Search

Background: Endoscopic management of abdominal collections includes endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural drainage, transpapillar via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and EUS-guided simple puncture-aspiration (SPA). The latter is little reported, and there are some doubts about its real usefulness., Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of EUS-guided SPA as a first-line approach for treatment in selected abdominal collections., Design: Retrospective observational study performed in two tertiary centers (Barcelona area)., Methods: Inclusion of all consecutive patients with abdominal collections that underwent EUS-guided SPA from July 2007 to July 2021. The decision was based on endoscopist criteria and collection characteristics. Clinical success was defined as avoidance of an additional interventional approach (endoscopic stenting, percutaneous drainage, surgery)., Results: Of 241 patients with abdominal collections treated endoscopically, 55 were included for analysis (mean age, 56 ± 12 years). Collection features: mean size 63.3 ± 24.8 mm; positive culture in 22 (40%) and pancreatic nature in 45 (81.8%). EUS-SPA was performed successfully in all cases, and clinical success was achieved in 76.3% (95% confidence interval (CI), 65.5-87.3) of cases ( n -42/55). The most frequently used needle size was 19 Ga (85%). A nonsignificant trend for success was detected for noninfected collections (84.8 vs 63.6; p  = 0.07) and lower size (mean ± SD; 60.2 ± 22.9 vs 73.8 ± 29 mm; p  = 0.09). Two related adverse events were detected: one bleeding and one abdominal pain. Recurrence was detected in five pseudocysts after clinical success. Median follow-up was 629 days (IQR 389-877)., Conclusion: EUS-SPA of selected abdominal collections seems to be a safe and effective technique, avoiding a more aggressive strategy such as transmural stenting. EUS-SPA may be a viable alternative in collections with limited size and preferably noninfected., Competing Interests: J.B.G. is consultant for Boston Scientific and has received a Fujifilm grant. J.G.V. is a PhD student at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Barcelona, and this paper is part of his doctoral project; J.B.G. acts as his PhD supervisor. C.L. received a speaking fee from Boston Scientific and is a consultant with Fujifilm. The remaining authors declare that there is no conflict of interest., (© The Author(s), 2024.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Background: We aimed to evaluate the safety and technical success of an easy-to-use technique that applies underwater cap suction pseudopolyp formation to facilitate the resection of flat lesions or those at the appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a register of consecutive cap suction underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (CAP-UEMR) procedures performed at two centers between September 2020 and December 2021. Procedures were performed using a cone-shaped cap, extending 7 mm from the endoscope tip, to suction the lesion while submerged underwater, followed by underwater snare resection. Our primary end point was technical success, defined as macroscopic complete resection., Results: We treated 83 lesions (median size 20 mm; interquartile range [IQR] 15-30 mm) with CAP-UEMR: 64 depressed or flat lesions (18 previously manipulated, 9 with difficult access), 11 from the appendix, and 8 from the ileocecal valve. Technical success was 100 %. There were seven intraprocedural bleedings and two delayed bleedings, all managed endoscopically. No perforations or other complications occurred. Among the 64 lesions with follow-up colonoscopy, only one recurrence was detected, which was treated endoscopically., Conclusions: CAP-UEMR was a safe and effective technique for removing nonpolypoid colorectal lesions, including those arising from the appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve., Competing Interests: H. Uchima is consultant for Lumendi, collaborates with ERBE Spain, Olympus Iberia, and Izasa, and has received congress registration from Casen-Recordati. M. Pellisé has served on clinical advisory boards for Fujifilm Europe and MiWendo; owns share options in MiWendo; has received speaker fees from Casen Recordati, Norgine Iberia, Fujifilm, Medtronic, and Olympus; and has received research funding from Fujifilm, Casen Recordati, Ziuz, and 3-D Matrix. A. Calm, R. Muñoz-González, N. Caballero, M. Rosinach, I. Marín, J. Colán-Hernández, I. Iborra, E. Castillo-Regalado, R. Temiño, A. Mata, R. Turró, J. Espinós, and V. Moreno De Vega declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: Removing lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) may be difficult and even harmful, but these features have seldom been analyzed. We aimed to generate a comprehensive assessment of the feasibility and safety of LAMS retrieval procedures., Methods: A prospective multicenter case series including all technically successfully deployed LAMSs between January 2019 and January 2020 that underwent endoscopic stent removal. All retrieval-related data were prospectively recorded using standardized telephone questionnaires as part of centralized follow-up that ended after stent removal had been performed. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed the potential risk factors for complex removal., Results: For the 407 LAMSs included, removal was attempted in 158 (38.8 %) after an indwell time of 46.5 days (interquartile range [IQR] 31-70). The median (IQR) removal time was 2 (1-4) minutes. Removal was labelled as complex in 13 procedures (8.2 %), although advanced endoscopic maneuvers were required in only two (1.3 %). Complex removal risk factors were stent embedment (relative risk [RR] 5.84, 95 %CI 2.14-15.89; P  = 0.001), over-the-wire deployment (RR 4.66, 95 %CI 1.60-13.56; P  = 0.01), and longer indwell times (RR 1.14, 95 %CI 1.03-1.27; P  = 0.01). Partial and complete embedment were observed in 14 (8.9 %) and five cases (3.2 %), respectively. The embedment rate during the first 6 weeks was 3.1 % (2/65), reaching 15.9 % (10/63) during the following 6 weeks ( P  = 0.02). The adverse event rate was 5.1 %, including seven gastrointestinal bleeds (5 mild, 2 moderate)., Conclusions: LAMS removal is a safe procedure, mostly requiring basic endoscopic techniques attainable in conventional endoscopy rooms. Referral to advanced endoscopy units should be considered for stents with known embedment or long indwell times, which may require more technically demanding procedures., Competing Interests: M. Perez-Miranda is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Olympus, Medtronic, and M.I.Tech. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Background and Aims: Endoscopic necrosectomy through lumen apposition metal stents (LAMS) is increasingly being used for complicated walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN), but the need for necrosectomy after stent placement is not well understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical, endoscopic, and radiologic predictors of the need for necrosectomy in patients treated with LAMS., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients with WOPN treated with LAMS from 2014 to 2017. Necrosectomy was performed only in patients who had recurrent fever or hemodynamic instability during follow-up. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed., Results: We included 15 patients, 67% men and median age was 75 (54-76) years. Two (13%) presented adverse events, one immediate and one delayed. In the first case, the stent migrated to the gastric cavity during deployment but was relocated in the same procedure. In the second case, the patient presented bleeding on day 36 due to a pseudoaneurysm that was successfully treated with embolization. Clinical success was 100%, but five patients (33%) required endoscopic necrosectomy (4 mechanical and 1 irrigation) and one (7%) required surgical necrosectomy of distant collections. The percentage of necrosis in the collection detected in a previous CT scan (45 [35-66]% vs 10 [5-17]%) was the only factor to predict the need for necrosectomy in the multivariate analysis (OR 1.18 [1.01-1.39])., Conclusion: LAMS is efficient to treat WOPN but more than a third will need necrosectomy. The percentage of necrosis in the collection detected in the CT scan seems to predict the need for necrosectomy., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC part of Springer Nature.)

Background & Aims: Guidelines recommend routine antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic cysts, but there is conflicting evidence for its necessity. We investigated whether performing the procedure without antimicrobial prophylaxis increases the incidence of infection., Methods: We performed a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial to compare prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin vs placebo in patients with a pancreatic cyst requiring EUS-FNA at multiple centers in Spain. From September 2014 to June 2018, patients were randomly assigned to groups that received the prophylaxis with ciprofloxacin (n = 112) or saline solution (n = 114, placebo). We recorded patients' demographic data, lesion characteristics, and procedure data and followed patients for 21 days. A total of 205 patients completed the trial (90.7%), receiving ciprofloxacin or the control, with no statistically significant differences in demographics, baseline data, or procedure characteristics between groups. The primary outcome was FNA-related infection. Secondary outcomes were incidence of fever, procedure complications, and medication-related adverse events., Results: The only case of FNA-related infection (0.44%) occurred in a patient in the placebo group (0.87%); this patient developed acute pancreatitis and bacteremia after the procedure. Prevention of infection was not inferior in the control group; the difference between proportions was 0.87% (95% confidence interval, -0.84% to 2.59%). There were no differences between groups in fever (2 patients in each group: 1.78% vs 1.76%; P = 1.00) or other adverse events., Conclusions: In a randomized trial of patients undergoing EUS-FNA for pancreatic cyst evaluation, we found the risk of infection to be low. The incidence of infections did not differ significantly with vs without ciprofloxacin prophylaxis. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02261896)., (Copyright © 2020 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: The Endoscopic Resection Group of the Spanish Society of Endoscopy (GSEED-RE) model and the Australian Colonic Endoscopic Resection (ACER) model were proposed to predict delayed bleeding (DB) after EMR of large superficial colorectal lesions, but neither has been validated. We validated and updated these models., Methods: A multicenter cohort study was performed in patients with nonpedunculated lesions ≥20 mm removed by EMR. We assessed the discrimination and calibration of the GSEED-RE and ACER models. Difficulty performing EMR was subjectively categorized as low, medium, or high. We created a new model, including factors associated with DB in 3 cohort studies., Results: DB occurred in 45 of 1034 EMRs (4.5%); it was associated with proximal location (odds ratio [OR], 2.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-6.16), antiplatelet agents (OR, 2.51; 95% CI, .99-6.34) or anticoagulants (OR, 4.54; 95% CI, 2.14-9.63), difficulty of EMR (OR, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.41-7.40), and comorbidity (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, .99-4.47). The GSEED-RE and ACER models did not accurately predict DB. Re-estimation and recalibration yielded acceptable results (GSEED-RE area under the curve [AUC], .64 [95% CI, .54-.74]; ACER AUC, .65 [95% CI, .57-.73]). We used lesion size, proximal location, comorbidity, and antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy to generate a new model, the GSEED-RE2, which achieved higher AUC values (.69-.73; 95% CI, .59-.80) and exhibited lower susceptibility to changes among datasets., Conclusions: The updated GSEED-RE and ACER models achieved acceptable prediction levels of DB. The GSEED-RE2 model may achieve better prediction results and could be used to guide the management of patients after validation by other external groups. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03050333.)., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: After endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of colorectal lesions, delayed bleeding is the most common serious complication, but there are no guidelines for its prevention. We aimed to identify risk factors associated with delayed bleeding that required medical attention after discharge until day 15 and develop a scoring system to identify patients at risk., Methods: We performed a prospective study of 1214 consecutive patients with nonpedunculated colorectal lesions 20 mm or larger treated by EMR (n = 1255) at 23 hospitals in Spain, from February 2013 through February 2015. Patients were examined 15 days after the procedure, and medical data were collected. We used the data to create a delayed bleeding scoring system, and assigned a weight to each risk factor based on the β parameter from multivariate logistic regression analysis. Patients were classified as being at low, average, or high risk for delayed bleeding., Results: Delayed bleeding occurred in 46 cases (3.7%, 95% confidence interval, 2.7%-4.9%). In multivariate analysis, factors associated with delayed bleeding included age ≥75 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.36; P < .01), American Society of Anesthesiologist classification scores of III or IV (OR, 1.90; P ≤ .05), aspirin use during EMR (OR, 3.16; P < .05), right-sided lesions (OR, 4.86; P < .01), lesion size ≥40 mm (OR, 1.91; P ≤ .05), and a mucosal gap not closed by hemoclips (OR, 3.63; P ≤ .01). We developed a risk scoring system based on these 6 variables that assigned patients to the low-risk (score, 0-3), average-risk (score, 4-7), or high-risk (score, 8-10) categories with a receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.83). In these groups, the probabilities of delayed bleeding were 0.6%, 5.5%, and 40%, respectively., Conclusions: The risk of delayed bleeding after EMR of large colorectal lesions is 3.7%. We developed a risk scoring system based on 6 factors that determined the risk for delayed bleeding (receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.77). The factors most strongly associated with delayed bleeding were right-sided lesions, aspirin use, and mucosal defects not closed by hemoclips. Patients considered to be high risk (score, 8-10) had a 40% probability of delayed bleeding., (Copyright © 2016 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)