Search

Background Endoscopic duodenal stenting is the current standard treatment for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) in patients with limited life expectancy. However, duodenal stenting is prone to stent dysfunction. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel technique with potentially superior stent patency. We compared clinical success, safety, and stent dysfunction of EUS-GE and duodenal stenting in patients with malignant GOO using propensity score matching. Methods This international, multicenter, retrospective study analyzed consecutive patients undergoing EUS-GE or duodenal stenting for GOO between 2015 and 2021 in three European centers. Primary outcomes were clinical success (GOO scoring system [GOOSS] ≥ 2) and stent dysfunction (GOOSS ≤ 1 after initial clinical success). A propensity score matching (1:1) analysis was performed using age, sex, underlying disease, disease stage, ascites, and peritoneal carcinomatosis as variables. Results 214 patients underwent EUS-GE (n = 107) or duodenal stenting (n = 107). After propensity score matching, 176 patients were matched and compared. Technical success rates for EUS-GE and duodenal stenting were 94 % (95 %CI 89 %–99 %) vs. 98 % (95 %CI 95 %–100 %), respectively (P = 0.44). Clinical success rates were 91 % (95 %CI 85 %–97 %) vs. 75 % (95 %CI 66 %–84 %; P = 0.008). Stent dysfunction occurred in 1 % (95 %CI 0–4 %) vs. 26 % (95 %CI 15 %–37 %) of patients (P Conclusion EUS-GE had higher clinical success and lower stent dysfunction, with similar safety, compared with duodenal stenting, suggesting that EUS-GE may be preferred over duodenal stenting in patients with malignant GOO.

Main Recommendations1 ESGE recommends the use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) over percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in malignant distal biliary obstruction when local expertise is available.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.2 ESGE suggests EUS-BD with hepaticogastrostomy only for malignant inoperable hilar biliary obstruction with a dilated left hepatic duct when inadequately drained by ERCP and/or PTBD in high volume expert centers.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.3 ESGE recommends that EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be considered in symptomatic patients with an obstructed PD when retrograde endoscopic intervention fails or is not possible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.4 ESGE recommends rendezvous EUS techniques over transmural PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy owing to its lower rate of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.5 ESGE recommends that, in patients at high surgical risk, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (GBD) should be favored over percutaneous gallbladder drainage where both techniques are available, owing to the lower rates of adverse events and need for re-interventions in EUS-GBD.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence.6 ESGE recommends EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), in an expert setting, for malignant gastric outlet obstruction, as an alternative to enteral stenting or surgery.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.7 ESGE recommends that EUS-GE may be considered in the management of afferent loop syndrome, especially in the setting of malignancy or in poor surgical candidates.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.8 ESGE suggests that endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) can be offered, in expert centers, to patients with a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass following multidisciplinary decision-making, with the aim of overcoming the invasiveness of laparoscopy-assisted ERCP and the limitations of enteroscopy-assisted ERCP.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Therapeutic EUS has witnessed exponential growth in the last decade, but it has been considered investigational until recently. An increasing body of good-quality evidence is now demonstrating clear advantages over established alternatives, adding therapeutic EUS to management algorithms of complex hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) and gastrointestinal (GI) conditions. In this review, the available evidence and clinical role of therapeutic EUS in established and evolving applications will be discussed. A Graphical Summary for each scenario will provide (1) technical steps, (2) anatomical sketch, (3) best-supporting evidence, and (4) role in changing current and future GI practice. Therapeutic EUS has accepted well-established applications such as drainage of symptomatic peripancreatic fluid collections, biliary drainage in failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and treatment of acute cholecystitis in unfit-for-surgery patients. In addition, good-quality evidence on several emerging indications (e.g., treatment of gastric outlet obstruction, local ablation of pancreatic solid lesions, etc.) is promising. Specific emphasis will be given to how these technical innovations have changed management paradigms and algorithms and expanded the possibilities of gastroenterologists to provide therapeutic solutions to old and emerging clinical needs. Therapeutic EUS is cementing its role in everyday practice, radically changing the treatment of different HPB diseases and other conditions (e.g., GI obstruction). The development of dedicated accessories and increased training opportunities will expand the ability of gastroenterologists to deliver highly effective yet minimally invasive therapies, potentially translating into a better quality of life, especially for oncological and fragile patients. ispartof: ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND vol:12 issue:1 pages:16-28 ispartof: location:China status: accepted

Background and Aims: Gastric outlet and biliary obstruction are common manifestations of GI malignancies and some benign diseases for which standard treatment would be surgical gastroenterostomy and hepaticojejunostomy (ie, “double bypass”). Therapeutic EUS has allowed for the creation of an EUS-guided double bypass. However, same-session double EUS-guided bypass has only been described in small proof-of-concept series and lacks a comparison with surgical double bypass. Methods: A retrospective multicenter analysis was performed of all consecutive same-session double EUS-guided bypass procedures performed in 5 academic centers. Surgical comparators were extracted from these centers’ databases from the same time interval. Efficacy, safety, hospital stay, nutrition and chemotherapy resumption, long-term patency, and survival were compared. Results: Of 154 identified patients, 53 (34.4%) received treatment with EUS and 101 (65.6%) with surgery. At baseline, patients undergoing EUS exhibited higher American Society of Anesthesiologists scores and a higher median Charlson Comorbidity Index (9.0 [interquartile range {IQR}, 7.0-10.0] vs 7.0 [IQR, 5.0-9.0], P

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is increasingly used in the setting of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). However, little is known about the role of primary EUS-GE. The aim of the present study is to compare the outcomes of EUS-GE by using the freehand technique as a first- and second-line approach after enteral stenting (ES). METHODS: This is an observational single-center study using a prospectively collected database. All consecutive patients who underwent an EUS-GE using the freehand technique due to malignant GOO were included. Patients with previous gastric surgery, a wire-guided EUS-GE technique, or those presenting without GOO were excluded. The primary outcome was the clinical success, defined as a solid oral intake at 1 week after the procedure (GOO Score, GOOSS ≥ 2). The secondary outcomes were technical success and adverse event (AE) rates. The impact on nutritional parameters was also assessed. RESULTS: Forty-five patients underwent an EUS-GE for all indications. Finally, 28 patients (mean age: 63 ± 17.2 years, 57.1% male) with (n = 13, 46.4%) and without (n = 15, 53.6%) a previous ES were included. The technical success was achieved in 25 cases (89.3%), with no differences between the two groups (92.3% vs. 86.7%, p = 1). The median limb diameter and procedure time were 27 mm (range:15-48) and 37 min. Overall, clinical success was achieved in 22 cases (88%), with three failures due to AEs (n = 2) or peritoneal carcinomatosis (n = 1). The diet progression was quicker in patients with a previous ES (GOOSS at 48 h, 2 vs. 1, p = 0.023), but the GOOSS at 1 week (p = 0.299), albumin gain (p = 0.366), and BMI gain (0.257) were comparable in the two groups. The AE rate was 7.1%. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GE achieves a high technical and clinical success in patients with GOO regardless of the presence of a previous ES. Patients with previous ES may have a quicker progression of their diet, but the GOOSS and nutritional status in the long term at 1 week or 1 month are comparable. Primary EUS-GE might require fewer procedures and less discontinuation of chemotherapy to achieve a comparable result. ispartof: CANCERS vol:14 issue:22 ispartof: location:Switzerland status: published

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. ispartof: DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY vol:35 issue:2 pages:255-263 ispartof: location:Australia status: published

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) is emerging as a valuable treatment for acute cholecystitis (AC) in patients unfit for surgery. When lumen-apposing metal stents are used, large-caliber access to the gallbladder allows for subsequent direct peroral endoscopic cholecystoscopy (POEC) and eventual cholecystolithotomy (CL), offering a potentially "curative" solution for frailer patients. The aim of this series was to evaluate the outcome of these procedures in oncologic patients experiencing AC, with a specific focus on chemotherapy continuity. METHODS: A prospective registry of all consecutive therapeutic EUS procedures performed in the San Raffaele Institute between December 2020 and April 2021 was searched for EUS-GBD + POEC-CL performed in chemotherapy candidates. Clinical and technical variables were prospectively registered, as were days of chemotherapy delay and postprocedural outcomes. RESULTS: Three consecutive patients with a diagnosis of a malignancy (2 pancreatic cancers and 1 severe myeloproliferative disease with skeletal lesions) experienced AC and were primarily treated by EUS-GBD. After 4 weeks, they were systematically scheduled for POEC-CL and lumen-apposing metal stent exchange for a double-pigtail plastic stent. All procedures and revisions were successful, with rapid clinical improvement. All gallbladders were cleared of food debris and stones between 3 and 15 mm using grasping forceps, polypectomy snares, Dormia baskets, and mechanical lithotripsy. One mild adverse event without any clinical consequence was registered during POEC-CL. Revisions did not interfere with the chemotherapy schedule. Technical variables (eg, gastric vs duodenal drainage or need for coaxial double-pigtail plastic stent) are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GBD and subsequent POEC-CL allows a highly effective and minimally invasive solution for AC. These initial experiences promote further evaluation of this approach for all those individuals in whom surgical interventions are undesirable, such as oncologic patients whose prognosis depends on chemotherapy continuity, although further prospective confirmation in this setting should be pursued. ispartof: VideoGIE vol:7 issue:3 pages:120-127 ispartof: location:United States status: Published online

Upfront resection is becoming a rarer indication for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, as biologic behavior and natural history of the disease has boosted indications for neoadjuvant treatments. Jaundice, gastric outlet obstruction and acute cholecystitis can frequently complicate this window of opportunity, resulting in potentially deleterious chemotherapy discontinuation, whose resumption relies on effective, prompt and long-lasting management of these complications. Although therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (t-EUS) can potentially offer some advantages over comparators, its use in potentially resectable patients is primal and has unfairly been restricted for fear of potential technical difficulties during subsequent surgery. This is a narrative review of available evidence regarding EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy, gastrojejunostomy and gallbladder drainage in the bridge-to-surgery scenario. Proof-of-concept evidence suggests no influence of t-EUS procedures on outcomes of eventual subsequent surgery. Moreover, the very high efficacy-invasiveness ratio over comparators in managing pancreatic cancer-related symptoms or complications can provide a powerful weapon against chemotherapy discontinuation, potentially resulting in higher subsequent resectability. Available evidence is discussed in this short paper, together with technical notes that might be useful for endoscopists and surgeons operating in this scenario. No published evidence supports restricting t-EUS in potential surgical candidates, especially in the setting of pancreatic cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Bridge-to-surgery t-EUS deserves further prospective evaluation. ispartof: WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY vol:28 issue:10 ispartof: location:United States status: published

Main Recommendations 1 ESGE recommends a prolonged course of a prophylactic broad-spectrum antibiotic in patients with ascites who are undergoing therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents during EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy for biliary drainage in malignant disease.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be performed in high volume expert centers, owing to the complexity of this technique and the high risk of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends a stepwise approach to EUS-guided PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy, starting with rendezvous-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (RV-ERP), followed by antegrade or transmural drainage only when RV-ERP fails or is not feasible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE suggests performing transduodenal EUS-guided gallbladder drainage with a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS), rather than using the transgastric route, as this may reduce the risk of stent dysfunction.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends using saline instillation for small-bowel distension during EUS-guided gastroenterostomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 ESGE recommends the use of saline instillation with a 19G needle and an electrocautery-enhanced LAMS for EUS-directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (EDGE) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE recommends the use of either 15- or 20-mm LAMSs for EDGE, with a preference for 20-mm LAMSs when considering a same-session ERCP.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided digestive anastomosis (EUS-A) is a new alternative under evaluation in patients presenting with afferent limb syndrome (ALS) after Whipple surgery. The aim of the present study is to analyze the safety and effectiveness of EUS-A in ALS. METHODS: This is an observational multicenter study. All patients ≥18 years old with previous Whipple surgery presenting with ALS who underwent an EUS-A using a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) between 2015 and 2021 were included. The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as resolution of the ALS or ALS-related cholangitis. Furthermore, technical success, adverse event rate, and mortality were evaluated. RESULTS: Forty-five patients (mean age: 65.5 ± 10.2 years; 44.4% male) were included. The most common underlying disease was pancreatic cancer (68.9%). EUS-A was performed at a median of 6 weeks after local tumor recurrence. The most common approach used was the direct/freehand technique (66.7%). Technical success was achieved in 95.6%, with no differences between large (≥15 mm) and small LAMS (97.4% vs. 100%, P = 0.664). Clinical success was retained in 91.1% of patients. A complementary treatment by dilation of the stent followed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography through the LAMS was performed in three cases (6.7%). There were six recurrent episodes of cholangitis (14.6%) and two procedure-related adverse events (4.4%) after a median follow-up of 4 months. Twenty-six patients (57.8%) died during the follow-up due to disease progression. CONCLUSION: EUS-A is a safe and effective technique in the treatment of malignant ALS, achieving high clinical success with an acceptable recurrence rate. ispartof: DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY vol:34 issue:7 pages:1433-1439 ispartof: location:Australia status: published

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the management of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) seems to be safe and more effective than enteral stent placement. However, comparisons with laparoscopic GE (L-GE) are scarce. Our aim was to perform a propensity score-matched comparison between EUS-GE and L-GE. METHODS: An international, multicenter, retrospective analysis was performed of consecutive EUS-GE and L-GE procedures in 3 academic centers (January 2015 to May 2020) using propensity score matching to minimize selection bias. A standard maximum propensity score difference of .1 was applied, also considering underlying disease and oncologic staging. RESULTS: Overall, 77 patients were treated with EUS-GE and 48 patients with L-GE. By means of propensity score matching, 37 patients were allocated to both groups, resulting in 74 (1:1) matched patients. Technical success was achieved in 35 of 37 EUS-GE-treated patients (94.6%) versus 100% in the L-GE group (P = .493). Clinical success, defined as eating without vomiting or GOO Scoring System ≥2, was achieved in 97.1% and 89.2%, respectively (P = .358). Median time to oral intake (1 [interquartile range {IQR}, .3-1.0] vs 3 [IQR, 1.0-5.0] days, P < .001) and median hospital stay (4 [IQR, 2-8] vs 8 [IQR, 5.5-20] days, P < .001) were significantly shorter in the EUS-GE group. Overall (2.7% vs 27.0%, P = .007) and severe (.0% vs 16.2%, P = .025) adverse events were identified more frequently in the L-GE group. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with GOO, EUS-GE and L-GE showed almost identical technical and clinical success. However, reduced time to oral intake, shorter median hospital stay, and lower rate of adverse events suggest that the EUS-guided approach might be preferable. ispartof: GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY vol:94 issue:3 pages:526-+ ispartof: location:United States status: published

No abstract available

Aims The unprecedented situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected endoscopic practice inregard to access, volume, and workflow. We aimed to assess the potential changes in the technical outcomes of ERCPprocedures carried out in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods We conducted an international, multicenter, retrospective, matched case-control study of ERCP procedures carriedout in patients with confirmed COVID-19. The main outcome was technical success of the procedure as assessed by theendoscopist, and the secondary outcome was the development of procedure-related adverse events. Each case wasmatched in a 1:4 ratio with controls extracted from each center's database in order to identify relevant changes in outcomemeasures compared to the pre-pandemic era. Results Eighteen procedures performed in 16 COVID-19 patients (14 men, 65 years (9-82)) between the 15th of Marchand the 1st of July 2020 and 67 matched controls were included in the final analysis. Technical success was achieved in14/18 procedures in COVID-19 cases, which was significantly lower as compared to the control group (14/18 vs. 64/67, p=0.034), with an endoscopic reintervention required in 9/18 cases. However, the rate of procedure-related adverse eventswas low in both groups (1/18 vs. 10/67, p=0.44). On multivariable analysis COVID-19 status remained the only risk factorfor technical failure of the procedure (OR of 19.9 (95 %CI 1.4-269)).

Aims An outbreak of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) has altered the dynamic of endoscopic practices. Many guidelines, questionnaires have been published addressing service resumption during the pandemic. Curious about the situation indifferent endoscopic units across the globe, the study was designed to evaluate different aspects of practice resumptionworldwide and their adherence to guidelines. Methods An online questionnaire was created and distributed by national/regional representatives and societies. Redcapplatform was used as the interface;afterwards, Microsoft Excel 2016 and Prism 5 were utilized for data analysis. Results From a total of 307 responses from 47 countries/regions was collected, 290 valid answers were analyzed. Almosthalf (47 %) were in post-peak period by August, 2020. Many units were not designated to be COVID-oriented facility. About15.5 % of centers remained unrecovered, mainly in North and South America;those were recovered, training was still withheld significantly. Nevertheless, opened centers kept safety measurements strictly. Patient load was decreased by 37 %,but waiting list was increased 0-25 %. Among many surveillance methods, body temperature, PCR and chest CT were themost common. 74.8 % increased post-procedural disinfection time and 68.2 % increase in per-case inspection were noted.PPE usage was implemented highly and shortage of these posed as one of the resumption barriers. Post-procedural patientsurveillance was not reinforced. Conclusions The study represented real-time global endoscopic service's adaptation to COVID-19 pandemic. Previouslypublished barriers upon practice resumption remained. Despite Delphi consensus' emphasis on post-procedural surveillance, application was not widely reinforced, raising concerns in disease control.

ispartof: ENDOSCOPY vol:53 issue:11 pages:E427-E428 ispartof: location:Germany status: published

BackgroundAlthough evidence suggests frequent gastrointestinal (GI) involvement during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), endoscopic findings are scarcely reported.AimsWe aimed at registering endoscopic abnormalities and potentially associated risk factors among patients with COVID-19.MethodsAll consecutive patients with COVID-19 undergoing endoscopy in 16 institutions from high-prevalence regions were enrolled. Mann-Whitney U, χ2 or Fisher’s exact test were used to compare patients with major abnormalities to those with negative procedures, and multivariate logistic regression to identify independent predictors.ResultsBetween February and May 2020, during the first pandemic outbreak with severely restricted endoscopy activity, 114 endoscopies on 106 patients with COVID-19 were performed in 16 institutions (men=70.8%, median age=68 (58–74); 33% admitted in intensive care unit; 44.4% reporting GI symptoms). 66.7% endoscopies were urgent, mainly for overt GI bleeding. 52 (45.6%) patients had major abnormalities, whereas 13 bled from previous conditions. The most prevalent upper GI abnormalities were ulcers (25.3%), erosive/ulcerative gastro-duodenopathy (16.1%) and petechial/haemorrhagic gastropathy (9.2%). Among lower GI endoscopies, 33.3% showed an ischaemic-like colitis.Receiver operating curve analysis identified D-dimers >1850 ng/mL as predicting major abnormalities. Only D-dimers >1850 ng/mL (OR=12.12 (1.69–86.87)) and presence of GI symptoms (OR=6.17 (1.13–33.67)) were independently associated with major abnormalities at multivariate analysis.ConclusionIn this highly selected cohort of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring endoscopy, almost half showed acute mucosal injuries and more than one-third of lower GI endoscopies had features of ischaemic colitis. Among the hospitalisation-related and patient-related variables evaluated in this study, D-dimers above 1850 ng/mL was the most useful at predicting major mucosal abnormalities at endoscopy.Trial registration numberClinicalTrial.gov (ID: NCT04318366).

Background:The unprecedented situation caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has profoundly affected endoscopic practice in regard to access, volume, and workflow. We aimed to assess the potential changes in the technical outcomes of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures carried out in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.Methods:We conducted an international, multicenter, retrospective, matched case-control study of ERCP procedures carried out in patients with confirmed COVID-19. The main outcome was technical success of the procedure as assessed by the endoscopist, and the secondary outcome was the development of procedure-related adverse events. Each case was matched in a 1:4 ratio with controls extracted from each center’s database in order to identify relevant changes in outcome measures compared with the pre-pandemic era.Results:Eighteen procedures performed in 16 COVID-19 patients [14 men, 65 years (9–82)] and 67 controls were included in the final analysis. Technical success was achieved in 14/18 COVID-19 cases, which was significantly lower as compared with the control group (14/18 versus 64/67, p = 0.034), with an endoscopic reintervention required in 9/18 cases. However, the rate of procedure-related adverse events was low in both groups (1/18 versus 10/67, p = 0.44). On multivariable analysis, COVID-19 status remained the only risk factor for technical failure of the procedure [odds ratio of 19.9 (95% confidence interval 1.4–269.0)].Conclusions:The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the volume and practice of ERCP, resulting in lower technical success rates without significantly impacting patient safety. Prioritizing cases and following recommendations on safety measures can ensure good outcome with minimal risk in dedicated centers.

ispartof: ENDOSCOPY vol:53 issue:9 pages:E332-E333 ispartof: location:Germany status: published

ispartof: GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY vol:92 issue:5 pages:1141-1142 ispartof: location:United States status: published

ispartof: GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY vol:92 issue:3 pages:781-782 ispartof: location:United States status: published

BACKGROUND: Various techniques have been described for endoscopic resection of large symptomatic colon lipomas. Lipoma unroofing might provide a safer, more time efficient and easier technique compared to dissection-based techniques, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or loop-assisted resection. The aim of this systematic review was to compare efficacy and safety (endoscopic resolution rates, clinical remission rates and adverse events) of lipoma unroofing with respect to dissection-based techniques, EMR or loop-assisted resection. METHODS: As most outcomes were binary in nature and several outcomes did not occur in some studies, routine calculation of standard errors in outcome probability was not possible. Therefore, original patient data were extracted, after which efficacy and safety were compared. RESULTS: Twenty four studies met the selection criteria, which encompassed 77 lesions (46.8% female, mean age 63 years (interquartile range (IQR) 53–72 years), mean size 45.4 mm (IQR 30.0–60.0 mm). Ten patients underwent unroofing (13.0%), whereas 7 (9.1%), 31 (40.3%) and 29 patients (37.7%) underwent dissection-based techniques, EMR and loop-assisted-snare resection, respectively. Endoscopic resolution rates were 60%, 100% (p = 0.103), 93.6% (p = 0.024) and 93.1% (p = 0.028). Clinical remission rates were identical in all four groups (100%). Amongst patients who underwent EMR and loop-assisted techniques, adverse events were identified in 12.9% (p = 0.556) and 13.8% (p = 0.556), respectively, compared to none in the unroofing and dissection-based resection group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with large colon lipomas, endoscopic treatment by unroofing, dissection-based resection, EMR and loop-assisted resection provided similar clinical remission rates. Amongst patients undergoing EMR and loop-assisted resection, increased endoscopic resolution rates were seen at the expense of more adverse events, although the latter did not reach statistical significance. Until more reliable comparative data are available, the most optimal resection technique should rely on local expertise and patient profile.

Background The use of infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 has increased in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Nevertheless, doubts about switching from infliximab originator to biosimilar still exist among patients and health care professionals. Methods Our tertiary referral center underwent a mandatory switch from infliximab originator to CT-P13 in 2017. We investigated pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of this switch. The primary endpoint was infliximab discontinuation within 6 months of switching. Secondary endpoints included loss of clinical remission, need for treatment optimization, adverse events, evolution of patient-reported outcome, C-reactive protein, infliximab trough levels, and antidrug-antibodies. Results A total of 361 patients (54.0% male, 70.0% Crohn’s disease, 55.6% in clinical remission) were enrolled. Infliximab discontinuation within 6 months was observed in 4%. Loss of clinical remission, adverse events, and antidrug-antibodies were identified in only 2.0%, 2.2%, and 1.1% of patients, respectively. C-reactive protein concentrations and infliximab trough levels remained stable. Independent factors associated with remission at 6 months were lower PRO2 at switch (HR 6.024; 95% CI, 4.878–8.000; P < 0.0001) and higher hemoglobin levels (HR 1.383; 95% CI, 1.044–2.299; P = 0.018). Conclusions Switching from infliximab originator to CT-P13 was not associated with an increased risk of treatment discontinuation, loss of clinical remission, or adverse events. No significant changes in infliximab trough levels or immunogenicity could be identified.

Gastrointestinal endoscopic (GIE) procedures present a known source of risk for COVID-19 transmission from patients to healthcare workers (GIE-HCW). Despite a growing body of clinical data including overall HCW transmission risk, no reports currently exist describing the risk or predictors of GIE-HCW infection in the GIE setting. Our international multicenter study aimed to describe outcomes and modifying factors in a cohort of GIE-HCWs matched to specific COVID-19 patient endoscopic exposures.