International Consensus Recommendations for Safe Use of LAMS for On- and Off-Label Indications Using a Modified Delphi Process.

INTRODUCTION: The study aimed to develop international consensus recommendations on the safe use of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) for on- and off-label indications. METHODS: Based on the available literature, statements were formulated and grouped into the following categories: general safety measures, peripancreatic fluid collections, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-biliary drainage, EUS-gallbladder drainage, EUS-gastroenterostomy, and gastric access temporary for endoscopy. The evidence level of each statement was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.International LAMS experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi process. When no 80% consensus was reached, the statement was modified based on expert feedback. Statements were rejected if no consensus was reached after the third Delphi round. RESULTS: Fifty-six (93.3%) of 60 formulated statements were accepted, of which 35 (58.3%) in the first round. Consensus was reached on the optimal learning path, preprocedural imaging, the need for airway protection and essential safety measures during the procedure, such as the use of Doppler, and measurement of the distance between the gastrointestinal lumen and the target structure. Specific consensus recommendations were generated for the different LAMS indications, covering, among others, careful patient selection, the preferred size of the LAMS, the need for antibiotics, the preferred anatomic location of the LAMS, the need for coaxial pigtail placement, and the appropriate management of LAMS-related adverse events. DISCUSSION: Through a modified international Delphi process, we developed general and indication-specific experience- and evidence-based recommendations on the safe use of LAMS.

Outcomes of minor versus major papilla rendez-vous for EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage.

OBJECTIVES: EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PD) using rendez-vous has been suggested as a safer alternative to pancreatogastrostomy. Fibrostenotic disease in the pancreatic head may however preclude major papilla rendez-vous, leading to preferential guidewire advancement through the minor papilla. Our aim was to compare the outcomes of minor and major papilla rendez-vous. METHODS: This is a tertiary single-center retrospective analysis of all consecutive EUS-PD procedures performed from 2015 to April 2022. EUS-PD was only performed following failed retrograde attempts. Successful EUS-PD rendez-vous cases were included and minor and major papilla procedures were compared. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients were included in the final analysis (66.6% male, mean age 56.1 [SD±14.8] years, 54.6% active smokers). In 21 patients (63.6%), minor papilla rendez-vous was attained. Clinical success was achieved in 81.0% vs. 58.3% in the major papilla group (p = 0.230). The overall incidence of AE was similar in both groups (9 [42.9%] vs. 4 [33.3%] events, p = 0.719), with a comparable distribution in severe, moderate and mild AE. Incidence of recurrent pancreatitis was almost identical (28.6% vs. 25.0%, p = 1.000). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis, EUS-PD using minor or major papilla rendez-vous attained similar results, suggesting that pancreatic duct drainage through the minor papilla can be considered as equally effective.

Training in basic gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement.

This ESGE Position Statement provides structured and evidence-based guidance on the essential requirements and processes involved in training in basic gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. The document outlines definitions; competencies required, and means to their assessment and maintenance; the structure and requirements of training programs; patient safety and medicolegal issues. 1: ESGE and ESGENA define basic endoscopic procedures as those procedures that are commonly indicated, generally accessible, and expected to be mastered (technically and cognitively) by the end of any core training program in gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2: ESGE and ESGENA consider the following as basic endoscopic procedures: diagnostic upper and lower GI endoscopy, as well as a limited range of interventions such as: tissue acquisition via cold biopsy forceps, polypectomy for lesions ≤ 10 mm, hemostasis techniques, enteral feeding tube placement, foreign body retrieval, dilation of simple esophageal strictures, and India ink tattooing of lesion location. 3: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that training in GI endoscopy should be subject to stringent formal requirements that ensure all ESGE key performance indicators (KPIs) are met. 4: Training in basic endoscopic procedures is a complex process and includes the development and acquisition of cognitive, technical/motor, and integrative skills. Therefore, ESGE and ESGENA recommend the use of validated tools to track the development of skills and assess competence. 5: ESGE and ESGENA recommend incorporating a multimodal approach to evaluating competence in basic GI endoscopic procedures, including procedural thresholds and the measurement and documentation of established ESGE KPIs. 7: ESGE and ESGENA recommend the continuous monitoring of ESGE KPIs during GI endoscopy training to ensure the trainee's maintenance of competence. 9: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy training units fulfil the ESGE KPIs for endoscopy units and, furthermore, be capable of providing the dedicated personnel, infrastructure, and sufficient case volume required for successful training within a structured training program. 10: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that trainers in basic GI endoscopic procedures should be endoscopists with formal educational training in the teaching of endoscopy, which allows them to successfully and safely teach trainees.

Managing dysfunctions and reinterventions in endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy with lumen apposing metal stents: Illustrated technical review (with videos).

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) with lumen apposing metal stent is emerging both as a rescue strategy and a primary treatment for distal malignant biliary obstruction. The large-scale diffusion of the procedure and improved overall survival of patients with pancreatobiliary neoplasms is resulting in a growing population of long-term EUS-CDS lumen apposing metal stent carriers. Recent studies have reported a need for reintervention during follow-up as high as 55%, and the Leuven-Amsterdam-Milan Study Group classification has been developed, identifying five mechanisms of stent dysfunction and 11 possible rescue strategies aimed at restoring biliary drainage. This illustrated technical review aims to further dissect the recent classification through a comprehensive analysis of nine illustrative cases, offering insights into the pathophysiology underlying dysfunction and clinical reasoning behind rescue interventions, as well as technical considerations and practical tips and tricks. By exploring mechanisms of dysfunction, this review also assists clinicians in selecting the ideal candidates for EUS-CDS while identifying patients deemed high risk for dysfunction or clinical failure.

PERcutaneous transhepatic CHOLangioscopy using a new single-operator short cholangioscope (PERCHOL): European feasibility study.

OBJECTIVES: A new short device for percutaneous endoscopic cholangioscopy was recently developed. However, feasibility and safety has not yet been evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess clinical success, technical success, and adverse events (AEs). METHODS: This observational multicenter retrospective study included all patients who underwent percutaneous cholangioscopy using a short cholangioscope between 2020 and 2022. The clinical success, defined as the complete duct clearance or obtaining at least one cholangioscopy-guided biopsy, was assessed. The histopathological accuracy, technical success, and the AE rate were also evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients (60 ± 15 years, 45.1% male) were included. The majority of patients had altered anatomy (n = 40, 78.4%), and biliary stones (n = 34, 66.7%) was the commonest indication. The technique was predominantly wire-guided (n = 44, 86.3%) through a percutaneous sheath (n = 36, 70.6%) following a median interval of 8.5 days from percutaneous drainage. Cholangioscopy-guided electrohydraulic lithotripsy was performed in 29 cases (56.9%), combined with a retrieval basket in eight cases (27.6%). The clinical success was 96.6%, requiring a median of one session (range 1-3). Seventeen patients (33.3%) underwent cholangioscopy-guided biopsies. There were four (7.8%) cholangioscopy-related AEs (cholangitis and peritonitis). Overall, the technical success and AE rates were 100% and 19.6%, respectively, in a median follow-up of 7 months. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous endoscopic cholangioscopy with a new short device is effective and safe, requiring a low number of sessions to achieve duct clearance or accurate histopathological diagnosis.

EUS-guided gastroenterostomy for management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a prospective cohort study with matched comparison with enteral stenting.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Retrospective studies on malignant gastric outlet obstruction (mGOO) highlighted several advantages of EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) over enteral stenting (ES). However, no prospective evidence is available. The aim of this study was to report on clinical outcomes of EUS-GE in a prospective cohort study, with a subgroup comparison versus ES. METHODS: All consecutive patients endoscopically treated for mGOO between December 2020 and December 2022 in a tertiary, academic center were enrolled in a prospective registry (Prospective Registry of Therapeutic Endoscopic Ultrasound [PROTECT]; NCT04813055) and followed up every 30 days to register efficacy/safety outcomes. EUS-GE and ES cohorts were matched according to baseline frailty and oncologic disease. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were treated for mGOO during the study; 70 (58.6% male subjects; median age, 64 [interquartile range, 58-73] years; 75.7% pancreatic cancer, 60.0% metastatic cancer) underwent EUS-GE via the wireless simplified technique. Technical success was 97.1% and clinical success was 97.1% after a median of 1.5 (interquartile range, 1-2) days. Adverse events occurred in 9 (12.9%) patients. After a median follow-up of 105 (49-187) days, symptom recurrence was 7.6%. In the matched comparison versus ES (28 patients per arm), EUS-GE-treated patients experienced higher and faster clinical success (100% vs 75.0%, P = .006), reduced recurrences (3.7% vs 33.3%, P = .02), and a trend toward shorter time to chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In this first, prospective, single-center comparison, EUS-GE showed excellent efficacy in treating mGOO, with an acceptable safety profile and long-term patency, and several clinically significant advantages over ES. While awaiting randomized trials, these results might endorse EUS-GE as first-line strategy for mGOO, where adequate expertise is available.

Same-session double EUS-guided bypass versus surgical gastroenterostomy and hepaticojejunostomy: an international multicenter comparison.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Gastric outlet and biliary obstruction are common manifestations of GI malignancies and some benign diseases for which standard treatment would be surgical gastroenterostomy and hepaticojejunostomy (ie, "double bypass"). Therapeutic EUS has allowed for the creation of an EUS-guided double bypass. However, same-session double EUS-guided bypass has only been described in small proof-of-concept series and lacks a comparison with surgical double bypass. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter analysis was performed of all consecutive same-session double EUS-guided bypass procedures performed in 5 academic centers. Surgical comparators were extracted from these centers' databases from the same time interval. Efficacy, safety, hospital stay, nutrition and chemotherapy resumption, long-term patency, and survival were compared. RESULTS: Of 154 identified patients, 53 (34.4%) received treatment with EUS and 101 (65.6%) with surgery. At baseline, patients undergoing EUS exhibited higher American Society of Anesthesiologists scores and a higher median Charlson Comorbidity Index (9.0 [interquartile range {IQR}, 7.0-10.0] vs 7.0 [IQR, 5.0-9.0], P < .001). Technical success (96.2% vs 100%, P = .117) and clinical success rates (90.6% vs 82.2%, P = .234) were similar when comparing EUS and surgery. Overall (11.3% vs 34.7%, P = .002) and severe adverse events (3.8% vs 19.8%, P = .007) occurred more frequently in the surgical group. In the EUS group, median time to oral intake (0 days [IQR, 0-1] vs 6 days [IQR, 3-7], P < .001) and hospital stay (4.0 days [IQR, 3-9] vs 13 days [IQR, 9-22], P < .001) were significantly shorter. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being used in a patient population with more comorbidities, same-session double EUS-guided bypass achieved similar technical and clinical success and was associated with fewer overall and severe adverse events when compared with surgical gastroenterostomy and hepaticojejunostomy.

A simple clinical score to stratify the risk of procedure-related adverse events in ERCP procedures with trainee involvement.

BACKGROUND : Optimal training strategies in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remain controversial despite the shift toward competence-based training models, with limited data available on patient safety during training. We aimed to assess whether pre-procedural clinical predictors could identify patients at low risk of developing procedure-related adverse-events (AEs) in a training environment. METHODS : We performed a prospective, multicenter, cohort study in five training centers. A data collection system documenting indication, clinical data, trainee performance (assessed using a validated competence assessment tool), technical outcomes, and AEs over a 30-day follow-up was utilized. We developed a clinical risk score (Trainee Involvement in ERCP Risk Score [TIERS]) for patients undergoing ERCP and compared the rate of AEs in a training environment between low-risk and high-risk groups. The association between trainee performance and AE rate was also evaluated. RESULTS : 1283 ERCPs (409 [31.9 %, 95 %CI 29.3 %-34.4 %] with trainee involvement) performed by 11 trainers and 10 trainees were analyzed. AEs were more frequent in the high-risk compared with the low-risk group: 26.7 % (95 %CI 20.5 %-34.7 %) vs. 17.1 % (95 %CI 12.8 %-22.2 %). TIERS demonstrated a high negative predictive value for AEs (82.9 %, 95 %CI 79.4 %-85.8 %) and was the only predictor of AEs on multivariable analysis (odds ratio 1.38, 95 %CI 1.09-1.75). Suboptimal trainee performance was associated with an increase in AE rates. CONCLUSION : Simple, clinical-based predictive tools could improve ERCP training by selecting the most appropriate cases for hands-on training, with the aim of increasing patient safety.

Combined endoscopic mAnagement of BiliaRy and gastrIc OutLET obstruction (CABRIOLET Study): A multicenter retrospective analysis.

Objectives: Combined biliary obstruction and gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) represent a challenging clinical scenario despite developments in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as GOO might impair EUS-guided biliary drainage. Little is known about the effectiveness of different therapeutic combinations used to treat double obstruction, especially regarding stent patency. Methods: All consecutive patients with double obstruction treated between 2016 and 2021 in three tertiary academic centres were eligible for inclusion. Five combinations involving enteral stenting (ES), EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS), choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS), and transpapillary biliary stenting (TPS) were evaluated for dysfunction during follow-up, either as proportions or dysfunction-free survival (DFS) using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Results: Ninety-three patients were included (male 46%; age 67 [interquartile range 60-76] years; pancreatic cancer 73%, metastatic 57%), resulting in 103 procedure combinations. Different combinations showed significantly different overall dysfunction rates (p = 0.009), ranging from the null rate of EUS-GE+HG to the 18% rate of EUS-GE+TPS, 31% of EUS-GE+EUS-CD, 53% of ES+TPS and 83% of ES+EUS-CDS. Sub-analyses restricted to biliary dysfunction confirmed these trends. A multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression of DFS, a stenosis distal to the papilla (HR 3.2 [1.5-6.9]) and ES+EUS-CDS (HR 5.6 [2-15.7]) independently predicted dysfunction. Conclusions: Despite a lack of statistical power per combination, this study introduces new associations beyond the increased risk of GOO recurrence with ES versus EUS-GE. EUS-CDS showed reduced effectiveness and frequent dysfunction in the context of GOO, especially when combined with ES. EUS-GE+HGS or EUS-GE+TPS in this setting might result in superior patency. These results suggest that a prospective evaluation of the optimal endoscopic approach to malignant double obstruction is needed.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrointestinal anastomosis: Current status and future perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: Both clinical experience and supporting data have improved drastically in the context of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrointestinal anastomosis (EUS-GIA). Where outcomes used to be questioned, focus has now moved towards performing comparative studies, optimizing technical approaches, improving patient selection, and developing well-defined treatment algorithms. METHODS: The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of technical developments within EUS-GIA and to discuss the current status of EUS-GIA and future directions. RESULTS: EUS-GIA techniques such as EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), EUS-directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (EDGE) and EUS-guided treatment afferent loop syndrome have undergone further development, refining technical approaches, improving patient selection and subsequent outcomes. Retrospective evaluations of EUS-GE have shown similar safety when compared to enteral stenting, whilst attaining surgical range efficacy. Whereas, in patients with gastric bypass anatomy, EDGE seems less cumbersome and time consuming than enteroscopy-assisted ERCP, while preventing surgical morbidity associated with laparoscopy-assisted ERCP. Although less evidence is available on EUS-guided treatment of afferent loop syndrome, this technique has been associated with higher clinical success and fewer reinterventions and adverse events when compared to enteral stenting and percutaneous drainage, respectively. Several randomized studies are currently underway evaluating EUS-GE in malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), whereas more prospective data are still required on EDGE and long-term fistula management. CONCLUSION: EUS-GIA has become a crucial alternative to established techniques, overcoming technical limitations and subsequently improving patient outcomes. Although we should focus on prospective confirmation of these results in the context of GOO and EDGE, the current evidence already allows for a prominent role for EUS-GIA in our everyday practice.

Classification, risk factors, and management of lumen apposing metal stent dysfunction during follow-up of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy: Multicenter evaluation from the Leuven-Amsterdam-Milan Study Group.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) performed with lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) have been poorly evaluated in small or retrospective series, leading to an underestimation of LAMS dysfunction. METHODS: All consecutive EUS-CDS performed in three academic referral centers were included in prospectively maintained databases. Technical/clinical success, adverse events (AEs), and dysfunction during follow-up were retrospectively analyzed. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate dysfunction-free survival (DFS), with Cox proportional hazard regression to evaluate independent predictors of dysfunction. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients were included (male 56%; mean age, 70 years [95% confidence interval (CI) 68-72]; pancreatic cancer 81%, metastatic disease 47%). In 67% of procedures, 6 mm LAMS were used. Technical and clinical success were achieved in 97.8% and 93.4% of patients, respectively, with AEs occurring in 9.7% (78% mild/moderate). Dysfunction occurred in 31.8% of patients after a mean of 166 days (95% CI 91-241), with an estimated 6 month and 12 month DFS of 75% and 52%, respectively; mean DFS of 394 (95% CI 307-482) days. Almost all dysfunctions (96%) were successfully managed by endoscopic reintervention. Duodenal invasion (hazard ratio 2.7 [95% CI 1.1-6.8]) was the only independent predictor of dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy shows excellent initial efficacy and safety, although stent dysfunctions occurs frequently during long-term follow-up. Almost all stent dysfunctions can be managed successfully by endoscopic reinterventions. We propose a comprehensive classification of the different types of dysfunction that may be encountered and rescue procedures that may be employed under these circumstances. Duodenal invasion seems to increase the risk of developing EUS-CDS dysfunction, potentially representing a relative contraindication for this technique.

Current landscape of therapeutic EUS: Changing paradigms in gastroenterology practice.

Therapeutic EUS has witnessed exponential growth in the last decade, but it has been considered investigational until recently. An increasing body of good-quality evidence is now demonstrating clear advantages over established alternatives, adding therapeutic EUS to management algorithms of complex hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) and gastrointestinal (GI) conditions. In this review, the available evidence and clinical role of therapeutic EUS in established and evolving applications will be discussed. A Graphical Summary for each scenario will provide (1) technical steps, (2) anatomical sketch, (3) best-supporting evidence, and (4) role in changing current and future GI practice. Therapeutic EUS has accepted well-established applications such as drainage of symptomatic peripancreatic fluid collections, biliary drainage in failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and treatment of acute cholecystitis in unfit-for-surgery patients. In addition, good-quality evidence on several emerging indications (e.g., treatment of gastric outlet obstruction, local ablation of pancreatic solid lesions, etc.) is promising. Specific emphasis will be given to how these technical innovations have changed management paradigms and algorithms and expanded the possibilities of gastroenterologists to provide therapeutic solutions to old and emerging clinical needs. Therapeutic EUS is cementing its role in everyday practice, radically changing the treatment of different HPB diseases and other conditions (e.g., GI obstruction). The development of dedicated accessories and increased training opportunities will expand the ability of gastroenterologists to deliver highly effective yet minimally invasive therapies, potentially translating into a better quality of life, especially for oncological and fragile patients.

EUS-Guided Gastroenterostomy in Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction: A Comparative Study between First- and Second-Line Approaches after Enteral Stent Placement.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is increasingly used in the setting of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). However, little is known about the role of primary EUS-GE. The aim of the present study is to compare the outcomes of EUS-GE by using the freehand technique as a first- and second-line approach after enteral stenting (ES). METHODS: This is an observational single-center study using a prospectively collected database. All consecutive patients who underwent an EUS-GE using the freehand technique due to malignant GOO were included. Patients with previous gastric surgery, a wire-guided EUS-GE technique, or those presenting without GOO were excluded. The primary outcome was the clinical success, defined as a solid oral intake at 1 week after the procedure (GOO Score, GOOSS ≥ 2). The secondary outcomes were technical success and adverse event (AE) rates. The impact on nutritional parameters was also assessed. RESULTS: Forty-five patients underwent an EUS-GE for all indications. Finally, 28 patients (mean age: 63 ± 17.2 years, 57.1% male) with (n = 13, 46.4%) and without (n = 15, 53.6%) a previous ES were included. The technical success was achieved in 25 cases (89.3%), with no differences between the two groups (92.3% vs. 86.7%, p = 1). The median limb diameter and procedure time were 27 mm (range:15-48) and 37 min. Overall, clinical success was achieved in 22 cases (88%), with three failures due to AEs (n = 2) or peritoneal carcinomatosis (n = 1). The diet progression was quicker in patients with a previous ES (GOOSS at 48 h, 2 vs. 1, p = 0.023), but the GOOSS at 1 week (p = 0.299), albumin gain (p = 0.366), and BMI gain (0.257) were comparable in the two groups. The AE rate was 7.1%. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GE achieves a high technical and clinical success in patients with GOO regardless of the presence of a previous ES. Patients with previous ES may have a quicker progression of their diet, but the GOOSS and nutritional status in the long term at 1 week or 1 month are comparable. Primary EUS-GE might require fewer procedures and less discontinuation of chemotherapy to achieve a comparable result.