Search

Simple Summary: The aim of our retrospective study was to compare EUS-guided gastroenteroanastomosis (EUS-GE) and enteral stenting (ES) for the palliation of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) in patients already treated with EUS-guided choledocoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) for distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO). Our results on 77 patients demonstrated that both EUS-GE and ES are safe and effective for palliation of GOO, but EUS-GE is associated with less recurrence of symptoms. Background: EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel and effective procedure for the management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) with more durable results when compared to enteral stenting (ES). However, data comparing EUS-GE to ES in patients already treated with EUS-guided choledocoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) for distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) are lacking. We aimed to compare outcomes of EUS-GE and ES for the palliation of GOO in this specific population of patients. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective analysis of patients with DMBO treated by EUS-CDS and subsequent GOO treated by EUS-GE or ES from 2016 to 2021 was conducted. Primary outcomes were overall AEs rate and dysfunction of the EUS-CDS after GOO treatment. Secondary outcomes included clinical success, technical success, procedure duration, length of hospital stay and relapse of GOO symptoms. Results: A total of 77 consecutive patients were included in the study: 25 patients underwent EUS-GE and 52 underwent ES. AEs rate and patency outcomes of the EUS-CDS after GOO treatment were comparable between the two groups (12.5% vs. 17.3%; p = 0.74). No recurrence of GOO symptoms was registered in the EUS-GE group while 11.5% of ES patients had symptoms recurrence, even if not statistically significant (p = 0.16), after a mean follow-up period of 63.5 days. Conclusion: EUS-GE and ES are both effective and safe for the palliation of GOO in patients already treated by EUS-CDS for DMBO with no difference in the biliary stent dysfunction rate and overall AEs. EUS-GE is associated with less recurrence of GOO symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Introduction: Percutaneous ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a well-studied treatment option for locally non-advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs). Sedation is of crucial interest as it enables safe and pain-free procedures. Whether the type of sedation has an impact on procedural outcome is still not well investigated. Methods: We retrospectively collected data on patients undergoing liver RFA for various oncological conditions. Procedures were conducted in a non-operating room anesthesia (NORA) setting. Procedural-related complications and short-term oncological outcomes were analyzed. Results: Thirty-five patients (mean age 71.5 y, 80% male) were treated for HCC (26), CRLM (6) and gastric cancer metastases (3). Mean lesion size was 21 mm (SD ± 10.1 mm), and the most common tumor localization was the right hepatic lobe. RFA was performed in a step-up sedation approach, with subcutaneous lidocaine injection prior to needle placement and subsequent deep sedation during ablation. No anesthesia-related early or late complications occurred. One patient presented with pleural effusion due to a large ablation zone and was treated conservatively. Local tumor-free survival after 1 and 6 months was 100% in all cases where a curative RFA approach was intended. Conclusions: NORA for liver RFA comes with high patient acceptance and tolerance, and optimal postoperative outcomes and oncologic results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Post-sleeve gastrectomy fistulas are a rare but possibly severe life-threatening complication. Besides early reoperation and drainage, endoscopy is the main treatment option. According to the clinical setting, endoscopic treatment options comprise stent or clip placement. New endoscopic therapies have recently gained attention, including endoscopic vacuum therapy, VacStent therapy, endoscopic internal drainage with pigtail stents, endoscopic suturing and stem cell injection. In this narrative review, we shed light on recent literature, developments, indications and contraindications of these treatments. Intragastric gastric band migration is a rare complication after gastric band positioning. Reoperation can sometimes be difficult, especially when a gastric band has already migrated far into the stomach. Endoscopic retrieval can be a valid, non-invasive therapeutic solution. We reviewed the current literature on this matter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: The implementation and monitoring of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) performance measures for colonoscopy are suboptimal in clinical practice. Electronic reporting systems may play an important role in data retrieval. We aimed to define the possibility of systematically assessing and monitoring ESGE performance measures for colonoscopy through reporting systems. Materials and Methods: We conducted a survey during a nationwide event on the quality of colonoscopy held in Rome, Italy, in March 2023 by a self-administered questionnaire. Analyses were conducted overall and by workplace setting. Results: The attendance was 93% (M/F 67/26), with equal distribution of age groups, regions and public or private practices. Only about one-third (34%) and 21.5% of participants stated that their reporting system allows them to retrieve all the ESGE performance measures, overall and as automatic retrieval, respectively. Only 66.7% and 10.7% of respondents can systematically report the cecal intubation and the adenoma detection rate, respectively. The analysis according to hospital setting revealed no significant difference for all the items. Conclusions: We found a generalized lack of systematic tracking of performance measures for colonoscopy due to underperforming reporting systems. Our results underline the need to update reporting systems to monitor the quality of endoscopy practice in Italy. [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]

Malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), both distal and hilar, represents an ensemble of different clinical conditions frequently encountered in everyday practice. Given the frequent unresectability of the disease at presentation and the increasing indications for neoadjuvant chemotherapy, endoscopic biliary drainage is generally required during the course of the disease. With the widespread use of interventional endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and the introduction of dedicated devices, EUS-guided biliary drainage has rapidly gained acceptance, together with transpapillary endoscopic biliary drainage and the percutaneous approach. This comprehensive review describes the current role of endoscopy for distal and hilar MBO supported by evidence, with a focus on the current hot topics in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Repeated endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)‐guided tissue acquisition represents the standard practice for solid pancreatic lesions after previous nondiagnostic or inconclusive results. Since data are lacking, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of repeated EUS fine‐needle biopsy (rEUS‐FNB) in this setting. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy; sample adequacy, sensitivity, specificity, and safety were secondary outcomes. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing rEUS‐FNB for solid pancreatic lesions at 23 Italian centers from 2019 to 2021 were retrieved. Pathology on the surgical specimen, malignant histology together with ≥6‐month follow‐up, and benign pathology together with ≥12‐month follow‐up were adopted as gold standards. Results: Among 462 patients, 56.5% were male, with a median age of 68 (59–75) years, malignancy prevalence 77.0%. Tumor size was 26 (20–35) mm. Second‐generation FNB needles were used in 89.6% cases. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of rEUS‐FNB were 89.2%, 91.4%, and 81.7%, respectively (19 false‐negative and 12 false‐positive results). On multivariate analysis, rEUS‐FNB performed at high‐volume centers (odds ratio [OR] 2.12; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10–3.17; P = 0.03) and tumor size (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.00–1.06; P = 0.05) were independently related to diagnostic accuracy. Sample adequacy was 94.2%. Use of second‐generation FNB needles (OR 5.42; 95% CI 2.30–12.77; P < 0.001) and tumor size >23 mm (OR 3.04; 95% CI 1.31–7.06; P = 0.009) were independently related to sample adequacy. Conclusion: Repeated EUS‐FNB allowed optimal diagnostic performance after nondiagnostic or inconclusive results. Patients' referral to high‐volume centers improved diagnostic accuracy. The use of second‐generation FNB needles significantly improved sample adequacy over standard EUS‐FNB needles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Biliary drainage (BD) in patients with surgically altered anatomy (SAA) could be obtained endoscopically with different techniques or with a percutaneous approach. Every endoscopic technique could be challenging and not clearly superior over another. The aim of this survey is to explore which is the standard BD approach in patients with SAA. Materials and Methods: A 34-question online survey was sent to different Italian tertiary and non-tertiary endoscopic centers performing interventional biliopancreatic endoscopy. The core of the survey was focused on the first-line and alternative BD approaches to SAA patients with benign or malignant obstruction. Results: Out of 70 centers, 39 answered the survey (response rate: 56%). Only 48.7% of them declared themselves to be reference centers for endoscopic BD in SAA. The total number of procedures performed per year is usually low, especially in non-tertiary centers; however, they have a low tendency to refer to more experienced centers. In the case of Billroth-II reconstruction, the majority of centers declared that they use a duodenoscope or forward-viewing scope in both benign and malignant diseases as a first approach. However, in the case of failure, the BD approach becomes extremely heterogeneous among centers without any technique prevailing over the others. Interestingly, in the case of Roux-en-Y, a significant proportion of centers declared that they choose the percutaneous approach in both benign (35.1%) and malignant obstruction (32.4%) as a first option. In the case of a previous failed attempt at BD in Roux-en-Y, the subsequent most used approach is the EUS-guided intervention in both benign and malignant indications. Conclusions: This survey shows that the endoscopic BD approach is extremely heterogeneous, especially in patients with Roux-en-Y reconstruction or after ERCP failure in Billroth-II reconstruction. Percutaneous BD is still taken into account by a significant proportion of centers in the case of Roux-en-Y anatomy. The total number of endoscopic BD procedures performed in non-tertiary centers is usually low, but this result does not correspond to an adequate rate of referral to more experienced centers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The new dedicated stents for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transluminal drainage of peri‑pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) demonstrated optimal efficacy and safety profiles. This study aimed to evaluate the safety, technical and clinical success, and recurrence rate of PFCs drained with Lumen Apposing Metal Stent (LAMS) or Bi-Flanged Metal Stent (BFMS). Data from a multicenter series of PFCs treated with LAMS or BFMS at 30 Italian centers during a 5-year period were retrieved. The rate of adverse events (AEs), technical success, clinical success, PFC recurrence were evaluated. To overcome biases, a 1-to-1 match was created using propensity score analysis. Out of 476 patients, 386 were treated with LAMS and 90 with BFMS, with a median follow-up of 290 days (95% CI 244 to 361). Using propensity score matching, 84 patients were assigned to each group. The incidence of AEs did not differ between the two stents (13.1% versus 15.5%, p = 0.29), mainly bleeding or recurrence rate (4.7% versus 3.5%, p = 1). Technical and clinical success in the BFMS and LAMS groups were 92% versus 95% (p = 0.36) and 91% versus 94% (p = 0.64), respectively. Our study demonstrates that LAMS and BFMS have comparable safety profiles with similar technical and clinical success rates for EUS-guided PFC drainage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and study aims Although outcomes of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) placement in native anatomy have been reported, data on LAMS placement in surgically altered anatomy (SAA) are sparse. We aimed to assess outcomes of LAMS placement in patients with SAA for different indications. Patients and methods This was an international, multicenter, retrospective, observational study at 25 tertiary care centers through November 2023. Consecutive patients with SAA who underwent LAMS placement were included. The primary outcome was technical success defined as correct placement of LAMS. Secondary outcomes were clinical success and safety. Results Two hundred and seventy patients (125 males; average age 61 ± 15 years) underwent LAMS placement with SAA. Procedures included EUS-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) and EUS-directed transenteric ERCP (EDEE) (n = 82), EUS-guided entero-enterostomy (n = 81), EUS-guided biliary drainage (n = 57), EUS-guided drainage of peri-pancreatic fluid collections (n = 48), and EUS-guided pancreaticogastrostomy (n = 2). Most cases utilized AXIOS stents (n = 255) compared with SPAXUS stents (n = 15). Overall, technical success was 98%, clinical success was 97%, and the adverse event (AE) rate was 12%. Using AGREE classification, five events were rated as Grade II, 21 events as Grade IIIa, and six events as IIIb. No difference in AEs were noted among stent types ( P = 0.52). Conclusions This study shows that placement of LAMS is associated with high technical and clinical success rates in patients with SAA. However, the rate of AEs is noteworthy, and thus, these procedures should be performed by expert endoscopists at tertiary centers., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Benedetto Mangiavillano has no conflict of interest regarding this paper but is consultant for Taewoong medical., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), including pancreatic pseudocysts (PPs) and walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON), are common complications of pancreatitis and pancreatic surgery. Historically, the treatment of these conditions has relied on surgical and radiological approaches; however, it has later shifted toward an endoscopy-based approach. With the development of dedicated lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), interventional Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-guided procedures have become the standard approach for PFC drainage. However, there is still limited consensus on several aspects of the multidisciplinary management of PFCs. The interventional endoscopy and ultrasound (i-EUS) group is an Italian network of clinicians and scientists with special interest in biliopancreatic interventional endoscopy, especially interventional EUS. This manuscript describes the first part of the results of a consensus conference organized by i-EUS with the aim of providing evidence-based guidance on aspects such as indications for treating PFCs, the timing of intervention, and different technical strategies for managing patients with PFCs., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest There is no financial support to this study. Chiara Coluccio: Lecturer per steris Cecilia Binda: Lecturer fees for Fujifilm, Steris, Q3 Medical, Boston Scientific. Andrea Lisotti received consultancy from Boston Scientific Giuseppe Vanella: lecture fees from Boston Scientific and travel grants from Euromedical Carlo Fabbri: consultant per Boston scientific, Lecturer per steris e Q3 medical All the other authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: The European Guidelines for colorectal cancer screening of 2006 state that only high-risk endoscopically resected malignant colorectal polyps (MCPs), defined as poor/no differentiation or positive resection margins or lymphovascular invasion, require colonic resection., Methods: A multicentre series of 954 patients with screen-detected MCP (northern Italy, 2005-2016, age 50-69) was studied to identify (1) the factors affecting the choice of colonic resection, and (2) the factors associated with deviation from the European Guidelines for low- and high-risk patients. Data analysis was based on multilevel logistic regression models., Results: Five hundred sixty-four (59.1 %) patients underwent colonic resection. The factors significantly associated with surgical referral included: distal and rectal versus proximal tumour site (inverse association); sessile and flat versus pedunculated morphology (direct association); tumour size (direct); moderate/poor versus good differentiation (direct); adenocarcinoma of not otherwise specified type versus adenocarcinoma with a residual adenoma component (direct); positive versus negative resection margins (direct); lymphovascular invasion (direct); and high-grade versus low-grade/absent tumour budding (direct). In low-risk MCPs, tumour budding encouraged strongly the decision for surgery. In high-risk MCPs, a distal/rectal tumour site encouraged the follow-up option., Conclusion: The identification of factors associated with treatment choices other than those currently recommended may help prioritise the clinical questions in the development of future guidelines., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and study aims Direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) represents the first-line treatment for walled-off necrosis (WON). However, DEN has a non-negligible rate of overall adverse events (AE) and is time-consuming due to the lack of dedicated devices. This pilot study was designed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a novel dedicated device for DEN named Necrolit. Patients and methods In this multicenter retrospective analysis,16 patients with WON who underwent DEN using Necrolit were compared with a control group treated with non-dedicated devices. Technical success, AEs, clinical success, number of procedures per patient, procedure time, and length of hospital stay were evaluated. Necrolit technical performance indicators were also studied. Results Technical success was obtained in all patients in both groups. In the Necrolit group, the overall AE rate was 10.1% vs. 15.9% in the control group. Clinical success was 100% in the Necrolit group vs. 81.3% in the control group. Patients treated with Necrolit underwent a slightly lower mean number of procedures (4.1 ± 2.3 vs. 5.1 ± 1.9) with comparable mean procedure time (67.8 ± 39 minutes vs. 70.1 ± 32.6 minutes). Mean duration of hospital stay was 39.4 days (± 30.9) in the Necrolit group vs. 43 days (± 29.4) in the control group. Device-related technical performance was rated positively. Conclusions DEN with Necrolit appears feasible and safe., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), including pancreatic pseudocysts (PPs) and walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON), are common complications of pancreatitis and pancreatic surgery. Historically, the treatment of these conditions has relied on surgical and radiological approaches. The treatment of patients with PFCs has already focused toward an endoscopy-based approach, and with the development of dedicated lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), it has almost totally shifted towards interventional Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-guided procedures. However, there is still limited consensus on several aspects of PFCs treatment within the multidisciplinary management. The interventional endoscopy and ultrasound (i-EUS) group is an Italian network of clinicians and scientists with special interest in biliopancreatic interventional endoscopy, especially interventional EUS. This manuscript focuses on the second part of the results of a consensus conference organized by i-EUS, with the aim of providing evidence-based guidance on several intra- and post-procedural aspects of PFCs drainage, such as clinical management and follow-up., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest There is no financial support to this study. Chiara Coluccio: Lecturer per steris. Cecilia Binda: Lecturer fees for Fujifilm, Steris, Q3 Medical, Boston Scientific. Andrea Lisotti received consultancy from Boston Scientific. Giuseppe Vanella: lecture fees from Boston Scientific and travel grants from Euromedical. Carlo Fabbri: consultant per Boston scientific, Lecturer per steris e Q3 medical All the other authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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.)

Background: Sedation, ranging from minimal, moderate and deep sedation to general anesthesia, improves patient comfort and procedure quality in gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE). There are currently no comprehensive recommendations on sedation practice in diagnostic and therapeutic GIE. We aimed to investigate real-life sedation practice in elective GIE., Methods: We performed a multicentric observational study across 14 Endoscopy Units in Italy. We recorded consecutive data on all diagnostic procedures performed with Anesthesiologist-directed care (ADC) and all therapeutic procedures performed with ADC or non-Anesthesiologist sedation (NAS) over a three-month period., Results: Dedicated ADC is available five days/week in 28.6% (4/14), four days/week in 21.5% (3/14), three days/week in 35.7% (5/14), two days/week in 7.1% (1/14) and one day/week in 7.1% (1/14) of participating Centers. ADC use for elective diagnostic GIE varied from 18.2% to 75.1% of the total number of procedures performed with ADC among different Centers. ADC use for elective therapeutic GIE varied from 10.8% to 98.9% of the total number of elective therapeutic procedures performed among different Centers., Conclusions: Our study highlights the lack of standardization and consequent great variability in sedation practice for elective GIE, with ADC being potentially overused for diagnostic procedures and underused for complex therapeutic procedures. A collaborative effort involving Endoscopists, Anesthesiologist and Institutions is needed to optimize sedation practice in GIE.