EUS-Guided Gallbladder Drainage Using a Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent for Acute Cholecystitis: Results of a Nationwide Study with Long-Term Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) has become one of the treatments of choice for acute cholecystitis (AC) in fragile patients, scant data are available on real-life settings and long-term outcomes. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective study including EUS-guided GBD using LAMS for AC in 19 Italian centers from June 2014 to July 2020. The primary outcomes were technical and clinical success, and the secondary outcomes were the rate of adverse events (AE) and long-term follow-up. RESULTS: In total, 116 patients (48.3% female) were included, with a mean age of 82.7 ± 11 years. LAMS were placed, transgastric in 44.8% of cases, transduodenal in 53.3% and transjejunal in 1.7%, in patients with altered anatomy. Technical success was achieved in 94% and clinical success in 87.1% of cases. The mean follow-up was 309 days. AEs occurred in 12/116 pts (10.3%); 8/12 were intraprocedural, while 1 was classified as early (<15 days) and 3 as delayed (>15 days). According to the ASGE lexicon, two (16.7%) were mild, three (25%) were moderate, and seven (58.3%) were severe. No fatal AEs occurred. In subgroup analysis of 40 patients with a follow-up longer than one year, no recurrence of AC was observed. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GBD had high technical and clinical success rates, despite the non-negligible rate of AEs, thus representing an effective treatment option for fragile patients.

EUS-guided gallbladder drainage using a lumen-apposing metal stent as rescue treatment for malignant distal biliary obstruction: a large multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) with lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) has been reported as a rescue treatment with encouraging results for the relief of jaundice in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) and after failure of both ERCP and EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective analysis of all cases of consecutive EUS-GBD with LAMSs used as a rescue treatment for patients with DMBO in 14 Italian centers from June 2015 to June 2020. Primary endpoints were technical and clinical success, whereas the secondary endpoint was the adverse event (AE) rate. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients (52.1% women) with a mean age of 74.3 ± 11.7 years were included in the study. Biliary stricture was related to pancreatic adenocarcinoma (85.4%), duodenal adenocarcinoma (2.1%), cholangiocarcinoma (4.2%), ampullary cancer (2.1%), colon cancer (4.2%), and metastatic breast cancer (2.1%). The mean diameter of the common bile duct was 13.3 ± 2.8 mm. LAMSs were placed transgastrically in 58.3% of cases and transduodenally in 41.7%. Technical success was 100%, whereas clinical success was 81.3%, with a mean total bilirubin reduction after 2 weeks of 66.5%. The mean procedure time was 26.4 minutes, and the mean hospital stay was 9.2 ± 8.2 days. AEs occurred in 5 patients (10.4%): 3 were classified as intraprocedural and 2 were classified as delayed because they occurred after >15 days. When the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy lexicon was used, 2 AEs were mild and 3 were moderate (2 buried LAMSs). The mean follow-up was 122 days. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that EUS-GBD with LAMSs used as a rescue treatment for patients affected by DMBO represents a valuable option in terms of technical and clinical success rates, with an acceptable AE rate. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest study concerning the use of this procedure. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03903523.).

ASGE guidelines for the appropriate use of upper endoscopy: association with endoscopic findings.

BACKGROUND: This prospective study examined the appropriate use of EGD in an open-access system with the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines and determined whether the ASGE guidelines were associated with relevant endoscopic findings. METHODS: In a cohort of 1777 consecutive patients referred for open-access EGD, the proportion of patients who underwent EGD for appropriate indications was prospectively assessed. The relationship between appropriateness and the presence of clinically relevant endoscopic diagnoses was assessed by calculating (1) the likelihood ratio, positive and negative, of the indications; and (2) the change in the probability of relevant endoscopic diagnoses in the presence of the ASGE criteria. RESULTS: The rate for EGDs "generally not indicated" was 15.6%. Relevant endoscopic diagnoses were present in 47.4% of cases with ASGE indications versus 28.8% of patients without appropriate indications as defined by the ASGE criteria (OR: 2.23; 99% CI [1.55, 3.22]; p < 0.01). A similar difference was observed for erosive gastritis (OR: 1.86; 99% CI [1.17, 2.95]; p < 0.01), erosive esophagitis (OR: 1.48; 99% CI [0.87, 2.52]; p < 0.05), and Barrett's esophagus (OR: 9.76; 99% CI [0.72, 132]; p < 0.05). The pretest probability of finding a relevant endoscopic diagnosis was modified slightly when an ASGE indication(s) was present and decreased markedly when ASGE criteria were absent. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the ASGE guideline for appropriate indications for EGD can improve patient selection for the procedure. However, to avoid missed diagnoses of serious disease, use of the guidelines must be tailored to the specific clinical setting.