Clinical predictors of significant findings on EUS for the evaluation of incidental common bile duct dilation.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although EUS is highly accurate for the evaluation of common bile duct (CBD) dilation, the yield of EUS in patients with incidental CBD dilation is unclear. METHODS: Serial patients undergoing EUS for incidental, dilated CBD (per radiologist, minimum of >6 mm objectively) from 2 academic medical centers without active pancreaticobiliary disease or significantly elevated liver function test results were evaluated. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of EUS with significant findings and a novel prediction model was derived from one center, internally validated with bootstrapping, and externally validated at the second center. RESULTS: Of 375 patients evaluated, 31 (8.3%) had significant findings, including 26 choledocholithiasis, 1 ampullary adenoma, and 1 pancreatic mass. Predictors of significant findings with EUS included age of ≥70 years (odds ratio [OR], 3.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-10.0), non-biliary-type abdominal pain without chronic pain (OR, 6.1; 95% CI, 2.3-17.3), CBD diameter of ≥15 mm or ≥17 mm with cholecystectomy (OR, 6.9; 95% CI, 2.7-18.7), and prior ERCP (OR, 6.8; 95% CI, 2.1-22.5). A point-based novel clinical prediction model was created: age of ≥70 years = 1, non-biliary-type abdominal pain without chronic pain = 2, prior ERCP = 2, and CBD dilation = 2. A score of <1 had 93% (development) and 100% (validation) sensitivity and predicted a <2% chance of having a significant finding in both cohorts while excluding the need for EUS in ∼30% of both cohorts. Conversely, a score of ≥4 was >90% specific for the presence of significant pathology. CONCLUSIONS: Less than 10% of patients undergoing EUS for incidental CBD dilation had pathologic findings. This novel, externally validated, clinical prediction model may reduce low-yield, invasive evaluation in nearly one-third of patients.

Cold versus hot endoscopic mucosal resection for large sessile colon polyps: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND : For large sessile colorectal polyps (LSCPs), endoscopic mucosal resection without diathermy ("cold endoscopic mucosal resection [EMR]") is gaining popularity because of its safety advantages over conventional EMR ("hot EMR"). Polyp recurrence rates have been reported to be higher with cold EMR. Considering these differences, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of these two techniques. METHODS : A decision analysis model was constructed for EMR of an LSCP. The decision tree incorporated the EMR method, clip use, procedural mortality, adverse events and their management, and polyp recurrence. Outcomes included days of lost productivity and marginal cost difference. Adverse event and recurrence rates were extracted from the existing literature, giving emphasis to recent systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. RESULTS : Through 30 months of follow-up, the average cost of removing an LSCP by cold EMR was US$5213, as compared to $6168 by hot EMR, yielding a $955 cost difference (95 % confidence interval $903-$1006). Average days of lost productivity were 6.2 days for cold EMR and 6.3 days for hot EMR. This cost advantage remained over several analyses accounting for variations in recurrence rates and clip closure strategies. Clip cost and LSCP recurrence rate had the greatest and the least impacts on the marginal cost difference, respectively. CONCLUSION : Cold EMR is the dominant strategy over hot EMR, with lower cost and fewer days of lost productivity. In theory, a complete transition to cold EMR for LSCPs in the USA could result in an annual cost saving approaching US$7 million to Medicare beneficiaries.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage in benign biliary pathology with normal foregut anatomy: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Biliary drainage using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS-BD) has been developed as a novel technique to obtain biliary access and drainage when ERCP fails. Numerous studies have demonstrated its safety and efficacy specifically pertaining to those with malignant distal biliary obstruction or altered foregut anatomy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EUS-BD in benign indications in patients with normal foregut anatomy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective comparative study from 5 academic medical centers (2008-2018) involving patients with benign biliary obstruction and native foregut anatomy who had an initial failed ERCP with subsequent attempt at biliary decompression via EUS-BD or by repeating ERCP. RESULTS: 36 patients (mean age 61.6 ± 2.2, 38.9% female) who underwent attempted EUS-BD following initial failed ERCP were compared to 50 patients (mean age 62.7 ± 2.3, 73.5% female) who underwent repeat ERCP following an initial failed cannulation. EUS-BD was technically successful in 28 (77.8%) patients with rendezvous being the most common approach (86.1%). A higher level of pre-procedural bilirubin was found to be associated with technical success of EUS-BD (3.65 ± 0.63 versus 1.1 ± 0.4, p value 0.04). Success of repeat ERCP following failed cannulation was 86%. Adverse events were significantly more frequent in the EUS-BD cohort when compared to the repeat ERCP (10 (27.8%) versus 4 (8.0%), p = 0.02, OR 4.32. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-BD remains a viable therapeutic option in the setting of benign biliary disease, with success rates of 77.8%. Adverse events were significantly more common with EUS-BD vs. repeat ERCP, emphasizing the need to perform in expert centers with appropriate multidisciplinary support and to strongly consider the urgency of biliary decompression before considering same session EUS-BD after failed initial biliary access.

Challenges of developing and executing a multi-site registry for a novel device with evolving indications for use.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of new technologies in endoscopy has been met with uncertainty, skepticism, and lack of standardization or training parameters, particularly when disruptive devices or techniques are involved. The widespread availability of a novel endoscopic suturing device (OverStitch™) for tissue apposition has enabled the development of applications of endoscopic suturing. METHODS: The American Gastroenterological Association partnered with Apollo Endosurgery to develop a registry to capture in a pragmatic non-randomized study the safety, effectiveness, and durability of endoscopic suturing in approximating tissue in the setting of bariatric revision and fixation of endoprosthetic devices. RESULTS: We highlight the challenges of the adoption of novel techniques by examining the process of developing and executing this multicenter registry to assess real-world use of this endoscopic suturing device. We also present our preliminary data on the safety and effectiveness of the novel device as it is applied in the treatment of obesity. CONCLUSIONS: The Prospective Registry for Trans-Orifice Endoscopic Suturing Applications (ES Registry) was an effective Phase 4, postmarketing registry aimed at capturing pragmatic, real-world use of a novel device. These findings serve to solidify the role of endoscopic suturing in clinical practice.

Performance and Predictors of Migration of Partially and Fully Covered Esophageal Self-Expanding Metal Stents for Malignant Dysphagia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are routinely used to palliate malignant dysphagia. However esophageal SEMS can migrate or obstruct due to epithelial hyperplasia. The aim of this study was to evaluate the rates and factors predicting migration and obstruction, and the nutritional outcomes in partially covered (pc) vs. fully covered (fc) SEMS vs. fcSEMS with antimigration fins (AF) placed for malignant dysphagia. METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing SEMS placement for malignant dysphagia at three academic medical centers. RESULTS: Among 357 patients, there were 55 (15.4%) stent migrations, 45 (12.6%) obstructions from epithelial hyperplasia, and 20 (5.6%) food impactions. Median overall survival was 79 days (IQR 41,199). The percent weight change/change in albumin at 30 and 60 days after SEMS placement were -2.24%/-0.544 g/dL and -2.98%/-0.55 g/dL, respectively. Stent migration occurred significantly more often with fcSEMS than pcSEMS (25.3% vs 10.9%; P < .003), but there was no difference when either group was compared to fcSEMS-AF (19.3%). The overall rate of epithelial hyperplasia resulting in stent obstruction was low (12.6%) and not different between stent types. Factors associated with increased risk of SEMS migration on multivariable logistic regression included stricture traversability with a diagnostic endoscope (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.29-4.35) and use of fcSEMS (OR, 2.56; 1.31-5.00) or fcSEMS-AF (OR, 2.30, 1.03-5.14). CONCLUSIONS: Traversability of a malignant esophageal stenosis predicts SEMS migration. In these patients with a limited overall survival, pcSEMS are associated with lower rates of stent migration and similar rates of obstruction compared to fcSEMS.

Digestive Manifestations in Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The prevalence and significance of digestive manifestations in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. We aimed to assess the prevalence, spectrum, severity, and significance of digestive manifestations in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: Consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were identified across a geographically diverse alliance of medical centers in North America. Data pertaining to baseline characteristics, symptomatology, laboratory assessment, imaging, and endoscopic findings from the time of symptom onset until discharge or death were abstracted manually from electronic health records to characterize the prevalence, spectrum, and severity of digestive manifestations. Regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between digestive manifestations and severe outcomes related to COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 1992 patients across 36 centers met eligibility criteria and were included. Overall, 53% of patients experienced at least 1 gastrointestinal symptom at any time during their illness, most commonly diarrhea (34%), nausea (27%), vomiting (16%), and abdominal pain (11%). In 74% of cases, gastrointestinal symptoms were judged to be mild. In total, 35% of patients developed an abnormal alanine aminotransferase or total bilirubin level; these were increased to less than 5 times the upper limit of normal in 77% of cases. After adjusting for potential confounders, the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms at any time (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-1.15) or liver test abnormalities on admission (odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.80-2.12) were not associated independently with mechanical ventilation or death. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, gastrointestinal symptoms and liver test abnormalities were common, but the majority were mild and their presence was not associated with a more severe clinical course.

Plans to Reactivate Gastroenterology Practices Following the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey of North American Centers.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Practices dramatically reduced endoscopy services due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Because practices now are considering reintroduction of elective endoscopy, we conducted a survey of North American practices to identify reactivation barriers and strategies. METHODS: We designed and electronically distributed a web-based survey to North American gastroenterologists consisting of 7 domains: institutional demographics, impact of COVID-19 on endoscopy practice, elective endoscopy resumption plans, anesthesia modifications, personal protective equipment policies, fellowship training, and telemedicine use. Responses were stratified by practice type: ambulatory surgery center (ASC) or hospital-based. RESULTS: In total, 123 practices (55% ASC-based and 45% hospital-based) responded. At the pandemic's peak (as reported by the respondents), practices saw a 90% decrease in endoscopy volume, with most centers planning to resume elective endoscopy a median of 55 days after initial restrictions. Declining community prevalence of COVID-19, personal protective equipment availability, and preprocedure severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing availability were ranked as the 3 primary factors influencing reactivation timing. ASC-based practices were more likely to identify preprocedure testing availability as a major factor limiting elective endoscopy resumption (P = .001). Preprocedure SARS-CoV-2 testing was planned by only 49.2% of practices overall; when testing is performed and negative, 52.9% of practices will continue to use N95 masks. CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights barriers and variable strategies for reactivation of elective endoscopy services after the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results suggest that more widespread access to preprocedure SARS-CoV-2 tests with superior performance characteristics is needed to increase provider and patient comfort in proceeding with elective endoscopy.

Triaging advanced GI endoscopy procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic: consensus recommendations using the Delphi method.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is a lack of consensus on which GI endoscopic procedures should be performed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and which procedures could be safely deferred without having a significant impact on outcomes. METHODS: We selected a panel of 14 expert endoscopists. We identified 41 common indications for advanced endoscopic procedures from the ASGE Appropriate Use of GI Endoscopy guidelines. Using a modified Delphi method, we first achieved consensus on the patient-important outcome for each procedural indication. Panelists prioritized consensus patient-important outcome when categorizing each indication into one of the following 3 procedural time periods: (1) time-sensitive emergent (schedule within 1 week), (2) time-sensitive urgent (schedule within 1 to 8 weeks), and (3) non-time sensitive (defer for >8 weeks and then reassess the timing). Three anonymous rounds of voting were allowed before attempts at consensus were abandoned. RESULTS: All 14 invited experts agreed to participate in the study. The prespecified consensus threshold of 51% was achieved for assigning patient-important outcome(s) to each advanced endoscopy indication. The prespecified consensus threshold of 66.7% was achieved for 40 of 41 advanced endoscopy indications in stratifying them into 1 of 3 procedural time periods. For 12 of 41 indications, 100% consensus was achieved; for 20 of 41 indications, 75% to 99% consensus was achieved. CONCLUSIONS: By using a Modified Delphi method that prioritized patient-important outcomes, we developed consensus recommendations on procedural timing for common indications for advanced endoscopy. These recommendations and the structured decision framework provided by our study can inform decision making as endoscopy services are reopened.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic walled-off necrosis using 20-mm versus 15-mm lumen-apposing metal stents: an international, multicenter, case-matched study.

BACKGROUNDS: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided placement of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) has gained popularity for the treatment of pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON). We compared the 20-mm and 15-mm LAMSs for the treatment of symptomatic WON in terms of clinical success and adverse events. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, case-matched study of 306 adults at 22 tertiary centers from 04/2014 to 10/2018. A total of 102 patients with symptomatic WON who underwent drainage with 20-mm LAMS (cases) and 204 patients who underwent drainage with 15-mm LAMS (controls) were matched by age, sex, and drainage approach. Conditional logistic regression analysis was performed to compare clinical success (resolution of WON on follow-up imaging without reintervention) and adverse events (according to American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy criteria). RESULTS: Clinical success was achieved in 92.2 % of patients with 20-mm LAMS and 91.7 % of patients with 15-mm LAMS (odds ratio 0.92; P = 0.91). Patients with 20-mm LAMS underwent fewer direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) sessions (mean 1.3 vs. 2.1; P < 0.001), despite having larger WON collections (transverse axis 118.2 vs. 101.9 mm, P = 0.003; anteroposterior axis 95.9 vs. 80.1 mm, P = 0.01). There was no difference in overall adverse events (21.6 % vs. 15.2 %; P = 0.72) and bleeding events (4.9 % vs. 3.4 %; P = 0.54) between the 20-mm and 15-mm LAMS groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The 20-mm LAMS showed comparable clinical success and safety profile to the 15-mm LAMS, with the need for fewer DEN sessions for WON resolution.

A randomized controlled trial evaluating general endotracheal anesthesia versus monitored anesthesia care and the incidence of sedation-related adverse events during ERCP in high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: ERCP is a complex procedure often performed in patients at high risk for sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs). However, there is no current standard of care with regard to mode of sedation and airway management during ERCP. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of general endotracheal anesthesia (GEA) versus propofol-based monitored anesthesia care (MAC) without endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing ERCP at high risk for SRAEs. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing ERCP at high risk for SRAEs at a single center were invited to participate in this randomized controlled trial comparing GEA and MAC. Inclusion criteria were STOP-BANG score ≥3, abdominal ascites, body mass index ≥35, chronic lung disease, American Society of Anesthesiologists class >3, Mallampati class 4 airway, and moderate to heavy alcohol use. Exclusion criteria were preceding EUS, emergent ERCP, tracheostomy, unstable airway, gastric outlet obstruction or delayed gastric emptying, and altered foregut anatomy. The primary endpoint was composite incidence of SRAEs: hypoxemia, use of airway maneuvers, hypotension requiring vasopressors, sedation-related procedure interruption, cardiac arrhythmia, and respiratory failure. Secondary outcomes included procedure duration, cannulation success, in-room time, and immediate adverse events. RESULTS: Two hundred patients (mean age, 61.1 ± 13.6 years; 36.5% women) were randomly assigned to GEA (n = 101) or MAC (n = 99) groups. Composite SRAEs were significantly higher in the MAC group compared with the GEA group (51.5% vs 9.9%, P < .001). This was primarily driven by the frequent need for airway maneuvers in the MAC group. Additionally, ERCP was interrupted in 10.1% of patients in the MAC group to convert to GEA because of respiratory instability refractory to airway maneuvers (n = 8) or significant retained gastric contents (n = 2). There were no statistically significant differences in cannulation, in-room, procedure, or fluoroscopy times between the 2 groups. All patients undergoing GEA were successfully extubated in the procedure room at completion of ERCP, and Aldrete scores in recovery did not differ between the 2 groups. There were no immediate adverse events. CONCLUSION: In patients at high risk for SRAEs undergoing ERCP, sedation with GEA is associated with a significantly lower incidence of SRAEs, without impacting procedure duration, success, recovery, or in-room time. These data suggest that GEA should be used for ERCP in patients at high risk for SRAEs (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02850887.).

The Diagnostic Yield of Malignancy Comparing Cytology, FISH, and Molecular Analysis of Cell Free Cytology Brush Supernatant in Patients With Biliary Strictures Undergoing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiography (ERC): A Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Routine cytology of biliary stricture brushings obtained during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has suboptimal sensitivity for malignancy. We compared the individual and combined ability of cytology, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis and PCR-based mutation profiling (MP) to detect malignancy in standard biliary brushings. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of patients undergoing ERCP using histology or 1 year follow-up to determine patient outcomes. MP was performed on free-DNA from biliary brushing specimens using normally discarded supernatant fluid. MP examined KRAS point mutations and tumor suppressor gene associated loss of heterozygosity mutations at 10 genomic loci. FISH examined chromosome specific gains or losses. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients were included in final analysis and 69% had malignancy. Cytology had 26% sensitivity and 100% specificity for malignancy. Using either FISH or MP in combination with cytology increased sensitivity to 44% and 56%, respectively. The combination of all 3 tests (cytology, FISH, and MP) had the highest sensitivity for malignancy (66%). There was no difference in the specificity of cytology, FISH or MP testing when examined alone or in combination. MP improved diagnostic yield of each procedure from 22% to 100%; FISH improved yield to 90%. MP detected 21 malignancies beyond that identified by cytology; FISH detected an additional 13. The combination of FISH and MP testing detected an additional 28 malignancies. CONCLUSIONS: Both MP and FISH are complimentary molecular tests that can significantly increase detection of biliary malignancies when used in combination with routine cytology of standard biliary brush specimens.

Health-related quality of life and long-term outcomes after endoscopic therapy for walled-off pancreatic necrosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON) frequently develops after necrotizing pancreatitis. Endoscopic drainage has become the preferred modality for symptomatic or infected WON. The aim of the present study was to assess health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic drainage for WON. METHODS: Patients undergoing endoscopic drainage of WON from January 2006 to May 2016 were identified. Data recorded included demographic information, and the incidence of long-term sequelae including pancreatic endocrine and exocrine insufficiency. Attempts were made to contact all patients. HR-QOL was assessed using the SF-36 questionnaire. RESULTS: Eighty patients were analyzed, 41 (51.3%) of whom completed the SF-36. One-year all-cause mortality was 6.2%, and disease-related mortality was 3.7%. A notable proportion of patients developed exocrine insufficiency (32.5%), endocrine insufficiency (27.7%), and long-term opiate use (42.5%). Development of exocrine insufficiency was predictive of lower total SF-36 scores (P = 0.016). Patients with WON had better HR-QOL compared with cohorts of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In patients developing exocrine insufficiency versus healthy controls, poorer scores in the physical role (P < 0.001), general health (P < 0.001), vitality (P = 0.001), and emotional role (P = 0.029) domains were observed. Exocrine insufficiency patients had better HR-QOL than the IBS and IBD cohorts, although these differences were less pronounced. CONCLUSION: After undergoing endoscopic drainage for WON, patients have relatively preserved HR-QOL. The subset of patients that develop exocrine insufficiency have significantly poorer HR-QOL compared to healthy controls, although not to the degree of chronic gastrointestinal disorders such as IBS and IBD.

Anesthesia-administered sedation for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: monitored anesthesia care or general endotracheal anesthesia?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The decision to undertake monitored anesthesia care (MAC) or general endotracheal anesthesia (GEA) for patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is influenced by many factors. These include locoregional practice preferences, procedure complexity, patient position, and comorbidities. We aim to review the data regarding anesthesia-administered sedation for ERCP and identify the impact of airway management on procedure success, adverse event rates and endoscopy unit efficiency. RECENT FINDINGS: Several studies have consistently identified patients at high risk for sedation-related adverse events during ERCP. This group includes those with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class and (BMI). ERCP is commonly performed in the prone position, which can make the placement of an emergent advanced airway challenging. Although this may be alleviated by performing ERCP in the supine position, this technique is more technically cumbersome for the endoscopist. Data regarding the impact of routine GEA on endoscopy unit efficiency remain controversial. SUMMARY: Pursuing MAC or GEA for patients undergoing ERCP is best-approached on an individual basis. Patients at high risk for sedation-related adverse events likely benefit from GEA. Larger, multicenter randomized controlled trials will aid significantly in better delineating which sedation approach is best for an individual patient.

Utility of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Evaluating Local Recurrence After Surgery for Pancreatic Cancer.

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma recurrence after surgery (PARaS) is associated with poor outcomes. PARaS is locoregional in 50%-80%, effecting the resection bed and adjacent lymphatics.1-3 Detection of PARaS via endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is challenging because recurrent malignancy is difficult to distinguish from normal postoperative changes. Diagnosing PARaS is important, because salvage chemotherapy/radiation improves survival.4,5 The purpose of this investigation is to determine the clinical utility of EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA) in patients with suspected PARaS.

EUS-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections with lumen-apposing metal stents and plastic double-pigtail stents: comparison of efficacy and adverse event rates.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Transmural drainage with double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPSs) was the mainstay of endoscopic therapy for symptomatic peripancreatic fluid collections (PPFCs) until the introduction of lumen-apposing covered self-expanding metal stents (LAMSs). Currently, there are limited data regarding the efficacy and adverse event rate of LAMSs compared with DPPSs. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of EUS-guided PPFC drainage at a single tertiary care center between 2008 and 2015 was performed. Patients were classified based on drainage method: DPPSs and LAMSs. Adverse event rates, unplanned endoscopic procedures/necrosectomies, and PPFC resolution within 6 months were recorded. Significant bleeding was defined as necessitating transfusion or requiring endoscopic treatment/radiographic embolization. Subsequent endoscopic procedures were defined as unplanned procedures; stent removals were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients met inclusion criteria (84 DPPSs, 19 LAMSs). PPFCs were classified as walled-off necrosis (WON) in 23 (14 DPPSs, 9 LAMSs). There were significantly more bleeding episodes in the LAMS group (4 [19%]: 2 splenic artery pseudo-aneurysms, 1 collateral vessel bleed, 1 intracavitary variceal bleed; P = .0003) than in the DPPS group (1 (1%]: stent erosion into the gastric wall). One perforation occurred in the DPPS group. Unplanned repeat endoscopy was more frequent in the LAMS group (10% vs 26%, P = .07). Among retreated LAMS patients in with WON, 5 (56%) had obstruction by necrotic debris. In patients for whom follow-up was available, 67 of 70 (96%) with DPPSs and 16 of 17 (94%) with LAMSs had resolution of PPFCs within 6 months (P = .78). CONCLUSIONS: DPPSs and LAMSs are effective methods for treatment of PPFCs. In our cohort, use of LAMSs was associated with significantly higher rates of procedure-related bleeding and greater need for repeat endoscopic intervention.

A Survey of Expert Practice and Attitudes Regarding Advanced Imaging Modalities in Surveillance of Barrett's Esophagus.

BACKGROUND: Published guidelines do not address what the minimum incremental diagnostic yield (IDY) for detection of dysplasia/cancer is required over the standard Seattle protocol for an advanced imaging modality (AIM) to be implemented in routine surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE) patients. We aimed to report expert practice patterns and attitudes, specifically addressing the minimum IDY in the use of AIMs in BE surveillance. METHODS: An international group of BE experts completed an anonymous electronic survey of domains relevant to surveillance practice patterns and use of AIMs. The evaluated AIMs were conventional chromoendoscopy (CC), virtual chromoendoscopy (VC), volumetric laser endomicroscopy (VLE), confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE), and wide-area transepithelial sampling (WATS3D). Responses were recorded using five-point balanced Likert items and analyzed as continuous variables. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 84% (61/73)-41 US and 20 non-US. Experts were most comfortable with and routinely use VC and CC, and least comfortable with and rarely use VLE, CLE, and WATS3D. Experts rated data from randomized controlled trials (1.4 ± 0.9) and guidelines (2.6 ± 1.2) as the two most influential factors for implementing AIMs in clinical practice. The minimum IDY of AIMs over standard biopsies to be considered of clinical benefit was lowest for VC (15%, IQR 10-29%) and highest for VLE (30%, IQR 20-50%). Compared to US experts, non-US experts reported higher use of CC for BE surveillance (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: These results should inform benchmarks that need to be met for guidelines to recommend the routine use of AIMs in the surveillance of BE patients.

The importance of early recognition in management of ERCP-related perforations.

BACKGROUND: Iatrogenic perforations related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are rare events, carrying with it a mortality of up to 8%. Given the rarity of this adverse event, there remains limited data and continued uncertainties when choosing therapeutic strategies. Our aims were to evaluate the management of ERCP-related perforations and compare outcomes based on timing of recognition. METHODS: The endoscopic databases of two tertiary care centers were interrogated to identify consecutive adult patients who sustained ERCP-related perforation over a 10-year period from 2006 to 2016. Electronic medical records were reviewed to extract demographic data, perforation type, management strategies, clinical data, and patient outcomes. RESULTS: 14,045 ERCP's were performed during our 10-year study period. Sixty-three patients (average age 62.3 ± 2.38 years, 76% female) with ERCP-related perforations were included. Stapfer I perforations were found in 14 (22.2%) patients, Stapfer II in 24 (38.1%), and Stapfer III and IV perforations were identified in 16 (25.4%) and 9 (14.28%), respectively. Forty-seven (74.6%) perforations were recognized immediately during the ERCP, whereas 16 (25.4%) were recognized late. Endoscopic therapy was attempted in 35 patients in whom perforations were identified immediately, and was technically successful in 33 (94.3%). In all, 4 (1 immediate/ 3 delayed) patients required percutaneous drainage and 9 (5 immediate/ 4 delayed) surgery. Length of hospital stay, ICU admission were significantly shorter and incidence of SIRS was significantly lower when perforation was recognized immediately. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate recognition of ERCP-related perforations leads to more favorable patient outcomes; with lower incidence of SIRS, less need for ICU level care, and shorter hospital stay.

Utility of a multidisciplinary tumor board in the management of pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal diseases: an observational study.

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES: Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTBs) are frequently employed in cancer centers but their value has been debated. We reviewed the decision-making process and resource utilization of our MDTB to assess its utility in the management of pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal tract conditions. METHODS: A prospectively-collected database was reviewed over a 12-month period. The primary outcome was change in management plan as a result of case discussion. Secondary outcomes included resources required to hold MDTB, survival, and adherence to treatment guidelines. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy cases were reviewed. MDTB resulted in a change in the proposed plan of management in 101 of 402 evaluable cases (25.1%). New plans favored obtaining additional diagnostic workup. No recorded variables were associated with a change in plan. For newly-diagnosed cases of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (n = 33), survival time was not impacted by MDTB (p = .154) and adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines was 100%. The estimated cost of physician time per case reviewed was $190. CONCLUSIONS: Our MDTB influences treatment decisions in a sizeable number of cases with excellent adherence to national guidelines. However, this requires significant time expenditure and may not impact outcomes. Regular assessments of the effectiveness of MDTBs should be undertaken.