Search

Background and Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct intervention (EUS-PDI) is one of the most technically challenging procedures. There remains a knowledge gap due to its rarity. The aim is to report the accumulated EUS-PDI experience in a tertiary center., Methods: Single tertiary center, retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data during the study period, from January 2013 to June 2021., Results: In total, 14 patients (85% male; mean age, 61 years, range 37-81) and 25 EUS-PDI procedures for unsuccessful endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) were included. Principal etiology was chronic pancreatitis with pancreatic duct obstruction (78%). EUS-guided assisted (colorant and/or guidewire, rendezvous) ERP was performed in 14/25 (56%); and transmural drainage in 11 procedures, including pancreaticogastrosmy in 9/25 (36%) and pancreaticoduodenostomy in 2/25 (8%). Overall technical and clinical success was 78.5% (11/14). Three (21%) patients required a second procedure with success in all cases. Two failed cases required surgery. Three (21%) adverse events (AEs) were noted (fever, n=1; perforation, n=1; pancreatitis, n=1). Patients underwent a median of 58 months (range 24-108) follow-up procedures for re-stenting. Spontaneous stent migration was detected in 50% of cases., Conclusions: EUS-PDI is an effective salvage therapy for unsuccessful ERP, although 21% of patients may still experience AEs. In case of EUS-guided rendezvous failure, it can cross over to a transmural drainage., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has had a serious impact on the functioning of gastrointestinal endoscopy Units. The Asociación Española de Gastroenterología (AEG) and the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva (SEED) have proposed the EPAGE guidelines for managing postponed colonoscopies., Objective: To evaluate the EPAGE guidelines as a management tool compared to the immunologic faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) and compared to risk score (RS) that combines age, sex and the iFOBT for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and significant bowel disease (SBD)., Methods: A prospective, single-centre study enrolling 743 symptomatic patients referred for a diagnostic colonoscopy. Each order was classified according to the EPAGE guidelines as appropriate, indeterminate or inappropriate. Patients underwent an iFOBT and had their RS calculated., Results: The iFOBT (p<0.001), but not the EPAGE guidelines (p = 0.742), was an independent predictive factor of risk of CRC. The ROC AUCs for the EPAGE guidelines, the iFOBT and the RS were 0.61 (95% CI 0.49-0.75), 0.95 (0.93-0.97) and 0.90 (0.87-0.93) for CRC, and 0.55 (0.49-0.61), 0.75 (0.69-0.813) and 0.78 (0.73-0.83) for SBD, respectively. The numbers of colonoscopies needed to detect a case of CRC and a case of SBD were 38 and seven for the EPAGE guidelines, seven and two for the iFOBT, and 19 and four for a RS ≥5 points, respectively., Conclusion: The EPAGE guidelines, unlike the iFOBT, is not suitable for screening candidate patients for a diagnostic colonoscopy to detect CRC. The iFOBT, in combination with age and sex, is the most suitable strategy for managing demand for endoscopy in a restricted-access situation., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The need for fluoroscopy guidance in patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage (EUS-TMD) of peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) remains unclear., Aims: The aim of this study was to compare general outcomes of EUS-TMD of PFCs under fluoroscopy (F) vs fluoroless (FL)., Methods: This is a comparative study with a retrospective analysis of a prospective and consecutive inclusion database at a tertiary centre, from 2009 to 2015. All patients were symptomatic pseudocyst (PSC) and walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). Two groups were assigned depending on availability of fluoroscopy. The groups were heterogeneous in terms of their demographic characteristics, PFCs and procedure. The main outcome measures included technical and clinical success, incidences, adverse events (AEs), and follow-up., Results: Fifty EUS-TMD of PFCs from 86 EUS-guided drainages were included during the study period. Group F included 26 procedures, PSC 69.2%, WON 30.8%, metal stents 61.5% (46.1% lumen-apposing stent) and plastic stents 38.5%. Group FL included 24 procedures, PSC 37.5%, WON 62.5%, and metal stents 95.8% (lumen-apposing stents). Technical success was 100% in both groups, and clinical success was similar (F 88.5%, FL 87.5%). Technical incidences and intra-procedure AEs were only described in group F (7.6% and 11.5%, respectively) and none in group FL. Procedure time was less in group FL (8min, p=0.0341)., Conclusions: Fluoroless in the EUS-TMD of PFCs does not involve more technical incidences or intra-procedure AEs. Technical and clinical success was similar in the two groups., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)