Technical Factors Associated With the Benefit of Prophylactic Pancreatic Stent Placement During High-Risk Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Secondary Analysis of the SVI Trial Data Set.

INTRODUCTION: Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) is effective for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk cases, but the optimal technical approach to this intervention remains uncertain. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of 787 clinical trial patients who underwent successful stent placement, we studied the impact of (i) whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP or naturally during the conduct of the case, (ii) the amount of effort expended on PSP, (iii) stent length, (iv) stent diameter, and (v) guidewire caliber. We used logistic regression models to examine the adjusted association between each technical factor and post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). RESULTS: Ninety-one of the 787 patients experienced PEP. There was no clear association between PEP and whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP (vs occurring naturally; odds ratio [OR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37-1.84), whether substantial effort expended on stent placement (vs nonsubstantial effort; OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.73-3.45), stent length (>5 vs ≤5 cm; OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.63-1.61), stent diameter (≥5 vs <5 Fr; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.65-1.96), or guidewire caliber (0.035 vs 0.025 in; 0.83, 95% CI 0.49-1.41). DISCUSSION: The 5 modifiable technical factors studied in this secondary analysis of large-scale randomized trial data did not appear to have a strong impact on the benefit of prophylactic PSP in preventing PEP after high-risk ERCP. Within the limitations of post hoc subgroup analysis, these findings may have important implications in procedural decision making and suggest that the benefit of PSP is robust to variations in technical approach.

Sphincterotomy for Biliary Sphincter of Oddi Disorder and idiopathic Acute Recurrent Pancreatitis: THE RESPOND LONGITUDINAL COHORT.

Objective: Sphincter of Oddi Disorders (SOD) are contentious conditions in patients whose abdominal pain, idiopathic acute pancreatitis (iAP) might arise from pressurization at the sphincter of Oddi. The present study aimed to measure the benefit of sphincterotomy for suspected SOD. Design: Prospective cohort conducted at 14 U.S. centers with 12 months follow-up. Patients undergoing first-time ERCP with sphincterotomy for suspected SOD were eligible: pancreatobiliary-type pain with or without iAP. The primary outcome was defined as the composite of improvement by Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), no new or increased opioids, and no repeat intervention. Missing data were addressed by hierarchal, multiple imputation scheme. Results: Of 316 screened, 213 were enrolled with 190 (89.2%) of these having a dilated bile duct, abnormal labs, iAP, or some combination. By imputation, an average of 122/213 (57.4% [95%CI 50.4-64.4]) improved; response rate was similar for those with complete follow-up (99/161, 61.5%, [54.0-69.0]); of these, 118 (73.3%) improved by PGIC alone. Duct size, elevated labs, and patient characteristics were not associated with response. AP occurred in 37/213 (17.4%) at a median of 6 months post-ERCP and was more likely in those with a history of AP (30.9 vs. 2.9%, p<0.0001). Conclusion: Nearly 60% of patients undergoing ERCP for suspected SOD improve, although the contribution of a placebo response is unknown. Contrary to prevailing belief, duct size and labs are poor response predictors. AP recurrence was common and like observations from prior non-intervention cohorts, suggesting no benefit of sphincterotomy in mitigating future AP episodes.Key Messages: WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC: It is not clear if the sphincter of Oddi can cause abdominal pain (Functional Biliary Sphincter of Oddi Disorder) and idiopathic acute pancreatitis (Functional Pancreatic Sphincter of Oddi Disorder), and whether ERCP with sphincterotomy can ameliorate abdominal pain or pancreatitis.WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Using multiple patient-reported outcome measures, most patients with suspected sphincter of Oddi disorder improve after ERCP with sphincterotomy.Duct size, elevated pancreatobiliary labs, and baseline patient characteristics are not independently associated with response.There is a high rate of recurrent acute pancreatitis within 12 months of sphincterotomy in those with a history of idiopathic acute pancreatitis.HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE, OR POLICY: Since a discrete population with a high (> 80-90%) response rate to sphincterotomy for suspected pancreatobiliary pain could not be identified, there is a need for additional observational and interventional studies that include phenotyping of patients using novel imaging or biochemical biomarkers.There remains a pressing need for quantitative nociceptive biomarkers to distinguish pancreatobiliary pain from other causes of abdominal pain or central sensitization.Discovery of blood-, bile-, or imaging-based biomarkers for occult microlithiasis and pancreatitis may be helpful in predicting who is likely to benefit from sphincterotomy.

Indomethacin with or without prophylactic pancreatic stent placement to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP: a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of rectally administered indomethacin and placement of a prophylactic pancreatic stent is recommended to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients. Preliminary evidence suggests that the use of indomethacin might eliminate or substantially reduce the need for stent placement, a technically complex, costly, and potentially harmful intervention. METHODS: In this randomised, non-inferiority trial conducted at 20 referral centres in the USA and Canada, patients (aged ≥18 years) at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive rectal indomethacin alone or the combination of indomethacin plus a prophylactic pancreatic stent. Patients, treating clinicians, and outcomes assessors were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis. To declare non-inferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) would have to be less than 5% (non-inferiority margin) in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02476279), and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Sept 17, 2015, and Jan 25, 2023, a total of 1950 patients were randomly assigned. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 145 (14·9%) of 975 patients in the indomethacin alone group and in 110 (11·3%) of 975 in the indomethacin plus stent group (risk difference 3·6%; 95% CI 0·6-6·6; p=0·18 for non-inferiority). A post-hoc intention-to-treat analysis of the risk difference between groups showed that indomethacin alone was inferior to the combination of indomethacin plus prophylactic stent (p=0·011). The relative benefit of stent placement was generally consistent across study subgroups but appeared more prominent among patients at highest risk for pancreatitis. Safety outcomes (serious adverse events, intensive care unit admission, and hospital length of stay) did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: For preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients, a strategy of indomethacin alone was not as effective as a strategy of indomethacin plus prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. These results support prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in addition to rectal indomethacin administration in high-risk patients, in accordance with clinical practice guidelines. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.

Radiofrequency ablation for the management of pancreatic mass lesions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patients with pancreatic tumors may have limited treatment options. Pancreatic tumor ablation is a novel and emerging treatment modality which can now be performed using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guidance. This modality is well suited to guide energy delivery for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation. These approaches provide minimally invasive, nonsurgical methods for delivering energy to ablate pancreatic tumors in situ . This review summarizes the current data and safety profile for ablation in managing pancreatic cancer and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. RECENT FINDINGS: RFA uses thermal energy to induce cell death by coagulative necrosis and protein denaturation. Studies have reported increased overall survival in patients with pancreatic tumors treated with EUS-guided RFA in a multimodality systemic approach and when used in palliative surgeries. Radiofrequency ablation may have corollary benefits in inducing an immune-modulatory effect. Tumor marker carbohydrate antigen 19-9 has been reported to decrease in response to RFA. Microwave ablation is an emerging modality. SUMMARY: RFA utilizes focal thermal energy to induce cell death. RFA has been applied through open, laparoscopic, and radiographic modalities. EUS-guided approaches are now allowing RFA and microwave ablation to be performed for pancreatic tumors in situ .

Laparoscopic-Assisted Pancreatic Necrosectomy: Technique and Initial Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) may result de novo or following procedures such as ERCP or partial pancreatectomy (post-procedural), and may require surgical debridement. Video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement (VARD) is a standard approach for NP that employs a 5 cm incision with varying degrees of blind and open debridement. We describe our technique and outcomes of a modified VARD called laparoscopic-assisted pancreatic necrosectomy (LAPN) performed through a single 12 mm incision that uses direct laparoscopic visualization during debridement. METHODS: At one medical center, all LAPN patients (2012-2020) were assessed for demographics, disease factors, and outcomes. Bivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors independently associated with recovery after LAPN for patients with de novo vs post-procedural necrosum. RESULTS: Over 9 years, 60 patients underwent LAPN for NP. Median age was 57 years (IQR: 47-66) and 43 (69%) were men. Pancreas necrosum was de novo in 39 (63%) patients and post-procedural in 23 (37%). NP resolved with a median of 1 LAPN procedure and median hospitalization was 33 days. The LAPN major morbidity rate and in-hospital mortality rate were 47% and 5%. No significant differences were seen between NP etiology cohorts, although post-procedure NP patients trended towards a faster clinical recovery to baseline compared to de novo patients (193 vs 394 days; p-value = .07). CONCLUSIONS: LAPN offers a smaller incision with excellent visualization and non-inferior outcomes, regardless of etiology, with likely faster recovery for patients with post-procedural vs de novo necrotizing pancreatitis.

Electrocautery-enhanced Lumen-apposing Metal Stents in the Management of Symptomatic Pancreatic Fluid Collections: Results From the Multicenter Prospective Pivotal Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic decompression is considered a first-line treatment for symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). A lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) with an electrocautery-enhanced delivery system [electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stent (ELAMS)] may facilitate this procedure. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of ELAMS in the management of symptomatic PFCs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A multicenter, nonblinded, prospective, Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved, investigational device exemption clinical trial was conducted. Enrollment criteria included symptomatic PFCs ≥6 cm with ≥70% fluid fraction. Subjects were followed prospectively for safety, efficacy, and resolution of the collections. Primary endpoint success was defined as ≥50% reduction in PFC size. Clinical outcomes were compared with our previously published series of LAMS without the cautery-enhanced delivery system. RESULTS: The target enrollment of 30 patients was achieved in 7 US tertiary care centers. All patients underwent successful placement of the ELAMS. The mean procedure duration, stent placement time, and fluoroscopy exposures were 28.1±12.5, 5.8±2.6, and 1.8±1.6 minutes, respectively. Eight patients had no fluoroscopy. The primary endpoint was achieved in 83.3% of patients. Two adverse events were attributed to the ELAMS: 1 bleeding upon stent removal and 1 stent migration. Relative to the comparator noncautery LAMS multicenter trial (N=33, 8 tertiary centers), there was a significantly shorter procedure duration [36 min ( P <0.001)] with similar technical and clinical outcomes in the ELAMS cohort. CONCLUSION: LAMS placed using an electrocautery delivery system significantly reduce procedure duration and were safe and effective in the management of symptomatic PFCs.

Combined Drainage and Protocolized Necrosectomy Through a Coaxial Lumen-apposing Metal Stent for Pancreatic Walled-off Necrosis: A Prospective Multicenter Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated a protocolized endoscopic necrosectomy approach with a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) in patients with large symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON) comprising significant necrotic content, with or without infection. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Randomized trials have shown similar efficacy of endoscopic treatment compared with surgery for infected WON. DESIGN: We conducted a regulatory, prospective, multicenter single-arm clinical trial examining the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound -guided LAMS with protocolized necrosectomy to treat symptomatic WON ≥6 cm in diameter with >30% solid necrosis. After LAMS placement, protocolized WON assessment was conducted and endoscopic necrosectomy was performed for insufficient WON size reduction and persistent symptoms. Patients with radiographic WON resolution to ≤ 3 cm and/or 60-day LAMS indwell had LAMS removal, then 6-month follow-up. Primary endpoints were probability of radiographic resolution by 60 days and procedure-related serious adverse events. RESULTS: Forty consecutive patients were enrolled September 2018 to March 2020, of whom 27 (67.5%) were inpatients and 19 (47.5%) had clinical evidence of infection at their index procedure. Mean WON size was 15.0 ± 5.6 cm with mean 53.2% ± 16.7% solid necrosis. Radiographic WON resolution was seen in 97.5% (95% CI, 86.8%, 99.9%) by 60 days, without recurrence in 34 patients with 6-month follow-up data. Mean time to radiographic WON resolution was 34.1 ± 16.8 days. Serious adverse events occurred in 3 patients (7.5%), including sepsis, vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bacteremia and shock, and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. There were no procedure-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage with protocolized endoscopic necrosectomy to treat large symptomatic or infected walled-off necrotic pancreatic collections was highly effective and safe. Clinicaltrials.-gov no: NCT03525808.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Transluminal Gallbladder Drainage in Patients With Acute Cholecystitis: A Prospective Multicenter Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) using a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS). BACKGROUND: For patients with acute cholecystitis who are poor surgical candidates, EUS-GBD using a LAMS is an important treatment alternative to percutaneous gallbladder drainage. METHODS: We conducted a regulatory-compliant, prospective multicenter trial at 7 tertiary referral centers in the United States of America and Belgium. Thirty consecutive patients with mild or moderate acute cholecystitis who were not candidates for cholecystectomy were enrolled between September 2019 and August 2021. Eligible patients had a LAMS placed transmurally with 30 to 60-day indwell if removal was clinically indicated, and 30-day follow-up post-LAMS removal. Endpoints included days until acute cholecystitis resolution, reintervention rate, acute cholecystitis recurrence rate, and procedure-related adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Technical success was 93.3% (28/30) for LAMS placement and 100% for LAMS removal in 19 patients for whom removal was attempted. Five (16.7%) patients required reintervention. Mean time to acute cholecystitis resolution was 1.6±1.5 days. Acute cholecystitis symptoms recurred in 10.0% (3/30) after LAMS removal. Five (16.7%) patients died from unrelated causes. Procedure-related AEs were reported to the FDA in 30.0% (9/30) of patients, including one fatal event 21 days after LAMS removal; however, no AEs were causally related to the LAMS. CONCLUSIONS: For selected patients with acute cholecystitis who are at elevated surgical risk, EUS-GBD with LAMS is an alternative to percutaneous gallbladder drainage. It has high technical and clinical success, with low recurrence and an acceptable AE rate. Clinicaltrials.gov, Number: NCT03767881.

Fecobionics in proctology: review and perspectives.

Fecobionics is a novel integrated technology for assessment of anorectal function. It is a defecatory test with simultaneous measurements of pressures, orientation, and device angle (a proxy of the anorectal angle). Furthermore, the latest Fecobionics prototypes measure diameters (shape) using impedance planimetry during evacuation of the device. The simultaneous measurement of multiple variables in the integrated test allows new metrics to be developed including more advanced novel defecation indices, enabling mechanistic insight in the defecation process at an unprecedented level in patients with anorectal disorders including patients suffering from obstructed defecation, fecal incontinence, and low anterior resection syndrome. The device has the consistency and shape of a normal stool (type 3-4 on the Bristol Stool Form Scale). Fecobionics has been validated on the bench and in animal studies and used in clinical trials to study defecation phenotypes in normal human subjects and patients with obstructed defecation, fecal incontinence, and low anterior resection syndrome after rectal cancer surgery. Subtypes have been defined, especially of patients with obstructed defecation. Furthermore, Fecobionics has been used to monitor biofeedback therapy in patients with fecal incontinence to predict the outcome of the therapy (responder versus non-responder). Most Fecobionics studies showed a closer correlation to symptoms as compared to current technologies for anorectal assessment. The present article outlines previous and ongoing work, and perspectives for future studies in proctology, including in physiological assessment of function, diagnostics, monitoring of therapy, and as a tool for biofeedback therapy.