Lumen-apposing stents versus plastic stents in the management of pancreatic pseudocysts: a large, comparative, international, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Larger caliber lumen-apposing stents (LAMSs) have been increasingly used in the management of pancreatic fluid collections, specifically when solid debris is present; however, their advantages over smaller caliber plastic stents in the management of pancreatic pseudocysts are unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of LAMS specifically in the management of pancreatic pseudocysts compared with double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPSs). METHODS: We performed a multicenter, international, retrospective study between January 2012 and August 2016. A total of 205 patients with a diagnosis of pancreatic pseudocysts were included, 80 patients received LAMSs and 125 received DPPSs. Measured outcomes included clinical success, technical success, adverse events, stent dysfunction, pancreatic pseudocyst recurrence, and need for surgery. RESULTS: Technical success was similar between the LAMS and the DPPS groups (97.5 % vs. 99.2 %; P = 0.32). Clinical success was higher for LAMSs than for DPPSs (96.3 % vs. 87.2 %; P = 0.03). While the need for surgery was similar between the two groups (1.3 % vs. 4.9 %, respectively; P = 0.17), the use of percutaneous drainage was significantly lower in the LAMS group (1.3 % vs. 8.8 %; P = 0.03). At 6-month follow-up, the recurrence rate was similar between the groups (6.7 % vs 18.8 %, respectively; P = 0.12). The rate of adverse events was significantly higher in the DPPS group (7.5 % vs. 17.6 %; P = 0.04). There was no difference in post-procedure mean length of hospital stay (6.3 days [standard deviation 27.9] vs. 3.7 days [5.7]; P = 0.31). CONCLUSION: When compared to DPPSs, LAMSs are a safe, feasible, and effective modality for the treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts and are associated with a higher rate of clinical success, shorter procedure time, less need for percutaneous interventions, and a lower overall rate of adverse events.

Efficacy and Safety of Digital Single-Operator Cholangioscopy for Difficult Biliary Stones.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is not clear whether digital single-operator cholangioscopy (D-SOC) with electrohydraulic and laser lithotripsy is effective in removal of difficult biliary stones. We investigated the safety and efficacy of D-SOC with electrohydraulic and laser lithotripsy in an international, multicenter study of patients with difficult biliary stones. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 407 patients (60.4% female; mean age, 64.2 years) who underwent D-SOC for difficult biliary stones at 22 tertiary centers in the United States, United Kingdom, or Korea from February 2015 through December 2016; 306 patients underwent electrohydraulic lithotripsy and 101 (24.8%) underwent laser lithotripsy. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify factors associated with technical failure and the need for more than 1 D-SOC electrohydraulic or laser lithotripsy session to clear the bile duct. RESULTS: The mean procedure time was longer in the electrohydraulic lithotripsy group (73.9 minutes) than in the laser lithotripsy group (49.9 minutes; P < .001). Ducts were completely cleared (technical success) in 97.3% of patients (96.7% of patients with electrohydraulic lithotripsy vs 99% patients with laser lithotripsy; P = .31). Ducts were cleared in a single session in 77.4% of patients (74.5% by electrohydraulic lithotripsy and 86.1% by laser lithotripsy; P = .20). Electrohydraulic or laser lithotripsy failed in 11 patients (2.7%); 8 patients were treated by surgery. Adverse events occurred in 3.7% patients and the stone was incompletely removed from 6.6% of patients. On multivariable analysis, difficult anatomy or cannulation (duodenal diverticula or altered anatomy) correlated with technical failure (odds ratio, 5.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-21.2; P = .02). Procedure time increased odds of more than 1 session of D-SOC electrohydraulic or laser lithotripsy (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.03; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In a multicenter, international, retrospective analysis, we found D-SOC with electrohydraulic or laser lithotripsy to be effective and safe in more than 95% of patients with difficult biliary stones. Fewer than 5% of patients require additional treatment with surgery and/or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy to clear the duct.

An international, multicenter, comparative trial of EUS-guided gastrogastrostomy-assisted ERCP versus enteroscopy-assisted ERCP in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass anatomy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: ERCP is challenging in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) anatomy. EUS-guided gastrogastrostomy (GG) creation is a promising novel technique to access the excluded stomach to facilitate conventional ERCP. We aimed to compare procedural outcomes and adverse events (AEs) between EUS-guided GG-assisted ERCP (EUS-GG-ERCP) and enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (e-ERCP) in patients with RYGB. METHODS: Patients with RYGB anatomy who underwent EUS-GG-ERCP or e-ERCP between 2014 and 2016 at 5 tertiary centers were included. The primary outcome was technical success of ERCP, defined as successful cannulation of the selected duct with successful intervention as intended. Secondary outcomes included total procedural time (in the EUS-GG group, total procedural time included EUS-GG creation plus ERCP procedure time), length of hospital stay, and rate/severity of AEs graded according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy lexicon. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients (mean age, 57.2 ± 13.2; 75% women) were included, of whom 30 (50%) underwent EUS-GG-ERCP and 30 (50%) underwent e-ERCP (double-balloon enteroscope ERCP, 19; single-balloon enteroscope ERCP, 11). The technical success rate was significantly higher in the EUS-GG-ERCP versus the e-ERCP group (100% vs 60.0%, P < .001). Total procedure time was significantly shorter in patients who underwent EUS-GG-ERCP (49.8 minutes vs 90.7 minutes, P < .001). Postprocedure median length of hospitalization was shorter in the EUS-GG group (1 vs 10.5 days, P = .02). Rate of AEs was similar in both groups (10% vs 6.7%, P = 1). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GG-ERCP may be superior to e-ERCP in patients with RYGB anatomy in terms of a higher technical success and shorter procedural times and offers a similar safety profile.

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing lumen-apposing metal stents with plastic stents in the management of pancreatic walled-off necrosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided transmural drainage is effective in the management of pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON). A lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) has recently been developed specifically for the drainage of pancreatic fluid collections that shows promising results. However, no cost-effectiveness data have been published in comparison with endoscopic drainage with traditional plastic stents (PSs). Our aim here was to compare the cost-effectiveness of LAMSs to PSs in the management of WON. METHODS: A decision tree was developed to assess both LAMSs and PSs over a 6-month time horizon. For each strategy, after the insertion of the respective stents, patients were followed for subsequent need for direct endoscopic necrosectomy, adverse events requiring unplanned endoscopy, percutaneous drainage (PCD), or surgery using probabilities obtained from the literature. The unit of effectiveness was defined as successful endoscopic drainage without the need for PCD or surgery. Costs in 2016 U.S.$ were based on inpatient institutional costs. Sensitivity analyses were performed. An a priori willingness-to-pay threshold of U.S.$50,000 was established. RESULTS: LAMSs were found to be more efficacious than PSs, with 92% and 84%, respectively, of the patients achieving successful endoscopic drainage of WON. LAMSs, however, were more costly: the average cost per patient of U.S.$20,029 compared with U.S.$15,941 for PSs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio favored LAMSs at U.S.$49,214 per additional patient successfully treated. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. CONCLUSION: LAMSs are more effective but also more costly than PSs in managing WON. Data from high-quality, adequately controlled, prospective, randomized trials are needed to confirm our findings.

EUS-guided gastroenterostomy: a multicenter study comparing the direct and balloon-assisted techniques.

BACKGROUND: EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a developing modality in the management of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) with several technical approaches, including the direct and balloon-assisted techniques. The aim of this study was to compare the direct with the balloon-assisted modality while further defining the role of EUS-GE in GOO. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective study involved consecutive patients who underwent EUS-GE with the direct or balloon-assisted technique for GOO (January 2014 to October 2016). The primary outcome was technical success. Secondary outcomes were success (ability to tolerate at least a full fluid diet), procedure time, and rate/severity of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: A total of 74 patients (44.6% women; mean age 63.0 ± 11.7 years) underwent EUS-GE for GOO (direct gastroenterostomy, n = 52; balloon-assisted gastroenterostomy, n = 22). GOO was of malignant and benign etiology in 66.2% and 33.8% of patients, respectively. Technical success was achieved in 94.2% of the direct and 90.9% of the balloon-assisted approach (P = .63). Mean procedure time was shorter with the direct technique (35.7 ± 32.1 minutes vs 89.9 ± 33.3 minutes, P < .001). The clinical success rate was 92.3% for the direct technique and 90.9% for the balloon-assisted modality (P = 1.00), with a mean time to oral intake of 1.32 ± 2.76 days. The AE rate was 6.8% with only 1 severe AE noted. Rate of AEs, postprocedure length of stay, need for reintervention, and survival were similar between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GE is effective and safe in the management of GOO. The direct technique may be the preferred method given its shorter procedure time when compared with the balloon-assisted approach. Prospective trials are needed to confirm these findings.

An international multicenter study evaluating the clinical efficacy and safety of per-oral endoscopic myotomy in octogenarians.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia is particularly appealing in the elderly because it is minimally invasive. However, data in patients aged ≥80 years are scarce. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcome of POEM in octogenarians. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective study at 8 centers. Consecutive octogenarians with achalasia who underwent POEM between 2010 and 2016 were included. Rates of technical success (completion of myotomy), clinical response (Eckardt score ≤3), and adverse events (severity graded as per American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy lexicon) were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 76 patients (47.4% female, mean age 84 years) underwent POEM for treatment of achalasia: type I, 17.1%; type II, 35.5%; type III, 17.1%; and unspecified, 30.3%. Overall, 41.1% were treatment naïve, whereas others had previous botulinum toxin injection and/or pneumatic dilation. The mean (± standard deviation [SD]) age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index score was 6.2 ± 2.4, with the majority of patients having American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System (ASA) scores of II/III. Technical success was 93.4%, with a median follow-up of 256 days. Fourteen adverse events occurred in 11 patients (14.5%). There were 3 inadvertent mucosotomies, 6 cases of symptomatic capnoperitoneum and/or capnomediastinum, 2 esophageal leaks, 1 cardiac arrhythmia, and 2 other). The severities of these adverse events were mild (78.6%), moderate (14.3%), and severe (7.1%). Clinical success was achieved in 90.8% of patients, with a mean (± SD) Eckardt score reduction from 7.0 ± 2.3 to 0.8 ± 0.1 (P < .001), a median follow-up of 256 days, and interquartile range of 66 to 547. CONCLUSION: Although the rate of technical success may be somewhat lower and the rate of adverse events slightly higher than previously reported, our data suggest that POEM in octogenarians is safe and effective, supporting its role as a primary modality for achalasia in this patient population.

Retraction notice to "Long-term outcomes of per-oral endoscopic myotomy in patients with achalasia with a minimum follow-up of 2 years: an international multicenter study": [YMGE 85 (2017) 927-933].

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal). This article has been retracted due to overlapping/duplicate material. Data from some patients from this study have previously been published in other journals without cross-referencing. Twenty patients overlap with a paper by Kumbhari et al.1 Thirty-five patients overlap with the study by Ngamruengphong et al.2.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided entero-enterostomy for the treatment of afferent loop syndrome: a multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND: Afferent loop syndrome (ALS) is traditionally managed surgically and, more recently, endoscopically. The role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided entero-enterostomy (EUS-EE) has not been well described. The aim of this study was to assess the technical and clinical success and safety of EUS-EE. METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective series at six centers in patients with ALS treated by EUS-EE. Data on patients treated with enteroscopy-assisted luminal stenting (EALS) at a single center were also collected. RESULTS: 18 patients (mean age 64.2 years, 72 % post-pancreaticoduodenectomy, 10 female) underwent EUS-EE. The most common symptoms were vomiting (27.8 %) and jaundice (33.3 %). Clinical success included resolution of symptoms in 88.9 % and improvement to allow hospital discharge in 11.1 %. Technical success was achieved in 100 % of cases, with a mean procedure time of 29.7 minutes. The most common procedure was a gastro-jejunostomy (72.2 %). Three adverse events (16.7 %) occurred (two mild, one moderate). When compared with data on EALS, patients treated with EUS-EE needed fewer re-interventions (16.6 % vs. 76.5 %; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: EUS-EE seems to be safe and effective in the treatment of ALS. Indirect comparison with EALS suggested that EUS-EE is associated with a reduced need for re-intervention.

Similar Efficacies of Endoscopic Ultrasound Gallbladder Drainage With a Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent Versus Percutaneous Transhepatic Gallbladder Drainage for Acute Cholecystitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Acute cholecystitis in patients who are not candidates for surgery is often managed with percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD). Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) with a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) is an effective alternative to PT-GBD. We compared the technical success of EUS-GBD versus PT-GBD, and patient outcomes, numbers of adverse events (AEs), length of hospital stay, pain scores, and repeat interventions. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study to compare EUS-GBD versus PT-GBD at 7 centers (5 in the United States, 1 in Europe, and 1 in Asia), from 2013 through 2015, in management of acute cholecystitis in patients who are not candidates for surgery. A total of 90 patients (56 men) with acute cholecystitis (61 calculous, 29 acalculous) underwent EUS-GBD (n = 45) or PT-GBD (n = 45). Data were collected on technical success, clinical success (resolution of symptoms or laboratory and/or radiologic abnormalities within 3 days of intervention), and need for repeat intervention. Characteristics were compared using Student t tests for continuous variables and the chi-square test, or the Fisher exact test, when appropriate, for categorical variables. Adverse events were graded according to American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy definitions and compared using the Fisher exact test. Postprocedure pain scores were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics, type, and clinical severity of cholecystitis were comparable between groups. In the EUS-GBD group, noncautery LAMS were used in 30 patients and cautery-enhanced LAMS were used in 15. Technical success was achieved for 98% of patients in the EUS-GBD and 100% of the patients in the PT-GBD group (P = .88). Clinical success was achieved by 96% of patients in the EUS-GBD group and 91% in the PT-GBD group (P = .20). There was a nonsignificant trend toward fewer AEs in the EUS-GBD group (5 patients; 11%) than in the PT-GBD group (14 patients; 32%) (P = .065). There were no significant differences in the severity of the AEs: mild, 2 in the EUS-GBD group versus 5 in the PT-GBD group (P = .27); moderate, 4 versus 3 (P = .98); severe, 1 versus 3 (P = .62); or deaths, 1 versus 3 (P = .61). The mean postprocedure pain score was lower in the EUS-GBD group than in the PT-GBD group (2.5 vs 6.5; P < .05). The EUS-GBD group had a shorter average length of stay in the hospital (3 days) than the PT-GBD group (9 days) (P < .05) and fewer repeat interventions (11 vs 112) (P < .05). The average number of repeat interventions per patients was 0.2 ± 0.4 EUS-GBD group versus 2.5 ± 2.8 in the PT-GBD group (P < .05). Median follow-up after drainage was comparable in EUS-GBD group (215 days; range, 1-621 days) versus the PT-GBD group (265 days; range, 1-1638 days). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GBD has similar technical and clinical success compared with PT-GBD and should be considered an alternative for patients who are not candidates for surgery. Patients who undergo EUS-GBD seem to have shorter hospital stays, lower pain scores, and fewer repeated interventions, with a trend toward fewer AEs. A prospective, comparative study is needed to confirm these results.

Efficacy and Safety of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for Treatment of Achalasia After Failed Heller Myotomy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In patients with persistent symptoms after Heller myotomy (HM), treatment options include repeat HM, pneumatic dilation, or peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of POEM in patients with achalasia with prior HM vs without prior HM. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 180 patients with achalasia who underwent POEM at 13 tertiary centers worldwide, from December 2009 through September 2015. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those with prior HM (HM group, exposure; n = 90) and those without prior HM (non-HM group; n = 90). Clinical response was defined by a decrease in Eckardt scores to 3 or less. Adverse events were graded according to criteria set by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Technical success, clinical success, and rates of adverse events were compared between groups. Patients were followed up for a median of 8.5 months. RESULTS: POEM was technically successful in 98% of patients in the HM group and in 100% of patients in the non-HM group (P = .49). A significantly lower proportion of patients in the HM group had a clinical response to POEM (81%) than in the non-HM group (94%; P = .01). There were no significant differences in rates of adverse events between the groups (8% in the HM group vs 13% in the non-HM group; P = .23). Symptomatic reflux and reflux esophagitis after POEM were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: POEM is safe and effective for patients with achalasia who were not treated successfully by prior HM. Although the rate of clinical success in patients with prior HM is lower than in those without prior HM, the safety profile of POEM is comparable between groups.

Comprehensive Analysis of Adverse Events Associated With Per Oral Endoscopic Myotomy in 1826 Patients: An International Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVES: The safety of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is still debated since comprehensive analysis of adverse events (AEs) associated with the procedure in large multicenter cohort studies has not been performed. To study (1) the prevalence of AEs and (2) factors associated with occurrence of AEs in patients undergoing POEM. METHODS: Patients who underwent POEM at 12 tertiary-care centers between 2009 and 2015 were included in this case-control study. Cases were defined by the occurrence of any AE related to the POEM procedure. Control patients were selected for each AE case by matching for age, gender, and disease classification (achalasia type I and II vs. type III/spastic esophageal disorders). RESULTS: A total of 1,826 patients underwent POEM. Overall, 156 AEs occurred in 137 patients (7.5%). A total of 51 (2.8%) inadvertent mucosotomies occurred. Mild, moderate, and severe AEs had a frequency of 116 (6.4%), 31 (1.7%), and 9 (0.5%), respectively. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that sigmoid-type esophagus (odds ratio (OR) 2.28, P=0.05), endoscopist experience <20 cases (OR 1.98, P=0.04), use of a triangular tip knife (OR 3.22, P=0.05), and use of an electrosurgical current different than spray coagulation (OR 3.09, P=0.02) were significantly associated with the occurrence of AEs. CONCLUSIONS: This large study comprehensively assessed the safety of POEM and highly suggests POEM as a relatively safe procedure when performed by experts at tertiary centers with an overall 7.5% prevalence of AEs. Severe AEs are rare. Sigmoid-type esophagus, endoscopist experience, type of knife, and current used can be considered as predictive factors of AE occurrence.

Gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy for refractory gastroparesis: results from the first multicenter study on endoscopic pyloromyotomy (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) recently has been reported as minimally invasive therapy for gastroparesis. The aims of this study were to report on the first multicenter experience with G-POEM and to assess the efficacy and safety of this novel procedure for patients with gastroparesis with symptoms refractory to medical therapy. METHODS: All patients with gastroparesis who underwent endoscopic pyloromyotomy (G-POEM) at 5 medical centers were included. Procedures were performed following the same principles as esophageal POEM. Clinical response was defined as improvement in gastroparetic symptoms with absence of recurrent hospitalization. Adverse events were graded according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy lexicon. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients with refractory gastroparesis (11 diabetic, 12 postsurgical, 7 idiopathic) underwent G-POEM. Previous therapies included Botox injection in 12, transpyloric stenting in 3, and PEG with jejunal extension (PEGJ) in 1. Nausea/vomiting were the predominant symptoms in 25 patients. Weight loss was present in 27 patients with an average of 10% loss of body weight. G-POEM was completed successfully in all 30 (100%) patients with a mean procedure time of 72 minutes (range, 35-223 min). The mean myotomy length was 2.6 ± 2.3 cm. The mean length of hospital stay was 3.3 days (range, 1-12 days). Two adverse events occurred in 2 (6.7%) patients, including 1 capnoperitoneum and 1 prepyloric ulcer, rated as mild and severe, respectively. Clinical response was observed in 26 (86%) patients during a median follow-up of 5.5 months. Four patients (2 diabetic, 1 postsurgical, 1 idiopathic cause) did not respond to G-POEM. Repeat gastric emptying scan was obtained in 17 patients, normalized in 8 (47%), and improved in 6 (35%) patients. CONCLUSION: G-POEM is a technically feasible procedure. This small non-randomized study suggests the effectiveness of G-POEM for the treatment of patients with gastroparesis refractory to medical therapy. It concomitantly results in normalization of GES in a significant proportion of treated patients.

An international multicenter study comparing EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage with enteroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography after Whipple surgery.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic management of post-Whipple pancreatic adverse events (AEs) with enteroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (e-ERP) is associated with high failure rates. EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) has shown promising results; however, no comparative data have been done for these 2 modalities. The goal of this study is to compare EUS-PDD with e-ERP in terms of technical success (PDD through dilation/stent), clinical success (improvement/resolution of pancreatic-type symptoms), and AE rates in patients with post-Whipple anatomy. METHODS: This is an international multicenter comparative retrospective study at 7 tertiary centers (2 United States, 2 European, 2 Asian, and 1 South American). All consecutive patients who underwent EUS-PDD or e-ERP between January 2010 and August 2015 were included. RESULTS: In total, 66 patients (mean age, 57 years; 48% women) and 75 procedures were identified with 40 in EUS-PDD and 35 in e-ERP. Technical success was achieved in 92.5% of procedures in the EUS-PDD group compared with 20% of procedures in the e-ERP group (OR, 49.3; P < .001). Clinical success (per patient) was attained in 87.5% of procedures in the EUS-PDD group compared with 23.1% in the e-ERP group (OR, 23.3; P < .001). AEs occurred more commonly in the EUS-PDD group (35% vs 2.9%, P < .001). However, all AEs were rated as mild or moderate. Procedure time and length of stay were not significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-PDD is superior to e-ERP in post-Whipple anatomy in terms of efficacy with acceptable safety. As such, EUS-PDD should be considered as a potential first-line treatment in post-pancreaticoduodenectomy anatomy when necessary expertise is available.

Long-term outcomes of per-oral endoscopic myotomy in patients with achalasia with a minimum follow-up of 2 years: an international multicenter study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has shown promising safety and efficacy in short-term studies. However, long-term follow-up data are very limited. The aims of this study were to assess (1) clinical outcome of patients with a minimum post-POEM follow-up of 2 years and (2) factors associated with long-term clinical failure after POEM. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed that included all consecutive patients with achalasia who underwent POEM with a minimum follow-up of 2 years at 10 tertiary-care centers. Clinical response was defined by a decrease in Eckardt score to 3 or lower. RESULTS: A total of 205 patients (45.8% men; mean age, 49 years) were followed for a median of 31 months (interquartile range, 26-38 months). Of these, 81 patients (39.5%) had received previous treatment for achalasia before POEM. Clinical success was achieved in 98% (185/189), 98% (142/144), and 91% (187/205) of patients with follow-up within 6 months, at 12 months, and ≥24 months, respectively. Of 185 patients with clinical response at 6 months, 11 (6%) experienced recurrent symptoms at 2 years. History of previous pneumatic dilation was associated with long-term treatment failure (odds ratio, 3.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-9.23). Procedure-related adverse events occurred in 8.2% of patients and only 1 patient required surgical intervention. Abnormal esophageal acid exposure and reflux esophagitis were documented in 37.5% and 18% of patients, respectively. However, these rates are simply a reference number among a very selective group of patients. CONCLUSIONS: POEM is safe and provides high initial clinical success and excellent long-term outcomes. Among patients with confirmed clinical response within 6 months, 6% had recurrent symptoms by 2 years.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided creation of a transgastric fistula for the management of hepatobiliary disease in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

Background and aims Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients who have undergone Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is technically challenging. We describe our multicenter experience using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) to create an endoscopic ultrasound-guided transgastric fistula (EUS-TG) to facilitate peroral ERCP in these patients. Patients and methods Thirteen patients with RYGB who underwent EUS-TG at three tertiary centers were included. EUS was used to guide puncture of the excluded stomach from the gastric pouch or jejunum; a LAMS was placed across the transgastric fistula. ERCP was performed via a duodenoscope passed through the LAMS. Results The technical success of EUS-TG was 100 % (13/13). ERCP through the LAMS was successful and clinical success was achieved in all patients. LAMS dislodgement during ERCP occurred in two patients and the stent was successfully repositioned without sequelae. After removal of the LAMS, the fistula was closed in 92 % of patients, either by endoscopic closure devices or argon plasma coagulation. None of the patients experienced procedure-related adverse events. Conclusion EUS-TG is an effective and safe method of accessing the excluded stomach and performing ERCP in patients with RYGB.

Is POEM the Answer for Management of Spastic Esophageal Disorders? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Spastic esophageal disorders (SEDs) include spastic achalasia (type III), diffuse esophageal spasm (DES), and nutcracker/jackhammer esophagus (JH). Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has demonstrated efficacy and safety in the treatment of achalasia. Recently, POEM has been indicated for the treatment of SEDs. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the clinical success and safety of POEM in SEDs. METHODS: We searched several databases from 01/01/2007 to 01/10/2016 to identify studies (with five or more patients) on POEM for the treatment of SEDs. Weighted pooled rates (WPRs) for clinical success and adverse events (AEs) were calculated for all SEDs. Clinical success was defined as Eckardt scores of ≤3 and/or improvement in severity of dysphagia based on achalasia disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaire. The WPRs for clinical success and AEs were analyzed using fixed- or random-effects model based on heterogeneity. The proportionate difference in clinical success and post-procedure adverse event rates among individual types of SEDs was also calculated. RESULTS: A total of eight observational studies with 179 patients were included in the final analysis. Two studies were of good quality and six were of fair quality based on the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool. The WPR with 95% confidence interval (CI) for cumulative clinical success of POEM in all SEDs was 87% (78, 93%), I 2 = 37%. The total number of patients for individual disorders, i.e., type III achalasia, JH, and DES, was 116, 37, and 18, respectively. The WPRs for clinical success of POEM for type III achalasia, DES, and JH were 92, 88, and 72%, respectively. Proportion difference of WPR for clinical success was significantly higher for type III achalasia in comparison with JH (20%, P = 0.01). The WPR with 95% CI for AEs of POEM in all SEDs was 14% (9, 20%), I 2 = 0%. The WPRs for post-procedure adverse events for type III achalasia, DES, and JH were 11, 14, and 16%, respectively. There was no difference in safety of POEM among individual SEDs. CONCLUSION: POEM is an effective and safe therapeutic modality for the treatment of spastic esophageal disorders.

EUS-guided gastroenterostomy is comparable to enteral stenting with fewer re-interventions in malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic enteral stenting (ES) in malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is limited by high rates of stent obstruction. EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel procedure that potentially offers sustained patency without tumor ingrowth/overgrowth. The aim of this study is to compare EUS-GE with ES in terms of (1) symptom recurrence and need for re-intervention, (2) technical success (proper stent positioning as determined via endoscopy and fluoroscopy), (3) clinical success (ability to tolerate oral intake without vomiting), and (4) procedure-related adverse events (AEs). METHODS: Multicenter retrospective study of all consecutive patients who underwent either EUS-GE at four centers between 2013 and 2015 or ES at one center between 2008 and 2010. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients (mean age 66-years ± 13.5 and 40.2% female) were identified: 30 in EUS-GE and 52 in ES. Technical and clinical success was not significantly different: 86.7% EUS-GE versus 94.2% ES (p = 0.2) and 83.3% EUS-GE versus 67.3% ES (p = 0.12), respectively. Symptom recurrence and need for re-intervention, however, was significantly lower in the EUS-GE group (4.0 vs. 28.6%, (p = 0.015). Post-procedure mean length of hospitalization was comparable at 11.3 days ± 6.6 for EUS-GE versus 9.5 days ± 8.3 for ES (p = 0.3). Rates and severity of AEs (as per the ASGE lexicon) were also similar (16.7 vs. 11.5%, p = 0.5). On multivariable analysis, ES was independently associated with need for re-intervention (OR 12.8, p = 0.027). CONCLUSION: EUS-GE may be ideal for malignant GOO with comparable effectiveness and safety to ES while being associated with fewer symptom recurrence and requirements for re-intervention.

Pancreatic duct guidewire placement for biliary cannulation for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Difficult cannulation is a risk factor for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). It has been postulated that the pancreatic duct guidewire (PGW) technique may improve biliary cannulation success and reduce the risk of PEP in people with difficult cannulation. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness and safety of the PGW technique compared to persistent conventional cannulation (CC) (contrast- or guidewire-assisted cannulation) or other advanced techniques in people with difficult biliary cannulation for the prevention of PEP. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases, major conference proceedings, and for ongoing trials on the ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) up to March 2016, using the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases model with no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing the PGW technique versus persistent CC or other advanced techniques in people undergoing ERCP with difficult biliary cannulation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment. Using intention-to-treat analysis with random-effects models, we combined dichotomous data to obtain risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed heterogeneity using the Chi(2) test (P < 0.15) and I(2) test (> 25%). To explore sources of heterogeneity, we conducted a priori subgroup analyses according to trial design, use of pancreatic duct (PD) stent, involvement of trainees in cannulation, publication type, and risk of bias. To assess the robustness of our results, we carried out sensitivity analyses using different summary statistics (RR versus odds ratio (OR)) and meta-analytic models (fixed-effect versus random-effects). MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs comprising 577 participants. There was no significant heterogeneity among trials for the outcome of PEP (P = 0.32; I(2) = 15%). The PGW technique significantly increased PEP compared to other endoscopic techniques (RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.42; low-quality evidence). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome was 13 (95% CI 5 to 89). Among the three studies that compared the PGW technique with persistent CC, the incidence of PEP was 13.5% for the PGW technique and 8.7% for persistent CC (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.01; low-quality evidence). Among the two studies that compared the PGW technique with precut sphincterotomy, the incidence of PEP was 29.8% in the PGW group versus 10.3% in the precut group (RR 2.92, 95% CI 1.24 to 6.88; low-quality evidence). Among the two studies that compared the PGW technique with PD stent placement, the incidence of PEP was 11.7% for the PGW technique and 5.0% for PD stent placement (RR 1.75, 95% CI 0.08 to 37.50; very low-quality evidence). There was no significant difference in common bile duct (CBD) cannulation success with the randomised technique (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.24; low-quality evidence) or overall CBD cannulation success (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.18; low-quality evidence) between the PGW technique and other endoscopic techniques. There was also no statistically significant difference in the risk of other ERCP-related complications (bleeding, perforation, cholangitis, and mortality). The results were robust in sensitivity analyses. The overall quality of evidence for the outcome of PEP was low or very low because of study limitations and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with difficult CBD cannulation, sole use of the PGW technique appears to be associated with an increased risk of PEP. Prophylactic PD stenting after use of the PGW technique may reduce the risk of PEP. However, the PGW technique is not superior to persistent attempts with CC, precut sphincterotomy, or PD stent in achieving CBD cannulation. The influence of co-intervention in the form of rectal peri-procedural nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration is unclear.