Impact of COVID-19 Infection on Pancreato-Biliary Diseases Requiring Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography.

BACKGROUND: Viral infections are known to impact the pancreato-biliary system; however, there are limited data showing that the same is true of COVID-19. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) can safely be performed in patients with COVID-19 infection, but outcomes of patients with COVID-19 infections and concomitant pancreatic and biliary disease requiring endoscopic intervention are unknown. AIMS: This study aims to evaluate the severity of pancreaticobiliary diseases and post-ERCP outcomes in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Patients with pancreato-biliary disease that required inpatient ERCP from five centers in the United States and South America between January 1, 2020, and October 31, 2020 were included. A representative cohort of patients from each month were randomly selected from each site. Disease severity and post-ERCP outcomes were compared between COVID-19 positive and COVID-19 negative patients. RESULTS: A total of 175 patients were included: 95 COVID positive and 80 COVID negative. Mean CTSI score for the patients who had pancreatitis was higher in COVID-positive cohort by 3.2 points (p < .00001). The COVID-positive group had more cases with severe disease (n = 41) versus the COVID-negative group (n = 2) (p < .00001). Mortality was higher in the COVID-19 positive group (19%) compared to COVID-negative group (7.5%) even though the COVID-19-negative group had higher incidence of malignancy (n = 17, 21% vs n = 7, 7.3%) (p = 0.0455). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that patients with COVID infection have more severe pancreato-biliary disease and worse post-ERCP outcomes, including longer length of stay and higher mortality rate. These are important considerations when planning for endoscopic intervention. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: (NCT05051358).

EUS-guided versus percutaneous liver abscess drainage: A multicenter collaborative study.

Background and Objectives: Management of hepatic abscesses has traditionally been performed by image-guided percutaneous techniques. More recently, EUS drainage has been shown to be efficacious and safe. The aim of this study is to compare EUS-guided versus percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) of hepatic abscesses. Methods: Patients who underwent EUS-guided drainage or PCD of hepatic abscesses from January 2018 through November 2021 from 4 international academic centers were included in a dedicated registry. Demographics, clinical data preprocedure and postprocedure, abscess characteristics, procedural data, adverse events, and postprocedure care were collected. Results: Seventy-four patients were included (mean age, 63.9 years; 45% male): EUS-guided (n = 30), PCD (n = 44). Preprocedure Charlson Comorbidity Index scores were 4.3 for the EUS group and 4.3 for the PCD group. The median abscess size was 8.45 × 6 cm (length × width) in the EUS group versus 7.3 × 5.5 cm in the PCD group. All of the abscesses in the EUS group were left-sided, whereas the PCD group contained both left- and right-sided abscesses (29 and 15, respectively). Technical success was 100% in both groups. Ten-millimeter-diameter stents were used in most cases in the EUS group, and 10F catheters were used in the PCD group. The duration to resolution of symptoms from the initial procedure was 10.9 days less in the EUS group compared with the PCD group (P < 0.00001). Hospital length of stay was shorter in the EUS group by 5.2 days (P = 0.000126). The EUS group had significantly fewer number of repeat sessions: mean of 2 versus 7.7 (P < 0.00001) and trended toward fewer number of procedure-related readmissions: 10% versus 34%. The PCD group had a significantly higher number of adverse events (n = 27 [61%]) when compared with the EUS group (n = 5 [17%]; P = 0.0001). Conclusions: EUS-guided drainage is an efficacious and safe intervention for the management of hepatic abscesses. EUS-guided drainage allows for quicker resolution of symptoms, shorter length of hospital stay, fewer adverse events, and fewer procedural sessions needed when compared with the PCD technique. However, EUS-guided drainage may not be feasible in right-sided lesions.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Liver Biopsy in Clinical Practice.

Background and Aims: Liver biopsies are traditionally performed using percutaneous, transjugular, or surgical approaches. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided liver biopsy is a new modality to sample liver parenchyma. This technique allows sampling of both liver lobes and obviates the need for sampling error. However, there is paucity of literature demonstrating that EUS-guided liver biopsy provides adequate tissue sample for histologic analysis. This study aimed to review the experience of 2 large tertiary care centers to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of EUS-guided liver biopsy. Methods: All patients undergoing EUS-guided liver biopsy between March 2018 and October 2019 between 2 tertiary care centers were included in this retrospective study. The main outcomes of the study included technical success of EUS-guided liver biopsy, details of the specimen (length of the specimen, number of complete portal tracts), and adverse events of EUS-guided liver biopsy. Results: A total of 229 patients underwent EUS-guided liver biopsy at the 2 tertiary care centers. There was 100% technical success. Of the 229 patients, 226 patients (98.7%) had adequate tissue for histopathological evaluation with a mean total length of 3.20 cm and complete portal tracts of 20.2. Overall, 2.6% of patients had adverse events. Conclusion: Our study illustrates that EUS-guided liver biopsy provides adequate specimen for histologic analysis and is a safe, viable alternative to other methods of liver biopsy.