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.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Gastric Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for Gastroparesis: Commentary.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update (CPU) is to review the available evidence and provide expert advice regarding cognitive, procedural, and post-procedural aspects of performing gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of refractory gastroparesis. METHODS: This CPU was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) 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 CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. This expert commentary incorporates important as well as recently published studies in this field, and it reflects the experiences of the authors who are advanced endoscopists with expertise in treating patients by performing third-space endoscopy and gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy.

AGA Rapid Clinical Practice Update on the Management of Patients Taking GLP-1 Receptor Agonists Prior to Endoscopy: Communication.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Rapid Clinical Practice Update (CPU) Communication is to review the available evidence and provide expert advice regarding the evolving management of patients taking GLP-1 receptor agonists prior to endoscopy. METHODS: This CPU was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) 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 CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. This communication incorporates important and recently published studies in this field, and it reflects the experiences of the authors who are experts in bariatric medicine and/or endoscopy.

Development and initial validation of a video-based peroral endoscopic myotomy assessment tool.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Video analysis has emerged as a potential strategy for performance assessment and improvement. We aimed to develop a video-based skill assessment tool for peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). METHODS: POEM was deconstructed into basic procedural components through video analysis by an expert panel. A modified Delphi approach and 2 validation exercises were conducted to refine the POEM assessment tool (POEMAT). Twelve assessors used the final POEMAT version to grade 10 videos. Fully crossed generalizability (G) studies investigated the contributions of assessors, endoscopists' performance, and technical elements to reliability. G coefficients below .5 were considered unreliable, between .5 and .7 as modestly reliable, and above .7 as indicative of satisfactory reliability. RESULTS: After task deconstruction, discussions, and the modified Delphi process, the final POEMAT comprised 9 technical elements. G analysis showed low variance for endoscopist performance (.8%-24.9%) and high interrater variability (range, 63.2%-90.1%). The G score was moderately reliable (≥.60) for "submucosal tunneling" and "myotomy" and satisfactorily reliable (≥.70) for "active hemostasis" and "mucosal closure." CONCLUSIONS: We developed and established initial content and response process validity evidence for the POEMAT. Future steps include appraisal of the tool using a wider range of POEM videos to establish and improve the discriminative validity of this tool.

Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal neoplasia in close proximity to esophageal varices: a multicenter international experience.

BACKGROUND : There are limited data on the feasibility of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for superficial esophageal neoplasia (SEN) located at or adjacent to esophageal varices. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of ESD in these patients. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study included cirrhotic patients with a history of esophageal varices with SEN located at or adjacent to the esophageal varices who underwent ESD. RESULTS: 23 patients with SEN (median lesion size 30 mm; 16 squamous cell neoplasia and seven Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia) were included. The majority were Child-Pugh B (57 %) and had small esophageal varices (87 %). En bloc, R0, and curative resections were achieved in 22 (96 %), 21 (91 %), and 19 (83 %) of patients, respectively. Severe intraprocedural bleeding (n = 1) and delayed bleeding (n = 1) were successfully treated endoscopically. No delayed perforation, hepatic decompensation, or deaths were observed. During a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 36 (22-55) months, one case of local recurrence occurred after noncurative resection. CONCLUSION: ESD is feasible and effective for SEN located at or adjacent to esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients. Albeit, the majority of the esophageal varices in our study were small in size, when expertise is available, ESD should be considered as a viable option for such patients.

Socioeconomic Disparities Affect Outcomes in Early-Stage Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A SEER Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Socioeconomic determinants of health are understudied in early stage esophageal adenocarcinoma. We aimed to assess how socioeconomic status influences initial treatment decisions and survival outcomes in patients with T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: We performed an observational study using the 2018 submission of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-18 database. A total of 1526 patients from 2004 to 2015 with a primary T1aN0M0 esophageal adenocarcinoma were subdivided into 3 socioeconomic tertiles based on their median household income. Endoscopic trends over time, rates of endoscopic and surgical treatment, 2- and 5-year overall survival, cancer-specific mortality, and non-cancer-specific mortality were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using R-studio. RESULTS: Patients within the lowest median household income tertile ($20,000-$54,390) were associated with higher cancer-specific mortality at 2 years (P < .01) and 5 years (P < .02), and lower overall survival at 2 and 5 years (P < .01) compared with patients in higher income tertiles. Patients with a higher income had a decreased hazard ratio for cancer-specific mortality (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.45-0.99) in a multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model. Patients within the higher income tertile were more likely to receive endoscopic intervention (P < .001), which was associated with improved cancer-specific mortality compared with patients who received primary surgical intervention (P = .001). The South had lower rates of endoscopy compared with other regions. CONCLUSIONS: Lower median household income was associated with higher rates of cancer-specific mortality and lower rates of endoscopic resection in T1aN0M0 esophageal adenocarcinoma. Population-based strategies aimed at identifying and rectifying possible etiologies for these socioeconomic and geographic disparities are paramount to improving patient outcomes in early esophageal cancer.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Biliary Strictures.

A biliary stricture is an abnormal narrowing in the ductal drainage system of the liver that can result in clinically and physiologically relevant obstruction to the flow of bile. The most common and ominous etiology is malignancy, underscoring the importance of a high index of suspicion in the evaluation of this condition. The goals of care in patients with a biliary stricture are confirming or excluding malignancy (diagnosis) and reestablishing flow of bile to the duodenum (drainage); the approach to diagnosis and drainage varies according to anatomic location (extrahepatic vs perihilar). For extrahepatic strictures, endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition is highly accurate and has become the diagnostic mainstay. In contrast, the diagnosis of perihilar strictures remains a challenge. Similarly, the drainage of extrahepatic strictures tends to be more straightforward and safer and less controversial than that of perihilar strictures. Recent evidence has provided some clarity in multiple important areas pertaining to biliary strictures, whereas several remaining controversies require additional research. The goal of this guideline is to provide practicing clinicians with the most evidence-based guidance on the approach to patients with extrahepatic and perihilar strictures, focusing on diagnosis and drainage.

Comparison of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty versus surgical sleeve gastrectomy: a Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is an incisionless, transoral, restrictive bariatric procedure designed to imitate sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Comparative studies and large-scale population-based data are limited. Additionally, no studies have examined the impact of race on outcomes after ESG. This study aims to compare short-term outcomes of ESG with SG and evaluate racial effects on short-term outcomes after ESG. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed over 600,000 patients in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database from 2016 to 2020. We compared occurrences of adverse events (AEs), readmissions, reoperations, and reinterventions within 30 days after procedures. Multivariate regression evaluated the impact of patient factors, including race, on AEs. RESULTS: A total of 6054 patients underwent ESG and 597,463 underwent SG. AEs were low after both procedures with no significant difference in major AEs (SG vs ESG: 1.1% vs 1.4%; P > .05). However, patients undergoing ESG had more readmissions (3.8% vs 2.6%), reoperations (1.4% vs .8%), and reinterventions (2.8% vs .7%) within 30 days (P < .05). Race was not significantly associated with AEs after ESG, with black race associated with a higher risk of AEs in SG. CONCLUSIONS: ESG demonstrates a comparable major AE rate with SG. Race did not impact short-term AEs after ESG. Further prospective studies long-term studies are needed to compare ESG with SG.

DDR1 associates with TRPV4 in cell-matrix adhesions to enable calcium-regulated myosin activity and collagen compaction.

Tissue fibrosis manifests as excessive deposition of compacted, highly aligned collagen fibrils, which interfere with organ structure and function. Cells in collagen-rich lesions often exhibit marked overexpression of discoidin domain receptor 1 (DDR1), which is linked to increased collagen compaction through the association of DDR1 with the Ca2+ -dependent nonmuscle myosin IIA (NMIIA). We examined the functional relationship between DDR1 and the transient receptor potential vanilloid type 4 (TRPV4) channel, a Ca2+ -permeable ion channel that is implicated in collagen compaction. Fibroblasts expressing high levels of DDR1 were used to model cells in lesions with collagen compaction. In these cells, the expression of the ß1 integrin was deleted to simplify studies of DDR1 function. Compared with DDR1 wild-type cells, high DDR1 expression was associated with increased Ca2+ influx through TRPV4, enrichment of TRPV4 in collagen adhesions, and enhanced contractile activity mediated by NMIIA. At cell adhesion sites to collagen, DDR1 associated with TRPV4, which enhanced DDR1-mediated collagen alignment and compaction. We conclude that DDR1 regulates Ca2+ influx through the TRPV4 channel to promote critical, DDR1-mediated processes that are important in lesions with collagen compaction and alignment.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Surveillance After Pathologically Curative Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Early Gastrointestinal Neoplasia in the United States: Commentary.

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update was to review the available evidence and provide expert advice regarding surveillance using endoscopy and other relevant modalities after removal of dysplastic lesions and early gastrointestinal cancers with endoscopic submucosal dissection deemed to be pathologically curative. This Clinical Practice Update 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 expert commentary incorporates important as well as recently published studies in this field, and it reflects the experiences of the authors, who are advanced endoscopists with high-level expertise in performing endoscopic submucosal dissection to treat dysplasia and early cancers in the luminal gastrointestinal tract.

AGA White Paper: Challenges and Gaps in Innovation for the Performance of Colonoscopy for Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer.

In 2018, the American Gastroenterological Association's Center for GI Innovation and Technology convened a consensus conference, entitled "Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Role of Emerging Technology and Innovation to Improve Outcomes." The conference participants, which included more than 60 experts in colorectal cancer, considered recent improvements in colorectal cancer screening rates and polyp detection, persistent barriers to colonoscopy uptake, and opportunities for performance improvement and innovation. This white paper originates from that conference. It aims to summarize current patient- and physician-centered gaps and challenges in colonoscopy, diagnostic and therapeutic challenges affecting colonoscopy uptake, and the potential use of emerging technologies and quality metrics to improve patient outcomes.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in North America: A Large Prospective Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in Asia has been shown to be superior to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and surgery for the management of selected early gastrointestinal cancers. We aimed to evaluate technical outcomes of ESD in North America. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter prospective study on ESD across 10 centers in the United States and Canada between April 2016 and April 2020. End points included rates of en bloc resection, R0 resection, curative resection, adverse events, factors associated with failed resection, and recurrence post-R0 resection. RESULTS: Six hundred and ninety-two patients (median age, 66 years; 57.8% were men) underwent ESD (median lesion size, 40 mm; interquartile range, 25-52 mm) for lesions in the esophagus (n = 181), stomach (n = 101), duodenum (n = 11), colon (n = 211) and rectum (n = 188). En bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were 91.5%, 84.2%, and 78.3%, respectively. Bleeding and perforation were reported in 2.3% and 2.9% of the cases, respectively. Only 1 patient (0.14%) required surgery for adverse events. On multivariable analysis, severe submucosal fibrosis was associated with failed en bloc, R0, and curative resection and higher risk for adverse events. Overall recurrence was 5.8% (31 of 532) at a mean follow-up of 13.3 months (range, 1-60 months). CONCLUSIONS: In this large multicenter prospective North American experience, we demonstrate that ESD can be performed safely, effectively, and is associated with a low recurrence rate. The technical resection outcomes achieved in this study are in line with the current established consensus quality parameters and further support the implementation of ESD for the treatment of select gastrointestinal neoplasms; ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02989818.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Biopsy With or Without Rapid On-site Evaluation for Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The benefit of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has never been evaluated in a randomized study. This trial aimed to test the hypothesis that in solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB without ROSE was not inferior to that of EUS-FNB with ROSE. METHODS: A noninferiority study (noninferiority margin, 5%) was conducted at 14 centers in 8 countries. Patients with SPLs requiring tissue sampling were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo EUS-FNB with or without ROSE using new-generation FNB needles. The touch-imprint cytology technique was used to perform ROSE. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy, and secondary endpoints were safety, tissue core procurement, specimen quality, and sampling procedural time. RESULTS: Eight hundred patients were randomized over an 18-month period, and 771 were analyzed (385 with ROSE and 386 without). Comparable diagnostic accuracies were obtained in both arms (96.4% with ROSE and 97.4% without ROSE, P = .396). Noninferiority of EUS-FNB without ROSE was confirmed with an absolute risk difference of 1.0% (1-sided 90% confidence interval, -1.1% to 3.1%; noninferiority P < .001). Safety and sample quality of histologic specimens were similar in both groups. A significantly higher tissue core rate was obtained by EUS-FNB without ROSE (70.7% vs. 78.0%, P = .021), with a significantly shorter mean sampling procedural time (17.9 ± 8.8 vs 11.7 ± 6.0 minutes, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-FNB demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy in evaluating SPLs independently on execution of ROSE. When new-generation FNB needles are used, ROSE should not be routinely recommended. (ClinicalTrial.gov number NCT03322592.).

Effect of endoscopic submucosal dissection on histologic diagnosis in Barrett's esophagus visible neoplasia.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data are limited on the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as a potential diagnostic and staging tool in Barrett's esophagus (BE) neoplasia. We aimed to evaluate the frequency and factors associated with change of histologic diagnosis by ESD compared with pre-ESD histology. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients who underwent ESD for BE visible neoplasia. A change in histologic diagnosis was defined as "upstaged" or "downstaged" if the ESD specimen had a higher or lower degree, respectively, of dysplasia or neoplasia when compared with pre-ESD specimens. RESULTS: Two hundred five patients (median age, 69 years; 81% men) with BE visible neoplasia underwent ESD from 2016 to 2021. Baseline histology was obtained using forceps (n = 182) or EMR (n = 23). ESD changed the histologic diagnosis in 55.1% of cases (113/205), of which 68.1% were upstaged and 31.9% downstaged. The frequency of change in diagnosis after ESD was similar whether baseline histology was obtained using forceps (55.5%) or EMR (52.2%) (P = .83). In aggregate, 23.9% of cases (49/205) were upstaged to invasive cancer on ESD histopathology. On multivariate analysis, lesions in the distal esophagus and gastroesophageal junction (odds ratio, 2.1; 95 confidence interval, 1.1-3.9; P = .02) and prior radiofrequency ablation (odds ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-5.5; P = .02) were predictors of change in histologic diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: ESD led to a change of diagnosis in more than half of patients with BE visible neoplasia. Selective ESD can serve as a potential diagnostic and staging tool, particularly in those with suspected invasive disease. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02989818.).

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Expert Commentary.

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update was to rapidly review the emerging evidence and provide timely expert recommendations regarding the management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. This expert commentary was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely perspective 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.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Endoscopic Therapies for Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update is to review the available evidence and best practice advice statements regarding the use of endoscopic therapies in treating patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. 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 10 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 gastroenterologists with extensive experience in managing and teaching others to treat patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Endoscopic therapy should achieve hemostasis in the majority of patients with NVUGIB. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Initial management of the patient with NVUGIB should focus on resuscitation, triage, and preparation for upper endoscopy. After stabilization, patients with NVUGIB should undergo endoscopy with endoscopic treatment of sites with active bleeding or high-risk stigmata for rebleeding. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Endoscopists should be familiar with the indications, efficacy, and limitations of currently available tools and techniques for endoscopic hemostasis, and be comfortable applying conventional thermal therapy and placing hemoclips. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Monopolar hemostatic forceps with low-voltage coagulation can be an effective alternative to other mechanical and thermal treatments for NVUGIB, particularly for ulcers in difficult locations or those with a rigid and fibrotic base. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Hemostasis using an over-the-scope clip should be considered in select patients with NVUGIB, in whom conventional electrosurgical coagulation and hemostatic clips are unsuccessful or predicted to be ineffective. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Hemostatic powders are a noncontact endoscopic option that may be considered in cases of massive bleeding with poor visualization, for salvage therapy, and for diffuse bleeding from malignancy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Hemostatic powder should be preferentially used as a rescue therapy and not for primary hemostasis, except in cases of malignant bleeding or massive bleeding with inability to perform thermal therapy or hemoclip placement. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopists should understand the risk of bleeding from therapeutic endoscopic interventions (eg, endoluminal resection and endoscopic sphincterotomy) and be familiar with the endoscopic tools and techniques to treat intraprocedural bleeding and minimize the risk of delayed bleeding. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: In patients with endoscopically refractory NVUGIB, the etiology of bleeding (peptic ulcer disease, unknown source, post surgical); patient factors (hemodynamic instability, coagulopathy, multi-organ failure, surgical history); risk of rebleeding; and potential adverse events should be taken into consideration when deciding on a case-by-case basis between transcatheter arterial embolization and surgery. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Prophylactic transcatheter arterial embolization of high-risk ulcers after successful endoscopic therapy is not encouraged.

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.

An Unsuccessful Randomized Trial of Percutaneous vs Endoscopic Drainage of Suspected Malignant Hilar Obstruction.

Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are widely accepted but competing approaches for the management of malignant obstruction at the hilum of the liver. ERCP is favored in the United States on the basis of high success rates for non-hilar indications, the perceived safety and superior tissue sampling capability of ERCP relative to PTBD, and the avoidance of external drains that are undesirable to patients. A recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the 2 modalities in patients with resectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma was terminated prematurely because of higher mortality in the PTBD group.1 In contrast, most observational data suggest that PTBD is superior for achieving complete drainage.2-6 Because the preferred procedure remains uncertain, we aimed to compare PTBD and ERCP as the primary intervention in patients with cholestasis due to malignant hilar obstruction (MHO).

Underwater versus conventional EMR for colorectal polyps: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Underwater EMR (UEMR) has emerged as an attractive alternative to conventional EMR (CEMR) for the resection of colorectal polyps. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare UEMR and CEMR for the resection of colorectal polyps with respect to efficacy and safety. METHODS: A literature search was performed across multiple databases, including MEDLINE/PubMed, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and Scopus, for studies that were published until May 2020. Only studies that compared the resection of colorectal polyps using UEMR with CEMR were included. Outcomes examined included rates of en bloc resection, recurrence, postprocedure bleeding, perforation, and resection time. RESULTS: Seven studies totaling 1237 polyps were included: 614 polyps were resected with UEMR and 623 polyps with CEMR. UEMR was associated with a significant increase in the rate of overall en bloc resection (odds ratio [OR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-2.39; P < .001; I2 = 38%), with subgroup analysis showing a significant increase in the rates of en bloc resection in polyps ≥20 mm (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.06-2.14; P = .02; I2 = 44%) but not in polyps <20 mm (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, .65-1.76; P = .80; I2 = 27%), and with a significant reduction in the rate of recurrence (OR, .30; 95% CI, .16-.57; P = .0002; I2 = 0%), again driven by improvements in polyps ≥20 mm. There was no significant difference in postprocedure bleeding (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, .57-2.17; P = .76; I2 = 0%) or perforation (OR, .72; 95% CI, .19-2.83; P = .64; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that UEMR is a safe and efficacious alternative to CEMR. With appropriate training, UEMR may be strongly considered as a first-line option for resection of colorectal polyps.

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.