International Consensus Recommendations for Safe Use of LAMS for On- and Off-Label Indications Using a Modified Delphi Process.

INTRODUCTION: The study aimed to develop international consensus recommendations on the safe use of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) for on- and off-label indications. METHODS: Based on the available literature, statements were formulated and grouped into the following categories: general safety measures, peripancreatic fluid collections, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-biliary drainage, EUS-gallbladder drainage, EUS-gastroenterostomy, and gastric access temporary for endoscopy. The evidence level of each statement was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.International LAMS experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi process. When no 80% consensus was reached, the statement was modified based on expert feedback. Statements were rejected if no consensus was reached after the third Delphi round. RESULTS: Fifty-six (93.3%) of 60 formulated statements were accepted, of which 35 (58.3%) in the first round. Consensus was reached on the optimal learning path, preprocedural imaging, the need for airway protection and essential safety measures during the procedure, such as the use of Doppler, and measurement of the distance between the gastrointestinal lumen and the target structure. Specific consensus recommendations were generated for the different LAMS indications, covering, among others, careful patient selection, the preferred size of the LAMS, the need for antibiotics, the preferred anatomic location of the LAMS, the need for coaxial pigtail placement, and the appropriate management of LAMS-related adverse events. DISCUSSION: Through a modified international Delphi process, we developed general and indication-specific experience- and evidence-based recommendations on the safe use of LAMS.

Training in basic gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement.

This ESGE Position Statement provides structured and evidence-based guidance on the essential requirements and processes involved in training in basic gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. The document outlines definitions; competencies required, and means to their assessment and maintenance; the structure and requirements of training programs; patient safety and medicolegal issues. 1: ESGE and ESGENA define basic endoscopic procedures as those procedures that are commonly indicated, generally accessible, and expected to be mastered (technically and cognitively) by the end of any core training program in gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2: ESGE and ESGENA consider the following as basic endoscopic procedures: diagnostic upper and lower GI endoscopy, as well as a limited range of interventions such as: tissue acquisition via cold biopsy forceps, polypectomy for lesions ≤ 10 mm, hemostasis techniques, enteral feeding tube placement, foreign body retrieval, dilation of simple esophageal strictures, and India ink tattooing of lesion location. 3: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that training in GI endoscopy should be subject to stringent formal requirements that ensure all ESGE key performance indicators (KPIs) are met. 4: Training in basic endoscopic procedures is a complex process and includes the development and acquisition of cognitive, technical/motor, and integrative skills. Therefore, ESGE and ESGENA recommend the use of validated tools to track the development of skills and assess competence. 5: ESGE and ESGENA recommend incorporating a multimodal approach to evaluating competence in basic GI endoscopic procedures, including procedural thresholds and the measurement and documentation of established ESGE KPIs. 7: ESGE and ESGENA recommend the continuous monitoring of ESGE KPIs during GI endoscopy training to ensure the trainee's maintenance of competence. 9: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy training units fulfil the ESGE KPIs for endoscopy units and, furthermore, be capable of providing the dedicated personnel, infrastructure, and sufficient case volume required for successful training within a structured training program. 10: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that trainers in basic GI endoscopic procedures should be endoscopists with formal educational training in the teaching of endoscopy, which allows them to successfully and safely teach trainees.

Single-session endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with a dedicated over-the-scope fixation device: Feasibility study (with video).

OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP; EDGE) is proposed as a less invasive alternative to laparoscopy-assisted ERCP. However, postponing ERCP for 1-2 weeks to reduce the risk of lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) migration may not be practical in urgent cases such as cholangitis, leading to increased procedural burden. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of a single-session EDGE utilizing a dedicated over-the-scope fixation device. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from three referral centers was performed, including consecutive single-session EDGE procedures with the Stentfix device, utilizing only 20 × 10 mm LAMS. The primary outcome was LAMS migration, and key secondary outcomes included adverse events and technical success. RESULTS: Twenty patients (mean age 59 [standard deviation (SD) ± 11.3] years, 65.0% female) with a predominantly classic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass history (90.0%, mini-bypass 10.0%) underwent ERCP for indications such as common bile duct stones (60.0%), cholangitis (25.0%), or biliary pancreatitis (15.0%). No LAMS migration occurred, and technical success was achieved in 95.0%. Over a median follow-up of 102 days (interquartile range [IQR] 24.8-182), two adverse events were reported (10.0%), comprising postprocedural pain (grade I) and post-ERCP pancreatitis (grade II). CONCLUSION: While acknowledging potential contributions from LAMS orientation and stent caliber, our data suggest that utilizing a dedicated over-the-scope stent fixation device may effectively prevent LAMS migration during single-session EDGE without the need for endoscopic suturing.

Managing dysfunctions and reinterventions in endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy with lumen apposing metal stents: Illustrated technical review (with videos).

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) with lumen apposing metal stent is emerging both as a rescue strategy and a primary treatment for distal malignant biliary obstruction. The large-scale diffusion of the procedure and improved overall survival of patients with pancreatobiliary neoplasms is resulting in a growing population of long-term EUS-CDS lumen apposing metal stent carriers. Recent studies have reported a need for reintervention during follow-up as high as 55%, and the Leuven-Amsterdam-Milan Study Group classification has been developed, identifying five mechanisms of stent dysfunction and 11 possible rescue strategies aimed at restoring biliary drainage. This illustrated technical review aims to further dissect the recent classification through a comprehensive analysis of nine illustrative cases, offering insights into the pathophysiology underlying dysfunction and clinical reasoning behind rescue interventions, as well as technical considerations and practical tips and tricks. By exploring mechanisms of dysfunction, this review also assists clinicians in selecting the ideal candidates for EUS-CDS while identifying patients deemed high risk for dysfunction or clinical failure.

EUS-guided gastroenterostomy for management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a prospective cohort study with matched comparison with enteral stenting.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Retrospective studies on malignant gastric outlet obstruction (mGOO) highlighted several advantages of EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) over enteral stenting (ES). However, no prospective evidence is available. The aim of this study was to report on clinical outcomes of EUS-GE in a prospective cohort study, with a subgroup comparison versus ES. METHODS: All consecutive patients endoscopically treated for mGOO between December 2020 and December 2022 in a tertiary, academic center were enrolled in a prospective registry (Prospective Registry of Therapeutic Endoscopic Ultrasound [PROTECT]; NCT04813055) and followed up every 30 days to register efficacy/safety outcomes. EUS-GE and ES cohorts were matched according to baseline frailty and oncologic disease. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were treated for mGOO during the study; 70 (58.6% male subjects; median age, 64 [interquartile range, 58-73] years; 75.7% pancreatic cancer, 60.0% metastatic cancer) underwent EUS-GE via the wireless simplified technique. Technical success was 97.1% and clinical success was 97.1% after a median of 1.5 (interquartile range, 1-2) days. Adverse events occurred in 9 (12.9%) patients. After a median follow-up of 105 (49-187) days, symptom recurrence was 7.6%. In the matched comparison versus ES (28 patients per arm), EUS-GE-treated patients experienced higher and faster clinical success (100% vs 75.0%, P = .006), reduced recurrences (3.7% vs 33.3%, P = .02), and a trend toward shorter time to chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In this first, prospective, single-center comparison, EUS-GE showed excellent efficacy in treating mGOO, with an acceptable safety profile and long-term patency, and several clinically significant advantages over ES. While awaiting randomized trials, these results might endorse EUS-GE as first-line strategy for mGOO, where adequate expertise is available.

Same-session double EUS-guided bypass versus surgical gastroenterostomy and hepaticojejunostomy: an international multicenter comparison.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Gastric outlet and biliary obstruction are common manifestations of GI malignancies and some benign diseases for which standard treatment would be surgical gastroenterostomy and hepaticojejunostomy (ie, "double bypass"). Therapeutic EUS has allowed for the creation of an EUS-guided double bypass. However, same-session double EUS-guided bypass has only been described in small proof-of-concept series and lacks a comparison with surgical double bypass. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter analysis was performed of all consecutive same-session double EUS-guided bypass procedures performed in 5 academic centers. Surgical comparators were extracted from these centers' databases from the same time interval. Efficacy, safety, hospital stay, nutrition and chemotherapy resumption, long-term patency, and survival were compared. RESULTS: Of 154 identified patients, 53 (34.4%) received treatment with EUS and 101 (65.6%) with surgery. At baseline, patients undergoing EUS exhibited higher American Society of Anesthesiologists scores and a higher median Charlson Comorbidity Index (9.0 [interquartile range {IQR}, 7.0-10.0] vs 7.0 [IQR, 5.0-9.0], P < .001). Technical success (96.2% vs 100%, P = .117) and clinical success rates (90.6% vs 82.2%, P = .234) were similar when comparing EUS and surgery. Overall (11.3% vs 34.7%, P = .002) and severe adverse events (3.8% vs 19.8%, P = .007) occurred more frequently in the surgical group. In the EUS group, median time to oral intake (0 days [IQR, 0-1] vs 6 days [IQR, 3-7], P < .001) and hospital stay (4.0 days [IQR, 3-9] vs 13 days [IQR, 9-22], P < .001) were significantly shorter. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being used in a patient population with more comorbidities, same-session double EUS-guided bypass achieved similar technical and clinical success and was associated with fewer overall and severe adverse events when compared with surgical gastroenterostomy and hepaticojejunostomy.

A simple clinical score to stratify the risk of procedure-related adverse events in ERCP procedures with trainee involvement.

BACKGROUND : Optimal training strategies in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remain controversial despite the shift toward competence-based training models, with limited data available on patient safety during training. We aimed to assess whether pre-procedural clinical predictors could identify patients at low risk of developing procedure-related adverse-events (AEs) in a training environment. METHODS : We performed a prospective, multicenter, cohort study in five training centers. A data collection system documenting indication, clinical data, trainee performance (assessed using a validated competence assessment tool), technical outcomes, and AEs over a 30-day follow-up was utilized. We developed a clinical risk score (Trainee Involvement in ERCP Risk Score [TIERS]) for patients undergoing ERCP and compared the rate of AEs in a training environment between low-risk and high-risk groups. The association between trainee performance and AE rate was also evaluated. RESULTS : 1283 ERCPs (409 [31.9 %, 95 %CI 29.3 %-34.4 %] with trainee involvement) performed by 11 trainers and 10 trainees were analyzed. AEs were more frequent in the high-risk compared with the low-risk group: 26.7 % (95 %CI 20.5 %-34.7 %) vs. 17.1 % (95 %CI 12.8 %-22.2 %). TIERS demonstrated a high negative predictive value for AEs (82.9 %, 95 %CI 79.4 %-85.8 %) and was the only predictor of AEs on multivariable analysis (odds ratio 1.38, 95 %CI 1.09-1.75). Suboptimal trainee performance was associated with an increase in AE rates. CONCLUSION : Simple, clinical-based predictive tools could improve ERCP training by selecting the most appropriate cases for hands-on training, with the aim of increasing patient safety.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrointestinal anastomosis: Current status and future perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: Both clinical experience and supporting data have improved drastically in the context of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrointestinal anastomosis (EUS-GIA). Where outcomes used to be questioned, focus has now moved towards performing comparative studies, optimizing technical approaches, improving patient selection, and developing well-defined treatment algorithms. METHODS: The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of technical developments within EUS-GIA and to discuss the current status of EUS-GIA and future directions. RESULTS: EUS-GIA techniques such as EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), EUS-directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (EDGE) and EUS-guided treatment afferent loop syndrome have undergone further development, refining technical approaches, improving patient selection and subsequent outcomes. Retrospective evaluations of EUS-GE have shown similar safety when compared to enteral stenting, whilst attaining surgical range efficacy. Whereas, in patients with gastric bypass anatomy, EDGE seems less cumbersome and time consuming than enteroscopy-assisted ERCP, while preventing surgical morbidity associated with laparoscopy-assisted ERCP. Although less evidence is available on EUS-guided treatment of afferent loop syndrome, this technique has been associated with higher clinical success and fewer reinterventions and adverse events when compared to enteral stenting and percutaneous drainage, respectively. Several randomized studies are currently underway evaluating EUS-GE in malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), whereas more prospective data are still required on EDGE and long-term fistula management. CONCLUSION: EUS-GIA has become a crucial alternative to established techniques, overcoming technical limitations and subsequently improving patient outcomes. Although we should focus on prospective confirmation of these results in the context of GOO and EDGE, the current evidence already allows for a prominent role for EUS-GIA in our everyday practice.

Classification, risk factors, and management of lumen apposing metal stent dysfunction during follow-up of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy: Multicenter evaluation from the Leuven-Amsterdam-Milan Study Group.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) performed with lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) have been poorly evaluated in small or retrospective series, leading to an underestimation of LAMS dysfunction. METHODS: All consecutive EUS-CDS performed in three academic referral centers were included in prospectively maintained databases. Technical/clinical success, adverse events (AEs), and dysfunction during follow-up were retrospectively analyzed. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate dysfunction-free survival (DFS), with Cox proportional hazard regression to evaluate independent predictors of dysfunction. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients were included (male 56%; mean age, 70 years [95% confidence interval (CI) 68-72]; pancreatic cancer 81%, metastatic disease 47%). In 67% of procedures, 6 mm LAMS were used. Technical and clinical success were achieved in 97.8% and 93.4% of patients, respectively, with AEs occurring in 9.7% (78% mild/moderate). Dysfunction occurred in 31.8% of patients after a mean of 166 days (95% CI 91-241), with an estimated 6 month and 12 month DFS of 75% and 52%, respectively; mean DFS of 394 (95% CI 307-482) days. Almost all dysfunctions (96%) were successfully managed by endoscopic reintervention. Duodenal invasion (hazard ratio 2.7 [95% CI 1.1-6.8]) was the only independent predictor of dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy shows excellent initial efficacy and safety, although stent dysfunctions occurs frequently during long-term follow-up. Almost all stent dysfunctions can be managed successfully by endoscopic reinterventions. We propose a comprehensive classification of the different types of dysfunction that may be encountered and rescue procedures that may be employed under these circumstances. Duodenal invasion seems to increase the risk of developing EUS-CDS dysfunction, potentially representing a relative contraindication for this technique.

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.

Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE recommends the use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) over percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in malignant distal biliary obstruction when local expertise is available.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests EUS-BD with hepaticogastrostomy only for malignant inoperable hilar biliary obstruction with a dilated left hepatic duct when inadequately drained by ERCP and/or PTBD in high volume expert centers.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be considered in symptomatic patients with an obstructed PD when retrograde endoscopic intervention fails or is not possible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends rendezvous EUS techniques over transmural PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy owing to its lower rate of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that, in patients at high surgical risk, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (GBD) should be favored over percutaneous gallbladder drainage where both techniques are available, owing to the lower rates of adverse events and need for re-interventions in EUS-GBD.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6: ESGE recommends EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), in an expert setting, for malignant gastric outlet obstruction, as an alternative to enteral stenting or surgery.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends that EUS-GE may be considered in the management of afferent loop syndrome, especially in the setting of malignancy or in poor surgical candidates. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests that endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) can be offered, in expert centers, to patients with a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass following multidisciplinary decision-making, with the aim of overcoming the invasiveness of laparoscopy-assisted ERCP and the limitations of enteroscopy-assisted ERCP.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review.

1: ESGE recommends a prolonged course of a prophylactic broad-spectrum antibiotic in patients with ascites who are undergoing therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents during EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy for biliary drainage in malignant disease.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be performed in high volume expert centers, owing to the complexity of this technique and the high risk of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends a stepwise approach to EUS-guided PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy, starting with rendezvous-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (RV-ERP), followed by antegrade or transmural drainage only when RV-ERP fails or is not feasible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests performing transduodenal EUS-guided gallbladder drainage with a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS), rather than using the transgastric route, as this may reduce the risk of stent dysfunction.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends using saline instillation for small-bowel distension during EUS-guided gastroenterostomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends the use of saline instillation with a 19G needle and an electrocautery-enhanced LAMS for EUS-directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (EDGE) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends the use of either 15- or 20-mm LAMSs for EDGE, with a preference for 20-mm LAMSs when considering a same-session ERCP.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy versus duodenal stenting for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: an international, multicenter, propensity score-matched comparison.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic duodenal stenting is the current standard treatment for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) in patients with limited life expectancy. However, duodenal stenting is prone to stent dysfunction. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel technique with potentially superior stent patency. We compared clinical success, safety, and stent dysfunction of EUS-GE and duodenal stenting in patients with malignant GOO using propensity score matching. METHODS: This international, multicenter, retrospective study analyzed consecutive patients undergoing EUS-GE or duodenal stenting for GOO between 2015 and 2021 in three European centers. Primary outcomes were clinical success (GOO scoring system [GOOSS] ≥ 2) and stent dysfunction (GOOSS ≤ 1 after initial clinical success). A propensity score matching (1:1) analysis was performed using age, sex, underlying disease, disease stage, ascites, and peritoneal carcinomatosis as variables. RESULTS: 214 patients underwent EUS-GE (n = 107) or duodenal stenting (n = 107). After propensity score matching, 176 patients were matched and compared. Technical success rates for EUS-GE and duodenal stenting were 94 % (95 %CI 89 %-99 %) vs. 98 % (95 %CI 95 %-100 %), respectively (P = 0.44). Clinical success rates were 91 % (95 %CI 85 %-97 %) vs. 75 % (95 %CI 66 %-84 %; P = 0.008). Stent dysfunction occurred in 1 % (95 %CI 0-4 %) vs. 26 % (95 %CI 15 %-37 %) of patients (P < 0.001). Adverse event rate was 10 % (95 %CI 4 %-17 %) vs. 21 % (95 %CI 12 %-29 %; P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: EUS-GE had higher clinical success and lower stent dysfunction, with similar safety, compared with duodenal stenting, suggesting that EUS-GE may be preferred over duodenal stenting in patients with malignant GOO.

EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy for patients with afferent loop syndrome: a comparison with EUS-guided gastroenterostomy or percutaneous drainage.

OBJECTIVES: Where palliative surgery or percutaneous drainage used to be the only option in patients with afferent loop syndrome, endoscopic management by EUS-guided gastroenterostomy has been gaining ground. However, EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy might also provide sufficient biliary drainage. Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy for the management of afferent loop syndrome and provide comparative data on the different approaches. METHODS: The institutional databases were queried for all consecutive minimally invasive procedures for afferent loop syndrome. A retrospective, dual-centre analysis was performed, separately analysing EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy, EUS-guided gastroenterostomy and percutaneous drainage. Efficacy, safety, need for re-intervention, hospital stay and overall survival were compared. RESULTS: In total, 17 patients were included (mean age 59 years (± SD 10.5), 23.5% female). Six patients, which were ineligible for EUS-guided gastroenterostomy, were treated with EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy. EUS-guided gastroenterostomy and percutaneous drainage were performed in 6 and 5 patients respectively. Clinical success was achieved in all EUS-treated patients, versus 80% in the percutaneous drainage group (p = 0.455). Furthermore, higher rates of bilirubin decrease were seen among patients undergoing EUS: > 25% bilirubin decrease in 10 vs. 1 patient(s) in the percutaneously drained group (p = 0.028), with > 50% and > 75% decrease identified only in the EUS group. Using the ASGE lexicon for adverse event grading, adverse events occurred only in patients treated with percutaneous drainage (60%, p = 0.015). And last, the median number of re-interventions was significantly lower in patients undergoing EUS (0 (IQR 0.0-1.0) vs. 1 (0.5-2.5), p = 0.045) when compared to percutaneous drainage. CONCLUSIONS: In the management of afferent loop syndrome, EUS seems to outperform percutaneous drainage. Moreover, in our cohort, EUS-guided gastroenterostomy and hepaticogastrostomy provided similar outcomes, suggesting EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy as the salvage procedure in situations where EUS-guided gastroenterostomy is not feasible or has failed.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage using lumen-apposing metal stent of malignant afferent limb syndrome in patients with previous Whipple surgery: Multicenter study (with video).

OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided digestive anastomosis (EUS-A) is a new alternative under evaluation in patients presenting with afferent limb syndrome (ALS) after Whipple surgery. The aim of the present study is to analyze the safety and effectiveness of EUS-A in ALS. METHODS: This is an observational multicenter study. All patients ≥18 years old with previous Whipple surgery presenting with ALS who underwent an EUS-A using a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) between 2015 and 2021 were included. The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as resolution of the ALS or ALS-related cholangitis. Furthermore, technical success, adverse event rate, and mortality were evaluated. RESULTS: Forty-five patients (mean age: 65.5 ± 10.2 years; 44.4% male) were included. The most common underlying disease was pancreatic cancer (68.9%). EUS-A was performed at a median of 6 weeks after local tumor recurrence. The most common approach used was the direct/freehand technique (66.7%). Technical success was achieved in 95.6%, with no differences between large (≥15 mm) and small LAMS (97.4% vs. 100%, P = 0.664). Clinical success was retained in 91.1% of patients. A complementary treatment by dilation of the stent followed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography through the LAMS was performed in three cases (6.7%). There were six recurrent episodes of cholangitis (14.6%) and two procedure-related adverse events (4.4%) after a median follow-up of 4 months. Twenty-six patients (57.8%) died during the follow-up due to disease progression. CONCLUSION: EUS-A is a safe and effective technique in the treatment of malignant ALS, achieving high clinical success with an acceptable recurrence rate.

Laparoscopic versus EUS-guided gastroenterostomy for gastric outlet obstruction: an international multicenter propensity score-matched comparison (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the management of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) seems to be safe and more effective than enteral stent placement. However, comparisons with laparoscopic GE (L-GE) are scarce. Our aim was to perform a propensity score-matched comparison between EUS-GE and L-GE. METHODS: An international, multicenter, retrospective analysis was performed of consecutive EUS-GE and L-GE procedures in 3 academic centers (January 2015 to May 2020) using propensity score matching to minimize selection bias. A standard maximum propensity score difference of .1 was applied, also considering underlying disease and oncologic staging. RESULTS: Overall, 77 patients were treated with EUS-GE and 48 patients with L-GE. By means of propensity score matching, 37 patients were allocated to both groups, resulting in 74 (1:1) matched patients. Technical success was achieved in 35 of 37 EUS-GE-treated patients (94.6%) versus 100% in the L-GE group (P = .493). Clinical success, defined as eating without vomiting or GOO Scoring System ≥2, was achieved in 97.1% and 89.2%, respectively (P = .358). Median time to oral intake (1 [interquartile range {IQR}, .3-1.0] vs 3 [IQR, 1.0-5.0] days, P < .001) and median hospital stay (4 [IQR, 2-8] vs 8 [IQR, 5.5-20] days, P < .001) were significantly shorter in the EUS-GE group. Overall (2.7% vs 27.0%, P = .007) and severe (.0% vs 16.2%, P = .025) adverse events were identified more frequently in the L-GE group. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with GOO, EUS-GE and L-GE showed almost identical technical and clinical success. However, reduced time to oral intake, shorter median hospital stay, and lower rate of adverse events suggest that the EUS-guided approach might be preferable.