Search

Objectives Methods Results Conclusion Endoscopic ultrasound‐directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP; EDGE) is proposed as a less invasive alternative to laparoscopy‐assisted ERCP. However, postponing ERCP for 1–2 weeks to reduce the risk of lumen‐apposing metal stent (LAMS) migration may not be practical in urgent cases such as cholangitis, leading to increased procedural burden. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of a single‐session EDGE utilizing a dedicated over‐the‐scope fixation device.A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from three referral centers was performed, including consecutive single‐session EDGE procedures with the Stentfix device, utilizing only 20 × 10 mm LAMS. The primary outcome was LAMS migration, and key secondary outcomes included adverse events and technical success.Twenty patients (mean age 59 [standard deviation (SD) ± 11.3] years, 65.0% female) with a predominantly classic Roux‐en‐Y gastric bypass history (90.0%, mini‐bypass 10.0%) underwent ERCP for indications such as common bile duct stones (60.0%), cholangitis (25.0%), or biliary pancreatitis (15.0%). No LAMS migration occurred, and technical success was achieved in 95.0%. Over a median follow‐up of 102 days (interquartile range [IQR] 24.8–182), two adverse events were reported (10.0%), comprising postprocedural pain (grade I) and post‐ERCP pancreatitis (grade II).While acknowledging potential contributions from LAMS orientation and stent caliber, our data suggest that utilizing a dedicated over‐the‐scope stent fixation device may effectively prevent LAMS migration during single‐session EDGE without the need for endoscopic suturing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) has traditionally been the standard modality for pancreatic endotherapy. However, in certain situations, failure of retrograde ductal access may warrant an alternative modality of drainage. This can occur in various settings like difficult and/or surgically altered anatomy or duodenal obstruction. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) is a relatively newer addition to the armamentarium for endoscopic access to the PD. Areas covered: This comprehensive state-of-art review aims to give an overview of the indications, technical details, different approaches, and outcomes of EUS-PDD, with the latest evidence available in scientific literature. Expert opinion: Akin to its biliary drainage counterpart, EUS-PDD enables an EUS-assisted-ERP using rendezvous technique or EUS-guided drainage through transmural stenting. The technique has evolved over the ensuing years with multitude of accessories, approaches, and devices to optimize the outcomes. However, the technical success and adverse events rates need to be further improved. Additionally, it has a steep learning curve with requirements of advanced technical skill and optimum infrastructure back-up. Meticulous patient selection, precise knowledge of ductal anatomy, appropriate approach, and carefully chosen accessories can improve its clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: A new short device for percutaneous endoscopic cholangioscopy was recently developed. However, feasibility and safety has not yet been evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess clinical success, technical success, and adverse events (AEs). Methods: This observational multicenter retrospective study included all patients who underwent percutaneous cholangioscopy using a short cholangioscope between 2020 and 2022. The clinical success, defined as the complete duct clearance or obtaining at least one cholangioscopy‐guided biopsy, was assessed. The histopathological accuracy, technical success, and the AE rate were also evaluated. Results: Fifty‐one patients (60 ± 15 years, 45.1% male) were included. The majority of patients had altered anatomy (n = 40, 78.4%), and biliary stones (n = 34, 66.7%) was the commonest indication. The technique was predominantly wire‐guided (n = 44, 86.3%) through a percutaneous sheath (n = 36, 70.6%) following a median interval of 8.5 days from percutaneous drainage. Cholangioscopy‐guided electrohydraulic lithotripsy was performed in 29 cases (56.9%), combined with a retrieval basket in eight cases (27.6%). The clinical success was 96.6%, requiring a median of one session (range 1–3). Seventeen patients (33.3%) underwent cholangioscopy‐guided biopsies. There were four (7.8%) cholangioscopy‐related AEs (cholangitis and peritonitis). Overall, the technical success and AE rates were 100% and 19.6%, respectively, in a median follow‐up of 7 months. Conclusion: Percutaneous endoscopic cholangioscopy with a new short device is effective and safe, requiring a low number of sessions to achieve duct clearance or accurate histopathological diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS‐CDS) with lumen apposing metal stent is emerging both as a rescue strategy and a primary treatment for distal malignant biliary obstruction. The large‐scale diffusion of the procedure and improved overall survival of patients with pancreatobiliary neoplasms is resulting in a growing population of long‐term EUS‐CDS lumen apposing metal stent carriers. Recent studies have reported a need for reintervention during follow‐up as high as 55%, and the Leuven‐Amsterdam‐Milan Study Group classification has been developed, identifying five mechanisms of stent dysfunction and 11 possible rescue strategies aimed at restoring biliary drainage. This illustrated technical review aims to further dissect the recent classification through a comprehensive analysis of nine illustrative cases, offering insights into the pathophysiology underlying dysfunction and clinical reasoning behind rescue interventions, as well as technical considerations and practical tips and tricks. By exploring mechanisms of dysfunction, this review also assists clinicians in selecting the ideal candidates for EUS‐CDS while identifying patients deemed high risk for dysfunction or clinical failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Main Statements: This ESGE Position Statement provides structured and evidence-based guidance on the essential requirements and processes involved in training in basic gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. The document outlines definitions; competencies required, and means to their assessment and maintenance; the structure and requirements of training programs; patient safety and medicolegal issues. 1 ESGE and ESGENA define basic endoscopic procedures as those procedures that are commonly indicated, generally accessible, and expected to be mastered (technically and cognitively) by the end of any core training program in gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2 ESGE and ESGENA consider the following as basic endoscopic procedures: diagnostic upper and lower GI endoscopy, as well as a limited range of interventions such as: tissue acquisition via cold biopsy forceps, polypectomy for lesions ≤ 10 mm, hemostasis techniques, enteral feeding tube placement, foreign body retrieval, dilation of simple esophageal strictures, and India ink tattooing of lesion location. 3 ESGE and ESGENA recommend that training in GI endoscopy should be subject to stringent formal requirements that ensure all ESGE key performance indicators (KPIs) are met. 4 Training in basic endoscopic procedures is a complex process and includes the development and acquisition of cognitive, technical/motor, and integrative skills. Therefore, ESGE and ESGENA recommend the use of validated tools to track the development of skills and assess competence. 5 ESGE and ESGENA recommend incorporating a multimodal approach to evaluating competence in basic GI endoscopic procedures, including procedural thresholds and the measurement and documentation of established ESGE KPIs. 7 ESGE and ESGENA recommend the continuous monitoring of ESGE KPIs during GI endoscopy training to ensure the trainee's maintenance of competence. 9 ESGE and ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy training units fulfil the ESGE KPIs for endoscopy units and, furthermore, be capable of providing the dedicated personnel, infrastructure, and sufficient case volume required for successful training within a structured training program. 10 ESGE and ESGENA recommend that trainers in basic GI endoscopic procedures should be endoscopists with formal educational training in the teaching of endoscopy, which allows them to successfully and safely teach trainees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite a growing body of evidence, there are limited data regarding the impact of hands-on training on patient safety, with most studies of trainee performance reporting adverse events (AEs) as either a secondary outcome [8][9] or not at all [10][11]. Study groups As there is significant variation in training programs and credentialing across European centers, trainees were defined as endoscopists who had performed fewer than 200 ERCP procedures independently and were working under the direct supervision of an experienced endoscopist (> 1000 ERCP procedures). Graph Introduction Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remains one of the most challenging endoscopic procedures to master, as it is both technically demanding and incurs significant risk [1]. [Extracted from the article]

Objectives: Long‐term outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS‐CDS) performed with lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) have been poorly evaluated in small or retrospective series, leading to an underestimation of LAMS dysfunction. Methods: All consecutive EUS‐CDS performed in three academic referral centers were included in prospectively maintained databases. Technical/clinical success, adverse events (AEs), and dysfunction during follow‐up were retrospectively analyzed. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to estimate dysfunction‐free survival (DFS), with Cox proportional hazard regression to evaluate independent predictors of dysfunction. Results: Ninety‐three patients were included (male 56%; mean age, 70 years [95% confidence interval (CI) 68–72]; pancreatic cancer 81%, metastatic disease 47%). In 67% of procedures, 6 mm LAMS were used. Technical and clinical success were achieved in 97.8% and 93.4% of patients, respectively, with AEs occurring in 9.7% (78% mild/moderate). Dysfunction occurred in 31.8% of patients after a mean of 166 days (95% CI 91–241), with an estimated 6 month and 12 month DFS of 75% and 52%, respectively; mean DFS of 394 (95% CI 307–482) days. Almost all dysfunctions (96%) were successfully managed by endoscopic reintervention. Duodenal invasion (hazard ratio 2.7 [95% CI 1.1–6.8]) was the only independent predictor of dysfunction. Conclusions: Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided choledochoduodenostomy shows excellent initial efficacy and safety, although stent dysfunctions occurs frequently during long‐term follow‐up. Almost all stent dysfunctions can be managed successfully by endoscopic reinterventions. We propose a comprehensive classification of the different types of dysfunction that may be encountered and rescue procedures that may be employed under these circumstances. Duodenal invasion seems to increase the risk of developing EUS‐CDS dysfunction, potentially representing a relative contraindication for this technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Both clinical experience and supporting data have improved drastically in the context of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided gastrointestinal anastomosis (EUS‐GIA). Where outcomes used to be questioned, focus has now moved towards performing comparative studies, optimizing technical approaches, improving patient selection, and developing well‐defined treatment algorithms. Methods: The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of technical developments within EUS‐GIA and to discuss the current status of EUS‐GIA and future directions. Results: EUS‐GIA techniques such as EUS‐guided gastroenterostomy (EUS‐GE), EUS‐directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (EDGE) and EUS‐guided treatment afferent loop syndrome have undergone further development, refining technical approaches, improving patient selection and subsequent outcomes. Retrospective evaluations of EUS‐GE have shown similar safety when compared to enteral stenting, whilst attaining surgical range efficacy. Whereas, in patients with gastric bypass anatomy, EDGE seems less cumbersome and time consuming than enteroscopy‐assisted ERCP, while preventing surgical morbidity associated with laparoscopy‐assisted ERCP. Although less evidence is available on EUS‐guided treatment of afferent loop syndrome, this technique has been associated with higher clinical success and fewer reinterventions and adverse events when compared to enteral stenting and percutaneous drainage, respectively. Several randomized studies are currently underway evaluating EUS‐GE in malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), whereas more prospective data are still required on EDGE and long‐term fistula management. Conclusion: EUS‐GIA has become a crucial alternative to established techniques, overcoming technical limitations and subsequently improving patient outcomes. Although we should focus on prospective confirmation of these results in the context of GOO and EDGE, the current evidence already allows for a prominent role for EUS‐GIA in our everyday practice. Watch a video of this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is increasingly used in the setting of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). The aim of the present observational study is to compare the outcomes of EUS-GE by using the freehand technique as a first- and second-line approach after enteral stenting (ES). The primary outcome was the clinical success, defined as a solid oral intake at 1 week after the procedure (GOO Score, GOOSS ≥ 2). The secondary outcomes were technical success and adverse event (AE) rates. Twenty-eight patients with (n = 13, 46.4%) and without (n = 15, 53.6%) a previous ES were included. The diet progression was quicker in patients with a previous ES (GOOSS at 48 h, 2 vs. 1, p = 0.023), but the GOOSS at 1 week (p = 0.299), albumin gain (p = 0.366), and BMI gain (0.257) were comparable in the two groups. The technical success was achieved in 25 cases (89.3%), with no differences between the two groups (92.3% vs. 86.7%). The AE rate was 7.1%. In conclusion, primary EUS-GE might require fewer procedures and less discontinuation of chemotherapy to achieve a comparable result. Introduction: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is increasingly used in the setting of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). However, little is known about the role of primary EUS-GE. The aim of the present study is to compare the outcomes of EUS-GE by using the freehand technique as a first- and second-line approach after enteral stenting (ES). Methods: This is an observational single-center study using a prospectively collected database. All consecutive patients who underwent an EUS-GE using the freehand technique due to malignant GOO were included. Patients with previous gastric surgery, a wire-guided EUS-GE technique, or those presenting without GOO were excluded. The primary outcome was the clinical success, defined as a solid oral intake at 1 week after the procedure (GOO Score, GOOSS ≥ 2). The secondary outcomes were technical success and adverse event (AE) rates. The impact on nutritional parameters was also assessed. Results: Forty-five patients underwent an EUS-GE for all indications. Finally, 28 patients (mean age: 63 ± 17.2 years, 57.1% male) with (n = 13, 46.4%) and without (n = 15, 53.6%) a previous ES were included. The technical success was achieved in 25 cases (89.3%), with no differences between the two groups (92.3% vs. 86.7%, p = 1). The median limb diameter and procedure time were 27 mm (range:15–48) and 37 min. Overall, clinical success was achieved in 22 cases (88%), with three failures due to AEs (n = 2) or peritoneal carcinomatosis (n = 1). The diet progression was quicker in patients with a previous ES (GOOSS at 48 h, 2 vs. 1, p = 0.023), but the GOOSS at 1 week (p = 0.299), albumin gain (p = 0.366), and BMI gain (0.257) were comparable in the two groups. The AE rate was 7.1%. Conclusions: EUS-GE achieves a high technical and clinical success in patients with GOO regardless of the presence of a previous ES. Patients with previous ES may have a quicker progression of their diet, but the GOOSS and nutritional status in the long term at 1 week or 1 month are comparable. Primary EUS-GE might require fewer procedures and less discontinuation of chemotherapy to achieve a comparable result. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided digestive anastomosis (EUS‐A) is a new alternative under evaluation in patients presenting with afferent limb syndrome (ALS) after Whipple surgery. The aim of the present study is to analyze the safety and effectiveness of EUS‐A in ALS. Methods: This is an observational multicenter study. All patients ≥18 years old with previous Whipple surgery presenting with ALS who underwent an EUS‐A using a lumen‐apposing metal stent (LAMS) between 2015 and 2021 were included. The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as resolution of the ALS or ALS‐related cholangitis. Furthermore, technical success, adverse event rate, and mortality were evaluated. Results: Forty‐five patients (mean age: 65.5 ± 10.2 years; 44.4% male) were included. The most common underlying disease was pancreatic cancer (68.9%). EUS‐A was performed at a median of 6 weeks after local tumor recurrence. The most common approach used was the direct/freehand technique (66.7%). Technical success was achieved in 95.6%, with no differences between large (≥15 mm) and small LAMS (97.4% vs. 100%, P = 0.664). Clinical success was retained in 91.1% of patients. A complementary treatment by dilation of the stent followed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography through the LAMS was performed in three cases (6.7%). There were six recurrent episodes of cholangitis (14.6%) and two procedure‐related adverse events (4.4%) after a median follow‐up of 4 months. Twenty‐six patients (57.8%) died during the follow‐up due to disease progression. Conclusion: EUS‐A is a safe and effective technique in the treatment of malignant ALS, achieving high clinical success with an acceptable recurrence rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endoscopic duodenal stenting is the current standard treatment for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) in patients with limited life expectancy. However, duodenal stenting is prone to stent dysfunction. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel technique with potentially superior stent patency. We compared clinical success, safety, and stent dysfunction of EUS-GE and duodenal stenting in patients with malignant GOO using propensity score matching.Methods: This international, multicenter, retrospective study analyzed consecutive patients undergoing EUS-GE or duodenal stenting for GOO between 2015 and 2021 in three European centers. Primary outcomes were clinical success (GOO scoring system [GOOSS] ≥ 2) and stent dysfunction (GOOSS ≤ 1 after initial clinical success). A propensity score matching (1:1) analysis was performed using age, sex, underlying disease, disease stage, ascites, and peritoneal carcinomatosis as variables.Results: 214 patients underwent EUS-GE (n = 107) or duodenal stenting (n = 107). After propensity score matching, 176 patients were matched and compared. Technical success rates for EUS-GE and duodenal stenting were 94 % (95 %CI 89 %-99 %) vs. 98 % (95 %CI 95 %-100 %), respectively (P = 0.44). Clinical success rates were 91 % (95 %CI 85 %-97 %) vs. 75 % (95 %CI 66 %-84 %; P = 0.008). Stent dysfunction occurred in 1 % (95 %CI 0-4 %) vs. 26 % (95 %CI 15 %-37 %) of patients (P < 0.001). Adverse event rate was 10 % (95 %CI 4 %-17 %) vs. 21 % (95 %CI 12 %-29 %; P = 0.09).Conclusion: EUS-GE had higher clinical success and lower stent dysfunction, with similar safety, compared with duodenal stenting, suggesting that EUS-GE may be preferred over duodenal stenting in patients with malignant GOO. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biliary obstruction (BO) and gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) are frequent complications of pancreatobiliary and gastroduodenal neoplasia, which can severely impact oncological outcomes, patient survival and quality of life. Although endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remains the gold standard for biliary drainage, this may fail or be unfeasible because of duodenal/papillary infiltration or surgically-altered anatomy. Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) has been the standard rescue therapy in this setting, but is burdened by high morbidity and reduced quality of life. As for GOO, surgical gastroenterostomy and enteral stenting are limited by invasiveness and suboptimal long-term outcomes, respectively. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has evolved from a diagnostic to a therapeutic modality, providing a safe and effective alternative for draining the pancreatobiliary tract into the stomach or duodenum. EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has already demonstrated similar efficacy, greater safety and fewer reinterventions compared to PTBD, and can be performed in the same session after ERCP failure. Further development of lumen apposing metal stents has paved the way towards the creation of EUSguided anastomoses. EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is nowadays increasingly used to treat GOO, combining the minimal invasiveness of endoscopy with surgical-range efficacy. This review summarizes the technical details, current evidence and society recommendations contributing to EUS-BD and EUS-GE gaining ground in everyday practice or tertiary referral centers and becoming crucial in improving the multidisciplinary management of cancerrelated symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1:  ESGE recommends a prolonged course of a prophylactic broad-spectrum antibiotic in patients with ascites who are undergoing therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents during EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy for biliary drainage in malignant disease.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be performed in high volume expert centers, owing to the complexity of this technique and the high risk of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends a stepwise approach to EUS-guided PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy, starting with rendezvous-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (RV-ERP), followed by antegrade or transmural drainage only when RV-ERP fails or is not feasible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5:  ESGE suggests performing transduodenal EUS-guided gallbladder drainage with a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS), rather than using the transgastric route, as this may reduce the risk of stent dysfunction.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6:  ESGE recommends using saline instillation for small-bowel distension during EUS-guided gastroenterostomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7:  ESGE recommends the use of saline instillation with a 19G needle and an electrocautery-enhanced LAMS for EUS-directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (EDGE) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE recommends the use of either 15- or 20-mm LAMSs for EDGE, with a preference for 20-mm LAMSs when considering a same-session ERCP.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1: ESGE recommends the use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) over percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in malignant distal biliary obstruction when local expertise is available.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests EUS-BD with hepaticogastrostomy only for malignant inoperable hilar biliary obstruction with a dilated left hepatic duct when inadequately drained by ERCP and/or PTBD in high volume expert centers.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be considered in symptomatic patients with an obstructed PD when retrograde endoscopic intervention fails or is not possible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends rendezvous EUS techniques over transmural PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy owing to its lower rate of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that, in patients at high surgical risk, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (GBD) should be favored over percutaneous gallbladder drainage where both techniques are available, owing to the lower rates of adverse events and need for re-interventions in EUS-GBD.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6: ESGE recommends EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), in an expert setting, for malignant gastric outlet obstruction, as an alternative to enteral stenting or surgery.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends that EUS-GE may be considered in the management of afferent loop syndrome, especially in the setting of malignancy or in poor surgical candidates. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests that endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) can be offered, in expert centers, to patients with a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass following multidisciplinary decision-making, with the aim of overcoming the invasiveness of laparoscopy-assisted ERCP and the limitations of enteroscopy-assisted ERCP.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) was planned using the Wireless Simplified Technique (WEST) [1]. 1 Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) images of the first EUS-guided gastrojejunostomy showing: a electrocautery-assisted advancement of the lumen-apposing metal stent with a challenging visualization of the puncture trajectory and cautery effect visible (arrows), initially suggesting successful jejunal access; b the catheter tip (arrow) at the end of the placement procedure. [Extracted from the article]

Whereas retrospective literature confirms the comparable clinical success of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy (EUS-GJ) and surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ) [1][2], no head-to-head comparison exists of their caliber and long-term patency. 4 Surgical gastrojejunostomy caliber evaluated with a 20-mm dilation balloon, perfectly fitting the anastomosis. [Extracted from the article]

During WEST, this is achieved by catheter-based saline instillation, leading to small-bowel distension and subsequent gastric wall approximation. In the last decade, EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) has evolved into a first-line approach to managing patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) [1]. The first technique (direct technique over a guidewire) uses an EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration needle to instill diluted contrast and/or saline into the target loop, followed by stepwise deployment of a wire-guided lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS). [Extracted from the article]

Background: The unprecedented situation caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has profoundly affected endoscopic practice in regard to access, volume, and workflow. We aimed to assess the potential changes in the technical outcomes of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures carried out in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: We conducted an international, multicenter, retrospective, matched case-control study of ERCP procedures carried out in patients with confirmed COVID-19. The main outcome was technical success of the procedure as assessed by the endoscopist, and the secondary outcome was the development of procedure-related adverse events. Each case was matched in a 1:4 ratio with controls extracted from each center's database in order to identify relevant changes in outcome measures compared with the pre-pandemic era. Results: Eighteen procedures performed in 16 COVID-19 patients [14 men, 65 years (9–82)] and 67 controls were included in the final analysis. Technical success was achieved in 14/18 COVID-19 cases, which was significantly lower as compared with the control group (14/18 versus 64/67, p = 0.034), with an endoscopic reintervention required in 9/18 cases. However, the rate of procedure-related adverse events was low in both groups (1/18 versus 10/67, p = 0.44). On multivariable analysis, COVID-19 status remained the only risk factor for technical failure of the procedure [odds ratio of 19.9 (95% confidence interval 1.4–269.0)]. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the volume and practice of ERCP, resulting in lower technical success rates without significantly impacting patient safety. Prioritizing cases and following recommendations on safety measures can ensure good outcome with minimal risk in dedicated centers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]