Search

Background and Aims: Endoscopic enteral stenting (ES) in malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is limited by high rates of stent obstruction. EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel procedure that potentially offers sustained patency without tumor ingrowth/overgrowth. The aim of this study is to compare EUS-GE with ES in terms of (1) symptom recurrence and need for re-intervention, (2) technical success (proper stent positioning as determined via endoscopy and fluoroscopy), (3) clinical success (ability to tolerate oral intake without vomiting), and (4) procedure-related adverse events (AEs).Methods: Multicenter retrospective study of all consecutive patients who underwent either EUS-GE at four centers between 2013 and 2015 or ES at one center between 2008 and 2010.Results: A total of 82 patients (mean age 66-years ± 13.5 and 40.2% female) were identified: 30 in EUS-GE and 52 in ES. Technical and clinical success was not significantly different: 86.7% EUS-GE versus 94.2% ES (p = 0.2) and 83.3% EUS-GE versus 67.3% ES (p = 0.12), respectively. Symptom recurrence and need for re-intervention, however, was significantly lower in the EUS-GE group (4.0 vs. 28.6%, (p = 0.015). Post-procedure mean length of hospitalization was comparable at 11.3 days ± 6.6 for EUS-GE versus 9.5 days ± 8.3 for ES (p = 0.3). Rates and severity of AEs (as per the ASGE lexicon) were also similar (16.7 vs. 11.5%, p = 0.5). On multivariable analysis, ES was independently associated with need for re-intervention (OR 12.8, p = 0.027).Conclusion: EUS-GE may be ideal for malignant GOO with comparable effectiveness and safety to ES while being associated with fewer symptom recurrence and requirements for re-intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background& Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound guided-biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a promising alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP); however, its growth has been limited by a lack of multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCT) and dedicated devices. A dedicated EUS-BD lumen- apposing metal stent (LAMS) has recently been developed with the potential to greatly facilitate the technique and safety of the procedure. We aim to compare a first intent approach with EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy with a dedicated biliary LAMS vs. standard ERCP in the management of malignant distal biliary obstruction.Methods: The ELEMENT trial is a multicenter single-blinded RCT involving 130 patients in nine Canadian centers. Patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or borderline resectable malignant distal biliary obstruction meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria will be randomized to EUS-choledochoduodenostomy using a LAMS or ERCP with traditional metal stent insertion in a 1:1 proportion in blocks of four. Patients with hilar obstruction, resectable cancer, or benign disease are excluded. The primary endpoint is the rate of stent dysfunction needing re-intervention. Secondary outcomes include technical and clinical success, interruptions in chemotherapy, rate of surgical resection, time to stent dysfunction, and adverse events.Discussion: The ELEMENT trial is designed to assess whether EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy using a dedicated LAMS is superior to conventional ERCP as a first-line endoscopic drainage approach in malignant distal biliary obstruction, which is an important and timely question that has not been addressed using an RCT study design.Trial Registration: Registry name: ClinicalTrials.gov. Registration number: NCT03870386. Date of registration: 03/12/2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), including walled-off necrosis (WON), are commonly described sequelae of pancreatitis. Endosonography-guided PFC drainage can be performed using plastic stents (PS), fully covered self-expanding metal stents (FCSEMS), or lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS). We performed a retrospective study comparing clinical outcomes and adverse events by stent type.Methods: In this historical cohort, patients undergoing endosonography-guided PFC drainage from 2010 to 2019 were divided into groups: those treated with (1) PS, (2) FCSEMS, and (3) LAMS. Clinical success, the primary outcome, was defined as complete resolution or size reduction of ≥ 50%, with resolution of symptoms and no reintervention required at 3 months following the index procedure. Adverse events (AEs) and procedure times were also evaluated.Results: Fifty-eight patients were included. Procedure times were significantly shorter with LAMS (21.4 ± 10.8 min versus 53.0 ± 24.4 min for FCSEMS and 65.9 ± 23.4 min for PS, p < 0.001). Clinical success rates for WON were higher with LAMS compared with FCSEMS (95.7% vs 66.7%, respectively; p = 0.04). For all PFCs, treatment with LAMS trended towards higher clinical success rates compared with PS and FCSEMS (96.3% vs 81.8% vs 77.8%, respectively; p = 0.14). Early AEs (within 1 week) occurred at significantly lower rates in the LAMS group compared to PS and FCSEMS (0% vs 33.3% vs 10.6%, respectively; p = 0.006), as did late AEs (7.4% vs 44.5% vs 40%, respectively; p = 0.01).Conclusions: LAMS is superior in terms of WON clinical success, favorable in terms of lower adverse event profile, and shorter in terms of procedural time compared to FCSEMS and PS. LAMS can be considered as an initial approach for WON, given that clinical success in WON is lower when using PS or FCSEMS, though more high-quality data are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Spastic esophageal disorders (SEDs) include spastic achalasia (type III), diffuse esophageal spasm (DES), and nutcracker/jackhammer esophagus (JH). Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has demonstrated efficacy and safety in the treatment of achalasia. Recently, POEM has been indicated for the treatment of SEDs. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the clinical success and safety of POEM in SEDs.Methods: We searched several databases from 01/01/2007 to 01/10/2016 to identify studies (with five or more patients) on POEM for the treatment of SEDs. Weighted pooled rates (WPRs) for clinical success and adverse events (AEs) were calculated for all SEDs. Clinical success was defined as Eckardt scores of ≤3 and/or improvement in severity of dysphagia based on achalasia disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaire. The WPRs for clinical success and AEs were analyzed using fixed- or random-effects model based on heterogeneity. The proportionate difference in clinical success and post-procedure adverse event rates among individual types of SEDs was also calculated.Results: A total of eight observational studies with 179 patients were included in the final analysis. Two studies were of good quality and six were of fair quality based on the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool. The WPR with 95% confidence interval (CI) for cumulative clinical success of POEM in all SEDs was 87% (78, 93%), I 2 = 37%. The total number of patients for individual disorders, i.e., type III achalasia, JH, and DES, was 116, 37, and 18, respectively. The WPRs for clinical success of POEM for type III achalasia, DES, and JH were 92, 88, and 72%, respectively. Proportion difference of WPR for clinical success was significantly higher for type III achalasia in comparison with JH (20%, P = 0.01). The WPR with 95% CI for AEs of POEM in all SEDs was 14% (9, 20%), I 2 = 0%. The WPRs for post-procedure adverse events for type III achalasia, DES, and JH were 11, 14, and 16%, respectively. There was no difference in safety of POEM among individual SEDs.Conclusion: POEM is an effective and safe therapeutic modality for the treatment of spastic esophageal disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a case study of a 54-year-old man with a collaborative approach to the endoscopic double bypass in concomitant gastric outlet and biliary obstruction.