Impact of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: An Updated Review.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have become one of the most popular medications for patients with diabetes and obesity. Due to their effects on gut motility via central or parasympathetic pathways, there have been concerns about an increased incidence of retained gastric contents and risk of aspiration in the perioperative period. Hence, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) recommends holding GLP-1 RAs on the procedure day or a week before the elective procedure based on the respective daily or weekly formulations, regardless of the dose, indication (obesity or diabetes), or procedure type. On the contrary, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) advises an individualized approach, stating that more data are needed to decide if and when the GLP-1 RAs should be held prior to elective endoscopy. Several retrospective and prospective studies, along with meta-analyses, have been published since then evaluating the role of GLP-1 RAs in patients scheduled for endoscopic procedures. In this review, we discuss the current clinical guidelines and available studies regarding the effect of GLP-1 RAs on GI endoscopies.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections: a retrospective multicenter European study.

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural drainage allows treatment of symptomatic peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), with lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) and double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) being the 2 most frequently used modalities. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing PFC drainage in 10 European centers were retrospectively retrieved. Technical success (successful deployment), clinical success (satisfactory drainage), rate and type of early adverse events, drainage duration and complications on stent removal were evaluated. Results: A total of 128 patients-92 men (71.9%), age 57.2±11.9 years-underwent drainage, with pancreatic pseudocyst (PC) and walled-off necrosis (WON) in 92 (71.9%) and 36 (28.1%) patients, respectively. LAMS were used in 80 (62.5%) patients and DPPS in 48 (37.5%). Technical success was achieved in 124 (96.9%) of the cases, with no difference regarding either the type of stent (P>0.99) or PFC type (P=0.07). Clinical success was achieved in 119 (93%); PC had a better response than WON (91/92 vs. 28/36, P<0.001), but the type of stent did not affect the clinical success rate (P=0.29). Twenty patients (15.6%) had at least one early complication, with bleeding being the most common (n=7/20, 35%). No difference was detected in complication rate per type of stent (P=0.61) or per PFC type (P=0.1). Drainage duration was significantly longer with DPPS compared to LAMS: 88 (70-112) vs. 35 (29-55.3) days, P<0.001. Conclusions: EUS-guided drainage of PFCs achieves high percentages of technical and clinical success. Drainage using LAMS is of shorter duration, but the complication rate is similar between the 2 modalities.

Transesophageal endoscopic ultrasound in the diagnosis of the lung masses: a multicenter experience with fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy needles.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Intraparenchymal lung masses inaccessible through bronchoscopy or endobronchial ultrasound guidance pose a diagnostic challenge. Furthermore, some fragile or hypoxic patients may be poor candidates for transbronchial approaches. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/FNB) offers a potential diagnostic approach to lung cancers adjacent to the esophagus. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility, accuracy, and safety of trans-esophageal EUS-FNA/FNB for tissue sampling of pulmonary nodules. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from patients with pulmonary lesions who underwent EUS-FNA/FNB between March 2015 and August 2021 at eight Italian endoscopic referral centers. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients (36 male; mean age 64.47 ± 9.05 years) were included (22 EUS-FNAs and 25 EUS-FNBs). Overall diagnostic accuracy rate was 88.9% (76.3-96.2%). The sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy were superior for EUS FNB sampling versus EUS-FNA (100% vs. 78.73%); P = 0.05, and (100% vs. 78.57%); P = 0.05, respectively. Additionally, sample adequacy was superior for EUS-FNB sampling versus EUS-FNA (100% vs. 78.5%); P = 0.05. Multivariate logistic regression analysis for diagnostic accuracy showed nodule size at the cutoff of 15 mm (OR 2.29, 1.04-5.5, P = 0.05) and use of FNB needle (OR 4.33, 1.05-6.31, P = 0.05) as significant predictors of higher diagnostic accuracy. There were no procedure-related adverse events. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the efficacy and safety of EUS-FNA/FNB as a minimally invasive procedure for diagnosing and staging peri-esophageal parenchymal lung lesions. The diagnostic yield of EUS-FNB was superior to EUS-FNA.

Comparison between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy and bite-on-bite jumbo biopsy for sampling of subepithelial lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A direct comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and current endoscopic biopsy techniques in patients with subepithelial lesions (SELs) is still lacking. Aim of this multicenter study was to compare the diagnostic performance and safety profile between EUS-FNB and bite-on-bite jumbo biopsy. METHODS: Out of 416 patients undergoing endoscopic sampling of SELs between 2017 and 2021, after propensity score matching two groups were compared: 120 undergoing EUS-FNB and 120 sampled with bite-on-bite jumbo biopsy. Primary outcome was sample adequacy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and adverse events. RESULTS: Median age was 61 years and most patients were male in both groups. Final diagnosis was GIST in 65 patients (54.1%) in the EUS-FNB group and 62 patients in the bite-on-bite biopsy group (51.6%; p = 0.37). Sample adequacy was significantly higher in the EUS-FNB group as compared to the bite-on-bite biopsy group (94.1% versus 77.5%, p<0.001). EUS-FNB outperformed bite-on-bite biopsy also in terms of diagnostic accuracy (89.3% versus 67.1%, p<0.001) and sensitivity (89% vs 64.5%; p<0.001), whereas specificity was 100% in both groups (p = 0.89). These findings were confirmed in subgroup analysis according to SEL location, final diagnosis, and wall layers of the sampled SEL. Adverse event rate was 6.6% in the EUS-FNB group and 30% in the bite-on-bite biopsy group (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: EUS-FNB outperforms bite-on-bite biopsy both in terms of diagnostic yield and safety profile.

Impact of Antibiotic Prophylaxis on Infection Rate after Endoscopic Ultrasound Through-the-Needle Biopsy of Pancreatic Cysts: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite weak evidence, antibiotic prophylaxis prior to endoscopic ultrasound-guided through-the-needle biopsy (EUS-TTNB) of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) is routinely used in clinical practice. We aim to compare a group of patients treated with antibiotics before EUS-TTNB of PCLs and a group who did not undergo antimicrobial prophylaxis. METHODS: Out of 236 patients with pancreatic cystic lesions referred to two high-volume centers between 2016 and 2021, after propensity score matching, two groups were compared: 98 subjects who underwent EUS-TTNB under antibiotic prophylaxis and 49 subjects without prophylaxis. RESULTS: There was no difference in terms of baseline parameters between groups. Final diagnosis was serous cystadenoma in 36.7% of patients in the group not treated with prophylaxis and in 37.7% of patients in the control group, whereas IPMN and mucinous cystadenoma were diagnosed in 3 (6.1%) and 16 (32.6%) versus 6 (6.1%) and 32 (32.6%) patients in the two groups, respectively (p = 0.23). Overall, the adverse event rate was 6.1% in the group not treated with antibiotic prophylaxis and 5.1% in the control group (p = 0.49). Only a single infectious adverse event occurred in each group (p = 0.48). The diagnostic yields were 89.7% and 90.8% in the two groups (p = 0.7), and the diagnostic accuracy rate was 81.6% in both groups (p = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic antibiotics do not seem to influence the risk of infection, and their routine use should be discouraged.

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy in comparison to percutaneous liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is still unclear whether endoscopic ultrasound liver biopsy (EUS-LB) determines superior results in comparison to percutaneous liver biopsy (PC-LB). Aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the diagnostic outcomes of these two techniques. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Literature search was conducted through June 2021 and identified 7 studies. The primary outcome was total length of specimen. Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference along with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Pooled total length of specimen was 29.9 mm (95% CI 24.1-35.7) in the EUS-LB group and 29.7 mm (95% CI 27.1-32.2) in the PC-LB group, with no difference between the two approaches (mean difference -0.35 mm, 95% CI -5.31 to 4.61; p = 0.89), although sensitivity analysis restricted to higher quality studies found a superior performance of PC-LB over EUS-LB. Pooled number of complete portal tracts was 12.9 (7.7-18) in the EUS-LB and 14.4 (10.7-18) in the PC-LB group, with no difference in direct comparison (mean difference -1.58, -5.98 to 2.81; p = 0.48). No difference between the two groups was observed in terms of severe adverse event rate (OR 1.11, 0.11-11.03; p = 0.93). CONCLUSION: EUS-LB and PC-LB are comparable in terms of diagnostic performance and safety profile.

COVID-19 in the endoscopy unit: How likely is transmission of infection? Results from an international, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) significantly affected endoscopy practice, as gastrointestinal endoscopy is considered a risky procedure for transmission of infection to patients and personnel of endoscopy units (PEU). AIM: To assess the impact of COVID-19 on endoscopy during the first European lockdown (March-May 2020). METHODS: Patients undergoing endoscopy in nine endoscopy units across six European countries during the period of the first European lockdown for COVID-19 (March-May 2020) were included. Prior to the endoscopy procedure, participants were stratified as low- or high- risk for potential COVID-19 infection according to the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) joint statement, and contacted 7-14 d later to assess COVID-19 infection status. PEU were questioned regarding COVID-19 symptoms and/or infection via questionnaire, while information regarding hospitalizations, intensive care unit-admissions and COVID-19-related deaths were collected. The number of weekly endoscopies at each center during the lockdown period was also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 1267 endoscopies were performed in 1222 individuals across nine European endoscopy departments in six countries. Eighty-seven (7%) were excluded because of initial positive testing. Of the 1135 pre-endoscopy low risk or polymerase chain reaction negative for COVID-19, 254 (22.4%) were tested post endoscopy and 8 were eventually found positive, resulting in an infection rate of 0.7% [(95%CI: 0.2-0.12]. The majority (6 of the 8 patients, 75%) had undergone esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Of the 163 PEU, 5 [3%; (95%CI: 0.4-5.7)] tested positive during the study period. A decrease of 68.7% (95%CI: 64.8-72.7) in the number of weekly endoscopies was recorded in all centers after March 2020. All centers implemented appropriate personal protective measures (PPM) from the initial phases of the lockdown. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 transmission in endoscopy units is highly unlikely in a lockdown setting, provided endoscopies are restricted to emergency cases and PPM are implemented.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Biopsy versus Fine-Needle Aspiration for Tissue Sampling of Abdominal Lymph Nodes: A Propensity Score Matched Multicenter Comparative Study.

There is a paucity of evidence on the comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for lymph node (LNs) sampling. The aim of this study was to compare these two approaches in a multicenter series of patients with abdominal tumors. Out of 502 patients undergoing EUS sampling, two groups following propensity score matching were compared: 105 undergoing EUS-FNB and 105 undergoing EUS-FNA. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, sample adequacy, optimal histological core procurement, number of passes, and adverse events. Median age was 64.6 years, and most patients were male in both groups. Final diagnosis was LN metastasis (mainly from colorectal cancer) in 70.4% of patients in the EUS-FNB group and 66.6% in the EUS-FNA group (p = 0.22). Diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher in the EUS-FNB group as compared to the EUS-FNA group (87.62% versus 75.24%, p = 0.02). EUS-FNB outperformed EUS-FNA also in terms of diagnostic sensitivity (84.71% vs. 70.11%; p = 0.01), whereas specificity was 100% in both groups (p = 0.6). Sample adequacy analysis showed a non-significant trend in favor of EUS-FNB (96.1% versus 89.5%, p = 0.06) whereas the histological core procurement rate was significantly higher with EUS-FNB (94.2% versus 51.4%; p < 0.001). No procedure-related adverse events were observed. These findings show that EUS-FNB is superior to EUS-FNA in tissue sampling of abdominal LNs.

Diagnostic Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Liver Biopsy in Comparison to Percutaneous Liver Biopsy: A Two-Center Experience.

There is scarce and conflicting evidence on the comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and percutaneous (PC)-guided liver biopsy (LB). The aim of this study was to compare the two approaches in a series of patients with parenchymal and focal liver lesions. Fifty-four patients undergoing EUS-LB in two high-volume centers between 2017 and 2021 were compared to 62 patients who underwent PC-LB. The primary outcome was diagnostic adequacy rate. The secondary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy, total sample length (TSL), number of complete portal tracts (CPTs), procedural duration, and adverse events. Variables were compared using the Chi-square and Mann-Whitney test. Median age was 56 years (interquartile range 48-69) in the EUS-LB group and 54 years (45-67) in the PC-LB group with most patients being male. Indication for LB was due to parenchymal disease in 50% of patients, whereas the other patients underwent LB due to focal liver lesions. Diagnostic adequacy was 100% in PC-LB and 94.4% in the EUS-LB group (p = 0.74), whereas diagnostic accuracy was 88.8% in the EUS-LB group and 100% in the PC-LB group (p = 0.82). Median TSL was significantly greater in the PC-LB group (27.4 mm, IQR 21-29) when compared to the EUS-LB group (18.5 mm, 10.1-22.4; p = 0.02). The number of complete portal tracts was 21 (11-24) in the PC-LB group and 18.5 (10-23.2) in EUS-LB group (p = 0.09). EUS-LB was a significantly longer procedure (7 min, 5-11 versus 1 min, 1-3 of PC-LB; p < 0.001) and no evidence of adverse events was observed in any of the study groups. These results were confirmed in the subgroup analysis performed according to an indication for LB (parenchymal disease versus focal lesion). Although PC-LB yielded specimens with greater TSL, diagnostic adequacy and accuracy were similar between the two procedures.