Search

Background and Aims: Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most frequent adverse event of ERCP. Various prophylactic measures are endorsed by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy to both lower the incidence of PEP and to decrease its severity. The extent to which these interventions are practiced throughout the United States is unclear. The aim of this study was to describe the utilization pattern of various PEP measures and determine factors that affect utilization of these measures., Methods: A 27-question electronic survey was distributed using a cloud-based program (Qualtrics). The questions assessed ERCP training, practice setting, experience, practice patterns, and perceptions for PEP prophylaxis interventions. Endoscopists with practices based in the United States listed in the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy member directory received a survey invitation via e-mail. The invitation outlined the study and contained a link with instructions to complete the voluntary survey if they had an active ERCP practice. Data were de-identified for the purposes of analysis., Results: Of survey respondents (N = 319), 46% reported therapeutic endoscopy fellowship training and 37% practiced in teaching programs. Annualized ERCP volume of >100 cases per year were reported by 47%, with pancreatic ERCP comprising ≤5% of procedure volume reported by the majority of respondents (61%). The majority of respondents used prophylactic pancreatic stent (PPS), and 54% reported frequent use during high-risk ERCP. The most common indications for PPS were difficult cannulation, to assist biliary access, and multiple pancreatic duct injections. Most respondents reported frequent use of indomethacin (89%). Of physicians who did not use PPS, use of indomethacin was the most common reason (80%). Variables associated with frequent use of PPS were ERCP fellowship training (P ≤ .001), practice at a teaching program (P ≤ .001), <10 years in practice (P = .005), higher procedure volume (P ≤ .001), and higher proportion of pancreatic cases (P ≤ .001)., Conclusions: Physicians with higher annual ERCP volume, who teach at hospital-based ERCP practices, and who regularly perform pancreatic ERCP are more likely to use PPS. Therapeutic ERCP fellowship training and recent entry into practice were also associated with PPS utilization. Indomethacin use seems to be more frequent than PPS. Our findings suggest that indomethacin is supplanting PPS as the preferred method of PEP prophylaxis., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: EUS-guided FNA primarily provides cytologic samples. EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) with needles that provide histologic specimens may enhance diagnostic yield and facilitate accessory tissue staining. Several different needle designs are currently available and design superiority is unknown. We designed a randomized controlled trial to compare 2 commonly used EUS-FNB needles in their ability to provide histologic tissue samples (primary endpoint) and to reach an accurate diagnosis (secondary endpoint)., Methods: A total of 150 lesions from 134 patients (November 2018 to June 2019) were randomized 1:1 between biopsy with a Franseen needle and a Fork-tip needle. The groups were compared regarding the quality of the tissue samples and diagnostic accuracy., Results: Of 150 lesions, 75 were pancreatic and 75 were other solid lesions in and around the GI tract. There was no statistically significant difference between the Franseen needle and the Fork-tip needle in the yield of adequate histologic samples, 71 of 75 (94.7%) versus 72 of 75 (96%), (P = 1.00), an absolute difference of -1.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], -8.1% to 5.4%). The 2 groups were similar in the diagnostic accuracy of histologic analysis, 64 of 75 (85.3%) versus 68 of 75 (90.7%) (P = .45), absolute difference -5.4% (95% CI, -15.7% to 5%); and in the diagnostic accuracy of combined cytologic and histologic analysis, 65 of 75 (86.7%) versus 69 of 75 (92%) (P = .43), absolute difference -5.3% (95% CI, -15.2% to 4.5%)., Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the performance of the Franseen needle versus the Fork-tip needle. Both needles achieved a high yield of histologic tissue samples and high diagnostic accuracy. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03672032.)., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)