Search

Video 1Clinical case of dual-balloon through-the-scope exchangeable enteroclysis catheter-assisted EUS-guided gastroenterostomy., (© 2023 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. It is accompanied by the document subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well- or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, we suggest surgical evaluation over endoscopic approaches., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a commonly performed procedure for pancreaticobiliary disease. While ERCP is highly effective, it is also associated with the highest adverse event (AE) rates of all commonly performed endoscopic procedures. Thus, it is critical that endoscopists and caregivers of patients undergoing ERCP have clear understandings of ERCP-related AEs., Areas Covered: This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the available evidence on ERCP-related AEs. For the purposes of this review, we subdivide the presentation of each ERCP-related AE according to the following clinically relevant domains: definitions and incidence, proposed mechanisms, risk factors, prevention, and recognition and management. The evidence informing this review was derived in part from a search of the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane, performed on 1 May 20231 May 2023., Expert Opinion: Knowledge of ERCP-related AEs is critical not only given potential improvements in peri-procedural quality and related care that can ensue but also given the importance of reviewing these considerations with patients during informed consent. The ERCP community and researchers should aim to apply standardized definitions of AEs. Evidence-based knowledge of ERCP risk factors should inform patient care decisions during training and beyond.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for strategies to manage biliary strictures in liver transplant recipients. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses the role of ERCP versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and covered self-expandable metal stents (cSEMSs) versus multiple plastic stents for therapy of post-transplant strictures, use of MRCP for diagnosing post-transplant biliary strictures, and administration of antibiotics versus no antibiotics during ERCP. In patients with post-transplant biliary strictures, we suggest ERCP as the initial intervention and cSEMSs as the preferred stent for extrahepatic strictures. In patients with unclear diagnoses or intermediate probability of a stricture, we suggest MRCP as the diagnostic modality. We suggest that antibiotics should be administered during ERCP when biliary drainage cannot be ensured., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Infection transmission following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) can occur due to persistent contamination of duodenoscopes despite high-level disinfection to completely eliminate microorganisms on the instrument., Objective: To determine (1) contamination rates after high-level disinfection and (2) technical performance of duodenoscopes with disposable elevator caps compared with those with standard designs., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this parallel-arm multicenter randomized clinical trial at 2 tertiary ERCP centers in Canada, all patients 18 years and older and undergoing ERCP for any indication were eligible., Intervention: The intervention was use of duodenoscopes with disposable elevator caps compared with duodenoscopes with a standard design., Main Outcomes and Measures: Coprimary outcomes were persistent microbial contamination of the duodenoscope elevator or channel, defined as growth of at least 10 colony-forming units of any organism or any growth of gram-negative bacteria following high-level disinfection (superiority outcome), and technical success of ERCP according to a priori criteria (noninferiority outcome with an a priori noninferiority margin of 7%), assessed by blinded reviewers., Results: From December 2019 to February 2022, 518 patients were enrolled (259 disposable elevator cap duodenoscopes, 259 standard duodenoscopes). Patients had a mean (SD) age of 60.7 (17.0) years and 258 (49.8%) were female. No significant differences were observed between study groups, including in ERCP difficulty. Persistent microbial contamination was detected in 11.2% (24 of 214) of standard duodenoscopes and 3.8% (8 of 208) of disposable elevator cap duodenoscopes (P = .004), corresponding to a relative risk of 0.34 (95% CI, 0.16-0.75) and number needed to treat of 13.6 (95% CI, 8.1-42.7) to avoid persistent contamination. Technical success using the disposable cap scope was noninferior to that of the standard scope (94.6% vs 90.7%, P = .13). There were no differences between study groups in adverse events and other secondary outcomes., Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, disposable elevator cap duodenoscopes exhibited reduced contamination following high-level disinfection compared with standard scope designs, without affecting the technical performance and safety of ERCP., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04040504.

The increased demand for colonoscopy combined with increased incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) among younger populations presents a need to determine FIT performance among individuals in this age group. We conducted a systematic review to assess test performance characteristics of FIT in detecting CRC and advanced neoplasia in younger age populations. A search through December 2022 identified published articles assessing the sensitivity and specificity of FIT for advanced neoplasia or CRC among populations under age 50. Following the search, 3 studies were included in the systematic review. Sensitivity to detect advanced neoplasia ranged from 0.19 to 0.36 and specificity between 0.94 and 0.97 and the overall sensitivity and specificity were 0.23 (0.17-0.30) and 0.96 (0.94-0.98), respectively. Two studies that assessed these metrics in multiple age categories found similar sensitivity and specificity across all age groups 30-49. Sensitivity and specificity to detect CRC was assessed in one study and found no significant differences by age groups. These results suggest that FIT performance may be lower for younger individuals compared to those typically screened for CRC. However, there were few studies available for analysis. Given increasing recommendations to expand screening in younger age groups, more research is needed to determine whether FIT is an adequate screening tool in this population., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: Screening-related colonoscopy is a vital component of screening initiatives to both diagnose and prevent colorectal cancer (CRC), with prevention being reliant upon early and accurate detection of pre-malignant lesions. Several strategies, techniques, and interventions exist to optimize endoscopists' adenoma detection rates (ADR)., Areas Covered: This narrative review provides an overview of the importance of ADR and other colonoscopy quality indicators. It then summarizes the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of the following domains in terms of improving ADR: endoscopist factors, pre-procedural parameters, peri-procedural parameters, intra-procedural strategies and techniques, antispasmodics, distal attachment devices, enhanced colonoscopy technologies, enhanced optics, and artificial intelligence. These summaries are based on an electronic search of the databases Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane performed on 12 December 2022., Expert Opinion: Given the prevalence and associated morbidity and mortality of CRC, the quality of screening-related colonoscopy quality is appropriately prioritized by patients, endoscopists, units, and payers alike. Endoscopists performing colonoscopy should be up to date regarding available strategies, techniques, and interventions to optimize their performance.

Background and Objectives: EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a promising alternative to ERCP in malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). Despite accumulating data, however, its application in clinical practice has been impeded by undefined barriers. This study aims to evaluate the practice of EUS-BD and its barriers., Methods: An online survey was generated using Google Forms. Six gastroenterology/endoscopy associations were contacted between July 2019 and November 2019. Survey questions measured participant characteristics, EUS-BD in different clinical scenarios, and potential barriers. The primary outcome was the uptake of EUS-BD as a first-line modality, without previous ERCP attempts, in patients with MDBO., Results: Overall, 115 respondents completed the survey (2.9% response rate). Respondents were from North America (39.2%), Asia (28.6%), Europe (20%), and other jurisdictions (12.2%). Regarding the uptake of EUS-BD as first-line treatment for MDBO, only 10.5% of respondents would consider EUS-BD as a first-line modality regularly. The main concerns were the lack of high-quality data, fear of adverse events, and limited access to EUS-BD dedicated devices. On multivariable analysis, lack of access to EUS-BD expertise was an independent predictor against the use of EUS-BD, odds ratio 0.16 (95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.65). In salvage situations following failed ERCP, most favored EUS-BD (40.9%) over percutaneous drainage (21.7%) in unresectable cancer. In borderline resectable or locally advanced disease, however, most favored the percutaneous approach due to fear of EUS-BD complicating future surgery., Conclusions: EUS-BD has not reached widespread clinical adoption. Identified barriers include lack of high-quality data, fear of adverse events, and lack of access to EUS-BD dedicated devices. Fear of complicating future surgery was also identified as a barrier in potentially resectable disease., Competing Interests: None

Introduction: Colonoscopy quality can vary depending on endoscopist-related factors. Quality indicators, such as adenoma detection rate (ADR), have been adopted to reduce variations in care. Several interventions aim to improve ADR, but these fall into several domains that have traditionally been difficult to compare. We will conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacies of interventions to improve colonoscopy quality and report our findings according to clinically relevant interventional domains., Methods and Analysis: We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus and Evidence-Based Medicine from inception to September 2022. Four reviewers will screen for eligibility and abstract data in parallel, with two accordant entries establishing agreement and with any discrepancies resolved by consensus. The primary outcome will be ADR. Two authors will independently conduct risk of bias assessments. The analyses of the network will be conducted under a Bayesian random-effects model using Markov-chain Monte-Carlo simulation, with 10 000 burn-ins and 100 000 iterations. We will calculate the ORs and corresponding 95% credible intervals of network estimates with a consistency model. We will report the impact of specific interventions within each domain against standard colonoscopy. We will perform a Bayesian random-effects pairwise meta-analysis to assess heterogeneity based on the I 2 statistic. We will assess the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework for network meta-analyses., Ethics and Dissemination: Our study does not require research ethics approval given the lack of patient-specific data being collected. The results will be disseminated at national and international gastroenterology conferences and peer-reviewed journals., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42021291814., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RK has received research funding from AbbVie, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Pendopharm. SCG has received research grants and personal fees from AbbVie and Ferring Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Takeda, educational grants from Janssen, and has equity in Volo Healthcare. NF is a consultant and on the speaker’s bureau for Pentax Medical and Boston Scientific, is a consultant for Pendopharm, and has received research funding from Pentax Medical. All other authors have no relevant conflicts to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Aims: Endoscopic procedures are frequently performed in Canada but can be associated with potential complications and medicolegal implications. This study aimed to identify potential medicolegal cases in Canada relating to upper and lower endoscopies as well as advanced endoscopic procedures., Methods: Westlaw Canada was searched for any cases regarding upper and lower endoscopies and advanced endoscopic procedures from inception to December 31, 2020. Cases were classified by type of case, procedure performed, patient and defendant demographics, outcome, and alleged reason for litigation/complaint., Results: Twenty-nine civil cases and 9 board and tribunal decisions for upper and lower endoscopies and 3 advanced endoscopic procedure cases were analyzed. The most frequent defendant specialties were family physician, general surgery, and gastroenterology. The plaintiff was successful in 12 cases involving upper or lower endoscopy with an average award of $243,934 (2021 CDN). The most alleged reasons for litigation were procedural error or negligence (n = 19). The plaintiff was successful in 1 advanced endoscopic procedure case with an award of $153,032., Conclusion: Medicolegal cases regarding gastrointestinal endoscopy in Canada occur infrequently. Endoscopy should be performed by skilled providers with appropriate informed consent from the patient, and careful consideration of whether procedures are indicated are key for endoscopic providers., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Background & Aims: Colonoscopy quality indicators provide measurable assessments of performance, but significant provider-level variations exist. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether endoscopist specialty is associated with adenoma detection rate (ADR) - the primary outcome - or cecal intubation rate, adverse event rates, and post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rates., Methods: We searched EMBASE, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials from inception to December 14, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Citations underwent duplicate full-text review, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Data were abstracted in duplicate. The DerSimonian and Laird random effects model was used to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk of bias was assessed using Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions., Results: Of 11,314 citations, 36 studies representing 3,500,832 colonoscopies were included. Compared with colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists, those by surgeons were associated with lower ADRs (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.88) and lower cecal intubation rates (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92). Compared with colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists, those by other (non-gastroenterologist, non-surgeon) endoscopists were associated with lower ADRs (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.87-0.96), higher perforation rates (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.65-5.51), and higher post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rates (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.14-1.33). Substantial to considerable heterogeneity existed for most analyses, and overall certainty in the evidence was low according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations framework., Conclusion: Colonoscopies performed by surgeons or other endoscopists were associated with poorer quality metrics and outcomes compared with those performed by gastroenterologists. Targeted quality improvement efforts may be warranted., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Bleeding is the most common adverse event in those with cardiovascular (CV) disease receiving antithrombotic therapy, and it most commonly occurs in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Clinicians often dismiss bleeding as an adverse event that is reversible with effective antithrombotic therapy, but bleeding is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, most likely mediated through an increased risk of CV events. Reducing the burden of bleeding requires knowledge of the potentially modifiable risk factors for bleeding and the potentially modifiable risk factors for adverse outcomes after bleeding., Methods: INTERBLEED is an international, multicentre, 2-component, observational study, with an incident case-control study examining the risk factors for GI bleeding, and a prospective cohort study of risk factors for CV events after GI bleeding. Cases either have CV disease and present to the hospital with GI bleeding or develop GI bleeding during hospitalization. Controls have CV disease, but no history of GI bleeding. We use a questionnaire to obtain detailed information on known and potential risk factors for GI bleeding and for CV events and outcomes after bleeding. We obtain CV and anthropometric measurements, perform functional and cognitive assessments, and follow participants at 3 months and 12 months., Results: As of April 1, 2022, the study is ongoing in 10 countries at 31 centres and has recruited 2407 cases and 1478 controls., Conclusions: Knowledge of risk factors for bleeding, and risk factors for CV events and functional decline after bleeding, will help develop strategies to prevent bleeding and subsequent complications., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Background and Objectives: Quality indicators for the performance of EUS have been developed to monitor and improve service value and patient outcomes. To support the incorporation of these indicators and standardize EUS documentation, we propose standard EUS reporting elements for endosonographers and endoscopy units., Methods: A comprehensive literature search and review was performed to identify EUS quality indicators and key components of high-quality standardized EUS reporting. Guidance statements regarding standard EUS reporting elements were developed and reviewed at the Forum for Canadian Endoscopic Ultrasound (FOCUS) 2019 Annual Meeting., Results: EUS reporting elements can be divided into preprocedural, intraprocedural, and postprocedural items. Preprocedural components include the type, indication, and urgency of the procedure and patient clinical information and consent. Intraprocedural components include the adequacy and extent of examination, relevant landmarks, lesion characteristics, sampling method, specimen quality, and intraprocedural adverse events. Postprocedural components include a summary and synthesis of relevant findings as well as recommended management and follow-up., Conclusions: Standardizing reporting elements may help improve the care of patients undergoing EUS procedures. Our review provides a practical guide and compilation of recommended reporting elements to ensure ongoing best practices and quality improvement in EUS., Competing Interests: None

Background: Despite decreases in the overall incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in Canada, a concerning increase has been observed among younger adults in recent years. The aim of this study was to update age-specific incidence trends of CRC from 1971 to 2017 in Canada., Methods: Data was obtained from the National Cancer Incidence Reporting System and the Canadian Cancer Registry. Age-specific annual percent changes in the incidence of CRC was estimated using NCI's Joinpoint Regression Program., Results: The incidence of CRC among adults over age 50 has continued to decrease, while the incidence among adults under the age of 50 has continued to rise. The largest increases have occurred among 20-29 and 30-39 age groups for colon and rectal cancers, respectively., Conclusion: The incidence of CRC among young adults, particularly those under 40, continues to increase among men and women in Canada. Studies examining potential risk factors for young-onset CRC are required., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) is commonly performed in the management of pancreatic and biliary disease. Duodenoscopes are specialized endoscopes used to perform ERCP, and inherent to their design, a high rate of persistent bacterial contamination exists even after automated reprocessing and disinfection. Consequently, in recent years, ERCP has been associated with infection transmission, leading to several fatal patient outbreaks. Due to increasing fears over widespread future duodenoscope-related outbreaks, regulatory bodies have called for alterations in the design of duodenoscopes. A duodenoscope has recently been developed that employs a disposable cap. This novel design theoretically eliminates the mechanism behind persistent bacterial contamination and infection transmission. However, there are no data demonstrating persistent bacterial contamination rates, technical success rates, or clinical outcomes associated with these duodenoscopes., Methods: A parallel arm randomized controlled trial will be performed for which 520 patients will be recruited. The study population will consist of consecutive patients undergoing ERCP procedures for any indication at a high-volume tertiary care centre in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Patients will be randomized to an intervention group, that will undergo ERCP with a novel duodenoscope with disposable cap, or to a control group who will undergo ERCP with a traditional duodenoscope. Co-primary outcomes will include persistent bacterial contamination rates (post automated reprocessing) and ERCP technical success rates. Secondary outcomes include clinical success rates, overall and specific early and late adverse event rates, 30-day mortality and healthcare utilization rates, procedure and reprocessing times, and ease of device use., Discussion: The ICECAP trial will answer important questions regarding the use of a novel duodenoscope with disposable cap. Specifically, persistent bacterial contamination, technical performance, and relevant clinical outcomes will be assessed. Given the mortality and morbidity burden associated with ERCP-related infectious outbreaks, the results of this study have the capacity to be impactful at an international level., Trial Registration: This trial was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04040504) on July 31, 2019.