Peroral endoscopic myotomy for spastic esophageal dysmotility among opioid users: a multicenter propensity score matching study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Opioid-induced esophageal dysfunction (OIED) often presents as spastic esophageal disorders (SEDs) and esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO). The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare clinical outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for SEDs and EGJOO among opioid users and nonusers. METHODS: This propensity score (PS) matching study included consecutive opioid users and nonusers who underwent POEM for SEDs and EGJOO between January 2018 and September 2022. The following covariates were used for the PS calculation: age, sex, duration of symptoms, Eckardt score, type of motility disorder, and length of myotomy during POEM. Clinical response was defined as a post-POEM Eckardt score ≤3. RESULTS: A total of 277 consecutive patients underwent POEM during the study period. PS matching resulted in the selection of 64 pairs of patients strictly matched 1:1 (n = 128) with no statistically significant differences in demographic, baseline, or procedural characteristics or in the parameters considered for the PS between the 2 groups. Clinical response to POEM was significantly lower among opioid users (51 of 64 [79.7%]) versus nonusers (60 of 64 [93.8%]) (P = .03) at a median follow-up of 18 months. Among opioid users, higher opioid dose (>60 morphine milligram equivalents per day) was associated with a higher likelihood of failure to respond to POEM (odds ratio, 4.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-3.98; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical response to POEM for SEDs and EGJOO is significantly lower among opioid users versus nonusers. There was a dose-relationship between opioids and response to POEM, with higher daily opioid usage associated with a higher likelihood of treatment failure.

Benefits of EUS-guided gastroenterostomy over surgical gastrojejunostomy in the palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a large multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (mGOO) allows resumption of peroral intake. Although surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ) provides durable relief, it may be associated with a higher morbidity, interfere with chemotherapy, and require an optimum nutritional status. EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative. We aimed to conduct the largest comparative series to date between EUS-GE and SGJ for mGOO. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study included consecutive patients undergoing SGJ or EUS-GE at 6 centers. Primary outcomes included time to resumption of oral intake, length of stay (LOS), and mortality. Secondary outcomes included technical and clinical success, reintervention rates, adverse events (AEs), and resumption of chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 310 patients were included (EUS-GE, n = 187; SGJ, n = 123). EUS-GE exhibited significantly lower time to resumption of oral intake (1.40 vs 4.06 days, P < .001), at lower albumin levels (2.95 vs 3.33 g/dL, P < .001), and a shorter LOS (5.31 vs 8.54 days, P < .001) compared with SGJ; there was no difference in mortality (48.1% vs 50.4%, P = .78). Technical (97.9% and 100%) and clinical (94.1% vs 94.3%) success was similar in the EUS-GE and SGJ groups, respectively. EUS-GE had lower rates of AEs (13.4% vs 33.3%, P < .001) but higher reintervention rates (15.5% vs 1.63%, P < .001). EUS-GE patients exhibited significantly lower interval time to resumption of chemotherapy (16.6 vs 37.8 days, P < .001). Outcomes between the EUS-GE and laparoscopic (n = 46) surgical approach showed that EUS-GE had shorter interval time to initiation/resumption of oral intake (3.49 vs 1.46 days, P < .001), decreased LOS (9 vs 5.31 days, P < .001), and a lower rate of AEs (11.9% vs 17.9%, P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study to date showing that EUS-GE can be performed among nutritionally deficient patients without affecting the technical and clinical success compared with SGJ. EUS-GE is associated with fewer AEs while allowing earlier resumption of diet and chemotherapy.

Utilization trends for endoscopic ablation therapy and esophagectomy in Barrett's esophagus from 2005 to 2019.

Guidelines have shifted to now recommend endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett's esophagus (BE) with low and high-grade dysplasia. Previously, esophagectomy was the standard therapy for high-grade dysplasia. However, it is unclear to what degree ablation therapy has affected utilization of esophagectomy. In this retrospective observational cohort study of BE patients without cancer from the Premier Healthcare Database, the prevalence of utilization of endoscopic ablation therapy and of esophagectomy in BE were calculated and temporal trends were evaluated. A total of 938, 333 BE cases were included in the study. There was a significantly increasing trend of ablation over the period 2006 to 2010 (Annual Percentage Change (APC); 95% CI 0.56% [0.51%, 0.61%]), a significantly decreasing trend for the period 2011 to 2015 (APC; 95% CI - 0.15% [- 0.20%, - 0.11%]), and a shallow increasing trend for the period 2016 to 2019 (APC; 95% CI 0.09% [0.06%, 0.11%]). For esophagectomy, there was a significantly decreasing trend for the period 2006 to 2009 (APC; 95% CI - 0.03% [- 0.04%, - 0.02%]; P < 0.001) that corresponded to the uptrend in utilization of endoscopic ablation. There was a stable trend of esophagectomy over the period 2010 to 2019 (APC; 95% CI - 0.0006% [- 0.0002%, 0.0005%]; P = 0.1947). Adoption and increased utilization of endoscopic ablation therapy for BE has coincided with a decrease in esophagectomy, and is the predominate method of therapy for BE with dysplasia.

Challenges of developing and executing a multi-site registry for a novel device with evolving indications for use.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of new technologies in endoscopy has been met with uncertainty, skepticism, and lack of standardization or training parameters, particularly when disruptive devices or techniques are involved. The widespread availability of a novel endoscopic suturing device (OverStitch™) for tissue apposition has enabled the development of applications of endoscopic suturing. METHODS: The American Gastroenterological Association partnered with Apollo Endosurgery to develop a registry to capture in a pragmatic non-randomized study the safety, effectiveness, and durability of endoscopic suturing in approximating tissue in the setting of bariatric revision and fixation of endoprosthetic devices. RESULTS: We highlight the challenges of the adoption of novel techniques by examining the process of developing and executing this multicenter registry to assess real-world use of this endoscopic suturing device. We also present our preliminary data on the safety and effectiveness of the novel device as it is applied in the treatment of obesity. CONCLUSIONS: The Prospective Registry for Trans-Orifice Endoscopic Suturing Applications (ES Registry) was an effective Phase 4, postmarketing registry aimed at capturing pragmatic, real-world use of a novel device. These findings serve to solidify the role of endoscopic suturing in clinical practice.

An international experience with single-operator cholangiopancreatoscopy in patients with altered anatomy.

Background and study aims The utility of digital single- operator cholangiopancreatoscopy (D-SOCP) in surgically altered anatomy (SAA) is limited. We aimed to evaluate the technical success and safety of D-SOCP in patients SAA. Patients and methods Patients with SAA who underwent D-SOCP between February 2015 and June 2020 were retrospectively evaluated. Technical success was defined as completing the intended procedure with the use of D-SOCP. Results Thirty-five patients underwent D-SOCP (34 D-SOC, 1 D-SOP). Bilroth II was the most common type of SAA (45.7 %), followed by Whipple reconstruction (31.4 %). Twenty-three patients (65.7 %) patients had prior failed ERCP due to the presence of complex biliary stone (52.2 %). A therapeutic duodenoscope was utilized in the majority of the cases (68.6 %), while a therapeutic gastroscope (22.7 %) or adult colonoscope (8.5 %) were used in the remaining procedures. Choledocholithiasis (61.2 %) and pancreatic duct calculi (3.2 %) were the most common indications for D-SOCP. Technical success was achieved in all 35 patients (100 %) and majority (91.4 %) requiring a single session. Complex interventions included electrohydraulic or laser lithotripsy, biliary or pancreatic stent placement, stricture dilation, and target tissue biopsies. Two mild adverse events occurred (pancreatitis and transient bacteremia). Conclusions In SAA, D-SOCP is a safe and effective modality to diagnose and treat complex pancreatobiliary disorders, especially in cases where standard ERCP attempts may fail.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic duodenal stent versus endoscopic or surgical gastrojejunostomy to treat malignant gastric outlet obstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Malignant disease accounts for up to 80 % of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) cases, which may be treated with duodenal self-expanding metal stents (SEMS), surgical gastrojejunostomy (GJ), and more recently endoscopic-ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE). These three treatments have not been compared head-to-head in a randomized trial. Methods We searched the Embase and MEDLINE databases for studies published January 2015-February 2021 assessing treatment of malignant GOO using duodenal SEMS, endoscopic (EUS-GE) or surgical (laparoscopic or open) GJ. Efficacy outcomes assessed included technical and clinical success rates, GOO recurrence and reintervention. Safety outcomes included procedure-related bleeding or perforation, and stent-related events for the duodenal SEMS and EUS-GE arms. Results EUS-GE had a lower rate of technical success (95.3%) than duodenal SEMS (99.4 %) or surgical GJ (99.9%) ( P  = 0.0048). For duodenal SEMS vs. EUS-GE vs. surgical GJ, rates of clinical success (88.9 % vs. 89.0 % vs. 92.3 % respectively, P  = 0.49) were similar. EUS-GE had a lower rate of GOO recurrence based on limited data ( P  = 0.0036), while duodenal SEMS had a higher rate of reintervention ( P  = 0.041). Overall procedural complications were similar (duodenal SEMS 18.7 % vs. EUS-GE 21.9 % vs. surgical GJ 23.8 %, P  = 0.32), but estimated bleeding rate was lowest ( P  = 0.0048) and stent occlusion rate was highest ( P  = 0.0002) for duodenal SEMS. Conclusions Duodenal SEMS, EUS-GE, and surgical GJ showed similar clinical efficacy for the treatment of malignant GOO. Duodenal SEMS had a lower procedure-related bleeding rate but higher rate of reintervention.

EUS-guided gastroenterostomy versus surgical gastroenterostomy for the management of gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Surgical gastroenterostomy (SGE) has been the mainstay treatment for gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). The emergence of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) presents a less invasive alternative for palliation of GOO. We conducted a comprehensive review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of EUS-GE compared to SGE. Methods Multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings up to April 2021 were searched to identify studies that reported on safety and effectiveness of EUS-GE in comparison to SGE. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) of technical success, clinical success, adverse events (AE) and recurrence, and pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) of procedure time and post-procedure length of stay (LOS) were calculated. Study heterogeneity was assessed using I 2 and Cochran Q statistics. Results Seven studies including 625 patients (372 EUS-GE and 253 SGE) were included. EUS-GE had lower pooled odds of technical success compared with SGE (OR 0.19, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.06-0.60, I 2 0 %). Among the technically successful cases, EUS-GE was superior in terms of clinical success (OR 4.73, 95 % CI 1.83-12.25, I 2 18 %), lower overall AE (OR 0.20, 95 % CI 0.10-0.37, I 2 39 %), and shorter procedure time (SMD -2.4, 95 % CI -4.1, -0.75, I 2 95 %) and post-procedure LOS (SMD -0.49, 95 % CI -0.94, -0.03, I 2 78%). Rates of severe AE (0.89, 95 % CI 0.11-7.36, I 2 67 %) and recurrence (OR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.18-1.38, I 2 49 %) were comparable. Conclusions Our results suggest EUS-GE is a promising alternative to SGE due to its superior clinical success, overall safety, and efficiency. With further evolution EUS-GE could become the intervention of choice in GOO.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease: a US multicenter study.

Background and study aims In patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), endoscopically visible lesions with distinct borders can be considered for endoscopic resection. The role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for these lesions is not well defined because of a paucity of data. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of colorectal ESD of dysplastic lesions in patients with IBD across centers in the United States. Patients and methods This was a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with IBD who were referred for ESD of dysplastic colorectal lesions at nine centers. The primary endpoints were the rates of en bloc resection and complete (R0) resection. The secondary endpoints were the rates of adverse events and lesion recurrence. Results A total of 45 dysplastic lesions (median size 30mm, interquartile range [IQR] 23 to 42 mm) in 41 patients were included. Submucosal fibrosis was observed in 73 %. En bloc resection was achieved in 43 of 45 lesions (96 %) and R0 resection in 34 of 45 lesions (76 %). Intraprocedural perforation occurred in one patient (2.4 %) and was treated successfully with clip placement. Delayed bleeding occurred in four patients (9.8 %). No severe intraprocedural bleeding or delayed perforation occurred. During a median follow-up of 18 months (IQR 13 to 37 months), local recurrence occurred in one case (2.6 %). Metachronous lesions were identified in 11 patients (31 %). Conclusions ESD, when performed by experts, is safe and effective for large, dysplastic colorectal lesions in patients with IBD. Despite the high prevalence of submucosal fibrosis, en bloc resection was achieved in nearly all patients with IBD undergoing ESD. Careful endoscopic surveillance is necessary to monitor for local recurrence and metachronous lesions after ESD.

Gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) for refractory gastroparesis: results from an international prospective trial.

OBJECTIVE: Although gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) is considered a promising technique for the management of refractory gastroparesis, high-quality evidence is limited. We prospectively investigated the efficacy and safety of G-POEM in unselected patients with refractory gastroparesis. DESIGN: In five tertiary centres, patients with symptomatic gastroparesis refractory to standard medical therapy and confirmed by impaired gastric emptying were included. The primary endpoint was clinical success, defined as at least one score decrease in Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI) with ≥25% decrease in two subscales, at 12 months. GCSI Score and subscales, adverse events (AEs) and 36-Item Short Form questionnaire of quality of life were evaluated at baseline and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after G-POEM. Gastric emptying study was performed before and 3 months after the procedure. RESULTS: Of 80 enrolled patients, 75 patients (94%) completed 12-month follow-up. Clinical success at 12 months was 56% (95% CI, 44.8 to 66.7). GCSI Score (including subscales) improved moderately after G-POEM (p<0.05). In a regression model, a baseline GCSI Score >2.6 (OR=3.23, p=0.04) and baseline gastric retention >20% at 4 hours (OR=3.65, p=0.03) were independent predictors of clinical success at 12 months, as was early response to G-POEM at 1 month after therapy (OR 8.75, p<0.001). Mild procedure-related AEs occurred in 5 (6%) patients. CONCLUSION: G-POEM is a safe procedure, but showed only modest overall effectiveness in the treatment of refractory gastroparesis. Further studies are required to identify the best candidates for G-POEM; unselective use of this procedure should be discouraged. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry NCT02732821.

Clinical and technical outcomes of patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy using 20-mm vs. 15-mm lumen-apposing metal stents.

BACKGROUND: Most studies on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) utilized a 15-mm lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS). More recently, a 20-mm LAMS has become available. This study aimed to compare rates of technical and clinical success and adverse events (AEs) in patients undergoing EUS-GE using a 20-mm vs. 15-mm LAMS. METHODS: Patients who underwent EUS-GE with 15-mm or 20-mm LAMS for malignant GOO during the period from January 2018 to October 2020 were included. The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as an increase in the gastric outlet obstruction score (GOOS) by at least 1 point during follow-up. Secondary outcomes were technical success, maximum tolerated diet, re-intervention rate, and rate/severity of AEs. RESULTS: 267 patients (mean age 67 years, 43 % women) with malignant GOO from 19 centers underwent EUS-GE. Clinical success rates were similar for the 15-mm and 20-mm stents (89.2 % [95 %CI 84.2 %-94.2 %] vs. 84.1 % [77.4%-90.6 %], respectively). However, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the 20-mm group tolerated a soft solid/complete diet at the end of follow-up (91.2 % [84.4 %-95.7 %] vs. 81.2 % [73.9 %-87.2 %], P = 0.04). Overall, AEs occurred in 33 patients (12.4 % [8.4 %-16.3 %]), with similar rates for 15-mm and 20-mm stents (12.8 % [7.5 %-18.2 %] vs. 11.8 % [6 %-17.6 %]), including incidence of severe/fatal AEs (2 % [0.4 %-5.8 %] vs. 3.4 % [0.9 %-8.4 %]). CONCLUSIONS: The 20-mm and 15-mm LAMS show similar safety and efficacy for patients undergoing EUS-GE for malignant GOO. The 20-mm LAMS allows a more advanced diet and is, thus preferred for EUS-GE.

Safety and efficacy of a novel resection system for direct endoscopic necrosectomy of walled-off pancreas necrosis: a prospective, international, multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) of walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) lacks dedicated instruments and requires repetitive and cumbersome procedures. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of a new powered endoscopic debridement (PED) system designed to simultaneously resect and remove solid debris within WOPN. METHODS: This was a single-arm, prospective, multicenter, international device trial conducted from November 2018 to August 2019 at 10 sites. Patients with WOPN ≥6 cm and ≤22 cm and with >30% solid debris were enrolled. The primary endpoint was safety through 21 days after the last DEN procedure. Efficacy outcomes included clearance of necrosis, procedural time, adequacy of debridement, number of procedures until resolution, hospital stay duration, and quality of life. RESULTS: Thirty patients (mean age, 55 years; 60% men) underwent DEN with no device-related adverse events. Of 30 patients, 15 (50%) achieved complete debridement in 1 session and 20 (67%) achieved complete debridement within 2 or fewer sessions. A median of 1.5 interventions (range, 1-7) were required. Median hospital stay was 10 days (interquartile range, 22). There was an overall reduction of 91% in percent necrosis within WOPN from baseline to follow-up and 85% in collection volume. Baseline WOPN volume was positively correlated with the total number of interventions (ρ = .363, P = .049). CONCLUSIONS: The new PED system seems to be a safe and effective treatment tool for WOPN, resulting in fewer interventions and lower hospital duration when compared with published data on using conventional instruments. Randomized controlled trials comparing the PED system with conventional DEN are needed. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03694210.).

Is transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) an answer to post-peroral endoscopic myotomy gastroesophageal reflux? A multicenter retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The use of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia has a high incidence of post-procedural gastroesophageal reflux (GER). Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) may be an ideal endoscopic treatment. We report our experience with the use of post-POEM TIF. METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective study, post-POEM patients with GER who underwent TIF were included. The study end points were: (i) technical success; (ii) safety; (iii) effectiveness (changes in symptoms, scores, proton pump inhibitor [PPI] use, pH studies). RESULTS: 12 patients underwent TIF after POEM, nine of whom had daily symptoms, with 91.7% requiring twice daily (BID) PPIs. Technical success was achieved in all patients. Two adverse events occurred. There were significant decreases in the percentage of patients on BID PPIs (P = 0.03), frequency of daily symptoms (P = 0.03), Reflux Severity Index questionnaire, and GERD Health-related Quality of Life scores (P = 0.03 and P = 0.003; n = 6). pH studies performed in seven of the patients showed a significant reduction in the mean DeMeester score (P = 0.05) and mean percentage acid exposure time (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Our experience suggests that TIF may be effective and safe in treating GER after POEM. Larger prospective trials are needed.

Analysis of Outcomes in COVID-19 Patients With Varying Degrees of Hyperlipasemia.

OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients may have varying degrees of hyperlipasemia. The aim was to compare outcomes among different levels of hyperlipasemia in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This is a retrospective study examining outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients with a lipase <3× upper limit of normal (ULN), asymptomatic hyperlipasemia (>3× ULN), secondary pancreatitis (typical respiratory COVID-19 symptoms and found to have pancreatitis), and primary pancreatitis (presenting with pancreatitis). RESULTS: Of 11,883 patients admitted with COVID-19, 1560 patients were included: 1155 patients had normal serum lipase (control group), 270 had elevated lipase <3× ULN, 46 patients had asymptomatic hyperlipasemia with lipase >3× ULN, 57 patients had secondary pancreatitis, and 32 patients had primary pancreatitis. On adjusted multivariate analysis, the elevated lipase <3× ULN and asymptomatic hyperlipasemia groups had worse outcomes with higher mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.6 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.2) and 1.1 [95% CI, 0.5-2.3], respectively), higher need for mechanical ventilation (OR, 2.8 [95% CI, 1.2-2.1] and 2.8 [95% CI, 1.5-5.2], respectively), and longer length of stay (OR, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.1-2.0] and 3.16 [95% CI, 1.5-6.5], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 with elevated lipase <3× ULN and asymptomatic hyperlipasemia have generally worse outcomes than those with pancreatitis.