Endoscopic En Bloc Versus Piecemeal Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colonic Adenomas : A Randomized Comparative Trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic resection of adenomas prevents colorectal cancer, but the optimal technique for larger lesions is controversial. Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has a low adverse event (AE) rate but a variable recurrence rate necessitating early follow-up. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can reduce recurrence but may increase AEs. OBJECTIVE: To compare ESD and EMR for large colonic adenomas. DESIGN: Participant-masked, parallel-group, superiority, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03962868). SETTING: Multicenter study involving 6 French referral centers from November 2019 to February 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with large (≥25 mm) benign colonic lesions referred for resection. INTERVENTION: The patients were randomly assigned by computer 1:1 (stratification by lesion location and center) to ESD or EMR. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was 6-month local recurrence (neoplastic tissue on endoscopic assessment and scar biopsy). The secondary end points were technical failure, en bloc R0 resection, and cumulative AEs. RESULTS: In total, 360 patients were randomly assigned to ESD (n = 178) or EMR (n = 182). In the primary analysis set (n = 318 lesions in 318 patients), recurrence occurred after 1 of 161 ESDs (0.6%) and 8 of 157 EMRs (5.1%) (relative risk, 0.12 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.96]). No recurrence occurred in R0-resected cases (90%) after ESD. The AEs occurred more often after ESD than EMR (35.6% vs. 24.5%, respectively; relative risk, 1.4 [CI, 1.0 to 2.0]). LIMITATION: Procedures were performed under general anesthesia during hospitalization in accordance with the French health system. CONCLUSION: Compared with EMR, ESD reduces the 6-month recurrence rate, obviating the need for systematic early follow-up colonoscopy at the cost of more AEs. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: French Ministry of Health.

Factors associated with early failure of peroral endoscopic myotomy in achalasia.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Achalasia can be treated very effectively with peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), but factors associated with early failure remain to be determined, especially in European cohorts. METHODS: All consecutive adult patients who underwent a first POEM to treat primary achalasia were included in this multicenter retrospective study. Early failure was defined by an Eckardt score (ES) >3 at 3 months after POEM. When evaluating factors predictive of early failure, 2 cohorts were considered: one consisted of the total population, for whom only basic variables were collected, and the other a cohort built for a case-control study that included matched early-failure and early-success patients (ratio, 1:2). RESULTS: Among 746 patients, the early failure rate was 9.4%. Predictive factors were age ≤45 years (P = .019), achalasia types I and III (P < .001), and the development of a severe adverse event during the procedure (P = .023). In the case-control study, the only additional independent risk factor for early failure was a high pre-POEM ES (P = .001). Only the retrosternal pain subscore was significantly associated with the early failure rate. CONCLUSION: The early failure rate of POEM used to treat primary achalasia is <10%. Younger age, type I/III achalasia, and a high pre-POEM ES were significantly associated with failure.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection with adaptive traction strategy: first prospective multicenter study (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Traction has become the reference strategy for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). One of its major limitations is that the force of traction decreases as dissection progresses. The ATRACT traction device (ATRACT Device and Co, Lyon, France) uses a pulley system to increase traction during the procedure, making it easier and faster. A retrospective study of 54 cases showed interesting results in terms of efficacy and safety throughout the digestive tract. We sought to confirm these initial results with a prospective study of resections of colorectal lesions. METHODS: In this prospective multicenter study, 5 experienced operators from 3 different centers each performed 10 procedures using the ATRACT device consecutively for all conventional colorectal ESDs measuring between 4 and 10 cm in conventional locations (no recurrent lesions, appendicular, of the ileocecal valve, in contact with the pectinate line, or measuring more than two-thirds of the circumference). RESULTS: Between November 2022 and April 2023, 50 ESDs were performed in 49 patients. On average, the main diameter of the lesions was 66.6 mm, with a surface area of 3066 mm2. The mean operating time was 55.2 minutes, resulting in a mean resection speed of 61.4 mm2/min. En bloc and R0 resection rates were 100% and 98%, respectively. Resections were curative in 94% of cases. Four (8%) perforations occurred, all of which were closed endoscopically without the need for surgery. One (2%) case of delayed hemorrhage was noted. To date, this is the series with the highest resection speeds in the literature for colorectal ESD. For comparison, previous studies reported a speed of 23.5 mm2/min using the "pocket" strategy and a speed of 39.1 mm2/min using the double-clip traction technique. These results need to be confirmed in larger studies and in nonexpert centers. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective evaluation confirms the efficacy and safety of the adaptive traction strategy with the ATRACT device for colorectal ESD with high resection speed.

Western outcomes of circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection for early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection (cESD) in the esophagus has been reported to be feasible in small Eastern case series. We assessed the outcomes of cESD in the treatment of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in Western countries. METHODS: We conducted an international study at 25 referral centers in Europe and Australia using prospective databases. We included all patients with ESCC treated with cESD before November 2022. Our main outcomes were curative resection according to European guidelines and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 171 cESDs were performed on 165 patients. En bloc and R0 resections rates were 98.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95.0-99.4) and 69.6% (95% CI, 62.3-76.0), respectively. Curative resection was achieved in 49.1% (95% CI, 41.7-56.6) of the lesions. The most common reason for noncurative resection was deep submucosal invasion (21.6%). The risk of stricture requiring 6 or more dilations or additional techniques (incisional therapy/stent) was high (71%), despite the use of prophylactic measures in 93% of the procedures. The rates of intraprocedural perforation, delayed bleeding, and adverse cardiorespiratory events were 4.1%, 0.6%, and 4.7%, respectively. Two patients died (1.2%) of a cESD-related adverse event. Overall and disease-free survival rates at 2 years were 91% and 79%. CONCLUSIONS: In Western referral centers, cESD for ESCC is curative in approximately half of the lesions. It can be considered a feasible treatment in selected patients. Our results suggest the need to improve patient selection and to develop more effective therapies to prevent esophageal strictures.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection assisted by adaptive traction: results of the first 54 procedures.

BACKGROUND : Good submucosal exposure is key to successful endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and can be achieved with various traction devices. Nevertheless, these devices have a fixed traction force that tends to decrease as the dissection progresses. In contrast, the ATRACT adaptive traction device increases traction during the procedure. METHODS : In this retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data (from a French database), we analyzed ESD procedures performed with the ATRACT device between April 2022 and October 2022. The device was used consecutively whenever possible. We collected details of lesion characteristics, procedural data, histologic outcomes, and clinical consequences for the patient. RESULTS : 54 resections performed in 52 patients by two experienced operators (46 procedures) and six novices (eight procedures) were analyzed. The ATRACT devices used were the ATRACT-2 (n = 21), the ATRACT 2 + 2 (n = 30), and the ATRACT-4 (n = 3). Four adverse events were observed: one perforation (1.9 %), which was closed endoscopically, and three delayed bleeding events (5.5 %). The R0 rate was 93 %, resulting in curative resection in 91 % of cases. CONCLUSION: ESD using the ATRACT device is safe and effective in the colon and rectum, but can also be used to assist with procedures in the upper gastrointestinal tract. It may be particularly useful in difficult locations.

Endoscopic powered resection device for residual colonic lesions: the first multicenter, prospective, international clinical study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic resection is standard treatment for adenomatous colorectal lesions. Depending on lesion morphology and resection technique, recurrence can occur. Scarred adenomas are challenging to resect and may require surgical management. This study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of an endoscopic powered resection (EPR) system for scarred adenomatous colorectal lesions. METHODS: This single-arm, prospective, multicenter study was conducted from January 2018 to January 2021 at 12 sites. Patients with persistent flat or sessile colorectal lesions were enrolled. Primary end points were technical success (the ability of the device to resect the lesion[s] without use of other resection devices without device-related serious adverse events [AEs]) and safety (the occurrence of AEs through 90 days). Secondary end points included endoscopic confirmation of resection completeness, occurrence of colon stenosis, disease persistence, and diagnostic value of resected specimens. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were in the intention-to-treat/safety analysis population. Primary analysis was performed on 45 per-protocol (PP) patients with 48 lesions. All PP patients were solely treated by using the EPR device. Technical success was achieved in 44 (98%) patients. Three (5%) serious AEs occurred: 2 delayed self-limited bleeds and 1 perforation. Nonserious AEs included 4 (6%) cases of mild intraprocedural bleeding. Completeness of resection and histopathologic diagnosis of tissue specimens were achieved in all patients. Twenty-one (46.7%) patients had disease persistence after the first treatment, and there was no colon stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: EPR is safe and effective for benign, persistent, large (>20 mm), scarred colorectal adenomas and should be considered as an alternative treatment in lieu of surgery. A persistence rate of 46.7% indicates that >1 treatment is necessary for effective endoscopic treatment. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04203667.).

Gastrointestinal endoscopy devices and the European Union Medical Device Regulation: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy is largely dependent on medical devices. The European Union (EU) has recently introduced stricter rules and regulations for the approval of medical devices. This has consequences both for endoscopists and for patients. The new regulations increase the need for clinical trials and observational studies for new and current devices used in endoscopy to ensure clinical benefit and reduce patient harm. European endoscopy environments should facilitate industry-sponsored clinical trials and registry studies to meet the demand for robust data on endoscopic devices as required in the new legislation. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) will play an active role in the establishment of the new system.The EU is establishing independent expert panels for device regulation in gastroenterology and hepatology, including endoscopy, that are charged with assessing the requirements for device testing. The ESGE encourages endoscopists with expertise in the technical and clinical performance of endoscopy devices to apply for expert panel membership. The ESGE has provided information for interested endoscopists on the ESGE website. Private European companies called "notified bodies" are entitled to conduct device approval for the EU. The ESGE will actively engage with these notified bodies for topics related to the new endoscopy device approval process to ensure continued access to high quality endoscopy devices for endoscopists in Europe.

High proficiency of esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection with a "tunnel + clip traction" strategy: a large French multicentric study.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the gold standard for the treatment of precancerous lesions or superficial esophageal cancers. This procedure is currently performed by expert endoscopists only, and poorly standardized. We aimed to assess the technical results and outcomes of a "tunnel + clip" strategy for esophageal ESD procedures performed by less experienced operators for the treatment of superficial neoplasms. METHODS: All consecutive esophageal ESDs performed with the "tunnel + clip" technique for patients with early esophageal cancer in 3 centers were enrolled. Procedural characteristics, clinical outcomes, and complications were recorded. RESULTS: Among 195 esophageal ESD procedures performed, early adenocarcinomas or high-grade dysplasia complicating Barrett's esophagus were predominant (132/195, 67.7%) compared with early squamous cell carcinomas (63/195, 32.3%). The en bloc, R0 and curative resection rates were 100% (195/195), 78.5% (153/195) and 67.2% (131/195), respectively. The mean rate of ESD was 29.7 mm2/min. One (0.5%) perprocedural perforation and 7 (3.6%) postprocedural bleedings occurred, all managed endoscopically. No delayed perforation occurred. Overall, 31 patients (31/195; 15.9%) of patients developed stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: The "tunnel + clip" strategy is safe, and allows to achieve high en bloc, R0 and curative resection rates. This standardized procedure could be used by physicians with little experience and might help spreading esophageal ESD in Western countries.

First report from the International Evaluation of Endoscopic classification Japan NBI Expert Team: International multicenter web trial.

OBJECTIVES: Narrow-band imaging (NBI) contributes to real-time optical diagnosis and classification of colorectal lesions. The Japan NBI Expert Team (JNET) was introduced in 2011. The aim of this study was to explore the diagnostic accuracy of JNET when applied by European and Japanese endoscopists not familiar with this classification. METHODS: This study was conducted by 36 European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and 49 Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) non-JNET endoscopists using still images of 150 lesions. For each lesion, nonmagnified white-light, nonmagnified NBI, and magnified NBI images were presented. In the magnified NBI, the evaluation area was designated by region of interest (ROI). The endoscopists scored histological prediction for each lesion. RESULTS: In ESGE members, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were respectively 73.3%, 94.7%, and 93.0% for JNET Type 1; 53.0%, 64.9%, and 62.1% for Type 2A; 43.9%, 67.7%, and 55.1% for Type 2B; and 38.1%, 93.7%, and 85.1% for Type 3. When Type 2B and 3 were considered as one category of cancer, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for differentiating high-grade dysplasia and cancer from the others were 59.9%, 72.5%, and 63.8%, respectively. These trends were the same for JGES endoscopists. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic accuracy of the JNET classification was similar between ESGE and JGES and considered to be sufficient for JNET Type 1. On the other hand, the accuracy for Types 2 and 3 is not sufficient; however, JNET 2B lesions should be resected en bloc due to the risk of cancers and JNET 3 can be treated by surgery due to its high specificity.

Fully Covered Self-Expanding Metal Stent vs Multiple Plastic Stents to Treat Benign Biliary Strictures Secondary to Chronic Pancreatitis: A Multicenter Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Benign biliary strictures (BBS) are complications of chronic pancreatitis (CP). Endotherapy using multiple plastic stents (MPS) or a fully covered self-expanding metal stent (FCSEMS) are acceptable treatment options for biliary obstructive symptoms in these patients. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic CP-associated BBS enrolled in a multicenter randomized noninferiority trial comparing 12-month treatment with MPS vs FCSEMS. Primary outcome was stricture resolution status at 24 months, defined as absence of restenting and 24-month serum alkaline phosphatase not exceeding twice the level at stenting completion. Secondary outcomes included crossover rate, numbers of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCPs) and stents, and stent- or procedure-related serious adverse events. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were randomized to MPS and 80 to FCSEMS. Baseline technical success was 97.6% for MPS and 98.6% for FCSEMS. Eleven patients crossed over from MPS to FCSEMS, and 10 from FCSEMS to MPS. For MPS vs FCSEMS, respectively, stricture resolution status at 24 months was 77.1% (54/70) vs 75.8% (47/62) (P = .008 for noninferiority intention-to-treat analysis), mean number of ERCPs was 3.9 ± 1.3 vs 2.6 ± 1.3 (P < .001, intention-to-treat), and mean number of stents placed was 7.0 ± 4.4 vs 1.3 ± .6 (P < .001, as-treated). Serious adverse events occurred in 16 (19.0%) MPS and 19 (23.8%) FCSEMS patients (P = .568), including cholangitis/fever/jaundice (9 vs 7 patients respectively), abdominal pain (5 vs 5), cholecystitis (1 vs 3) and post-ERCP pancreatitis (0 vs 2). No stent- or procedure-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Endotherapy of CP-associated BBS has similar efficacy and safety for 12-month treatment using MPS compared with a single FCSEMS, with FCSEMS requiring fewer ERCPs over 2 years. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT01543256.).

Endoscopic submucosal dissection combined with clip for closure of gastrointestinal fistulas including those refractory to previous therapy.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) fistula is a life-threatening condition and a therapeutic challenge. Endoscopic approaches include mucosal abrasion, clip closure, or stent diversion, with moderate success rates in the long term. We assessed whether fistula endoscopic submucosal dissection with clip closure (FESDC) could lead to complete resolution of fistulas even after failure of previous endoscopic therapy. METHODS: Patients with GI fistulas, including those with previous failed treatment, were retrospectively included. The primary outcome was long-term (> 3 months) success of fistula healing. Secondary outcomes included technical success, safety, and factors associated with FESDC success. RESULTS: 23 patients (13 refractory 57 %) were included. Tight immediate sealing was achieved in 19 patients (83 %; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 61 %-95 %). Long-term closure was achieved in 14 patients (61 %; 95 %CI 39 %-80 %), with median follow-up of 20 months. Complications occurred in two patients (9 %). Previous local malignancy (P = 0.08) and radiotherapy (P = 0.047) were associated with a higher risk of failure. CONCLUSION: This novel FESDC strategy was demonstrated to be safe and feasible for permanent endoscopic closure of GI fistulas. Further studies are warranted to determine the place of this technique in the management of chronic GI fistula.

The Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS): a two-phase evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: To date, no scale has been validated to assess bubbles associated with bowel preparation. This study aimed to develop and assess the reliability of a novel scale - the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS). METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study with two online evaluation phases of 45 randomly distributed still colonoscopy images (15 per scale grade). Observers assessed images twice, 2 weeks apart, using CEBuS (CEBuS-0 - no or minimal bubbles, covering < 5 % of the surface; CEBuS-1 - bubbles covering 5 %-50 %; CEBuS-2 - bubbles covering > 50 %) and reporting the clinical action (do nothing; wash with water; wash with simethicone). RESULTS: CEBuS provided high levels of agreement both in evaluation Phase 1 (4 experts) and Phase 2 (6 experts and 13 non-experts), with almost perfect intraobserver reliability: kappa 0.82 (95 % confidence interval 0.75-0.88) and 0.86 (0.85-0.88); interobserver agreement - intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.83 (0.73-0.89) and 0.90 (0.86-0.94). Previous endoscopic experience had no influence on agreement among experts vs. non-experts: kappa 0.86 (0.80-0.91) vs. 0.87 (0.84-0.89) and ICC 0.91 (0.87-0.94) vs. 0.90 (0.86-0.94), respectively. Interobserver agreement on clinical action was ICC 0.63 (0.43-0.78) in Phase 1 and 0.77 (0.68-0.84) in Phase 2. Absolute agreement on clinical action per scale grade was 85 % (82-88) for CEBuS-0, 21 % (16-26) for CEBuS-1, and 74 % (70-78) for CEBuS-2. CONCLUSION: CEBuS proved to be a reliable instrument to standardize the evaluation of colonic bubbles during colonoscopy. Assessment in daily practice is warranted.

Impact of antibiotic prophylaxis and conditioning modalities in per-oral endoscopic myotomy for esophageal motor disorders.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: No recommendation regarding antibiotic prophylaxis and preparation modalities are available for patients with esophageal motor disorders who benefit from Per-Oral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM). The aim of our study was to evaluate their impact on the POEM's safety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was a comparative and multicentric retrospective analysis of a database prospectively collected. Patients over 18 years old with esophageal motor disorders confirmed by prior manometry, who underwent POEM were included. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of adverse events, as classified by Cotton, based on whether or not antibiotic prophylaxis was administered. RESULTS: A total of 226 patients (median age 52.9 ± 19.12 years [18-105], 116 women [51.3%]) were included. The indication for POEM was mainly type 2 achalasia (n = 135, 60.3%). Antibiotic prophylaxis was administered to 170 patients (75.2%) during 3.93 ± 3.46 days [1-21]. The overall adverse events rate was 9.3% (n = 21). Antibiotic prophylaxis was associated with the occurrence of adverse events (p = .003), but had no impact on their severity (p = .238). Antibiotic prophylaxis didn't influence the effectiveness of POEM (1 [0-4] vs 1 [0-9], p = .231). The use of a liquid diet in the 48 h prior to the procedure was significantly associated with a lower adverse events rate (3.1% vs 6.19%, p = .0002). CONCLUSION: The antibiotic prophylaxis during POEM does not prevent adverse events, had no impact on their severity and the efficacy of the procedure. A liquid diet before the procedure should be systematically proposed.

Evaluation of the performances of a single-use duodenoscope: Prospective multi-center national study.

OBJECTIVES: A single-use duodenoscope (SUD) has been recently developed to overcome issues with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related cross-infections. The aim was to evaluate SUD safety and performance in a prospective multi-centre study. METHODS: All consecutive patients undergoing ERCP in six French centers were prospectively enrolled. All procedures were performed with the SUD; in case of ERCP failure, operators switched to a reusable duodenoscope. Study outcomes were the successful completion of the procedure with SUD, safety and operators' satisfaction based on a VAS 0-10 and on 22 qualitative items. The study protocol was approved by French authorities and registered (ID-RCB: 2020-A00346-33). External companies collected the database and performed statistical analysis. RESULTS: Sixty patients (34 females, median age 65.5 years old) were enrolled. Main indications were bile duct stones (41.7%) and malignant biliary obstruction (26.7%). Most ERCP were considered ASGE grade 2 (58.3%) or 3 (35.0%). Fifty-seven (95.0%) procedures were completed using the SUD. Failures were unrelated to SUD (one duodenal stricture, one ampullary infiltration, and one tight biliary stricture) and could not be completed with reusable duodenoscopes. Median operators' satisfaction was 9 (7-9). Qualitative assessments were considered clinically satisfactory in a median of 100% of items and comparable to a reusable duodenoscope in 97.9% of items. Three patients (5%) reported an adverse event. None was SUD-related. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a SUD allows ERCP to be performed with an optimal successful rate. Our data show that SUD could be used for several ERCP indications and levels of complexity.

Endoscopic radiofrequency ablation or surveillance in patients with Barrett's oesophagus with confirmed low-grade dysplasia: a multicentre randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: Due to an annual progression rate of Barrett's oesophagus (BO) with low-grade dysplasia (LGD) between 9% and 13% per year endoscopic ablation therapy is preferred to surveillance. Since this recommendation is based on only one randomised trial, we aimed at checking these results by another multicentre randomised trial with a similar design. DESIGN: A prospective randomised study was performed in 14 centres comparing radiofrequency ablation (RFA) (maximum of 4 sessions) to annual endoscopic surveillance, including patients with a confirmed diagnosis of BO with LGD. Primary outcome was the prevalence of LGD at 3 years. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of LGD at 1 year, the complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) at 3 years, the rate of neoplastic progression at 3 years and the treatment-related morbidity. RESULTS: 125 patients were initially included, of whom 82 with confirmed LGD (76 men, mean age 62.3 years) were finally randomised, 40 patients in the RFA and 42 in the surveillance group. At 3 years, CE-IM rates were 35% vs 0% in the RFA and surveillance groups, respectively (p<0.001). At the same time, the prevalence LGD was 34.3% (95% CI 18.6 to 50.0) in the RFA group vs 58.1% (95% CI 40.7 to 75.4) in the surveillance group (OR=0.38 (95% CI 0.14 to 1.02), p=0.05). Neoplastic progression was found in 12.5% (RFA) vs 26.2% (surveillance; p=0.15). The complication rate was maximal after the first RFA treatment (16.9%). CONCLUSION: RFA modestly reduced the prevalence of LGD as well as progression risk at 3 years. The risk-benefit balance of endoscopic ablation therapy should therefore be carefully weighted against surveillance in patients with BO with confirmed LGD. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01360541.

Double-clip traction for colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter study of 599 consecutive cases (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is particularly challenging and limited to a few expert centers. We recently conducted a pilot study on improvement of colonic ESD with systematic use of a countertraction device (double-clip traction with rubber band [DCT-ESD]). METHODS: A French prospective multicenter study was conducted between March 2017 and September 2019, including all consecutive cases of naive colonic ESD. Since the first case of DCT-ESD in March 2017, all cases of colonic ESD have been performed using the DCT-ESD strategy in the 3 centers involved in the study. RESULTS: Five hundred ninety-nine lesions with a mean size of 53 mm were included in this study, resected by 5 operators in 3 centers. The en bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were 95.7%, 83.5%, and 81.1%, respectively. The adverse event rates were 4.9% for perforation and 4.2% for postprocedure bleeding. Between 2017 and 2019, the rates of R0 and curative resections increased significantly from 74.7% in 2017 to 88.4% in 2019 (P = .003) and from 72.6% in 2017 to 86.3% in 2019 (P = .004), respectively. Procedure duration and speed of resection were 62.4 minutes and 39.4 mm2/minute, respectively. No differences were noted between operators. CONCLUSION: DCT-ESD is a safe and reproducible technique, with results comparable with those of the large Japanese teams with speed of resection twice as high as previously reported studies. The DCT strategy is promising, cheap, and seems to be reproducible. Physicians performing colonic ESD should be aware of this promising tool to improve their results in ESD.

Safety and effectiveness of peroral endoscopic myotomy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: an international multicenter case-control study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events in patients undergoing peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) who are receiving antithrombotic therapy is unknown. Our primary aim was to assess the safety of POEM in this patient subset. Secondary outcomes were rates of clinical success, GERD, and procedure-related outcomes. METHODS: This was an international, 1:1, case-control study performed at 10 centers using prospectively maintained databases. All consecutive patients who underwent POEM before November 2019 were considered for inclusion. Cases were patients on antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapy. Controls not receiving antithrombotics were matched for age and esophageal motility disorder. Primary outcomes were major bleeding and thromboembolic events on postprocedural day 30. RESULTS: Of 2895 patients who underwent POEM, 126 cases (103 on antiplatelets, 35 anticoagulants, 12 both) and 126 controls were enrolled. The rate of major bleeding was higher for the antithrombotics users (5.6% vs 0.8%, P = .03). Anticoagulants and clopidogrel were temporarily interrupted in all cases. Aspirin was continued in 40.5% of users without increasing the bleeding risk. One thromboembolic event occurred in each group (0.79%; P = 1.00). No POEM-related deaths were noted. Rates of clinical success (91.7% vs 96% in controls, P = .20), postprocedural GERD, and technical-related outcomes were similar in both groups. Antithrombotic management was heterogeneous, and guidelines were not adhered to in 23.8% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: POEM is safe and effective in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy although it is associated with a greater risk of major bleeding.

Revising the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) research priorities: a research progress update.

BACKGROUND: One of the aims of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is to encourage high quality endoscopic research at a European level. In 2016, the ESGE research committee published a set of research priorities. As endoscopic research is flourishing, we aimed to review the literature and determine whether endoscopic research over the last 4 years had managed to address any of our previously published priorities. METHODS: As the previously published priorities were grouped under seven different domains, a working party with at least two European experts was created for each domain to review all the priorities under that domain. A structured review form was developed to standardize the review process. The group conducted an extensive literature search relevant to each of the priorities and then graded the priorities into three categories: (1) no longer a priority (well-designed trial, incorporated in national/international guidelines or adopted in routine clinical practice); (2) remains a priority (i. e. the above criterion was not met); (3) redefine the existing priority (i. e. the priority was too vague with the research question not clearly defined). RESULTS: The previous ESGE research priorities document published in 2016 had 26 research priorities under seven domains. Our review of these priorities has resulted in seven priorities being removed from the list, one priority being partially removed, another seven being redefined to make them more precise, with eleven priorities remaining unchanged. This is a reflection of a rapid surge in endoscopic research, resulting in 27 % of research questions having already been answered and another 27 % requiring redefinition. CONCLUSIONS: Our extensive review process has led to the removal of seven research priorities from the previous (2016) list, leaving 19 research priorities that have been redefined to make them more precise and relevant for researchers and funding bodies to target.

Overcoming the barriers to dissemination and implementation of quality measures for gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) position statement.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has developed performance measures and established a framework for quality assessment for gastrointestinal endoscopy in Europe. Most national societies actively undertake initiatives to implement and explicitly endorse these quality indicators. Given this, ESGE proposes that, at a national level, strong leadership should exist to disseminate and implement quality parameters. Thus, understanding the potential barriers that may vary locally is of paramount importance. ESGE suggests that each national society should prioritize quality and standards of care in gastrointestinal endoscopy in their activities and should survey/understand which measures are a local priority to their members and make measuring quality intrinsic to daily endoscopy practice.

Curriculum for ERCP and endoscopic ultrasound training in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has recognized the need to formalize and enhance training in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). This manuscript represents the outcome of a formal Delphi process resulting in an official Position Statement of the ESGE and provides a framework to develop and maintain skills in ERCP and EUS. This curriculum is set out in terms of the prerequisites prior to training; recommended steps of training to a defined syllabus; the quality of training; and how competence should be defined and evidenced before independent practice. 1: Trainees should be competent in gastroscopy prior to commencing training. Formal training courses and the use of simulation in training are recommended. 2: Trainees should keep a contemporaneous logbook of their procedures, including key performance indicators and the degree of independence. Structured formative assessment is encouraged to enhance feedback. There should be a summative assessment process prior to commencing independent practice to ensure there is robust evidence of competence. This evidence should include a review of a trainee's procedure volume and current performance measures. A period of mentoring is strongly recommended in the early stages of independent practice. 3: Specifically for ERCP, all trainees should be competent up to Schutz level 2 complexity (management of distal biliary strictures and stones > 10 mm), with advanced ERCP requiring a further period of training. Prior to independent practice, ESGE recommends that a trainee can evidence a procedure volume of > 300 cases, a native papilla cannulation rate of ≥ 80 % (90 % after a period of mentored independent practice), complete stones clearance of ≥ 85 %, and successful stenting of distal biliary strictures of ≥ 90 % (90 % and 95 % respectively after a mentored period of independent practice). 4: The progression of EUS training and competence attainment should start from diagnostic EUS and then proceed to basic therapeutic EUS, and finally to advanced therapeutic EUS. Before independent practice, ESGE recommends that a trainee can evidence a procedure volume of > 250 cases (75 fine-needle aspirations/biopsies [FNA/FNBs]), satisfactory visualization of key anatomical landmarks in ≥ 90 % of cases, and an FNA/FNB accuracy rate of ≥ 85 %. ESGE recognizes the often inadequate quality of the evidence and the need for further studies pertaining to training in advanced endoscopy, particularly in relation to therapeutic EUS.