Identification of risk factors for obstructive cholecystitis following placement of biliary stent in unresectable malignant biliary obstruction: a 5-year retrospective analysis in single center.

BACKGROUND: The risk factors for acute cholecystitis following biliary stent placement in patients with malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) have not been identified. We determined these risk factors and the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gallbladder drainage (GBD) as treatment. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for MBO from October 2013 to September 2018, and those with unresectable MBO with intact gallbladder (GB) were enrolled. RESULTS: Acute cholecystitis occurred in 30 (15.7%) of 191 patients who underwent biliary stent placement for unresectable MBO. Logistic regression analysis confirmed that biliary stent across the orifice of the cystic duct (OCD) (odds ratio [OR] 6.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.43-25.41, P = 0.015), GB opacification during ERCP (OR 13.07, 95% CI 4.22-40.50; P < 0.0001), and self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) (OR 14.19, 95% CI 4.36-46.18; P < 0.0001) were independent risk factors for cholecystitis. Subgroup analysis of patients who only underwent SEMS placement showed that biliary stent across the OCD and GB opacification were significant risk factors. Among the 25 patients who underwent EUS-GBD, the technical and clinical success rates were 100% and 96%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Biliary stent across the OCD, GB opacification, and SEMS were established as potential risk factors for post-ERCP cholecystitis. Thus, the strategy of using shorter stent length and avoiding unnecessary contrast injection could be a reasonable treatment option for selected patients with high risk of cholecystitis. Furthermore, EUS-GBD is not only safe and reliable for acute cholecystitis, but it also improves quality of life.

The diagnostic performance of novel torque technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition in solid pancreatic lesions: A prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Although several techniques for improved outcomes in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition have been reported, the reported diagnostic yield for pancreatic masses is not satisfactory. The effects of novel technique (torque method) on twisting the scope in the clockwise or counterclockwise direction during EUS-fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) are unknown. We compared the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB for pancreatic masses using the torque and standard techniques. METHODS: From April 20, 2017, to March 16, 2018, 124 consecutive patients with solid pancreatic mass who underwent EUS-FNB using either the torque or standard technique were randomly assigned. Three passes were made with each technique, comprising 10 uniform to-and-fro movements on each pass with a 10-mL syringe suction. The primary outcome was procurement rates of histologic cores, and the secondary outcomes were the diagnostic performance and technical failure. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the groups regarding the procurement rate of the histologic core and optimal quality core (standard vs torque: 87.1% [54/62] vs 98.4% [61/62], P = 0.038 and 79.0% [49/62] vs 93.5% [58/62], P = 0.037). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive values of EUS-FNB were 85.45%, 100%, 100%, and 46.67%, respectively, for the standard technique and 96.49%, 100%, 100%, and 71.43%, respectively, for the torque technique. The diagnostic accuracies of the standard and torque techniques were 87.10% and 96.77%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The torque technique for EUS-FNB offered acceptable technical feasibility and superior diagnostic performance, including optimal histologic core procurement, compared with the standard technique.

Efficacy and safety of etomidate-based sedation compared with propofol-based sedation during ERCP in low-risk patients: a double-blind, randomized, noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Etomidate is a short-acting intravenous hypnotic with a safety profile that is superior to alternative drugs such as propofol. However, there is a lack of evidence on the safety of etomidate in ERCP. The objective of this study was to compare efficacy and safety profiles of etomidate and propofol for endoscopic sedation. METHODS: This single-center, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial included patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I to II who had been scheduled for ERCP. All patients received .05 mg/kg midazolam intravenously as pretreatment before receiving etomidate or propofol. Either etomidate or propofol was then administered according to group allocation. The primary endpoint was an overall respiratory event. A noninferiority margin of 10% was assumed. RESULTS: Sixty-three and 64 patients were enrolled in the etomidate and propofol groups, respectively. Respiratory events were identified in 10 patients (15.6%) in the etomidate group and 16 patients (25.4%) on the propofol group, with a rate difference of -9.8% (1-sided 97.5% confidence interval, -∞ to 4.2%). The overall incidence of cardiovascular events tended to be higher in the etomidate group (67.2% vs 50.8%, P = .060). In particular, tachycardia (heart rate > 100 beats/min) was more common in the etomidate group than in the propofol group (64.1% vs 34.9%, P = .001). Transient hypotension tended to be less common in the etomidate group (6.3 vs 15.9%, P = .084). CONCLUSIONS: Etomidate-based sedation during ERCP was noninferior to propofol-based sedation in terms of the overall incidence of respiratory events in patients with ASA physical status I to II. (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform number: KCT0001926.).

Safety and efficacy of early feeding based on clinical assessment at 4 hours after ERCP: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The optimal timing of refeeding after ERCP is unknown. Some practices keep the patient fasting for 24 hours after ERCP, whereas others resume feeding earlier. We aimed to evaluate the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in patients who initiate early feeding, based on their clinical assessment, including serum amylase testing performed at 4 hours after ERCP. METHODS: Patients who were scheduled for ERCP were recruited. Patients without abdominal pain and tenderness and a serum amylase level within 1.5-fold the upper limit of normal at 4 hours after ERCP were randomly assigned to either the 4-hour fasting or 24-hour fasting group. Patients from the 4-hour fasting group started oral intake 4 hours after ERCP, whereas those from the 24-hour fasting group fasted for 24 hours after ERCP. RESULTS: Among the 276 enrolled, PEP was identified in 3 (2.2%) from the 4-hour fasting group and in 5 (3.6%) from the 24-hour fasting group, with a rate difference of -1.4% (1-sided 97.5% confidence interval, -∞ to 2.5%). Four-hour fasting was non-inferior to 24-hour fasting in terms of PEP incidence. The total medical costs for treatment-related ERCP were significantly lower in the 4-hour fasting group than in the 24-hour fasting group (1157.20 ± 311.90 vs 1311.20 ± 410.70 U.S. dollars; P = .032). CONCLUSION: Early feeding in patients without abdominal pain and tenderness and a serum amylase level <1.5-fold the upper limit of normal at 4 hours after ERCP does not increase the incidence of PEP after ERCP and decreases medical costs. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0002354.).

Neurologic Safety of Etomidate-Based Sedation during Upper Endoscopy in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis Compared with Propofol: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial.

(1) Background: Although etomidate-based sedation is an effective and safe protocol in endoscopic procedures, there is a lack of evidence regarding the safety of etomidate in patients with liver cirrhosis (LC). This study aimed to compare the neurologic safety and efficacy of etomidate and propofol for endoscopic sedation in patients with LC. (2) Methods: From December 2017 to December 2019, consecutive cirrhotic patients who underwent sedative endoscopy using either etomidate or propofol were randomly recruited. The primary endpoint was the number connection test (NCT), and the secondary endpoints included factors for the safety of sedatives during endoscopy. (3) Results: 63 patients were enrolled in each of the etomidate and propofol groups. The NCT times were significantly lower in the etomidate group than in the propofol group. Furthermore, severe or very severe degree of encephalopathy was higher in the propofol group but was not significantly different. Pharmacological properties and the overall incidence of respiratory and cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between the groups. (4) Conclusion: Etomidate-based sedation exacerbates neither subclinical nor overt hepatic encephalopathy. It guarantees efficacies similar to those of propofol regarding rapid sedation, fast recovery, and early discharge, with no increased risk of adverse respiratory or cardiovascular events in patients with LC.