Clinical predictive value of renalase in post-ERCP pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Plasma levels of renalase decrease in acute experimental pancreatitis. We aimed to determine if decreases in plasma renalase levels after ERCP predict the occurrence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). METHODS: In this prospective cohort study conducted at a tertiary hospital, plasma renalase was determined before ERCP (baseline) and at 30 and 60 minutes after ERCP. Native renalase levels, acidified renalase, and native-to-acidified renalase proportions were analyzed over time using a longitudinal regression model. RESULTS: Among 273 patients, 31 developed PEP. Only 1 PEP patient had a baseline native renalase >6.0 µg/mL, whereas 38 of 242 without PEP had a native renalase > 6.0 µg/mL, indicating a sensitivity of 97% (30/31) and specificity of 16% (38/242) in predicting PEP. Longitudinal models did not show differences over time between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline native renalase levels are very sensitive for predicting PEP. Further studies are needed to determine the potential clinical role of renalase in predicting and preventing PEP.

EUS-guided Gastroenterostomy: A Multicenter International Study Comparing Benign and Malignant Diseases.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a minimally invasive therapy for patients with gastric outlet obstruction without the risks of surgical bypass and the limited long-term efficacy of enteral self-expanding metal stent placement. However, due to its novelty, there is a lack of significant data comparing long-term outcomes of patients with EUS-GE, based on the underlying disease. In this study, we compare outcomes of EUS-GE on benign versus malignant indications. METHODS: Consecutive patients from 12 international, tertiary care centers who underwent EUS-GE over 3 years were extracted in a retrospective registry. Demographic characteristics, procedure-related information and follow-up data was collected. Primary outcome was the rate of adverse events associated with EUS-GE and the comparison of the rate of adverse events in benign versus malignant diseases. Secondary outcomes included technical and clinical success as well as hospitalization admission. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were included: 72 malignant and 31 benign. The characteristics of the patients undergoing EUS-GE is shown in Table 1. The mean age of the cohort was 68 years and 58 years for malignant and benign etiology. Gender distribution was 57% and 39% being females in malignant and benign etiology group, respectively. Clinical success, technical success, average procedure time, and hospital length of stay were similar in both groups. Patients with benign underlying etiology had significantly higher number of surgically altered midgut anatomy (P=0.0379). CONCLUSION: EUS-GE is equally efficient regardless of the underlying etiology (malignant vs. benign), and the adverse events both groups were comparable.

Evaluation of socioeconomic and healthcare disparities on same admission cholecystectomy after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography among patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Despite literature and guidelines recommending same admission cholecystectomy (CCY) after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis, clinical practice remains variable. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of clinical and socio-demographic factors in the management of acute gallstone pancreatitis. METHODS: Patients with acute gallstone pancreatitis who underwent ERCP during hospitalization were reviewed from the U.S. Nationwide Inpatient Sample database between 2008 and 2014. Patients were classified by treatment strategy: ERCP + same admission CCY (ERCP + CCY) versus ERCP alone. Measured variables including age, race/ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), hospital type/region, insurance payer, household income, length of hospital stay (LOS), hospitalization cost, and in-hospital mortality were compared between cohorts using χ2 and ANOVA. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify specific predictors of same admission CCY. RESULTS: A total of 205,012 patients (ERCP + CCY: n = 118,318 versus ERCP alone: n = 86,694) were analyzed. A majority (53.4%) of patients that did not receive same admission CCY were at urban-teaching hospitals. LOS was longer with higher associated costs for patients with same admission CCY [(6.8 ± 5.6 versus 6.4 ± 6.5 days; P < 0.001) and ($69,135 ± 65,913 versus $52,739 ± 66,681; P < 0.001)]. Mortality was decreased significantly for patients who underwent ERCP + CCY versus ERCP alone (0.4% vs 1.1%; P < 0.001). Multivariable regression demonstrated female gender, Black race, higher CCI, Medicare payer status, urban-teaching hospital location, and household income decreased the odds of undergoing same admission CCY + ERCP (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Based upon this analysis, multiple socioeconomic and healthcare-related disparities influenced the surgical management of acute gallstone pancreatitis. Further studies to investigate these disparities are indicated.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Pancreas Cancer Screening in High-Risk Individuals: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association Institute Clinical Practice Update is to describe the indications for screening for pancreas cancer in high-risk individuals. METHODS: The evidence reviewed in this work is based on reports of pancreas cancer screening studies in high-risk individuals and expert opinion. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Pancreas cancer screening should be considered in patients determined to be at high risk, including first-degree relatives of patients with pancreas cancer with at least 2 affected genetically related relatives. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Pancreas cancer screening should be considered in patients with genetic syndromes associated with an increased risk of pancreas cancer, including all patients with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, hereditary pancreatitis, patients with CDKN2A gene mutation, and patients with 1 or more first-degree relatives with pancreas cancer with Lynch syndrome, and mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, and ATM genes. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Genetic testing and counseling should be considered for familial pancreas cancer relatives who are eligible for surveillance. A positive germline mutation is associated with an increased risk of neoplastic progression and may also lead to screening for other relevant associated cancers. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Participation in a registry or referral to a pancreas Center of Excellence should be pursued when possible for high-risk patients undergoing pancreas cancer screening. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Clinicians should not screen average-risk individuals for pancreas cancer. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals should begin at age 50 years, or 10 years younger than the initial age of familial onset. Screening should be initiated at age 40 years in CKDN2A and PRSS1 mutation carriers with hereditary pancreatitis and at age 35 years in the setting of Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) should be used in combination as the preferred screening modalities in individuals undergoing pancreas cancer screening. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: The target detectable pancreatic neoplasms are resectable stage I pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and high-risk precursor neoplasms, such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms with high-grade dysplasia and some enlarged pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasias. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Screening intervals of 12 months should be considered when there are no concerning pancreas lesions, with shortened intervals and/or the performance of EUS in 6-12 months directed towards lesions determined to be low risk (by a multidisciplinary team). EUS evaluation should be performed within 3-6 months for indeterminate lesions and within 3 months for high-risk lesions, if surgical resection is not planned. New-onset diabetes in a high-risk individual should lead to additional diagnostic studies or change in surveillance interval. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Decisions regarding therapy directed towards abnormal findings detected during screening should be made by a dedicated multidisciplinary team together with the high-risk individual and their family. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Surgical resection should be performed at high-volume centers. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Clinicians should consider discontinuing pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals when they are more likely to die of non-pancreas cancer-related causes due to comorbidity and/or are not candidates for pancreas resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: The limitations and potential risks of pancreas cancer screening should be discussed with patients before initiating a screening program.

Effects of Blended (Yellow) vs Forced Coagulation (Blue) Currents on Adverse Events, Complete Resection, or Polyp Recurrence After Polypectomy in a Large Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There is debate over the type of electrosurgical setting that should be used for polyp resection. Some endoscopists use a type of blended current (yellow), whereas others prefer coagulation (blue). We performed a single-blinded, randomized trial to determine whether type of electrosurgical setting affects risk of adverse events or recurrence. METHODS: Patients undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps 20 mm or larger (n = 928) were randomly assigned, in a 2 × 2 design, to groups that received clip closure or no clip closure of the resection defect (primary intervention) and then to either a blended current (Endocut Q) or coagulation current (forced coagulation) (Erbe Inc) (secondary intervention and focus of the study). The study was performed at multiple centers, from April 2013 through October 2017. Patients were evaluated 30 days after the procedure (n = 919), and 675 patients underwent a surveillance colonoscopy at a median of 6 months after the procedure. The primary outcome was any severe adverse event in a per patient analysis. Secondary outcomes were complete resection and recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy in a per polyp analysis. RESULTS: Serious adverse events occurred in 7.2% of patients in the Endocut group and 7.9% of patients in the forced coagulation group, with no significant differences in the occurrence of types of events. There were no significant differences between groups in proportions of polyps that were completely removed (96% in the Endocut group vs 95% in the forced coagulation group) or the proportion of polyps found to have recurred at surveillance colonoscopy (17% and 17%, respectively). Procedural characteristics were comparable, except that 17% of patients in the Endocut group had immediate bleeding that required an intervention, compared with 11% in the forced coagulation group (P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial to compare 2 commonly used electrosurgical settings for the resection of large colorectal polyps (Endocut vs forced coagulation), we found no difference in risk of serious adverse events, complete resection rate, or polyp recurrence. Electrosurgical settings can therefore be selected based on endoscopist expertise and preference. Clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT01936948.

Enhanced EUS imaging (with videos).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS remains a primary diagnostic tool for the evaluation of pancreaticobiliary disease. Although EUS combined with FNA or biopsy sampling is highly sensitive for the diagnosis of neoplasia within the pancreaticobiliary tract, limitations exist in specific clinical settings such as chronic pancreatitis. Enhanced EUS imaging technologies aim to aid in the detection and diagnosis of lesions that are commonly evaluated with EUS. METHODS: We reviewed technologies and methods for enhanced imaging during EUS and applications of these methods. Available data regarding efficacy, safety, and financial considerations are summarized. RESULTS: Enhanced EUS imaging methods include elastography and contrast-enhanced EUS (CE-EUS). Both technologies have been best studied in the setting of pancreatic mass lesions. Robust data indicate that neither technology has adequate specificity to serve as a stand-alone test for pancreatic malignancy. However, there may be a role for improving the targeting of sampling and in the evaluation of peritumoral lymph nodes, inflammatory pancreatic masses, and masses with nondiagnostic FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling. Further, novel applications of these technologies have been reported in the evaluation of liver fibrosis, pancreatic cysts, and angiogenesis within neoplastic lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Elastography and CE-EUS may improve the real-time evaluation of intra- and extraluminal lesions as an adjunct to standard B-mode and Doppler imaging. They are not a replacement for EUS-guided tissue sampling but provide adjunctive diagnostic information in specific clinical situations. The optimal clinical use of these technologies continues to be a focus of ongoing research.

Factors associated with complete clip closure after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal polyps.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM : Delayed bleeding is a common adverse event following endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large colorectal polyps. Prophylactic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of nonpedunculated polyps larger than 20 mm reduces the incidence of severe delayed bleeding, especially in proximal polyps. This study aimed to evaluate factors associated with complete prophylactic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of large polyps. METHODS : This is a post hoc analysis of the CLIP study (NCT01936948). All patients randomized to the clip group were included. Main outcome was complete clip closure of the mucosal resection defect. The defect was considered completely closed when no remaining mucosal defect was visible and clips were less than 1 cm apart. Factors associated with complete closure were evaluated in multivariable analysis. RESULTS : In total, 458 patients (age 65, 58 % men) with 494 large polyps were included. Complete clip closure of the resection defect was achieved for 338 polyps (68.4 %); closure was not complete for 156 (31.6 %). Factors associated with complete closure in adjusted analysis were smaller polyp size (odds ratio 1.06 for every millimeter decrease [95 % confidence interval 1.02-1.08]), good access (OR 3.58 [1.94-9.59]), complete submucosal lifting (OR 2.28 [1.36-3.90]), en bloc resection (OR 5.75 [1.48-22.39]), and serrated histology (OR 2.74 [1.35-5.56]). CONCLUSIONS : Complete clip closure was not achieved for almost one in three resected large nonpedunculated polyps. While stable access and en bloc resection facilitate clip closure, most factors associated with clip closure are not modifiable. This highlights the need for alternative closure options and measures to prevent bleeding.

Musculoskeletal Pain Symptoms and Injuries Among Endoscopists Who Perform ERCP.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The leaded protective gear worn, patient and endoscopist positioning, and longer average procedural time place endoscopists who perform endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) at an increased risk of injuries as compared to other endoscopists. While multiple studies have investigated the prevalence of various pain symptoms and injuries among endoscopists, only one has been carried out in endoscopists who perform ERCP, and none have investigated potential predisposing risk factors. Our aim was thus to assess the prevalence of these pain symptoms, injuries, and potential risk factors. METHODS: An anonymous electronic survey containing 23 questions was sent to 3276 gastroenterologists. Only providers that performed ERCPs were asked to respond. RESULTS: A total of 203 surveys were completed. Of the 203 respondents, 91% reported a musculoskeletal pain symptom. The most prevalent pain symptoms were neck pain (24%) and lower back pain (17%). In total, 48% of respondents reported a musculoskeletal injury. In total, 32% attributed these injuries to performing ERCPs. The most prevalent musculoskeletal injuries were De Quervain's tenosynovitis (16%) and cervical radiculopathy (12%). Only 25% of participants had received any education/training on ergonomics in endoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of endoscopists who perform ERCPs suffer from a musculoskeletal pain symptom, and almost half report a musculoskeletal injury. Further investigation regarding risk factors and preventative strategies is warranted. This information can then be incorporated into ergonomics education which only a small proportion of advanced endoscopists report having received any training in.

Clip Closure Prevents Bleeding After Endoscopic Resection of Large Colon Polyps in a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Bleeding is the most common severe complication after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colon polyps and is associated with significant morbidity and cost. We examined whether prophylactic closure of the mucosal defect with hemoclips after polyp resection reduces the risk of bleeding. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, randomized trial of patients with a large nonpedunculated colon polyp (≥20 mm) at 18 medical centers in North America and Spain from April 2013 through October 2017. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that underwent endoscopic closure with a clip (clip group) or no closure (control group) and followed. The primary outcome, postprocedure bleeding, was defined as a severe bleeding event that required hospitalization, a blood transfusion, colonoscopy, surgery, or another invasive intervention within 30 days after completion of the colonoscopy. Subgroup analyses included postprocedure bleeding with polyp location, polyp size, or use of periprocedural antithrombotic medications. We also examined the risk of any serious adverse event. RESULTS: A total of 919 patients were randomly assigned to groups and completed follow-up. Postprocedure bleeding occurred in 3.5% of patients in the clip group and 7.1% in the control group (absolute risk difference [ARD] 3.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7%-6.5%). Among 615 patients (66.9%) with a proximal large polyp, the risk of bleeding in the clip group was 3.3% and in the control group was 9.6% (ARD 6.3%; 95% CI 2.5%-10.1%); among patients with a distal large polyp, the risks were 4.0% in the clip group and 1.4% in the control group (ARD -2.6%; 95% CI -6.3% to -1.1%). The effect of clip closure was independent of antithrombotic medications or polyp size. Serious adverse events occurred in 4.8% of patients in the clip group and 9.5% of patients in the control group (ARD 4.6%; 95% CI 1.3%-8.0%). CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial, we found that endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect following resection of large colon polyps reduces risk of postprocedure bleeding. The protective effect appeared to be restricted to large polyps located in the proximal colon. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT01936948.

Combined versus single use 20 G fine-needle biopsy and 25 G fine-needle aspiration for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling of solid gastrointestinal lesions.

BACKGROUND: Instead of choosing one endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) needle over the other, some advocate the use of fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) consecutively. We explored the yield of combined use of 20 G FNB and 25 G FNA needles in patients with a suspicious solid gastrointestinal lesion. METHODS: Patients from the ASPRO study who were sampled with both needles during the same procedure were included. The incremental yield of dual sampling compared with the yield of single needle use on the diagnostic accuracy for malignancy was assessed for both dual sampling approaches - FNA followed by FNB, and vice versa. RESULTS: 73 patients were included. There were 39 (53 %) pancreatic lesions, 18 (25 %) submucosal masses, and 16 (22 %) lymph nodes. FNA was used first in 24 patients (33 %) and FNB was used first in 49 (67 %). Generally, FNB was performed after FNA to collect tissue for ancillary testing (75 %), whereas FNA was used after FNB to allow for on-site pathological assessment (76 %). Diagnostic accuracy for malignancy of single needle use increased from 78 % to 92 % with dual sampling (P = 0.002). FNA followed by FNB improved the diagnostic accuracy for malignancy (P = 0.03), whereas FNB followed by FNA did not (P = 0.13). CONCLUSION: Dual sampling only improved diagnostic accuracy when 25 G FNA was followed by 20 G FNB and not vice versa. As the diagnostic benefit of the 20 G FNB over the 25 G FNA needle has recently been proven, sampling with the FNB needle seems a logical first choice.

Novel Methylated DNA Markers Discriminate Advanced Neoplasia in Pancreatic Cysts: Marker Discovery, Tissue Validation, and Cyst Fluid Testing.

OBJECTIVES: Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) may be precancerous. Those likely to harbor high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or pancreatic cancer (PC) are targets for surgical resection. Current algorithms to predict advanced neoplasia (HGD/PC) in PCLs lack diagnostic accuracy. In pancreatic tissue and cyst fluid (CF) from PCLs, we sought to identify and validate novel methylated DNA markers (MDMs) that discriminate HGD/PC from low-grade dysplasia (LGD) or no dysplasia (ND). METHODS: From an unbiased whole-methylome discovery approach using predefined selection criteria followed by multistep validation on case (HGD or PC) and control (ND or LGD) tissues, we identified discriminant MDMs. Top candidate MDMs were then assayed by quantitative methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction on archival CF from surgically resected PCLs. RESULTS: Of 25 discriminant MDMs identified in tissue, 13 were selected for validation in 134 CF samples (21 cases [8 HGD, 13 PC], 113 controls [45 ND, 68 LGD]). A tree-based algorithm using 2 CF-MDMs (TBX15, BMP3) achieved sensitivity and specificity above 90%. Discrimination was significantly better by this CF-MDM panel than by mutant KRAS or carcinoembryonic antigen, with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.93 (95% confidence interval: 0.86-0.99), 0.71 (0.57-0.85), and 0.72 (0.60-0.84), respectively. Cutoffs for the MDM panel applied to an independent CF validation set (31 cases, 56 controls) yielded similarly high discrimination, areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.86 (95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.94, P = 0.2). DISCUSSION: Novel MDMs discovered and validated in tissue accurately identify PCLs harboring HGD/PC. A panel of 2 MDMs assayed in CF yielded results with potential to enhance current risk prediction algorithms. Prospective studies are indicated to optimize and further evaluate CF-MDMs for clinical use.

Endoscopic simulators.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Simulation refers to educational tools that allow for repetitive instruction in a nonpatient care environment that is risk-free. In GI endoscopy, simulators include ex vivo animal tissue models, live animal models, mechanical models, and virtual reality (VR) computer simulators. METHODS: After a structured search of the peer-reviewed medical literature, this document reviews commercially available GI endoscopy simulation systems and clinical outcomes of simulation in endoscopy. RESULTS: Mechanical simulators and VR simulators are frequently used early in training, whereas ex vivo and in vivo animal models are more commonly used for advanced endoscopy training. Multiple studies and systematic reviews show that simulation-based training appears to provide novice endoscopists with some advantage over untrained peers with regard to endpoints such as independent procedure completion and performance time, among others. Data also suggest that simulation training may accelerate the acquisition of specific technical skills in colonoscopy and upper endoscopy early in training. However, the available literature suggests that the benefits of simulator training appear to attenuate and cease after a finite period. Further studies are needed to determine if meeting competency metrics using simulation will predict actual clinical competency. CONCLUSIONS: Simulation training is a promising modality that may aid in endoscopic education. However, for widespread incorporation of simulators into gastroenterology training programs to occur, simulators must show a sustained advantage over traditional mentored teaching in a cost-effective manner. Because most studies evaluating simulation have focused on novice learners, the role of simulation training in helping practicing endoscopists gain proficiency using new techniques and devices should be further explored.

Advances in the diagnosis and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (with videos).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Most patients diagnosed with esophageal adenocarcinoma do not carry a known diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus (BE), suggesting that an improved approach to screening may potentially be of benefit. The use of dysplasia as a biomarker and random biopsy protocols for its detection has limitations. In addition, detecting and appropriately classifying dysplasia in patients with known BE can be difficult. METHODS: This document reviews several technologies with a recently established or potential role in the diagnosis and/or surveillance of BE as well as risk stratification for progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma. RESULTS: Two technologies were reviewed for imaging or tissue sampling: (1) wide-area transepithelial sampling and (2) volumetric laser endomicroscopy. Four technologies were reviewed for molecular and biomarker technologies for diagnosis and risk stratification: (1) Cytosponge, (2) mutational load, (3) fluorescence in situ hybridization, and (4) immunohistochemistry. CONCLUSION: Several technologies discussed in this document may improve dysplasia detection in BE in a wide-field manner. Moreover, the addition of different biomarkers may aid in enhanced risk stratification to optimize approaches to surveillance or treatment for patients with BE.

Endoscopic Management of Pancreatic Fluid Collections.

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) may develop due to inflammation secondary to acute and/or chronic pancreatitis, trauma, surgery, or obstruction from solid or cystic neoplasms. PFCs can be drained percutaneously, surgically, or endoscopically with endoscopic ultrasound-guided cyst gastrostomy and/or transpapillary drainage through endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. There has been a paradigm shift in the endoscopic management of PFCs in the past few years with newer techniques including utilization of self-expanding metal stents and multiport devices. This review is a comprehensive update on the classification of PFC, indications for drainage, optimal approach, and techniques.

ASGE Technology Committee systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the ASGE Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations thresholds for adopting real-time imaging-assisted endoscopic targeted biopsy during endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic real-time imaging of Barrett's esophagus (BE) with advanced imaging technologies enables targeted biopsies and may eliminate the need for random biopsies to detect dysplasia during endoscopic surveillance of BE. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee to specifically assess whether acceptable performance thresholds outlined by the ASGE Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations (PIVI) document for clinical adoption of these technologies have been met. METHODS: We conducted meta-analyses calculating the pooled sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), and specificity for chromoendoscopy by using acetic acid and methylene blue, electronic chromoendoscopy by using narrow-band imaging, and confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) for the detection of dysplasia. Random effects meta-analysis models were used. Statistical heterogeneity was evaluated by means of I(2) statistics. RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity, NPV, and specificity for acetic acid chromoendoscopy were 96.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95-98), 98.3% (95% CI, 94.8-99.4), and 84.6% (95% CI, 68.5-93.2), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, NPV, and specificity for electronic chromoendoscopy by using narrow-band imaging were 94.2% (95% CI, 82.6-98.2), 97.5% (95% CI, 95.1-98.7), and 94.4% (95% CI, 80.5-98.6), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, NPV, and specificity for endoscope-based CLE were 90.4% (95% CI, 71.9-97.2), 98.3% (95% CI, 94.2-99.5), and 92.7% (95% CI, 87-96), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis indicates that targeted biopsies with acetic acid chromoendoscopy, electronic chromoendoscopy by using narrow-band imaging, and endoscope-based CLE meet the thresholds set by the ASGE PIVI, at least when performed by endoscopists with expertise in advanced imaging techniques. The ASGE Technology Committee therefore endorses using these advanced imaging modalities to guide targeted biopsies for the detection of dysplasia during surveillance of patients with previously nondysplastic BE, thereby replacing the currently used random biopsy protocols.

EUS Needle Identification Comparison and Evaluation study (with videos).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided FNA or biopsy sampling is widely practiced. Optimal sonographic visualization of the needle is critical for image-guided interventions. Of the several commercially available needles, bench-top testing and direct comparison of these needles have not been done to reveal their inherent echogenicity. The aims are to provide bench-top data that can be used to guide clinical applications and to promote future device research and development. METHODS: Descriptive bench-top testing and comparison of 8 commonly used EUS-FNA needles (all size 22 gauge): SonoTip Pro Control (Medi-Globe); Expect Slimline (Boston Scientific); EchoTip, EchoTip Ultra, EchoTip ProCore High Definition (Cook Medical); ClearView (Conmed); EZ Shot 2 (Olympus); and BNX (Beacon Endoscopic), and 2 new prototype needles, SonoCoat (Medi-Globe), coated by echogenic polymers made by Encapson. Blinded evaluation of standardized and unedited videos by 43 EUS endoscopists and 17 radiologists specialized in GI US examination who were unfamiliar with EUS needle devices. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the ratings and rankings of these needles between endosonographers and radiologists. Overall, 1 prototype needle was rated as the best, ranking 10% to 40% higher than all other needles (P < .01). Among the commercially available needles, the EchoTip Ultra needle and the ClearView needle were top choices. The EZ Shot 2 needle was ranked statistically lower than other needles (30%-75% worse, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: All FNA needles have their inherent and different echogenicities, and these differences are similarly recognized by EUS endoscopists and radiologists. Needles with polymeric coating from the entire shaft to the needle tip may offer better echogenicity.

Can a Computerized Simulator Assess Skill Level and Improvement in Performance of ERCP?

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) is a challenging procedure with considerable risk. Computerized simulators are valuable in training for flexible endoscopy, but little data exist for their use in ERCP training. AIM: To determine a simulator's ability to assess the level of ERCP skill and its responsiveness over time to increasing trainee experience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective parallel-arm cohort study, six novice gastroenterology fellows and four gastroenterology faculty with expertise in ERCP completed four simulated baseline cases and the same four cases at a later date. This study took place at a surgical skills center at an academic tertiary referral center. The primary outcome was the total time to complete the ERCP procedure. RESULTS: For the baseline session, experts had a shorter total procedure time than novices (444.0 vs. 616.9 s; least squares mean; p = 0.026). There was no significant difference between experts and novices in the difference of total procedure time between session 1 and session 2 (-200.3 vs. -164.4; least squares mean; p = 0.402). CONCLUSIONS: The simulator was able to differentiate experts from novices for the primary outcome of total procedure time. The simulator was not responsive to an increase in trainee experience over time.

Variation in Aptitude of Trainees in Endoscopic Ultrasonography, Based on Cumulative Sum Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Studies have reported substantial variation in the competency of advanced endoscopy trainees, indicating a need for more supervised training in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). We used a standardized, validated, data collection tool to evaluate learning curves and measure competency in EUS among trainees at multiple centers. METHODS: In a prospective study performed at 15 centers, 17 trainees with no prior EUS experience were evaluated by experienced attending endosonographers at the 25th and then every 10th upper EUS examination, over a 12-month training period. A standardized data collection form was used (using a 5-point scoring system) to grade the EUS examination. Cumulative sum analysis was applied to produce a learning curve for each trainee; it tracked the overall performance based on median scores at different stations and also at each station. Competency was defined by a median score of 1, with acceptable and unacceptable failure rates of 10% and 20%, respectively. RESULTS: Twelve trainees were included in the final analysis. Each of the trainees performed 265 to 540 EUS examinations (total, 4257 examinations). There was a large amount of variation in their learning curves: 2 trainees crossed the threshold for acceptable performance (at cases 225 and 245), 2 trainees had a trend toward acceptable performance (after 289 and 355 cases) but required continued observation, and 8 trainees needed additional training and observation. Similar results were observed at individual stations. CONCLUSIONS: A specific case load does not ensure competency in EUS; 225 cases should be considered the minimum caseload for training because we found that no trainee achieved competency before this point. Ongoing training should be provided for trainees until competency is confirmed using objective measures.

Influence of colonoscopy quality measures on patients' colonoscopist selection.

OBJECTIVES: The Affordable Care Act emphasizes the use of quality metrics and greater patient understanding of health-care options and access to physician performance data. The objectives of this study were to determine patients' familiarity with colonoscopy quality measures (CQMs) and their influence on patient selection of a colonoscopist. METHODS: A prospective survey of patients before screening or surveillance colonoscopy at university hospital, community hospital, and ambulatory procedure center endoscopy units was performed from 2011 to 2012. RESULTS: Among the 417 participants, 20% (85/417) researched their physician's rating. The rates of familiarity with CQM were 88 % (353/402) for adequate bowel preparation, 30% (118/398) for adenoma detection rate (ADR), 26% (102/397) for cecal intubation rate, and 21% (82/394) for greater-than-6-min withdrawal time. Ninety-six percent (366/386) believed that colonoscopists' reporting of ADR to other physicians was important or very important. In selecting a colonoscopist, primary care provider referral was ranked as the first or second-most important of four factors in 87% (339/391). Even among patients who responded "it is very important" to report CQM to other doctors and patients, none ranked CQM as the most important factor in selecting a colonoscopist. CONCLUSIONS: Patient awareness of CQM, other than adequate bowel preparation, was low. Quality measure reporting is important to patients, but primary care provider referral was the most important factor in colonoscopist selection. This suggests that primary care providers, as well as patients, are important to include in educational strategies regarding quality metrics.