágicas , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas do Esôfago , Neoplasias Gástricas , Humanos , Adenocarcinoma/cirurgia , Adenocarcinoma/patologia , Ressecção Endoscópica de Mucosa/métodos , Endoscopia Gastrointestinal/métodos , Neoplasias Esofágicas/cirurgia , Neoplasias Esofágicas/patologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Neoplasias Gástricas/cirurgia , Neoplasias Gástricas/patologia , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. It is accompanied by the document subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well- or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, we suggest surgical evaluation over endoscopic approaches.
Assuntos
Adenocarcinoma , Ressecção Endoscópica de Mucosa , Neoplasias Esofágicas , Carcinoma de Células Escamosas do Esôfago , Neoplasias Gástricas , Humanos , Neoplasias Esofágicas/cirurgia , Neoplasias Esofágicas/patologia , Neoplasias Gástricas/cirurgia , Neoplasias Gástricas/patologia , Ressecção Endoscópica de Mucosa/métodos , Endoscopia Gastrointestinal , Adenocarcinoma/cirurgia , Adenocarcinoma/patologia , Resultado do Tratamento , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses the role of fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS in the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures. In the endoscopic workup of these patients, we suggest the use of fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling in addition to brush cytology over brush cytology alone, especially for hilar strictures. We suggest the use of cholangioscopic and EUS-guided biopsy sampling especially for patients who undergo nondiagnostic sampling, cholangioscopic biopsy sampling for nondistal strictures and EUS-guided biopsy sampling distal strictures or those with suspected spread to surrounding lymph nodes and other structures.
RESUMO
Biliary strictures of undetermined etiology pose a diagnostic challenge for endoscopists. Despite advances in technology, diagnosing malignancy in biliary strictures often requires multiple procedures. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to rigorously review and synthesize the available literature on strategies used to diagnose undetermined biliary strictures. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis of each diagnostic modality, including fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS-guided FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Committee provides this guideline on modalities used to diagnose biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document summarizes the methods used in the GRADE analysis to make recommendations, whereas the accompanying article subtitled "Summary and Recommendations" contains a concise summary of our findings and final recommendations.
RESUMO
This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach to strategies to prevent endoscopy-related injury (ERI) in GI endoscopists. It is accompanied by the article subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline estimates the rates, sites, and predictors of ERI. Additionally, it addresses the role of ergonomics training, microbreaks and macrobreaks, monitor and table positions, antifatigue mats, and use of ancillary devices in decreasing the risk of ERI. We recommend formal ergonomics education and neutral posture during the performance of endoscopy, achieved through adjustable monitor and optimal procedure table position, to reduce the risk of ERI. We suggest taking microbreaks and scheduled macrobreaks and using antifatigue mats during procedures to prevent ERI. We suggest the use of ancillary devices in those with risk factors predisposing them to ERI.
Assuntos
Endoscopia Gastrointestinal , Ergonomia , Humanos , Postura , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
Upskilling in ileocolonoscopy is an important aspect of pediatric endoscopic practice as it enables endoscopists to learn additional skills through education and training to improve outcomes. With the advent of technologies, endoscopy is continuously evolving. Many devices can be applied to improve endoscopy quality and ergonomics. In addition, techniques such as dynamic position change can be employed to increase procedural efficiency and completeness. Key to upskilling is enhancing endoscopists' cognitive, technical and nontechnical skills and the concept of "training the trainer" to ensure trainers have the requisite skills to teach endoscopy effectively. This chapter details aspects of upskilling pediatric ileocolonoscopy.
Assuntos
Competência Clínica , Colonoscopia , Humanos , Criança , Colonoscopia/educação , Endoscopia Gastrointestinal/métodosRESUMO
This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for strategies to manage biliary strictures in liver transplant recipients. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses the role of ERCP versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and covered self-expandable metal stents (cSEMSs) versus multiple plastic stents for therapy of post-transplant strictures, use of MRCP for diagnosing post-transplant biliary strictures, and administration of antibiotics versus no antibiotics during ERCP. In patients with post-transplant biliary strictures, we suggest ERCP as the initial intervention and cSEMSs as the preferred stent for extrahepatic strictures. In patients with unclear diagnoses or intermediate probability of a stricture, we suggest MRCP as the diagnostic modality. We suggest that antibiotics should be administered during ERCP when biliary drainage cannot be ensured.
Assuntos
Colestase , Transplante de Fígado , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Constrição Patológica/etiologia , Constrição Patológica/terapia , Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica , Transplante de Fígado/efeitos adversos , Colestase/etiologia , Colestase/cirurgia , Stents , Endoscopia GastrointestinalRESUMO
This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for strategies to manage biliary strictures in liver transplant recipients. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses the role of ERCP versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and covered self-expandable metal stents (cSEMSs) versus multiple plastic stents for therapy of strictures, use of MRCP for diagnosing post-transplant biliary strictures, and administration of antibiotics versus no antibiotics during ERCP. In patients with post-transplant biliary strictures, we suggest ERCP as the initial intervention and cSEMSs as the preferred stent. In patients with unclear diagnosis or intermediate probability of a stricture, we suggest MRCP as the diagnostic modality. We suggest that antibiotics should be administered during ERCP when biliary drainage cannot be assured.
Assuntos
Colestase , Transplante de Fígado , Humanos , Constrição Patológica/etiologia , Constrição Patológica/terapia , Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica/métodos , Transplante de Fígado/efeitos adversos , Colestase/etiologia , Colestase/cirurgia , Stents , Endoscopia GastrointestinalRESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopy-related musculoskeletal injuries (ERI) are increasingly prevalent in adult endoscopists; however, there are no studies that have evaluated ERI and ergonomic practices among pediatric gastroenterologists and trainees. We aimed to examine the prevalence, nature, and impact of musculoskeletal injuries in pediatric endoscopic practice and assess attitudes towards ergonomic training needs. METHODS: Pediatric gastroenterologists and trainees were surveyed to collect information on endoscopist and practice characteristics, the prevalence, nature, and impacts of ERI, ergonomics strategies employed in practice, previous ergonomics training, and perceptions of ergonomics training (elicited using a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) Likert scale). Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and bivariate analyses were conducted to explore correlates of ERI. RESULTS: Among 146 survey respondents, 50 (34.2%) were trainees and 96 (65.8%) were practicing endoscopists with a mean duration of endoscopic practice of 9.7 ± 9.4 years. Overall, 55.6% (n = 80/144) reported experiencing a musculoskeletal injury, with 34.7% (n = 50/144) reporting an injury attributable to endoscopy. Among those with ERI, the most common sites were the neck/upper back (44.0%), thumb (42.0%), hand/finger (38.0%), and lower back (36.0%). Women were more likely to experience ERI compared to men (43.4% vs. 23.4%; p = 0.013). Only 20.9% of participants had formal training in ergonomics. Respondents reported being motivated to implement practice changes to prevent ERI (4.41 ± 0.95) and perceived ergonomics training as important (4.37 ± 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric endoscopists, and particularly women, experience significant ERI; however, formal endoscopy ergonomics training is rare. Improved ergonomics training is needed for both practicing pediatric gastroenterologists and trainees.
Assuntos
Doenças Musculoesqueléticas , Doenças Profissionais , Traumatismos Ocupacionais , Masculino , Adulto , Humanos , Feminino , Criança , Doenças Profissionais/epidemiologia , Doenças Profissionais/etiologia , Doenças Profissionais/prevenção & controle , Doenças Musculoesqueléticas/epidemiologia , Doenças Musculoesqueléticas/etiologia , Doenças Musculoesqueléticas/prevenção & controle , Endoscopia Gastrointestinal/efeitos adversos , Ergonomia , Traumatismos Ocupacionais/epidemiologia , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosAssuntos
Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica , Pancreatite , Humanos , Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica/efeitos adversos , Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica/métodos , Endoscopia Gastrointestinal , Pancreatite/etiologia , Pancreatite/prevenção & controle , Fatores de Risco , Estados UnidosRESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: High-powered magnets were effectively removed from the US market by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in 2012 but returned in 2016 after federal court decisions. The United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit cited imprecise data among other reasons as justification for overturning CPSC protections. Since then, incidence of high-powered magnet exposure has increased markedly, but outcome data are limited. In this study, we aim to describe the epidemiology and outcomes in children seeking medical care for high-powered magnets after reintroduction to market. METHODS: This is a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of patients aged 0 to 21 years with a confirmed high-powered magnet exposure (ie, ingestion or insertion) at 25 children's hospitals in the United States between 2017 and 2019. RESULTS: Of 596 patients with high-powered magnet exposures identified, 362 (60.7%) were male and 566 (95%) were <14 years of age. Nearly all sought care for magnet ingestion (n = 574, 96.3%), whereas 17 patients (2.9%) presented for management of nasal or aural magnet foreign bodies, 4 (0.7%) for magnets in their genitourinary tract, and 1 patient (0.2%) had magnets in their respiratory tract. A total of 57 children (9.6%) had a life-threatening morbidity; 276 (46.3%) required an endoscopy, surgery, or both; and 332 (55.7%) required hospitalization. There was no reported mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being intended for use by those >14 years of age, high-powered magnets frequently cause morbidity and lead to high need for invasive intervention and hospitalization in children of all ages.
Assuntos
Corpos Estranhos , Imãs , Adolescente , Criança , Ingestão de Alimentos , Endoscopia Gastrointestinal , Feminino , Corpos Estranhos/epidemiologia , Corpos Estranhos/cirurgia , Hospitais Pediátricos , Humanos , Imãs/efeitos adversos , Masculino , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologiaRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has drastically altered endoscopic practices. We initially reported the international impact of COVID-19 on pediatric endoscopic practice. This follow-up study aimed to assess changes 7âmonths following the initial survey to delineate practice change patterns as the pandemic evolved. METHODS: Pediatric gastroenterologists who responded to the initial survey were re-surveyed seven months later using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). The survey recorded information on changes in pediatric endoscopic practice patterns, including COVID-19 screening and testing processes and personal protective equipment (PPE) utilization. Additionally, endoscopists' risk tolerance of COVID-19 transmission was evaluated. RESULTS: Seventy-five unique institutions from 21 countries completed surveys from the 145 initial responses (51.7% response rate). Procedural volumes increased at most institutions (70.7%) and most were performing previously postponed cases (90.7%). Ninety-seven percent of institutions were performing pre-endoscopy screening with 78.7% testing all patients. Many institutions (34.7%) have performed procedures on COVID-19 positive patients. There was significantly less PPE reuse (Pâ <â0.05) and fewer institutions recommending full PPE for all endoscopies (43.2% vs 59.2%, Pâ=â0.013). Overall, pediatric endoscopists' risk tolerance of COVID-19 transmission is low. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first survey to highlight the evolution of pediatric endoscopic practices related to the COVID-19 pandemic, underscoring the need for ongoing pandemic-related guidance for pediatric endoscopic practice.