Search

Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: S. G. Sheth: Consultant for Janssen Research & Development, LLC. J. D. Machicado: Consultant for Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc; food and beverage compensation from Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. J. M. Chalhoub: Travel compensation from Olympus Corporation of the Americas; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation. C. Forsmark: Consultant for Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. N. C. Thosani: Consultant for Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and Ambu Inc; travel compensation Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and AbbVie Inc; food and beverage compensation from Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and AbbVie Inc; speaker for AbbVie Inc. N. R. Thiruvengadam: Research support from Boston Scientific Corporation. S. Pawa: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation. S. Ngamruengphong: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, and Ambu Inc. N. B. Marya: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Apollo Endosurgery US Inc. D. R. Kohli: Research grant from Olympus Corporation of the Americas. L. L. Fujii-Lau: Food and beverage compensation from Pfizer Inc and AbbVie Inc. N. Forbes: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, AstraZeneca, and Pendopharm Inc; speaker for Pentax of America, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation; research support from Pentax of America, Inc. S. E. Elhanafi: Food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Nestle HealthCare Nutrition Inc, Ambu Inc, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, and Merit Medical Systems Inc. N. Cosgrove: Consultant for Olympus Corporation of the Americas and Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Ambu Inc. N. Coelho-Prabhu: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation and Alexion Pharma; research support from Cook Endoscopy and Fujifilm; food and beverage compensation from Olympus America Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. S. K. Amateau: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Merit Medical, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, MTEndoscopy, US Endoscopy, Heraeus Medical Components, LLC, and Cook Medical LLC; travel compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, and Cook Medical LLC; advisory board for Merit Medical. W. Abidi: Consultant for Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, and ConMed Corporation; research support from GI Dynamics; food and beverage compensation from Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, ConMed Corporation, Olympus America Inc, AbbVie Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, RedHill Biopharma Inc, and Salix Pharmaceuticals. B. J. Qumseya: Consultant for Medtronic, Inc and Assertio Management, LLC; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Fujifilm Healthcare Americas Corporation, and Boston Scientific Corporation; speaker for Castle Biosciences. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for strategies to manage endoscopically placed gastrostomy tubes. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses the utility of PEG versus interventional radiology-guided gastrostomy (IR-G), need for withholding antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications before PEG tube placement, appropriate timing to initiate tube feeding after PEG, and selection of the appropriate technique of gastrostomy in patients with malignant dysphagia. In patients needing enteral access, the ASGE suggests PEG as the preferred technique for initial gastrotomy over IR-G. The ASGE recommends that tube feeding can be safely started within 4 hours of gastrostomy. The ASGE suggests that PEG can be performed without withholding antiplatelet medications. The ASGE suggests that the periprocedural management of anticoagulants should be based on a multidisciplinary discussion regarding the risk of bleeding versus cardiovascular events. In patients with malignant dysphagia, either transoral "pull" PEG or direct PEG can be performed for initial enteral access., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: D. R. Kohli: Consultant for and research support from Olympus Corporation of the Americas. W. M. Abidi: Consultant for Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, and Conmed Corporation; research support from GI Dynamics; food and beverage compensation from Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, Conmed Corporation, Olympus America Inc, AbbVie Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, RedHill Biopharma Inc, and Salix Pharmaceuticals. N. Cosgrove: Consultant for Olympus Corporation of the Americas and Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Ambu Inc. J. D. Machicado: Consultant for Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc; food and beverage compensation from Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. N. Forbes: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, AstraZeneca, and Pendopharm Inc; speaker for Pentax of America, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation; research support from Pentax of America, Inc. N. B. Marya: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Apollo Endosurgery US Inc. N. R. Thiruvengadam: Research support from Boston Scientific Corporation. N. C. Thosani: Consultant for Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and Ambu Inc; travel compensation and food and beverage compensation from Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and AbbVie Inc; speaker for AbbVie Inc. S. Ngamruengphong: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, and Ambu Inc. S. E. Elhanafi: Food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Nestle HealthCare Nutrition Inc, Ambu Inc, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, and Merit Medical Systems Inc. S. G. Sheth: Consultant for Janssen Research & Development, LLC. S. A. McClave: Consultant for Nestle; speaker for Nestle and Abbott; advisory board for Avanos. B. J. Qumseya: Consultant for Medtronic, Inc and Assertio Management, LLC; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Fujifilm Healthcare Americas Corporation, and Boston Scientific Corporation; speaker for Castle Biosciences. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships., (Copyright © 2025 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aim: Geospatial analyses integrate location-based sociodemographic data, offering a promising approach to investigate the impact of social determinants on acute pancreatitis outcomes. This study aimed to examine the association of Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) and its constituent 16 attributes in 4 domains (socioeconomic status, household composition and disability, minority status and language, and housing type and transportation), with outcomes in patients with acute pancreatitis., Methods: This study included acute pancreatitis patients hospitalized between 1/1/2008 and 12/31/2021 and recorded their demographics and clinical outcomes. Physical addresses were geocoded to determine SVI, a composite variable which was ranked and divided into quartiles (I-IV: IV representing the highest vulnerability)., Result: In 824 eligible patients [age of 53.0 ± 10 years and 48.2% females], with 993 acute pancreatitis-related hospitalizations, we noted a significant association in patients residing in communities with higher SVI, a higher prevalence of no/federal/state insurance (P < .001) and underserved ethnic/racial background (P < .001). We observed a significant association of alcohol withdrawal in patients with residence in areas with higher SVI despite adjustment for age, body mass index, and comorbidities (odds ratios: 1.62 [95% CI: 1.19-2.22]; P = .003). However, we observed no association of SVI with severity of acute pancreatitis, inpatient opioid use, length of stay, 30-day admission rate, and mortality., Conclusions: We noted significantly higher alcohol withdrawal in patients residing in areas with higher SVI ranks, despite no differences in severity of acute pancreatitis, inpatient opioid use, length of stay, 30-day admission rate, and mortality., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Acute pancreatitis (AP) significantly contributes to healthcare costs, but not all patients require hospitalization. A novel, validated Emergency Department (ED) pathway for mild AP (MAP) at our tertiary care center reduced hospitalizations and resource utilization, without affecting outcomes., Methods: A decision-analytic model was constructed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist and methodologic recommendations by the Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine to predict healthcare costs based on whether an ED discharge protocol for MAP was utilized., Results: Average savings for one MAP discharged from the ED were $1720.5 compared to the standard of care hospitalization. Assuming that 67.7 % of cases are mild and that there are 288,820 hospitalizations for AP annually, the ED discharge pathway would result in $98.6 million direct healthcare savings., Conclusions: Implementation of an evidence-based, protocoled ED pathway for MAP could result in over $100 million in direct healthcare savings., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to report., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for strategies to diagnose and manage GERD. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework and serves as an update to the 2014 ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the management of GERD. This updated guideline addresses the indications for endoscopy in patients with GERD as well as in the emerging population of patients who develop GERD after sleeve gastrectomy or peroral endoscopic myotomy. It also discusses how to endoscopically evaluate gastroesophageal junctional integrity in a comprehensive and uniform manner. Importantly, this guideline also discusses management strategies for GERD including the role of lifestyle interventions, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), and endoscopic antireflux therapy (including transoral incisionless fundoplication [TIF], radiofrequency energy, and combined hiatal hernia repair and TIF [cTIF]) in the management of GERD. The ASGE suggests upper endoscopy for the evaluation of GERD in patients with alarm symptoms, with multiple risk factors for Barrett's esophagus, and with a history of sleeve gastrectomy. The ASGE recommends careful endoscopic evaluation, reporting, and photo-documentation of objective GERD findings with attention to gastroesophageal junction landmarks and integrity in patients who undergo upper endoscopy to improve care. In patients with GERD symptoms, the ASGE recommends lifestyle modifications. In patients with symptomatic and confirmed GERD with predominant heartburn symptoms, the ASGE recommends medical management including PPIs at the lowest dose for the shortest duration possible while initiating discussion about long-term management options. In patients with confirmed GERD with small hiatal hernias (≤2 cm) and Hill grade I or II who meet specific criteria, the ASGE suggests evaluation for TIF as an alternative to chronic medical management. In patients with persistent GERD with large hiatal hernias (> 2cm) and Hill grade III or IV, the ASGE suggests either cTIF or surgical therapy based on multidisciplinary review. This document summarizes the methods, analyses, and decision processes used to reach the final recommendations and represents the official ASGE recommendations on the above topics., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: N. C. Thosani: Consultant for Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and Ambu Inc; travel compensation and food and beverage compensation from Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and AbbVie Inc; speaker for AbbVie Inc. A. Saeed: Consultant for Endogastric Solutions, Medtronic, Boston Scientific Corporation, and Olympus. B. Abu Dayyeh: Consultant for Endogenex, Endo-TAGSS, Metamodix, BFKW, USGI, Apollo Endosurgery, Spatz Medical, Aspire Bariatrics, and Boston Scientific; research support from USGI, Apollo Endosurgery, Spatz Medical, Aspire Bariatrics, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Endogastric Solutions, and Erbe Medical; speaker for Olympus, Johnson and Johnson, Medtronic, and Endogastric Solutions. M. I. Canto: Research support from Endogastric Solutions and Pentax Medical Corporation; consultant for Cernostics and ClearNote Health; scientific advisory board for Cernostics; royalties from UpToDate. W. Abidi: Consultant for Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, and Conmed Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, Conmed Corporation, Olympus America Inc, AbbVie Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, RedHill Biopharma Inc, and Salix Pharmaceuticals; research support from GI Dynamics. S. K. Amateau: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Merit Medical, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, MTEndoscopy, US Endoscopy, Heraeus Medical Components, LLC, and Cook Medical LLC; travel compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, and Cook Medical LLC; advisory board for Merit Medical. N. Cosgrove: Consultant for Olympus Corporation of the Americas and Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Ambu Inc. S. E. Elhanafi: Food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Nestle HealthCare Nutrition Inc, Ambu Inc, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, and Merit Medical Systems Inc. N. Forbes: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation and Pentax of America, Inc; speaker for Pentax of America, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation; research support from Pentax of America, Inc. D. R. Kohli: Consultant for Olympus Corporation of the Americas; research support from Olympus Corporation of the Americas. L. L. Fujii-Lau: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Pfizer Inc and AbbVie Inc. J. D. Machicado: Consultant for Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc; food and beverage compensation from Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. N. B. Marya: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Apollo Endosurgery US Inc. S. Ngamruengphong: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus, and Neptune Medical; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, and Ambu Inc. S. Pawa: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation. N. R. Thiruvengadam: Research support from Boston Scientific Corporation. B. J. Qumseya: Consultant for Medtronic, Inc and Assertio Management, LLC; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Fujifilm Healthcare Americas Corporation, and Boston Scientific Corporation; speaker for Castle Biosciences. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: N. B. Marya: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Apollo Endosurgery US Inc. S. Pawa: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation. N. R. Thiruvengadam: Research support from Boston Scientific Corporation. S. Ngamruengphong: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus, and Neptune Medical. T. H. Baron: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus Corporation, Medtronic, Inc, WL Gore & Associates, Inc, Cook Endoscopy, and CONMED Corporation; speaker for Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus Corporation, Medtronic, Inc, and WL Gore & Associates; travel compensation from CONMED Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Olympus Corporation of the Americas, Ambu, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and Cook Medical LLC. A. Y. B. Teoh: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Cook Medical LLC, Taewoong and Microtech, MI Tech, and CMR Medical Corporations. W. Abidi: Consultant for Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, and CONMED Corporation; research support from GI Dynamics; food and beverage compensation from Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, CONMED Corporation, Olympus America Inc, AbbVie Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, RedHill Biopharma Inc, and Salix Pharmaceuticals. S. K. Amateau: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Merit Medical, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, MTEndoscopy, US Endoscopy, Heraeus Medical Components, LLC, and Cook Medical LLC; travel compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, and Cook Medical LLC; advisory board for Merit Medical. J. M. Chalhoub: Travel compensation from Olympus Corporation of the Americas; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation. N. Coelho-Prabhu: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation and Alexion Pharma; research support from Cook Endoscopy and FujiFilm; food and beverage compensation from Olympus America Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. N. Cosgrove: Consultant for Olympus Corporation of the Americas and Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Ambu Inc. S. E. Elhanafi: Food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Nestle HealthCare Nutrition Inc, Ambu Inc, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, and Merit Medical Systems Inc. N. Forbes: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, AstraZeneca, and Pendopharm Inc; speaker for Pentax of America, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation; research support from Pentax of America, Inc. L. L. Fujii-Lau: Food and beverage compensation from Pfizer Inc and AbbVie Inc; consultant for Boston Scientific. D. R. Kohli: Research support from Olympus Corporation of the Americas. J. D. Machicado: Consultant for Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc; food and beverage compensation from Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. U. Navaneethan: Consultant for ER Squibb & Sons, LLC; travel compensation from ER Squibb & Sons, LLC, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, and AbbVie Inc; food and beverage compensation from ER Squibb & Sons, LLC, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, AbbVie Inc, Pfizer Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, Celgene Corporation, and Olympus America Inc; speaker for Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, AbbVie Inc, and Pfizer Inc. S. G. Sheth: Consulted for Janssen Research & Development, LLC. N. C. Thosani: Consultant for Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and Ambu Inc; travel compensation and food and beverage compensation from Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and AbbVie Inc; speaker for AbbVie Inc. B. J. Qumseya: Consultant for Medtronic, Inc and Assertio Management, LLC; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Fujifilm Healthcare Americas Corporation, and Boston Scientific Corporation; speaker for Castle Biosciences. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for the role of therapeutic EUS in the management of biliary tract disorders. This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses the following: 1: The role of EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in resolving biliary obstruction in patients after failed ERCP. 2: The role of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy versus EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy in resolving distal malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP. 3: The role of EUS-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) versus laparoscopic-assisted ERCP and enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (E-ERCP) in resolving biliary obstruction in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) anatomy. 4: The role of EUS-BD versus E-ERCP and PTBD in resolving biliary obstruction in patients with surgically altered anatomy other than RYGB. 5: The role of EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) versus percutaneous gallbladder drainage and endoscopic transpapillary transcystic gallbladder drainage in resolving acute cholecystitis in patients who are not candidates for cholecystectomy., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: S. Pawa: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation. N. B. Marya: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Apollo Endosurgery US Inc. N. R. Thiruvengadam: Research support from Boston Scientific Corporation. S. Ngamruengphong: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus, and Neptune Medical. T. H. Baron: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus Corporation, Medtronic, Inc, WL Gore & Associates, Inc, Cook Endoscopy, and CONMED Corporation; speaker for Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus Corporation, Medtronic, Inc, and WL Gore & Associates; travel compensation from CONMED Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Olympus Corporation of the Americas, Ambu, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and Cook Medical LLC. A. Y. B. Teoh: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Cook Medical LLC, Taewoong and Microtech, MI Tech, and CMR Medical Corporations. W. Abidi: Consultant for Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, and CONMED Corporation; research support from GI Dynamics; food and beverage compensation from Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, CONMED Corporation, Olympus America Inc, AbbVie Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, RedHill Biopharma Inc, and Salix Pharmaceuticals. S. K. Amateau: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Merit Medical, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, MTEndoscopy, US Endoscopy, Heraeus Medical Components, LLC, and Cook Medical LLC; travel compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, and Cook Medical LLC; advisory board for Merit Medical. J. M. Chalhoub: Travel compensation from Olympus Corporation of the Americas; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation. N. Coelho-Prabhu: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation and Alexion Pharma; research support from Cook Endoscopy and FujiFilm; food and beverage compensation from Olympus America Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. N. Cosgrove: Consultant for Olympus Corporation of the Americas and Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Ambu Inc. S. E. Elhanafi: Food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Nestle HealthCare Nutrition Inc, Ambu Inc, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, and Merit Medical Systems Inc. N. Forbes: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, AstraZeneca, and Pendopharm Inc; speaker for Pentax of America, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation; research support from Pentax of America, Inc. L. L. Fujii-Lau: Food and beverage compensation from Pfizer Inc and AbbVie Inc; consultant for Boston Scientific. D. R. Kohli: Research support from Olympus Corporation of the Americas. J. D. Machicado: Consultant for Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc; food and beverage compensation from Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. U. Navaneethan: Consultant for ER Squibb & Sons, LLC; travel compensation from ER Squibb & Sons, LLC, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, and AbbVie Inc; food and beverage compensation from ER Squibb & Sons, LLC, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, AbbVie Inc, Pfizer Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, Celgene Corporation, and Olympus America Inc; speaker for Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, AbbVie Inc, and Pfizer Inc. S. G. Sheth: Consulted for Janssen Research & Development, LLC. N. C. Thosani: Consultant for Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and Ambu Inc; travel compensation and food and beverage compensation from Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and AbbVie Inc; speaker for AbbVie Inc. B. J. Qumseya: Consultant for Medtronic, Inc and Assertio Management, LLC; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Fujifilm Healthcare Americas Corporation, and Boston Scientific Corporation; speaker for Castle Biosciences. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a fibro-inflammatory disorder characterized by abdominal pain and exocrine and endocrine pancreatic insufficiency resulting in significant morbidity. This study evaluates the impact of geospatial parameters, assessed using the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), a tool comprising sixteen social attributes, on CP outcomes, including opioid use., Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of CP patients with available addresses followed at our pancreas center. We reviewed demographics, clinical variables including number of CP flares, local complications, pancreatic function, and healthcare-resource utilization (HRU) including imaging, endoscopic procedures, and surgeries, and outpatient opioid prescriptions measured in morphine milligram equivalents (MME). Regression analysis was performed to assess the association between outcomes and SVI [divided into 4 quartiles (I-IV; IV being most vulnerable]., Results: Among 324 CP patients followed over 8 years, we noted trends of higher dependence on governmental insurance or no insurance among patients in higher SVI quartiles (III/IV vs. I/II) but no differences in demographics, comorbidities, or etiology of CP. In patients residing in more vulnerable SVI quartiles, we noted significantly higher frequency of hospitalizations for CP flares and lower daily MME. Rates of exocrine and endocrine pancreatic dysfunction and HRU were similar across all SVI quartiles., Conclusions: Despite multidisciplinary guideline-based care, residence in the most vulnerable neighborhoods may be associated with less opioid use and more frequent CP flares, suggesting possible inadequate pain control in these patients. These findings should guide prospective investigation of the impact of geospatial social determinants of health in CP and efforts to mitigate the above disparities., Competing Interests: Disclosure Statement: All authors listed above have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background/Objectives : Effective management of acute pancreatitis (AP) hinges on prompt volume resuscitation and is adversely affected by delays in diagnosis. Given diverse clinical settings (tertiary care vs. community hospitals), further investigation is needed to understand the impact of the initial setting to which patients presented on clinical outcomes and quality of care. This study aimed to compare outcomes and quality indicators between AP patients who first presented to the emergency department (ED) of a tertiary care center and AP patients transferred from community hospitals. Methods : This study included AP patients managed at our tertiary care hospital between 2008 and 2018. We compared demographics and outcomes, including length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, rates of local and systemic complications, re-admission rates, and one-year mortality in transferred patients and those admitted from the ED. Quality indicators of interest included duration of volume resuscitation, time until advancement to enteral feeding, pain requiring opioid medication [measured in morphine milliequivalent (MME) dosing], and surgical referrals for cholecystectomy. Categorical variables were analyzed by chi-square or Fisher's exact test; continuous variables were compared using Kruskal-Wallis tests. Regression was performed to assess the impact of transfer status on our outcomes of interest. Results : Our cohort of 882 AP patients comprised 648 patients admitted from the ED and 234 patients transferred from a community hospital. Transferred patients were older (54.6 vs. 51.0 years old, p < 0.01) and had less frequent alcohol use (28% vs. 39%, p < 0.01). Transferred patients had a significantly greater frequency of gallstone AP (40% vs. 23%), but a lower frequency of alcohol AP (16% vs. 22%) and idiopathic AP (29% vs. 41%) ( p < 0.001). Regarding clinical outcomes, transferred patients had significantly higher rates of severe AP (revised Atlanta classification) (10% vs. 2% severe, p < 0.001) and ICU admission (8% vs. 2%, p < 0.001) and longer median LOS (5 vs. 4 days, p < 0.001). Regarding quality indicators, there was no significant difference in the number of days of intravenous fluid administration, or days until advancement to enteral feeding, pain requiring opioid pain medication, or rates of surgical referral for cholecystectomy. Conclusions : Though the quality of care was similar in both groups, transferred patients had more severe AP with higher rates of systemic complications and ICU admissions and longer LOS, with no difference in quality indicators between groups.

Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: J. D. Machicado: Consultant for Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc; food and beverage compensation from Mauna Kea Technologies and Boston Scientific Corporation. S. G. Sheth: Consultant for Janssen Research & Development, LLC. J. M. Chalhoub: Travel compensation from Olympus Corporation of the Americas; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation. N. Forbes: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, AstraZeneca, and Pendopharm Inc; speaker for Pentax of America, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation; research support from Pentax of America, Inc. S. Ngamruengphong: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, and Ambu Inc. G. I. Papachristou: Research support from AbbVie Inc. V. Sahai: Consultant and advisor for AstraZeneca, Autem, Cornerstone, Delcath Systems, GlaxoSmithKline, Helsinn, Histosonics, Ipsen, Incyte, Kinnate, Lynx Group, Servier, and Taiho; research support from Actuate, Agios, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Clovis, Cornerstone, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Medimmune, NCI, Relay, Repare, Syros, and Beigene; travel compensation from ASCO, Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation, and Lynx Group. W. Abidi: Consultant for Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, and ConMed Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, ConMed Corporation, Olympus America Inc, AbbVie Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, RedHill Biopharma Inc, and Salix Pharmaceuticals; research support from GI Dynamics. S. K. Amateau: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Merit Medical, MTEndoscopy, US Endoscopy, Heraeus Medical Components, LLC, and Cook Medical LLC; travel compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation, Cook Medical LLC, and Olympus Corporation of the Americas; advisory board for Merit Medical. N. Coelho-Prabhu: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation and Alexion Pharma; research support from Cook Endoscopy and Fujifilm; food and beverage compensation from Olympus America Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. N. Cosgrove: Consultant for Olympus Corporation of the Americas and Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Ambu Inc. S. E. Elhanafi: Food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Nestle HealthCare Nutrition Inc, Ambu Inc, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, and Merit Medical Systems Inc. L. L. Fujii-Lau: Food and beverage compensation from Pfizer Inc. and AbbVie Inc. D. R. Kohli: Research support from Olympus Corporation of the Americas. N. B. Marya: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Apollo Endosurgery US Inc. S. Pawa: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation. N. R. Thiruvengadam: Research support from Boston Scientific Corporation. N. C. Thosani: Consultant for Pentax of America, Inc, Ambu Inc, and Boston Scientific Corporation; travel compensation and food and beverage compensation from Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and AbbVie Inc; speaker for AbbVie Inc. B. J. Qumseya: Consultant for Medtronic, Inc and Assertio Management, LLC; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Fujifilm Healthcare Americas Corporation, and Boston Scientific Corporation; speaker for Castle Biosciences. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic masses. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses needle selection (fine-needle biopsy [FNB] needle vs FNA needle), needle caliber (22-gauge vs 25-gauge needles), FNB needle type (novel or contemporary [fork-tip and Franseen] vs alternative FNB needle designs), and sample processing (rapid on-site evaluation [ROSE] vs no ROSE). In addition, this guideline addresses stent selection (self-expandable metal stents [SEMS] vs plastic stents), SEMS type (covered [cSEMS] vs uncovered [uSEMS]), and pain management (celiac plexus neurolysis [CPN] vs medical analgesic therapy). In patients with solid pancreatic masses undergoing EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA), the ASGE recommends FNB needles over FNA needles. With regard to needle caliber, the ASGE suggests 22-gauge over 25-gauge needles. When an FNB needle is used, the ASGE recommends using either a fork-tip or a Franseen needle over alternative FNB needle designs. After a sample has been obtained, the ASGE suggests against the routine use of ROSE in patients undergoing an initial EUS-TA of a solid pancreatic mass. In patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction undergoing drainage with ERCP, the ASGE suggests using SEMS over plastic stents. In patients with proven malignancy undergoing SEMS placement, the ASGE suggests using cSEMS over uSEMS. If malignancy has not been histopathologically confirmed, the ASGE recommends against the use of uSEMS. Finally, in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer and abdominal pain, the ASGE suggests the use of CPN as an adjunct for the treatment of abdominal pain. This document outlines the process, analyses, and decision approaches used to reach the final recommendations and represents the official ASGE recommendations on the above topics., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: J. D. Machicado: Consultant for Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc; food and beverage compensation from Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. S. G. Sheth: Consultant for Janssen Research & Development, LLC. J. M. Chalhoub: Travel compensation from Olympus Corporation of the Americas; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation. N. Forbes: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, AstraZeneca, and Pendopharm Inc; speaker for Pentax of America, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation; research support from Pentax of America, Inc. S. Ngamruengphong: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, and Ambu Inc. G. I. Papachristou: Research support from AbbVie Inc. V. Sahai: Consultant and advisor for AstraZeneca, Autem, Cornerstone, Delcath Systems, GlaxoSmithKline, Helsinn, Histosonics, Ipsen, Incyte, Kinnate, Lynx Group, Servier, and Taiho; research support from Actuate, Agios, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Clovis, Cornerstone, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Medimmune, NCI, Relay, Repare, Syros, and Beigene; travel compensation from ASCO, Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation, and Lynx Group. W. Abidi: Consultant for Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, and ConMed Corporation; research support from GI Dynamics; food and beverage compensation from Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, ConMed Corporation, Olympus America Inc, AbbVie Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, RedHill Biopharma Inc, and Salix Pharmaceuticals. S. K. Amateau: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Merit Medical, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, MTEndoscopy, US Endoscopy, Heraeus Medical Components, LLC, and Cook Medical LLC; travel compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, and Cook Medical LLC; advisory board for Merit Medical. N. Coelho-Prabhu: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation and Alexion Pharma; research support from Cook Endoscopy and Fujifilm; food and beverage compensation from Olympus America Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. N. Cosgrove: Consultant for Olympus Corporation of the Americas and Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Ambu Inc. S. E. Elhanafi: Food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Nestle HealthCare Nutrition Inc, Ambu Inc, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, and Merit Medical Systems Inc. L. L. Fujii-Lau: Food and beverage compensation from Pfizer Inc and AbbVie Inc. D. R. Kohli: Research grant from Olympus Corporation of the Americas. N. B. Marya: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Apollo Endosurgery US Inc. S. Pawa: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation. N. R. Thiruvengadam: Received support from Boston Scientific Corporation. N. C. Thosani: Consultant for Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and Ambu Inc; travel compensation Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and AbbVie Inc; food and beverage compensation from Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and AbbVie Inc; speaker for AbbVie Inc. B. J. Qumseya: Consultant for Medtronic, Inc and Assertio Management, LLC; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Fujifilm Healthcare Americas Corporation, and Boston Scientific Corporation; speaker for Castle Biosciences., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure All authors disclosed no financial relationships.

Background: Some evidence suggests that fluid resuscitation with lactated Ringer's solution (LR) may have an anti-inflammatory effect on acute pancreatitis (AP) when compared to normal saline (NS) and may be associated with a decrease in severity, but existing single-center randomized controlled trials showed conflicting results. The WATERLAND trial aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of fluid resuscitation using LR compared to NS in patients with AP., Methods: The WATERLAND trial is an international multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, randomized, controlled, superiority trial. Patients will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive LR versus NS-based fluid resuscitation for at least 48 h. The primary outcome will be moderately severe or severe AP, according to the revision of the Atlanta classification. The secondary objectives of the WATERLAND trial are to determine the effect of LR versus NS fluid resuscitation on several efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with AP. A total sample of 720 patients, 360 in the LR group and 360 in the NS group, will achieve 90% power to detect a difference between the group proportions of 10%, assuming that the frequency of moderately severe or severe AP in the LR group will be 17%. A loss to follow-up of 10% of patients is expected, so the total sample size will be 396 patients in each treatment arm (792 patients overall). The test statistic used is the two-sided Z test with pooled variance set at a 0.05 significance level., Discussion: The WATERLAND study aims to improve the early management of AP. Fluid resuscitation is an inexpensive treatment available in any hospital center worldwide. If a better evolution of pancreatitis is demonstrated in one of the treatment arms, it would have important repercussions in the management of this frequent disease., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05781243. Registration date on January 4, 2023. EudraCT number 2023-000010-18, first posted March 23, 2023., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for the role of endoscopy in the management of chronic pancreatitis (CP). This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses effectiveness of endoscopic therapies for the management of pain in CP, including celiac plexus block, endoscopic management of pancreatic duct (PD) stones and strictures, and adverse events such as benign biliary strictures (BBSs) and pseudocysts. In patients with painful CP and an obstructed PD, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation in patients without contraindication to surgery before initiation of endoscopic management. In patients who have contraindications to surgery or who prefer a less-invasive approach, the ASGE suggests an endoscopic approach as the initial treatment over surgery, if complete ductal clearance is likely. When a decision is made to proceed with a celiac plexus block, the ASGE suggests an EUS-guided approach over a percutaneous approach. The ASGE suggests indications for when to consider ERCP alone or with pancreatoscopy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy alone or followed by ERCP for treating obstructing PD stones based on size, location, and radiopacity. For the initial management of PD strictures, the ASGE suggests using a single plastic stent of the largest caliber that is feasible. For symptomatic BBSs caused by CP, the ASGE suggests the use of covered metal stents over multiple plastic stents. For symptomatic pseudocysts, the ASGE suggests endoscopic therapy over surgery. This document clearly outlines the process, analyses, and decision processes used to reach the final recommendations and represents the official ASGE recommendations on the above topics., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: S. G. Sheth: Consultant for Janssen Research & Development, LLC. J. D. Machicado: Consultant for Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc; food and beverage compensation from Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. J. M. Chalhoub: Travel compensation from Olympus Corporation of the Americas;food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation. C. Forsmark: Consultant for Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. N. C. Thosani: Consultant for Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, AbbVie Inc, and Ambu Inc; travel and food and beverage compensation from Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and AbbVie Inc; speaker for AbbVie Inc. N. R. Thiruvengadam: Research support from Boston Scientific Corporation. S. Pawa: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation. S. Ngamruengphong: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, and Ambu Inc. N. B. Marya: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Apollo Endosurgery US Inc. D. R. Kohli: Research support from Olympus Corporation of the Americas. L. L. Fujii-Lau: Food and beverage compensation from Pfizer Inc. and AbbVie Inc. N. Forbes: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, AstraZeneca, and Pendopharm Inc; speaker for Pentax of America, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation; research support from Pentax of America, Inc. S. E. Elhanafi: Food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Nestle HealthCare Nutrition Inc, Ambu Inc, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, and Merit Medical Systems Inc. N. Cosgrove: Consultant for Olympus Corporation of the Americas and Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Ambu Inc. N. Coelho-Prabhu: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation and Alexion Pharma; research support from Cook Endoscopy and FujiFilm; food and beverage compensation from Olympus America Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. S. K. Amateau: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Merit Medical, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, MTEndoscopy, US Endoscopy, Heraeus Medical Components, LLC, and Cook Medical LLC; travel compensation Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, and Cook Medical LLC; advisory board for Merit Medical. W. Abidi: Consultant for Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, and ConMed Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, ConMed Corporation, Olympus America Inc, AbbVie Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, RedHill Biopharma Inc, and Salix Pharmaceuticals; research support from GI Dynamics. B. J. Qumseya: Consultant for Medtronic, Inc and Assertio Management, LLC; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Fujifilm Healthcare Americas Corporation, and Boston Scientific Corporation; speaker for Castle Biosciences. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aim: Food access is an important social determinant of health and refers to geographical and infrastructural aspects of food availability. Using publicly available data on food access from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), geospatial analyses can identify regions with variable food access, which may impact acute pancreatitis (AP), an acute inflammatory condition characterized by unpredictable outcomes and substantial mortality. This study aimed to investigate the association of clinical outcomes in patients with AP with geospatial food access., Methods: We examined AP-related hospitalizations at a tertiary center from January 2008 to December 2018. The physical addresses were geocoded through ArcGIS Pro2.7.0 (ESRI, Redlands, CA). USDA Food Access Research Atlas defined low food access as urban areas with 33% or more of the population residing over one mile from the nearest food source. Regression analyses enabled assessment of the association between AP outcomes and food access., Results: The study included 772 unique patients with AP residing in Massachusetts with 931 AP-related hospitalizations. One hundred and ninety-eight (25.6%) patients resided in census tracts with normal urban food access and 574 (74.4%) patients resided in tracts with low food access. AP severity per revised Atlanta classification [OR 1.88 (95%CI 1.21-2.92); p = 0.005], and 30-day AP-related readmission [OR 1.78(95%CI 1.11-2.86); p = 0.02] had significant association with food access, despite adjustment for demographics, healthcare behaviors, and comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index). However, food access lacked significant association with AP-related mortality (p = 0.40) and length of stay (LOS: p = 0.99)., Conclusion: Low food access had a significant association with 30-day AP-related readmissions and AP severity. However, mortality and LOS lacked significant association with food access. The association between nutrition, lifestyle, and AP outcomes warrants further prospective investigation., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Healthcare disparities adversely affect clinical outcomes in racial and ethnic minorities. Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a complex disorder, and pressures for time and cost-containment may amplify the disparity for minorities in this condition. This study aimed to assess ethno-racial differences in the clinical outcomes of CP patients cared for at our institution., Methods: This is a study of CP patients with available ethno-racial information followed at our pancreas center. We reviewed their demographics, comorbidities, clinical outcomes, and resource utilization: pain, frequent flares (≥ 2/year), local complications, psychosocial variables, exocrine, and endocrine insufficiency, imaging, endoscopic procedures, and surgeries. The outcomes underwent logistic regression to ascertain association(s) with covariates and were expressed as odds ratio (95% confidence intervals)., Results: Of the 445 CP patients, there were 23 Hispanics, 330 Non-Hispanic Whites, 47 Non-Hispanic Blacks, 16 Asian Americans, and 29 patients from Other/mixed races. Over a median follow-up of 7 years, no significant differences in the pain profile (p = 0.36), neuromodulator use (p = 0.94), and opioid use for intermittent (p = 0.34) and daily pain (p = 0.80) were observed. Frequent flares were associated with Hispanic ethnicity [2.98(1.20-7.36); p = 0.02], despite adjustment for smoking [2.21(1.11-4.41); p = 0.02)] and alcohol [1.88(1.06-3.35); p = 0.03]. Local complications (pseudocysts, mesenteric thrombosis, and biliary obstruction), exocrine and endocrine dysfunction, and healthcare resource utilization (cross-sectional imaging, endoscopic procedures, celiac blocks, or surgeries) were comparable across all ethno-racial groups., Conclusions: Although no significant differences in clinical outcomes, and health resource utilization were noted across ethno-racial groups, Hispanic ethnicity had significant association with CP flares. This study calls for further investigation of an understudied minority population with CP., (© 2024. W. Montague Cobb-NMA Health Institute.)

Acute pancreatitis (AP), defined as acute inflammation of the pancreas, is one of the most common diseases of the gastrointestinal tract leading to hospital admission in the United States. It is important for clinicians to appreciate that AP is heterogenous, progressing differently among patients and is often unpredictable. While most patients experience symptoms lasting a few days, almost one-fifth of patients will go on to experience complications, including pancreatic necrosis and/or organ failure, at times requiring prolonged hospitalization, intensive care, and radiologic, surgical, and/or endoscopic intervention. Early management is essential to identify and treat patients with AP to prevent complications. Patients with biliary pancreatitis typically will require surgery to prevent recurrent disease and may need early endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography if the disease is complicated by cholangitis. Nutrition plays an important role in treating patients with AP. The safety of early refeeding and importance in preventing complications from AP are addressed. This guideline will provide an evidence-based practical approach to the management of patients with AP., (Copyright © 2024 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Objective: Our study aimed to determine the prevalence of sexual dysfunction (SD) and its association with quality of life (QOL) in men with chronic pancreatitis (CP)., Materials and Methods: Male patients with CP were prospectively enrolled in our pancreas center and completed the following 4 validated questionnaires: International Index of Erectile Function 5, Erectile Hardness Score, Pancreatitis Quality of Life Instrument, and Short Form Survey. Patients were classified as having mild, moderate, or severe SD based on review of questionnaires., Results: Thirty patients were enrolled in the study, of which 18 patients had SD (mild in 9, moderate in 1, and severe in 8 patients). No significant differences were seen demographic or clinical characteristics in patients with and without SD. Patients with SD had more abdominal pain compared with those without SD (94.4% vs 83.3%, P = 0.001). No significant differences were noted in QOL metrics between the 2 groups., Conclusions: This pilot study shows that SD is present in 60% males with CP. No difference was noted in the QOL of patients with and without SD, albeit limited by our small sample size. Physicians caring for CP patients should routinely inquire for symptoms of SD and offer a urology referral if indicated., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background/aims: Patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP) often report a poor quality of life and may be disabled. Our study identifies clinical characteristics, predictors and outcomes in CP patients with disability., Methods: A review of established CP patients followed in our Pancreas Center between January 1, 2016 and April 30, 2021. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on disability. Univariate analysis was performed to identify differences in demographics, risk factors, comorbidities, complications, controlled medications, and resource utilization. Multivariate analysis was conducted to identify predictors for disability., Results: Out of 404 CP patients, 18% were disabled. These patients were younger (53.8 vs. 58.8, P =0.001), had alcoholic CP (54.1% vs. 30%; P <0.001), more recurrent pancreatitis (83.6% vs. 61.1%; P =0.001), chronic abdominal pain (96.7% vs. 78.2%; P =0.001), exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (83.6% vs. 55.5%; P <0.001), concurrent alcohol (39.3% vs. 23.3%; P =0.001) and tobacco abuse (42.6% vs. 26%; P =0.02), anxiety (23% vs. 18.2%; P <0.001), and depression (57.5% vs. 28.5%; P <0.001). A higher proportion was on opiates (68.9% vs. 43.6%; P <0.001), nonopiate controlled medications (47.5% vs. 23.9%; P <0.001), neuromodulators (73.3% vs. 44%; P <0.001), and recreational drugs (27.9% vs. 15.8%; P =0.036). Predictors of disability were chronic pain (OR 8.71, CI 2.61 to 12.9, P < 0.001), celiac block (OR 4.66, 2.49 to 8.41; P <0.001), neuromodulator use (OR 3.78, CI 2.09 to 6.66; P <0.001), opioid use (OR3.57, CI 2.06 to 6.31; P < 0.001), exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (OR3.56, CI 1.89 to 6.82; P <0.001), non-opioid controlled medications (OR 3.45, CI 2.01 to 5.99; P <0.001), history of recurrent acute pancreatitis (OR 2.49, CI 1.25 to 4.77; P <0.001), depression (OR 2.26, CI 1.79 to 3.01; P <0.001), and active smoking (OR1.8, CI 1.25 to 2.29; P <0.001)., Conclusion: CP patients with disability have unique characteristics and predictors, which can be targeted to reduce disease burden and health care expenditure in this population., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Biliary strictures of undetermined etiology pose a diagnostic challenge for endoscopists. Despite advances in technology, diagnosing malignancy in biliary strictures often requires multiple procedures. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to rigorously review and synthesize the available literature on strategies used to diagnose undetermined biliary strictures. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis of each diagnostic modality, including fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS-guided FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Committee provides this guideline on modalities used to diagnose biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document summarizes the methods used in the GRADE analysis to make recommendations, whereas the accompanying article subtitled "Summary and Recommendations" contains a concise summary of our findings and final recommendations., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: There is an unmet clinical need for effective, targeted interventions to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). We previously demonstrated that the serine-threonine phosphatase, calcineurin (Cn) is a critical mediator of PEP and that the FDA-approved calcineurin inhibitors, tacrolimus (Tac) or cyclosporine A, prevented PEP. Our recent observations in preclinical PEP models demonstrating that Cn deletion in both pancreatic and hematopoietic compartments is required for maximal pancreas protection, highlighted the need to target both systemic and pancreas-specific Cn signaling. We hypothesized that rectal administration of Tac would effectively mitigate PEP by ensuring systemic and pancreatic bioavailability of Tac. We have tested the efficacy of rectal Tac in a preclinical PEP model and in cerulein-induced experimental pancreatitis., Methods: C57BL/6 mice underwent ductal cannulation with saline infusion to simulate pressure-induced PEP or were given seven, hourly, cerulein injections to induce pancreatitis. To test the efficacy of rectal Tac in pancreatitis prevention, a rectal Tac suppository (1 mg/kg) was administered 10 min prior to cannulation or first cerulein injection. Histological and biochemical indicators of pancreatitis were evaluated post-treatment. Pharmacokinetic parameters of Tac in the blood after rectal delivery compared to intravenous and intragastric administration was evaluated., Results: Rectal Tac was effective in reducing pancreatic injury and inflammation in both PEP and cerulein models. Pharmacokinetic studies revealed that the rectal administration of Tac helped achieve optimal blood levels of Tac over an extended time compared to intravenous or intragastric delivery., Conclusion: Our results underscore the effectiveness and clinical utility of rectal Tac for PEP prophylaxis., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest S.Z.H is on the Scientific advisory board of ATIAS pharma., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses the role of fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS in the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures. In the endoscopic workup of these patients, we suggest the use of fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling in addition to brush cytology over brush cytology alone, especially for hilar strictures. We suggest the use of cholangioscopic and EUS-guided biopsy sampling especially for patients who undergo nondiagnostic sampling, cholangioscopic biopsy sampling for nondistal strictures and EUS-guided biopsy sampling distal strictures or those with suspected spread to surrounding lymph nodes and other structures., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a leading cause of gastrointestinal hospital admissions, with up to 40% mortality in patients with moderate-severe AP. Glycoprotein acetylation (GlycA) is measured as a nuclear magnetic resonance signal (NMR) of the post-translational modification of glycosylated acute-phase proteins released during inflammation. We aimed to investigate the role of GlycA as an inflammatory biomarker of AP., Methods: We prospectively enrolled 20 AP patients and 22 healthy controls and collected EDTA plasma samples at admission and discharge. NMR spectra were acquired from these samples using a 400 MHz Vantera ® Clinical Analyzer, and GlycA concentrations were calculated (normal = 400 μmol/L). The GlycA NMR signal, at 2.00 ± 0.01 ppm in the NMR spectrum, is derived from the N-acetyl methyl group protons within the carbohydrate side chains of circulating glycoproteins such as α1-acid glycoprotein, haptoglobin, α1-antitrypsin, α1-antichymotrypsin, and transferrin. GlycA levels were then compared between AP patients and controls, as well as within the AP group, based on etiology and severity., Results: Demographic comparisons were similar, except for a higher BMI in AP patients compared to healthy controls (29.9 vs. 24.8 kg/m 2 ; p < 0.001). AP was mild in 10 patients, moderate in 7, and severe in 3. GlycA levels were higher in AP patients than healthy controls on admission (578 vs. 376 μmol/L, p < 0.001) and at discharge (655 vs. 376 μmol/L, p < 0.001). GlycA levels were significantly higher in patients with moderate-severe AP than in those with mild AP at discharge (533 vs. 757 μmol/L, p = 0.023) but not at admission. After adjusting for BMI, multivariable regression indicated that patients with GlycA levels > 400 μmol/L had significantly higher odds of having AP of any severity (OR = 6.88; 95% CI, 2.07-32.2; p = 0.004) and mild AP (OR = 6.12; 95% CI, 1.48-42.0; p = 0.025) than controls., Conclusion: Our pilot study highlights the use of GlycA as a novel diagnostic biomarker of inflammation in patients with AP. Our study shows that GlycA levels were significantly higher in hospitalized AP patients compared to healthy controls. Patients with moderate-to-severe AP had higher GlycA levels compared to patients with mild AP at the time of their hospital discharge, suggesting persistent inflammation in patients with severe disease.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach to strategies to prevent endoscopy-related injury (ERI) in GI endoscopists. It is accompanied by the article subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline estimates the rates, sites, and predictors of ERI. Additionally, it addresses the role of ergonomics training, microbreaks and macrobreaks, monitor and table positions, antifatigue mats, and use of ancillary devices in decreasing the risk of ERI. We recommend formal ergonomics education and neutral posture during the performance of endoscopy, achieved through adjustable monitor and optimal procedure table position, to reduce the risk of ERI. We suggest taking microbreaks and scheduled macrobreaks and using antifatigue mats during procedures to prevent ERI. We suggest the use of ancillary devices in those with risk factors predisposing them to ERI., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

This document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides a full description of the methodology used in the review of the evidence used to inform the final guidance outlined in the accompanying Summary and Recommendations document regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. This guideline used 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, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation over endosic approaches., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Background: Disparities in pain control have been extensively studied in the hospital setting, but less is known regarding the racial/ethnic disparities in opioid prescriptions for patients with abdominal pain in ambulatory clinics., Methods: We examined opioid prescriptions during visits by patients presenting with abdominal pain between the years of 2006 and 2015, respectively, in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey database. Data weights for national-level estimates were applied., Results: We identified 4006 outpatient visits, equivalent to 114 million weighted visits. Rates of opioid use was highest among non-Hispanic White patients (12%), and then non-Hispanic Black patients (11%), and was the lowest in Hispanic patients (6%). Hispanic patients had lower odds of receiving opioid prescriptions compared to non-Hispanic White patients (OR = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.31-0.77, p = 0.002) and all non-Hispanic patients (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.30-0.75; p = 0.002). No significant differences were noted in non-opioid analgesia prescriptions ( p = 0.507). A higher frequency of anti-depressants/anti-psychotic prescriptions and alcohol use was recorded amongst the non-Hispanic patients ( p = 0.027 and p = 0.001, respectively)., Conclusions: Rates of opioid prescriptions for abdominal pain patients were substantially lower for the Hispanic patients compared with the non-Hispanic patients, despite having a decreased rate of high-risk features, such as alcohol use and depression. The root cause of this disparity needs further research to ensure equitable access to pain management.

Background: Tobacco smoking is a known risk factor for progression of chronic pancreatitis (CP)., Aim: We compare clinical outcomes of CP patients with current or former smoking with those who have never smoked., Methods: We reviewed all patients with followed at our Pancreas Center from 2016 to 2021, comparing the demographics, clinical features, comorbidities, outcomes, and resource utilization between smokers and non-smokers., Results: Of 439 CP patients, 283 were smokers (125 current, 158 former). Significantly more smokers were men (58.3% vs 40.4%), with alcoholic CP (45.5% vs 12.1%), chronic abdominal pain (77.7% vs 65.4%), anxiety and depression (22.6% vs 14.1% and 38.9% vs 23.1%), and with more local pancreatic complications [splanchnic vein thrombosis (15.7% vs 5.13%), pseudocyst (42.7% vs 23.7%), biliary obstruction (20.5% vs 5.88%)], exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (65.8% vs 46.2%), hospitalizations (2.59 vs 1.75 visits), and emergency department visits (8.96% vs 3.25%). Opioid and neuromodulator use were significantly higher (59.2% vs 30.3% and 58.4% vs 31.2%). Current smokers had worse outcomes than former smokers. Multivariate analysis controlling for multiple factors identified smoking as an independent predictor of chronic abdominal pain (OR 2.49, CI 1.23-5.04, p = 0.011), opioid (OR 2.36, CI 1.35-4.12, p = 0.002), neuromodulators (OR 2.55, CI 1.46-4.46, p = 0.001), and non-opioid-controlled medications (OR 2.28, CI 1.22-4.30, p = 0.01) use, as well as splanchnic vein thromboses (OR 2.65, CI 1.02-6.91, p = 0.045) and biliary obstruction (OR 4.12, CI 1.60-10.61, p = 0.003)., Conclusion: CP patients who smoke or formerly smoked have greater morbidity and worse outcomes than non-smokers., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Objectives: Meticulous inspection of the mucosa during colonoscopy, represents a lengthier withdrawal time, but has been shown to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR). We investigated if artificial intelligence-aided speed monitoring can improve suboptimal withdrawal time., Methods: We evaluated the implementation of a computer-aided speed monitoring device during colonoscopy at a large academic endoscopy center. After informed consent, patients ≥18 years undergoing colonoscopy between 5 March and 29 April 2021 were examined without the use of the speedometer, and with the speedometer between 29 April and 30 June 2021. All colonoscopies were recorded, and withdrawal time was assessed based on the recordings in a blinded fashion. We compared mean withdrawal time, percentage of withdrawal time ≥6 min, and ADR with and without the speedometer., Results: One hundred sixty-six patients in each group were eligible for analyses. Mean withdrawal time was 9 min and 6.6 s (95% CI: 8 min and 34.8 s to 9 min and 39 s) without the use of the speedometer, and 9 min and 9 s (95% CI: 8 min and 45 s to 9 min and 33.6 s) with the speedometer; difference 2.3 s (95% CI: -42.3-37.7, p  = 0.91). The ADRs were 45.2% (95% CI: 37.6-52.8) without the speedometer as compared to 45.8% (95% CI: 38.2-53.4) with the speedometer ( p  = 0.91). The proportion of colonoscopies with withdrawal time ≥6 min without the speedometer was 85.5% (95% CI: 80.2-90.9) versus 86.7% (95% CI: 81.6-91.9) with the speedometer ( p  = 0.75)., Conclusions: Use of speed monitoring during withdrawal did not increase withdrawal time or ADR in colonoscopy., Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04710251.

Background: Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is characterized by chronic abdominal pain and functional insufficiency. However, a small subset of patients with prior acute pancreatitis (AP) and/or underlying risk factors for developing CP may be pain-free at diagnosis and may have a different clinical course. We aimed to compare the clinical characteristics, outcomes, and healthcare utilization between CP patients with and without pain., Methods: Reviewed patients with established CP were followed in our Pancreas Center between January 2016 and April 2021. Patients without risk factors for developing CP and/or without AP prior to their diagnosis and only with incidental radiologic features of CP were excluded, so as to minimize confounding factors of pancreatopathy unrelated to CP. Patients were divided into painful and pain-free groups to analyze differences in demographics, outcomes, and healthcare utilization., Results: Of 368 CP patients, 49 (13.3%) were pain-free at diagnosis and had remained so for >9 years. There were no significant differences in body mass index, race, sex, or co-morbidities between the two groups. Pain-free patients were older at diagnosis (53.9 vs 45.7, P  =   0.004) and had less recurrent AP (RAP) (43.8% vs 72.5%, P  <   0.001) and less exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) (34.7% vs 65.7%, P  <   0.001). Pain-free patients had less disability (2.2% vs 22.0%, P  =   0.003), mental illness (20.4% vs 61.0%, P  <   0.001), surgery (0.0% vs 15.0%, P  =   0.059), and therapeutic interventions (0.0% vs 16.4%, P  =   0.005) for pain., Conclusions: We described a unique subset of patients with underlying risk factors for CP and/or prior AP who were pain-free at diagnosis. They were older at diagnosis, had less EPI and RAP, and overall favorable outcomes with minimal resource utilization., Competing Interests: None declared., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press and Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University.)

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.)

Background/aims: Diabetes secondary to endocrine insufficiency in chronic pancreatitis (CP) may develop at any time during the disease course. We sought to evaluate the differences in clinical characteristics and outcomes in CP patients with pre-existing, early-onset, and late-onset diabetes., Methods: We reviewed CP patients seen at our Pancreas Center during 2016-2021. We divided them into four groups: those without diabetes, with pre-existing diabetes, with early-onset diabetes, and with late-onset diabetes. We then compared clinical characteristics and outcomes., Results: We identified 450 patients with CP: 271 without diabetes, 99 with pre-existing diabetes, 51 with early-onset diabetes, and 29 with late-onset diabetes. Early-onset diabetics were younger (54.1 vs 57.3 vs 62.5 vs 61.9 years), had more alcohol-related CP (45.1% vs 31.7% vs 32.3% vs 31%), had higher HbA1C levels (8.02% vs 5.11% vs 7.71% vs 7.66%), were more likely to be on insulin (78.4% vs 0% vs 48.4% vs 65.5%), and used more opioids (64.7% vs 43.9% vs 55.1% vs 44.8%) and gabapentinoids (66.7% vs 43.5% vs 48% vs 60.7%) compared to other groups (p < 0.05). Patients who developed diabetes after CP diagnosis had more exocrine insufficiency (72.4% vs 70.6% vs 65.7% vs 53.1%), anatomical complications, and interventions for pain control (p < 0.05). There was no difference in pancreatic cancer in the four groups., Conclusion: CP patients who are younger and use alcohol are at higher risk of having early-onset diabetes and have poorer glucose control compared other CP patients. Patients who develop diabetes after CP diagnosis have worse outcomes and use more resources., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Introduction: In animal models, inflammation caused by experimental acute pancreatitis (AP) promotes pancreatic carcinogenesis that is preventable by suppressing inflammation. Recent studies noted higher long-term risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) after AP. In this study, we evaluated whether the long-term PDAC risk after AP was influenced by the etiology of AP, number of recurrences, and if it was because of progression to chronic pancreatitis (CP)., Methods: This retrospective study used nationwide Veterans Administration database spanning 1999-2015. A 2-year washout period was applied to exclude patients with preexisting AP and PDAC. PDAC risk was estimated in patients with AP without (AP group) and with underlying CP (APCP group) and those with CP alone (CP group) and compared with PDAC risk in patients in a control group, respectively, using cause-specific hazards model., Results: The final cohort comprised 7,147,859 subjects (AP-35,550 and PDAC-16,475). The cumulative PDAC risk 3-10 years after AP was higher than in controls (0.61% vs 0.18%), adjusted hazard ratio (1.7 [1.4-2.0], P < 0.001). Adjusted hazard ratio was 1.5 in AP group, 2.4 in the CP group, and 3.3 in APCP group. PDAC risk increased with the number of AP episodes. Elevated PDAC risk after AP was not influenced by the etiology of AP (gallstones, smoking, or alcohol)., Discussion: There is a higher PDAC risk 3-10 years after AP irrespective of the etiology of AP, increases with the number of episodes of AP and is additive to higher PDAC risk because of CP., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology.)

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 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. In patients with unclear diagnosis 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 assured., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: While acute pancreatitis (AP) contributes significantly to hospitalizations and costs, most cases are mild with minimal complications. In 2016, we piloted an observation pathway in the emergency department (ED) for mild AP and showed reduced admissions and length of stay (LOS) without increased readmissions or mortality. After 5 years of implementation, we evaluated outcomes of the ED pathway and identified predictors of successful discharge., Methods: We reviewed a prospectively enrolled cohort of patients with mild AP presenting to a tertiary care center ED between 10/2016 and 9/2021, evaluating LOS, charges, imaging, and 30-day readmission, and assessed predictors of successful ED discharge. Patients were divided into two main groups: successfully discharged via the ED pathway ("ED cohort") and admitted to the hospital ("admission cohort"), with subgroups to compare outcomes, and multivariate analysis to determine predictors of discharge., Results: Of 619 AP patients, 419 had mild AP (109 ED cohort, 310 admission cohort). The ED cohort was younger (age 49.3 vs 56.3,p < 0.001), had lower Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) (1.30 vs 2.43, p < 0.001), shorter LOS (12.3 h vs 116 h, p < 0.001), lower charges (mean $6768 vs $19886, p < 0.001) and less imaging, without differences in 30-day readmissions. Increasing age (OR: 0.97; p < 0.001), increasing CCI (OR: 0.75; p < 0.001) and biliary AP (OR: 0.10; p < 0.001) were associated with decreased ED discharge, while idiopathic AP had increased ED discharge (OR: 7.8; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: After appropriate triage, patients with mild AP (age <50, CCI <2, idiopathic AP) can safely discharge from the ED with improved outcomes and cost savings., (Copyright © 2023 IAP and EPC. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a fibroinflammatory disorder that results in irreversible scarring to pancreatic parenchyma and presents with a myriad of symptoms including abdominal pain, nausea, weight loss, steatorrhea, and diabetes. Furthermore, patients with CP often have comorbid chemical dependencies to alcohol and tobacco, which can further complicate the management of CP. Recent literature proposes guidelines on how best to care for patients with CP and establishes requirements for centers of excellence. Here, we review the available data on endoscopic therapies, pain management, chemical dependency, and nutrition for patients with CP and propose quality metrics that may be used to establish a quality practice., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Bone disease is an under-recognized cause of morbidity in chronic pancreatitis (CP). Over the past decade, publications of original studies on bone disease in CP has warranted synthesis of the evidence to ascertain the true burden of the problem., Aim: To quantify the prevalence of osteopenia, osteoporosis, and fragility fractures in CP patients and investigate the associated clinical features and outcomes., Methods: A systematic search identified studies investigating bone disease in CP patients from Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, Ovid Medline, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, from inception until October 2022. The outcomes included prevalence of osteopenia, osteoporosis, and fragility fractures, which were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model and underwent metaregression to delineate association with baseline clinical features., Results: Twenty-one studies were included for systematic review and 18 studies were included for meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of osteopenia and osteoporosis in CP patients was 41.2% (95%CI: 35.2%-47.3%) and 20.9% (95%CI: 14.9%-27.6%), respectively. The pooled prevalence of fragility fractures described among CP was 5.9% (95%CI: 3.9%-8.4%). Meta-regression revealed significant association of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) use with prevalence of osteoporosis [coefficient: 1.7 (95%CI: 0.6-2.8); P < 0.0001]. We observed no associations with mean age, sex distribution, body mass index, alcohol or smoking exposure, diabetes with prevalence of osteopenia, osteoporosis or fragility fractures. Paucity of data on systemic inflammation, CP severity, and bone mineralization parameters precluded a formal meta-analysis., Conclusion: This meta-analysis confirms significant bone disease in patients with CP. Other than PERT use, we observed no patient or study-specific factor to be significantly associated with CP-related bone disease. Further studies are needed to identify confounders, at-risk population, and to understand the mechanisms of CP-related bone disease and the implications of treatment response., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: All the authors have no personal, financial or professional conflict of interest disclosures to declare., (©The Author(s) 2023. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is commonly used for acute postoperative pain management. Clinicians may also use PCA in the management of acute pancreatitis (AP); however, there is limited data on its impact on patient outcomes. We aimed to characterize a cohort of patients receiving PCA therapy for pain management in AP compared to those patients receiving standard physician-directed delivery of analgesia., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted with AP at a tertiary care center from 2008 to 2018. Exclusion criteria included patients with chronic opioid use, chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. Primary outcomes include length of stay (LOS) and time to enteral nutrition. Secondary outcomes include proportion of patients discharged with opioid and complications. Multivariate regression analysis and t-test were used for analysis., Results: Among 656 AP patients who met the criteria, patients receiving PCA (n = 62) and standard delivery (n = 594) were similar in admission pain score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and pancreatitis severity. There were significantly greater proportion of women, Caucasians and nonalcoholics who received PCA therapy (p < 0.01) than standard delivery. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that patients in the PCA group have a longer LOS (7.17 vs. 5.43 days, p < 0.007, OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.01-1.07), longer time to enteral nutrition (3.84 days vs. 2.56 days, p = 0.012, OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.02-1.20), and higher likelihood of being discharged with opioids (OR 1.94; 95% CI 1.07-3.63, p = 0.03)., Conclusion: The use of PCA in AP may be associated with poorer outcomes including longer LOS, time to enteral intake and a higher likelihood of being discharged with opioids., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background and Aims: Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a fibroinflammatory syndrome of the pancreas associated with pain and poor quality of life. It has toxic and genetic risk factors but can also be idiopathic. The natural history of idiopathic CP (ICP) is not well-known. Therefore, we studied clinical characteristics and outcomes of these patients followed in our Pancreas Center., Methods: Review of CP patients between January 1, 2016, and April 30, 2021. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on diagnosis, ICP vs non-ICP. CP patients with a smoking history were placed in the non-ICP group. Statistical analysis was performed to identify differences in demographics, comorbidities, complications, controlled medications, and resource utilization., Results: Out of 450 patients, 101 (22%) were diagnosed with ICP and 349 (78%) were non-ICP. ICP patients were mainly female (59.4% vs 40.5%; P  = .005), had less comorbid anxiety (10.5% vs 22.1%; P  = .002), depression (24.2% vs 35.8%; P < .001), disability (13% vs 16.3%; P  = .021), exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (45.3% vs 62.6%; P  = .004), splanchnic vein thrombosis (1.04% vs 14.9%; P < .001), pseudocysts (16.7% vs 41.6%; P < .001), and biliary obstruction (3.12% vs 19.2%; P < .001). They underwent less abdominal imaging (2.63 vs 3.42; P  = .048) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (0.88 vs 1.32; P  = .030). They also had less opioid use (29.6% vs 54.4%; P < .001), gabapentinoid use (34% vs 52.3%; P  = .002), and celiac blocks (7.22% vs 16.1%; P < .041)., Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that the clinical course of ICP is less morbid compared to non-ICP. This study specifically removes smoking, a significant risk factor for CP, to study a truly idiopathic cohort., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Background: Patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP) have poor quality of life (QOL). Sleep disorders affect QOL when associated with chronic pain and opioid use. Hence patients with CP may have unrecognized sleep disturbances., Aims: The aim of the study was to evaluate sleep disturbances in CP and its impact on QOL., Methods: Established CP patients were prospectively enrolled after exclusion of patients with co-morbidities known to negatively affect sleep and QOL. Three questionnaires were used to identify sleep disturbances, PROMISv1SF8, Insomnia Severity Index, and Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and one for restless leg syndrome (RLS). PANQOLI and SF12 questionnaires were used to evaluate QOL. Two blinded sleep pulmonologists evaluated the responses. QOL assessments were then analyzed in patients with and without sleep disturbances., Results: Of 89 patients, 48 met exclusion criteria, 41 were eligible, and 28 completed the study. Twenty patients (71%) had sleep disturbances with significantly worse scores across all 3 sleep questionnaires and also had lower scores on both PANQOLI (50 vs 76, p = 0.002) and SF-12 (physical component 29.3 vs 53.9, p < 0.001; mental component 36.4 vs 46.1, p = 0.03). Eleven patients (39%) had RLS and sleep disturbances., Conclusion: In patients with established CP there was a high prevalence of sleep disturbances and RLS with worse QOL representing a potential therapeutic target to improve QOL., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)