American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of endoscopy in the management of chronic pancreatitis: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for the role of endoscopy in the management of chronic pancreatitis (CP). This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses effectiveness of endoscopic therapies for the management of pain in CP, including celiac plexus block, endoscopic management of pancreatic duct (PD) stones and strictures, and adverse events such as benign biliary strictures (BBSs) and pseudocysts. In patients with painful CP and an obstructed PD, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation in patients without contraindication to surgery before initiation of endoscopic management. In patients who have contraindications to surgery or who prefer a less-invasive approach, the ASGE suggests an endoscopic approach as the initial treatment over surgery, if complete ductal clearance is likely. When a decision is made to proceed with a celiac plexus block, the ASGE suggests an EUS-guided approach over a percutaneous approach. The ASGE suggests indications for when to consider ERCP alone or with pancreatoscopy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy alone or followed by ERCP for treating obstructing PD stones based on size, location, and radiopacity. For the initial management of PD strictures, the ASGE suggests using a single plastic stent of the largest caliber that is feasible. For symptomatic BBSs caused by CP, the ASGE suggests the use of covered metal stents over multiple plastic stents. For symptomatic pseudocysts, the ASGE suggests endoscopic therapy over surgery. This document clearly outlines the process, analyses, and decision processes used to reach the final recommendations and represents the official ASGE recommendations on the above topics.

TEMPORARY REMOVAL: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of therapeutic EUS in the management of biliary tract disorders: summary and recommendations.

The publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal.

Safety of cold resection of non-ampullary duodenal polyps: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Endoscopic resection has traditionally involved electrosurgical cautery (hot snare) to resect premalignant polyps. Recent data have suggested superior safety of cold resection. We aimed to assess the safety of cold compared with traditional (hot) resection for non-ampullary duodenal polyps. Methods We performed a systematic review ending in September 2022. The primary outcome of interest was the adverse event (AE) rate for cold compared with hot polyp resection. We reported odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Secondary outcomes included rates of polyp recurrence and post-polypectomy syndrome. We assessed publication bias with the classic fail-safe test and used forest plots to report pooled effect estimates. We assessed heterogeneity using I 2 index. Results Our systematic review identified 1,215 unique citations. Eight of these met inclusion criteria, seven of which were published manuscripts and one of which was a recent meeting abstract. On random effect modeling, cold resection was associated with significantly lower odds of delayed bleeding compared with hot resection. The difference in the odds of perforation (odds ratio [OR] 0.31 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05-2.87], P =0.2, I 2 =0) and polyp recurrence (OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.15-3.73], P =0.72, I 2 =0) between hot and cold resection was not statistically significant. There were no cases of post-polypectomy syndrome reported with either hot or cold techniques. Conclusions Cold resection is associated with lower odds of delayed bleeding compared with hot resection for duodenal tumors. There was a trend toward higher odds of perforation and recurrence following hot resection, but this trend was not statistically significant.

Patients' values and preferences regarding endoscopic therapy for Barrett's esophagus: A cross-sectional survey study.

Introduction: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) has evolved as a minimally invasive and efficacious option to treat patients with dysplastic Barret's esophagus. We aimed to conduct a cross-sectional study to assess patient values and preferences on EET. Methods: All consecutive patients at our clinic and endoscopy center were enrolled between November 2020 and April 2022. The primary outcome was their willingness to undergo EET measured using a validated survey tool. Predictors of this outcome included patient demographics, disease characteristics, procedure types, and physician characteristics. We used a multivariable logistic regression model to assess the association between the primary outcome and its predictors. Results: A total of 101 consecutive Barret's esophagus patients were surveyed. The median age was 67 years, and 71.3% were males. About 48% (n = 48) of the patients had dysplasia, 19% had no dysplasia and others were unsure about the presence or absence of dysplasia. About one-third (30%, n = 30) of patients placed equal values on preventing cancer and avoiding adverse events, and 68% said they were somewhat or definitely willing to undergo EET (ablation and resection). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, the patient value of high emphasis on cancer prevention (odds ratio [OR] 2.9 [1.1-7.6], p = 0.0344) and positive relationship with a gastroenterologist (OR 4.7 [1.3-17], p = 0.02) were strongly associated with increased willingness to undergo EET. Conclusions: In this single-center prospective study of Barret's esophagus patients, the willingness to undergo EET was strongly associated with two predictors: high emphasis on cancer prevention and a positive relationship with the gastroenterologist.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Versus Surgery or Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Metachronous Early Gastric Cancer: a Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Resection options for early gastric cancer (EGC) include endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), and surgery. In patients with metachronous EGC following previous resection, the optimal resection technique is not well elucidated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing ESD to EMR, or ESD to surgery, in patients with metachronous EGC. METHODS: We conducted an electronic search of studies reporting on outcomes and AEs following ESD versus either EMR or surgery for patients with metachronous EGC. Pooled odds ratios (OR) of included studies were obtained using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Funnel plots were produced and visually inspected for evidence of publication bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: A total of 9367 abstracts were screened and 10 observational studies were included. The odds of complete resection were higher amongst patients undergoing ESD compared to EMR (OR 5.88, 95% confidence intervals, CI, 1.79-19.35), whereas the odds of complete resection were no different between ESD and surgery (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.04-8.24). There were no differences in the odds of local recurrence with ESD versus surgery (OR 5.01, 95% CI 0.86-29.13). Post-procedural bleeding did not differ significantly between ESD and EMR (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.16-3.00). There was no evidence of publication bias. DISCUSSION: For metachronous EGC, ESD or surgery is preferred over EMR depending on local expertise and patient preferences, largely due to a higher risk of incomplete resection with EMR. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021270445.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: methodology and review of evidence.

This document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides a full description of the methodology used in the review of the evidence used to inform the final guidance outlined in the accompanying Summary and Recommendations document regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. This guideline used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation over endosic approaches.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. It is accompanied by the document subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well- or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, we suggest surgical evaluation over endoscopic approaches.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis of malignancy in biliary strictures of undetermined etiology: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses the role of fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS in the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures. In the endoscopic workup of these patients, we suggest the use of fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling in addition to brush cytology over brush cytology alone, especially for hilar strictures. We suggest the use of cholangioscopic and EUS-guided biopsy sampling especially for patients who undergo nondiagnostic sampling, cholangioscopic biopsy sampling for nondistal strictures and EUS-guided biopsy sampling distal strictures or those with suspected spread to surrounding lymph nodes and other structures.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on role of endoscopy in the diagnosis of malignancy in biliary strictures of undetermined etiology: methodology and review of evidence.

Biliary strictures of undetermined etiology pose a diagnostic challenge for endoscopists. Despite advances in technology, diagnosing malignancy in biliary strictures often requires multiple procedures. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to rigorously review and synthesize the available literature on strategies used to diagnose undetermined biliary strictures. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis of each diagnostic modality, including fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS-guided FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Committee provides this guideline on modalities used to diagnose biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document summarizes the methods used in the GRADE analysis to make recommendations, whereas the accompanying article subtitled "Summary and Recommendations" contains a concise summary of our findings and final recommendations.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on role of endoscopy in the diagnosis of malignancy in biliary strictures of undetermined etiology: methodology and review of evidence

Biliary strictures of undetermined etiology pose a diagnostic challenge for endoscopists. Despite advances in technology, diagnosing malignancy in biliary strictures often requires multiple procedures. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to rigorously review and synthesize the available literature on strategies used to diagnose undetermined biliary strictures. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis of each diagnostic modality, including fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS-guided FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Committee provides this guideline on modalities used to diagnose biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document summarizes the methods used in the GRADE analysis to make recommendations, whereas the accompanying article subtitled "Summary and Recommendations" contains a concise summary of our findings and final recommendations.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of ergonomics for prevention of endoscopy-related injury: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach to strategies to prevent endoscopy-related injury (ERI) in GI endoscopists. It is accompanied by the article subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline estimates the rates, sites, and predictors of ERI. Additionally, it addresses the role of ergonomics training, microbreaks and macrobreaks, monitor and table positions, antifatigue mats, and use of ancillary devices in decreasing the risk of ERI. We recommend formal ergonomics education and neutral posture during the performance of endoscopy, achieved through adjustable monitor and optimal procedure table position, to reduce the risk of ERI. We suggest taking microbreaks and scheduled macrobreaks and using antifatigue mats during procedures to prevent ERI. We suggest the use of ancillary devices in those with risk factors predisposing them to ERI.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on management of post-liver transplant biliary strictures: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for strategies to manage biliary strictures in liver transplant recipients. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses the role of ERCP versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and covered self-expandable metal stents (cSEMSs) versus multiple plastic stents for therapy of post-transplant strictures, use of MRCP for diagnosing post-transplant biliary strictures, and administration of antibiotics versus no antibiotics during ERCP. In patients with post-transplant biliary strictures, we suggest ERCP as the initial intervention and cSEMSs as the preferred stent for extrahepatic strictures. In patients with unclear diagnoses or intermediate probability of a stricture, we suggest MRCP as the diagnostic modality. We suggest that antibiotics should be administered during ERCP when biliary drainage cannot be ensured.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on management of post-liver transplant biliary strictures: methodology and review of evidence.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for strategies to manage biliary strictures in liver transplant recipients. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses the role of ERCP versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and covered self-expandable metal stents (cSEMSs) versus multiple plastic stents for therapy of strictures, use of MRCP for diagnosing post-transplant biliary strictures, and administration of antibiotics versus no antibiotics during ERCP. In patients with post-transplant biliary strictures, we suggest ERCP as the initial intervention and cSEMSs as the preferred stent. In patients with unclear diagnosis or intermediate probability of a stricture, we suggest MRCP as the diagnostic modality. We suggest that antibiotics should be administered during ERCP when biliary drainage cannot be assured.

A novel through-the-scope helix tack-and-suture device for mucosal defect closure following colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Complete closure of large mucosal defects following colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with through-the-scope (TTS) clips is oftentimes not possible. We aimed to report our early experience of using a novel TTS suturing system for the closure of large mucosal defects after colorectal ESD. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicenter cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent attempted prophylactic defect closure using the TTS suturing system after colorectal ESD. The primary outcome was technical success in achieving complete defect closure, defined as a < 5 mm residual mucosal defect in the closure line using TTS suturing, with or without adjuvant TTS clips. RESULTS: 82 patients with a median defect size of 30 (interquartile range 25-40) mm were included. Technical success was achieved in 92.7 % (n = 76): TTS suturing only in 44 patients (53.7 %) and a combination of TTS suturing to approximate the widest segment followed by complete closure with TTS clips in 32 (39.0 %). Incomplete/partial closure, failure of appropriate TTS suture deployment, and the need for over-the-scope salvage closure methods were observed in 7.3 % (n = 6). One intraprocedural bleed, one delayed bleed, and three intraprocedural perforations were observed. There were no adverse events related to placement of the TTS suture. CONCLUSION: The TTS suture system is an effective and safe tool for the closure of large mucosal defects after colorectal ESD and is an alternative when complete closure with TTS clips alone is not possible.