Search

Background Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is a valid option for EUS-guided biliary drainage that has been increasingly used in the last decade. The aims of this study were to provide a systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression of the features and outcomes of this procedure. Methods The MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for literature pertinent to EUS-HGS. Meta-analysis of the proportions and meta-regression of potential modifiers of the main outcome measures were applied. The main outcome was technical success; secondary outcomes were clinical success and procedure-related adverse events (AEs). Results 33 studies, including 1644 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) was the underlying cause in almost all cases (99.6%); the main indications for EUS-HGS were duodenal/papillary invasion (34.8%), surgically altered anatomy (18.4%), and hilar stenosis (16.0%). The pooled technical success of EUS-HGS was 97.7% (95%CI 96.1%–99.0%; I2 = 0%), the intention-to-treat clinical success rate was 88.1% (95%CI 84.7%–91.2%; I2 = 33.9%), and procedure-related AEs occurred in 12.0% (95%CI 9.8%–14.5%; I2 = 20.4%), with cholangitis/sepsis (2.8%) and bleeding (2.3%) the most frequent. The rate of procedure-related AEs was lower with the use of dedicated stents on univariable meta-regression analysis. Meta-regression showed that technical success and clinical success rates were modified by the centers' experience (>4/year). Conclusions EUS-HGS represents an effective and safe procedure for EUS-guided biliary drainage in patients with MBO. Future studies should address the impact of center experience, patient selection, and the use of dedicated stents to improve performance of this technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The advantage of using the macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) technique during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) performed with 22G Franseen needles has not been investigated. We aimed to compare EUS-FNB with MOSE vs. EUS-FNB performed with three needle passes. Methods This randomized trial involved 10 Italian referral centers. Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNB of pancreatic or nonpancreatic solid lesions were included in the study and randomized to the two groups. MOSE was performed by gross visualization of the collected material by the endoscopists and considered adequate when a white/yellowish aggregate core longer than 10 mm was retrieved. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were specimen adequacy, number of needle passes, and safety. Results 370 patients with 234 pancreatic lesions (63.2 %) and 136 nonpancreatic lesions (36.8 %) were randomized (190 EUS-FNB with MOSE and 180 with standard EUS-FNB). No statistically significant differences were found between EUS-FNB with MOSE and conventional EUS-FNB in terms of diagnostic accuracy (90.0 % [95 %CI 84.8 %–93.9 %] vs. 87.8 % [95 %CI 82.1 %–92.2 %]; P = 0.49), sample adequacy (93.1 % [95 %CI 88.6 %–96.3 %] vs. 95.5 % [95 %CI 91.4 %–98 %]; P = 0.31), and rate of adverse events (2.6 % vs. 1.1 %; P = 0.28). The median number of passes was significantly lower in the EUS-FNB with MOSE group (1 vs. 3; P < 0.001). Conclusions The accuracy of EUS-FNB with MOSE is noninferior to that of EUS-FNB with three needle passes. MOSE reliably assesses sample adequacy and reduces the number of needle passes required to obtain the diagnosis with a 22G Franseen needle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) by cautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) has largely been limited to collections located < 10 mm from the luminal wall. We present outcomes of the use of a novel 15-mm-long cautery-enhanced LAMS for drainage of PFCs located ≥ 10 mm away.Methods: This international, multicenter study analyzed all adults with PFCs located ≥ 10 mm from the luminal wall who were treated by EUS-guided drainage using the 15-mm-long cautery-enhanced LAMS. The primary outcome was technical success. Secondary outcomes included clinical success (decrease in PFC size by ≥ 50 % at 30 days and resolution of clinical symptoms without surgical intervention), complications, and recurrence.Results: 35 patients (median age 57 years; interquartile range [IQR] 47-64 years; 49 % male) underwent novel LAMS placement for drainage of PFCs (26 walled-off necrosis, 9 pseudocysts), measuring 85 mm (IQR 64-117) maximal diameter and located 11.8 mm (IQR 10-12.3; range 10-14) from the gastric/duodenal wall. Technical and clinical success were high (both 97 %), with recurrence in one patient (3 %) at a median follow-up of 123 days (58-236). Three complications occurred (9 %; one mild, two moderate).Conclusions: The 15-mm-long cautery-enhanced LAMS was feasible and safe for drainage of PFCs located 10-14 mm from the luminal wall. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most studies on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) utilized a 15-mm lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS). More recently, a 20-mm LAMS has become available. This study aimed to compare rates of technical and clinical success and adverse events (AEs) in patients undergoing EUS-GE using a 20-mm vs. 15-mm LAMS.Methods: Patients who underwent EUS-GE with 15-mm or 20-mm LAMS for malignant GOO during the period from January 2018 to October 2020 were included. The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as an increase in the gastric outlet obstruction score (GOOS) by at least 1 point during follow-up. Secondary outcomes were technical success, maximum tolerated diet, re-intervention rate, and rate/severity of AEs.Results: 267 patients (mean age 67 years, 43 % women) with malignant GOO from 19 centers underwent EUS-GE. Clinical success rates were similar for the 15-mm and 20-mm stents (89.2 % [95 %CI 84.2 %-94.2 %] vs. 84.1 % [77.4%-90.6 %], respectively). However, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the 20-mm group tolerated a soft solid/complete diet at the end of follow-up (91.2 % [84.4 %-95.7 %] vs. 81.2 % [73.9 %-87.2 %], P = 0.04). Overall, AEs occurred in 33 patients (12.4 % [8.4 %-16.3 %]), with similar rates for 15-mm and 20-mm stents (12.8 % [7.5 %-18.2 %] vs. 11.8 % [6 %-17.6 %]), including incidence of severe/fatal AEs (2 % [0.4 %-5.8 %] vs. 3.4 % [0.9 %-8.4 %]).Conclusions: The 20-mm and 15-mm LAMS show similar safety and efficacy for patients undergoing EUS-GE for malignant GOO. The 20-mm LAMS allows a more advanced diet and is, thus preferred for EUS-GE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Endoscopy 2021, DOI: 10.1055/a-1654-6914 In the above-mentioned article, the name of Umair Iqbal has been corrected. B Clinical and technical outcomes of patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy using 20-mm vs. 15-mm lumen-apposing metal stents b Bejjani M, Ghandour B, Subtil JC et al. [Extracted from the article]

Background:  Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is an effective and safe technique for nonlifting colorectal lesions. Technical issues or failures with the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) system are reported, but there are no detailed data. The aim of our study was to quantify and classify FTRD technical failures., Methods:  We performed a retrospective study involving 17 Italian centers with experience in advanced resection techniques and the required devices. Each center shared and classified all prospectively collected consecutive failures during colorectal EFTR using the FTRD from 2018 to 2022. The primary outcome was the technical failure rate and their classification; secondary outcomes included subsequent management, clinical success, and complications., Results:  Included lesions were mainly recurrent (52 %), with a mean (SD) dimension of 18.4 (7.5) mm. Among 750 EFTRs, failures occurred in 77 patients (35 women; mean [SD] age 69.4 [8.9] years). A classification was proposed: type I, snare noncutting (53 %); type II, clip misdeployment (31 %); and type III, cap misplacement (16 %). Among endoscopic treatments completed, rescue endoscopic mucosal resection was performed in 57 patients (74 %), allowing en bloc and R0 resection in 71 % and 64 %, respectively. The overall adverse event rate was 27.3 %. Pooled estimates for the rates of failure, complications, and rescue endoscopic therapy were similar for low and high volume centers ( P  = 0.08, P  = 0.70, and P  = 0.71, respectively)., Conclusions:  Colorectal EFTR with the FTRD is a challenging technique with a non-negligible rate of technical failure and complications. Experience in rescue resection techniques and multidisciplinary management are mandatory in this setting., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)