Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Antegrade Radiofrequency Ablation and Metal Stenting With Hepaticoenterostomy for Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Prospective Preliminary Study.

OBJECTIVES: Endobiliary radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for malignant biliary obstruction is a promising option for improving biliary stent patency, but its efficacy and safety with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage are uncertain. We examined the feasibility of EUS-guided hepaticoenterostomy with antegrade stenting (EUS-HEAS) and RFA in patients with unresectable malignant biliary obstruction. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-center, single-arm, preliminary study. Twenty patients who met the eligibility criteria for inclusion between August 2018 and January 2020 were enrolled. We evaluated the technical success, functional success, recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), and adverse events other than RBO associated with EUS-HEAS with RFA. RESULTS: The technical and functional success rates were both 80% (16/20). The procedure was unsuccessful in a total of 4 patients due to failure to insert the RFA catheter through the fistula (2 patients) or failure to pass the RFA catheter through the stricture (2 patients). Early and late adverse events other than RBO occurred in 10% (2/20) and 13% (2/16) of subjects, respectively. The RBO rate was 25% (4/16), and the median time to RBO was 276 days. The success rate of endoscopic reintervention using hepaticoenterostomy was 100% (4/4). DISCUSSION: This preliminary study showed that EUS-HEAS with RFA achieves good results but RFA catheter insertion can be difficult. Further evaluation and device improvements are warranted.

Duodenoscope as a Vector for Transmission.

Elevator-based endoscope-related infections from patient cross-contamination is a multifactorial problem related to device design, maintenance, and function, with additional risk incurred from a high-level disinfection process that lacks quality controls. This article reviews the historical context for these outbreaks, technical aspects of scope design contributing to this risk, and innovations in endoscope technology that have the potential to overcome these shortcomings. Also reviewed are interim solutions and the data that support use of some of these interventions. Still needed are a validated manufacturer-recommended schedule for routine duodenoscope and echoendoscope maintenance with reprocessing protocols that can be implemented in endoscopy units.

Recent Actions by the US Food and Drug Administration: Reducing the Risk of Infection from Reprocessed Duodenoscopes.

In addition to technological advancements, engagement and collaboration among the wider community of stakeholders will be beneficial toward reducing the risk of infection from reprocessed duodenoscopes. Such a community can raise awareness of the importance of duodenoscope cleaning, work to improve reprocessing training, identify the most pressing unanswered questions that merit further research, and develop tools that can be used by health care facilities to improve the quality of reprocessing at their sites. The Food and Drug Administration looks forward to working with the community to further reduce the risk of infections from reprocessed duodenoscopes.

[Full thickness resection of a pyloric adenoma in the proximal duodenum in a 67-year-old patient with attenuated polyposis coli]. / Vollwandresektion eines Pylorusdrüsenadenoms im proximalen Duodenum bei einem 67-jährigen Patienten mit attenuierter Polyposis coli.

BACKGROUND: Pyloric gland adenomas (PGAs) are very rare and underdiagnosed, mostly be founded in the stomach. Similar to colorectal adenomas they have a high risk of malignant transformation to adenocarcinoma up to 12-47 %. Endoscopic resections in the duodenum harbor a significant risk of complications. EMR is the current standard technique for treatment of duodenal non-ampullary adenomas. Complete resection rates are considerably high at about 90 %. Adverse events as bleeding was reported up to 25 %. ESD is not recommended for resection of duodenal lesions since the perforation rate may be as high as 35 %. Use of EFTR in the duodenum are limited to a single case study of 20 patients. CASE: A 67 year old patient with attenuated polyposis coli presented for screening. Gastroscopy showed a 20 mm large, non-ampullary lesions in the proximal duodenum (pars I). The margins of the duodenal lesions were marked with a high-frequency (HF) probe. An integrated balloon dilatation (20 mm) of the upper esophageal sphincter and the pylorus was performed to facilitate advancing of the gastroduodenal FTRD® (Ovesco Endoscopy AG). After pulling the duodenal lesion into the cap with a grasper the FTRD clip was deployed and the lesion immediately resected with the preloaded snare. A single-shot antibiotic prophylaxis with 2 g ceftriaxone i. v. was administered during the intervention. Second-look endoscopy was scheduled 24 h after resection. The resectat showed histologically a gastric type adenoma of 18 mm in the proximal duodenum (immunohistochemistry positive for Mucin-1, Mucin-5, Mib 1). CONCLUSION: Herein we present the first case of duodenal EFTR in a patient with attenuated FAP and a PGA. There are currently no specific guidelines for the removal and surveillance. ASGE recommends resection and surveillance endoscopy at 3-5 years interval.

Endoscopic treatment of perforated duodenal ulcer using a partially polyurethane-covered self-expandable nitinol stent: A case report.

We describe a clinical case involving endoscopic treatment of a perforated duodenal ulcer using a partially polyurethane-covered self-expandable nitinol stent. A 93-year-old patient with severe cardiovascular comorbidity underwent a laparoscopic closure of a perforated duodenal ulcer. The early postoperative period was complicated by failure of the closure, and as a result, endoscopic treatment was performed, including the placement of a partially polyurethane-covered self-expandable nitinol stent. The treatment had a positive effect. Further study of the proposed method is required, and favorable results will allow endoscopists to actively introduce this procedure into clinical practice.

The Great View Forward: The Use of a Colonoscope for Distal Duodenal Stent Placement.

INTRODUCTION: Stent placement in the distal duodenum can be difficult. We describe a case report of a 94-year-old man with metastatic pancreatic head cancer compressing the third and fourth portions of the duodenum, treated by endoscopic stent placement using a colonoscope. AREAS COVERED: A literature review highlighted two possible procedures for stent placement in the distal duodenum, namely forward-viewing and side-viewing endoscopies. Gastroscopes, duodenoscopes, enteroscopes, and colonoscopes have all been suggested for the purpose. For distal lesions, especially when the duodenal wall is stiffened due to compression or infiltration by neoplastic lesions, a conventional upper endoscope can be too short to reach the narrowed site in "push mode," necessitating the use of a longer endoscope. EXPERT COMMENTARY: A colonoscope can be safely and effectively used to accomplish distal duodenal stent placement.

Purse-string sutures using novel endoloops and repositionable clips for the closure of large iatrogenic duodenal perforations with single-channel endoscope: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Serious complications due to perforation restrict the development of duodenal endoscopic treatment. The key stage for remediation is the successful endoscopic closure to prevent peritonitis and the need for surgical intervention. This report aimed to present a new simple method for the closure of large iatrogenic duodenal perforations with purse-string sutures using the novel endoloops and repositionable clips through a single-channel endoscope. METHODS: A total of 23 patients with iatrogenic duodenal perforations ≥ 1 cm were retrospectively studied who were presently treated by purse-string sutures using the novel endoloops and the repositionable hemostasis clips with the single-channel endoscope at four institutes. During and after the procedure, a 20-gauge needle was used to relieve the pneumoperitoneum or subcutaneous emphysema. Finally, a gastroduodenal decompression tube was placed. RESULTS: The median maximum diameter of iatrogenic duodenal perforations was 1.65 cm (range 1.0-3.0 cm). Complete endoscopic closure of all 23 perforations was achieved. No patient had severe complications such as peritonitis. The wounds were healed and no obvious duodenal stricture was observed in all cases after 3 months. CONCLUSION: Purse-string sutures using the novel endoloops and repositionable endoclips through single-channel endoscope were feasible, effective and easy methods for the closure of large duodenal iatrogenic perforations.

Duodenoscope-Associated Infections: Update on an Emerging Problem.

The duodenoscope is among the most complex medical instruments that undergo disinfection between patients. Transmission of infection by contaminated scopes has remained a challenge since its inception. Notable risk factors for pathogen transmission include non-adherence to disinfection guidelines, encouragement of biofilm deposition due to complex design and surface defects and contaminated automated endoscope reprocessors. The most common infections following endoscopy are endogenous infections involving the patient's own gut flora. Exogenous infections, on the other hand, are associated with contaminated scopes and can theoretically be prevented by effective reprocessing. Pseudomonas aeruginosa is currently the most common organism isolated from contaminated endoscopes. Of note, reports of multidrug-resistant duodenoscopy-associated outbreaks have surfaced recently, many of which occurred despite adequate reprocessing. The FDA and CDC currently recommend comprehensive cleaning followed with at least high-level disinfection for reprocessing of flexible GI endoscopes. Reports of duodenoscope-related outbreaks despite compliance with established guidelines have prompted professional and government bodies to revisit existing guidelines and offer supplementary recommendations for duodenoscope processing. For the purposes of this review, we identified reports of duodenoscope-associated infections from 2000 till date. For each outbreak, we noted the organisms isolated, the number of cases reported, any possible explanations of contamination, and the measures undertaken to end each outbreak. We have also attempted to present an overview of recent developments in this rapidly evolving field.

Comparison of standard single-bite with multiple-bite biopsy forceps for collection of gastrointestinal biopsies in dogs: a prospective study.

Various types of endoscopic biopsy forceps have been investigated in dogs. The Multibite (MB) are multiple-bite forceps that collect up to four tissue specimens in a single pass through the endoscope, reducing procedure time. The authors prospectively investigated its clinical utility by comparing procedure times and diagnostic quality of samples obtained with the MB to that of biopsies performed with a single-bite forceps (SB), in 21 dogs with gastrointestinal disorders. When comparing the depth, crush artefacts and diagnostic adequacy of the gastric and duodenal biopsies, there was no significant difference between the MB and SB forceps. The procedure time was significantly longer with the MB. There was no learning curve effect, and there were no reported adverse events. This study failed to demonstrate any significant clinical advantage associated with the use of the Multibite forceps over that of conventional disposable SB forceps.

THE USE OF THE FORCEPS BIOPSY AS AN AUXILIARY TECHNIQUE FOR THE VISUALIZATION OF THE MAJOR DUODENAL PAPILLA USING THE FOWARD-VIEWING UPPER ENDOSCOPY.

BACKGROUND: - Conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy is the best method for evaluation of the upper gastrointestinal tract, but it has limitations for the identification of the major duodenal papilla, even after the use of the straightening maneuver. Side-viewing duodenoscope is recommended for optimal examination of major duodenal papilla in patients at high risk for lesions in this region. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of the biopsy forceps during conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy as an additional tool to the straightening maneuver, in the evaluation of the major duodenal papilla. METHODS: A total of 671 patients were studied between 2013 and 2015, with active major duodenal papilla search in three endoscope steps: not straightened, straightened and use of the biopsy forceps after straightening. In all of them it was recorded whether: major duodenal papilla was fully visualized (position A), partially visualized (position B) or not visualized (position C). If major duodenal papilla was not fully visualized, patients continued to the next step. RESULTS: A total of 341 were female (50.8%) with mean age of 49 years. Of the 671 patients, 324 (48.3%) major duodenal papilla was identified in position A, 112 (16.7%) in position B and 235 (35%) in position C. In the 347 patients who underwent the straightening maneuver, position A was found in 186 (53.6%), position B in 51 (14.7%) and position C in 110 (31.7%). Of the 161 remaining patients and after biopsy forceps use, position A was seen in 94 (58.4%), position B in 14 (8.7%) and position C in 53 (32.9%). The overall rate of complete visualization of major duodenal papilla was 90%. CONCLUSION: The use of the biopsy forceps significantly increased the total major duodenal papilla visualization rate by 14%, reaching 604/671 (90%) of the patients (P<0.01) and it can be easily incorporated into the routine endoscopic examination of the upper gastrointestinal tract.

O uso da pinça de biópsia como técnica auxiliar na visualização da papila duodenal maior utilizando-se o esofagogastroduodenoscópio de visão frontal / The use of the forceps biopsy as an auxiliary technique for the visualization of the major duodenal papilla using the foward-viewing upper endoscopy

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: - Conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy is the best method for evaluation of the upper gastrointestinal tract, but it has limitations for the identification of the major duodenal papilla, even after the use of the straightening maneuver. Side-viewing duodenoscope is recommended for optimal examination of major duodenal papilla in patients at high risk for lesions in this region. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of the biopsy forceps during conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy as an additional tool to the straightening maneuver, in the evaluation of the major duodenal papilla. METHODS: A total of 671 patients were studied between 2013 and 2015, with active major duodenal papilla search in three endoscope steps: not straightened, straightened and use of the biopsy forceps after straightening. In all of them it was recorded whether: major duodenal papilla was fully visualized (position A), partially visualized (position B) or not visualized (position C). If major duodenal papilla was not fully visualized, patients continued to the next step. RESULTS: A total of 341 were female (50.8%) with mean age of 49 years. Of the 671 patients, 324 (48.3%) major duodenal papilla was identified in position A, 112 (16.7%) in position B and 235 (35%) in position C. In the 347 patients who underwent the straightening maneuver, position A was found in 186 (53.6%), position B in 51 (14.7%) and position C in 110 (31.7%). Of the 161 remaining patients and after biopsy forceps use, position A was seen in 94 (58.4%), position B in 14 (8.7%) and position C in 53 (32.9%). The overall rate of complete visualization of major duodenal papilla was 90%. CONCLUSION: The use of the biopsy forceps significantly increased the total major duodenal papilla visualization rate by 14%, reaching 604/671 (90%) of the patients (P<0.01) and it can be easily incorporated into the routine endoscopic examination of the upper gastrointestinal tract.

RESUMO CONTEXTO: Esofagogastroduodenoscopia convencional é o melhor método para avaliação do trato gastrointestinal superior, mas apresenta limitações para identificação da papila duodenal maior, mesmo após emprego da manobra de retificação. Exame completo da papila duodenal maior está indicado para pacientes de alto risco para adenocarcinoma da papila duodenal maior. OBJETIVO: Avaliar a utilização da pinça de biópsia durante esofagogastroduodenoscopia convencional como ferramenta adicional à manobra de retificação na avaliação da papila duodenal maior. MÉTODOS: Foram estudados 671 pacientes entre 2013-2015 com busca ativa da papila duodenal maior em três etapas: endoscópio não retificado, endoscópio retificado e uso da pinça de biópsia após retificação. Em todas se registrou: se a papila duodenal maior foi totalmente visualizada (posição A), se parcialmente visualizada (posição B) ou se não visualizada (posição C). Caso a papila duodenal maior não tenha sido completamente visualizada, o paciente foi direcionado para a etapa seguinte. RESULTADOS: Um total de 341 era do sexo feminino (50,8%) com idade média de 49 anos. Dos 671 pacientes, em 324 (48,3%) a papila duodenal maior foi identificada na posição A, 112 (16,7%) em posição B e, 235 (35%) em posição C. Dos 347 pacientes submetidos à manobra de retificação, posição A foi encontrada em 186 (53,6%), posição B em 51 (14,7%) e posição C em 110 (31,7%). Dos 161 pacientes restantes que utilizaram a pinça de biópsia, posição A foi vista em 94 (58,4%), posição B em 14 (8,7%) e posição C em 53 (32,9%). A taxa acumulativa de visualização completa da papila duodenal maior foi de 90%. CONCLUSÃO: O uso da pinça de biópsia aumentou a taxa de visualização completa da papila duodenal maior em 14%, alcançando 604/671 (90%) dos pacientes (P<0,01) avaliados e pode ser facilmente incorporada aos exames endoscópicos de rotina do trato gastrointestinal superior.

Current Status of Endoscopic Resection for Superficial Nonampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic resection (ER) is becoming the first choice of treatment for treating superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs), but ER procedures for SNADETs remain challenging because of the difficulty experienced in maneuvering the endoscope toward the thin duodenal wall, which results in a high rate of adverse events. Although several ER methods were used to overcome these technical difficulties and complications, ER methods for SNADETs are not standardized. A new technique, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR), was developed recently in a western country, and its usefulness was reported. Beginning in 2014, we were the first to use UEMR for SNADETs in Japan. Thus, in our experience, we would propose an indication of the various ER methods for SNADETs according to the lesion size. SUMMARY: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and UEMR were effective and safe for small lesions (≤20 mm), but for large lesions (>20 mm), piecemeal removal of lesion by EMR and UEMR had high incidence of recurrence and adverse events. Especially, piecemeal EMR could cause delayed perforation. Cold snare polypectomy was useful for small lesions (≤10 mm), but further study of its recurrence is warranted. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) achieved a high complete resection rate regardless of the lesion size, but its rate of adverse events, including morbid complications, was high. Thus, after ESD for large lesions, secure prevention method for adverse events, such as closure of the wound by laparoscopic-endoscopic cooperative surgery, should be required. Key Messages: ER methods for treating SNADETs were proposed based on the lesion size. For large lesions, prophylactic methods for adverse events should be implemented.

Safety and Effectiveness of an Endoscopically Placed Duodenal-Jejunal Bypass Device (EndoBarrier®): Outcomes in 114 Patients.

BACKGROUND: The duodenal-jejunal bypass liner (DJBL) is an endoscopically placed device designed to achieve weight loss and improve glycemic control in obese patients. Previous studies report promising results but typically included small patient numbers and short follow-up. This study aims to determine the safety and effectiveness of the device. METHODS: Study design: A series of all patients treated by the DJBL at our institutions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Weight loss, biochemical measures, complications. RESULTS: Between July 2012 and March 2015, 114 consecutive patients were treated for a mean 51.1 weeks (standard deviation (SD) 19.9 weeks). Mean total body weight change from baseline was 12.0 kg (SD 8.5 kg, p < 0.001). Mean percent total body weight loss (%TWL) was 10.5% (SD 7.3%). Mean HbA1c was not significantly improved, but of 10 patients on insulin, 4 ceased insulin and 4 reduced insulin dosages. There was a significant decrease in hemoglobin and total cholesterol and a significant increase in serum alkaline phosphatase. Seventy-four percent of patients experienced at least one adverse event, some of them serious including 6 device obstructions, 5 gastrointestinal hemorrhages, 2 liver abscesses, and 1 acute pancreatitis. Seventy-four percent of patients experienced weight gain after removal with a mean 4.5 ± 6.1 kg (p < 0.0001) within the first 6 months after explantation. CONCLUSIONS: The DJBL provides significant but highly variable weight loss. Glycemic control was variable. Most insulin-requiring T2DM patients ceased or reduced insulin. Most patients experience an adverse event and most regain significant weight after device removal. Major adverse events can occur, including the potentially life-threatening complications of hepatic abscess and gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

Randomized Comparison of 3 High-Level Disinfection and Sterilization Procedures for Duodenoscopes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Duodenoscopes have been implicated in the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO). We compared the frequency of duodenoscope contamination with MDRO or any other bacteria after disinfection or sterilization by 3 different methods. METHODS: We performed a single-center prospective randomized study in which duodenoscopes were randomly reprocessed by standard high-level disinfection (sHLD), double high-level disinfection (dHLD), or standard high-level disinfection followed by ethylene oxide gas sterilization (HLD/ETO). Samples were collected from the elevator mechanism and working channel of each duodenoscope and cultured before use. The primary outcome was the proportion of duodenoscopes with an elevator mechanism or working channel culture showing 1 or more MDRO; secondary outcomes included the frequency of duodenoscope contamination with more than 0 and 10 or more colony-forming units (CFU) of aerobic bacterial growth on either sampling location. RESULTS: After 3 months of enrollment, the study was closed because of the futility; we did not observe sufficient events to evaluate the primary outcome. Among 541 duodenoscope culture events, 516 were included in the final analysis. No duodenoscope culture in any group was positive for MDRO. Bacterial growth of more than 0 CFU was noted in 16.1% duodenoscopes in the sHLD group, 16.0% in the dHLD group, and 22.5% in the HLD/ETO group (P = .21). Bacterial growth or 10 or more CFU was noted in 2.3% of duodenoscopes in the sHLD group, 4.1% in the dHLD group, and 4.2% in the HLD/ETO group (P = .36). MRDOs were cultured from 3.2% of pre-procedure rectal swabs and 2.5% of duodenal aspirates. CONCLUSIONS: In a comparison of duodenoscopes reprocessed by sHLD, dHLD, or HLD/ETO, we found no significant differences between groups for MDRO or bacteria contamination. Enhanced disinfection methods (dHLD or HLD/ETO) did not provide additional protection against contamination. However, insufficient events occurred to assess our primary study end-point. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02611648.