NORTH AMERICAN EXPERT CONSENSUS ON THE POST-PROCEDURAL CARE OF PATIENTS AFTER PER-ORAL ENDOSCOPIC MYOTOMY USING A DELPHI PROCESS.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is significant variability in the immediate post-operative and long-term management of patients undergoing per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), largely stemming from the lack of high-quality evidence. We aimed to establish a consensus on several important questions on the after care of post-POEM patients through a modified Delphi process. METHODS: A steering committee developed an initial questionnaire consisting of 5 domains (33 statements): post-POEM admission/discharge, indication for immediate post-POEM esophagram, peri-procedural medications and diet resumption, clinic follow-up recommendations, and post-POEM reflux surveillance and management. A total of 34 experts participated in the 2 rounds of the Delphi process, with quantitative and qualitative data analyzed for each round to achieve consensus. RESULTS: A total of 23 statements achieved high degree of consensus. Overall, the expert panel agreed on the following: (1) same-day discharge after POEM can be considered in select patients, (2) a single dose of prophylactic antibiotics may be as effective as a short course, (3) a modified diet can be advanced as tolerated, (4) all patients should be followed in clinic and undergo objective testing for surveillance and management of reflux. Consensus could not be achieved on the indication of post-POEM esophagram to evaluate for leak. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this Delphi process established expert agreement on several important issues and provides a practical guidance on key aspects in the care of patients following POEM.

Technical factors associated with the benefit of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement during high-risk ERCP: a secondary analysis of the SVI trial dataset.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) is effective for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk cases, but the optimal technical approach to this intervention remains uncertain. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of 787 clinical trial participants who underwent successful stent placement, we studied the impact of: 1) whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP or naturally during the conduct of the case; 2) the amount of effort expended on PSP; 3) stent length; 4) stent diameter; and 5) guidewire caliber. We used logistic regression models to examine the adjusted association between each technical factor and post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). RESULTS: Ninety-one of the 787 patients experienced PEP. There was no clear association between PEP and whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP (vs. occurring naturally; OR 0.82, 95%CI 0.37-1.84), whether substantial effort expended on stent placement (vs. non-substantial effort; OR 1.58, 95%CI 0.73-3.45), stent length (>5 cm vs. ≤5 cm; OR 1.01, 95%CI 0.63-1.61), stent diameter (≥5 Fr vs. <5 Fr; OR 1.13, 95%CI 0.65-1.96), or guidewire caliber (0.035 inch vs. 0.025 inch; 0.83, 95%CI 0.49-1.41). CONCLUSIONS: The 5 modifiable technical factors studied in this secondary analysis of large-scale randomized trial data did not appear to have a strong impact on the benefit of prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in preventing PEP after high-risk ERCP. Within the limitations of post hoc subgroup analysis, these findings may have important implications in procedural decision-making and suggest that the benefit of PSP is robust to variations in technical approach.

Development and Validation of a Machine Learning-based, Point-of-Care Risk Calculator for Post-ERCP Pancreatitis and Prophylaxis Selection.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A robust model of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) risk is not currently available. We aimed to develop a machine learning-based tool for PEP risk prediction to aid in clinical decision-making related to periprocedural prophylaxis selection and post-procedural monitoring. METHODS: Feature selection, model training, and validation were performed using patient-level data from 12 randomized controlled trials. A gradient-boosted machine (GBM) model was trained to estimate PEP risk and the performance of the resulting model was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) with 5-fold cross-validation. A web-based clinical decision-making tool was created, and a prospective pilot study was performed using data from ERCPs performed at the Johns Hopkins Hospital over a one-month period. RESULTS: A total of 7389 patients were included in the GBM with an 8.6% rate of PEP. The model was trained on twenty PEP risk factors and 5 prophylactic interventions (rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAID], aggressive hydration, combined rectal NSAID and aggressive hydration, pancreatic duct [PD] stenting, and combined rectal NSAID and PD stenting). The resulting GBM model had an AUC of 0.70 (65% specificity, 65% sensitivity, 95% negative predictive value, 15% positive predictive value). A total of 135 patients were included in the prospective pilot study, resulting in an AUC of 0.74. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the feasibility and utility of a novel machine learning-based PEP risk estimation tool with high negative predictive value to aid in prophylaxis selection and identify patients at low risk who may not require extended post-procedure monitoring.

Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes of Clinically Significant Post-ERCP Bleeding: a Contemporary Multi-center Study.

BACKGROUND AIMS: Clinically significant post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) bleeding (CSPEB) is common. Contemporary estimates of risk are lacking. We aimed to identify risk factors for and outcomes following CSPEB. METHODS: We analyzed multi-center prospective ERCP data between 2018-2023 with 30-day follow-up. The primary outcome was CSPEB, defined as hematemesis, melena, or hematochezia resulting in: hemoglobin drop ≥20 g/L or transfusion and/or endoscopy to evaluate suspected bleeding, and/or unplanned healthcare visitation and/or prolongation of existing admission. Firth logistic regression was employed. P-values <0.05 were significant, with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals reported. RESULTS: CSPEB occurred following 129 (1.5%) of 8,517 ERCPs (mean onset 3.2 days), with 110 of 4,849 events (2.3%) occurring following higher-risk interventions (sphincterotomy, sphincteroplasty, pre-cut sphincterotomy, and/or needle-knife access). CSPEB patients required endoscopy and transfusion in 86.0% and 53.5% of cases, respectively, with three cases (2.3%) being fatal. P2Y12 inhibitors were held for a median of 4 days (IQR 4) prior to higher-risk ERCP. Following higher-risk interventions, P2Y12 inhibitors (OR 3.33, 1.26-7.74), warfarin (OR 8.54, 3.32-19.81), dabigatran (OR 13.40, 2.06-59.96), rivaroxaban (OR 7.42, 3.43-15.24) and apixaban (OR 4.16, 1.99-8.20) were associated with CSPEB. Significant intraprocedural bleeding post sphincterotomy (OR 2.32, 1.06-4.60), but not post sphincteroplasty, was also associated. Concomitant cardiorespiratory events occurred more frequently within 30 days following CSPEB (OR 12.71, 4.75-32.54). CONCLUSIONS: Risks of antiplatelet-related CSPEB may be underestimated by endoscopists based on observations of suboptimal holding before higher-risk ERCP. Appropriate periprocedural antithrombotic management is essential and could represent novel quality initiative targets.

Pre-left ventricular assist device endoscopic evaluation does not reduce the risk of later gastrointestinal bleeding: a multicenter study.

Background: Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a common complication after placement of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Some institutions attempt to mitigate post-LVAD GIB using preoperative endoscopy. Our study evaluated whether preoperative endoscopy was associated with a lower risk of post-LVAD GIB. Methods: This was a multicenter cohort study of patients who underwent LVAD insertion from 2010-2019 at 3 academic sites. A total of 398 study participants were categorized based on whether they underwent preoperative endoscopy or not. The follow-up period was 1 year and the primary outcome was GIB. Secondary outcomes were severe bleeding and intraprocedural complications. Results: A total of 114 patients experienced GIB within 1 year, with a higher rate in the endoscopy cohort (36.4% vs. 24.8%, P=0.015). After adjusting for covariables, the endoscopy cohort remained at increased risk of GIB (adjusted odds ratio 1.77, 95% confidence interval 1.05-2.976; P=0.032). Severe bleeding was common (47.4%). Arteriovenous malformations (48 cases) and peptic ulcer disease (17 cases) were the most identified sources of GIB. Only 1 minor adverse event occurred during preoperative endoscopy. Conclusions: Our study suggests that pre-LVAD endoscopy is associated with a higher risk of GIB post LVAD, despite controlling for confounders. While this was an observational study and may not have captured all confounders, it appears that endoscopic screening may not be warranted.

Sphincterotomy for Biliary Sphincter of Oddi Disorder and idiopathic Acute Recurrent Pancreatitis: THE RESPOND LONGITUDINAL COHORT.

Objective: Sphincter of Oddi Disorders (SOD) are contentious conditions in patients whose abdominal pain, idiopathic acute pancreatitis (iAP) might arise from pressurization at the sphincter of Oddi. The present study aimed to measure the benefit of sphincterotomy for suspected SOD. Design: Prospective cohort conducted at 14 U.S. centers with 12 months follow-up. Patients undergoing first-time ERCP with sphincterotomy for suspected SOD were eligible: pancreatobiliary-type pain with or without iAP. The primary outcome was defined as the composite of improvement by Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), no new or increased opioids, and no repeat intervention. Missing data were addressed by hierarchal, multiple imputation scheme. Results: Of 316 screened, 213 were enrolled with 190 (89.2%) of these having a dilated bile duct, abnormal labs, iAP, or some combination. By imputation, an average of 122/213 (57.4% [95%CI 50.4-64.4]) improved; response rate was similar for those with complete follow-up (99/161, 61.5%, [54.0-69.0]); of these, 118 (73.3%) improved by PGIC alone. Duct size, elevated labs, and patient characteristics were not associated with response. AP occurred in 37/213 (17.4%) at a median of 6 months post-ERCP and was more likely in those with a history of AP (30.9 vs. 2.9%, p<0.0001). Conclusion: Nearly 60% of patients undergoing ERCP for suspected SOD improve, although the contribution of a placebo response is unknown. Contrary to prevailing belief, duct size and labs are poor response predictors. AP recurrence was common and like observations from prior non-intervention cohorts, suggesting no benefit of sphincterotomy in mitigating future AP episodes.Key Messages: WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC: It is not clear if the sphincter of Oddi can cause abdominal pain (Functional Biliary Sphincter of Oddi Disorder) and idiopathic acute pancreatitis (Functional Pancreatic Sphincter of Oddi Disorder), and whether ERCP with sphincterotomy can ameliorate abdominal pain or pancreatitis.WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Using multiple patient-reported outcome measures, most patients with suspected sphincter of Oddi disorder improve after ERCP with sphincterotomy.Duct size, elevated pancreatobiliary labs, and baseline patient characteristics are not independently associated with response.There is a high rate of recurrent acute pancreatitis within 12 months of sphincterotomy in those with a history of idiopathic acute pancreatitis.HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE, OR POLICY: Since a discrete population with a high (> 80-90%) response rate to sphincterotomy for suspected pancreatobiliary pain could not be identified, there is a need for additional observational and interventional studies that include phenotyping of patients using novel imaging or biochemical biomarkers.There remains a pressing need for quantitative nociceptive biomarkers to distinguish pancreatobiliary pain from other causes of abdominal pain or central sensitization.Discovery of blood-, bile-, or imaging-based biomarkers for occult microlithiasis and pancreatitis may be helpful in predicting who is likely to benefit from sphincterotomy.

Rise in First-Time ERCP for Benign Indications >1 Year After Cholecystectomy Is Associated With Worse Outcomes.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Greater availability of less invasive biliary imaging to rule out choledocholithiasis should reduce the need for diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients who have a remote history of cholecystectomy. The primary aims were to determine the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of individuals who undergo first-time ERCP >1 year after cholecystectomy (late-ERCP). METHODS: Data from a commercial insurance claim database (Optum Clinformatics) identified 583,712 adults who underwent cholecystectomy, 4274 of whom underwent late-ERCP, defined as first-time ERCP for nonmalignant indications >1 year after cholecystectomy. Outcomes were exposure and temporal trends in late-ERCP, biliary imaging utilization, and post-ERCP outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine patient characteristics associated with undergoing late-ERCP. RESULTS: Despite a temporal increase in the use of noninvasive biliary imaging (35.9% in 2004 to 65.6% in 2021; P < .001), the rate of late-ERCP increased 8-fold (0.5-4.2/1000 person-years from 2005 to 2021; P < .001). Although only 44% of patients who underwent late-ERCP had gallstone removal, there were high rates of post-ERCP pancreatitis (7.1%), hospitalization (13.1%), and new chronic opioid use (9.7%). Factors associated with late-ERCP included concomitant disorder of gut-brain interaction (odds ratio [OR], 6.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.88-6.91) and metabolic dysfunction steatotic liver disease (OR, 3.27; 95% CI, 2.79-3.55) along with use of anxiolytic (OR, 3.45; 95% CI, 3.19-3.58), antispasmodic (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.53-1.72), and chronic opioids (OR, 6.24; 95% CI, 5.79-6.52). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of late-ERCP postcholecystectomy is increasing significantly, particularly in patients with comorbidities associated with disorder of gut-brain interaction and mimickers of choledocholithiasis. Late-ERCPs are associated with disproportionately higher rates of adverse events, including initiation of chronic opioid use.

The Bethesda ERCP Skills Assessment Tool (BESAT) can reliably differentiate endoscopists of different experience levels.

Background and study aims The Bethesda ERCP Skill Assessment Tool (BESAT) is a video-based assessment tool of technical endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) skill with previously established validity evidence. We aimed to assess the discriminative validity of the BESAT in differentiating ERCP skill levels. Methods Twelve experienced ERCP practitioners from tertiary academic centers were asked to blindly rate 43 ERCP videos using the BESAT. ERCP videos consisted of native biliary cannulation and sphincterotomy and were recorded from 10 unique endoscopists of various ERCP experience (from advanced endoscopy fellow to > 10 years of ERCP experience). Inter-rater reliability, discriminative validity, and internal structure validity were subsequently assessed. Results The BESAT was found to reliably differentiate between endoscopists of varying levels of ERCP experience with experienced ERCPists scoring higher than novice ERCPists in 11 of 13 (85%) instrument items. Inter-rater reliability for BESAT items ranged from good to excellent (intraclass correlation range: 0.86 to 0.93). Internal structure validity was assessed with item-total correlations ranging from 0.53 to 0.83. Conclusions Study findings demonstrate that the BESAT, a video-based ERCP skill assessment tool, has high inter-rater reliability and has discriminative validity in differentiating novice from expert ERCP skill. Further investigations are needed to determine the role of video-based assessment in improving trainee learning curves and patient outcomes.

Accessibility to ERCP-performing hospitals among patients with pancreatic cancer living in SEER regions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The two most common interventions used to treat painless jaundice from pancreatic cancer are endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). Our study aimed to characterize the geographic distribution of ERCP-performing hospitals among patients with pancreatic cancer in the United States and the association between geographic accessibility to ERCP-performing hospitals and biliary interventions patients receive. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database for pancreatic cancer from 2005 to 2013. Multilevel models were used to examine the association between accessibility to ERCP hospitals within a 30- and 45-min drive from the patient's residential ZIP Code and the receipt of ERCP treatment. A two-step floating catchment area model was used to calculate the measure of accessibility based on the distribution across SEER regions. RESULTS: 7464 and 782 patients underwent ERCP and PTBD, respectively, over the study period. There were 808 hospitals in which 8246 patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in SEER regions from 2005 to 2013 received a procedure. Patients with high accessibility within both 30- and 45-min drive to an ERCP-performing hospital were more likely to receive an ERCP (30-min adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17-2.01; 45-min aOR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.01-1.70). Furthermore, in the adjusted model, Black patients (vs. White) and patients with stage IV disease were less likely to receive ERCP than PTBD. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with pancreatic cancer and high accessibility to an ERCP-performing hospital were more likely to receive ERCP. Disparities in the receipt of ERCP persisted for Black patients regardless of their access to ERCP-performing hospitals.

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.

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.

Prolonged Gastrointestinal Manifestations After Recovery From COVID-19.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Acute enteric infections are well known to result in long-term gastrointestinal (GI) disorders. Although COVID-19 is principally a respiratory illness, it demonstrates significant GI tropism, possibly predisposing to prolonged gut manifestations. We aimed to examine the long-term GI impact of hospitalization with COVID-19. METHODS: Nested within a large-scale observational cohort study of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 across North America, we performed a follow-up survey of 530 survivors 12-18 months later to assess for persistent GI symptoms and their severity, and for the development of disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBIs). Eligible patients were identified at the study site level and surveyed electronically. The survey instrument included the Rome IV Diagnostic Questionnaire for DGBI, a rating scale of 24 COVID-related symptoms, the Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale, and the Impact of Events-Revised trauma symptom questionnaire (a measure of posttraumatic stress associated with the illness experience). A regression analysis was performed to explore the factors associated with GI symptom severity at follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 530 invited patients, 116 responded (52.6% females; mean age, 55.2 years), and 73 of those (60.3%) met criteria for 1 or more Rome IV DGBI at follow-up, higher than the prevalence in the US general population (P < .0001). Among patients who experienced COVID-related GI symptoms during the index hospitalization (abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea), 42.1% retained at least 1 of these symptoms at follow-up; in comparison, 89.8% of respondents retained any (GI or non-GI) COVID-related symptom. The number of moderate or severe GI symptoms experienced during the initial COVID-19 illness by self-report correlated with the development of DGBI and severity of GI symptoms at follow-up. Posttraumatic stress disorder (Impact of Events-Revised score ≥33) related to the COVID-19 illness experience was identified in 41.4% of respondents and those individuals had higher DGBI prevalence and GI symptom severity. Regression analysis revealed that higher psychological trauma score (Impact of Events-Revised) was the strongest predictor of GI symptom severity at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this follow-up survey of patients 12-18 months after hospitalization with COVID-19, there was a high prevalence of DGBIs and persistent GI symptoms. Prolonged GI manifestations were associated with the severity of GI symptoms during hospitalization and with the degree of psychological trauma related to the illness experience.

ERCP-related adverse events: incidence, mechanisms, risk factors, prevention, and management.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a commonly performed procedure for pancreaticobiliary disease. While ERCP is highly effective, it is also associated with the highest adverse event (AE) rates of all commonly performed endoscopic procedures. Thus, it is critical that endoscopists and caregivers of patients undergoing ERCP have clear understandings of ERCP-related AEs. AREAS COVERED: This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the available evidence on ERCP-related AEs. For the purposes of this review, we subdivide the presentation of each ERCP-related AE according to the following clinically relevant domains: definitions and incidence, proposed mechanisms, risk factors, prevention, and recognition and management. The evidence informing this review was derived in part from a search of the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane, performed on 1 May 20231 May 2023. EXPERT OPINION: Knowledge of ERCP-related AEs is critical not only given potential improvements in peri-procedural quality and related care that can ensue but also given the importance of reviewing these considerations with patients during informed consent. The ERCP community and researchers should aim to apply standardized definitions of AEs. Evidence-based knowledge of ERCP risk factors should inform patient care decisions during training and beyond.