Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage with long-term lumen-apposing metal stent indwell: 1-year results from a prospective nationwide observational study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: This study aimed to determine safety and risk factors for adverse events (AEs) of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) with long-term indwell of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS). METHODS: This study is a multicenter prospective observational study on consecutive high surgical-risk patients requiring gallbladder drainage who underwent EUS-GBD with LAMS over 12 months. Centralized telephone follow-up interviews were conducted every 3 months for 1 year. Patients were censored at LAMS removal, cholecystectomy, or death. AE-free survival was determined using log-rank tests. Cumulative risks were estimated using life-table analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients were included (53.7% male, median [interquartile range] age of 84.6 [76.5-89.8] years, and 85.4% with acute cholecystitis). Technical success was achieved in 79 (96.3%), and clinical success in 73 (89%). No patient was lost to follow-up; 45 patients (54.9%) completed 1-year follow-up with in situ LAMS. Median (interquartile range) LAMS indwell time was 364 (47-367) days. Overall, 12 (14.6%) patients presented 14 AEs, including 5 (6.1%) recurrent biliary events (3 acute cholangitis, 1 mild acute pancreatitis, and 1 acute cholecystitis). Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancy had an increased risk of recurrent biliary events (33% vs 1.5%, P = 0.001). The overall 1-year cumulative risk of recurrent biliary events was 9.7% (4.1-21.8%). The 1-year risk of AEs and of severe AEs was 18.8% (11-31.2%) and 7.9% (3.3-18.2%), respectively. Pancreatobiliary malignancy was the single risk factor for recurrent biliary events; LAMS misdeployment was the strongest risk factor for AEs. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term LAMS indwell does not increase the risk of delayed AEs following EUS-GBD.

Plastic pigtail vs lumen-apposing metal stents for drainage of walled-off necrosis (PROMETHEUS study): an open-label, multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have displaced double-pigtail plastic stents (DPS) as the standard treatment for walled-off necrosis (WON),ß but evidence for exclusively using LAMS is limited. We aimed to assess whether the theoretical benefit of LAMS was superior to DPS. METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, randomized trial was carried out in 9 tertiary hospitals. Between June 2017, and Oct 2020, we screened 99 patients with symptomatic WON, of whom 64 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the DPS group (n = 31) or the LAMS group (n = 33). The primary outcome was short-term (4-weeks) clinical success determined by the reduction of collection. Secondary endpoints included long-term clinical success, hospitalization, procedure duration, recurrence, safety, and costs. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, NCT03100578. RESULTS: A similar clinical success rate in the short term (RR, 1.41; 95% CI 0.88-2.25; p = 0.218) and in the long term (RR, 1.2; 95% CI 0.92-1.58; p = 0.291) was observed between both groups. Procedure duration was significantly shorter in the LAMS group (35 vs. 45-min, p = 0.003). The hospital admission after the index procedure (median difference, - 10 [95% CI - 17.5, - 1]; p = 0.077) and global hospitalization (median difference - 4 [95% CI - 33, 25.51]; p = 0.82) were similar between both groups. Reported stent-related adverse events were similar for the two groups (36 vs.45% in LAMS vs. DPS), except for de novo fever, which was significantly 26% lower in LAMS (RR, 0.26 [0.08-0.83], p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical superiority of LAMS over DPS for WON therapy was not proved, with similar clinical success, hospital stay and similar safety profile between both groups, yet a significant reduction in procedure time was observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03100578.

Long-term outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct interventions: A single tertiary center experience.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct intervention (EUS-PDI) is one of the most technically challenging procedures. There remains a knowledge gap due to its rarity. The aim is to report the accumulated EUS-PDI experience in a tertiary center. METHODS: Single tertiary center, retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data during the study period, from January 2013 to June 2021. RESULTS: In total, 14 patients (85% male; mean age, 61 years, range 37-81) and 25 EUS-PDI procedures for unsuccessful endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) were included. Principal etiology was chronic pancreatitis with pancreatic duct obstruction (78%). EUS-guided assisted (colorant and/or guidewire, rendezvous) ERP was performed in 14/25 (56%); and transmural drainage in 11 procedures, including pancreaticogastrosmy in 9/25 (36%) and pancreaticoduodenostomy in 2/25 (8%). Overall technical and clinical success was 78.5% (11/14). Three (21%) patients required a second procedure with success in all cases. Two failed cases required surgery. Three (21%) adverse events (AEs) were noted (fever, n=1; perforation, n=1; pancreatitis, n=1). Patients underwent a median of 58 months (range 24-108) follow-up procedures for re-stenting. Spontaneous stent migration was detected in 50% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-PDI is an effective salvage therapy for unsuccessful ERP, although 21% of patients may still experience AEs. In case of EUS-guided rendezvous failure, it can cross over to a transmural drainage.

Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy for Upper Gastrointestinal Leaks and Perforations: Analysis From a Multicenter Spanish Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) is a novel technique for closing upper gastrointestinal (UGI) defects. Available literature includes single-center retrospective cohort studies with small sample sizes. Furthermore, evidence about factors associated with EVT failure is scarce. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of EVT for the resolution of UGI defects in a multicenter study and to investigate the factors associated with EVT failure and in-hospital mortality. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study in which consecutive EVT procedures for the treatment of UGI defects from 19 Spanish hospitals were recorded in the national registry between November 2018 and March 2022. RESULTS: We included 102 patients: 89 with anastomotic leaks and 13 with perforations. Closure of the defect was achieved in 84 cases (82%). A total of 6 patients (5.9%) had adverse events related to the EVT. The in-hospital mortality rate was 12.7%. A total of 6 patients (5.9%) died because of EVT failure and 1 case (0.9%) due to a fatal adverse event. Time from diagnosis of the defect to initiation of EVT was the only independent predictor for EVT failure (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.05, P = 0.005). EVT failure (OR 24.5, 95% CI 4.5-133, P = 0.001) and development of pneumonia after EVT (OR 246.97, 95% CI 11.15-5,472.58, P = 0.0001) were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. DISCUSSION: EVT is safe and effective in cases of anastomotic leak and perforations of the upper digestive tract. The early use of EVT improves the efficacy of this technique.

Management of small subepithelial tumors by endoscopic banding without resection and single-incision needle-knife-assisted biopsy sampling: a prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) without resection combined with single-incision needle-knife (SINK) biopsy sampling may have a positive impact on small GI subepithelial tumor (SET) management, but the method needs to be tested. The aim was to evaluate the feasibility of this strategy in small-sized SETs. METHODS: This prospective multicenter observational cohort study in 7 centers included patients with SETs ≤15 mm (confirmed by EUS) between March 2017 and March 2020. The primary outcome was clinical success at 4 weeks, defined as complete SET disappearance on EUS. Secondary outcomes were long-term (1-year) clinical success, technical difficulty level, clinical impact, yield pathology, and safety. RESULTS: Of 273 patients screened, 122 (62.3% women; mean age, 60.9 ± 13.2 years) were included with SETs (mean size, 9 ± 2.8 mm; gastric location, 77%; superficial layer dependence, 63%). The primary endpoint was achieved in 73.6% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.8-81.2). At the 1-year follow-up, the success rate was 68.4% (95% CI, 59.1-76.8). A favorable clinical impact was observed in 97 cases (79.5%; 95% CI, 71.3-86.3). Pathology diagnosis was known in 70%. Potentially malignant lesions were present in 24.7%. The related adverse events rate was 4.1% (95% CI, 1.3-9.3; all mild: 2 bleeding, 2 abdominal pain). On multivariable analysis, the ≤10-mm SET group was associated with a greater success rate (1 year, 87%; relative risk, 5.07; 95% CI, 2.63-9.8) and clinical impact rate (92.7%; relative risk, 6.15; 95% CI, 2.72-13.93). CONCLUSIONS: EBL plus SINK biopsy sampling seems to be feasible and safe, and it may offer a favorable clinical impact in small-sized SETs. In particular, SETs ≤10 mm are the best candidates. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03247231.).

Endoscopic removal of lumen-apposing metal stents - risk factors for stent embedment, complex removals, and adverse events: analysis from a multicenter prospective case series.

BACKGROUND: Removing lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) may be difficult and even harmful, but these features have seldom been analyzed. We aimed to generate a comprehensive assessment of the feasibility and safety of LAMS retrieval procedures. METHODS: A prospective multicenter case series including all technically successfully deployed LAMSs between January 2019 and January 2020 that underwent endoscopic stent removal. All retrieval-related data were prospectively recorded using standardized telephone questionnaires as part of centralized follow-up that ended after stent removal had been performed. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed the potential risk factors for complex removal. RESULTS: For the 407 LAMSs included, removal was attempted in 158 (38.8 %) after an indwell time of 46.5 days (interquartile range [IQR] 31-70). The median (IQR) removal time was 2 (1-4) minutes. Removal was labelled as complex in 13 procedures (8.2 %), although advanced endoscopic maneuvers were required in only two (1.3 %). Complex removal risk factors were stent embedment (relative risk [RR] 5.84, 95 %CI 2.14-15.89; P = 0.001), over-the-wire deployment (RR 4.66, 95 %CI 1.60-13.56; P = 0.01), and longer indwell times (RR 1.14, 95 %CI 1.03-1.27; P = 0.01). Partial and complete embedment were observed in 14 (8.9 %) and five cases (3.2 %), respectively. The embedment rate during the first 6 weeks was 3.1 % (2/65), reaching 15.9 % (10/63) during the following 6 weeks (P = 0.02). The adverse event rate was 5.1 %, including seven gastrointestinal bleeds (5 mild, 2 moderate). CONCLUSIONS: LAMS removal is a safe procedure, mostly requiring basic endoscopic techniques attainable in conventional endoscopy rooms. Referral to advanced endoscopy units should be considered for stents with known embedment or long indwell times, which may require more technically demanding procedures.

Duodenal neuroendocrine tumors: analysis of 20 cases and endoscopic treatment.

Analysis of 20 cases of duodenal neuroendocrine tumors (DNET). In 9 cases with 12 DNET, endoscopic treatment with hemorrhage or bleeding of 8,3.

Half of the patients with subepithelial tumors present borderline or pathologic anxiety-distress and carcinophobia: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Minor nonspecific gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions (usually defined by the term 'tumor') are usually associated with a malignant illness and cancer. The aim of this study was to assess anxiety-distress and carcinophobia in patients referred to specialized monographic outpatient clinics for evaluation and treatment of this type of lesion. METHODS: Prospective, multicenter, cohort study. Specific self-reported questionnaires were used to report threatening life-experiences and to assess levels of distress (The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and cancer-related worries (The Cancer Worry Scale). RESULTS: Forty participants were included and analyzed at baseline. Pathologic and borderline anxiety were detected in 13% (5/40, 95%CI: 4-27%) and 35% (14/40, 95%CI: 21-52%) of participants, respectively, whereas, cancer-related worries (moderate to very high) were observed in 48% (19/40, 95%CI: 32-64%) of participants. Pathologic global distress was identified in 25% (10/40, 95%CI: 13-42%) of subjects. Higher educational level (university studies), a lack of lifetime psychiatric comorbidity and a lack of family history of cancer were associated with less anxiety, global distress and carcinophobia. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of the patients diagnosed with a minor nonspecific gastrointestinal subepithelial lesion presented anxiety-distress and/or carcinophobia. Specific associations with anxiety-distress reaction and fears were detected.

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.

The endoscopic ultrasound features of pancreatic fluid collections and their impact on therapeutic decisions: an interobserver agreement study.

BACKGROUND: A validated classification of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) morphological characteristics and consequent therapeutic intervention(s) in pancreatic and peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) is lacking. We performed an interobserver agreement study among expert endosonographers assessing EUS-related PFC features and the therapeutic approaches used. METHODS: 50 EUS videos of PFCs were independently reviewed by 12 experts and evaluated for PFC type, percentage solid component, presence of infection, recognition of and communication with the main pancreatic duct (MPD), stent choice for drainage, and direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) performance and timing. The Gwet's AC1 coefficient was used to assess interobserver agreement. RESULTS: A moderate agreement was found for lesion type (AC1, 0.59), presence of infection (AC1, 0.41), and need for DEN (AC1, 0.50), while fair or poor agreements were stated for percentage solid component (AC1, 0.15) and MPD recognition (AC1, 0.31). Substantial agreement was rated for ability to assess PFC-MPD communication (AC1, 0.69), decision between placing a plastic versus lumen-apposing metal stent (AC1, 0.62), and timing of DEN (AC1, 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver agreement between expert endosonographers regarding morphological features of PFCs appeared suboptimal, while decisions on therapeutic approaches seemed more homogeneous. Studies to achieve standardization of the diagnostic endosonographic criteria and therapeutic approaches to PFCs are warranted.

The EPAGE guidelines are not an effective strategy for managing colonoscopies during the COVID-19 pandemic. / EPAGE no es una estrategia eficaz para la gestión de colonoscopias durante la pandemia por COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has had a serious impact on the functioning of gastrointestinal endoscopy Units. The Asociación Española de Gastroenterología (AEG) and the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva (SEED) have proposed the EPAGE guidelines for managing postponed colonoscopies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the EPAGE guidelines as a management tool compared to the immunologic faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) and compared to risk score (RS) that combines age, sex and the iFOBT for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and significant bowel disease (SBD). METHODS: A prospective, single-centre study enrolling 743 symptomatic patients referred for a diagnostic colonoscopy. Each order was classified according to the EPAGE guidelines as appropriate, indeterminate or inappropriate. Patients underwent an iFOBT and had their RS calculated. RESULTS: The iFOBT (p<0.001), but not the EPAGE guidelines (p = 0.742), was an independent predictive factor of risk of CRC. The ROC AUCs for the EPAGE guidelines, the iFOBT and the RS were 0.61 (95% CI 0.49-0.75), 0.95 (0.93-0.97) and 0.90 (0.87-0.93) for CRC, and 0.55 (0.49-0.61), 0.75 (0.69-0.813) and 0.78 (0.73-0.83) for SBD, respectively. The numbers of colonoscopies needed to detect a case of CRC and a case of SBD were 38 and seven for the EPAGE guidelines, seven and two for the iFOBT, and 19 and four for a RS ≥5 points, respectively. CONCLUSION: The EPAGE guidelines, unlike the iFOBT, is not suitable for screening candidate patients for a diagnostic colonoscopy to detect CRC. The iFOBT, in combination with age and sex, is the most suitable strategy for managing demand for endoscopy in a restricted-access situation.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis Is Not Required for Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions, Based on a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guidelines recommend routine antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic cysts, but there is conflicting evidence for its necessity. We investigated whether performing the procedure without antimicrobial prophylaxis increases the incidence of infection. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial to compare prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin vs placebo in patients with a pancreatic cyst requiring EUS-FNA at multiple centers in Spain. From September 2014 to June 2018, patients were randomly assigned to groups that received the prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin (n = 112) or saline solution (n = 114, placebo). We recorded patients' demographic data, lesion characteristics, and procedure data and followed patients for 21 days. A total of 205 patients completed the trial (90.7%), receiving ciprofloxacin or the control, with no statistically significant differences in demographics, baseline data, or procedure characteristics between groups. The primary outcome was FNA-related infection. Secondary outcomes were incidence of fever, procedure complications, and medication-related adverse events. RESULTS: The only case of FNA-related infection (0.44%) occurred in a patient in the placebo group (0.87%); this patient developed acute pancreatitis and bacteremia after the procedure. Prevention of infection was not inferior in the control group; the difference between proportions was 0.87% (95% confidence interval, -0.84% to 2.59%). There were no differences between groups in fever (2 patients in each group: 1.78% vs 1.76%; P = 1.00) or other adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of patients undergoing EUS-FNA for pancreatic cyst evaluation, we found the risk of infection to be low. The incidence of infections did not differ significantly with vs without ciprofloxacin prophylaxis. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02261896).

Is a coaxial plastic stent within a lumen-apposing metal stent useful for the management of distal malignant biliary obstruction?

BACKGROUND: There are uncertainties concerning the possible benefits derived from the insertion of double-pigtail plastic stents (DPS) within lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) in EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (CDS). The aim of this study was to determine whether a DPS within a biliary LAMS offers a potential benefit in EUS-guided CDS for the palliative management of malignant biliary obstruction. METHODS: This was a multicentre retrospective study at three tertiary institutions. PERIOD: May 2015 to August 2020. Two interventional strategies (LAMS alone and LAMS plus DPS) were compared. The choice was the endoscopist's discretion. Inclusion: unresectable/inoperable biliopancreatic tumours with previous failed ERCP. Clinical success: bilirubin decrease > 30% at 4 weeks. RESULTS: Forty-one consecutive cases of EUS-CDS using biliary LAMS were treated (22 women; mean age, 72.3 years) during the study period. The procedure was technically successful in 39 (95.1%), who were managed using the two strategies (22 LAMS alone; 17 LAMS plus DPS). No differences between the groups, in terms of clinical success (77.3 vs 87.5%, p = 0.67), adverse events (AEs, 13.6 vs 11.8%, p = 0.99), recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO, 13.6 vs 23.5%, p = 0.67), or survival rate (p = 0.67) were encountered. The LAMS alone group had a shorter length of procedure (50 min vs 66 min, p = 0.102). No risk factors related to clinical success, AEs, RBO, or survival were detected. CONCLUSIONS: The technical variant of adding a coaxial DPS within LAMS in EUS-CDS seems not to be enough to prevent biliary morbidities, and it is a time-consuming strategy. Although prospective studies are needed, these results do not support its routine use.

CHOLANGIOPANCREATOSCOPY. WORKING PROTOCOL. SEED Recommendations.

Direct endoscopic visualization of biliary and pancreatic ducts represents one step further in the journey of digestive endoscopy. It allows the identification of lesions that were previously attainable through indirect means. Directed biopsy taking has permitted a better characterization of the lesions. The use of power sources through the cholangiopancreatoscope means that it is now possible to fragment and remove refractory lithiases using traditional endoscopic systems. This document aims to define the advisable workflow when using a single-use, flexible cholangiopancreatoscope with the commercial name of SpyGlass®. Penning a set of guidelines to provide instructions on the technique, as well as tips and tricks related with the operation of these endoscopes will be a useful resource.

A novel rescue maneuver for a distal dislodged lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS): "LAMS-in-LAMS" technique.

INTRODUCTION: the appearance of the lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) has meant an authentic revolution. To date, the results are promising but it is necessary to note the technical incidents and LAMS-related complications. CASE REPORT: an EUS-transmural guided drainage using a HotAXIOS was planned for a 36-year-old man with oral intolerance due to a voluminous walled-off necrosis. The distal flange was left in the collection, but a total distal malposition occurred during the proximal flange delivery, despite correct apposition with visualization of the black mark. A rescue technique was performed inserting a second LAMS over-the-guidewire salvaging the initial failed transmural drainage. DISCUSSION: This case is a reminder that in similar scenarios, extreme tension of the echoendoscope can cause a malfunction of the AXIOS stent delivery system, and lead to a total distal malposition. This "LAMS-in-LAMS" technique is feasible, effective, and a very helpful rescue technique in cases of dislodged LAMS.

Endoscopic biliary drainage in unresectable biliary obstruction: the role of endoscopic ultrasound-guidance in a cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: the use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has increased in cases of failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and there are some concerns. The main aim of the study was to determine the role of EUS-BD in a palliative case cohort. The secondary aim was to compare the efficacy, safety and survival of EUS-BD and ERCP procedures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: this was an observational study at a single tertiary institution, with a consecutive inclusion from January 2015 to December 2016. The inclusion criteria were unresectable tumors of the biliopancreatic region with an indication of BD. Statistical comparison analysis was performed between the ERCP and EUS-BD groups. The incidence between groups was compared using the Chi-square and Fisher exact tests. The log rank test was used to compare the risk of death. RESULTS: fifty-two cases with an indication of palliative BD were included in the study. Transpapillary drainage via ERCP was possible in 44 procedures and EUS-BD was required in eight cases; 15.4% of the cohort and seven using lumen apposing metal stent (LAMS). The technical and clinical success of global endoscopic BD was 100% and 88.5% (ERCP: 84.6% and 78.9%; EUS-BD: 100% and 62.5%, respectively). Pancreatitis was the most frequent adverse event (AE) in the ERCP group (9.62%) and bleeding in the EUS-BD (25%). There were fatal AEs in ERCP (1.9%) and EUS-BD (25%) cases. Patient survival was higher with ERCP transpapillary stents compared to EUS-guided stents, which was statistically significant (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: the requirement of EUS-BD in palliative biliopancreatic pathology is not marginal. EUS-BD is associated with a lower survival rate and a higher rate of fatal AE, which argues against its use as a first choice procedure.