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]

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]