Safety and Efficacy of Endoscopic Full Thickness Resection of Upper Gastrointestinal Lesions Using a Full Thickness Resection Device: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a promising technique that allows for a minimally invasive resection of mucosal and submucosal lesions in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. The data regarding the efficacy and safety of performing EFTR of upper GI lesions using a full-thickness resection device (FTRD) is limited. Hence, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies that evaluated this technique. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive systematic search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings that reported outcomes of EFTR using the FTRD system. The weighted pooled rates of technical success, complete (R0) resection, adverse events (AE), and residual or recurrent lesions were analyzed with 95% CI using the random effects model. RESULTS: Eight studies with a total of 139 patients who underwent EFTR of upper GI lesions were included in the study. The pooled, weighted rate of technical success was 88.2% (95% CI: 81.4-92.7%, I2 : 0). The R0 resection rate was 70.7% (95% CI: 62.5-77.8%, I2 : 0). Overall AE rates were 22.1% (95% CI: 15.8-30.1%, I2 : 0), however, most of the AEs were minor. Of the patients who had follow-up endoscopies, the residual and/or recurrent lesion rate was 6.1% (95% CI: 2.4-14.4%, I2 : 0). Heterogeneity in the analysis was low. CONCLUSIONS: EFTR using the FTRD seems to be effective and safe with acceptable R0 resection rates and low recurrence rates. Further prospective studies are required to validate our results and to compare various modalities of endoscopic resection with this single-step EFTR device.

Liver Dysfunction in Adult Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis: A Narrative Review.

Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) is a rare, life-threatening condition that has been increasingly recognized in adults and is characterized by a hyperinflammatory state due to immune dysregulation. Its nonspecific presentation, the lack of clinician familiarity given its rarity, and shared clinical features with sepsis and other syndromes can lead to a delay in diagnosis and a poor prognosis. Significant liver function abnormalities as the initial manifestation of HLH are uncommon and can range from mild elevation of aminotransferases to fulminant hepatic failure with high mortality rates. The authors encountered a case of adult HLH mimicking acute viral hepatitis in which a markedly elevated ferritin level led to a prompt diagnosis, early initiation of treatment, and a successful outcome. Clinicians, including gastroenterologists and hepatologists, are often called upon to evaluate patients with abnormal liver tests and may lack experience in the early diagnosis and management of liver dysfunction in the context of HLH. Thus, we expand our reporting to a narrative review of literature which explores the pathogenesis of HLH, challenges associated with its diagnosis, previous reports of liver disease associated with the syndrome, recommended treatments for the familial and adult variations including the role of liver transplantation, and the outcomes of these treatments.

Use of abdominal compression device in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Colonoscopy for screening is associated with unpleasant experiences for patients, and abdominal compression devices have been developed to minimize these problems. However, there is a paucity of data supporting the therapeutic benefits of this strategy. This study examined the effects of using an abdominal compression device during colonoscopy on the cecal intubation time (CIT), abdominal compression, patient comfort, and postural changes. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Scopus (from inception to November 2021) for randomized controlled trials that assessed the effects of an abdominal compression device during colonoscopy on CIT, abdominal compression, patient comfort, and postural change. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (ORs) were calculated. RESULTS: Our pooled analysis of seven randomized controlled trials revealed that abdominal compression devices significantly reduced CIT (WMD, -0.76 [-1.49 to -0.03] minutes; p=0.04), abdominal compression (OR, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.94; p=0.03), and postural changes (OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.78; p=0.004) during colonoscopy. However, our results did not show a significant change in patient comfort (WMD, -0.48; 95% CI, -1.05 to 0.08; p=0.09) when using an abdominal compression device. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that employing an abdominal compression device may reduce CIT, abdominal compression, and postural change but have no impact on patient comfort.

Benefits of EUS-guided gastroenterostomy over surgical gastrojejunostomy in the palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a large multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (mGOO) allows resumption of peroral intake. Although surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ) provides durable relief, it may be associated with a higher morbidity, interfere with chemotherapy, and require an optimum nutritional status. EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative. We aimed to conduct the largest comparative series to date between EUS-GE and SGJ for mGOO. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study included consecutive patients undergoing SGJ or EUS-GE at 6 centers. Primary outcomes included time to resumption of oral intake, length of stay (LOS), and mortality. Secondary outcomes included technical and clinical success, reintervention rates, adverse events (AEs), and resumption of chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 310 patients were included (EUS-GE, n = 187; SGJ, n = 123). EUS-GE exhibited significantly lower time to resumption of oral intake (1.40 vs 4.06 days, P < .001), at lower albumin levels (2.95 vs 3.33 g/dL, P < .001), and a shorter LOS (5.31 vs 8.54 days, P < .001) compared with SGJ; there was no difference in mortality (48.1% vs 50.4%, P = .78). Technical (97.9% and 100%) and clinical (94.1% vs 94.3%) success was similar in the EUS-GE and SGJ groups, respectively. EUS-GE had lower rates of AEs (13.4% vs 33.3%, P < .001) but higher reintervention rates (15.5% vs 1.63%, P < .001). EUS-GE patients exhibited significantly lower interval time to resumption of chemotherapy (16.6 vs 37.8 days, P < .001). Outcomes between the EUS-GE and laparoscopic (n = 46) surgical approach showed that EUS-GE had shorter interval time to initiation/resumption of oral intake (3.49 vs 1.46 days, P < .001), decreased LOS (9 vs 5.31 days, P < .001), and a lower rate of AEs (11.9% vs 17.9%, P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study to date showing that EUS-GE can be performed among nutritionally deficient patients without affecting the technical and clinical success compared with SGJ. EUS-GE is associated with fewer AEs while allowing earlier resumption of diet and chemotherapy.

Safety and clinical outcomes of early dual modality drainage (< 28 days) compared to later drainage of pancreatic necrotic fluid collections: a propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: Necrotizing pancreatitis can be complicated by Necrotic Fluid Collections (NFC). Guidelines recommend waiting for 4 weeks from the onset of acute pancreatitis (AP) before considering endoscopic drainage. We aimed to compare outcomes and safety in patients undergoing early versus late drainage of NFC. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent Dual Modality Drainage (DMD) [combined endoscopic and percutaneous drainage] for NFC from January 2007 to December 2020. Patients were stratified into the "early" group (DMD < 28 days from AP onset) and were matched to "late" (DMD ≥ 28 days) drainage group using propensity- core-matching. Primary outcomes of interest were technical success and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included clinical success, late complication rates, and mortality. RESULTS: We identified 278 patients who underwent DMD for NFC. Thirty-nine belonged to the early group and were matched to 174 patients from the late group. Technical success was similar in both early and late groups (97.4% vs 99.4%: P = 0.244) as were the procedural and early post-procedural (< 14 days) adverse events rates (23.1% vs 27.6%: P = 0.565). Clinical success (92.3% vs 93.1%; P = 0.861) and late complication rates (23.1% vs 31.6%; P = 0.294) were similar. There were 2 deaths (5.7%) in the early vs. 9 (5.2%) in the late group, P = 0.991. CONCLUSIONS: When performed in a tertiary care center with expertise in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound, early drainage of NFC appears to be feasible and safe. Further studies are needed to validate our results.

Effectiveness and Safety of EUS Rendezvous After Failed Biliary Cannulation With ERCP: A Systematic Review and Proportion Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an alternative to interventional radiology-guided rendezvous ERCP in patients who failed biliary cannulation with conventional ERCP. However, there is significant variation in reported rates of success and adverse events associated with EUS-RV-assisted ERCP. We performed a systematic review and a proportion meta-analysis to reliably assess the effectiveness and safety of the EUS-RV-assisted ERCP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings (from inception through August 2020) to identify studies reporting EUS-RV-assisted ERCP in patients who failed biliary cannulation with conventional ERCP techniques. Using the random-effects model described by DerSimonian and Laird, we calculated the pooled rates of technical success, clinical success, and adverse events of EUS-RV-assisted ERCP. RESULTS: Twelve studies reporting a total of 342 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled rate of technical success (12 studies reporting a total of 342 patients) was 86.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 78.4-91.3]. The pooled rate of clinical success (4 studies reporting a total of 94 patients) was 80.8% (95% CI: 64.1-90.8). The pooled rate of overall adverse events (12 studies; 42 events in 342 patients) was 14% (95% CI: 10.5-18.4). Low to moderate heterogeneity was noted in the analyses. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-RV-assisted ERCP appears to be effective and safe in patients who failed biliary cannulation with conventional ERCP. Given the risk of adverse events, it should be performed in centers with expertise in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound.

Safe implementation of transoral incisionless fundoplication as a new technique in a tertiary care center.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) is an accepted anatomic treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease in selected patients. In this report, we analyze our institution's programmatic allocation of resources during the safe implementation of TIF as a new procedure. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent TIF from January 2020 to February 2021 at our institution was performed. The process of initially allocating the operating room (OR) with overnight admission and postoperative esophagram for added safety, and subsequently transitioning TIF to the endoscopy suite (ES) as an outpatient procedure was described. Patient safety and outcomes were evaluated during transition. RESULTS: Thirty patients who underwent TIF were identified. The mean age was 51.2±16.0 years. TIF was performed in an OR in nine patients (30%) and 21 (70%) in the ES. All the OR patients were admitted overnight and had routine EG. In contrast, four (19%) from the ES group required clinically-indicated admission and three (14.2%) required esophagram. The mean procedure duration was significantly lower in the ES group (65.7 min vs. 84 min, p=0.02). CONCLUSION: A stepwise, resource-efficient process was described that allowed safe initiation of TIF as a new technique and its effective transition to a fully outpatient procedure.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic duodenal stent versus endoscopic or surgical gastrojejunostomy to treat malignant gastric outlet obstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Malignant disease accounts for up to 80 % of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) cases, which may be treated with duodenal self-expanding metal stents (SEMS), surgical gastrojejunostomy (GJ), and more recently endoscopic-ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE). These three treatments have not been compared head-to-head in a randomized trial. Methods We searched the Embase and MEDLINE databases for studies published January 2015-February 2021 assessing treatment of malignant GOO using duodenal SEMS, endoscopic (EUS-GE) or surgical (laparoscopic or open) GJ. Efficacy outcomes assessed included technical and clinical success rates, GOO recurrence and reintervention. Safety outcomes included procedure-related bleeding or perforation, and stent-related events for the duodenal SEMS and EUS-GE arms. Results EUS-GE had a lower rate of technical success (95.3%) than duodenal SEMS (99.4 %) or surgical GJ (99.9%) ( P  = 0.0048). For duodenal SEMS vs. EUS-GE vs. surgical GJ, rates of clinical success (88.9 % vs. 89.0 % vs. 92.3 % respectively, P  = 0.49) were similar. EUS-GE had a lower rate of GOO recurrence based on limited data ( P  = 0.0036), while duodenal SEMS had a higher rate of reintervention ( P  = 0.041). Overall procedural complications were similar (duodenal SEMS 18.7 % vs. EUS-GE 21.9 % vs. surgical GJ 23.8 %, P  = 0.32), but estimated bleeding rate was lowest ( P  = 0.0048) and stent occlusion rate was highest ( P  = 0.0002) for duodenal SEMS. Conclusions Duodenal SEMS, EUS-GE, and surgical GJ showed similar clinical efficacy for the treatment of malignant GOO. Duodenal SEMS had a lower procedure-related bleeding rate but higher rate of reintervention.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy versus surgical gastrojejunostomy in treatment of malignant gastric outlet obstruction: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Palliative treatment of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) has conventionally been with surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ). Advent of devices like lumen apposing metal stents has made endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) a potential alternative to SGJ for these patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared outcomes of EUS-GE versus SGJ. Methods We performed a comprehensive systematic search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings through January 2021 and identified six studies that compared outcomes of EUS-GE versus SGJ in the management of malignant GOO. The rates of technical success, clinical success, and AEs were analyzed, and pooled odds ratios were calculated using random effects model. Results Six studies were included in our analysis with a total of 484 patients, of which 291 underwent EUS-GE and 193 underwent SGJ. The technical success rate of SGJ was superior to EUS-GE (OR = 0.195; 95 %CI:0.054-0.702; P  = 0.012; I 2  = 0). The clinical success of EUS-GE was statistically similar to SGJ (OR = 1.566; 95 %CI:0.585-4.197; P  = 0.372; I 2  = 46.68 %). EUS-GE had significantly fewer AEs compared to SGJ (OR = 0.295; 95 %CI:0.172-0.506; P  < 0.005; I 2  = 0). Among studies which reported reintervention rates, EUS-GE was statistically similar to SGJ (OR = 0.587; 95 %CI:0.174-1.979; P  = 0.390, I 2  = 54.91). Minimal to moderate heterogeneity was noted in the analyses. Conclusions EUS-GE has equivalent clinical success and reintervention rates, but significantly lower adverse events compared to SGJ. When feasible, EUS-GE appears to be an effective and safe alternative to SGJ for palliative management of malignant GOO.

Biliary Sphincterotomy Alone versus Biliary Stent with or without Biliary Sphincterotomy for the Management of Post-Cholecystectomy Bile Leak: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic therapy with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is considered the first-line treatment in the management of post-cholecystectomy bile leak (PCBL). Currently, there is no consensus on the most effective endoscopic intervention for PCBL. Hence, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of the two interventional groups (biliary sphincterotomy [BS] alone vs. biliary stent ± BS) in management of PCBL. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings (from inception through January 2021). The primary outcome was to compare the pooled rate of clinical success between the 2 groups. The secondary outcome was to estimate the pooled rate of adverse events. RESULTS: The pooled rate of clinical success with BS alone (5 studies, 299 patients) was 88% (95% confidence interval (CI): 84-92%, I2: 0%) and for biliary stent ± BS (5 studies, 864 patients) was 97% (CI: 93-100%, I2: 79%). The rate of clinical success in biliary stent ± BS group was significantly higher than BS alone group (OR: 3.91 95% CI: 2.29-6.69, p < 0.001, I2: 13%). The rate of adverse events was numerically lower in biliary stent ± BS group compared to BS alone (3 studies; OR: 0.65 95% CI: 0.41-1.03, p = 0.07) without statistical significance. Low heterogeneity was noted in the analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Biliary stent ± BS is more effective in endoscopic management of PCBL compared to BS alone. This may be related to inter-endoscopist variation in completeness of sphincterotomy and post-sphincterotomy edema, which can influence the preferential trans-papillary flow of bile.

Contamination Rates in Duodenoscopes Reprocessed Using Enhanced Surveillance and Reprocessing Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Multiple outbreaks of multidrug-resistant organisms have been reported worldwide due to contaminated duodenoscopes. In 2015, the United States Food and Drug Administration recommended the following supplemental enhanced surveillance and reprocessing techniques (ESRT) to improve duodenoscope disinfection: (1) microbiological culture, (2) ethylene oxide sterilization, (3) liquid chemical sterilant processing system, and (4) double high-level disinfection. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of ESRT on the contamination rates. METHODS: A thorough and systematic search was performed across several databases and conference proceedings from inception until January 2021, and all studies reporting the effectiveness of various ESRTs were identified. The pooled contamination rates of post-ESRT duodenoscopes were estimated using the random effects model. RESULTS: A total of seven studies using various ESRTs were incorporated in the analysis, which included a total of 9,084 post-ESRT duodenoscope cultures. The pooled contamination rate of the post-ESRT duodenoscope was 5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.3%-10.8%, inconsistency index [I2]=97.97%). Pooled contamination rates for high-risk organisms were 0.8% (95% CI: 0.2%-2.7%, I2=94.96). CONCLUSION: While ESRT may improve the disinfection process, a post-ESRT contamination rate of 5% is not negligible. Ongoing efforts to mitigate the rate of contamination by improving disinfection techniques and innovations in duodenoscope design to improve safety are warranted.

Effectiveness and Safety of Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents in Endoscopic Interventions for Off-Label Indications.

BACKGROUND: Although released only for drainage of pseudocyst and walled-off necrosis (WON) with ≤ 30% solid debris, the utilization of lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) in "real-world" practice has deviated from approved indications. We evaluated the contemporary use of LAMS and associated clinical, procedural outcomes in the setting of a tertiary referral center in the USA. METHODS: Data from 303 consecutive patients who underwent LAMS placement were analyzed. Outcomes included technical and clinical success rates and adverse events. RESULTS: Of 303 patients, 190 (62.7%) received LAMS for off-label indications. The latter included gallbladder drainage (n = 56, 18.5%), gastroenterostomy (n = 52, 17.2%), treatment of gastrointestinal strictures (n = 37, 12.2%), biliary drainage (n = 20, 6.6%), temporary gastric access for endoscopy (n = 13, 4.3%), symptomatic WON with > 30% solid debris (n = 8, 2.6%), and miscellaneous (n = 4, 1.3%). Technical success rates in the on- and off-label arm were 98.2% and 95.8%, respectively (P = .331; 95% CI 0.08 to 1.96). Clinical success rates in the on- and off-label arm were 89.4% and 83.2%, respectively (P = .137; 95% CI 0.28 to 1.19). The rate of adverse events was 20.5% (n = 39) in the off-label arm and 16.8% (n = 19) in the on-label arm (P = .242; 95% CI 0.69 to 2.34). CONCLUSION: Off-label use of LAMS out-numbered on-label use in our practice. The safety profile between the groups was similar and with the exception of refractory stricture treatment, efficacy was comparable.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Current practice and future research.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has evolved from a primarily diagnostic to therapeutic procedure in hepatobiliary and pancreatic disease. Most commonly, ERCPs are performed for choledocholithiasis with or without cholangitis, but improvements in technology and technique have allowed for management of pancreatic duct stones, benign and malignant strictures, and bile and pancreatic leaks. As an example of necessity driving innovation, the new disposable duodenoscopes have been introduced into practice. With the advantage of eliminating transmissible infections, they represent a paradigm shift in quality improvement within ERCP. With procedures becoming more complicated, the necessity for anesthesia involvement and safety of propofol use and general anesthesia has become better defined. The improvements in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) have allowed for direct bile duct access and EUS facilitated bile duct access for ERCP. In patients with surgically altered anatomy, selective cannulation can be performed with overtube-assisted enteroscopy, laparoscopic surgery assistance, or the EUS-directed transgastric ERCP. Cholangioscopy and pancreatoscopy use has become ubiquitous with defined indications for large bile duct stones, indeterminate strictures, and hepatobiliary and pancreatic neoplasia. This review summarizes the recent advances in infection prevention, quality improvement, pancreaticobiliary access, and management of hepatobiliary and pancreatic diseases. Where appropriate, future research directions are included in each section.

Economic burden of enhanced practices of duodenoscopes reprocessing and surveillance: balancing risk and cost containment.

Background and study aims Recent outbreaks attributed to contaminated duodenoscopes have led to the development of enhanced surveillance and reprocessing techniques (enhanced-SRT) aimed at minimizing cross-contamination. Common enhanced-SRT include double high-level disinfection (HLD), ethylene oxide (EtO) gas sterilization, and culture-based monitoring of reprocessed scopes. Adoption of these methods adds to the operational costs and we aimed to assess its economic impact to an institution. Methods We compared the estimated costs of three enhanced-SRT versus single-HLD using data from two institutions. We examined the cost of capital measured as scope inventory and frequency of scope use per unit time, the constituent reprocessing costs required on a per-cycle basis, and labor & staffing needs. The economic impact attributable to enhanced-SRT was defined as the difference between the total cost of enhanced-SRT and single HLD. Results Compared to single HLD, adoption of double HLD increased the costs approximately by 47 % ($80 vs $118). Similarly, culture and quarantine and EtO sterilization increased costs by 160 % and 270 %, respectively ($80 vs $208 and $296). Enhanced-SRT introduced significant scope downtime due to prolonged techniques, necessitating a 3.4-fold increase in the number of scopes needed to maintain procedural volume. The additional annual budget required to implement enhanced-SRT approached $406,000 per year in high-volume centers. Conclusions While enhanced-SRT may reduce patient risk of exposure to contaminated duodenoscopes, it significantly increases the cost of performing ERCP. Future innovation should focus on approaches that can ensure patient safety while maintaining the ability to perform ERCP in a cost-effective manner.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: neoplasia detection rate and post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia in Barrett's oesophagus.

BACKGROUND: Neoplasia detection rate, the proportion of Barrett's oesophagus patients with high-grade dysplasia or oesophageal adenocarcinoma detected at index surveillance endoscopy has been proposed as a quality metric. However, the correlation between neoplasia detection rate and a clinically relevant outcome like post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia remains unknown. Post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia refers to the rate of high-grade dysplasia or oesophageal adenocarcinoma on repeat endoscopy within one year of an index screening examination revealing non-dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus or low-grade dysplasia. AIM: To assess correlation between neoplasia detection rate and post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of multiple databases from date of inception to June 2021 to identify cohort studies reporting both neoplasia detection rate and post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia. Data from each study were pooled using a random effects model, and their correlation assessed using meta-regression. Heterogeneity was assessed and a priori planned subgroup analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Ten studies with 27 894 patients with Barrett's oesophagus were included. The pooled neoplasia detection rate and post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia were 5.0% (95% CI: 3.4%-7.1%, I2  = 97%) and 19.6% (95% CI: 10.1%-34.7%, I2  = 96%), respectively. Meta-regression revealed a statistically significant inverse relationship between the two variables (coefficient -3.50, 95% CI: -4.63 to -2.37, P < 0.01). With every 1% increase of neoplasia detection rate, post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia decreased by 3.50%. Heterogeneity was high despite adjusting for study quality and performing several subgroup analyses. CONCLUSION: We observed a statistically significant inverse correlation between neoplasia detection rate and post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia. Additional studies are needed to further validate this correlation.

Single-use duodenoscope for ERCP performed by endoscopists with a range of experience in procedures of variable complexity.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Expert endoscopists previously reported ERCP outcomes for the first commercialized single-use duodenoscope. We aimed to document usability of this device by endoscopists with different levels of ERCP experience. METHODS: Fourteen "expert" (>2000 lifetime ERCPs) and 5 "less-expert" endoscopists performed consecutive ERCPs in patients without altered pancreaticobiliary anatomy. Outcomes included ERCP completion for the intended indication, rate of crossover to another endoscope, device performance ratings, and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Two hundred ERCPs including 81 (40.5%) with high complexity (American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy grades 3-4) were performed. Crossover rate (11.3% vs 2.5%, P = .131), ERCP completion rate (regardless of crossovers) (96.3% vs 97.5%, P = .999), median ERCP completion time (25.0 vs 28.5 minutes, P = .130), mean cannulation attempts (2.8 vs 2.8, P = .954), and median overall satisfaction with the single-use duodenoscope (8.0 vs 8.0 [range, 1.0-10.0], P = .840) were similar for expert versus less-expert endoscopists, respectively. The same metrics were similar by procedural complexity except for shorter median completion time for grades 1 to 2 versus grades 3 to 4 (P < .001). Serious adverse events were reported in 13 patients (6.5%). CONCLUSIONS: In consecutive ERCPs including high complexity procedures, endoscopists with varying ERCP experience had good procedural success and reported high device performance ratings. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04223830.).

Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation: A New Paradigm for Gastrointestinal Procedural Sedation.

INTRODUCTION: Nurse-Administered Propofol Continuous Infusion Sedation (NAPCIS) is a new nonanesthesia propofol delivery method for gastrointestinal endoscopy. NAPCIS is adopted from the computer-assisted propofol sedation (CAPS) protocol. We evaluated the effectiveness, efficiency, and safety of NAPCIS in low-risk subjects. METHODS: Between December 2016 and July 2017, patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy with NAPCIS at our center were compared against 2 historical control groups of similar patients who had undergone procedures with CAPS or midazolam and fentanyl (MF) sedation. RESULTS: The mean age of the NAPCIS cohort (N = 3,331) was 55.2 years (45.8% male) for 945 esophagogastroduodenoscopies and 57.8 years (48.7% male) for 2,386 colonoscopies. The procedural success rates with NAPCIS were high (99.1%-99.2%) and similar to those seen in 3,603 CAPS (98.8%-99.0%) and 3,809 MF (99.0%-99.3%) controls. NAPCIS recovery times were shorter than both CAPS and MF (24.8 vs 31.7 and 52.4 minutes, respectively; P < 0.001). On arrival at the recovery unit, 86.6% of NAPCIS subjects were recorded as "Awake" compared with 82.8% of CAPS and 40.8% of MF controls (P < 0.001). Validated clinician and patient satisfaction scores were generally higher for NAPCIS compared with CAPS and MF subjects. For NAPCIS, there were only 4 cases of oxygen desaturation requiring transient mask ventilation and no serious sedation-related complications. These low complication rates were similar to those seen with CAPS (8 cases of mask ventilation) and MF (3 cases). DISCUSSION: NAPCIS seems to be a safe, effective, and efficient means of providing moderate sedation for upper endoscopy and colonoscopy in low-risk patients.

Impact of real-time use of artificial intelligence in improving adenoma detection during colonoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims With the advent of deep neural networks (DNN) learning, the field of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly evolving. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCT) have investigated the influence of integrating AI in colonoscopy and its impact on adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and polyp detection rates (PDRs). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to reliably assess if the impact is statistically significant enough to warrant the adoption of AI -assisted colonoscopy (AIAC) in clinical practice. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings to identify RCTs that compared outcomes between AIAC and conventional colonoscopy (CC). The primary outcome was ADR. The secondary outcomes were PDR and total withdrawal time (WT). Results Six RCTs (comparing AIAC vs CC) with 5058 individuals undergoing average-risk screening colonoscopy were included in the meta-analysis. ADR was significantly higher with AIAC compared to CC (33.7 % versus 22.9 %; odds ratio (OR) 1.76, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.55-2.00; I 2  = 28 %). Similarly, PDR was significantly higher with AIAC (45.6 % versus 30.6 %; OR 1.90, 95 %CI, 1.68-2.15, I 2  = 0 %). The overall WT was higher for AIAC compared to CC (mean difference [MD] 0.46 (0.00-0.92) minutes, I 2  = 94 %). Conclusions There is an increase in adenoma and polyp detection with the utilization of AIAC.