Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage of First Intent With a Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent vs Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study (ELEMENT Trial).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy with a lumen-apposing metal stent (EUS-CDS) is a promising modality for management of malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) with potential for better stent patency. We compared its outcomes with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with metal stenting (ERCP-M). METHODS: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, we recruited patients with MDBO secondary to borderline resectable, locally advanced, or unresectable peri-ampullary cancers across 10 Canadian institutions and 1 French institution. This was a superiority trial with a noninferiority assessment of technical success. Patients were randomized to EUS-CDS or ERCP-M. The primary end point was the rate of stent dysfunction at 1 year, considering competing risks of death, clinical failure, and surgical resection. Analyses were performed according to intention-to-treat principles. RESULTS: From February 2019 to February 2022, 144 patients were recruited; 73 were randomized to EUS-CDS and 71 were randomized to ERCP-M. The mean (SD) procedure time was 14.0 (11.4) minutes for EUS-CDS and 23.1 (15.6) minutes for ERCP-M (P < .01); 40% of the former was performed without fluoroscopy. Technical success was achieved in 90.4% (95% CI, 81.5% to 95.3%) of EUS-CDS and 83.1% (95% CI, 72.7% to 90.1%) of ERCP-M with a risk difference of 7.3% (95% CI, -4.0% to 18.8%) indicating noninferiority. Stent dysfunction occurred in 9.6% vs 9.9% of EUS-CDS and ERCP-M cases, respectively (P = .96). No differences in adverse events, pancreaticoduodenectomy and oncologic outcomes, or quality of life were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Although not superior in stent function, EUS-CDS is an efficient and safe alternative to ERCP-M in patients with MDBO. These findings provide evidence for greater adoption of EUS-CDS in clinical practice as a complementary and exchangeable first-line modality to ERCP in patients with MDBO. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT03870386.

Video Capsule Endoscopy can Identify Occult Luminal Crohn's Disease in Patients with Isolated Perianal Fistulas.

BACKGROUND: Accurate tools to distinguish Crohn's disease [CD] from cryptoglandular disease in patients with perianal fistulas without detectable luminal inflammation on ileocolonoscopy and abdominal enterography (isolated perianal fistulas [IPF]) are lacking. We assessed the ability of video capsule endoscopy [VCE] to detect luminal inflammation in patients with IPF. METHODS: We studied consecutive adults [>17 years] with IPF who were evaluated by VCE after a negative ileocolonoscopy and abdominal enterography between 2013 and 2022. We defined luminal CD by VCE as diffuse erythema, three or more aphthous ulcers, or a Lewis score greater than 135. We compared rates of intestinal inflammation in this cohort with age- and sex-matched controls without perianal fistulas, who underwent VCE for other indications. We excluded persons with pre-existing inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] and exposure to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or immunosuppressive treatments. RESULTS: A total of 45 patients with IPF underwent VCE without complications. Twelve patients [26%] met our definition of luminal CD. Luminal CD was more common in patients with IPF than in controls [26% vs 3%; p <0.01]. Among patients with IPF, male sex (OR [odds ratio], 9.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.1-79.4]), smoking (OR, 4.5; 95% CI [0.9-21.2]), abscess (OR, 6.3; 95% CI [1.5-26.8]), rectal enhancement on magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] (OR, 9.0; 95% CI [0.8-99.3]), and positive antimicrobial serology (OR, 7.1; 95% CI, [0.7-70.0]) were more common in those with a positive VCE study. CONCLUSIONS: VCE detected small intestinal inflammation suggestive of luminal CD in approximately one-quarter of patients with IPF. Larger studies are required to validate these findings.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy alone vs. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration with rapid onsite evaluation in pancreatic lesions: a multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the standard in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions, in particular when combined with rapid onsite evaluation of cytopathology (ROSE). More recently, a fork-tip needle for core biopsy (FNB) has been shown to be associated with excellent diagnostic yield. EUS-FNB alone has however not been compared with EUS-FNA + ROSE in a large clinical trial. Our aim was to compare EUS-FNB alone to EUS-FNA + ROSE in solid pancreatic lesions. METHODS: A multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial involving seven centers was performed. Solid pancreatic lesions referred for EUS were considered for inclusion. The primary end point was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary end points included sensitivity/specificity, mean number of needle passes, and cost. RESULTS: 235 patients were randomized: 115 EUS-FNB alone and 120 EUS-FNA + ROSE. Overall, 217 patients had malignant histology. The diagnostic accuracy for malignancy of EUS-FNB alone was non-inferior to EUS-FNA + ROSE at 92.2 % (95 %CI 86.6 %-96.9 %) and 93.3 % (95 %CI 88.8 %-97.9 %), respectively (P = 0.72). Diagnostic sensitivity for malignancy was 92.5 % (95 %CI 85.7 %-96.7 %) for EUS-FNB alone vs. 96.5 % (93.0 %-98.6 %) for EUS-FNA + ROSE (P = 0.46), while specificity was 100 % in both. Adequate histological yield was obtained in 87.5 % of the EUS-FNB samples. The mean (SD) number of needle passes and procedure time favored EUS-FNB alone (2.3 [0.6] passes vs. 3.0 [1.1] passes [P < 0.001]; and 19.3 [8.0] vs. 22.7 [10.8] minutes [P = 0.008]). EUS-FNB alone cost on average 45 US dollars more than EUS-FNA + ROSE. CONCLUSION: EUS-FNB alone is non-inferior to EUS-FNA + ROSE and is associated with fewer needle passes, shorter procedure time, and excellent histological yield at comparable cost.

The Evolution of EUS-Guided Transluminal Drainage for the Treatment of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: A Comparison of Clinical and Cost Outcomes with Double-Pigtail Plastic Stents, Conventional Metal Stents and Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents.

BACKGROUND: While most pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) resolve spontaneously, endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage (EUS-TD) may be necessary. EUS-TD has evolved from multiple double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) to fully covered self-expanding metal stents (FCSEMS) and lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS). This study compares clinical attributes of DPPS, FCSEMS and LAMS. METHODS: This is a single-centre retrospective review of EUS-TD for PFCs. The primary outcome was clinical success. Secondary outcomes were technical success, procedure time, hospital length of stay (HLOS), number of endoscopies, need for necrosectomy, adverse events (AEs) and overall cost. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients (37 male, average age 49 years) underwent a total of 60 EUS-TD procedures for PFCs (average size 11.2 cm with 29 pseudocysts and 29 walled-off necrosis). Ten patients (17%) underwent EUS-TD with DPPS and 48 patients (83%) with metal stents (32 FCSEMS, 16 LAMS). Overall technical and clinical success was 100% and 84%, respectively. Lumen-apposing metal stents had shorter procedure times (14.9 versus 63.6 DPPS, 39.1 min FCSEMS, P < 0.001), and no difference in AEs (3 of 16 versus 4 of 10 DPPS, 12 of 34 FCSEMS, ns). Double-pigtail plastic stents required more endoscopies (3.7 versus 2.3 LAMS, 2.3 FCSEMS, P = 0.013) and necrosectomies (4 of 10 [40%]) compared with 5 of 34 [15%] in the FCSEMS group and 3 of 16 [19%] in the LAMS group, respectively, P = 0.001) to achieve clinical resolution. The overall cost and HLOS was not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION: The use of LAMS for PFCs is not associated with any significant increase in cost despite technical (shorter procedure time) and clinical advantages (shorter indwell time, reduced need for necrosectomy and no increase in AEs).

ELEMENT TRIAL: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial on endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage of first intent with a lumen-apposing metal stent vs. endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography in the management of malignant distal biliary obstruction.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound guided-biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a promising alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP); however, its growth has been limited by a lack of multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCT) and dedicated devices. A dedicated EUS-BD lumen- apposing metal stent (LAMS) has recently been developed with the potential to greatly facilitate the technique and safety of the procedure. We aim to compare a first intent approach with EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy with a dedicated biliary LAMS vs. standard ERCP in the management of malignant distal biliary obstruction. METHODS: The ELEMENT trial is a multicenter single-blinded RCT involving 130 patients in nine Canadian centers. Patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or borderline resectable malignant distal biliary obstruction meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria will be randomized to EUS-choledochoduodenostomy using a LAMS or ERCP with traditional metal stent insertion in a 1:1 proportion in blocks of four. Patients with hilar obstruction, resectable cancer, or benign disease are excluded. The primary endpoint is the rate of stent dysfunction needing re-intervention. Secondary outcomes include technical and clinical success, interruptions in chemotherapy, rate of surgical resection, time to stent dysfunction, and adverse events. DISCUSSION: The ELEMENT trial is designed to assess whether EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy using a dedicated LAMS is superior to conventional ERCP as a first-line endoscopic drainage approach in malignant distal biliary obstruction, which is an important and timely question that has not been addressed using an RCT study design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry name: ClinicalTrials.gov. Registration number: NCT03870386. Date of registration: 03/12/2019.

Setting minimum standards for training in EUS and ERCP: results from a prospective multicenter study evaluating learning curves and competence among advanced endoscopy trainees.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Minimum EUS and ERCP volumes that should be offered per trainee in "high quality" advanced endoscopy training programs (AETPs) are not established. We aimed to define the number of procedures required by an "average" advanced endoscopy trainee (AET) to achieve competence in technical and cognitive EUS and ERCP tasks to help structure AETPs. METHODS: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE)-recognized AETPs were invited to participate; AETs were graded on every fifth EUS and ERCP examination using a validated tool. Grading for each skill was done using a 4-point scoring system, and learning curves using cumulative sum analysis for overall, technical, and cognitive components of EUS and ERCP were shared with AETs and trainers quarterly. Generalized linear mixed-effects models with a random intercept for each AET were used to generate aggregate learning curves, allowing us to use data from all AETs to estimate the average learning experience for trainees. RESULTS: Among 62 invited AETPs, 37 AETs from 32 AETPs participated. Most AETs reported hands-on EUS (52%, median 20 cases) and ERCP (68%, median 50 cases) experience before starting an AETP. The median number of EUS and ERCPs performed per AET was 400 (range, 200-750) and 361 (range, 250-650), respectively. Overall, 2616 examinations were graded (EUS, 1277; ERCP-biliary, 1143; pancreatic, 196). Most graded EUS examinations were performed for pancreatobiliary indications (69.9%) and ERCP examinations for ASGE biliary grade of difficulty 1 (72.1%). The average AET achieved competence in core EUS and ERCP skills at approximately 225 and 250 cases, respectively. However, overall technical competence was achieved for grade 2 ERCP at about 300 cases. CONCLUSION: The thresholds provided for an average AET to achieve competence in EUS and ERCP may be used by the ASGE and AETPs in establishing the minimal standards for case volume exposure for AETs during their training. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02509416.).

Competence in Endoscopic Ultrasound and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography, From Training Through Independent Practice.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is unclear whether participation in competency-based fellowship programs for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) results in high-quality care in independent practice. We measured quality indicator (QI) adherence during the first year of independent practice among physicians who completed endoscopic training with a systematic assessment of competence. METHODS: We performed a prospective multicenter cohort study of invited participants from 62 training programs. In phase 1, 24 advanced endoscopy trainees (AETs), from 20 programs, were assessed using a validated competence assessment tool. We used a comprehensive data collection and reporting system to create learning curves using cumulative sum analysis that were shared with AETs and trainers quarterly. In phase 2, participating AETs entered data into a database pertaining to every EUS and ERCP examination during their first year of independent practice, anchored by key QIs. RESULTS: By the end of training, most AETs had achieved overall technical competence (EUS 91.7%, ERCP 73.9%) and cognitive competence (EUS 91.7%, ERCP 94.1%). In phase 2 of the study, 22 AETs (91.6%) participated and completed a median of 136 EUS examinations per AET and 116 ERCP examinations per AET. Most AETs met the performance thresholds for QIs in EUS (including 94.4% diagnostic rate of adequate samples and 83.8% diagnostic yield of malignancy in pancreatic masses) and ERCP (94.9% overall cannulation rate). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective multicenter study, we found that although competence cannot be confirmed for all AETs at the end of training, most meet QI thresholds for EUS and ERCP at the end of their first year of independent practice. This finding affirms the effectiveness of training programs. Clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT02509416.