Endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary lesions of minor papilla.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Ampullary lesions (ALs) of the minor duodenal papilla are extremely rare. Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) is a routinely used treatment for AL of the major duodenal papilla, but the role of EP for minor AL has not been accurately studied. METHODS: We identified 20 patients with ALs of minor duodenal papilla in the multicentric database from the Endoscopic Papillectomy vs Surgical Ampullectomy vs Pancreatitcoduodenectomy for Ampullary Neoplasm study, which included 1422 EPs. We used propensity score matching (nearest-neighbor method) to match these cases with ALs of the major duodenal papilla based on age, sex, histologic subtype, and size of the lesion in a 1:2 ratio. Cohorts were compared by means of chi-square or Fisher exact test as well as Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Propensity score-based matching identified a cohort of 60 (minor papilla 20, major papilla 40) patients with similar baseline characteristics. The most common histologic subtype of lesions of minor papilla was an ampullary adenoma in 12 patients (3 low-grade dysplasia and 9 high-grade dysplasia). Five patients revealed nonneoplastic lesions. Invasive cancer (T1a), adenomyoma, and neuroendocrine neoplasia were each found in 1 case. The rate of complete resection, en-bloc resection, and recurrences were similar between the groups. There were no severe adverse events after EP of lesions of minor papilla. One patient had delayed bleeding that could be treated by endoscopic hemostasis, and 2 patients showed a recurrence in surveillance endoscopy after a median follow-up of 21 months (interquartile range, 12-50 months). CONCLUSIONS: EP is safe and effective in ALs of the minor duodenal papilla. Such lesions could be managed according to guidelines for EP of major duodenal papilla.

Endoscopic management of pancreatic collections. Endoscopic Ultrasound Group from the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy (GSEED-USE) Clinical Guidelines.

Acute pancreatitis is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. It can develop complications such as fluid collections and necrosis. Infection of necrosis occurs in about 20-40% of patients with severe acute pancreatitis, and is associated with organ failure and worse prognosis. In the past years, the treatment of pancreatic collections has shifted from open surgery to minimally invasive techniques, such as endoscopic ultrasound guided drainage. These guidelines from a selection of experts among the Endoscopic Ultrasound Group from the Spanish Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (GSEED-USE) have the purpose to provide advice on the management of pancreatic collections based on a thorough review of the available scientific evidence. It also reflects the experience and clinical practice of the authors, who are advanced endoscopists or clinical pancreatologists with extensive experience in managing patients with acute pancreatitis.

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

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

Small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with Meckel's diverticulum: clinical features, diagnostic workup, and findings. A European multicenter I-CARE study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Meckel's diverticulum (MD) may remain silent or be associated with adverse events such as GI bleeding. The main aim of this study was to evaluate indicative small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) findings, and the secondary aim was to describe clinical presentation in patients with MD. METHODS: This retrospective European multicenter study included patients with MD undergoing SBCE from 2001 until July 2021. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients with a confirmed MD were included. Median age was 32 years with a male-to-female ratio of approximately 3:1. GI bleeding or iron-deficiency anemia was present in nearly all patients. Mean hemoglobin was 7.63 ± 1.8 g/dL with a transfusion requirement of 52.2%. Typical capsule endoscopy (CE) findings were double lumen (n = 49 [71%]), visible entrance into the MD (n = 49 [71%]), mucosal webs (n = 30 [43.5%]), and bulges (n = 19 [27.5%]). Two or more of these findings were seen in 48 patients (69.6%). Ulcers were detected in 52.2% of patients (n = 36). In 63.8% of patients (n = 44), a combination of double lumen and visible entrance into the MD was evident, additionally revealing ulcers in 39.1% (n = 27). Mean percent SB (small bowel) transit time for the first indicative image of MD was 57% of the total SB transit time. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis of MD is rare and sometimes challenging, and a preoperative criterion standard does not exist. In SBCE, the most frequent findings were double-lumen sign and visible diverticular entrance, sometimes together with ulcers.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy with lumen-apposing metal stents: a retrospective multicentric comparison of wireless and over-the-wire techniques.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) appears to be effective and safe in gastric outlet obstruction (GOO); however, the EUS-GE procedure is not standardized, with the use of assisted or direct methods still debated. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of EUS-GE techniques focusing on an assisted with orointestinal drain wireless endoscopic simplified technique (WEST) and the nonassisted direct technique over a guidewire (DTOG). METHOD: This was a multicenter European retrospective study involving four tertiary centers. Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-GE for GOO between August 2017 and May 2022 were included. The primary aim was to compare the technical success and adverse event (AE) rates of the different EUS-GE techniques. Clinical success was also analyzed. RESULTS: 71 patients (mean [SD] age 66.2 10 years; 42.3 % men; 80.3 % malignant etiology) were included. Technical success was higher in the WEST group (95.1 % vs. 73.3 %; estimate of relative risk from odds ratio (eRR) 3.2, 95 %CI 0.94-10.9; P = 0.01). The rate of AEs was lower in the WEST group (14.6 % vs. 46.7 %; eRR 2.3, 95 %CI 1.2-4.5; P = 0.007). Clinical success was comparable between the two groups at 1 month (97.5 % vs. 89.3 %). The median follow-up was 5 months (range 1-57). CONCLUSION: The WEST resulted in a higher technical success rate with fewer AEs, with clinical success comparable with the DTOG. Therefore, the WEST (with an orointestinal drain) should be preferred when performing EUS-GE.

Curriculum for bariatric endoscopy and endoscopic treatment of the complications of bariatric surgery: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

Obesity is a chronic, relapsing, degenerative, multifactorial disease that is associated with many co-morbidities. The global increasing burden of obesity has led to calls for an urgent need for additional treatment options. Given the rapid expansion of bariatric endoscopy and bariatric surgery across Europe, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has recognized the need to formalize and enhance training in bariatric endoscopy and the endoscopic treatment of bariatric surgical adverse events. This manuscript represents the outcome of a formal Delphi process resulting in an official Position Statement of the ESGE and provides a framework to develop and maintain skills in bariatric endoscopy and the endoscopic treatment of bariatric surgical adverse events. This curriculum is set out in terms of the prerequisites prior to training, minimum number of procedures, the steps for training and quality of training, and how competence should be defined and evidenced before independent practice. 1: ESGE recommends that every endoscopist should have achieved competence in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy before commencing training in bariatric endoscopy and the endoscopic treatment of bariatric surgical adverse events. 2: Trainees in bariatric endoscopy and the endoscopic treatment of the complications of bariatric surgery should have basic knowledge of the definition, classification, and social impact of obesity, its pathophysiology, and its related co-morbidities. The recognition and management of gastrointestinal diseases that are more common in patients with obesity, along with participation in multidisciplinary teams where obese patients are evaluated, are mandatory. 3 : ESGE recommends that competency in bariatric endoscopy and the endoscopic treatment of the complications of bariatric surgery can be learned by attending validated training courses on simulators initially, structured training courses, and then hands-on training in tertiary referral centers.

Endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary lesions in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis compared with sporadic lesions: a propensity score-matched cohort.

BACKGROUND: Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is a rare inherited syndrome that predisposes the patient to cancer. Treatment of FAP-related ampullary lesions is challenging and the role of endoscopic papillectomy has not been elucidated. We retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of endoscopic papillectomy in matched cohorts of FAP-related and sporadic ampullary lesions (SALs). METHODS: This retrospective multicenter study included 1422 endoscopic papillectomy procedures. Propensity score matching including age, sex, comorbidity, histologic subtype, and size was performed. Main outcomes were complete resection (R0), technical success, complications, and recurrence. RESULTS: Propensity score matching identified 202 patients (101 FAP, 101 SAL) with comparable baseline characteristics. FAP patients were mainly asymptomatic (79.2 % [95 %CI 71.2-87.3] vs. 46.5 % [95 %CI 36.6-56.4]); P < 0.001). The initial R0 rate was significantly lower in FAP patients (63.4 % [95 %CI 53.8-72.9] vs. 83.2 % [95 %CI 75.8-90.6]; P = 0.001). After repeated interventions (mean 1.30 per patient), R0 was comparable (FAP 93.1 % [95 %CI 88.0-98.1] vs. SAL 97.0 % [95 %CI 93.7-100]; P = 0.19). Adverse events occurred in 28.7 %. Pancreatitis and bleeding were the most common adverse events in both groups. Severe adverse events were rare (3.5 %). Overall, 21 FAP patients (20.8 % [95 %CI 12.7-28.8]) and 16 SAL patients (15.8 % [95 %CI 8.6-23.1]; P = 0.36) had recurrence. Recurrences occurred later in FAP patients (25 [95 %CI 18.3-31.7] vs. 2 [95 %CI CI 0.06-3.9] months). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic papillectomy was safe and effective in FAP-related ampullary lesions. Criteria for endoscopic resection of ampullary lesions can be extended to FAP patients. FAP patients have a lifetime risk of relapse even after complete resection, and require long-time surveillance.

Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022.

MR1: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy as the first-line examination, before consideration of other endoscopic and radiological diagnostic tests for suspected small-bowel bleeding, given the excellent safety profile of capsule endoscopy, its patient tolerability, and its potential to visualize the entire small-bowel mucosa.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR2: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with overt suspected small-bowel bleeding as soon as possible after the bleeding episode, ideally within 48 hours, to maximize the diagnostic and subsequent therapeutic yield.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR3: ESGE does not recommend routine second-look endoscopy prior to small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected small-bowel bleeding or iron-deficiency anemia.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. MR4: ESGE recommends conservative management in those patients with suspected small-bowel bleeding and high quality negative small-bowel capsule endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR5: ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy to confirm and possibly treat lesions identified by small-bowel capsule endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR6: ESGE recommends the performance of small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a first-line examination in patients with iron-deficiency anemia when small bowel evaluation is indicated.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR7: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected Crohn's disease and negative ileocolonoscopy findings as the initial diagnostic modality for investigating the small bowel, in the absence of obstructive symptoms or known bowel stenosis.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR8: ESGE recommends, in patients with unremarkable or nondiagnostic findings from dedicated small-bowel cross-sectional imaging, small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a subsequent investigation if deemed likely to influence patient management.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. MR9: ESGE recommends, in patients with established Crohn's disease, the use of a patency capsule before small-bowel capsule endoscopy to decrease the capsule retention rate.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR10: ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) as an alternative to surgery for foreign bodies retained in the small bowel requiring retrieval in patients without acute intestinal obstruction.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR11: ESGE recommends DAE-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (DAE-ERCP) as a first-line endoscopic approach to treat pancreaticobiliary diseases in patients with surgically altered anatomy (except for Billroth II patients).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

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

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

Risk factors of anastomosis-related difficult endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography following endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastro-gastrostomy using a standardized protocol (with video).

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about how to perform the endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP; EDGE) in patients with gastric bypass using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS). The aim was to assess the risk factors of anastomosis-related difficult ERCP. METHODS: Observational single-center study. All patients who underwent an EDGE procedure in 2020-2022 following a standardized protocol were included. Risk factors for difficult ERCP, defined as the need of >5 min LAMS dilation or failure to pass a duodenoscope in the second duodenum, were assessed. RESULTS: Forty-five ERCPs were performed in 31 patients (57.4 ± 8.2 years old, 38.7% male). The EUS procedure was done using a wire-guided technique (n = 28, 90.3%) for biliary stones (n = 22, 71%) in most cases. The location of the anastomosis was gastro-gastric (n = 24, 77.4%) and mainly in the middle-excluded stomach (n = 21, 67.7%) with an oblique axis (n = 22, 71%). The ERCP technical success was 96.8%. There were 10 difficult ERCPs (32.3%) due to timing (n = 8), anastomotic dilation (n = 8), or failure to pass (n = 3). By multivariable analysis adjusted by two-stage procedures, the risk factors for a difficult ERCP were the jejuno-gastric route (85.7% vs. 16.7%; odds ratio [ORa ] 31.875; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.649-616.155; P = 0.022), and the anastomosis to the proximal/distal excluded stomach (70% vs. 14.3%; ORa 22.667; 95% CI 1.676-306.570; P = 0.019). There was only one complication (3.2%) and one persistent gastro-gastric fistula (3.2%) in a median follow-up of 4 months (2-18 months), with no weight regain (P = 0.465). CONCLUSIONS: The jejunogastric route and the anastomosis with the proximal/distal excluded stomach during the EDGE procedure increase the difficulty of ERCP.

PERcutaneous transhepatic CHOLangioscopy using a new single-operator short cholangioscope (PERCHOL): European feasibility study.

OBJECTIVES: A new short device for percutaneous endoscopic cholangioscopy was recently developed. However, feasibility and safety has not yet been evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess clinical success, technical success, and adverse events (AEs). METHODS: This observational multicenter retrospective study included all patients who underwent percutaneous cholangioscopy using a short cholangioscope between 2020 and 2022. The clinical success, defined as the complete duct clearance or obtaining at least one cholangioscopy-guided biopsy, was assessed. The histopathological accuracy, technical success, and the AE rate were also evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients (60 ± 15 years, 45.1% male) were included. The majority of patients had altered anatomy (n = 40, 78.4%), and biliary stones (n = 34, 66.7%) was the commonest indication. The technique was predominantly wire-guided (n = 44, 86.3%) through a percutaneous sheath (n = 36, 70.6%) following a median interval of 8.5 days from percutaneous drainage. Cholangioscopy-guided electrohydraulic lithotripsy was performed in 29 cases (56.9%), combined with a retrieval basket in eight cases (27.6%). The clinical success was 96.6%, requiring a median of one session (range 1-3). Seventeen patients (33.3%) underwent cholangioscopy-guided biopsies. There were four (7.8%) cholangioscopy-related AEs (cholangitis and peritonitis). Overall, the technical success and AE rates were 100% and 19.6%, respectively, in a median follow-up of 7 months. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous endoscopic cholangioscopy with a new short device is effective and safe, requiring a low number of sessions to achieve duct clearance or accurate histopathological diagnosis.

Identification of patients with branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm and very low risk of cancer: multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Different surveillance strategies for patients with low-risk branch-duct (BD) intraductal papillary neoplasm (IPMN) have been described. The aim of this study was to describe the natural history of low-risk BD-IPMN, and to identify risk factors for the development of worrisome features (WF)/high-risk stigmata (HRS) and of pancreatic malignancies. METHODS: This was a multicentre retrospective study of patients with BD-IPMN who were under active surveillance between January 2006 and December 2015. Patients were eligible if they had a low-risk lesion and had a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Outcomes were development of WF/HRS or cytologically/histologically confirmed malignant IPMN. RESULTS: Of 837 patients included, 168 (20 per cent) developed WF/HRS. At the end of the observation time, 132 patients (79 per cent) with WF/HRS were still under surveillance without progression to pancreatic cancer. Factors associated with the development of WF or HRS in multivariable analysis included localized nodules (versus diffuse: hazard ratio (HR) 0.43, 95 per cent c.i. 0.26 to 0.68), cyst size 15-19 mm (versus less than 15 mm: HR 1.88, 1.23 to 2.87) or at least 20 mm (versus less than 15 mm: HR 3.25, 2.30 to 4.60), main pancreatic duct size over 3 mm (versus 3 mm or less: HR 2.17, 1.41 to 3.34), and symptoms at diagnosis (versus no symptoms: HR 2.29, 1.52 to 3.45). Surveillance in an endoscopy-oriented centre was also associated with increased detection of WF or HRS (versus radiology-oriented: HR 2.46, 1.74 to 3.47). CONCLUSION: Conservative management of patients with low-risk BD-IPMN is safe and feasible.

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

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

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

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

Hybrid retroperitoneal necrosectomy using a triple-port approach under endoscopic guidance.

Complex walled-off necrosis with a retroperitoneal component represent a therapeutic challenge. Although mini-invasive approaches have been described, hybrid procedures combining surgical, endoscopic and radiological techniques have slightly been evaluated. A 58 years-old male presented with a 20-cm infected multilocular walled-off necrosis. First, endoscopic-ultrasound guided cystogastrostomy using a lumen-apposing metal stent with further necrosectomy was performed, but the access to distal retroperitoneal collection was average.

A new biodegradable stent in bilio-pancreatic diseases: a prospective multi-center feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: biodegradable stents of various designs are reportedly used in pancreato-biliary conditions with promising results. Their major advantage is the avoidance of repeat endoscopic procedure for stent removal, thereby reducing overall costs and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) associated adverse events. The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a new biodegradable stent in patients with pancreato-biliary diseases. METHODS: a prospective multicenter pilot study was performed. All consecutive patients ≥ 18 years old who underwent biliary or pancreatic stenting using the new biodegradable Archimedes stent were included in the study. There were three biodegradation profiles. Technical and clinical success and feasibility and safety were assessed during a pre-established follow-up schedule. RESULTS: fifty-three patients (mean age: 48.54 ± 19.29, 66 % male) with biliary (n = 29, 54.7 %) or pancreatic (n = 24, 45.3 %) indications were included. The distribution of stents used according to degradation properties were as follows: fast (n = 11, 20.8 %), medium (n = 16, 30.2 %) and slow (n = 26, 49.1 %). The technical and clinical success were 100 % and 77.8 %, respectively. Thirty-five patients were followed for a median of 26 weeks (range: 4-56, 66 %). There were nine procedure-related adverse events (17 %), all mild, including one uneventful stent-related event (external migration). CONCLUSION: the biodegradable Archimedes stent placement is feasible and safe in pancreato-biliary diseases.

Feasibility and diagnostic yield of small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with surgically altered gastric anatomy: the SAGA study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Little is known about small-bowel (SB) capsule endoscopy (CE) in patients with a history of gastric surgery. This study aims to evaluate the feasibility and diagnostic yield (DY) of orally ingested SB-CE in patients with surgically altered gastric anatomy. METHODS: Twenty-four European centers retrospectively identified patients who had SB-CE after total or subtotal gastrectomy. The primary outcome was the DY of SB-CE (intermediate P1 to highly P2 relevant findings). Secondary outcomes were gastric and SB transit times, completion, cleanliness, and adverse event rates. RESULTS: Studied were 248 procedures from 243 patients (mean age, 62 years) with a history of partial gastrectomy (Billroth I, 13.1%; Billroth II, 34.6%), total gastrectomy (7.4%), Whipple procedure (12.8%), sleeve gastrectomy (7.2%), or gastric bypass surgery (24.7%). Obscure GI bleeding was the most frequent indication (85.1%). SB completion rate was 84.3%. One capsule retention in the SB was noted (adverse event rate, .4%). Median SB transit time was 286 minutes (interquartile range [235; 387]). Cleanliness was rated as adequate in 92.1% of procedures. After exclusion of abnormalities found at the upper anastomotic site, the DY was 43.6%, with inflammatory/ulcerated lesions observed more frequently (23.4%) than vascular lesions (21.0%). CONCLUSIONS: SB-CE seems to be feasible and safe in selected patients with a history of major gastric surgery and comes with a high DY. The spectrum of abnormal SB findings in these patients may be different from what is known from the literature in nonoperated patients.

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.

Risk factors of refractory post-endoscopic submucosal dissection esophageal strictures.

INTRODUCTION: our aim was to comparatively assess the treatment outcomes of endoscopic dilatation in Barrett's neoplasia and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) post-endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) strictures, and to determine the risk or factors associated to refractory strictures. METHODS: an observational study. All consecutive patients presenting with a post-ESD stricture in 2007-2016 who underwent dilation therapy were included. Clinical, morphological, and technical features were assessed to determine the risk factors of refractory strictures. RESULTS: of 414 consecutive patients treated by ESD, 83 (mean age: 65 ± 10 years, 76 % men) with 254 dilations (median: 3, range: 1-27) were considered. Barrett's neoplasia and SCC were the indications in 58 (69.9 %) and in 25 (30.1 %) cases, respectively. Clinical success was achieved in 84.3 % with a median of 3 sessions (range: 1-22), with a higher rate in Barrett's neoplasia (89.7 % vs. 72 %, p = 0.042). Circumferential resection in one single procedure (13.2 %) was associated with the need for a higher number of dilation sessions. By multivariate analysis, upper-esophageal location (OR: 11.479 [95 % CI: 2.058-64.043], p = 0.005), recurrent strictures (OR: 17.252 [95 % CI: 2.833-105.069], p = 0.002), and dilation-related complications (OR: 26.420 [95 % CI: 1.736-401.966], p = 0.018) were risk factors of refractory stenosis. CONCLUSION: patients presenting with SCC located in the upper superior esophagus, intra-procedural perforation, and recurrent strictures are at higher risk of developing refractory strictures.