EUS-guided Gastroenterostomy: A Multicenter International Study Comparing Benign and Malignant Diseases.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a minimally invasive therapy for patients with gastric outlet obstruction without the risks of surgical bypass and the limited long-term efficacy of enteral self-expanding metal stent placement. However, due to its novelty, there is a lack of significant data comparing long-term outcomes of patients with EUS-GE, based on the underlying disease. In this study, we compare outcomes of EUS-GE on benign versus malignant indications. METHODS: Consecutive patients from 12 international, tertiary care centers who underwent EUS-GE over 3 years were extracted in a retrospective registry. Demographic characteristics, procedure-related information and follow-up data was collected. Primary outcome was the rate of adverse events associated with EUS-GE and the comparison of the rate of adverse events in benign versus malignant diseases. Secondary outcomes included technical and clinical success as well as hospitalization admission. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were included: 72 malignant and 31 benign. The characteristics of the patients undergoing EUS-GE is shown in Table 1. The mean age of the cohort was 68 years and 58 years for malignant and benign etiology. Gender distribution was 57% and 39% being females in malignant and benign etiology group, respectively. Clinical success, technical success, average procedure time, and hospital length of stay were similar in both groups. Patients with benign underlying etiology had significantly higher number of surgically altered midgut anatomy (P=0.0379). CONCLUSION: EUS-GE is equally efficient regardless of the underlying etiology (malignant vs. benign), and the adverse events both groups were comparable.

Endoscopic vacuum therapy: 2 methods of successful endosponge placement for treatment of anastomotic leak in the upper GI tract.

Video 1Presentation of 2 methods of successful endosponge placement for treatment of anastomotic leak in the upper GI tract.

Percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy (PEN) for treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Endoscopic necrosectomy is limited by the proximity of necrosis to the gastrointestinal tract. Percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy (PEN) is a minimally invasive endoscopic method of percutaneous debridement. Studies regarding its efficacy and safety are lacking. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of PEN in necrotizing pancreatitis. Methods Pubmed, Ovid, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science Database were searched from inception through February 2021. Dual extraction and quality assessment of studies using Cochrane risk of bias tool were performed independently by two authors. The primary outcome was defined as clinical success of PEN. Secondary outcomes included periprocedural morbidity, mortality, and long-term morbidity and mortality. Results Sixteen observational studies including 282 subjects were analyzed. The average reported age of the participants was 50.3 years. Patients with reported gender included 39 % females and 61 % males. The success rate as defined by complete resolution of necrosis and removal of drainage catheters/stents was 82 % (95 % confidence interval 77-87). The mean size of pancreatic necrosis was 14.86 cm (5-54 cm). The periprocedural morbidity rate was 10 %, while there was no reported periprocedural mortality. The long-term morbidity rate was reported as 23 % and mortality at follow-up was 16 %. Conclusions PEN is a novel method of endoscopic management of pancreatic necrosis. Based on our meta-analysis of retrospective studies, it represents a safe treatment modality with high rates of clinical success and low rates of perioperative morbidity and mortality. This study supports the use of PEN when conventional endoscopic therapy is not feasible.

Is antibiotic prophylaxis necessary after endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic cysts?

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Current society guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for 3 to 5 days after endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs). The overall quality of the evidence supporting this recommendation is low. In this study, we aimed to assess cyst infection and adverse event rates after EUS-FNA of PCLs among patients treated with or without postprocedural prophylactic antibiotics. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent EUS-FNA of PCLs between 2015 and 2019 at two large-volume academic medical centers with different practice patterns of postprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis. Data on patient demographics, cyst characteristics, fine-needle aspiration technique, periprocedural and postprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis, and adverse events were retrospectively extracted. RESULTS: A total of 470 EUS-FNA procedures were performed by experienced endosonographers for the evaluation of PCLs in 448 patients, 58.7% of whom were women. The mean age was 66.3±12.8 years. The mean cyst size was 25.7±16.9 mm. Postprocedural antibiotics were administered in 274 cases (POSTAB+ group, 58.3%) but not in 196 cases (POSTAB- group, 41.7%). None of the patients in either group developed systemic or localized infection within the 30-day follow-up period. Procedure-related adverse events included mild abdominal pain (8 patients), intra-abdominal hematoma (1 patient), mild pancreatitis (1 patient), and perforation (1 patient). One additional case of pancreatitis was recorded; however, the patient also underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. CONCLUSION: The incidence of infection after EUS-FNA of PCLs is negligible. Routine use of postprocedural antibiotics does not add a significant benefit.

Per Oral Endoscopic Myotomy for Zenker's Diverticulum: A Novel and Superior Technique Compared With Septotomy?

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic management of Zenker diverticuli (ZD) has traditionally been via septotomy technique. The recent development of tunneling technique has shown to be both efficacious and safe. The aim of this study is to evaluate the tunneling technique using per oral endoscopic myotomy (Z-POEM) versus septotomy. METHODS: Patients who underwent endoscopic management of ZD either by Z-POEM or septotomy from March 2017 until November 2020 from 9 international academic centers were included. Demographics, clinical data preprocedure and postprocedure, procedure time, adverse events, and hospital length of stay were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients (mean age 74.9 y old, 55.4% male) were included: septotomy (n=49), Z-POEM (n=52). Preprocedure Functional Oral Intake Scale score and Eckardt score was 5.3 and 5.4 for the septotomy group and 5.9 and 5.15 for the Z-POEM group. Technical success was achieved in 98% of the Z-POEM group and 100% of the septotomy group. Clinical success was achieved in 84% and 92% in the septotomy versus Z-POEM groups. Adverse events occurred in 30.6% (n=15) in septotomy group versus 9.6% (n=5) in the Z-POEM group (P=0.017). Reintervention for ongoing symptoms occurred in 7 patients in the septotomy group and 3 patients in the Z-POEM group. Mean hospital length of stay was shorter for the Z-POEM group, at 1.5 versus 1.9 days. CONCLUSIONS: A tunneling technique via the Z-POEM procedure is an efficacious and safe endoscopic treatment for ZD. Z-POEM is a safer procedure with a statistically significant reduction in adverse events compared with traditional septotomy technique.

Safety and Efficacy of Thrombin for Bleeding Gastric Varices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal therapy for bleeding-related gastric varices is still a controversial topic. There is a paucity of literature that comprehensively summarizes the available literature regarding safety and efficacy of thrombin in bleeding gastric varices. METHODS: Four independent reviewers performed a comprehensive review of all original articles published from inception to October 2020, describing the use of thrombin for management of bleeding gastric varices. Primary outcomes were (1) pooled early and late rebleeding rate, (2) pooled gastric variceal related mortality rate, (3) pooled rescue therapy rate, and (4) pooled adverse event rate with the use of thrombin in bleeding gastric varices. The meta-analysis was performed and the statistics were two-tailed. Finally, probability of publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and with Egger's test. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included in the analysis after comprehensive search. This yielded a pooled early rebleeding rate of 9.3% (95% CI 4.9-17) and late rebleeding rate 13.8% (95% CI 9-20.4). Pooled rescue therapy rate after injecting thrombin in bleeding gastric varices was 10.1% (95% CI 6.1-16.3). The pooled 6-week gastric variceal-related mortality rate after injecting thrombin in bleeding gastric varices was 7.6% (95% CI 4.5-12.5). There were a total of four adverse events out of a total of 222 patients with pooled adverse event rate after injecting thrombin in bleeding gastric varices was 5.6% (95% CI 2.9-10.6). CONCLUSION: In summary, the systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of thrombin for bleeding gastric varices suggest low rates of rebleeding and minimal rates of adverse events. While, early and late rebleeding rate and rescue therapy rate are similar to cyanoacrylate-based therapy, the minimal rates of adverse events are perhaps the most important benefit of thrombin. Thus, the current data suggest that thrombin is a very promising therapeutic alternative with low risk of adverse events for bleeding gastric varices.

Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on turnover time and revenue in the endoscopy unit: single-center experience.

Background and study aims The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic heavily impacted the New York metro area causing most institutions to either reduce case volume or fully close remaining open units incorporated specific guidelines for procedures lockdown potentially leading to a greater turn-over time. We analyzed the quantitative and financial impact of this lost time on our tertiary care center's endoscopy unit. Patients and methods This single-center, retrospective study included demographics, procedure details and turn-over times (TOT) from all endoscopic procedures between December 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020. Cases were categorized as pre-COVID-19 group from December 1, 2019 to March 15, 2020 and during COVID-19 (lockdown) group from March 16, 2020 to June 30, 2020. The financial impact was assessed using national averages for reimbursement of outpatient endoscopic procedures provided by Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Results A total of 3622 procedures were performed during the study period: 2297 in the pre-COVID-19 period, 1325 in the COVID-19 period, representing a 42.32 % decrease. In the COVID-19 lockdown group, there was a significant increase in TOT in both the general endoscopy cases (18.11 minutes, P  = 0.000) and advanced endoscopy cases (17.7 minutes, P  = 0.000). The 42.3 % decrease in volume equated to at least $1.6 million USD in lost revenue during the lockdown. Conclusions COVID-19 pandemic led to an increase in TOT with overall reduced procedure volume and a negative effect on revenue. Providing continued endoscopic management during a pandemic avoids delays in reopening the endoscopy unit and hampers the post-pandemic surge of delayed cases and its financial impact.

A comparison of 9-min colonoscopy withdrawal time and 6-min colonoscopy withdrawal time: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal colonoscopy withdrawal time is still a controversial topic. While several studies demonstrate that longer withdrawal time improves adenoma detection rate, others have contradicted these findings. METHODS: Three independent reviewers performed a comprehensive review of all original articles published from inception to January 2021 and included studies reporting comparison of the two cohorts-(i) ≥ 6 but less than 9 min of colonoscopy withdrawal time (CWT) and (ii) ≥ 9 min of CWT. The outcome measures were the following: (i) adenoma detection rate (ADR), (ii) advanced ADR, and (iii) sessile serrated adenoma detection rate (SDR). The meta-analysis was performed, and the statistics were two-tailed. RESULTS: A total of seven studies met the inclusion criteria after a thorough search of the literature was completed. The analysis revealed that ≥ 9 min of CWT had significantly higher odds of adenoma detection as compared with 6-9 min of CWT (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30-1.82; I2  = 93.7). Additionally, a significantly higher odds of sessile serrated adenoma detection (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.28-2.22; I2  = 0) and a trend towards higher odds of advanced adenoma detection (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.98-1.95, I2  = 90) were seen with CWT of at least 9 min when compared with 6-9 min of CWT. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis analysis provides further evidence that at least 9 min of CWT cohort had significantly higher ADR and SDR as compared with the at least 6 min but less than 9 min of cohort.

EUS guided pancreatic duct decompression in surgically altered anatomy or failed ERCP - A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression.

INTRODUCTION: EUS-PD (EUS guided pancreatic duct drainage) is classified into two types: EUS-guided rendezvous techniques and EUS-guided PD stenting. Prior studies showed significant variation in terms of technical success, clinical success and adverse events. METHODS: Three independent reviewers performed a comprehensive review of all original articles published from inception to June 2020, describing pancreatic duct drainage utilizing EUS. Primary outcomes were technical success, clinical success of EUS-PDD and safety of EUS-PD in terms of adverse events. All meta-analysis and meta-regression tests were 2-tailed. Finally, probability of publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and with Egger's test. RESULTS: A total of sixteen studies (503 patients) described the use of EUS-PD for pancreatic duct decompression yielded a pooled technical success rate was 81.4% (95% CI 72-88.1, I 2 = 74). Meta-regression revealed that proportion of altered anatomy and method of dilation of tract explain the variance. Overall pooled clinical success rate was 84.6% (95% CI 75.4-90.8, I 2 = 50.18). Meta-regression analysis revealed that the type of pancreatic duct decompression, proportion of altered anatomy and follow up time explained the variance. Overall pooled adverse event rate was 21.3% (95% CI 16.8-26.7, I 2 = 36.6). The most common post procedure adverse event was post procedure pain. Overall pooled adverse event rate of post EUS-PD pancreatitis was 5% (95% CI 3.2-7.8, I 2 = 0). CONCLUSION: The systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression provides answer to the questions of the overall technical success, clinical success and the adverse event rate of EUS-PD by summarizing the available literature.

A Comprehensive Review of Endoscopic Management of Sleeve Gastrectomy Leaks.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery leaks result in significant morbidity and mortality. Experts report variable therapeutic approaches, without uniform guidelines or consensus. OBJECTIVE: To review the pathogenesis, risk factors, prevention, and treatment of gastric sleeve leaks, with a focus on endoscopic approaches. In addition, the efficacy and success rates of different treatment modalities are assessed. DESIGN: A comprehensive review was conducted using a thorough literature search of 5 online electronic databases (PubMed, PubMed Central, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Web of Science) from the time of their inception through March 2020. Studies evaluating gastric sleeve leaks were included. MeSH terms related to "endoscopic," "leak," "sleeve," "gastrectomy," "anastomotic," and "bariatric" were applied to a highly sensitive search strategy. The main outcomes were epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. RESULTS: Literature search yielded 2418 studies of which 438 were incorporated into the review. Shock and peritonitis necessitate early surgical intervention for leaks. Endoscopic therapies in acute and early leaks involve modalities with a focus on one of: (i) defect closure, (ii) wall diversion, or (iii) wall exclusion. Surgical revision is required if endoscopic therapies fail to control leaks after 6 months. Chronic leaks require one or more endoscopic, radiologic, or surgical approaches for fluid collection drainage to facilitate adequate healing. Success rates depend on provider and center expertise. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic management of leaks post sleeve gastrectomy is a minimally invasive and effective alternative to surgery. Their effect may vary based on clinical presentation, timing or leak morphology, and should be tailored to the appropriate endoscopic modality of treatment.