Snare Tip Soft Coagulation vs Argon Plasma Coagulation vs No Margin Treatment After Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyp Resection: a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Thermal treatment of the defect margin after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions reduces the recurrence rate. Both snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) and argon plasma coagulation (APC) have been used for thermal margin treatment, but there are few data directly comparing STSC with APC for this indication. METHODS: We performed a randomized 3-arm trial in 9 US centers comparing STSC with APC with no margin treatment (control) of defects after EMR of colorectal nonpedunculated lesions ≥15 mm. The primary end point was the presence of residual lesion at first follow-up. RESULTS: There were 384 patients and 414 lesions randomized, and 308 patients (80.2%) with 328 lesions completed ≥1 follow-up. The proportion of lesions with residual polyp at first follow-up was 4.6% with STSC, 9.3% with APC, and 21.4% with control subjects (no margin treatment). The odds of residual polyp at first follow-up were lower for STSC and APC when compared with control subjects (P = .001 and P = .01, respectively). The difference in odds was not significant between STSC and APC. STSC took less time to apply than APC (median, 3.35 vs 4.08 minutes; P = .019). Adverse event rates were low, with no difference between arms. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial STSC and APC were each superior to no thermal margin treatment after EMR. STSC was faster to apply than APC. Because STSC also results in lower cost and plastic waste than APC (APC requires an additional device), our study supports STSC as the preferred thermal margin treatment after colorectal EMR. (Clinicaltrials.gov, Number NCT03654209.).

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on informed consent for GI endoscopic procedures.

Informed consent is the cornerstone of the ethical practice of procedures and treatments in medicine. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an update on best practice of the informed consent process and other issues around informed consent and shared decision-making for endoscopic procedures. The principles of informed consent are based on longstanding legal doctrine. Several new concepts and clinical trials addressing the best practice of informed consent will help guide practitioners of the burgeoning field of GI endoscopic procedures. After a literature review and an iterative discussion and voting process by the ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, this document was produced to update our guidance on informed consent for the practicing endoscopist. Because this document was designed by considering the laws and broad practice of endoscopy in the United States, legal requirements may differ by state and region, and it is the responsibility of the endoscopist, practice managers, and other healthcare organizations to be aware of local laws. Our recommendations are designed to improve the informed consent experience for both physicians and patients as they work together to diagnose and treat GI diseases with endoscopy.

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.

American Gastroenterological Association Clinical Practice Update: Management of Pancreatic Necrosis.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update is to review the available evidence and expert recommendations regarding the clinical care of patients with pancreatic necrosis and to offer concise best practice advice for the optimal management of patients with this highly morbid condition. METHODS: This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. This review is framed around the 15 best practice advice points agreed upon by the authors, which reflect landmark and recent published articles in this field. This expert review also reflects the experiences of the authors, who are advanced endoscopists or hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons with extensive experience in managing and teaching others to care for patients with pancreatic necrosis. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Pancreatic necrosis is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality and optimal management requires a multidisciplinary approach, including gastroenterologists, surgeons, interventional radiologists, and specialists in critical care medicine, infectious disease, and nutrition. In situations where clinical expertise may be limited, consideration should be given to transferring patients with significant pancreatic necrosis to an appropriate tertiary-care center. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Antimicrobial therapy is best indicated for culture-proven infection in pancreatic necrosis or when infection is strongly suspected (ie, gas in the collection, bacteremia, sepsis, or clinical deterioration). Routine use of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infection of sterile necrosis is not recommended. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: When infected necrosis is suspected, broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics with ability to penetrate pancreatic necrosis should be favored (eg, carbapenems, quinolones, and metronidazole). Routine use of antifungal agents is not recommended. Computed tomography-guided fine-needle aspiration for Gram stain and cultures is unnecessary in the majority of cases. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: In patients with pancreatic necrosis, enteral feeding should be initiated early to decrease the risk of infected necrosis. A trial of oral nutrition is recommended immediately in patients in whom there is absence of nausea and vomiting and no signs of severe ileus or gastrointestinal luminal obstruction. When oral nutrition is not feasible, enteral nutrition by either nasogastric/duodenal or nasojejunal tube should be initiated as soon as possible. Total parenteral nutrition should be considered only in cases where oral or enteral feeds are not feasible or tolerated. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Drainage and/or debridement of pancreatic necrosis is indicated in patients with infected necrosis. Drainage and/or debridement may be required in patients with sterile pancreatic necrosis and persistent unwellness marked by abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and nutritional failure or with associated complications, including gastrointestinal luminal obstruction; biliary obstruction; recurrent acute pancreatitis; fistulas; or persistent systemic inflammatory response syndrome. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Pancreatic debridement should be avoided in the early, acute period (first 2 weeks), as it has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Debridement should be optimally delayed for 4 weeks and performed earlier only when there is an organized collection and a strong indication. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Percutaneous drainage and transmural endoscopic drainage are both appropriate first-line, nonsurgical approaches in managing patients with walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). Endoscopic therapy through transmural drainage of WON may be preferred, as it avoids the risk of forming a pancreatocutaneous fistula. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Percutaneous drainage of pancreatic necrosis should be considered in patients with infected or symptomatic necrotic collections in the early, acute period (<2 weeks), and in those with WON who are too ill to undergo endoscopic or surgical intervention. Percutaneous drainage should be strongly considered as an adjunct to endoscopic drainage for WON with deep extension into the paracolic gutters and pelvis or for salvage therapy after endoscopic or surgical debridement with residual necrosis burden. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Self-expanding metal stents in the form of lumen-apposing metal stents appear to be superior to plastic stents for endoscopic transmural drainage of necrosis. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: The use of direct endoscopic necrosectomy should be reserved for those patients with limited necrosis who do not adequately respond to endoscopic transmural drainage using large-bore, self-expanding metal stents/lumen-apposing metal stents alone or plastic stents combined with irrigation. Direct endoscopic necrosectomy is a therapeutic option in patients with large amounts of infected necrosis, but should be performed at referral centers with the necessary endoscopic expertise and interventional radiology and surgical backup. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Minimally invasive operative approaches to the debridement of acute necrotizing pancreatitis are preferred to open surgical necrosectomy when possible, given lower morbidity. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Multiple minimally invasive surgical techniques are feasible and effective, including videoscopic-assisted retroperitoneal debridement, laparoscopic transgastric debridement, and open transgastric debridement. Selection of approach is best determined by pattern of disease, physiology of the patient, experience and expertise of the multidisciplinary team, and available resources. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: Open operative debridement maintains a role in the modern management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis in cases not amenable to less invasive endoscopic and/or surgical procedures. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: For patients with disconnected left pancreatic remnant after acute necrotizing mid-body necrosis, definitive surgical management with distal pancreatectomy should be undertaken in patients with reasonable operative candidacy. Insufficient evidence exists to support the management of the disconnected left pancreatic remnant with long-term transenteric endoscopic stenting. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: A step-up approach consisting of percutaneous drainage or endoscopic transmural drainage using either plastic stents and irrigation or self-expanding metal stents/lumen-apposing metal stents alone, followed by direct endoscopic necrosectomy, and then surgical debridement is reasonable, although approaches may vary based on the available clinical expertise.

Direct Endoscopic Necrosectomy With and Without Hydrogen Peroxide for Walled-off Pancreatic Necrosis: A Multicenter Comparative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic necrosectomy has emerged as the preferred treatment modality for walled-off pancreatic necrosis. This study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of direct endoscopic necrosectomy with and without hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) lavage. METHODS: Retrospective chart reviews were performed for all patients undergoing endoscopic transmural management of walled-off pancreatic necrosis at 9 major medical centers from November 2011 to August 2018. Clinical success was defined as the resolution of the collection by imaging within 6 months, without requiring non-endoscopic procedures or surgery. RESULTS: Of 293 patients, 204 met the inclusion criteria. Technical and clinical success rates were 100% (204/204) and 81% (166/189), respectively. For patients, 122 (59.8%) patients had at least one H2O2 necrosectomy (H2O2 group) and 82 (40.2%) patients had standard endoscopic necrosectomy. Clinical success was higher in the H2O2 group: 106/113 (93.8%) vs 60/76 (78.9%), P = 0.002. On a multivariate analysis, the use of H2O2 was associated with higher clinical success rate (odds ratio 3.30, P = 0.033) and earlier resolution (odds ratio 2.27, P < 0.001). During a mean follow-up of 274 days, 27 complications occurred. Comparing procedures performed with and without H2O2 (n = 250 vs 183), there was no difference in post-procedure bleeding (7 vs 9, P = 0.25), perforation (2 vs 3, P = 0.66), infection (1 vs 2, P = 0.58), or overall complication rate (n = 13 [5.2%] vs 14 [7.7%], P = 0.30). DISCUSSION: H2O2-assisted endoscopic necrosectomy had a higher clinical success rate and a shorter time to resolution with equivalent complication rates relative to standard necrosectomy.See the visual abstract at http://links.lww.com/AJG/B714.(Equation is included in full-text article.).

ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the management of benign and malignant gastroduodenal obstruction.

This American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the endoscopic management of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). We applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to address key clinical questions. These include the comparison of (1) surgical gastrojejunostomy to the placement of self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) for malignant GOO, (2) covered versus uncovered SEMS for malignant GOO, and (3) endoscopic and surgical interventions for the management of benign GOO. Recommendations provided in this document were founded on the certainty of the evidence, balance of benefits and harms, considerations of patient and caregiver preferences, resource utilization, and cost-effectiveness.

Evaluating learning curves and competence in colorectal EMR among advanced endoscopy fellows: a pilot multicenter prospective trial using cumulative sum analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data on colorectal EMR (C-EMR) training are lacking. We aimed to evaluate C-EMR training among advanced endoscopy fellows (AEFs) by using a standardized assessment tool (STAT). METHODS: This multicenter prospective study used a STAT to grade AEF training in C-EMR during their 12-month fellowship. Cumulative sum analysis was used to establish learning curves and competence for cognitive and technical components of C-EMR and overall performance. Sensitivity analysis was performed by varying failure rates. AEFs completed a self-assessment questionnaire to assess their comfort level with performing C-EMR at the completion of their fellowship. RESULTS: Six AEFs (189 C-EMRs; mean per AEF, 31.5 ± 18.5) were included. Mean polyp size was 24.3 ± 12.6 mm, and mean procedure time was 22.6 ± 16.1 minutes. Learning curve analyses revealed that less than 50% of AEFs achieved competence for key cognitive and technical C-EMR endpoints. All 6 AEFs reported feeling comfortable performing C-EMR independently at the end of their training, although only 2 of them achieved competence in their overall performance. The minimum threshold to achieve competence in these 2 AEFs was 25 C-EMRs. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively low proportion of AEFs achieved competence on key cognitive and technical aspects of C-EMR during their 12-month fellowship. The relatively low number of C-EMRs performed by AEFs may be insufficient to achieve competence, in spite of their self-reported readiness for independent practice. These pilot data serve as an initial framework for competence threshold, and suggest the need for validated tools for formal C-EMR training assessment.

Pancreatic Fungal Infection in Patients With Necrotizing Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

GOAL: The goal of this study was to study the incidence of fungal infection in necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) and its impact on mortality. BACKGROUND: Infected pancreatic necrosis is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in patients with NP. While pancreatic fungal infection (PFI) has frequently been identified in patients with NP, its effect on the clinical outcomes is unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed in Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and the Cochrane library. All prospective and retrospective studies that examined the incidence of fungal infection in NP with subgroup mortality data were included. For fungal infection of NP, studies with fungal isolation from pancreatic necrotic tissue were included. Newcastle Ottawa Scale and Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tool were used for bias assessment. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies comprising 2151 subjects with NP were included for the quantitative analysis. The mean incidence of fungal infection was 26.6% (572/2151). In-hospital mortality in the pooled sample of NP patients with PFI (N=572) was significantly higher [odds ratio (OR)=3.95, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.6-5.8] than those without PFI. In a separate analysis of 7 studies, the mean difference in the length of stay between those with and without fungal infection was 22.99 days (95% CI: 14.67-31.3). The rate of intensive care unit admission (OR=3.95; 95% CI: 2.6-5.8), use of prophylactic antibacterials (OR=2.76; 95% CI: 1.31-5.81) and duration of antibacterial therapy (mean difference=8.71 d; 95% CI: 1.33-16.09) were all significantly higher in patients with PFI. Moderate heterogeneity was identified among the studies on estimating OR for mortality (I2=43%) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: PFI is common in patients with NP and is associated with increased mortality, intensive care unit admission rate, and length of stay. Further prospective studies are needed to better understand the pathophysiology of PFIs and to determine the role for preemptive therapeutic strategies, such as prophylactic antifungal therapy.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Endoscopy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multicenter Study from New York City.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted the practice of endoscopy, but characteristics of COVID patients undergoing endoscopy have not been adequately described. AIMS: To compare findings, clinical outcomes, and patient characteristics of endoscopies performed during the pandemic in patients with and without COVID-19. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicenter study of adult endoscopies at six academic hospitals in New York between March 16 and April 30, 2020. Patient and procedure characteristics including age, sex, indication, findings, interventions, and outcomes were compared in patients testing positive, negative, or untested for COVID-19. RESULTS: Six hundred and five endoscopies were performed on 545 patients during the study period. There were 84 (13.9%), 255 (42.2%), and 266 (44.0%) procedures on COVID-positive, negative, and untested patients, respectively. COVID patients were more likely to undergo endoscopy for gastrointestinal bleeding or gastrostomy tube placement, and COVID patients with gastrointestinal bleeding more often required hemostatic interventions on multivariable logistic regression. COVID patients had increased length of stay, intensive care unit admission, and intubation rate. Twenty-seven of 521 patients (5.2%) with no or negative COVID testing prior to endoscopy later tested positive, a median of 13.5 days post-procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopies in COVID patients were more likely to require interventions, due either to more severe illness or a higher threshold to perform endoscopy. A significant number of patients endoscoped without testing were subsequently found to be COVID-positive. Gastroenterologists in areas affected by the pandemic must adapt to changing patterns of endoscopy practice and ensure pre-endoscopy COVID testing.

Time Given to Trainees to Attempt Cannulation During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Varies by Training Program and Is Not Associated With Competence.

Advanced endoscopy training programs (AETPs) were developed as a result of the lack of comprehensive endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) training during gastroenterology fellowships. There is no standardized curriculum for AETPs and the influence of program- and trainer-associated factors on trainee competence in ERCP has not been investigated adequately. In prior work, we showed that advanced endoscopy trainees (AETs) achieve ERCP competence at varying rates.1,2 The aims of this study were to measure the variability in time given to AETs to attempt cannulation between AETPs and throughout the 1-year training period, and to determine the association between AET cannulation time and AET competence at the end of training.

Impact of EUS-guided microforceps biopsy sampling and needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy on the diagnostic yield and clinical management of pancreatic cystic lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided microforceps biopsy sampling (MFB) and needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE) are emerging diagnostic tools for pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs). There is a paucity of data regarding their performance and impact. The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic outcomes and changes in clinical management resulting from MFB and nCLE use in PCLs. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study of patients with PCLs who underwent combined EUS-guided FNA, MFB, and nCLE. Primary outcomes included diagnostic yield (specific PCL type) and change in clinical management for each modality compared with the current "composite standard" (CS) obtained by combining clinical, morphologic, cyst fluid cytology, and chemical analysis. RESULTS: Forty-four cysts were studied in 44 patients. Technical success was 100% for EUS-FNA, 88.6% for MFB, and 97.7% for nCLE. Of 44 procedures, there was 1 adverse event (2.3%, an infected pseudocyst). Diagnostic yield for each individual modality was 34.1% for CS, 75.0% for MFB (P < .05 vs CS), and 84.1% for nCLE (P < .05 vs CS). Diagnostic yield for combined tests was 79.5% for CS/MFB, 88.6% for CS/nCLE, and 93.2% for CS/MFB/nCLE (P = not significant). Compared with the CS, the use of MFB, nCLE, and their combination led to overall change in clinical management in 38.6%, 43.2%, and 52.3% of cases, respectively. MFB and nCLE led to an overall increase in discontinuation of surveillance (MFB, 34.1% [P < .05]; nCLE, 31.8% [P < .05]), led by a reduction in the indication for follow-up radiologic or endoscopic studies (MFB, 34.1% [P < .05]; nCLE, 38.6% [P < .05]). Based on MFB and nCLE, 2 of 28 (7.1%) and 3 of 28 (10.7%) patients who would have undergone further surveillance were referred for surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In the evaluation of PCLs, the use of combined EUS-guided FNA, MFB, and nCLE is safe. MFB and nCLE led to significant improvements in specific PCL diagnosis, which in turn has major impacts in clinical management.

EUS-guided confocal laser endomicroscopy: prediction of dysplasia in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Previous studies have validated EUS-guided needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE) diagnosis of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs). We sought to derive EUS-guided nCLE criteria for differentiating IPMNs with high-grade dysplasia/adenocarcinoma (HGD-Ca) from those with low/intermediate-grade dysplasia (LGD). METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of consecutive IPMNs with a definitive diagnosis from a prospective study evaluating EUS-guided nCLE in the diagnosis of pancreatic cysts. Three internal endosonographers reviewed all nCLE videos for the patients and identified potential discriminatory EUS-guided nCLE variables to differentiate HGD-Ca from LGD IPMNs (phase 1). Next, an interobserver agreement (IOA) analysis of variables from phase 1 was performed among 6 blinded external nCLE experts (phase 2). Last, 7 blinded nCLE-naïve observers underwent training and quantified variables with the highest IOA from phase 2 using dedicated software (phase 3). RESULTS: Among 26 IPMNs (HGD-Ca in 16), the reference standard was surgical histopathology in 24 and cytology confirmation of metastatic liver lesions in 2 patients. EUS-guided nCLE characteristics of increased papillary epithelial "width" and "darkness" were the most sensitive variables (90%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 84%-94% and 91%; 95% CI, 85%-95%, respectively) and accurate (85%; 95% CI, 78%-90% and 84%; 95% CI, 77%-89%, respectively) with substantial (κ = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.51-0.71) and moderate (κ = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.45-0.65) IOAs for detecting HGD-Ca, respectively (phase 2). Logistic regression models were fit for the outcome of HGD-Ca as predictor variables (phase 3). For papillary width (cut-off ≥50 µm), the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for detection of HGD-Ca were 87.5% (95% CI, 62%-99%), 100% (95% CI, 69%-100%), and 0.95, respectively. For papillary darkness (cut-off ≤90 pixel intensity), the sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for detection of HGD-Ca were 87.5% (95% CI, 62%-99%), 100% (95% CI, 69%-100%), and 0.90, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this derivation study, quantification of papillary epithelial width and darkness identified HGD-Ca in IPMNs with high accuracy. These quantifiable variables can be used in multicenter studies for risk stratification of IPMNs. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02516488.).

Elevated hemoglobin A1c is associated with the presence of pancreatic cysts in a high-risk pancreatic surveillance program.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence demonstrates that surveillance of individuals at high-risk (HRIs) of developing pancreatic adenocarcinoma allows for identification and treatment of resectable tumors with improved survival. Population-based data suggest that hyperglycemia may be present up to three years before the development of pancreatic cancer. We investigated whether elevated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) is associated with the development of pancreatic cysts in a pancreatic surveillance program. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of HRIs who underwent pancreatic surveillance at a single institution between May 2013 and March 2019, according to published criteria. We collected demographic information, clinical data including HbA1c, and imaging results. We compared data using univariable and multivariable analyses. Our primary outcome was the presence of pancreatic cysts on initial surveillance in patients with elevated HbA1c. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients underwent surveillance imaging via EUS or MRCP and seventy-four patients met inclusion criteria. Thirty patients were found to have cysts on initial imaging. Older age (p < 0.01) and HbA1c in the prediabetic range or higher (p = 0.01) were associated with the presence of cysts or solid lesions on univariable analysis. After controlling for confounders, age (aOR 9.08, 95% CI 2.29-36.10), and HbA1c > 5.7% (aOR 5.82, 95% CI 1.50-22.54) remained associated with presence of cysts and solid lesions in HRIs. In patients with cysts or solid lesions there was a strong association between increased age and elevated HbA1c (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: HRIs with elevated HbA1c were more likely to have pancreatic cysts compared to individuals with lower HbA1c on initial imaging in a pancreatic surveillance program. These findings may help tailor the surveillance protocols for those at increased risk of developing pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Preoperative Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Is Not Associated With Increased Pancreatic Cancer Mortality.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) before surgery for pancreatic cancer has been associated with infectious complications after surgery. Little is known about the effects of preoperative ERCP on the survival of patients with pancreatic cancer. We investigated whether ERCP before surgery affects overall survival, after controlling for confounding factors. METHODS: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) and linked Medicare claims data to identify patients older than 65 years with cancer localized to the head of the pancreas, from 2000 through 2011. We used inverse propensity-weighted Cox proportional hazard models to assess the effects of ERCP on the survival of patients who underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer. RESULTS: Among 16,670 patients with cancer of the head of the pancreas, 2890 (17.3%) underwent surgical resection; 1864 (64.5%) of these patients received preoperative ERCP. After we adjusted for confounders, we found that patients who received preoperative ERCP did not have an increased risk of death compared with patients who underwent resection alone (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.96-1.08). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent ERCP before surgery did not have an increased risk of death compared with patients who proceeded directly to surgery. Studies are needed to identify subsets of patients who may benefit from this procedure.

Competence in Endoscopic Ultrasound and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography, From Training Through Independent Practice.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is unclear whether participation in competency-based fellowship programs for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) results in high-quality care in independent practice. We measured quality indicator (QI) adherence during the first year of independent practice among physicians who completed endoscopic training with a systematic assessment of competence. METHODS: We performed a prospective multicenter cohort study of invited participants from 62 training programs. In phase 1, 24 advanced endoscopy trainees (AETs), from 20 programs, were assessed using a validated competence assessment tool. We used a comprehensive data collection and reporting system to create learning curves using cumulative sum analysis that were shared with AETs and trainers quarterly. In phase 2, participating AETs entered data into a database pertaining to every EUS and ERCP examination during their first year of independent practice, anchored by key QIs. RESULTS: By the end of training, most AETs had achieved overall technical competence (EUS 91.7%, ERCP 73.9%) and cognitive competence (EUS 91.7%, ERCP 94.1%). In phase 2 of the study, 22 AETs (91.6%) participated and completed a median of 136 EUS examinations per AET and 116 ERCP examinations per AET. Most AETs met the performance thresholds for QIs in EUS (including 94.4% diagnostic rate of adequate samples and 83.8% diagnostic yield of malignancy in pancreatic masses) and ERCP (94.9% overall cannulation rate). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective multicenter study, we found that although competence cannot be confirmed for all AETs at the end of training, most meet QI thresholds for EUS and ERCP at the end of their first year of independent practice. This finding affirms the effectiveness of training programs. Clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT02509416.

Setting minimum standards for training in EUS and ERCP: results from a prospective multicenter study evaluating learning curves and competence among advanced endoscopy trainees.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Minimum EUS and ERCP volumes that should be offered per trainee in "high quality" advanced endoscopy training programs (AETPs) are not established. We aimed to define the number of procedures required by an "average" advanced endoscopy trainee (AET) to achieve competence in technical and cognitive EUS and ERCP tasks to help structure AETPs. METHODS: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE)-recognized AETPs were invited to participate; AETs were graded on every fifth EUS and ERCP examination using a validated tool. Grading for each skill was done using a 4-point scoring system, and learning curves using cumulative sum analysis for overall, technical, and cognitive components of EUS and ERCP were shared with AETs and trainers quarterly. Generalized linear mixed-effects models with a random intercept for each AET were used to generate aggregate learning curves, allowing us to use data from all AETs to estimate the average learning experience for trainees. RESULTS: Among 62 invited AETPs, 37 AETs from 32 AETPs participated. Most AETs reported hands-on EUS (52%, median 20 cases) and ERCP (68%, median 50 cases) experience before starting an AETP. The median number of EUS and ERCPs performed per AET was 400 (range, 200-750) and 361 (range, 250-650), respectively. Overall, 2616 examinations were graded (EUS, 1277; ERCP-biliary, 1143; pancreatic, 196). Most graded EUS examinations were performed for pancreatobiliary indications (69.9%) and ERCP examinations for ASGE biliary grade of difficulty 1 (72.1%). The average AET achieved competence in core EUS and ERCP skills at approximately 225 and 250 cases, respectively. However, overall technical competence was achieved for grade 2 ERCP at about 300 cases. CONCLUSION: The thresholds provided for an average AET to achieve competence in EUS and ERCP may be used by the ASGE and AETPs in establishing the minimal standards for case volume exposure for AETs during their training. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02509416.).

Lumen-apposing stents versus plastic stents in the management of pancreatic pseudocysts: a large, comparative, international, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Larger caliber lumen-apposing stents (LAMSs) have been increasingly used in the management of pancreatic fluid collections, specifically when solid debris is present; however, their advantages over smaller caliber plastic stents in the management of pancreatic pseudocysts are unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of LAMS specifically in the management of pancreatic pseudocysts compared with double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPSs). METHODS: We performed a multicenter, international, retrospective study between January 2012 and August 2016. A total of 205 patients with a diagnosis of pancreatic pseudocysts were included, 80 patients received LAMSs and 125 received DPPSs. Measured outcomes included clinical success, technical success, adverse events, stent dysfunction, pancreatic pseudocyst recurrence, and need for surgery. RESULTS: Technical success was similar between the LAMS and the DPPS groups (97.5 % vs. 99.2 %; P = 0.32). Clinical success was higher for LAMSs than for DPPSs (96.3 % vs. 87.2 %; P = 0.03). While the need for surgery was similar between the two groups (1.3 % vs. 4.9 %, respectively; P = 0.17), the use of percutaneous drainage was significantly lower in the LAMS group (1.3 % vs. 8.8 %; P = 0.03). At 6-month follow-up, the recurrence rate was similar between the groups (6.7 % vs 18.8 %, respectively; P = 0.12). The rate of adverse events was significantly higher in the DPPS group (7.5 % vs. 17.6 %; P = 0.04). There was no difference in post-procedure mean length of hospital stay (6.3 days [standard deviation 27.9] vs. 3.7 days [5.7]; P = 0.31). CONCLUSION: When compared to DPPSs, LAMSs are a safe, feasible, and effective modality for the treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts and are associated with a higher rate of clinical success, shorter procedure time, less need for percutaneous interventions, and a lower overall rate of adverse events.

Higher Growth Rate of Branch Duct Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms Associates With Worrisome Features.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: For patients with branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (BD-IPMNs, cysts), it is a challenge to identify those at high risk for malignant lesions. We sought to identify factors associated with development of pancreatic cancer, focusing on neoplasm growth rate. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 189 patients with BD-IPMNs who underwent at least 2 contrast-enhanced cross-sectional imaging studies, 1 year or more apart, at a tertiary referral center from January 2003 through 2013. Patients with cysts that had Fukuoka worrisome or high-risk features were excluded. Two radiologists reviewed all images. Cyst size was recorded at the initial and final imaging studies and growth rate was calculated. We collected patient demographic data, cyst characteristics, and clinical outcomes; univariate logistic regression models were used to determine the odds of developing worrisome features. The primary outcomes were to determine growth rate of low-risk BD-IPMNs and to assess whether cyst growth rate correlates high-risk features of IPMNs. RESULTS: Based on image analyses, cysts were initially a median 11 mm (range, 3-31 mm) and their final size was 12.5 mm (range, 3-42 mm). After a median follow-up time of 56 months (range, 12-163 months), the median cyst growth rate was 0.29 mm/year. Twelve patients developed worrisome features, no patients developed high-risk features, 4 patients had surgical resection, and no cancers developed. The rate of BD-IPMN growth was greater in patients who developed worrisome features than those who did not (2.84 mm/year vs 0.23 mm/year; P < .001). The odds of developing worrisome features increased for each unit (mm) increase in cyst size (odds ratio, 1.149; 95% CI, 1.035-1.276, P = .009). CONCLUSION: In a retrospective analysis of images from patients with BD-IPMN, we found low-risk BD-IPMNs to grow at an extremely low rate (less than 0.3 mm/year). BD-IPMNs in only about 6% of patients developed worrisome features, and none developed high-risk features or invasive cancers. BD-IPMNs that developed worrisome features were associated with a significantly higher rate of growth than lesions with low-risk features. Low risk BD-IPMNs that grow more than 2.5 mm/year might require surveillance.

Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Fine-Needle Aspiration and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Fine-Needle Biopsy for Solid Lesions in a Multicenter, Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the standard of care for tissue sampling of solid lesions adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. Fine-needle biopsy (FNB) may provide higher diagnostic yield with fewer needle passes. The aim of this study was to assess the difference in diagnostic yield between FNA and FNB. METHODS: This is a multicenter, prospective randomized clinical trial from 6 large tertiary care centers. Patients referred for tissue sampling of solid lesions were randomized to either FNA or FNB of the target lesion. Demographics, size, location, number of needle passes, and final diagnosis were recorded. RESULTS: After enrollment, 135 patients were randomized to FNA (49.3%), and 139 patients were randomized to FNB (50.7%).The following lesions were sampled: mass (n = 210, 76.6%), lymph nodes (n = 46, 16.8%), and submucosal tumors (n = 18, 6.6%). Final diagnosis was malignancy (n = 192, 70.1%), reactive lymphadenopathy (n = 30, 11.0%), and spindle cell tumors (n = 24, 8.8%). FNA had a diagnostic yield of 91.1% compared with 88.5% for FNB (P = .48). There was no difference between FNA and FNB when stratified by the presence of on-site cytopathology or by type of lesion sampled. A median of 1 needle pass was needed to obtain a diagnostic sample for both needles. CONCLUSIONS: FNA and FNB obtained a similar diagnostic yield with a comparable number of needle passes. On the basis of these results, there is no significant difference in the performance of FNA compared with FNB in the cytologic diagnosis of solid lesions adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01698190.