Endoscopic management of pancreatic collections. Endoscopic Ultrasound Group from the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy (GSEED-USE) Clinical Guidelines.

Acute pancreatitis is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. It can develop complications such as fluid collections and necrosis. Infection of necrosis occurs in about 20-40% of patients with severe acute pancreatitis, and is associated with organ failure and worse prognosis. In the past years, the treatment of pancreatic collections has shifted from open surgery to minimally invasive techniques, such as endoscopic ultrasound guided drainage. These guidelines from a selection of experts among the Endoscopic Ultrasound Group from the Spanish Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (GSEED-USE) have the purpose to provide advice on the management of pancreatic collections based on a thorough review of the available scientific evidence. It also reflects the experience and clinical practice of the authors, who are advanced endoscopists or clinical pancreatologists with extensive experience in managing patients with acute pancreatitis.

EUS-guided gastroenterostomy versus duodenal self-expandable metal stent for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: results from a nationwide multicenter retrospective study (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Traditionally, palliative treatment of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) has been surgical, but surgical treatment carries significant morbidity and mortality rates. Endoscopic placement of a duodenal self-expandable metal stent (D-SEMS) has been proven to be successful for this indication in the short term. However, D-SEMSs are likely to malfunction over time. EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) may help overcome these limitations. We aimed to evaluate stent failure-free survival at 3 months. METHODS: A nationwide multicenter, observational study of D-SEMS and EUS-GE procedures for patients with malignant GOO was conducted at 7 academic centers from January 2015 to June 2020. Stent failure-free survival at 1, 3, and 6 months; technical and clinical success; adverse events (AEs); and patient survival were evaluated in both groups and compared. RESULTS: Ninety-seven patients were included in the D-SEMS group and 79 in the EUS-GE group. Pancreatic cancer was the main underlying malignancy in 53.4%. No statistically significant differences regarding technical (92.8% vs 93.7%) or clinical success (83.5% vs 92.4%) were found. AE rates did not differ between groups (10.3% vs 10.1%), although 2 events in the EUS-GE group required surgical management. Patients in the EUS-GE group had improved stent patency when compared with those patients in the D-SEMS group at 3 months (92.23% vs 80.6%; adjusted hazard ratio, .37; P = .033). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GE seems to have improved patency outcomes when compared with D-SEMS placement for palliative treatment of malignant GOO. Prospective trials are needed to fully compare their efficacy and AE profile.

Colangitis aguda asociada a hemobilia en un paciente con cirrosis hepática y cavernomatosis portal / Acute cholangitis and hemobilia in a patient with liver cirrhosis and portal vein cavernomatous transformation

No disponible

EUS-guided coil versus cyanoacrylate therapy for the treatment of gastric varices: a multicenter study (with videos).

BACKGROUND: Therapy of gastric varices (GV) is still challenging. Cyanoacrylate (CYA) injection is the recommended treatment for bleeding GV, but has a known adverse event rate, which could be reduced if EUS is used for guidance. Otherwise, EUS-guided coil application (ECA) may be an alternative. OBJECTIVES: To compare CYA and ECA embolization of feeding GV for feasibility, safety, and applicability. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database. SETTING: Multicenter study, tertiary referral centers. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Thirty consecutive patients with localized GV who received either CYA injection or ECA were included with follow-up for 6 months after treatment. RESULTS: There were 11 patients in the coil group and 19 patients in the CYA group. The GV obliteration rate was 94.7% CYA versus 90.9% ECA; mean number of endoscopy sessions was 1.4 ± 0.1 (range 1-3). Adverse events occurred in 12 of 30 patients (40%) (CYA, 11/19 [57.9%]; ECA, 1/11 [9.1%]; P < .01); only 3 were symptomatic, and an additional 9 (CYA group) had glue embolism on a CT scan but was asymptomatic. No further adverse events occurred during follow-up. Six patients (20%) died unrelated to the procedures or bleeding. LIMITATIONS: Nonrandomized; EUS expertise necessary. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided therapy for GV by using CYA or ECA is effective in localized GV. ECA required fewer endoscopies and tended to have fewer adverse events compared with CYA injection. Larger comparative studies are needed to prove these data.