Endoscopic Approaches to Obesity Management.

The field of endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapy has rapidly evolved from offering endoscopic treatment of weight regain following bariatric surgery to providing primary weight loss options as alternatives to pharmacologic and surgical interventions. Gastric devices and remodeling procedures were initially designed to work through a mechanism of volume restriction, leading to earlier satiety and reduced caloric intake. As the field continues to grow, small bowel interventions are evolving that may have some effect on weight loss but focus on the treatment of obesity-related comorbidities. Future implementation of combination therapy that utilizes both gastric and small bowel interventions offers an exciting option to further augment weight loss and alleviate metabolic disease. This review considers gastric devices and techniques including space-occupying intragastric balloons, aspiration therapy, endoscopic tissue suturing, and plication interventions, followed by a review of small bowel interventions including endoluminal bypass liners, duodenal mucosal resurfacing, and endoscopically delivered devices to create incisionless anastomoses.

Stigma, Bias, and the Shortfalls of Body Mass Index: A Reflection on the State of Weight Management.

Obesity is a complex, multifactorial chronic disease. With the development of novel endoscopic techniques and devices for the treatment of obesity, combined with expanding indications for medications, gastroenterologists are more involved in weight management than ever before. Despite the modern definition of obesity as a disease, weight bias and stigma are pervasive in the medical community and beyond. These sentiments contribute to worse outcomes for patients. Furthermore, body mass index (BMI), which is the primary metric to define obesity, does not always approximate visceral adiposity in all populations. A weight-centric model of health, which relies on BMI, misclassifies individuals who may be metabolically healthy at elevated weights. This review will summarize the history of BMI, highlight the problems that arise with a weight-centric model of health, and propose alternative weight-inclusive frameworks for assessment and intervention.

Use of Postoperative Opioid Therapy Following Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: There are no established guidelines on periprocedural and postprocedural pain management after endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG). This study aimed to determine the need for perioperative and postoperative opioid therapy in patients undergoing ESG. METHODS: This retrospective study comprised consecutive patients undergoing ESG. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients requiring postoperative outpatient opioid therapy. Secondary outcomes included frequency and dosage of perioperative pain medications and postoperative pain scores. RESULTS: Of the 67 patients included, 39 (58.2%) required opioids in the perioperative setting. The mean ± SD opioid dose was 12.3 ± 8.4 morphine milligram equivalents. Postoperatively, 17.9% of patients required home opioid prescriptions. More than a third of patients reported no pain. DISCUSSION: In patients undergoing ESG, postoperative opioid therapy should be individualized to attenuate opioid overprescription and the risk of opioid overuse.

Use of Impedance Planimetry in the Diagnosis of Gastric Sleeve Stenosis: The Establishment of New Benchmark Values.

INTRODUCTION: Gastric sleeve stenosis (GSS) is an increasingly common adverse event following sleeve gastrectomy for which objective diagnostic criteria are lacking. Impedance planimetry measurements show promise in characterizing GSS, though normal and abnormal benchmark values have never been established. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of upper endoscopies performed with impedance planimetry for suspected GSS. A bariatric endoscopist, blind to impedance planimetry measurements, assessed gastric sleeve anatomy and graded GSS severity. Impedance planimetry of diameter and distensibility index (DI) were obtained using 3 different balloon volumes (30, 40, and 50 mL). RESULTS: A total of 110 upper endoscopies were included. Distribution of GSS was graded as none, mild, moderate, and severe in 19 (17%), 27 (25%), 34 (31%), and 30 (27%) procedures, respectively. In normal gastric sleeve anatomy, mean (±SD) diameter and DI measurements using consecutive balloon volumes ranged from 19.1 (±5.5) to 23.2 (±1.7) and 16.8 (±4.9) to 23.1 (±10.9), respectively. In severe GSS, mean diameter and DI measurements ranged from 10.3 (±3.0) to 16.6 (±2.1) and 7.5 (±2.4) to 7.7 (±2.4), respectively. When stratified by severity, impedance planimetry measurements of diameter and DI were significantly lower with each subsequent increase in GSS grade regardless of balloon fill volumes ( P ≤ 0.001). DISCUSSION: Impedance planimetry measurements provide objective assessment in the diagnosis of GSS and correlate with luminal narrowing. A diameter ≥20 mm and a DI ≥15 mm 2 /mm Hg, as measured by impedance planimetry, are predictive of normal gastric sleeve anatomy. This study provides new benchmark values for the diagnosis and severity of GSS.

Comparison of lumen-apposing metal stents versus endoscopic balloon dilation for the management of benign colorectal anastomotic strictures.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Limited data exist evaluating lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) with endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) for the treatment of benign colorectal anastomotic strictures (BCASs). This study compares outcomes of both interventions. METHODS: Patients with left-sided BCAS treated with LAMSs versus EBD were identified retrospectively. The primary outcome was a composite of crossover to another intervention to achieve clinical success or recurrence requiring reintervention. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (11 LAMS and 18 EBD) were identified with longer follow-up in the EBD group (734 vs 142 days; P = .003). No significant differences were found in the composite outcome, technical success, clinical success, or components of composite outcome. With LAMS, there was a nonsignificant trend toward fewer procedures (2.4 vs 3.3; P = .06) and adverse events (0% vs 16.7%; P = .26). CONCLUSIONS: LAMS appears to be as effective as EBD for the treatment of BCAS but may require fewer procedures and may be safer than EBD.

EUS-guided coil injection therapy in the management of gastric varices: the first U.S. multicenter experience (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite the significant morbidity associated with gastric variceal bleeding, there is a paucity of high-quality data regarding optimal management. EUS-guided coil injection therapy (EUS-COIL) has recently emerged as a promising endoscopic modality for the treatment of gastric varices (GV), particularly compared with traditional direct endoscopic glue injection. Although there are data on the feasibility and safety of EUS-COIL in the management of GV, these have been limited to select centers with particular expertise. The aim of this study was to report the first U.S. multicenter experience of EUS-COIL for the management of GV. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included patients with bleeding GV or GV at risk of bleeding who underwent EUS-COIL at 10 U.S. tertiary care centers between 2018 and 2022. Baseline patient and procedure-related information was obtained. EUS-COIL entailed the injection of .018 inch or .035 inch hemostatic coils using a 22-gauge or 19-gauge FNA needle. Primary outcomes were technical success (defined as successful deployment of coil into varix under EUS guidance with diminution of Doppler flow), clinical success (defined as cessation of bleeding if present and/or absence of bleeding at 30 days' postintervention), and intraprocedural and postprocedural adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 106 patients were included (mean age 60.4 ± 12.8 years; 41.5% female). The most common etiology of GV was cirrhosis (71.7%), with alcohol being the most common cause (43.4%). Overall, 71.7% presented with acute GV bleeding requiring intensive care unit stay and/or blood transfusion. The most common GV encountered were isolated GV type 1 (60.4%). A mean of 3.8 ± 3 coils were injected with a total mean length of 44.7 ± 46.1 cm. Adjunctive glue or absorbable gelatin sponge was injected in 82% of patients. Technical success and clinical success were 100% and 88.7%, respectively. Intraprocedural adverse events (pulmonary embolism and GV bleeding from FNA needle access) occurred in 2 patients (1.8%), and postprocedural adverse events occurred in 5 (4.7%), of which 3 were mild. Recurrent bleeding was observed in 15 patients (14.1%) at a mean of 32 days. Eighty percent of patients with recurrent bleeding were successfully re-treated with repeat EUS-COIL. No significant differences were observed in outcomes between high-volume (>15 cases) and low-volume (<7 cases) centers. CONCLUSIONS: This U.S. multicenter experience on EUS-COIL for GV confirms high technical and clinical success with low adverse events. No significant differences were seen between high- and low-volume centers. Repeat EUS-COIL seems to be an effective rescue option for patients with recurrent bleeding GV. Further prospective studies should compare this modality versus other interventions commonly used for GV.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on primary endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies for adults with obesity.

This joint ASGE-ESGE guideline provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs) in the management of obesity. The document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. It evaluates the efficacy and safety of EBMT devices and procedures that currently have CE mark or FDA-clearance/approval, or that had been approved within five years of document development. The guideline suggests the use of EBMTs plus lifestyle modification in patients with a BMI of ≥ 30 kg/m2, or with a BMI of 27.0-29.9 kg/m2 with at least 1 obesity-related comorbidity. Furthermore, it suggests the utilization of intragastric balloons and devices for endoscopic gastric remodeling (EGR) in conjunction with lifestyle modification for this patient population.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on primary endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies for adults with obesity.

This joint ASGE-ESGE guideline provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs) in the management of obesity. The document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. It evaluates the efficacy and safety of EBMT devices and procedures that currently have CE mark or FDA-clearance/approval, or that had been approved within five years of document development. The guideline suggests the use of EBMTs plus lifestyle modification in patients with a BMI of ≥30 kg/m2, or with a BMI of 27.0-29.9 kg/m2 with at least 1 obesity-related comorbidity. Furthermore, it suggests the utilization of intragastric balloons and devices for endoscopic gastric remodeling (EGR) in conjunction with lifestyle modification for this patient population.

Efficacy and safety of long-term indwelling plastic stents after resolution of pancreatic fluid collections with endoscopic transmural drainage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) may recur after resolution with endoscopic transmural drainage (ETD) and standard stent removal (SSR). Herein, we compared the efficacy and safety of leaving long-term indwelling plastic stents (LTIS) vs. standard stent removal after PFC resolution with ETD. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane databases from inception to September 2022. Full-text articles comparing long-term (> 6 months) outcomes of LTIS and SSR were eligible, as well as single-arm studies with ≥ 10 patients with LTIS. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Measured outcomes included the following: (A) PFC recurrence; (B) interventions for PFC recurrence; (C) technical success; and (D) adverse events (AEs). Meta-analysis was carried out using random-effects models. RESULTS: We included 16 studies, encompassing 1285 patients. Compared to SSR after PFC resolution with ETD, LTIS was associated with significantly lower risk of PFC recurrence (3% vs. 23%; OR 0.22 [95%CI 0.09-0.52]; I2 = 45%) and need for interventions (2% vs. 14%; OR 0.35 [95%CI 0.16-0.78]; I2 = 0%). The superiority of LTIS on reducing PFC recurrence was found with walled-off necrosis, with or without disconnected pancreatic duct, and with placement of ≥ 2 LTIS. When using LTIS, the pooled proportion of AEs was 8% (95%CI 4-11%) and technical success was 93% (95%CI 86-99%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that LTIS after PFC resolution with ETD is feasible, safe, and superior to SSR in reducing the risk of PFC recurrence and need for interventions.

Outcomes of Cold Snare Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Nonampullary Duodenal Adenomas ≥1 cm: A Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with use of electrocautery (conventional EMR) has historically been used to remove large duodenal adenomas, however, use of electrocautery can predispose to adverse events including delayed bleeding and perforation. Cold snare EMR (cs-EMR) has been shown to be safe and effective for removal of colon polyps, but data regarding its use in the duodenum is limited. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cs-EMR for nonampullary duodenal adenomas ≥1 cm. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective study of patients with nonampullary duodenal adenomas ≥1 cm who underwent cs-EMR between October 2014 and May 2023. Patients who received any form of thermal therapy were excluded. Primary outcomes were technical success and rate of recurrent adenoma. Secondary outcomes were adverse events and predictors of recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 125 patients underwent resection of 127 nonampullary duodenal adenomas with cs-EMR. Follow up data was available in 89 cases (70.1%). The recurrent adenoma rate was 31.5% (n=28). Adverse events occurred in 3.9% (n=5) with four cases of immediate bleeding (3.1%) and one case of delayed bleeding (0.8%). There were no cases of perforation. The presence of high-grade dysplasia was found to be an independent predictor of recurrence (OR: 10.9 [95% CI: 1.1-102.1], p=0.036). CONCLUSION: This retrospective multicenter study demonstrates that cs-EMR for nonampullary duodenal adenomas is safe and technically feasible with an acceptable recurrence rate. Future prospective studies are needed to directly compare outcomes of cs-EMR with conventional and underwater EMR.

Endoscopic severity of gastric sleeve stenosis can be quantified using impedance planimetry.

BACKGROUND: Gastric sleeve stenosis (GSS) is an adverse event following sleeve gastrectomy for which objective tools are needed for diagnosis and treatment. Endoscopic treatment with serial pneumatic balloon dilation may relieve symptoms and prevent the need for conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Endoluminal functional impedance planimetry (EndoFLIP) is an endoscopic tool that measures luminal diameter and distensibility indices (DI) and could be used to characterize severity of GSS. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective database of patients referred for symptoms suggestive of GSS. Severity was determined at each endoscopy by a bariatric endoscopist blinded to EndoFLIP measurements. Successive pneumatic balloon dilations were performed until symptoms resolved; failure was defined as referral for conversion. EndoFLIP measurements of stenosis diameter and DI were obtained pre- and post-dilation. Primary outcomes were pre- and post-dilation luminal diameter and DI of GSS. Secondary outcomes were endoscopic severity of GSS, patient characteristics, and need for surgical revision. RESULTS: 26 patients were included; 23 (85%) were female. Mean age was 45.3 (± 9.9) years. Mean number of dilations was 2.4 (± 1.3) and 10 (38%) patients were referred for conversion. Mild, moderate, and severe GSS was found in 10 (38%), 6 (23%), and 10 (38%) patients, respectively. Moderate and severe GSS underwent more dilations (2.5 ± 1.0 and 3.2 ± 1.6) than mild GSS (1.8 ± 0.8) and were more likely to be referred for conversion. Both pre- and post-dilation diameters were significantly larger in mild versus moderate or severe GSS. Additionally, pre- and post-dilation DI at 30 ml were significantly higher for mild compared to moderate and severe GSS. DISCUSSION: EndoFLIP measurements correlate well with endoscopic assessment of GSS. While more data are needed to determine ideal balloon size and threshold measurements, our results suggest EndoFLIP may help expedite diagnosis and treatment of GSS.

Impact of parental status on US medical student specialty selection.

Medical training occurs during peak childbearing years for most medical students. Many factors influence specialty selection. The aims of this study were (i) to determine whether being a parent is a major deciding factor when picking a specialty and (ii) whether parents are more drawn to family-friendly specialties than non-parents. The authors performed a multicenter web-based survey study of medical students enrolled in Oregon Health and Science University, Dartmouth's Geisel School of Medicine, and University of Michigan Medical School. The 27-item instrument assessed parenthood status, specialty preference, specialty perceptions, and factors influencing specialty choice. A total of 537 out of 2236 (24.0%) students responded. Among respondents, 59 (10.9%) were current or expecting parents. The majority (359, 66.8%) were female and 24-35 years old (430, 80.1%). Of the students who were parents or expecting, 30 (50.9%) were female, and the majority (55, 93.2%) were partnered. Top specialties preferred by both parents and non-parents were family medicine, emergency medicine, obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN), internal medicine, psychiatry, and pediatrics. Specialties rated most family-friendly included family medicine, dermatology, pediatrics, psychiatry, radiology, emergency medicine, and pathology. The specialties rated least family-friendly were surgery, neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery, and OB/GYN. These rankings were the same between groups. Passion for the field, culture of the specialty, and quality of life were the top three factors students considered when choosing a specialty. Being a parent or future parent ranked more highly for parents than non-parents, but was not in the top three factors for either group. US Medical School parents report that being a parent influenced their medical specialty choice "strongly" or "very strongly." However, being a parent was not weighed as heavily as passion for the field, culture of the specialty, and quality of life. These student-parents are entering perceived "non-family friendly" specialties at similar rates as their peers. US Medical school training and simultaneous parenting is daunting, yet student parents are putting their passion first when making a career choice. They must be supported.

Increasing the Yield: When More Is Better.

ABSTRACT: Indeterminate biliary strictures pose a diagnostic challenge, and current approaches in the evaluation of such strictures lack diagnostic sensitivity. The most common method of tissue acquisition remains endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with brush cytology, however, little is known about optimal brush technique. In this paper by Wang et al., the authors compare the diagnostic sensitivity of brush cytology for 10, 20, and 30 passes in patients with malignant biliary strictures. The authors found an increase in sensitivity with an increasing number of passes, without an associated increase in adverse events. This well-designed study offers a simple and safe intervention which can increase the diagnostic sensitivity of ERCP-based brushing without requiring significant time, expense, or additional expertise.

Video is better: why aren't we using it? A mixed-methods study of the barriers to routine procedural video recording and case review.

INTRODUCTION: Video-based case review for minimally invasive surgery is immensely valuable for education and quality improvement. Video review can improve technical performance, shorten the learning curve, disseminate new procedures, and improve learner satisfaction. Despite these advantages, it is underutilized in many institutions. So far, research has focused on the benefits of video, and there is relatively little information on barriers to routine utilization. METHODS: A 36-question survey was developed on video-based case review and distributed to the SAGES email list. The survey included closed and open-ended questions. Numeric responses and Likert scales were compared with t-test; open-ended responses were reviewed qualitatively through rapid thematic analysis to identify themes and sub-themes. RESULTS: 642 people responded to the survey for a response rate of 11%. 584 (91%) thought video would improve the quality of educational conferences. 435 qualitative responses on the value of video were analyzed, and benefits included (1) improved understanding, (2) increased objectivity, (3) better teaching, and (4) better audience engagement. Qualitative comments regarding specific barriers to recording and editing case video identified challenges at all stages of the process, from (1) the decision to record a case, (2) starting the recording in the OR, (3) transferring and storing files, and (4) editing the file. Each step had its own specific challenges. CONCLUSION: Minimally invasive surgeons want to increase their utilization of video-based case review, but there are multiple practical challenges to overcome. Understanding these barriers is essential in order to increase use of video for education and quality improvement.

Quantification of gastric sleeve stenosis using endoscopic parameters and image analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Sleeve gastrectomy has quickly become the most commonly performed bariatric surgery. In light of its increasing popularity, the prevalence of gastric sleeve stenosis (GSS) continues to rise. Management with serial pneumatic dilation is highly successful but underused because of a lack of quantitative diagnostic criteria. We aimed to develop quantifiable endoscopic criteria to characterize GSS based on the (1) ratio of narrowest to widest gastric lumen diameter, (2) endoscope angulation/trajectory required for passage, and (3) presence of bilious fluid pooling in the proximal sleeve and compare it with endoluminal functional lumen imaging probe (EndoFLIP) diameter and distensibility indices (DIs) and endoscopic documentation of gastric lumen morphology. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing endoscopy to assess for GSS. Endoscopic images were reviewed in a blinded fashion by 2 bariatric endoscopists. The narrowest and widest part of the gastric lumen diameters were noted on each image, in addition to a hypothetical trajectory required for endoscope passage. Using image processing software, we calculated the the ratio of diameters (ie, narrowest divided by widest) and angle of endoscope trajectory. The presence of bilious fluid pooling in the proximal gastric lumen was noted. These values were then compared with EndoFLIP parameters and endoscopic documentation of gastric lumen morphology. RESULTS: Thirty patients met inclusion criteria, and 26 (87%) were found to have a stenosis on endoscopy. Of those, 9 (35%) were characterized as mild, 11 (42%) as moderate, and 6 (23%) as severe. There was no difference in demographic information between patients with and without stenosis. In patients with stenosis, mean EndoFLIP diameters and DIs were 12.9 ± 3.9 mm and 11.0 ± 6.8 mm2/mm Hg, respectively. In patients without stenosis, mean EndoFLIP diameters and DIs were 19.9 ± 2.9 mm and 21.5 ± 1.0 mm2/mm Hg, respectively. Patients with stenosis had significantly lower diameter ratios compared with those without stenosis (.27 ± .14 vs .48 ± .77, P = .01). Diameter ratios were also inversely related to severity of sleeve stenosis (ß = -.08, P = .01). Patients with stenosis were also more likely to have fluid pooling (96.2% vs 25%, P < .001). There was no significant difference in the trajectory of endoscope passage between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic criteria for diagnosis of GSS are lacking. Our data suggest the ratio between the narrowest and widest gastric lumen diameters and presence of pooled fluid is associated with diagnosis of stenosis by EndoFLIP and gastric lumen morphology. Future studies to validate these criteria are needed.

Enhanced EUS imaging (with videos).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS remains a primary diagnostic tool for the evaluation of pancreaticobiliary disease. Although EUS combined with FNA or biopsy sampling is highly sensitive for the diagnosis of neoplasia within the pancreaticobiliary tract, limitations exist in specific clinical settings such as chronic pancreatitis. Enhanced EUS imaging technologies aim to aid in the detection and diagnosis of lesions that are commonly evaluated with EUS. METHODS: We reviewed technologies and methods for enhanced imaging during EUS and applications of these methods. Available data regarding efficacy, safety, and financial considerations are summarized. RESULTS: Enhanced EUS imaging methods include elastography and contrast-enhanced EUS (CE-EUS). Both technologies have been best studied in the setting of pancreatic mass lesions. Robust data indicate that neither technology has adequate specificity to serve as a stand-alone test for pancreatic malignancy. However, there may be a role for improving the targeting of sampling and in the evaluation of peritumoral lymph nodes, inflammatory pancreatic masses, and masses with nondiagnostic FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling. Further, novel applications of these technologies have been reported in the evaluation of liver fibrosis, pancreatic cysts, and angiogenesis within neoplastic lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Elastography and CE-EUS may improve the real-time evaluation of intra- and extraluminal lesions as an adjunct to standard B-mode and Doppler imaging. They are not a replacement for EUS-guided tissue sampling but provide adjunctive diagnostic information in specific clinical situations. The optimal clinical use of these technologies continues to be a focus of ongoing research.

Retrospective multicenter study on endoscopic treatment of upper GI postsurgical leaks.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Therapeutic endoscopy plays a critical role in the management of upper GI (UGI) postsurgical leaks. Data are scarce regarding clinical success and safety. Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of endoscopic therapy for UGI postsurgical leaks and associated adverse events (AEs) and to identify factors associated with successful endoscopic therapy and AE occurrence. METHODS: This was a retrospective, multicenter, international study of all patients who underwent endoscopic therapy for UGI postsurgical leaks between 2014 and 2019. RESULTS: Two hundred six patients were included. Index surgery most often performed was sleeve gastrectomy (39.3%), followed by gastrectomy (23.8%) and esophagectomy (22.8%). The median time between index surgery and commencement of endoscopic therapy was 16 days. Endoscopic closure was achieved in 80.1% of patients after a median follow-up of 52 days (interquartile range, 33-81.3). Seven hundred seventy-five therapeutic endoscopies were performed. Multimodal therapy was needed in 40.8% of patients. The cumulative success of leak resolution reached a plateau between the third and fourth techniques (approximately 70%-80%); this was achieved after 125 days of endoscopic therapy. Smaller leak initial diameters, hospitalization in a general ward, hemodynamic stability, absence of respiratory failure, previous gastrectomy, fewer numbers of therapeutic endoscopies performed, shorter length of stay, and shorter times to leak closure were associated with better outcomes. Overall, 102 endoscopic therapy-related AEs occurred in 81 patients (39.3%), with most managed conservatively or endoscopically. Leak-related mortality rate was 12.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Multimodal therapeutic endoscopy, despite being time-consuming and requiring multiple procedures, allows leak closure in a significant proportion of patients with a low rate of severe AEs.

Upper gastrointestinal series after sleeve gastrectomy is unnecessary to evaluate for gastric sleeve stenosis.

BACKGROUND: There has been an increase in sleeve gastrectomy (SG) procedures being performed worldwide, and a paralleled rise in prevalence of gastric sleeve stenosis (GSS). Symptoms include dysphagia, reflux, and obstructive symptoms. Upper gastrointestinal series (UGIS) is commonly performed in the diagnostic algorithm prior to referral for endoscopic dilation; however, little is known about its utility in making a diagnosis. Our aim was to evaluate positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of UGIS in detection of GSS. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database at a tertiary center for patients referred with nausea/vomiting or obstructive symptoms following SG between 2017 and 2019. All patients underwent upper endoscopy (EGD) for evaluation of GSS. Serial balloon dilations were performed for GSS with increasing balloon size and/or filling pressure until symptom resolution or referral for surgical revision. Primary outcomes were PPV and NPV for UGIS in predicting GSS. Secondary outcomes included EGD findings and symptom response to dilation. RESULTS: Thirty consecutive patients were included in the analyses. The most common presenting symptoms were nausea (66.7%), vomiting (60.0%) reflux (66.7%), and abdominal pain (54.8%). Twenty-two (73.3%) patients underwent UGIS prior to EGD. On diagnostic EGD, 27 (87.1%) patients were diagnosed with GSS. The sensitivity and NPV of UGIS to detect GSS was 30.0%, and 12.5%, respectively. All 6 patients with GSS on UGIS also had GSS on endoscopic evaluation (specificity = 100%, PPV = 100%). Twenty-six (86.6%) patients had resolution of symptoms with a mean 1.97 ± 1.13 dilations. CONCLUSION: UGIS following SG has low NPV to evaluate for GSS. Independent of the UGIS findings, majority of patients found to have GSS on EGD had symptom improvement with dilations. The utility of UGIS is limited for diagnosing GSS and when suspicion for GSS is high, patients should be referred directly for EGD.

Impact of fragmentation on rehospitalization after bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: The care of patients who have undergone bariatric surgery is complex and requires a multidisciplinary approach. As such, these patients may be prone to fragmentation of care and differences in healthcare outcomes. We aimed to (1) determine the incidence of fragmentation among patients after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG), (2) identify risk factors for readmission, and (3) ascertain whether care fragmentation affects outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using the National Readmission Database 2016. Patients were included if they had primary bariatric surgery during the index hospitalization using appropriate ICD-10 CM codes. Fragmentation of care was defined as a readmission to a different hospital within 90 days of the index admission. Primary outcome was incidence of fragmentation. Secondary outcomes were impact of fragmentation on (1) in-hospital mortality; (2) resource utilization (length of stay (LOS), total hospitalization charges and costs, in-hospital upper endoscopy (EGD), and abdominal imaging studies; and (3) independent predictors of readmission using multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 136,536 subjects were included. 90-day readmission demonstrated a prevalence of fragmentation of 21.1%. Type of surgery was an independent predictor of fragmentation, with RYGB leading to increased risk (OR 1.90 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61, 2.25]; p-value < 0.0001). RYGB was associated with higher adjusted mean hospitalization costs, which was not explained by increased EGD (OR 0.95, CI 0.68, 1.32) or abdominal imaging (OR 0.52, CI 0.25, 1.06). No differences were found in mortality or LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Over 20% of patients following primary bariatric surgery have inpatient readmissions that are fragmented, driven by patients who have undergone RYGB surgery. This may be due to the complexity of this procedure and the need for a multispecialty approach. Additional efforts targeting fragmentation should be made to better coordinate the management of these complex patients and reduce healthcare costs.

Endoscopic devices and techniques for the management of bariatric surgical adverse events (with videos).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: As the prevalence of obesity continues to rise, increasing numbers of patients undergo bariatric surgery. Management of adverse events of bariatric surgery may be challenging and often requires a multidisciplinary approach. Endoscopic intervention is often the first line of therapy for management of these adverse events. This document reviews technologies and techniques used for endoscopic management of adverse events of bariatric surgery, organized by surgery type. METHODS: The MEDLINE database was searched through May 2018 for articles related to endoscopic management of adverse events of bariatric interventions by using relevant keywords such as adverse events related to "gastric bypass," "sleeve gastrectomy," "laparoscopic adjustable banding," and "vertical banded sleeve gastroplasty," in addition to "endoscopic treatment" and "endoscopic management," among others. Available data regarding efficacy, safety, and financial considerations are summarized. RESULTS: Common adverse events of bariatric surgery include anastomotic ulcers, luminal stenoses, fistulae/leaks, and inadequate initial weight loss or weight regain. Devices used for endoscopic management of bariatric surgical adverse events include balloon dilators (hydrostatic, pneumatic), mechanical closure devices (clips, endoscopic suturing system, endoscopic plication platform), luminal stents (covered esophageal stents, lumen-apposing metal stents, plastic stents), and thermal therapy (argon plasma coagulation, needle-knives), among others. Available data, composed mainly of case series and retrospective cohort studies, support the primary role of endoscopic management. Multiple procedures and techniques are often required to achieve clinical success, and existing management algorithms are evolving. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopy is a less invasive alternative for management of adverse events of bariatric surgery and for revisional procedures. Endoscopic procedures are frequently performed in the context of multidisciplinary management with bariatric surgeons and interventional radiologists. Treatment algorithms and standards of practice for endoscopic management will continue to be refined as new dedicated technology and data emerge.