Endoscopist-Level and Procedure-Level Factors Associated With Increased Adenoma Detection With the Use of a Computer-Aided Detection Device.

INTRODUCTION: To investigate the impact of procedure-related and endoscopist-related factors on the effectiveness of a computer-aided detection (CADe) device in adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) detection. METHODS: The SKOUT clinical trial was conducted at 5 US sites. We present prespecified analyses of procedure-related and endoscopist-related factors, and association with APC across treatment and control cohorts. RESULTS: There were numeric increases in APC between SKOUT vs standard colonoscopy in community-based endoscopists, withdrawal time of ≥8 minutes, for endoscopists with >20 years of experience, and endoscopists with baseline adenoma detection rate <45%. DISCUSSION: The application of CADe devices in clinical practice should be carefully evaluated. Larger studies should explore differences in endoscopist-related factors for CADe.

ACG-CAG provided suggestions for periendoscopic management of anticoagulants and antiplatelets.

SOURCE CITATION: Abraham NS, Barkun AN, Sauer BG, et al. American College of Gastroenterology-Canadian Association of Gastroenterology clinical practice guideline: management of anticoagulants and antiplatelets during acute gastrointestinal bleeding and the periendoscopic period. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022;117:542-58. 35297395.

Computer-Aided Detection Improves Adenomas per Colonoscopy for Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening is endoscopist dependent, and colonoscopy quality improvement programs aim to improve efficacy. This study evaluated the clinical benefit and safety of using a computer-aided detection (CADe) device in colonoscopy procedures. METHODS: This randomized study prospectively evaluated the use of a CADe device at 5 academic and community centers by US board-certified gastroenterologists (n = 22). Participants aged ≥40 scheduled for screening or surveillance (≥3 years) colonoscopy were included; exclusion criteria included incomplete procedure, diagnostic indication, inflammatory bowel disease, and familial adenomatous polyposis. Patients were randomized by endoscopist to the standard or CADe colonoscopy arm using computer-generated, random-block method. The 2 primary endpoints were adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), the total number of adenomas resected divided by the total number of colonoscopies; and true histology rate (THR), the proportion of resections with clinically significant histology divided by the total number of polyp resections. The primary analysis used a modified intention-to-treat approach. RESULTS: Between January and September 2021, 1440 participants were enrolled to be randomized. After exclusion of participants who did not meet the eligibility criteria, 677 in the standard arm and 682 in the CADe arm were included in a modified intention-to-treat analysis. APC increased significantly with use of the CADe device (standard vs CADe: 0.83 vs 1.05, P = .002; total number of adenomas, 562 vs 719). There was no decrease in THR with use of the CADe device (standard vs CADe: 71.7% vs 67.4%, P for noninferiority < .001; total number of non-neoplastic lesions, 284 vs 375). Adenoma detection rate was 43.9% and 47.8% in the standard and CADe arms, respectively (P = .065). CONCLUSIONS: For experienced endoscopists performing screening and surveillance colonoscopies in the United States, the CADe device statistically improved overall adenoma detection (APC) without a concomitant increase in resection of non-neoplastic lesions (THR). CLINICALTRIALS: gov registration: NCT04754347.

Devices for esophageal function testing.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Esophageal function testing is an integral component of the evaluation of refractory GERD and esophageal motility disorders. This review summarizes the current technologies available for esophageal function testing, including the functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP), high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM), and multichannel intraluminal impedance (MII) and pH monitoring. METHODS: We performed a MEDLINE, PubMed, and MAUDE database literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies through March 2021 using the following key words: esophageal manometry, HRM, esophageal impedance, FLIP, MII, and esophageal pH testing. Technical data were gathered from traditional and web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. The report was drafted, reviewed, and edited by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Technology Committee and approved by the Governing Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. RESULTS: FLIP is a high-resolution impedance planimetry system used for pressure and dimension measurement in the esophagus, pylorus, and anal sphincter. FLIP provides complementary information to HRM for esophageal motility disorders, especially achalasia. The Chicago classification, based on HRM data, is a widely adopted algorithmic scheme used to diagnose esophageal motility disorders. MII detects intraluminal bolus movement and, combined with pH measurement or manometry, provides information on acid and non-acid gastroesophageal reflux and bolus transit in patients with refractory GERD and for preoperative evaluation for anti-reflux procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal function testing techniques (FLIP, HRM, and MII-pH) have diagnostic and prognostic value in the evaluation of esophageal motility disorders and refractory GERD. Newer technologies and classification systems have enabled an increased understanding of these diseases.

Endoscopic therapies for gallbladder drainage.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic management of acute cholecystitis has expanded in patients who are considered nonoperative candidates. Traditionally managed with percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC), improvement in techniques and devices has led to increased use of endoscopic methods for gallbladder drainage. This document reviews technical aspects of endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ET-GBD) and EUS-guided GBD (EUS-GBD) as well as their respective technical/clinical success and adverse event rates. Available comparative data are also reviewed among nonsurgical gallbladder drainage techniques (PC, ET-GBD, and EUS-GBD). METHODS: The MEDLINE database was searched through March 2021 for relevant articles by using keywords including "acute cholecystitis," "interventional EUS," "percutaneous cholecystostomy," "transpapillary gallbladder drainage," "EUS-guided gallbladder drainage," "lumen-apposing metal stent," "gallbladder stenting," and "endoscopic gallbladder drainage." The manuscript was drafted by 2 authors and reviewed by members of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Technology Committee and subsequently by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Governing Board. RESULTS: Multiple studies have demonstrated acceptable outcomes comparing PC and both endoscopic gallbladder drainage techniques, ET-GBD and EUS-GBD. Published data suggest that endoscopic gallbladder drainage techniques may be associated with lower rates of adverse events and improved quality of life. However, there are important clinical considerations for choosing among these treatment options, requiring a multidisciplinary and collaborative approach to therapeutic decision-making in these patients. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of EUS-GBD and ET-GBD in high-risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis may result in favorable outcomes when compared with PC. Further improvements in techniques and training should lead to more widespread acceptance and dissemination of these treatment options.

Endoscopic polypectomy devices.

Video 1Use of submucosal injection prior to en-bloc endoscopic mucosal resection.Video 2Use of a detachable loop ligating device prior to hot snare resection of a pedunculated polyp.

Lumen-apposing metal stents (with videos).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) are a novel class of devices that have expanded the spectrum of endoscopic GI interventions. LAMSs with their dumbbell configuration, short saddle length, and large inner luminal diameter provide favorable stent characteristics to facilitate anastomosis formation between the gut lumen and adjacent structures. METHODS: The MEDLINE database was searched through April 2021 for articles related to LAMSs by using additional relevant keywords such as "walled-off pancreatic necrosis," "pseudocysts," "pancreatic fluid collection," "cholecystitis," "gastroenterostomy," in addition to "endoscopic treatment" and "endoscopic management," among others. RESULTS: This technology review describes the full spectrum of LAMS designs and delivery systems, techniques for deployment, procedural outcomes, safety, training issues, and financial considerations. CONCLUSIONS: Although LAMSs were initially introduced for drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis, the versatility of these devices has led to a variety of off-label uses including gallbladder drainage, enteric bypass with the creation of gastroenterostomies, and treatment of luminal GI strictures.

Devices and techniques for flexible endoscopic management of Zenker's diverticulum (with videos).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Zenker's diverticulum (ZD) has traditionally been treated with open surgery or rigid endoscopy. With the advances in endoscopy, alternative flexible endoscopic treatments have been developed. METHODS: This document reviews current endoscopic techniques and devices used to treat ZD. RESULTS: The endoscopic techniques may be categorized as the traditional flexible endoscopic septal division and the more recent submucosal tunneling endoscopic septum division, also known as peroral endoscopic myotomy for ZD. This document also addresses clinical outcomes, safety, and financial considerations. CONCLUSIONS: Flexible endoscopic approaches treat symptomatic ZD with results that are favorable compared with traditional open surgical or rigid endoscopic alternatives.

Single-use duodenoscopes and duodenoscopes with disposable end caps.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Multidrug-resistant infectious outbreaks associated with duodenoscopes have been documented internationally. Single-use duodenoscopes, disposable distal ends, or distal end cap sealants could eliminate or reduce exogenous patient-to-patient infection associated with ERCP. METHODS: This document reviews technologies that have been developed to help reduce or eliminate exogenous infections because of duodenoscopes. RESULTS: Four duodenoscopes with disposable end caps, 1 end sheath, and 2 disposable duodenoscopes are reviewed in this document. The evidence regarding their efficacy in procedural success rates, reduction of duodenoscope bacterial contamination, clinical outcomes associated with these devices, safety, and the financial considerations are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Several technologies discussed in this document are anticipated to eliminate or reduce exogenous infections during endoscopy requiring a duodenoscope. Although disposable duodenoscopes can eliminate exogenous ERCP-related risk of infection, data regarding effectiveness are needed outside of expert centers. Additionally, with more widespread adoption of these new technologies, more data regarding functionality, medical economics, and environmental impact will accrue. Disposable distal end caps facilitate duodenoscope reprocessing; postmarketing surveillance culture studies and real-life patient infection analyses are important areas of future research.

Enhanced EUS imaging (with videos).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS remains a primary diagnostic tool for the evaluation of pancreaticobiliary disease. Although EUS combined with FNA or biopsy sampling is highly sensitive for the diagnosis of neoplasia within the pancreaticobiliary tract, limitations exist in specific clinical settings such as chronic pancreatitis. Enhanced EUS imaging technologies aim to aid in the detection and diagnosis of lesions that are commonly evaluated with EUS. METHODS: We reviewed technologies and methods for enhanced imaging during EUS and applications of these methods. Available data regarding efficacy, safety, and financial considerations are summarized. RESULTS: Enhanced EUS imaging methods include elastography and contrast-enhanced EUS (CE-EUS). Both technologies have been best studied in the setting of pancreatic mass lesions. Robust data indicate that neither technology has adequate specificity to serve as a stand-alone test for pancreatic malignancy. However, there may be a role for improving the targeting of sampling and in the evaluation of peritumoral lymph nodes, inflammatory pancreatic masses, and masses with nondiagnostic FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling. Further, novel applications of these technologies have been reported in the evaluation of liver fibrosis, pancreatic cysts, and angiogenesis within neoplastic lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Elastography and CE-EUS may improve the real-time evaluation of intra- and extraluminal lesions as an adjunct to standard B-mode and Doppler imaging. They are not a replacement for EUS-guided tissue sampling but provide adjunctive diagnostic information in specific clinical situations. The optimal clinical use of these technologies continues to be a focus of ongoing research.

Duodenoscope-associated infection prevention: A call for evidence-based decision making.

Background Recent outbreaks of duodenoscope-associated multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) have brought attention to the infection risk from procedures performed with duodenoscopes. Prior to these MDRO outbreaks, procedures with duodenoscopes were considered safe and low risk for exogenous infection transmission, provided they were performed in strict accordance with manufacturer instructions for use and multisociety reprocessing guidelines. The attention and efforts of the scientific community, regulatory agencies, and the device industry have deepened our understanding of factors responsible for suboptimal outcomes. These include instrument design, reprocessing practices, and surveillance strategies for detecting patient and instrument colonization. Various investigations have made it clear that current reprocessing methods fail to consistently deliver a pathogen-free instrument. The magnitude of infection transmission has been underreported due to several factors. These include the types of organisms responsible for infection, clinical signs presenting in sites distant from ERCP inoculation, and long latency from the time of acquisition to infection. Healthcare providers remain hampered by the ill-defined infectious risk innate to the current instrument design, contradictory information and guidance, and limited evidence-based interventions or reprocessing modifications that reduce risk. Therefore, the objectives of this narrative review included identifying outbreaks described in the peer-reviewed literature and comparing the findings with infections reported elsewhere. Search strategies included accessing peer-reviewed articles, governmental databases, abstracts for scientific conferences, and media reports describing outbreaks. This review summarizes current knowledge, highlights gaps in traditional sources of evidence, and explores opportunities to improve our understanding of actual risk and evidence-based approaches to mitigate risk.

Artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based applications have transformed several industries and are widely used in various consumer products and services. In medicine, AI is primarily being used for image classification and natural language processing and has great potential to affect image-based specialties such as radiology, pathology, and gastroenterology (GE). This document reviews the reported applications of AI in GE, focusing on endoscopic image analysis. METHODS: The MEDLINE database was searched through May 2020 for relevant articles by using key words such as machine learning, deep learning, artificial intelligence, computer-aided diagnosis, convolutional neural networks, GI endoscopy, and endoscopic image analysis. References and citations of the retrieved articles were also evaluated to identify pertinent studies. The manuscript was drafted by 2 authors and reviewed in person by members of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Technology Committee and subsequently by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Governing Board. RESULTS: Deep learning techniques such as convolutional neural networks have been used in several areas of GI endoscopy, including colorectal polyp detection and classification, analysis of endoscopic images for diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection, detection and depth assessment of early gastric cancer, dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus, and detection of various abnormalities in wireless capsule endoscopy images. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of AI technologies across multiple GI endoscopic applications has the potential to transform clinical practice favorably and improve the efficiency and accuracy of current diagnostic methods.

In high-risk patients with acute upper GI bleeding, urgent vs. early endoscopy did not differ for 30-day mortality.

SOURCE CITATION: Lau JY, Yu Y, Tang RS, et al. Timing of endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1299-308. 32242355.

Endoscopic devices and techniques for the management of bariatric surgical adverse events (with videos).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: As the prevalence of obesity continues to rise, increasing numbers of patients undergo bariatric surgery. Management of adverse events of bariatric surgery may be challenging and often requires a multidisciplinary approach. Endoscopic intervention is often the first line of therapy for management of these adverse events. This document reviews technologies and techniques used for endoscopic management of adverse events of bariatric surgery, organized by surgery type. METHODS: The MEDLINE database was searched through May 2018 for articles related to endoscopic management of adverse events of bariatric interventions by using relevant keywords such as adverse events related to "gastric bypass," "sleeve gastrectomy," "laparoscopic adjustable banding," and "vertical banded sleeve gastroplasty," in addition to "endoscopic treatment" and "endoscopic management," among others. Available data regarding efficacy, safety, and financial considerations are summarized. RESULTS: Common adverse events of bariatric surgery include anastomotic ulcers, luminal stenoses, fistulae/leaks, and inadequate initial weight loss or weight regain. Devices used for endoscopic management of bariatric surgical adverse events include balloon dilators (hydrostatic, pneumatic), mechanical closure devices (clips, endoscopic suturing system, endoscopic plication platform), luminal stents (covered esophageal stents, lumen-apposing metal stents, plastic stents), and thermal therapy (argon plasma coagulation, needle-knives), among others. Available data, composed mainly of case series and retrospective cohort studies, support the primary role of endoscopic management. Multiple procedures and techniques are often required to achieve clinical success, and existing management algorithms are evolving. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopy is a less invasive alternative for management of adverse events of bariatric surgery and for revisional procedures. Endoscopic procedures are frequently performed in the context of multidisciplinary management with bariatric surgeons and interventional radiologists. Treatment algorithms and standards of practice for endoscopic management will continue to be refined as new dedicated technology and data emerge.