Search

The evolution of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) from a diagnostic to a therapeutic procedure has resulted in a paradigm shift toward endoscopic management of disease states that previously required percutaneous or surgical approaches. The past few years have seen additional techniques and devices that have enabled endoscopists to expand its diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities. Some of these techniques initially were reported more than a decade ago; however, with further device development and refinement in techniques there is potential for expanding the application of these techniques and new technologies to a broader group of interventional gastroenterologists. Lack of formalized training, devices, and prospective data regarding their use in addition to a scarcity of guidelines on implementation of these technologies into clinical practice are contributing factors impeding the growth of the field of interventional EUS. In April 2019, the American Gastroenterological Association's Center for Gastrointestinal Innovation and Technology conducted its annual Tech Summit and a key session focused on interventional EUS. This article is a White Paper generated from the conference, discusses the published literature pertaining to the topic of interventional EUS, and outlines a proposed framework for the implementation of interventional EUS techniques into clinical practice. Three primary areas of interventional EUS are addressed: (1) EUS-guided access; (2) EUS-guided tumor ablation; and (3) endohepatology. There was general agreement among participants on several key components. The introduction of these novel interventions requires better tools, more data on safety/outcomes, and improved training for endoscopists. Participants also agreed that widespread implementation and use of these techniques will require support from Gastrointestinal Societies and other key stakeholders including payers. Continued work by the Gastrointestinal Societies and manufacturers to provide training programs, appropriate equipment/work environments, and policies that motivate endoscopists to adopt new techniques is essential for growing the field of interventional EUS.

In 2018, the American Gastroenterological Association's Center for GI Innovation and Technology convened a consensus conference, entitled "Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Role of Emerging Technology and Innovation to Improve Outcomes." The conference participants, which included more than 60 experts in colorectal cancer, considered recent improvements in colorectal cancer screening rates and polyp detection, persistent barriers to colonoscopy uptake, and opportunities for performance improvement and innovation. This white paper originates from that conference. It aims to summarize current patient- and physician-centered gaps and challenges in colonoscopy, diagnostic and therapeutic challenges affecting colonoscopy uptake, and the potential use of emerging technologies and quality metrics to improve patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: As many as one-half of all patients with suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) do not derive benefit from acid suppression. This review outlines a personalized diagnostic and therapeutic approach to GERD symptoms. METHODS: The Best Practice Advice statements presented here were developed from expert review of existing literature combined with extensive discussion and expert opinion to provide practical advice. Formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations was not the intent of this clinical practice update. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Clinicians should develop a care plan for investigation of symptoms suggestive of GERD, selection of therapy (with explanation of potential risks and benefits), and long-term management, including possible de-escalation, in a shared-decision making model with the patient. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Clinicians should provide standardized educational material on GERD mechanisms, weight management, lifestyle and dietary behaviors, relaxation strategies, and awareness about the brain-gut axis relationship to patients with reflux symptoms. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Clinicians should emphasize safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for the treatment of GERD. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Clinicians should provide patients presenting with troublesome heartburn, regurgitation, and/ or non-cardiac chest pain without alarm symptoms a 4- to 8-week trial of single-dose PPI therapy. With inadequate response, dosing can be increased to twice a day or switched to a more effective acid suppressive agent once a day. When there is adequate response, PPI should be tapered to the lowest effective dose. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: If PPI therapy is continued in a patient with unproven GERD, clinicians should evaluate the appropriateness and dosing within 12 months after initiation, and offer endoscopy with prolonged wireless reflux monitoring off PPI therapy to establish appropriateness of long-term PPI therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: If troublesome heartburn, regurgitation, and/or non-cardiac chest pain do not respond adequately to a PPI trial or when alarm symptoms exist, clinicians should investigate with endoscopy and, in the absence of erosive reflux disease (Los Angeles B or greater) or long-segment (≥3 cm) Barrett’s esophagus, perform prolonged wireless pH monitoring off medication (96-hour preferred if available) to confirm and phenotype GERD or to rule out GERD. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Complete endoscopic evaluation of GERD symptoms includes inspection for erosive esophagitis (graded according to the Los Angeles classification when present), diaphragmatic hiatus (Hill grade of flap valve), axial hiatus hernia length, and inspection for Barrett’s esophagus (graded according to the Prague classification and biopsied when present). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Clinicians should perform upfront objective reflux testing off medication (rather than an empiric PPI trial) in patients with isolated extra-esophageal symptoms and suspicion for reflux etiology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: In symptomatic patients with proven GERD, clinicians should consider ambulatory 24-hour pHimpedance monitoring on PPI as an option to determine the mechanism of persisting esophageal symptoms despite therapy (if adequate expertise exists for interpretation). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Clinicians should personalize adjunctive pharmacotherapy to the GERD phenotype, in contrast to empiric use of these agents. Adjunctive agents include alginate antacids for breakthrough symptoms, nighttime H2 receptor antagonists for nocturnal symptoms, baclofen for regurgitation or belch predominant symptoms, and prokinetics for coexistent gastroparesis. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Clinicians should provide pharmacologic neuromodulation, and/or referral to a behavioral therapist for hypnotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, diaphragmatic breathing, and relaxation strategies in patients with functional heartburn or reflux disease associated with esophageal hypervigilance reflux hypersensitivity and/or behavioral disorders. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: In patients with proven GERD, laparoscopic fundoplication and magnetic sphincter augmentation are effective surgical options, and transoral incisionless fundoplication is an effective endoscopic option in carefully selected patients. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: In patients with proven GERD, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is an effective primary anti-reflux intervention in obese patients, and a salvage option in non-obese patients, whereas sleeve gastrectomy has potential to worsen GERD. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Candidacy for invasive anti-reflux procedures includes confirmatory evidence of pathologic GERD, exclusion of achalasia, and assessment of esophageal peristaltic function.

Background & Aims The prevalence and significance of digestive manifestations in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. We aimed to assess the prevalence, spectrum, severity, and significance of digestive manifestations in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods Consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were identified across a geographically diverse alliance of medical centers in North America. Data pertaining to baseline characteristics, symptomatology, laboratory assessment, imaging, and endoscopic findings from the time of symptom onset until discharge or death were abstracted manually from electronic health records to characterize the prevalence, spectrum, and severity of digestive manifestations. Regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between digestive manifestations and severe outcomes related to COVID-19. Results A total of 1992 patients across 36 centers met eligibility criteria and were included. Overall, 53% of patients experienced at least 1 gastrointestinal symptom at any time during their illness, most commonly diarrhea (34%), nausea (27%), vomiting (16%), and abdominal pain (11%). In 74% of cases, gastrointestinal symptoms were judged to be mild. In total, 35% of patients developed an abnormal alanine aminotransferase or total bilirubin level; these were increased to less than 5 times the upper limit of normal in 77% of cases. After adjusting for potential confounders, the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms at any time (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76–1.15) or liver test abnormalities on admission (odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.80–2.12) were not associated independently with mechanical ventilation or death. Conclusions Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, gastrointestinal symptoms and liver test abnormalities were common, but the majority were mild and their presence was not associated with a more severe clinical course.

Advanced endoscopy training programs (AETPs) were developed as a result of the lack of comprehensive endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) training during gastroenterology fellowships. There is no standardized curriculum for AETPs and the influence of program- and trainer-associated factors on trainee competence in ERCP has not been investigated adequately. In prior work, we showed that advanced endoscopy trainees (AETs) achieve ERCP competence at varying rates.1,2 The aims of this study were to measure the variability in time given to AETs to attempt cannulation between AETPs and throughout the 1-year training period, and to determine the association between AET cannulation time and AET competence at the end of training.

Background & Aims Despite the widespread use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) to sample pancreatic lesions and the standardization of pancreaticobiliary cytopathologic nomenclature, there are few data on inter-observer agreement among cytopathologists evaluating pancreatic cytologic specimens obtained by EUS-FNA. We developed a scoring system to assess agreement among cytopathologists in overall diagnosis and quantitative and qualitative parameters, and evaluated factors associated with agreement. Methods We performed a prospective study to validate results from our pilot study that demonstrated moderate to substantial inter-observer agreement among cytopathologists for the final cytologic diagnosis. In the first phase, 3 cytopathologists refined criteria for assessment of quantity and quality measures. During phase 2, EUS-FNA specimens of solid pancreatic lesions from 46 patients were evaluated by 11 cytopathologists at 5 tertiary care centers using a standardized scoring tool. Individual quantitative and qualitative measures were scored and an overall cytologic diagnosis was determined. Clinical and EUS parameters were assessed as predictors of unanimous agreement. Inter-observer agreement (IOA) was calculated using multi-rater kappa (κ) statistics and a logistic regression model was created to identify factors associated with unanimous agreement. Results The IOA for final diagnoses, based on cytologic analysis, was moderate (κ = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43–0.70). Kappa values did not increase when categories of suspicious for malignancy, malignant, and neoplasm were combined. IOA was slight to moderate for individual quantitative (κ = 0.007; 95% CI, –0.03 to –0.04) and qualitative parameters (κ = 0.5; 95% CI, 0.47–0.53). Jaundice was the only factor associated with agreement among all cytopathologists on multivariate analysis (odds ratio for unanimous agreement, 5.3; 95% CI, 1.1–26.89). Conclusions There is a suboptimal level of agreement among cytopathologists in the diagnosis of malignancy based on analysis of EUS-FNA specimens obtained from solid pancreatic masses. Strategies are needed to refine the cytologic criteria for diagnosis of malignancy and enhance tissue acquisition techniques to improve diagnostic reproducibility among cytopathologists.

Background & Aims On the basis of the Next Accreditation System, trainee assessment should occur on a continuous basis with individualized feedback. We aimed to validate endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) learning curves among advanced endoscopy trainees (AETs) by using a large national sample of training programs and to develop a centralized database that allows assessment of performance in relation to peers. Methods ASGE recognized training programs were invited to participate, and AETs were graded on ERCP and EUS exams by using a validated competency assessment tool that assesses technical and cognitive competence in a continuous fashion. Grading for each skill was done by using a 4-point scoring system, and a comprehensive data collection and reporting system was built to create learning curves by using cumulative sum analysis. Individual results and benchmarking to peers were shared with AETs and trainers quarterly. Results Of the 62 programs invited, 20 programs and 22 AETs participated in this study. At the end of training, median number of EUS and ERCP performed/AET was 300 (range, 155–650) and 350 (125–500), respectively. Overall, 3786 exams were graded (EUS, 1137; ERCP-biliary, 2280; ERCP-pancreatic, 369). Learning curves for individual end points and overall technical/cognitive aspects in EUS and ERCP demonstrated substantial variability and were successfully shared with all programs. The majority of trainees achieved overall technical (EUS, 82%; ERCP, 60%) and cognitive (EUS, 76%; ERCP, 100%) competence at conclusion of training. Conclusions These results demonstrate the feasibility of establishing a centralized database to report individualized learning curves and confirm the substantial variability in time to achieve competence among AETs in EUS and ERCP. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02509416.

Background & Aims It is not clear exactly how many passes are required to determine whether pancreatic masses are malignant using endoscopic ultrasound–guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). We aimed to define the per-pass diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA for establishing the malignancy of a pancreatic mass, and identify factors associated with detection of malignancies. Methods In a prospective study, 239 patients with solid pancreatic masses were randomly assigned to groups that underwent EUS-FNA, with the number of passes determined by an on-site cytopathology evaluation or set at 7 passes, at 3 tertiary referral centers. A final diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy was made based on findings from cytology, surgery, or a follow-up evaluation at least 1 year after EUS-FNA. The cumulative sensitivity of detection of malignancy by EUS-FNA was calculated after each pass; in the primary analysis, lesions categorized as malignant or suspicious were considered as positive findings. Results Pancreatic malignancies were found in 202 patients (84.5% of the study population). EUS-FNA detected malignancies with 96% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 92%–98%); 4 passes of EUS-FNA detected malignancies with 92% sensitivity (95% CI, 87%–95%). Tumor size greater than 2 cm was the only variable associated with positive results from cytology analysis (odds ratio, 7.8; 95% CI, 1.9–31.6). In masses larger than 2 cm, 4 passes of EUS-FNA detected malignancies with 93% sensitivity (95% CI, 89%–96%) and in masses ≤2 cm, 6 passes was associated with 82% sensitivity (95% CI, 61%–93%). Sensitivity of detection did not increase with increasing number of passes. Conclusions In a prospective study, we found 4 passes of EUS-FNA to be sufficient to detect malignant pancreatic masses; increasing the number of passes did not increase the sensitivity of detection. Tumor size greater than 2 cm was associated with malignancy, and a greater number of passes may be required to evaluate masses 2 cm or less. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01386931.

Background & Aims Studies have reported substantial variation in the competency of advanced endoscopy trainees, indicating a need for more supervised training in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). We used a standardized, validated, data collection tool to evaluate learning curves and measure competency in EUS among trainees at multiple centers. Methods In a prospective study performed at 15 centers, 17 trainees with no prior EUS experience were evaluated by experienced attending endosonographers at the 25th and then every 10th upper EUS examination, over a 12-month training period. A standardized data collection form was used (using a 5-point scoring system) to grade the EUS examination. Cumulative sum analysis was applied to produce a learning curve for each trainee; it tracked the overall performance based on median scores at different stations and also at each station. Competency was defined by a median score of 1, with acceptable and unacceptable failure rates of 10% and 20%, respectively. Results Twelve trainees were included in the final analysis. Each of the trainees performed 265 to 540 EUS examinations (total, 4257 examinations). There was a large amount of variation in their learning curves: 2 trainees crossed the threshold for acceptable performance (at cases 225 and 245), 2 trainees had a trend toward acceptable performance (after 289 and 355 cases) but required continued observation, and 8 trainees needed additional training and observation. Similar results were observed at individual stations. Conclusions A specific case load does not ensure competency in EUS; 225 cases should be considered the minimum caseload for training because we found that no trainee achieved competency before this point. Ongoing training should be provided for trainees until competency is confirmed using objective measures.