Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Vs Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Superficial Nonampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors in the Western Setting.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) is established as the primary treatment modality for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs), but recently underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) has emerged as a potential alternative. The majority of previous studies focused on Asian populations and small lesions (≤20 mm). We aimed to compare the efficacy and outcomes of U-EMR vs C-EMR for SNADETs in a Western setting. METHODS: This was a retrospective multinational study from 10 European centers that performed both C-EMR and U-EMR between January 2013 and July 2023. The main outcomes were the technical success, procedure-related adverse events (AEs), and the residual/recurrent adenoma (RRA) rate, evaluated on a per-lesion basis. We assessed the association between the type of endoscopic mucosal resection and the occurrence of AEs or RRAs using mixed-effects logistic regression models (propensity scores). Sensitivity analyses were performed for lesions ≤20 mm or >20 mm. RESULTS: A total of 290 SNADETs submitted to endoscopic resection during the study period met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed (C-EMR: n = 201, 69.3%; U-EMR: n = 89, 30.7%). The overall technical success rate was 95.5% and comparable between groups. In logistic regression models, compared with U-EMR, C-EMR was associated with a significantly higher frequency of overall delayed AEs (odds ratio [OR], 4.95; 95% CI, 2.87-8.53), postprocedural bleeding (OR, 7.92; 95% CI, 3.95-15.89), and RRAs (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.49-5.37). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results when solely considering either small (≤20 mm) or large (>20 mm) lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with C-EMR, U-EMR was associated with a lower rate of overall AEs and RRAs, regardless of lesion size. Our results confirm the possible role of U-EMR as an effective and safe technique in the management of SNADETs.

Technical failure during colorectal endoscopic full-thickness resection: the "through thick and thin" study.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is an effective and safe technique for nonlifting colorectal lesions. Technical issues or failures with the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) system are reported, but there are no detailed data. The aim of our study was to quantify and classify FTRD technical failures. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study involving 17 Italian centers with experience in advanced resection techniques and the required devices. Each center shared and classified all prospectively collected consecutive failures during colorectal EFTR using the FTRD from 2018 to 2022. The primary outcome was the technical failure rate and their classification; secondary outcomes included subsequent management, clinical success, and complications. RESULTS: Included lesions were mainly recurrent (52 %), with a mean (SD) dimension of 18.4 (7.5) mm. Among 750 EFTRs, failures occurred in 77 patients (35 women; mean [SD] age 69.4 [8.9] years). A classification was proposed: type I, snare noncutting (53 %); type II, clip misdeployment (31 %); and type III, cap misplacement (16 %). Among endoscopic treatments completed, rescue endoscopic mucosal resection was performed in 57 patients (74 %), allowing en bloc and R0 resection in 71 % and 64 %, respectively. The overall adverse event rate was 27.3 %. Pooled estimates for the rates of failure, complications, and rescue endoscopic therapy were similar for low and high volume centers (P = 0.08, P = 0.70, and P = 0.71, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal EFTR with the FTRD is a challenging technique with a non-negligible rate of technical failure and complications. Experience in rescue resection techniques and multidisciplinary management are mandatory in this setting.

Over-the-scope clip as first-line treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding: a multicenter randomized controlled trial (TOP Study).

BACKGROUND: First-line over-the-scope (OTS) clip treatment has shown higher efficacy than standard endoscopic therapy in acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) from different causes. We compared OTS clips with through-the-scope (TTS) clips as first-line mechanical treatment in the specific setting of peptic ulcer bleeding. METHODS: We conducted an international, multicenter randomized controlled trial on consecutive patients with suspected NVUGIB. Patients with Forrest Ia-IIb gastroduodenal peptic ulcer were randomized 1:1 to OTS clip or TTS clip treatment. The primary outcome was the rate of 30-day rebleeding after successful initial hemostasis. Secondary outcomes included the rates of successful initial hemostasis and overall clinical success, defined as the composite of successful initial hemostasis and no evidence of 30-day rebleeding. RESULTS: 251 patients were screened and 112 patients were randomized to OTS (n = 61) or TTS (n = 51) clip treatment. The 30-day rebleeding rates were 1.6% (1/61) and 3.9% (2/51) in patients treated with OTS clips and TTS clips, respectively (Kaplan-Meier log-rank, P = 0.46). Successful initial hemostasis rates were 98.4% (60/61) in the OTS clip group and 78.4% (40/51) in the TTS clip group (P = 0.001). Overall clinical success rates were 96.7% (59/61) with OTS clips and 74.5% (38/51) with TTS clips (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Low rates of 30-day rebleeding were observed after first-line endoscopic treatment of acute peptic ulcer bleeding with either OTS or TTS clips. However, OTS clips showed higher efficacy than TTS clips in achieving successful initial hemostasis and overall clinical success.