Impact of linked color imaging on the proximal adenoma miss rate: a multicenter tandem randomized controlled trial (the COCORICO trial).

BACKGROUND: Missed lesions are common during standard colonoscopy and are correlated with post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Contrast-enhanced technologies have recently been developed to improve polyp detection. We aimed to evaluate the impact of linked color imaging (LCI) on the proximal adenoma miss rate in routine colonoscopy. METHODS: This national, multicenter, tandem, randomized trial compared the outcomes of colonoscopy with white-light imaging (WLI) versus LCI for polyp detection in the right colon. Two consecutive examinations of the right colon (upstream of the hepatic flexure) were made with WLI and LCI by the same operator. First-pass examination by WLI or LCI was randomized 1:1 after cecal intubation. According to statistical calculations, 10 endoscopy units had to include approximately 700 patients. The primary outcome was proximal adenoma miss rate. Secondary outcomes were the proximal miss rates for sessile serrated lesions (SSL), advanced adenomas, and polyps. RESULTS: 764 patients were included from 1 January 2020 to 22 December 2022, and 686 patients were randomized (345 WLI first vs. 341 LCI first). Both groups were comparable in terms of demographics and indications. The proximal adenoma miss rate was not significantly higher in the WLI-first group (36.7%) vs. the LCI-first group (31.8%) (estimated mean absolute difference: 4.9% [95%CI -5.2% to 15.0%], P = 0.34). There was also no significant difference in miss rates for SSLs, advanced adenomas, and polyps in the proximal colon. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to previous data, this study does not support the benefit of LCI to the proximal adenoma miss rate in routine colonoscopy.

A computer-aided detection system in the everyday setting of diagnostic, screening, and surveillance colonoscopy: an international, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Computer-aided detection (CADe) has been developed to improve detection during colonoscopy. After initial reports of high efficacy, there has been an increasing recognition of variability in the effectiveness of CADe systems. The aim of this study was to evaluate a CADe system in a varied colonoscopy population. METHODS: A multicenter, randomized trial was conducted at seven hospitals (both university and non-university) in Europe and Canada. Participants referred for diagnostic, non-immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT) screening, or surveillance colonoscopy were randomized (1:1) to undergo CADe-assisted or conventional colonoscopy by experienced endoscopists. Participants with insufficient bowel preparation were excluded from the analysis. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes included adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) and sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) per colonoscopy. RESULTS: 581 participants were enrolled, of whom 497 were included in the final analysis: 250 in the CADe arm and 247 in the conventional colonoscopy arm. The indication was surveillance in 202/497 colonoscopies (40.6 %), diagnostic in 199/497 (40.0 %), and non-iFOBT screening in 96/497 (19.3 %). Overall, ADR (38.4 % vs. 37.7 %; P = 0.43) and APC (0.66 vs. 0.66; P = 0.97) were similar between CADe and conventional colonoscopy. SSLs per colonoscopy was increased (0.30 vs. 0.19; P = 0.049) in the CADe arm vs. the conventional colonoscopy arm. CONCLUSIONS: In this study conducted by experienced endoscopists, CADe did not result in a statistically significant increase in ADR. However, the ADR of our control group substantially surpassed our sample size assumptions, increasing the risk of an underpowered trial.

Surgical versus endoscopic gastroenterostomy for gastric outlet obstruction: a retrospective multicentric comparative study of technical and clinical success.

PURPOSE: Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is mainly due to advanced malignant disease. GOO can be treated by surgical gastroenterostomy (SGE), endoscopic enteral stenting (EES), or endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) to improve the quality of life. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2022, patients undergoing SGE or EUS-GE for GOO were included at three centers. Technical and clinical success rates, post-procedure adverse events (AEs), length of hospital stay (LOS), 30-day all-cause mortality, and recurrence of GOO were retrospectively analyzed and compared between SGE and EUS-GE. Predictive factors for technical and clinical failure after SGE and EUS-GE were identified. RESULTS: Of the 97 patients included, 56 (57.7%) had an EUS-GE and 41 (42.3%) had an SGE for GOO, with 62 (63.9%) GOO due to malignancy and 35 (36.1%) to benign disease. The median follow-up time was 13,4 months (range 1 days-106 months), with no difference between the two groups (p = 0.962). Technical (p = 0.133) and clinical (p = 0.229) success rates, severe morbidity (p = 0.708), 30-day all-cause mortality (p = 0.277) and GOO recurrence (p = 1) were similar. EUS-GE had shorter median procedure duration (p < 0.001), lower post-procedure ileus rate (p < 0.001), and shorter median LOS (p < 0.001) than SGE. In univariate analysis, no risk factors for technical or clinical failure in SGE were identified and abdominal pain reported before the procedure was a risk factor for technical failure in the EUS-GE group. No risk factor for clinical failure was identified for EUS-GE. In the subgroup of GOO due to benign disease, SGE was associated with better technical success (p = 0.035) with no difference in clinical success rate compared to EUS-GE (p = 1). CONCLUSION: EUS-GE provides similar long-lasting symptom relief as SGE for GOO whether for benign or malignant disease. SGE may still be indicated in centers with limited experience with EUS-GE or may be reserved for patients in whom endoscopic technique fails.

Risk factors for EUS-guided radiofrequency ablation adverse events in patients with pancreatic neoplasms: a large national French study (RAFPAN study).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) has been described as a potentially curative option for solid and cystic pancreatic neoplasms. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of pancreatic EUS-RFA in a large study population. METHODS: A retrospective study retrieving all consecutive patients who underwent pancreatic EUS-RFA during 2019 and 2020 in France was conducted. Indication, procedural characteristics, early and late adverse events (AEs), and clinical outcomes were recorded. Risk factors for AEs and factors related to complete tumor ablation were assessed on univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: One hundred patients (54% men, 64.8 ± 17.6 years old) affected by 104 neoplasms were included. Sixty-four neoplasms were neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs), 23 were metastases, and 10 were intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms with mural nodules. No procedure-related mortality was observed, and 22 AEs were reported. Proximity of pancreatic neoplasms (≤1 mm) to the main pancreatic duct was the only independent risk factor for AEs (odds ratio [OR), 4.10; 95% confidence interval [CI), 1.02-15.22; P = .04). Fifty-nine patients (60.2%) achieved a complete tumor response, 31 (31.6%) a partial response, and 9 (9.2%) achieved no response. On multivariate analysis, NENs (OR, 7.95; 95% CI, 1.66-51.79; P < .001) and neoplasm size <20 mm (OR, 5.26; 95% CI, 2.17-14.29; P < .001) were independently related to complete tumor ablation. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this large study confirm an overall acceptable safety profile for pancreatic EUS-RFA. Close proximity (≤1 mm) to the main pancreatic duct represents an independent risk factor for AEs. Good clinical outcomes in terms of tumor ablation were observed, especially for small NENs.

Multicenter randomized trial comparing diagnostic sensitivity and cellular abundance with aggressive versus standard biliary brushing for bile duct stenosis without mass syndrome.

BACKGROUND : The diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with a biliary stricture without mass syndrome can be obtained by biliary brushing with a sensitivity of ~50 %. We performed a multicenter randomized crossover trial comparing the aggressive Infinity brush with the standard RX Cytology Brush. The aims were to compare sensitivity for cholangiocarcinoma diagnosis and cellularity obtained. METHODS : Biliary brushing was performed consecutively with each brush, in a randomized order. Cytological material was studied with blinding to the brush type used and order. The primary end point was sensitivity for cholangiocarcinoma diagnosis; the secondary end point was the abundance of cellularity obtained with each brush, with cellularity quantified in order to determine if one brush strongly outperformed the other. RESULTS : 51 patients were included. Final diagnoses were cholangiocarcinoma (n = 43; 84 %), benign (n = 7; 14 %), and indeterminate (n = 1; 2 %). Sensitivity for cholangiocarcinoma was 79 % (34 /43) for the Infinity brush versus 67 % (29/43) for the RX Cytology Brush (P = 0.10). Cellularity was rich in 31/51 cases (61 %) with the Infinity brush and in 10/51 cases (20 %) with the RX Cytology Brush (P < 0.001). In terms of quantification of cellularity, the Infinity brush strongly outperformed the RX Cytology Brush in 28/51 cases (55 %), while the RX Cytology Brush strongly outperformed the Infinity brush in 4/51 cases (8 %; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS : This randomized crossover trial showed that the Infinity brush is not significantly more effective than the RX Cytology Brush for biliary stenosis without mass syndrome in terms of sensitivity for cholangiocarcinoma diagnosis, but does offer a significantly higher abundance of cellularity.

Endoscopic resection of early esophageal tumors in patients with cirrhosis or portal hypertension: a multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND: Liver cirrhosis and esophageal cancer share several risk factors, such as alcohol intake and excess weight. Endoscopic resection is the gold standard treatment for superficial tumors. Portal hypertension and coagulopathy may increase the bleeding risk in these patients. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of endoscopic resection for early esophageal neoplasia in patients with cirrhosis or portal hypertension. METHODS: This retrospective multicenter international study included consecutive patients with cirrhosis or portal hypertension who underwent endoscopic resection in the esophagus from January 2005 to March 2021. RESULTS: 134 lesions in 112 patients were treated, including by endoscopic submucosal dissection in 101 cases (75 %). Most lesions (128/134, 96 %) were in patients with liver cirrhosis, with esophageal varices in 71 procedures. To prevent bleeding, 7 patients received a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, 8 underwent endoscopic band ligation (EBL) before resection, 15 received vasoactive drugs, 8 received platelet transfusion, and 9 underwent EBL during the resection procedure. Rates of complete macroscopic resection, en bloc resection, and curative resection were 92 %, 86 %, and 63 %, respectively. Adverse events included 3 perforations, 8 delayed bleedings, 8 sepsis, 6 cirrhosis decompensations within 30 days, and 22 esophageal strictures; none required surgery. In univariate analysis, cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection was associated with delayed bleeding (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with liver cirrhosis or portal hypertension, endoscopic resection of early esophageal neoplasia appeared to be effective and should be considered in expert centers with choice of resection technique, following European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines to avoid undertreatment.

Use of endoscopic submucosal dissection or full-thickness resection device to treat residual colorectal neoplasia after endoscopic resection: a multicenter historical cohort study.

INTRODUCTION : Residual colorectal neoplasia (RCN) after previous endoscopic mucosal resection is a frequent challenge. Different management techniques are feasible including endoscopic full-thickness resection using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) system and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of these two techniques for the treatment of such lesions. METHODS : All consecutive patients with RCN treated either using the FTRD or by ESD were retrospectively included in this multicenter study. The primary outcome was the R0 resection rate, defined as an en bloc resection with histologically tumor-free lateral and deep margins. RESULTS : 275 patients (median age 70 years; 160 men) who underwent 177 ESD and 98 FTRD procedures for RCN were included. R0 resection was achieved in 83.3 % and 77.6 % for ESD and FTRD, respectively (P = 0.25). Lesions treated by ESD were however larger than those treated by FTRD (P < 0.001). The R0 rates for lesions of 20-30 mm were 83.9 % and 57.1 % in the ESD and FTRD groups, respectively, and for lesions of 30-40 mm were 93.6 % and 33.3 %, respectively. On multivariable analysis, ESD procedures were associated with statistically higher en bloc and R0 resection rates after adjustment for lesion size (P = 0.02 and P < 0.001, respectively). The adverse event rate was higher in the ESD group (16.3 % vs. 5.1 %), mostly owing to intraoperative perforations. CONCLUSION: ESD is effective in achieving R0 resection for RCN whatever the size and location of the lesions. When residual lesions are smaller than 20 mm, the FTRD is an effective alternative.

Impact of antibiotic prophylaxis and conditioning modalities in per-oral endoscopic myotomy for esophageal motor disorders.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: No recommendation regarding antibiotic prophylaxis and preparation modalities are available for patients with esophageal motor disorders who benefit from Per-Oral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM). The aim of our study was to evaluate their impact on the POEM's safety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was a comparative and multicentric retrospective analysis of a database prospectively collected. Patients over 18 years old with esophageal motor disorders confirmed by prior manometry, who underwent POEM were included. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of adverse events, as classified by Cotton, based on whether or not antibiotic prophylaxis was administered. RESULTS: A total of 226 patients (median age 52.9 ± 19.12 years [18-105], 116 women [51.3%]) were included. The indication for POEM was mainly type 2 achalasia (n = 135, 60.3%). Antibiotic prophylaxis was administered to 170 patients (75.2%) during 3.93 ± 3.46 days [1-21]. The overall adverse events rate was 9.3% (n = 21). Antibiotic prophylaxis was associated with the occurrence of adverse events (p = .003), but had no impact on their severity (p = .238). Antibiotic prophylaxis didn't influence the effectiveness of POEM (1 [0-4] vs 1 [0-9], p = .231). The use of a liquid diet in the 48 h prior to the procedure was significantly associated with a lower adverse events rate (3.1% vs 6.19%, p = .0002). CONCLUSION: The antibiotic prophylaxis during POEM does not prevent adverse events, had no impact on their severity and the efficacy of the procedure. A liquid diet before the procedure should be systematically proposed.

Evaluation of the performances of a single-use duodenoscope: Prospective multi-center national study.

OBJECTIVES: A single-use duodenoscope (SUD) has been recently developed to overcome issues with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related cross-infections. The aim was to evaluate SUD safety and performance in a prospective multi-centre study. METHODS: All consecutive patients undergoing ERCP in six French centers were prospectively enrolled. All procedures were performed with the SUD; in case of ERCP failure, operators switched to a reusable duodenoscope. Study outcomes were the successful completion of the procedure with SUD, safety and operators' satisfaction based on a VAS 0-10 and on 22 qualitative items. The study protocol was approved by French authorities and registered (ID-RCB: 2020-A00346-33). External companies collected the database and performed statistical analysis. RESULTS: Sixty patients (34 females, median age 65.5 years old) were enrolled. Main indications were bile duct stones (41.7%) and malignant biliary obstruction (26.7%). Most ERCP were considered ASGE grade 2 (58.3%) or 3 (35.0%). Fifty-seven (95.0%) procedures were completed using the SUD. Failures were unrelated to SUD (one duodenal stricture, one ampullary infiltration, and one tight biliary stricture) and could not be completed with reusable duodenoscopes. Median operators' satisfaction was 9 (7-9). Qualitative assessments were considered clinically satisfactory in a median of 100% of items and comparable to a reusable duodenoscope in 97.9% of items. Three patients (5%) reported an adverse event. None was SUD-related. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a SUD allows ERCP to be performed with an optimal successful rate. Our data show that SUD could be used for several ERCP indications and levels of complexity.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update.

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

Endoscopic radiofrequency ablation or surveillance in patients with Barrett's oesophagus with confirmed low-grade dysplasia: a multicentre randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: Due to an annual progression rate of Barrett's oesophagus (BO) with low-grade dysplasia (LGD) between 9% and 13% per year endoscopic ablation therapy is preferred to surveillance. Since this recommendation is based on only one randomised trial, we aimed at checking these results by another multicentre randomised trial with a similar design. DESIGN: A prospective randomised study was performed in 14 centres comparing radiofrequency ablation (RFA) (maximum of 4 sessions) to annual endoscopic surveillance, including patients with a confirmed diagnosis of BO with LGD. Primary outcome was the prevalence of LGD at 3 years. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of LGD at 1 year, the complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) at 3 years, the rate of neoplastic progression at 3 years and the treatment-related morbidity. RESULTS: 125 patients were initially included, of whom 82 with confirmed LGD (76 men, mean age 62.3 years) were finally randomised, 40 patients in the RFA and 42 in the surveillance group. At 3 years, CE-IM rates were 35% vs 0% in the RFA and surveillance groups, respectively (p<0.001). At the same time, the prevalence LGD was 34.3% (95% CI 18.6 to 50.0) in the RFA group vs 58.1% (95% CI 40.7 to 75.4) in the surveillance group (OR=0.38 (95% CI 0.14 to 1.02), p=0.05). Neoplastic progression was found in 12.5% (RFA) vs 26.2% (surveillance; p=0.15). The complication rate was maximal after the first RFA treatment (16.9%). CONCLUSION: RFA modestly reduced the prevalence of LGD as well as progression risk at 3 years. The risk-benefit balance of endoscopic ablation therapy should therefore be carefully weighted against surveillance in patients with BO with confirmed LGD. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01360541.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update.

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles, and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

One-year results of gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy for refractory gastroparesis: a French multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Data on the long-term outcomes of gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) for refractory gastroparesis are lacking. We report the results of a large multicenter long-term follow-up study of G-POEM for refractory gastroparesis. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicenter study of all G-POEM operations performed in seven expert French centers for refractory gastroparesis with at least 1 year of follow-up. The primary endpoint was the 1-year clinical success rate, defined as at least a 1-point improvement in the Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI). RESULTS: 76 patients were included (60.5 % women; age 56 years). The median symptom duration was 48 months. The median gastric retention at 4 hours (H4) before G-POEM was 45 % (interquartile range [IQR] 29 % - 67 %). The median GCSI before G-POEM was 3.6 (IQR 2.8 - 4.0). Clinical success was achieved in 65.8 % of the patients at 1 year, with a median rate of reduction in the GCSI score of 41 %. In logistic regression analysis, only a high preoperative GCSI satiety subscale score was predictive of clinical success (odds ratio [OR] 3.41, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.01 - 11.54; P = 0.048), while a high rate of gastric retention at H4 was significantly associated with clinical failure (OR 0.97, 95 %CI 0.95 - 1.00; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm the efficacy of G-POEM for the treatment of refractory gastroparesis, as evidenced by a 65.8 % clinical success rate at 1 year. Although G-POEM is promising, prospective sham-controlled trials are urgently needed to confirm its efficacy and identify the patient populations who will benefit most from this procedure.

Endoscopic management of ampullary tumors: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE recommends against diagnostic/therapeutic papillectomy when adenoma is not proven.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasound and abdominal magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for staging of ampullary tumors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends endoscopic papillectomy in patients with ampullary adenoma without intraductal extension, because of good results regarding outcome (technical and clinical success, morbidity, and recurrence).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends en bloc resection of ampullary adenomas up to 20-30 mm in diameter to achieve R0 resection, for optimizing the complete resection rate, providing optimal histopathology, and reduction of the recurrence rate after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests considering surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas when endoscopic resection is not feasible for technical reasons (e. g. diverticulum, size > 4 cm), and in the case of intraductal involvement (of > 20 mm). Surveillance thereafter is still mandatory.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends direct snare resection without submucosal injection for endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting to reduce the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends long-term monitoring of patients after endoscopic papillectomy or surgical ampullectomy, based on duodenoscopy with biopsies of the scar and of any abnormal area, within the first 3 months, at 6 and 12 months, and thereafter yearly for at least 5 years.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Endoscopic management of superficial nonampullary duodenal tumors: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE recommends that all duodenal adenomas should be considered for endoscopic resection as progression to invasive carcinoma is highly likely.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends performance of a colonoscopy, if that has not yet been done, in cases of duodenal adenoma.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends the use of the cap-assisted method when the location of the minor and/or major papilla and their relationship to a duodenal adenoma is not clearly established during forward-viewing endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends the routine use of a side-viewing endoscope when a laterally spreading adenoma with extension to the minor and/or major papilla is suspected.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests cold snare polypectomy for small (< 6 mm in size) nonmalignant duodenal adenomas.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) as the first-line endoscopic resection technique for nonmalignant large nonampullary duodenal adenomas.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends that endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for duodenal adenomas is an effective resection technique only in expert hands.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends using techniques that minimize adverse events such as immediate or delayed bleeding or perforation. These may include piecemeal resection, defect closure techniques, noncontact hemostasis, and other emerging techniques, and these should be considered on a case-by-case basis.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends endoscopic surveillance 3 months after the index treatment. In cases of no recurrence, a further follow-up endoscopy should be done 1 year later. Thereafter, surveillance intervals should be adapted to the lesion site, en bloc resection status, and initial histological result. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the pediatric population: a multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: The aims of this retrospective multicenter study were to assess the technical success and adverse events of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures in children in French and Belgian centers. METHODS: All children aged 1 day to 17 years who underwent ERCP between January 2008 and March 2019 in 15 tertiary care hospitals were retrospectively included. RESULTS: 271 children underwent 470 ERCP procedures. Clinical long-term follow-up was available for 72 % of our patients (340/470 procedures). The median age at intervention was 10.9 years. ERCP was therapeutic in 90 % (423/470) and diagnostic in cases of neonatal cholestasis in 10 % of the patients. The most common biliary indication was choledocholithiasis; the most common pancreatic indication was chronic pancreatitis. Biliary cannulation was successful in 92 % of cases (270/294); pancreatic cannulation in 96 % of cases (169/176); and planned therapeutic procedures in 92 % of cases (388/423). The overall complication rate was 19 % (65/340). The most common complication was post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in 12 % of cases (40/340) and sepsis in 5 % (18/340). On univariate analyses, pancreatic stent removal was protective against PEP (odds ratio [OR] 0.1, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.01 - 0.75; P = 0.03), and sepsis was associated with history of liver transplantation (OR 7.27, 95 %CI 1.7 - 31.05; P = 0.01). Five patients had post-ERCP hemorrhage and two had intestinal perforation. All complications were managed with supportive medical care. There was no procedure-related mortality. CONCLUSION: Our cohort demonstrates that ERCP can be performed safely with high success rates in many pancreaticobiliary diseases of children. The rate of adverse events was similar to that in previous reports.

International multicenter comprehensive analysis of adverse events associated with lumen-apposing metal stent placement for pancreatic fluid collection drainage.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: High rates of technical and clinical success were reported for lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) placement for peripancreatic fluid collection (PFC) drainage. However, data on the adverse event (AE) rates are heterogeneous. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence, severity, management, and risk factors of AEs related to the use of LAMSs for drainage of PFCs in a large cohort of patients. METHODS: This is a multicenter, international, retrospective review from 15 centers of all patients who underwent placement of LAMSs for the management of PFCs. A nested case-control study was conducted in patients with (case) or without (control) AEs. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-three procedures in 328 patients were performed (5 patients treated with 2 LAMSs). Technical success was achieved in 321 patients (97.9%). Three hundred four patients were finally included in the study (7 excluded for lost to follow-up information; 10 excluded for deaths unrelated to LAMSs). The rate of clinical success was 89.5%. Seventy-nine LAMS-related AEs occurred in 74 of 304 patients (24.3%), after a mean time of 25.3 days (median, 18 days; interquartile range, 6-30) classified as 20 (25.3%) mild, 54 (68.4%) moderate, or 5 (6.3%) severe. On multivariable analysis compared with control subjects, cases were more likely to have walled-off necrosis (WON) versus pancreatic pseudocysts (odds ratio, 2.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-4.46; P = .028), whereas cases were less likely to have undergone tract (balloon) dilation (yes vs no; odds ratio, .47; 95% confidence interval, .22-.93; P = .034). CONCLUSIONS: Data from this large international retrospective study confirm that the use of LAMSs for management of PFCs has excellent technical and good clinical success rates. The rate of AEs, however, is not negligible and should be carefully considered before using these stents for drainage of PFCs and in particular for WON. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03544008.).

Self-expandable metal stents for obstructing colonic and extracolonic cancer: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2020.

The following recommendations should only be applied after a thorough diagnostic evaluation including a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan. 1 : ESGE recommends colonic stenting to be reserved for patients with clinical symptoms and radiological signs of malignant large-bowel obstruction, without signs of perforation. ESGE does not recommend prophylactic stent placement.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 : ESGE recommends stenting as a bridge to surgery to be discussed, within a shared decision-making process, as a treatment option in patients with potentially curable left-sided obstructing colon cancer as an alternative to emergency resection.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 3 : ESGE recommends colonic stenting as the preferred treatment for palliation of malignant colonic obstruction.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4 : ESGE suggests consideration of colonic stenting for malignant obstruction of the proximal colon either as a bridge to surgery or in a palliative setting.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 : ESGE suggests a time interval of approximately 2 weeks until resection when colonic stenting is performed as a bridge to elective surgery in patients with curable left-sided colon cancer.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6 : ESGE recommends that colonic stenting should be performed or directly supervised by an operator who can demonstrate competence in both colonoscopy and fluoroscopic techniques and who performs colonic stenting on a regular basis.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 : ESGE suggests that a decompressing stoma as a bridge to elective surgery is a valid option if the patient is not a candidate for colonic stenting or when stenting expertise is not available.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gastrointestinal endoscopy activity in France.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has majorly affected medical activity around the world. We sought to measure the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy activity in France. METHODS: We performed a web-based survey, including 35 questions on the responders and their endoscopic practice, from 23 March to 27 March 2020, sent to the 3300 French gastroenterologists practicing endoscopy. RESULTS: 694 GI endoscopists (21 %) provided analyzable data; of these, 29.4 % (204/694) were involved in the management of COVID-19 patients outside the endoscopy department. During the study period, 98.7 % (685/694) of endoscopists had had to cancel procedures. There were 89 gastroenterologists (12.8 %) who reported symptoms compatible with COVID-19 infection, and a positive PCR test was recorded in 12/197 (6.1 %) vs. 3/497 (0.6 %) endoscopists in the high vs. low prevalence areas, respectively (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a major reduction in the volume of GI endoscopies performed in France in March 2020. The prolonged limited access to GI endoscopy could lead to a delay in the management of patients with GI cancers.

ERCP-related adverse events: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

PROPHYLAXIS: 1:  ESGE recommends routine rectal administration of 100 mg of diclofenac or indomethacin immediately before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in all patients without contraindications to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends prophylactic pancreatic stenting in selected patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis (inadvertent guidewire insertion/opacification of the pancreatic duct, double-guidewire cannulation).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3:  ESGE suggests against routine endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy before the insertion of a single plastic stent or an uncovered/partially covered self-expandable metal stent for relief of biliary obstruction.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends against the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5:  ESGE suggests antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP in the case of anticipated incomplete biliary drainage, for severely immunocompromised patients, and when performing cholangioscopy.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6:  ESGE suggests tests of coagulation are not routinely required prior to ERCP for patients who are not on anticoagulants and not jaundiced.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. TREATMENT: 7:  ESGE suggests against salvage pancreatic stenting in patients with post-ERCP pancreatitis.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE suggests temporary placement of a biliary fully covered self-expandable metal stent for post-sphincterotomy bleeding refractory to standard hemostatic modalities.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 9:  ESGE suggests to evaluate patients with post-ERCP cholangitis by abdominal ultrasonography or computed tomography (CT) scan and, in the absence of improvement with conservative therapy, to consider repeat ERCP. A bile sample should be collected for microbiological examination during repeat ERCP.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.