Search

Introduction: Clinically significant post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) bleeding (CSPEB) is common. Contemporary estimates of risk are lacking. We aimed to identify risk factors of and outcomes after CSPEB., Methods: We analyzed multicenter prospective ERCP data between 2018 and 2024 with 30-day follow-up. The primary outcome was CSPEB, defined as hematemesis, melena, or hematochezia resulting in (i) hemoglobin drop ≥ 20 g/L or transfusion and/or (ii) endoscopy to evaluate suspected bleeding and/or (iii) unplanned healthcare visitation and/or prolongation of existing admission. Firth logistic regression was used. P values <0.05 were significant, with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals reported., Results: CSPEB occurred after 129 (1.5%) of 8,517 ERCPs (mean onset 3.2 days), with 110 of 4,849 events (2.3%) occurring after higher risk interventions (sphincterotomy, sphincteroplasty, precut sphincterotomy, and/or needle-knife access). Patients with CSPEB required endoscopy and transfusion in 86.0% and 53.5% of cases, respectively, with 3 cases (2.3%) being fatal. P2Y 12 inhibitors were held for a median of 4 days (interquartile range 4) before higher risk ERCP. After higher risk interventions, P2Y 12 inhibitors (OR 3.33, 1.26-7.74), warfarin (OR 8.54, 3.32-19.81), dabigatran (OR 13.40, 2.06-59.96), rivaroxaban (OR 7.42, 3.43-15.24), and apixaban (OR 4.16, 1.99-8.20) were associated with CSPEB. Significant intraprocedural bleeding after sphincterotomy (OR 2.32, 1.06-4.60), but not after sphincteroplasty, was also associated. Concomitant cardiorespiratory events occurred more frequently within 30 days after CSPEB (OR 12.71, 4.75-32.54)., Discussion: Risks of antiplatelet-related CSPEB may be underestimated by endoscopists based on observations of suboptimal holding before higher risk ERCP. Appropriate periprocedural antithrombotic management is essential and could represent novel quality initiative targets., (Copyright © 2024 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

The healthcare sector generates 8% of greenhouse emissions in the United States, of which GI endoscopy is the third largest contributor. Single-use tools are a major contributor to modifiable waste generation during GI (gastrointestinal) endoscopy. Through a quality improvement (QI) initiative, we aimed to reduce endoscopy waste by urging gastroenterologists to be mindful of the tools used during polypectomies and avoid using multiple tools. We discussed green endoscopy initiatives in monthly journal club and business meetings. Over 14 weeks, 210 patients were included in the pre-intervention and 112 in the post-intervention group. At baseline, 34% of colonoscopies required no intervention, 32% required one tool (either biopsy forceps or a snare) and 33% required multiple tools. After the intervention, the use of just one tool increased (17% increase, p<0.01) and the use of multiple tools decreased significantly (16% decrease p<0.01). The odds of using a single tool compared to multiple tools after the intervention was 2.98 (95% CI 1.6-5.53), p=0.005. This single-center QI study noted a significant change in practice patterns favoring using a single tool over multiple tools during colonoscopies after an environmentally conscious practice intervention was applied. This intervention can be readily applied to reduce endoscopy-related waste., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Emerging data suggest neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is associated with improved survival. However, less than 40% of patients demonstrate a meaningful radiographic response to NAC. EUS-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) has emerged as a new modality to treat PDAC. We hypothesize that NAC plus EUS-RFA can be used in the management of resectable PDAC., Methods: This was a prospective review of PDAC patients meeting the criteria of resectable tumor anatomy who underwent NAC chemotherapy plus EUS-RFA followed by pancreatic resection. Radiographic imaging and perioperative and short-term outcomes were recorded. Surgical pathology specimens were analyzed for treatment response., Results: Three eligible patients with resectable PDAC received 4 months of NAC plus EUS-RFA. One month after completing NAC and EUS-RFA, all 3 patients underwent standard pancreaticoduodenectomy without adverse events. After a 6-week recovery, all patients completed 2 months of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy., Conclusions: In our institutional experience, this treatment protocol appears to be safe as patients tolerated the combination of chemotherapy and ablation. Patients underwent pancreatic resection with uneventful recovery. This novel neoadjuvant approach may provide a more effective alternative to chemotherapy alone., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following author received research support for this study from Atilla Ertan MD Endowment funding: N. Thosani. In addition, the following authors disclosed financial relationships: P. Cen: Speaker for Merck and Pfizer; consultant for Astella, Eisai, and Taiho Oncology; advisory board for Merck and Pfizer. J. H. Rowe: Research support from Aveo Pharmaceuticals. J. M. Bailey: Research support from the National Institutes of Health. N. Thosani: Research support from Emcision; royalties from UpToDate; consultant for Boston Scientific and Pentax America; speaker for Abbvie; creatorship rights from RoseAId Inc. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships. Research support for this study was provided by Carolyn Frost Keenan and Charlie Gaines Research Endowment Funds to the Center for Interventional Gastroenterology at UTHealth., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common diseases that occurs secondary to failure of the antireflux barrier system, resulting in the frequent and abnormal reflux of gastric contents to the esophagus. GERD is diagnosed in routine clinical practice based on the classic symptoms of heartburn and regurgitation. However, a subset of patients with atypical symptoms can pose challenges in diagnosing GERD. An esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is the most common initial diagnostic test used in the assessment for GERD, although half of these patients will not have any positive endoscopic findings suggestive of GERD. The advanced endoscopic techniques have improved the diagnostic yield of GERD diagnosis and its complications, such as Barrett's esophagus and early esophageal adenocarcinoma. These newer endoscopic tools can better detect subtle irregularities in the mucosa and vascular structures. The management options for GERD include lifestyle modifications, pharmacological therapy, and endoscopic and surgical interventions. The latest addition to the armamentarium is the minimally invasive endoscopic interventions in carefully selected patients, including the electrical stimulation of the LES, Antireflux mucosectomy, Radiofrequency therapy, Transoral Incisionless Fundoplication, Endoscopic Full-Thickness plication (GERDx™), and suturing devices. With the emergence of these advanced endoscopic techniques, it is crucial to understand their selection criteria, advantages, and disadvantages.

Background Aims: Clinically significant post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) bleeding (CSPEB) is common. Contemporary estimates of risk are lacking. We aimed to identify risk factors for and outcomes following CSPEB., Methods: We analyzed multi-center prospective ERCP data between 2018-2023 with 30-day follow-up. The primary outcome was CSPEB, defined as hematemesis, melena, or hematochezia resulting in: hemoglobin drop ≥20 g/L or transfusion and/or endoscopy to evaluate suspected bleeding, and/or unplanned healthcare visitation and/or prolongation of existing admission. Firth logistic regression was employed. P-values <0.05 were significant, with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals reported., Results: CSPEB occurred following 129 (1.5%) of 8,517 ERCPs (mean onset 3.2 days), with 110 of 4,849 events (2.3%) occurring following higher-risk interventions (sphincterotomy, sphincteroplasty, pre-cut sphincterotomy, and/or needle-knife access). CSPEB patients required endoscopy and transfusion in 86.0% and 53.5% of cases, respectively, with three cases (2.3%) being fatal. P2Y12 inhibitors were held for a median of 4 days (IQR 4) prior to higher-risk ERCP. Following higher-risk interventions, P2Y12 inhibitors (OR 3.33, 1.26-7.74), warfarin (OR 8.54, 3.32-19.81), dabigatran (OR 13.40, 2.06-59.96), rivaroxaban (OR 7.42, 3.43-15.24) and apixaban (OR 4.16, 1.99-8.20) were associated with CSPEB. Significant intraprocedural bleeding post sphincterotomy (OR 2.32, 1.06-4.60), but not post sphincteroplasty, was also associated. Concomitant cardiorespiratory events occurred more frequently within 30 days following CSPEB (OR 12.71, 4.75-32.54)., Conclusions: Risks of antiplatelet-related CSPEB may be underestimated by endoscopists based on observations of suboptimal holding before higher-risk ERCP. Appropriate periprocedural antithrombotic management is essential and could represent novel quality initiative targets., (Copyright © 2024 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

A proportion of patients who undergo intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) do not have bile duct stones at the time of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), either due to the spontaneous passage of stones or a false-positive IOC. Glucagon has been utilized as an inexpensive tool to allow the passage of micro-choledocholithiasis to the duodenum and resolve filling defects caused by stones or air bubbles. The purpose of our study is to understand the change in diagnostic accuracy of IOC to detect choledocholithiasis with intraoperative glucagon. We conducted a retrospective study at a tertiary care center on adult patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy with IOC. The diagnostic accuracy of IOC was assessed before and after the administration of intravenous glucagon. Of 1455 patients, 374 (25.7%) received intraoperative glucagon, and 103 of these 374 patients (27.5%) showed resolution of the filling defect with the passage of contrast to the duodenum. Pre- and post-glucagon administration comparison showed enhancement in specificity from 78% to 83%, an increase in positive predictive value from 67.3% to 72.4%, and an improvement in the diagnostic accuracy of IOC from 81.5% to 84.3%. Our findings suggest that intraoperative glucagon administration carries the potential to reduce the rate of false-positive IOCs, thereby reducing the performance of unnecessary ERCPs.

This joint ASGE-ESGE guideline provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs) in the management of obesity. The document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. It evaluates the efficacy and safety of EBMT devices and procedures that currently have CE mark or FDA-clearance/approval, or that had been approved within five years of document development. The guideline suggests the use of EBMTs plus lifestyle modification in patients with a BMI of ≥ 30 kg/m 2 , or with a BMI of 27.0-29.9 kg/m 2 with at least 1 obesity-related comorbidity. Furthermore, it suggests the utilization of intragastric balloons and devices for endoscopic gastric remodeling (EGR) in conjunction with lifestyle modification for this patient population., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: P. Jirapinyo: Consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific Corporation, Erbe, and Spatz Medical; advisory board for Apollo Endosurgery; research support from Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific Corporation, GI Dynamics, Fractyl, and USGI Medical. A. Hadefi: Research support from Endo Tools Therapeutics. C. C. Thompson: Consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific Corporation, Medtronic, Endoquest Robotics, Fractyl, FujiFilm, GI Dynamics, EnVision Endoscopy, Olympus/Spiration, Softac, USGI Medical, Xenter, Enterasense Ltd, and Lumendi; research support from Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific Corporation, Endoquest Robotics, Erbe, Fractyl, FujiFilm, GI Dynamics, Olympus/Spiration, USGI Medical, and Lumendi; advisory board for Fractyl and USGI Medical; founder of Bariendo, BlueFlame Healthcare Venture Fund, ELLES, EnVision Endoscopy, GI Windows, Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Endoscopy Inc, and Enterasense Ltd, and GI Windows; board member for Bariendo, ELLES, EnVision Endoscopy, GI Windows, and Enterasense Ltd; ownership in Bariendo, ELLES, EnVision Endoscopy, GI Windows, Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Endoscopy Inc, Softac, Xenter, and Enterasense Ltd; partner in BlueFlame Healthcare Venture Fund; president of the Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Endoscopy Inc; Scientific Advisory Board for Xenter. R. Pannala: Research support from Fractyl Labs; general payments from Boston Scientific Corporation; consultant for HCL Technologies; advisory board for Nestle Healthsciences and Bluestar Genomics. S. K. Goelder: Travel compensation from Apollo Endosurgery. V. Kushnir: Consultant for BSCI, Noah Medical, Steres, and ConMed. M. Barthet: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Endotools, and Taewoong. C. M. Apovian: Advisory board for Altimmune, Inc, CinFina Pharma, Inc, Cowen and Company, LLC, Currax Pharmaceuticals, LLC, EPG Communication Holdings Ltd, Form Health, Inc, Gelesis, Srl, L-Nutra, Inc, NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Novo Nordisk, Inc, OptumRx, Inc, Pain Script Corporation, Palatin Technologies, Inc, Pursuit By You, ReShape Lifesciences Inc, Riverview School, and Xeno Biosciences; research support from the National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and GI Dynamics, Inc. I. Boskoski: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation (Apollo Endosurgery), Nitinotes, and EndoTools. C. G. Chapman: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus, Steris, and Apollo Endosurgery; speaker for Apollo Endosurgery. V. Kumbhari: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation. J. Esker: Consultant for Pendulum Therapeutics. A. D. Pryor: Speaker for Gore, Medtronic, and Stryker. R. Maselli: Consultant for Apollo Endosurgery. A. R. Schulman: Consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus, and MicroTech; research support from GI Dynamics and Fractyl. N. Thosani: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Ambu, and Pentax America; royalties from UpToDate; ownership in ROSEAId. V. Huberty: Shareholder in, board member for, and research support from EndoTools Therapeutics. S. Sullivan: Consultant for Allurion Technologies, Biolinq, BariaTek, Pentax, Fractyl, and Endo Tools Therapeutics; research support from Allurion Technologies, ReShape Medical/Obalon Therapeutics, and Rebiotix; stock ownership in Biolinq. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc on behalf of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and by Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart on behalf of European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This joint ASGE-ESGE guideline provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs) in the management of obesity. The document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. It evaluates the efficacy and safety of EBMT devices and procedures that currently have CE mark or FDA-clearance/approval, or that had been approved within five years of document development. The guideline suggests the use of EBMTs plus lifestyle modification in patients with a BMI of ≥30 kg/m 2 , or with a BMI of 27.0-29.9 kg/m 2 with at least 1 obesity-related comorbidity. Furthermore, it suggests the utilization of intragastric balloons and devices for endoscopic gastric remodeling (EGR) in conjunction with lifestyle modification for this patient population., Competing Interests: The following authors disclosed financial relationships: P. Jirapinyo: Consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific Corporation, Erbe, and Spatz Medical; advisory board for Apollo Endosurgery; research support from Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific Corporation, GI Dynamics, Fractyl, and USGI Medical. A. Hadefi: Research support from Endo Tools Therapeutics. C. C. Thompson: Consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific Corporation, Medtronic, Endoquest Robotics, Fractyl, FujiFilm, GI Dynamics, EnVision Endoscopy, Olympus/Spiration, Softac, USGI Medical, Xenter, Enterasense Ltd, and Lumendi; research support from Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific Corporation, Endoquest Robotics, Erbe, Fractyl, FujiFilm, GI Dynamics, Olympus/Spiration, USGI Medical, and Lumendi; advisory board for Fractyl and USGI Medical; founder of Bariendo, BlueFlame Healthcare Venture Fund, ELLES, EnVision Endoscopy, GI Windows, Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Endoscopy Inc, and Enterasense Ltd, and GI Windows; board member for Bariendo, ELLES, EnVision Endoscopy, GI Windows, and Enterasense Ltd; ownership in Bariendo, ELLES, EnVision Endoscopy, GI Windows, Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Endoscopy Inc, Softac, Xenter, and Enterasense Ltd; partner in BlueFlame Healthcare Venture Fund; president of the Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Endoscopy Inc; Scientific Advisory Board for Xenter. R. Pannala: Research support from Fractyl Labs; general payments from Boston Scientific Corporation; consultant for HCL Technologies; advisory board for Nestle Healthsciences and Bluestar Genomics. S. K. Goelder: Travel compensation from Apollo Endosurgery. V. Kushnir: Consultant for BSCI, Noah Medical, Steres, and ConMed. M. Barthet: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Endotools, and Taewoong. C. M. Apovian: Advisory board for Altimmune, Inc, CinFina Pharma, Inc, Cowen and Company, LLC, Currax Pharmaceuticals, LLC, EPG Communication Holdings Ltd, Form Health, Inc, Gelesis, Srl, L-Nutra, Inc, NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Novo Nordisk, Inc, OptumRx, Inc, Pain Script Corporation, Palatin Technologies, Inc, Pursuit By You, ReShape Lifesciences Inc, Riverview School, and Xeno Biosciences; research support from the National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and GI Dynamics, Inc. I. Boskoski: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation (Apollo Endosurgery), Nitinotes, and EndoTools. C. G. Chapman: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus, Steris, and Apollo Endosurgery; speaker for Apollo Endosurgery. V. Kumbhari: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation. J. Esker: Consultant for Pendulum Therapeutics. A. D. Pryor: Speaker for Gore, Medtronic, and Stryker. R. Maselli: Consultant for Apollo Endosurgery. A. R. Schulman: Consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus, and MicroTech; research support from GI Dynamics and Fractyl. N. Thosani: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Ambu, and Pentax America; royalties from UpToDate; ownership in ROSEAId. V. Huberty: Shareholder in, board member for, and research support from EndoTools Therapeutics. S. Sullivan: Consultant for Allurion Technologies, Biolinq, BariaTek, Pentax, Fractyl, and Endo Tools Therapeutics; research support from Allurion Technologies, ReShape Medical/Obalon Therapeutics, and Rebiotix; stock ownership in Biolinq. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships.The following authors disclosed financial relationships: P. Jirapinyo: Consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific Corporation, Erbe, and Spatz Medical; advisory board for Apollo Endosurgery; research support from Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific Corporation, GI Dynamics, Fractyl, and USGI Medical. A. Hadefi: Research support from Endo Tools Therapeutics. C. C. Thompson: Consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific Corporation, Medtronic, Endoquest Robotics, Fractyl, FujiFilm, GI Dynamics, EnVision Endoscopy, Olympus/Spiration, Softac, USGI Medical, Xenter, Enterasense Ltd, and Lumendi; research support from Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific Corporation, Endoquest Robotics, Erbe, Fractyl, FujiFilm, GI Dynamics, Olympus/Spiration, USGI Medical, and Lumendi; advisory board for Fractyl and USGI Medical; founder of Bariendo, BlueFlame Healthcare Venture Fund, ELLES, EnVision Endoscopy, GI Windows, Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Endoscopy Inc, and Enterasense Ltd, and GI Windows; board member for Bariendo, ELLES, EnVision Endoscopy, GI Windows, and Enterasense Ltd; ownership in Bariendo, ELLES, EnVision Endoscopy, GI Windows, Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Endoscopy Inc, Softac, Xenter, and Enterasense Ltd; partner in BlueFlame Healthcare Venture Fund; president of the Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Endoscopy Inc; Scientific Advisory Board for Xenter. R. Pannala: Research support from Fractyl Labs; general payments from Boston Scientific Corporation; consultant for HCL Technologies; advisory board for Nestle Healthsciences and Bluestar Genomics. S. K. Goelder: Travel compensation from Apollo Endosurgery. V. Kushnir: Consultant for BSCI, Noah Medical, Steres, and ConMed. M. Barthet: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Endotools, and Taewoong. C. M. Apovian: Advisory board for Altimmune, Inc, CinFina Pharma, Inc, Cowen and Company, LLC, Currax Pharmaceuticals, LLC, EPG Communication Holdings Ltd, Form Health, Inc, Gelesis, Srl, L-Nutra, Inc, NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Novo Nordisk, Inc, OptumRx, Inc, Pain Script Corporation, Palatin Technologies, Inc, Pursuit By You, ReShape Lifesciences Inc, Riverview School, and Xeno Biosciences; research support from the National Institutes of Health, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, and GI Dynamics, Inc. I. Boskoski: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation (Apollo Endosurgery), Nitinotes, and EndoTools. C. G. Chapman: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus, Steris, and Apollo Endosurgery; speaker for Apollo Endosurgery. V. Kumbhari: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation. J. Esker: Consultant for Pendulum Therapeutics. A. D. Pryor: Speaker for Gore, Medtronic, and Stryker. R. Maselli: Consultant for Apollo Endosurgery. A. R. Schulman: Consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus, and MicroTech; research support from GI Dynamics and Fractyl. N. Thosani: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Ambu, and Pentax America; royalties from UpToDate; ownership in ROSEAId. V. Huberty: Shareholder in, board member for, and research support from EndoTools Therapeutics. S. Sullivan: Consultant for Allurion Technologies, Biolinq, BariaTek, Pentax, Fractyl, and Endo Tools Therapeutics; research support from Allurion Technologies, ReShape Medical/Obalon Therapeutics, and Rebiotix; stock ownership in Biolinq. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships., (American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc on behalf of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and by Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart on behalf of European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.)

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is challenging to measure, given its dependency on pathology reporting. Polyp detection rate (PDR) (percentage of screening colonoscopies detecting a polyp) is a proposed alternative to overcome this issue. Overall PDR from all colonoscopies is a relatively novel concept, with no large-scale studies comparing overall PDR with screening-only PDR. The aim of the study was to compare PDR from screening, surveillance, and diagnostic indications with overall PDR and evaluate any correlation between individual endoscopist PDR by indication to determine if overall PDR can be a valuable surrogate for screening PDR. Our study analyzed a prospectively collected national endoscopy database maintained by the National Institute of Health from 2009 to 2014. Out of 354,505 colonoscopies performed between 2009-2014, 298,920 ( n = 110,794 average-risk screening, n = 83,556 average-risk surveillance, n = 104,770 diagnostic) met inclusion criteria. The median screening PDR was 25.45 (IQR 13.15-39.60), comparable with the median overall PDR of 24.01 (IQR 11.46-35.86, p = 0.21). Median surveillance PDR was higher at 33.73 (IQR 16.92-47.01), and median diagnostic PDR was lower at 19.35 (IQR 9.66-29.17), compared with median overall PDR 24.01 (IQR 11.46-35.86; p < 0.01). The overall PDR showed excellent concordance with screening, surveillance, and diagnostic PDR (r > 0.85, p < 0.01, 2-tailed). The overall PDR is a reliable and pragmatic surrogate for screening PDR and can be measured in real time, irrespective of colonoscopy indication.

Competing Interests: Disclosure N. Thosani is a consultant for Boston Scientific, consultant for and recipient of research support from Pentax America, speaker for Abbvie, recipient of royalties from UpToDate, and advisory board member for Colubris Rx. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships. Commentary Endoscopic resection of large colon polyps has largely replaced surgical resection. Polyps that occur at anastomotic sites or polyps that have been previously manipulated or partially resected can be challenging to remove endoscopically because of scarring. Novel therapies such as endoscopic submucosal dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, and the EndoRotor automated mechanical tissue resection device have been used successfully to remove complex, nonlifting polyps. In this case, the authors demonstrate the successful treatment of a large nonlifting polyp at a surgical anastomotic site using cryotherapy. Cryotherapy has been used in the past for treatment of Barrett’s esophagus, early esophageal neoplasia, gastric antral vascular ectasias, and flat duodenal polyps. This case demonstrates that cryotherapy can be added to our repertoire to successfully treat challenging, nonlifting colon polyps. Haroon Shahid, MD, Director, Endoscopic Ultrasound, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Brunswick, New Jersey, USA Amy Tyberg, MD, FASGE, FACG, Associate Editor for Focal Points

Background: Management of choledocholithiasis in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery is challenging. This study aims to compare technical success rates, adverse events, and procedural time between 3 current approaches: endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (EDGE), enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (E-ERCP), and laparoscopic-assisted ERCP (LA-ERCP)., Methods: A systematic search of 5 databases was conducted. Direct and network meta-analyses were performed to compare interventions using the random effects model. A significance threshold of P < 0.05 was applied., Results: Sixteen studies were included. On direct meta-analysis, technical success rates were comparable between EDGE and LA-ERCP (odds ratio: 0.768, CI: 0.196-3.006, P = 0.704, I2 = 14.13%). However, EDGE and LA-ERCP showed significantly higher success rates than E-ERCP. No significant differences in adverse events were found between EDGE versus LA-ERCP, EDGE versus E-ERCP, and LA-ERCP versus E-ERCP on direct meta-analysis. In terms of procedural time, EDGE was significantly shorter than E-ERCP [mean difference (MD): -31 minutes, 95% CI: -40.748 to -21.217, P < 0.001, I2 = 19.89%), and E-ERCP was shorter than LA-ERCP (MD: -44.567 minutes, 95% CI: -76.018 to -13.116, P = 0.005, I2 = 0%). EDGE also demonstrated a significant time advantage over LA-ERCP (MD: -78.145 minutes, 95% CI: -104.882 to -51.407, P < 0.001, I2 = 0%). All findings were consistent with network meta-analysis on random effects model. The heterogeneity of the model was low., Conclusions: EDGE and LA-ERCP showed superior technical success rates compared with E-ERCP. Adverse events did not significantly differ among the three approaches. Furthermore, EDGE demonstrated the shortest procedural duration. We recommend considering EDGE as a first-choice procedure., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Gastric cancer ranks as the fifth leading cause of global cancer incidences, exhibiting varied prevalence influenced by geographical, ethnic, and lifestyle factors, as well as Helicobacter pylori infection. The ATM gene on chromosome 11q22 is vital for genomic stability as an initiator of the DNA damage response, and mutations in this gene have been associated with various cancers. Poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, such as olaparib, have shown efficacy in cancers with homologous recombination repair deficiencies, notably in those with ATM mutations. Here, we present a case of a 66-year-old patient with germline ATM-mutated metastatic gastric cancer with very high CA 19-9 (48 000 units/mL) who demonstrated an exceptional response to the addition of olaparib to chemo-immunotherapy and subsequent olaparib maintenance monotherapy for 12 months. CA 19-9 was maintained at low level for 18 months. Despite the failure of a phase II clinical trial on olaparib in gastric cancer (NCT01063517) to meet its primary endpoint, intriguing findings emerged in the subset of ATM-mutated patients, who exhibited notable improvements in overall survival. Our case underscores the potential clinical utility of olaparib in germline ATM-mutated gastric cancer and emphasizes the need for further exploration through larger clinical trials. Ongoing research and clinical trials are essential for optimizing the use of PARP inhibitors, identifying biomarkers, and advancing personalized treatment strategies for gastric cancer., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Perforations (Perf) during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are rare (< 1%) but potentially fatal events (up to 20% mortality). Given its rarity, most data is through case series studies from centers or analysis of large databases. Although a meta-analysis has shown fewer adverse events as a composite (bleeding, pancreatitis, Perf) during ERCP performed at high-volume centers, there is very little real-world data on endoscopist and center procedural volumes, ERCP duration and complexity on the occurrence of Perf., Aim: To study the profile of Perf related to ERCP by center and endoscopist procedure volume, ERCP time, and complexity from a national endoscopic repository., Methods: Patients from clinical outcomes research initiative-national endoscopic database (2000-2012) who underwent ERCP were stratified based on the endoscopist and center volume (quartiles), and total procedure duration and complexity grade of the ERCP based on procedure details. The effects of these variables on the Perf that occurred were studied. Continuous variables were compared between Perf and no perforations (NoPerf) using the Mann-Whitney U test as the data demonstrated significant skewness and kurtosis., Results: A total of 14153 ERCPs were performed by 258 endoscopists, with 20 reported Perf (0.14%) among 16 endoscopists. Mean patient age in years 61.6 ± 14.8 vs 58.1 ± 18.8 (Perf vs . NoPerf, P = NS). The cannulation rate was 100% and 91.5% for Perf and NoPerf groups, respectively. 13/20 (65%) of endoscopists were high-volume performers in the 4 th quartile, and 11/20 (55%) of Perf occurred in centers with the highest volumes (4 th quartile). Total procedure duration in minutes was 60.1 ± 29.9 vs 40.33 ± 23.5 (Perf vs NoPerf, P < 0.001). Fluoroscopy duration in minutes was 3.3 ± 2.3 vs 3.3 ± 2.6 (Perf vs NoPerf P = NS). 50% of the procedures were complex and greater than grade 1 difficulty. 3/20 (15%) patients had prior biliary surgery. 13/20 (65%) had sphincterotomies performed with stent insertion. Peritonitis occurred in only 1/20 (0.5%)., Conclusion: Overall adverse events as a composite during ERCP are known to occur at a lower rate with higher volume endoscopists and centers. However, Perf studied from the national database show prolonged and more complex procedures performed by high-volume endoscopists at high-volume centers contribute to Perf., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: All the Authors have no conflict of interest related to the manuscript., (©The Author(s) 2023. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The incremental yield of I-Scan virtual chromoendoscopy compared to high-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) in detection of colorectal adenomas has not been thoroughly elucidated., Methods: A systematic search from inception to April 2023 was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing I-Scan to HD-WLE for detection of adenomas. A random effects model was used to compute risk difference (RD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals in adenoma detection rate (ADR). Influence analysis was done to assess robustness of findings. The number needed to diagnose was computed. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic and explored further by subgroup analyses defined a priori. Certainty in effect estimates was assessed using the GRADE approach., Results: We identified four studies (I-Scan n = 730, HD-WLE n = 765). I-Scan increased adenoma detection by 9% (risk difference (RD), 0.09; 0.04, 0.14; I 2 02%; certainty, low). Influence analysis revealed that the gain in yield remained statistically significant with exclusion of all but one study. The number needed to capture one additional adenomatous polyp with I-Scan use was 11.2. I-Scan 1 use was associated with a statistically significant gain in ADR, whereas no significant difference in ADR was noted with I-Scan use on subgroup analysis., Discussion: In conclusion, I-Scan increases the yield of adenoma detection by 9% compared to HD-WLE, with low certainty in the estimate of this effect. Data on the gain in yield of detecting large polyps, sessile serrated lesions, and on the impact of formally training endoscopists and trainees in I-Scan use and similar technology on adenoma detection rate are needed., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Competing Interests: All authors declare no potential conflict of interest.

Background and Aims: The relative utility of self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) insertion for malignant colon obstruction (MCO) due to extra-colonic malignancy (ECM) versus intra-colonic malignancy (ICM) is understudied., Methods: A systematic search was done from inception-April 2021 to identify reports of safety and efficacy of SEMS insertion for the treatment of MCO-ECM versus MCO-ICM. A meta-analysis of proportions, comparative meta-analysis to compute relative risks (RR), and mean differences (MD) was performed. Subgroup analyses and influence analyses were conducted. The certainty in estimates of effect(s) was assessed using the GRADE approach., Results: Eight non-randomized studies were identified; 46% (39-53%) and 63% (59-67%) of patients in the ECM and ICM groups were male. Most obstructions were in the rectosigmoid colon in both ECM and ICM groups. SEMS insertion in MCO-ECM was associated with an increased risk of technical failure compared to MCO-ICM (RR 2.92; 1.13-7.54; Certainty: Very Low). Risk of clinical failure of SEMS was higher in MCO-ECM compared to MCO-ICM (RR 2.88; 1.58-2.52; Certainty: Very Low). The risk of clinical failure remained significant throughout the influence analysis, as well as on subgroup analysis. There was no significant difference in the risk of adverse events or luminal perforation with SEMS insertion among patients with MCO-ECM and MCO-ICM. On influence analysis, removal of one study unveiled a significant increase in the risk of luminal perforation in MCO-ECM (RR 3.22; 1.44-7.19; p = 0.004)., Conclusion: SEMS for MCO-ECM may have a technical success rate comparable to or questionably worse than MCO-ICM, with low certainty in estimate of effects. SEMS deployment in MCO-ECM carries a higher risk of clinical failure, with a questionably higher risk of luminal perforation., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background and Aims: Fluoroscopy-free endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for common bile duct stone (CBDS) clearance is usually offered only to pregnant patients. We initiated a multicenter, randomized controlled trial comparing clearance of non-complex CBDSs using fluoroscopy-free direct solitary cholangioscopy (DSC) to standard endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) to evaluate the wider applicability of the DSC-based approach. Here we report the initial results of stone clearance and safety in roll-in cases for the randomized controlled trial., Methods: Twelve expert endoscopists at tertiary care centers in four countries prospectively enrolled 47 patients with non-complex CBDSs for DSC-assisted CBDS removal in an index procedure including fluoroscopy-free cannulation. Successful CBDS clearance was first determined by DSC and subsequently validated by final occlusion cholangiogram as the ERC gold standard., Results: Fully fluoroscopy-free cannulation was successful in 42/47 (89.4%) patients. Brief fluoroscopy with minimal contrast injection was used in 4/47 (8.5%) patients during cannulation. Cannulation failed in 1/47 (2.1%) patients. Fluoroscopy-free complete stone clearance was reached in 38/46 (82.6%) cases. Residual stones were detected in the validation ERC occlusion cholangiogram in three cases. Overall serious adverse event rate was 2.1% (95% confidence interval 0.1-11.3): postprocedural pancreatitis in one patient., Conclusions: In patients with non-complex CBDS, the fluoroscopy-free technique is easily transferred to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography experts with acceptable rates of cannulation and stone clearance and few serious adverse events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03421340)., Competing Interests: The authors disclose the following:Wiriyaporn Ridtitid: Research support from Boston Scientific CorporationRungsun Rerknimitr: Research support from Boston Scientific CorporationMohan Ramchandani: No disclosuresSundeep Lakhtakia: No disclosuresRaj J Shah: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation and OlympusJanak N Shah: Research support from Boston Scientific CorporationNirav Thosani: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corp, Pentax America, Ambu Inc; Speaker for Abbvie; Royalty from UpToDate; Creatorship Rights for ROSEAid IncMahesh K Goenka: no disclosuresGuido Costamagna: Research grants from Cook Medical and Boston Scientific, Advisory Board Grant from OlympusMihir S Wagh: Consultant for Boston Scientific, Olympus, Medtronic, Fujifilm, ConMed and Incyte; Research support from SterisVincenzo Perri: No financial relationships with a commercial entity producing health‐care‐related products and/or services relevant to this article.Joyce Peetermans: Full‐time employee of Boston Scientific CorporationPooja G Goswamy: Full‐time employee of Boston Scientific CorporationZoe Liu: Full‐time employee of Boston Scientific Corporation at the time of this studySrey Yin: Full‐time employee of Boston Scientific Corporation at the time of this studySubhas Banerjee: Boston Scientific: Consultant and research support; Ambys Medicines: consultant, (© 2023 The Authors. DEN Open published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.)

Background: Revision of a failed laparoscopic fundoplication carries higher risk of complication and lower chance of success compared to the original surgery. Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) may be an endoscopic alternative for select GERD patients without need of a moderate/large hiatal hernia repair. The aim of this study was to assess feasibility, efficacy, and safety of TIF 2.0 after failed laparoscopic Nissen or Toupet fundoplication (TIFFF)., Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent TIFFF between September 2017 and December 2020 using TIF 2.0 technique (EsophyX Z/Z+) performed by gastroenterologists and surgeons. Patients were included if they had (1) recurrent GERD symptoms, (2) pathologic reflux based upon pH testing or Grade C/D esophagitis or Barrett's esophagus, and (3) hiatal hernia ≤ 2 cm. The primary outcome was improvement in GERD Health-Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) post-TIFFF. The TIFFF cohort was also compared to a similar surgical re-operative cohort using propensity score matching., Results: Twenty patients underwent TIFFF (median 4.1 years after prior fundoplication) and mean GERD-HRQL score improved from 24.3 ± 22.9 to 14.75 ± 21.6 (p = 0.014); mean Reflux Severity Index (RSI) score improved from 14.1 ± 14.6 to 9.1 ± 8.0 (p = 0.046) with 8/10 (80%) of patients with normal RSI (< 13) post-TIF. Esophagitis healed in 78% of patients. PPI use decreased from 85 to 55% with 8/20 (45%) patients off of PPI. Importantly, mean acid exposure time decreased from 12% ± 17.8 to 0.8% ± 1.1 (p = 0.028) with 9/9 (100%) of patients with normalized pH post-TIF. There were no statistically significant differences in clinical efficacy outcomes between TIFFF and surgical revision, but TIFFF had significantly fewer late adverse events., Conclusion: Endoscopic rescue with TIF is a safe and efficacious alternative to redo laparoscopic surgery in symptomatic patients with appropriate anatomy and objective evidence of persistent or recurrent reflux., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Cancer is one of the foremost health problems worldwide and is among the leading causes of death in the United States. Gastrointestinal tract cancers account for almost one third of the cancer-related mortality globally, making it one of the deadliest groups of cancers. Early diagnosis and prompt management are key to preventing cancer-related morbidity and mortality. With advancements in technology and endoscopic techniques, endoscopy has become the core in diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal tract cancers. In this extensive review, the authors discuss the role endoscopy plays in early detection, diagnosis, and management of esophageal, gastric, colorectal, pancreatic, ampullary, biliary tract, and small intestinal cancers., (© 2022 The Authors. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society.)

Background: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common diseases in North America and globally. The aim of this guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the most utilized and available endoscopic and surgical treatments for GERD., Methods: Systematic literature reviews were conducted for 4 key questions regarding the surgical and endoscopic treatments for GERD in adults: preoperative evaluation, endoscopic vs surgical or medical treatment, complete vs partial fundoplication, and treatment for obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 35 kg/m 2 ) and concomitant GERD. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. Recommendations for future research were also proposed., Results: The consensus provided 13 recommendations. Through the development of these evidence-based recommendations, an algorithm was proposed for aid in the treatment of GERD. Patients with typical symptoms should undergo upper endoscopy, manometry, and pH-testing; additional testing may be required for patients with atypical or extra-esophageal symptoms. Patients with normal or abnormal findings on manometry should consider undergoing partial fundoplication. Magnetic sphincter augmentation or fundoplication are appropriate surgical procedures for adults with GERD. For patients who wish to avoid surgery, the Stretta procedure and transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF 2.0) were found to have better outcomes than proton pump inhibitors alone. Patients with concomitant obesity were recommended to undergo either gastric bypass or fundoplication, although patients with severe comorbid disease or BMI > 50 should undergo Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for the additional benefits that follow weight loss., Conclusion: Using the recommendations an algorithm was developed by this panel, so that physicians may better counsel their patients with GERD. There are certain patient factors that have been excluded from included studies/trials, and so these recommendations should not replace surgeon-patient decision making. Engaging in the identified research areas may improve future care for GERD patients., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background and study aims  Concomitant hiatal hernia (HH) repair with transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) is a therapeutic option for patients with HH > 2 cm and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Data comparing this approach with laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) are lacking. We performed an exploratory analysis to compare these two approaches' adverse events (AEs) and clinical outcomes. Patients and methods  This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study of HH repair followed by LNF versus HH repair followed by TIF in patients with GERD and moderate HH (2-5 cm). AEs were assessed using the Clavien-Dindo classification. Symptoms (heartburn/regurgitation, bloating, and dysphagia) were compared at 6 and 12 months. Results  A total of 125 patients with HH repair with TIF and 70 with HH repair with LNF were compared. There was no difference in rates of discontinuing or decreasing proton pump inhibitor use, dysphagia, esophagitis, disrupted wrap, and HH recurrence between the two groups ( P  > 0.05). The length of hospital stay (1 day vs. 2 days), 30-day readmission rate (0 vs. 4.3 %), early AE rate (0 vs. 18.6 %), and early serious AE rate (0 vs. 4.3 %) favored TIF (all P  < 0.05). The rate of new or worse than baseline bloating was lower in the TIF group at 6 months (13.8 % vs. 30.0 %, P  = 0.009). Conclusions  Concomitant HH repair with TIF is feasible and associated with lower early and serious AEs compared to LNF. Further comparative efficacy studies are warranted., Competing Interests: Competing interests Dr. Abu Dayyeh is a consultant for Metamodix, BFKW, DyaMx, Boston Scientific, USGI medical, Hemostasis, and Endo-TAGSS. He has received research support from Apollo Endosurgery, USGI, Spatz Medical, Boston Scientific, GI Dynamics, Cairn Diagnostics, Aspire Bariatrics, and Medtronic. He has served as a speaker for Johnson & Johnson, EndoGastric Solutions, and Olympus. Dr. Janu is a consultant for EndoGastric Solutions, Ethicon/J&J, and Olympus. Dr. Murray is a consultant for Boston Scientific Corp, Pentax America. He has received research support from Pentax America. He has served as a speaker for AbbVie. He is an advisory board member for Colubris Rx. He has received royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Chang is a consultant for and has received educational research grants from EndoGastric Solutions, is a consultant for and has received educational grants from Cook and Olympus. Dr. Canto has received research support from EndoGastric Solutions and Pentax Medical Corporation and has received royalties from UpToDate., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background and study aims  The optimal technique for removal of large common bile duct (CBD) stones (≥ 10 mm) during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remains unclear. We aimed to perform a comparative analysis between different endoscopic techniques. Methods  Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a stringent search of the following databases through January 12, 2021, were undertaken: PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane. Randomized controlled trials comparing the following endoscopic techniques were included: (1) Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST); (2) Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD); and (3) EST plus large balloon dilation (ESLBD). Stone clearance rate (SCR) on index ERCP was the primary outcome/endpoint. Need for mechanical lithotripsy (ML) and adverse events were also evaluated as secondary endpoint. Random effects model and frequentist approach were used for statistical analysis. Results  A total of 16 studies with 2545 patients (1009 in EST group, 588 in EPLBD group, and 948 patients in ESLBD group) were included. The SCR was significantly higher in ESLBD compared to EST risk ratio [RR]: 1.11, [confidence interval] CI: 1.00-1.24). Lower need for ML was noted for ESLBD (RR: 0.48, CI: 0.31-0.74) and EPLBD (RR: 0.58, CI: 0.34-0.98) compared to EST. All other outcomes including bleeding, perforation, post-ERCP pancreatitis, stone recurrence, cholecystitis, cholangitis, and mortality did not show significant difference between the three groups. Based on network ranking, ESLBD was superior in terms of SCR as well as lower need for ML and adverse events (AEs). Conclusions  Based on network meta-analysis, ESLBD seems to be superior with higher SCR and lower need for ML and AEs for large CBD stones., Competing Interests: Competing interests N. Thosani is consultant for Boston Scientific Corp, Pentax America, Ambu. He has received royalty from UpToDate and is speaker for Abbvie. He has creatorship rights for ROSEAId inc., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background/aims: Current society guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for 3 to 5 days after endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs). The overall quality of the evidence supporting this recommendation is low. In this study, we aimed to assess cyst infection and adverse event rates after EUS-FNA of PCLs among patients treated with or without postprocedural prophylactic antibiotics., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent EUS-FNA of PCLs between 2015 and 2019 at two large-volume academic medical centers with different practice patterns of postprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis. Data on patient demographics, cyst characteristics, fine-needle aspiration technique, periprocedural and postprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis, and adverse events were retrospectively extracted., Results: A total of 470 EUS-FNA procedures were performed by experienced endosonographers for the evaluation of PCLs in 448 patients, 58.7% of whom were women. The mean age was 66.3±12.8 years. The mean cyst size was 25.7±16.9 mm. Postprocedural antibiotics were administered in 274 cases (POSTAB+ group, 58.3%) but not in 196 cases (POSTAB- group, 41.7%). None of the patients in either group developed systemic or localized infection within the 30-day follow-up period. Procedure-related adverse events included mild abdominal pain (8 patients), intra-abdominal hematoma (1 patient), mild pancreatitis (1 patient), and perforation (1 patient). One additional case of pancreatitis was recorded; however, the patient also underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography., Conclusion: The incidence of infection after EUS-FNA of PCLs is negligible. Routine use of postprocedural antibiotics does not add a significant benefit.

Background: The American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) has proposed practice guidelines for evaluating patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. This study aims to assess and compare practice patterns for following ASGE guidelines for choledocholithiasis in a large academic vs. community hospital setting., Methods: A total of one thousand ER indicated for choledocholithiasis were randomly selected. Patients' demographics, total bilirubin, imaging studies including magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and ERCP results were retrospectively collected. Patients with prior sphincterotomy were excluded. We examined the following practice deviations from the current ASGE guidelines; (1) ERCP was potentially delayed in high probability cases while awaiting additional imaging studies, (2) ERCP was performed without additional imaging studies in cases of low/intermediate-risk, or (3) ERCP was performed in low/intermediate-risk cases when additional imaging studies were negative., Results: A total of 640 patients with native papilla who underwent ERCP were included in the final analysis. Overall, the management of 43% (275) of patients was deviated from the applicable ASGE guidelines. Academic and community provider rates of non-adherence were 32 vs. 45%, respectively ( p -value: < 0.01). Of 381 high-risk cases, 54.1% had additional imaging before ERCP. (Academic vs. community; 11.7 vs. 88.3%, p -value: < 0.01). In 26.7% (69/258) of low/intermediate risk cases, ERCP was performed without additional studies; academic (14.5%) vs. community (85.5%) ( p -value: < 0.01). Finally, in 11.2% (19/170) of patients, ERCP was performed despite intermediate/low probability and negative imaging; academic (26.3%) vs. community (73.7%) ( p -value: 0.02)., Conclusion: Our study results show that providers do not adhere to ASGE practice guidelines in 43% of suspected choledocholithiasis cases. The rate of non-adherence was significantly higher in community settings. It could be due to various reasons, including lack/delays for alternate studies (i.e., MRCP, EUS), concern regarding the length of stay, patient preference, or lack of awareness/understanding of the guidelines. Increased availability of alternate imaging and educational strategies may be needed to increase the adoption of practice guidelines across academic and community settings to improve patient outcomes and save healthcare dollars., Competing Interests: NT was a consultant for Boston-Scientific, Medtronic, Pentax America, received royalty from UpToDate, and was a speaker for Abbvie. SG was a consultant for Medtronic. HG was a consultant for Aimloxy LLC. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Rashtak, Goyal, Chandran, Dedania, Patil, Wadhwa, Guha, Davee, Ramireddy and Thosani.)

Long term prognosis and 5-year survival for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains suboptimal. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided RFA (EUS-RFA) is an emerging technology and limited data exist regarding safety and long-term outcomes. The aim of this study is to report safety-profile, feasibility and outcomes of EUS-RFA for advanced PDAC. Prospective review of patients with diagnosis of locally-advanced or metastatic PDAC undergoing EUS-RFA between October 2016 to March 2018 with long-term follow up (> 30 months). Study patients underwent a total of 1-4 RFA sessions. All patients were enrolled in longitudinal cohort study and received standard of care chemotherapy. 10 patients underwent EUS-RFA. Location of the lesions was in the head(4), neck(2), body(2), and tail(2). 22 RFA sessions were performed with a range of 1-4 sessions per patient. There were no major adverse events (bleeding, perforation, infection, pancreatitis) in immediate (up to 72 h) and short-term follow up (4 weeks). Mild worsening of existing abdominal pain was noted during post-procedure observation in 12/22 (55%) of RFA treatments. Follow-up imaging demonstrated tumor progression in 2 patients, whereas tumor regression was noted in 6 patients (> 50% reduction in size in 3 patients). Median survival for the cohort was 20.5 months (95% CI, 9.93-42.2 months). Currently, 2 patients remain alive at 61 and 81 months follow-up since initial diagnosis. One patient had 3 cm PDAC with encasement of the portal confluence, abutment of the celiac axis, common hepatic and superior mesenteric artery. This patient had significant reduction in tumor size and underwent standard pancreaticoduodenectomy. In our experience, EUS-RFA was safe, well-tolerated and could be concurrently performed with standard chemotherapy. In this select cohort, median survival was improved when compared to published survival based upon SEER database and clinical trials. Future prospective trials are needed to understand the role of EUS-RFA in overall management of PDAC., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

(1) Background: Various methods to predict the presence or absence of choledocholithiasis (CDL) have been proposed. We aimed to assess the performance characteristics of dynamic liver enzyme trends in the prediction of CDL. (2) Methods: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study. All adult in-patients undergoing endoscopy for suspected CDL between 1 January 2012 and 7 October 2018 were identified, with patients with prior cholecystectomy, prior sphincterotomy, or indwelling biliary prostheses were excluded. Available laboratory parameters within 72 h preceding the procedure were recorded, allowing for the assessment of trends. Dynamic enzyme trends were defined as any increase or decrease by 30% and 50% within 72 h of the index procedure. (3) Results: A total of 878 patients were included. Mean age was 61.8 years, with 58.6% female. Increases in alkaline phosphatase (ALP) of at least 30% or 50% were both specific for the presence of CDL, with specificities of 82.7% (95% CI 69.7-91.8%) and 88.5% (95% CI 76.6-95.6%), respectively. Decreases in bilirubin or ALP of at least 50% were highly specific for the absence of CDL, with specificities of 91.7% (95% CI 85.7-95.8%) and 100.0% (97.2-100.0%), respectively. (4) Conclusions: Several liver enzyme trends appear to be specific for the absence or presence of stones; in particular, significant decreases in total bilirubin or ALP of at least 30-50% over the prior 72 h appear to be especially predictive of an absence of intraductal findings during endoscopy.

Background and study aims  Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication attributed to the procedure, its incidence being approximately 9.7 %. Numerous studies have evaluated the predictive efficacy of post-procedure serum amylase and lipase levels but with varied procedure-to-test time intervals and cut-off values. The aim of this meta-analysis was to present pooled data from available studies to compare the predictive accuracies of serum amylase and lipase for PEP. Patients and methods  A total of 18 studies were identified after a comprehensive search of various databases until June 2021 that reported the use of pancreatic enzymes for PEP. Results  The sample size consisted of 11,790 ERCPs, of which PEP occurred in 764 (6.48 %). Subgroups for serum lipase and amylase were created based on the cut-off used for diagnosing PEP, and meta-analysis was done for each subgroup. Results showed that serum lipase more than three to four times the upper limit of normal (ULN) performed within 2 to 4 hours of ERCP had the highest pooled sensitivity (92 %) for PEP. Amylase level more than five to six times the ULN was the most specific serum marker with a pooled specificity of 93 %. Conclusions  Our analysis indicates that a lipase level less than three times the ULN within 2 to 4 hours of ERCP can be used as a good predictor to rule out PEP when used as an adjunct to patient clinical presentation. Multicenter randomized controlled trials using lipase and amylase are warranted to further evaluate their PEP predictive accuracy, especially in high-risk patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests Hemant Goyal: Aimloxy LLC. Sonali Sachdeva, Syed Ali Amir Sherazi, Shweta Gupta, Abhilash Perisetto, Aman Ali, Saurabh Chandan declare that they have no conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background and study aims  Duodenoscopes that are contaminated due to inadequate reprocessing are well-documented. However, studies have demonstrated poor reprocessing of other kinds of endoscopes as well, including echoendoscopes, gastroscopes, and colonoscopes. We estimated the contamination rate beyond the elevator of gastrointestinal endoscopes based on available data. Methods  We searched PubMed and Embase from January 1, 2010 to October 10, 2020, for studies investigating contamination rates of reprocessed gastrointestinal endoscopes. A random-effects model was used to calculate the contamination rate of patient-ready gastrointestinal endoscopes. Subgroup analyses were conducted to investigate differences among endoscope types, countries, and colony-forming unit (CFU) thresholds. Results  Twenty studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, including 1,059 positive cultures from 7,903 samples. The total contamination rate was 19.98 % ± 0.024 (95 % confidence interval [Cl]: 15.29 %-24.68 %; I 2  = 98.6 %). The contamination rates of colonoscope and gastroscope channels were 31.95 % ± 0.084 and 28.22 % ± 0.076, respectively. Duodenoscope channels showed a contamination rate of 14.41 % ± 0.029. The contamination rates among studies conducted in North America and Europe were 6.01 % ± 0.011 and 18.16% ± 0.053 %, respectively. The contamination rate among studies using a CFU threshold > 20 showed contamination of 30.36 % ± 0.094, whereas studies using a CFU threshold < 20 showed a contamination rate of 11 % ± 0.026. Conclusions  On average, 19.98 % of reprocessed gastrointestinal endoscopes may be contaminated when used in patients and varies between different geographies. These findings highlight that the elevator mechanism is not the only obstacle when reprocessing reusable endoscopes; therefore, guidelines should recommend more surveillance of the endoscope channels as well., Competing Interests: Competing interests Hemant Goyal serves as a consultant for Aimloxy LLC.Sara Larsen, Lotte Klinten Ockert, and Dr. Sven Adamsen are employed by Ambu A/S. Dr. Tharian is a consultant and speaker for Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr. Thosani is a consultant for Boston Scientific, a consultant for and receives research support from Pentax America, a speaker for Abbvie, an advisory board member at Colubris Rx, and receives royalties from UpToDate., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Over 17.7 million gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures are performed annually, contributing to 68% of all endoscopic procedures in the United States. Usually, endoscopic procedures are low risk, but adverse events may occur, including cardiopulmonary complications, bleeding, perforation, pancreatitis, cholangitis, and infection. Infections after the GI endoscopies most commonly result from the patient's endogenous gut flora. Although many studies have reported infection after GI endoscopic procedures, a true estimate of the incidence rate of post-endoscopy infection is lacking. In addition, the infection profile and causative organisms have evolved over time. In recent times, multi-drug-resistant microorganisms have emerged as a cause of outbreaks of endoscope-associated infections (EAI). In addition, lapses in endoscope reprocessing have been reported, with some but not all outbreaks in recent times. This systematic review summarizes the demographical, clinical, and management data of EAI events reported in the literature. A total of 117 articles were included in the systematic review, with the majority reported from North America and Western Europe. The composite infection rate was calculated to be 0.2% following GI endoscopic procedures, 0.8% following ERCP, 0.123% following non-ERCP upper GI endoscopic procedures, and 0.073% following lower GI endoscopic procedures. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most common culprit organism, followed by other Enterobacteriaceae groups of organisms and Gram-positive cocci. We have also elaborated different prevention methods such as antimicrobial prophylaxis, adequate sterilization methods for reprocessing endoscopes, periodic surveillance, and current evidence supporting their utilization. Finally, we discuss disposable endoscopes, which could be an alternative to reprocessing to minimize the chances of EAIs with their effects on the environmental and financial situation., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly fatal malignancy with a global overall 5-year survival of under 10%. Screening of PC is not recommended outside of clinical trials. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is a very sensitive test to identify PC but lacks specificity and is operator-dependent, especially in the presence of chronic pancreatitis (CP). Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a growing field with a wide range of applications to augment the currently available modalities. This study was undertaken to study the effectiveness of AI with EUS in the diagnosis of PC., Methods: Studies from MEDLINE and EMBASE databases reporting the AI performance applied to EUS imaging for recognizing PC. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies., Results: A total of 11 articles reported the role of EUS in the diagnosis of PC. The overall accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of AI in recognizing PC were 80-97.5%, 83-100%, and 50-99%, respectively, with corresponding positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 75-99% and 57-100%, respectively. Types of AI studied were artificial neural networks (ANNs), convolutional neural networks (CNN), and support vector machine (SVM). Seven studies using other than basic ANN reported a sensitivity and specificity of 88-96% and 83-94% to differentiate PC from CP. Two studies using SVM reported a 94-96% sensitivity, 93%-99% specificity, and 94-98% accuracy to diagnose PC from CP. The reported sensitivity and specificity of detection of malignant from benign Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms (IPMNs) was 96% and 92%, respectively., Conclusion: AI reported a high sensitivity with high specificity and accuracy to diagnose PC, differentiate PC from CP, and differentiate benign from malignant IPMN when used with EUS., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Hemant Goyal – Consultant for Aimloxy LLC., (© The Author(s), 2022.)

Background and Aims: EUS, MRCP, and intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) are the recommended diagnostic modalities for patients with intermediate probability for choledocholithiasis (IPC). The relative cost-effectiveness of these modalities in patients with cholelithiasis and IPC is understudied., Methods: We developed a decision tree for diagnosing IPC (base-case probability, 50%; range, 10%-70%); patients with a positive test were modeled to undergo therapeutic ERCP. The strategies tested were laparoscopic cholecystectomy with IOC (LC-IOC), MRCP, single-session EUS + ERCP, and separate-session EUS + ERCP. Costs and probabilities were extracted from the published literature. Effectiveness was assessed by assigning utility scores to health states, average proportion of true-positive diagnosis of IPC, and the mean length of stay (LOS) per strategy. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by extrapolating a net-monetary benefit (NMB) and average cost per true-positive diagnosis., Results: LC-IOC was the most cost-effective strategy to diagnose IPC (base-case probability of 50%) among patients with cholelithiasis in health state-based effectiveness analysis (NMB of $34,612), diagnostic test accuracy-based effectiveness analysis (average cost of $13,260 per true-positive diagnosis), and LOS-based effectiveness analysis (mean LOS of 4.13) compared with strategies 2 (MRCP), 3 (single-session EUS + ERCP), and 4 (separate-session EUS + ERCP). These findings were robust on deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses., Conclusions: For patients with cholelithiasis with IPC, LC-IOC is a cost-effective approach that should limit preoperative testing and may shorten hospital LOS. Our findings may be used to design institutional and organizational management protocols., (Copyright © 2022 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Over the last few decades, advances have been made regarding gender equality starting from medical students to trainees, to leadership in academics. The female representation in specialty academic conferences not only reflects the existing gender disparities in that specialty but also can influence young female trainees to join that field. Digestive Disease Week (DDW) is the premier digestive disease event. We aimed to calculate the proportion of female representation among speakers and moderators at the DDW meetings held from 2018 to 2020., Methods: The data for DDW 2018-2020 were collected via the online web-based planner. The gender of speakers of presentations and moderators of sessions were identified by a google search. We further categorized the data by each participating society (AGA, ASGE, AASLD, and SSAT), by presentation track, by session track, and total overall representation in each year., Results: Despite the subject of the gender gap being in focus, the proportion of female moderators and speakers was low in DDW in the last 3 years. The female speakers constituted 31.6% in 2018, 33.8% in 2019 and 34.6% in 2020. There was slightly improved female representation in sessions of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Stomach, and Small Bowel Disorders, Microbiome in GI & Liver disease, and Basic Science over the last 3 years., Conclusion: Based on our study and those referenced in this article, we believe that strategies to promote the inclusivity of female moderators and speakers at DDW provide a huge opportunity to influence gender equity within GI., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background and study aims  Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) is a safe and effective minimally invasive endoscopic technique for treating gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The learning curve for this technique has not been reported. We studied the learning curve for TIF when performed by a gastroenterologist by identifying the threshold number of procedures needed to achieve consistent technical success or proficiency (consistent creation of TIF valve ≥ 270 degrees in circumference, ≥ 2 cm long) and efficiency after didactic, hands-on and case observation experience. Patients and methods  We analyzed prospectively collected data from patients who had TIF performed by a single therapeutic endoscopist within 17 months after basic training. We determined thresholds for procedural learning using cumulative sum of means (CUSUM) analysis to detect changes in achievement rates over time. We used breakpoint analysis to calculate procedure metrics related to proficiency and efficiency. Results  A total of 69 patients had 72 TIFs. The most common indications were refractory GERD (44.7 %) and proton pump inhbitor intolerance (23.6 %). Proficiency was achieved at the 18 th to 20 th procedure. The maximum efficiency for performing a plication was achieved after the 26 th procedure, when mean time per plication decreased to 2.7 from 5.1 minutes (P < 0.0001). TIF procedures time varied until the 44 th procedure, after which it decreased significantly from 53.7 minutes to 39.4 minutes (P < 0.0001). Conclusions  TIF can be safely, successfully, and efficiently performed in the endoscopy suite by a therapeutic endoscopist. The TIF learning curve is steep but proficiency can be achieved after a basic training experience and 18 to 20 independently performed procedures., Competing Interests: Competing interests Dr. Ngamruengphong is a consultant for Boston Scientific. Dr. Kumbhari is a consultant for Medtronic, Pentax Medical (USA), Boston Scientific, FujiFilm, Apollo Endosurgery, and received research support from Erbe USA, and Apollo Endosurgery. Dr. Khashab is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Olympus, GI Supply, and Triton. Dr. Murray is a consultant for Endogastric Solutions. PJ is a consultant for Endogastric solutions, Ethicon/J&J, and Olympus. Dr. Ihde is a consultant for Endogastric solutions, and Microline Medical. Dr. Chang is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Cook, Erbe USA, Endogastric solutions, Mauna Kea, Mederi, Medtronic, Olympus, Ovesco and Pentax Medical (USA). Dr. Thosani is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Pentax Medical (USA), received research support from Pentax Medical (USA), royalties from UpToDate, and is on the advisory board of ColubrisMX. Dr. Canto received research grants from Endogastric solutions and Pentax Medical (USA), and royalties from UpToDate., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Gastrointestinal cancers are among the leading causes of death worldwide, with over 2.8 million deaths annually. Over the last few decades, advancements in artificial intelligence technologies have led to their application in medicine. The use of artificial intelligence in endoscopic procedures is a significant breakthrough in modern medicine. Currently, the diagnosis of various gastrointestinal cancer relies on the manual interpretation of radiographic images by radiologists and various endoscopic images by endoscopists. This can lead to diagnostic variabilities as it requires concentration and clinical experience in the field. Artificial intelligence using machine or deep learning algorithms can provide automatic and accurate image analysis and thus assist in diagnosis. In the field of gastroenterology, the application of artificial intelligence can be vast from diagnosis, predicting tumor histology, polyp characterization, metastatic potential, prognosis, and treatment response. It can also provide accurate prediction models to determine the need for intervention with computer-aided diagnosis. The number of research studies on artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal cancer has been increasing rapidly over the last decade due to immense interest in the field. This review aims to review the impact, limitations, and future potentials of artificial intelligence in screening, diagnosis, tumor staging, treatment modalities, and prediction models for the prognosis of various gastrointestinal cancers.