AGA Clinical Practice Update on High-Quality Upper Endoscopy: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this Clinical Practice Update (CPU) Expert Review is to provide clinicians with guidance on best practices for performing a high-quality upper endoscopic exam. METHODS: The best practice advice statements presented herein were developed from a combination of available evidence from published literature, guidelines, and consensus-based expert opinion. No formal rating of the strength or quality of the evidence was carried out, which aligns with standard processes for American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute CPUs. These statements are meant to provide practical, timely advice to clinicians practicing in the United States. This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates (CPU) Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology & Hepatology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Endoscopists should ensure that upper endoscopy is being performed for an appropriate indication and that informed consent clearly explaining the risks, benefits, alternatives, sedation plan, and potential diagnostic and therapeutic interventions is obtained. These elements should be documented by the endoscopist before the procedure. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Endoscopists should ensure that adequate visualization of the upper gastrointestinal mucosa, using mucosal cleansing and insufflation as necessary, is achieved and documented. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: A high-definition white-light endoscopy system should be used for upper endoscopy instead of a standard-definition white-light endoscopy system whenever possible. The endoscope used for the procedure should be documented in the procedure note. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Image enhancement technologies should be used during the upper endoscopic examination to improve the diagnostic yield for preneoplasia and neoplasia. Suspicious areas should be clearly described, photodocumented, and biopsied separately. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Endoscopists should spend sufficient time carefully inspecting the foregut mucosa in an anterograde and retroflexed view to improve the detection and characterization of abnormalities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Endoscopists should document any abnormalities noted on upper endoscopy using established classifications and standard terminology whenever possible. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Endoscopists should perform biopsies for the evaluation and management of foregut conditions using standardized biopsy protocols. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopists should provide patients with management recommendations based on the specific endoscopic findings (eg, peptic ulcer disease, erosive esophagitis), and this should be documented in the medical record. If recommendations are contingent upon histopathology results (eg, H pylori infection, Barrett's esophagus), then endoscopists should document that appropriate guidance will be provided after results are available. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Endoscopists should document whether subsequent surveillance endoscopy is indicated and, if so, provide appropriate surveillance intervals. If the determination of surveillance is contingent on histopathology results, then endoscopists should document that surveillance intervals will be suggested after results are available.

Snare Tip Soft Coagulation vs Argon Plasma Coagulation vs No Margin Treatment After Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyp Resection: a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Thermal treatment of the defect margin after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions reduces the recurrence rate. Both snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) and argon plasma coagulation (APC) have been used for thermal margin treatment, but there are few data directly comparing STSC with APC for this indication. METHODS: We performed a randomized 3-arm trial in 9 US centers comparing STSC with APC with no margin treatment (control) of defects after EMR of colorectal nonpedunculated lesions ≥15 mm. The primary end point was the presence of residual lesion at first follow-up. RESULTS: There were 384 patients and 414 lesions randomized, and 308 patients (80.2%) with 328 lesions completed ≥1 follow-up. The proportion of lesions with residual polyp at first follow-up was 4.6% with STSC, 9.3% with APC, and 21.4% with control subjects (no margin treatment). The odds of residual polyp at first follow-up were lower for STSC and APC when compared with control subjects (P = .001 and P = .01, respectively). The difference in odds was not significant between STSC and APC. STSC took less time to apply than APC (median, 3.35 vs 4.08 minutes; P = .019). Adverse event rates were low, with no difference between arms. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial STSC and APC were each superior to no thermal margin treatment after EMR. STSC was faster to apply than APC. Because STSC also results in lower cost and plastic waste than APC (APC requires an additional device), our study supports STSC as the preferred thermal margin treatment after colorectal EMR. (Clinicaltrials.gov, Number NCT03654209.).

Celiac Plexus Neurolysis Is Associated With Decreased Survival in Patients With Pancreatic Cancer: A Propensity Score Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate survival in patients who received celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) compared with patients who received opioids. METHODS: The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database was used to identify patients older than 65 years diagnosed with pancreatic cancer between 2007 and 2015. We used claims data to identify patients with a history of CPN and opioid use within 1 year of diagnosis, and other demographic, clinical, and treatment variables. Kaplan-Meier analyses and inverse propensity-weighted adjusted Cox proportional hazard ratios were used to evaluate survival. RESULTS: We identified 648 patients who underwent CPN (19.0%) compared with 2769 patients who received opioids (81.0%). The median survival and interquartile range for patients who received CPN was 4.0 months (2.0-8.0 months) compared with 7.0 months (3.0-12.0 months) for opioid users (P < 0.0001). After adjusting for confounders and propensity score, the patients who received CPN showed worsened survival (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.59-1.79). CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic cancer patients who underwent CPN had decreased survival compared with opioid users. This suggests that opioid sparing methods to reduce pancreatic cancer pain may actually be harmful. Future prospective studies should investigate whether other opioid sparing therapies impact pancreatic cancer survival.

Use of endoscopic ultrasound for pancreatic cancer from 2000 to 2016.

Background and study aims Pancreatic cancer (PC) is the fourth most common cause of cancer death in the United States. Previous studies have suggested a survival benefit for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), an important tool for diagnosis and staging of PC. This study aims to describe EUS use over time and identify factors associated with EUS use and its impact on survival. Patients and methods This was a retrospective review of the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database linked with Medicare claims. EUS use, clinical and demographic characteristics were evaluated. Chi-squared analysis, Cochran-Armitage test for trend, and logistic regression were used to identify associations between sociodemographic and clinical factors and EUS. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard ratios were used for survival analysis. Results EUS use rose during the time period, from 7.4 % of patients in 2000 to 32.4 % in 2015. Patient diversity increased, with a rising share of older, non-White patients with higher Charlson comorbidity scores. Both clinical (receipt of other therapies, PC stage) and nonclinical factors (region of country, year of diagnosis) were associated with receipt of EUS. While EUS was associated with a survival improvement early in the study period, this effect did not persist for PC patients diagnosed in 2012 to 2015 (median survival 3 month ± standard deviation [SD] 9.8 months without vs. 4 months ± SD 8 months with EUS). Conclusions Our data support previous studies, which suggest a survival benefit for EUS when it was infrequently used, but finds that benefit was attenuated as EUS became more widely available.

Direct Endoscopic Necrosectomy With and Without Hydrogen Peroxide for Walled-off Pancreatic Necrosis: A Multicenter Comparative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic necrosectomy has emerged as the preferred treatment modality for walled-off pancreatic necrosis. This study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of direct endoscopic necrosectomy with and without hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) lavage. METHODS: Retrospective chart reviews were performed for all patients undergoing endoscopic transmural management of walled-off pancreatic necrosis at 9 major medical centers from November 2011 to August 2018. Clinical success was defined as the resolution of the collection by imaging within 6 months, without requiring non-endoscopic procedures or surgery. RESULTS: Of 293 patients, 204 met the inclusion criteria. Technical and clinical success rates were 100% (204/204) and 81% (166/189), respectively. For patients, 122 (59.8%) patients had at least one H2O2 necrosectomy (H2O2 group) and 82 (40.2%) patients had standard endoscopic necrosectomy. Clinical success was higher in the H2O2 group: 106/113 (93.8%) vs 60/76 (78.9%), P = 0.002. On a multivariate analysis, the use of H2O2 was associated with higher clinical success rate (odds ratio 3.30, P = 0.033) and earlier resolution (odds ratio 2.27, P < 0.001). During a mean follow-up of 274 days, 27 complications occurred. Comparing procedures performed with and without H2O2 (n = 250 vs 183), there was no difference in post-procedure bleeding (7 vs 9, P = 0.25), perforation (2 vs 3, P = 0.66), infection (1 vs 2, P = 0.58), or overall complication rate (n = 13 [5.2%] vs 14 [7.7%], P = 0.30). DISCUSSION: H2O2-assisted endoscopic necrosectomy had a higher clinical success rate and a shorter time to resolution with equivalent complication rates relative to standard necrosectomy.See the visual abstract at http://links.lww.com/AJG/B714.(Equation is included in full-text article.).

Intestinal Host Response to SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 Outcomes in Patients With Gastrointestinal Symptoms.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Given that gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms are a prominent extrapulmonary manifestation of COVID-19, we investigated intestinal infection with SARS-CoV-2, its effect on pathogenesis, and clinical significance. METHODS: Human intestinal biopsy tissues were obtained from patients with COVID-19 (n = 19) and uninfected control individuals (n = 10) for microscopic examination, cytometry by time of flight analyses, and RNA sequencing. Additionally, disease severity and mortality were examined in patients with and without GI symptoms in 2 large, independent cohorts of hospitalized patients in the United States (N = 634) and Europe (N = 287) using multivariate logistic regressions. RESULTS: COVID-19 case patients and control individuals in the biopsy cohort were comparable for age, sex, rates of hospitalization, and relevant comorbid conditions. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in small intestinal epithelial cells by immunofluorescence staining or electron microscopy in 15 of 17 patients studied. High-dimensional analyses of GI tissues showed low levels of inflammation, including down-regulation of key inflammatory genes including IFNG, CXCL8, CXCL2, and IL1B and reduced frequencies of proinflammatory dendritic cells compared with control individuals. Consistent with these findings, we found a significant reduction in disease severity and mortality in patients presenting with GI symptoms that was independent of sex, age, and comorbid illnesses and despite similar nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 viral loads. Furthermore, there was reduced levels of key inflammatory proteins in circulation in patients with GI symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight the absence of a proinflammatory response in the GI tract despite detection of SARS-CoV-2. In parallel, reduced mortality in patients with COVID-19 presenting with GI symptoms was observed. A potential role of the GI tract in attenuating SARS-CoV-2-associated inflammation needs to be further examined.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Endoscopy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multicenter Study from New York City.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted the practice of endoscopy, but characteristics of COVID patients undergoing endoscopy have not been adequately described. AIMS: To compare findings, clinical outcomes, and patient characteristics of endoscopies performed during the pandemic in patients with and without COVID-19. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicenter study of adult endoscopies at six academic hospitals in New York between March 16 and April 30, 2020. Patient and procedure characteristics including age, sex, indication, findings, interventions, and outcomes were compared in patients testing positive, negative, or untested for COVID-19. RESULTS: Six hundred and five endoscopies were performed on 545 patients during the study period. There were 84 (13.9%), 255 (42.2%), and 266 (44.0%) procedures on COVID-positive, negative, and untested patients, respectively. COVID patients were more likely to undergo endoscopy for gastrointestinal bleeding or gastrostomy tube placement, and COVID patients with gastrointestinal bleeding more often required hemostatic interventions on multivariable logistic regression. COVID patients had increased length of stay, intensive care unit admission, and intubation rate. Twenty-seven of 521 patients (5.2%) with no or negative COVID testing prior to endoscopy later tested positive, a median of 13.5 days post-procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopies in COVID patients were more likely to require interventions, due either to more severe illness or a higher threshold to perform endoscopy. A significant number of patients endoscoped without testing were subsequently found to be COVID-positive. Gastroenterologists in areas affected by the pandemic must adapt to changing patterns of endoscopy practice and ensure pre-endoscopy COVID testing.

Pancreatic Fungal Infection in Patients With Necrotizing Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

GOAL: The goal of this study was to study the incidence of fungal infection in necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) and its impact on mortality. BACKGROUND: Infected pancreatic necrosis is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in patients with NP. While pancreatic fungal infection (PFI) has frequently been identified in patients with NP, its effect on the clinical outcomes is unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed in Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and the Cochrane library. All prospective and retrospective studies that examined the incidence of fungal infection in NP with subgroup mortality data were included. For fungal infection of NP, studies with fungal isolation from pancreatic necrotic tissue were included. Newcastle Ottawa Scale and Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal tool were used for bias assessment. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies comprising 2151 subjects with NP were included for the quantitative analysis. The mean incidence of fungal infection was 26.6% (572/2151). In-hospital mortality in the pooled sample of NP patients with PFI (N=572) was significantly higher [odds ratio (OR)=3.95, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.6-5.8] than those without PFI. In a separate analysis of 7 studies, the mean difference in the length of stay between those with and without fungal infection was 22.99 days (95% CI: 14.67-31.3). The rate of intensive care unit admission (OR=3.95; 95% CI: 2.6-5.8), use of prophylactic antibacterials (OR=2.76; 95% CI: 1.31-5.81) and duration of antibacterial therapy (mean difference=8.71 d; 95% CI: 1.33-16.09) were all significantly higher in patients with PFI. Moderate heterogeneity was identified among the studies on estimating OR for mortality (I2=43%) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: PFI is common in patients with NP and is associated with increased mortality, intensive care unit admission rate, and length of stay. Further prospective studies are needed to better understand the pathophysiology of PFIs and to determine the role for preemptive therapeutic strategies, such as prophylactic antifungal therapy.

Faculty Development Workshop for Endoscopic Teaching Techniques.

Introduction: Given the substantial variability in endoscopy teaching that gastroenterology fellows can be expected to encounter over the course of their fellowship, it is important to identify a standard set of behaviors that faculty can adopt to help trainees gain competence in endoscopy at an efficient rate. There remains a scarcity of easily distributed, effective tools for faculty development in regard to teaching endoscopy. Methods: Based on a prior qualitative study, we developed a three-part trigger video to be used for discussion during a faculty development session. We utilized three role-play scenarios between a fellow and supervisor managing a gastrointestinal bleed in the endoscopy suite. We summarized the implementation and instructions in a faculty guide. We used a postsession survey to measure effectiveness of the faculty development session. Results: This workshop has been successfully administered twice in 2018 with over 30 gastroenterologists and hepatologists involved in endoscopic teaching. Overall, all faculty have found the workshop useful in learning about endoscopic teaching behaviors and helpful in adjusting their own behaviors in endoscopic teaching. Discussion: We developed a faculty development workshop specifically for teaching endoscopy to gastroenterology trainees that is widely generalizable to other programs. Overall, we found a high level of satisfaction amongst the participants who have completed it. The tools we created can be easily tailored to complement any existing faculty development session and extrapolated to similar procedural disciplines.

Gastrointestinal involvement attenuates COVID-19 severity and mortality.

Given that gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms are a prominent extrapulmonary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we investigated intestinal infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its effect on disease pathogenesis. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in small intestinal enterocytes by immunofluorescence staining or electron microscopy, in 13 of 15 patients studied. High dimensional analyses of GI tissues revealed low levels of inflammation in general, including active downregulation of key inflammatory genes such as IFNG, CXCL8, CXCL2 and IL1B and reduced frequencies of proinflammatory dendritic cell subsets. To evaluate the clinical significance of these findings, examination of two large, independent cohorts of hospitalized patients in the United States and Europe revealed a significant reduction in disease severity and mortality that was independent of gender, age, and examined co-morbid illnesses. The observed mortality reduction in COVID-19 patients with GI symptoms was associated with reduced levels of key inflammatory proteins including IL-6, CXCL8, IL-17A and CCL28 in circulation but was not associated with significant differences in nasopharyngeal viral loads. These data draw attention to organ-level heterogeneity in disease pathogenesis and highlight the role of the GI tract in attenuating SARS-CoV-2-associated inflammation with related mortality benefit. ONE SENTENCE SUMMARY: Intestinal infection with SARS-CoV-2 is associated with a mild inflammatory response and improved clinical outcomes.

Primary EUS-guided biliary drainage versus ERCP drainage for the management of malignant biliary obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has been used as a salvage modality for relief of malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) after a failed ERCP. Multiple recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies have been published to assess the suitability of EUS-BD as a first-line modality for achieving palliative BD. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing primary EUS-BD versus ERCP for MBO. We searched PubMed, Medline, and Embase up to January 1, 2019, to identify RCTs and observational studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of primary EUS-BD (without a prior attempted ERCP) versus ERCP. Quality of RCTs and observational studies was assessed using Jadad and Newcastle-Ottawa scores, respectively. The outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, odds of requiring a repeat intervention, and procedure-related adverse events. Odds ratios (ORs) and standard mean difference were calculated for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model in RevMan 5.3 (the Cochrane Collaboration, the Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark). Five studies (three RCTs and two observational studies) with 361 patients were included. Both procedures achieved comparable technical success (OR: 1.20 [0.44-3.24], I2 = 0%) and clinical success (OR: 1.44, confidence interval [CI]: 0.63-3.29, I2 = 0%). The overall adverse outcomes (OR: 1.59 [0.89-2.84]) did not differ between the two groups. In the ERCP group, 9.5% of patients developed procedure-related pancreatitis versus zero in the EUS group (risk difference = 0.08%, P = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference in nonpancreatitis-related adverse events. The odds of requiring reintervention for BD (1.68 [0.76-3.73], I2 = 42%) did not differ significantly. The ERCP group had significantly higher odds of requiring reintervention due to tumor overgrowth (5.35 [1.64-17.50], I2 = 0%). EUS-BD has comparable technical and clinical success to ERCP and can potentially be used as a first-line palliative modality for MBO where expertise is available. ERCP-related pancreatitis which can cause significant morbidity can be completely avoided with EUS.

A newly designed uncovered biliary stent for palliation of malignant obstruction: results of a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Biliary decompression can reduce symptoms and improve quality of life in patients with malignant biliary obstruction. Endoscopically placed stents have become the standard of care for biliary drainage with the aim of improving hepatic function, relieving jaundice, and reducing adverse effects of obstruction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance characteristics of a newly-designed, uncovered metal biliary stent for the palliation of malignant biliary obstruction. METHODS: This post-market, prospective study included patients with biliary obstruction due to a malignant neoplasm treated with a single-type, commercially available uncovered self-expanding metal stent (SEMS). Stents were placed as clinically indicated for palliation of jaundice and to potentially facilitate neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. The main outcome measure was freedom from recurrent biliary obstruction (within the stent) requiring re-intervention within 1, 3, and 6 months of stent insertion. Secondary outcome measures included device-related adverse events and technical success of stent deployment. RESULTS: SEMS were placed in 113 patients (73 men; mean age, 69); a single stent was inserted in 106 patients, and 2 stents were placed in 7 patients. Forty-eight patients survived and/or completed the 6 month study protocol. Freedom from symptomatic recurrent biliary obstruction requiring re-intervention was achieved in 108 of 113 patients (95.6, 95%CI = 90.0-98.6%) at study exit for each patient. Per interval analysis yielded the absence of recurrent biliary obstruction in 99.0% of patients at 1 month (n = 99; 95%CI = 97.0-100%), 96.6% of patients at 3 months (n = 77; 95%CI = 92.7-100%), and 93.3% of patients at 6 months (n = 48; 95%CI = 86.8-99.9%). In total, only 5 patients (4.4%) were considered failures of the primary endpoint. Most of these failures (4/5) were due to stent occlusion from tumor ingrowth or overgrowth. Overall technical success rate of stent deployment was 99.2%. There were 2 cases of stent-related adverse events (1.8%). There were no cases of post-procedure stent migration, stent-related perforation, or stent-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: This newly designed and marketed biliary SEMS system appears to be effective at relieving biliary obstruction and preventing re-intervention within 6 months of insertion in the overwhelming majority of patients. The device has an excellent safety profile, and associated high technical success rate during deployment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov on 14 October 2013 and the study registration number is NCT01962168. University of Massachusetts Medical School did not participate in the study.

Donning a New Approach to the Practice of Gastroenterology: Perspectives From the COVID-19 Pandemic Epicenter.

The COVID-19 pandemic seemingly is peaking now in New York City and has triggered significant changes to the standard management of gastrointestinal diseases. Priorities such as minimizing viral transmission, preserving personal protective equipment, and freeing hospital beds have driven unconventional approaches to managing gastroenterology (GI) patients. Conversion of endoscopy units to COVID units and redeployment of GI fellows and faculty has profoundly changed the profile of most GI services. Meanwhile, consult and procedural volumes have been reduced drastically. In this review, we share our collective experiences regarding how we have changed our practice of medicine in response to the COVID surge. Although we review our management of specific consults and conditions, the overarching theme focuses primarily on noninvasive measures and maximizing medical therapies. Endoscopic procedures have been reserved for those timely interventions that are most likely to be therapeutic. The role of multidisciplinary discussion, although always important, now has become critical. The support of our faculty and trainees remains essential. Local leadership can encourage well-being by frequent team check-ins and by fostering trainee development through remote learning. Advancing a clear vision and a transparent process for how to organize and triage care in the recovery phase will allow for a smooth transition to our new normal.

Impact of EUS-guided microforceps biopsy sampling and needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy on the diagnostic yield and clinical management of pancreatic cystic lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided microforceps biopsy sampling (MFB) and needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE) are emerging diagnostic tools for pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs). There is a paucity of data regarding their performance and impact. The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic outcomes and changes in clinical management resulting from MFB and nCLE use in PCLs. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study of patients with PCLs who underwent combined EUS-guided FNA, MFB, and nCLE. Primary outcomes included diagnostic yield (specific PCL type) and change in clinical management for each modality compared with the current "composite standard" (CS) obtained by combining clinical, morphologic, cyst fluid cytology, and chemical analysis. RESULTS: Forty-four cysts were studied in 44 patients. Technical success was 100% for EUS-FNA, 88.6% for MFB, and 97.7% for nCLE. Of 44 procedures, there was 1 adverse event (2.3%, an infected pseudocyst). Diagnostic yield for each individual modality was 34.1% for CS, 75.0% for MFB (P < .05 vs CS), and 84.1% for nCLE (P < .05 vs CS). Diagnostic yield for combined tests was 79.5% for CS/MFB, 88.6% for CS/nCLE, and 93.2% for CS/MFB/nCLE (P = not significant). Compared with the CS, the use of MFB, nCLE, and their combination led to overall change in clinical management in 38.6%, 43.2%, and 52.3% of cases, respectively. MFB and nCLE led to an overall increase in discontinuation of surveillance (MFB, 34.1% [P < .05]; nCLE, 31.8% [P < .05]), led by a reduction in the indication for follow-up radiologic or endoscopic studies (MFB, 34.1% [P < .05]; nCLE, 38.6% [P < .05]). Based on MFB and nCLE, 2 of 28 (7.1%) and 3 of 28 (10.7%) patients who would have undergone further surveillance were referred for surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In the evaluation of PCLs, the use of combined EUS-guided FNA, MFB, and nCLE is safe. MFB and nCLE led to significant improvements in specific PCL diagnosis, which in turn has major impacts in clinical management.

Safety and efficacy of the use of lumen-apposing metal stents in the management of postoperative fluid collections: a large, international, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have examined the use of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) for the drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections. Data on the use of LAMSs for postoperative fluid collections (POFCs) are scarce. POFCs may lead to severe complications without appropriate treatment. We aimed to study the outcomes (technical success, clinical success, rate/severity of adverse events, length of stay, recurrence) of the use of LAMSs for the drainage of POFCs. METHODS: This international, multicenter, retrospective study involved 19 centers between January 2012 and October 2017. The primary outcome was clinical success. Secondary outcomes included technical success and rate/severity of adverse events using the ASGE lexicon. RESULTS: A total of 62 patients were included during the study period. The most common etiology of the POFCs was distal pancreatectomy (46.8 %). The mean (standard deviation) diameter was 84.5 mm (30.7 mm). The most common indication for drainage was infection (48.4 %) and transgastric drainage was the most common approach (82.3 %). Technical success was achieved in 60/62 patients (96.8 %) and clinical success in 57/62 patients (91.9 %) during a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 231 days (90 - 300 days). Percutaneous drainage was needed in 8.1 % of patients. Adverse events occurred intraoperatively in 1/62 patients (1.6 %) and postoperatively in 7/62 (11.3 %). There was no procedure-related mortality. CONCLUSION: This is the largest study on the use of LAMSs for POFCs. It suggests good clinical efficacy and safety of this approach. The use of LAMSs in the management of POFCs is a feasible alternative to percutaneous and surgical drainage.

Age, socioeconomic features, and clinical factors predict receipt of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the recommended technique for biliary decompression in pancreatic cancer. Previous studies have suggested racial, socioeconomic and geographic differences in diagnosis, treatment and outcomes of pancreatic cancer patients. AIM: To examine geographic, racial, socioeconomic and clinical factors associated with utilization of ERCP. METHODS: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results and linked Medicare claims data were used to identify pancreatic cancer patients between 2000-2011. Claims data were used to identify patients who had ERCP and other treatments. The primary outcome was receipt of ERCP. Chi-squared analyses were used to compare demographic information. Trends in use of ERCP over time were assessed using Cochran Armitage test. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for receipt ERCP were calculated using logistic regression, controlling for other characteristics. RESULTS: Among 32510 pancreatic cancer patients, 14704 (45.2%) underwent ERCP. Patients who had cancer located in the head of the pancreas (aOR 3.27, 95%CI: 2.99-3.57), had jaundice (aOR 7.59, 95%CI: 7.06-8.17), cholangitis (aOR 4.22, 95%CI: 3.71-4.81) or pruritus (aOR 1.42, 95%CI: 1.22-1.66) and lived in lower education zip codes (aOR 1.14, 95%CI: 1.04-1.24) were more likely to receive ERCP. In contrast, patients who were older (aOR 0.88, 95%CI: 0.83, 0.94), not married (aOR 0.92, 95%CI: 0.86, 0.98), and lived in a non-metropolitan area (aOR 0.89, 95%CI: 0.82, 0.98) were less likely to receive ERCP. Compared to white patients, non-white/non-black patients (aOR 0.83, 95%CI: 0.70-0.97) were less likely to receive ERCP. Patients diagnosed later in the study period were less likely to receive ERCP (aOR 2004-2007 0.85, 95%CI: 0.78-0.92; aOR 2008-2011 0.76, 95%CI: 0.70-0.83). After stratifying by indications for ERCP including jaundice, racial differences persisted (aOR black patients 0.80, 95%CI: 0.67-0.95, nonwhite/nonblack patients 0.73, 95%CI: 0.58-0.91). Among patients with jaundice, those who underwent surgery were less likely to undergo ERCP (aOR 0.60, 95%CI: 0.52, 0.69). CONCLUSION: ERCP utilization in pancreatic cancer varies based on patient age, marital status, and factors related to where the patient lives. Further studies are needed to guide appropriate biliary intervention for these patients.

Preoperative Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Is Not Associated With Increased Pancreatic Cancer Mortality.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) before surgery for pancreatic cancer has been associated with infectious complications after surgery. Little is known about the effects of preoperative ERCP on the survival of patients with pancreatic cancer. We investigated whether ERCP before surgery affects overall survival, after controlling for confounding factors. METHODS: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) and linked Medicare claims data to identify patients older than 65 years with cancer localized to the head of the pancreas, from 2000 through 2011. We used inverse propensity-weighted Cox proportional hazard models to assess the effects of ERCP on the survival of patients who underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer. RESULTS: Among 16,670 patients with cancer of the head of the pancreas, 2890 (17.3%) underwent surgical resection; 1864 (64.5%) of these patients received preoperative ERCP. After we adjusted for confounders, we found that patients who received preoperative ERCP did not have an increased risk of death compared with patients who underwent resection alone (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.96-1.08). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent ERCP before surgery did not have an increased risk of death compared with patients who proceeded directly to surgery. Studies are needed to identify subsets of patients who may benefit from this procedure.