Search

Goals: To describe the long-term outcomes of patients after EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD), including those who underwent standardized stent exchanges for permanent plastic stents., Background: EUS-GBD has become one of the first-line alternatives for gallbladder decompression, with outcomes and safety profiles comparable to that of percutaneous gallbladder drainage. However, the long-term outcomes of EUS-GBD are not well-described. We report our single-center experience of a large cohort who underwent EUS-GBD., Study: Patients who underwent EUS-GBD from August 2014 to December 2022 were included in the study. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and procedure details were recorded. Patients were followed until complete stent removal, end of study period, or death. Short and long-term outcomes include technical and clinical success, stent patency, recurrent cholecystitis, cholecystectomy, and death., Results: During the study period, 128 patients were included. One hundred and one patients had benign indications for EUS-GBD, including cholecystitis and choledocholithiasis. Of those with malignant indications, 23 of 27 had distal malignant biliary obstruction. Technical and clinical successes were 95.3% and 95.1%, respectively. Stents were exchanged for 2 permanent double pigtail plastic stents in 43.0%. The mean stent patency was 421 days (488 d among those still alive) without any recurrent cholecystitis., Conclusion: EUS-GBD demonstrates prolonged stent patency and minimal long-term adverse events, particularly among patients who underwent stent exchanges for permanent plastic stents. EUS-GBD is also promising for patients presenting with choledocholithiasis and biliary colic who are not surgical candidates., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) is a method of decompressing the pancreatic duct (PD) if unable to access the papilla or surgical anastomosis, particularly in nonsurgical candidates. The 2 types of EUS-PDD are EUS-assisted pancreatic rendezvous (EUS-PRV) and EUS-guided pancreaticogastrostomy (EUS-PG). EUS-PRV should be considered in patients with accessible papilla or anastomosis, while EUS-PG is a comparable alternative in surgically altered foregut anatomy. While technical and clinical successes range from 79% to 100%, adverse events occur in approximately 20%. A multidisciplinary approach that considers the patient's anatomy, clinical indication, and long-term goals should be discussed with surgical and interventional radiology colleagues., Competing Interests: Disclosures The article has been read and approved by all the authors. G. Seven and J.A. Trieu have nothing to disclose. T.H. Baron is a consultant and speaker for Ambu, Boston Scientific, Cook Endoscopy, Medtronic, Olympus America, ConMed, and W.L. Gore., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Diseases of the gallbladder can be increasingly managed through endoscopic interventions, either serving as an alternative to or obviating the need for cholecystectomy. In this review, we aim to review the most recent data on endoscopic management of the most common gallbladder diseases., Recent Findings: The development of lumen-opposing metal stents (LAMS) marked a major shift in gallbladder management, with transmural techniques now well studied for management of cholecystitis. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is also a well-developed technique for gallbladder imaging, comparable or superior to transabdominal ultrasound. Novel techniques with LAMS for gallbladder lesion/polyp resection and treatment of non-cholecystitis gallbladder diseases mark important milestones in gallbladder preservation and increasingly less invasive management of diseases of the gallbladder. There are multiple interventional endoscopic techniques that can be used to manage common gallbladder diseases including cholecystitis, cholelithiasis, gallbladder lesions/polyps, and gallbladder cancer. Ongoing development of novel therapeutic techniques holds promise for additional minimally invasive techniques in the future., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background and Aims: Anterograde endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) refers to transmural drainage of the main pancreatic duct via an endoprosthesis passed anterograde through the gastric (or intestinal) wall. Anterograde EUS-PDD is a rescue procedure for recalcitrant cases of benign obstructive pancreatopathy., Methods: We conducted a dual-center retrospective chart review of 28 patients (mean age, 59 years; 50% female) who underwent attempted anterograde EUS-PDD between April 2016 and September 2019 for chronic pancreatitis (CP) (93%) or pancreaticojejunostomy stenosis (PJS) after Whipple resection (7%). The study endpoint was achievement of transpapillary/transanastomotic drainage (definitive therapy)., Results: Gastropancreaticoenterostomy (ring drainage, definitive therapy) was successfully performed during the index procedure in the 2 patients with PJS (technical success, 100%). Clinical success was 100% in the 2 ring drainage recipients during a mean 18-month follow-up period. The remaining 26 patients with CP underwent attempted pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) with 81% technical success, 75% clinical success, and 15% adverse events (AEs). Repeat endoscopic transmural interventions were performed in the 15 patients with clinical success after PG creation. Definitive therapy transpired in all 15 patients after a median 1 repeat procedure per patient. Clinical success after definitive therapy was maintained in all 15 patients (100%) during a median 4.5-month follow-up., Conclusions: In agreement with previous studies, our study showed mild to moderately high rates of technical failure (19%), clinical failure (25%), and AEs (15%) during index drainage (PG creation). Among patients with CP with both technical and clinical success after index PG creation (n = 15), 100% definitive therapy was achieved and clinical outcomes were excellent (100% clinical success, 0% AEs)., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Backgrounds: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided placement of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) has gained popularity for the treatment of pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON). We compared the 20-mm and 15-mm LAMSs for the treatment of symptomatic WON in terms of clinical success and adverse events., Methods: We conducted a retrospective, case-matched study of 306 adults at 22 tertiary centers from 04/2014 to 10/2018. A total of 102 patients with symptomatic WON who underwent drainage with 20-mm LAMS (cases) and 204 patients who underwent drainage with 15-mm LAMS (controls) were matched by age, sex, and drainage approach. Conditional logistic regression analysis was performed to compare clinical success (resolution of WON on follow-up imaging without reintervention) and adverse events (according to American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy criteria)., Results: Clinical success was achieved in 92.2 % of patients with 20-mm LAMS and 91.7 % of patients with 15-mm LAMS (odds ratio 0.92; P  = 0.91). Patients with 20-mm LAMS underwent fewer direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) sessions (mean 1.3 vs. 2.1; P  < 0.001), despite having larger WON collections (transverse axis 118.2 vs. 101.9 mm, P  = 0.003; anteroposterior axis 95.9 vs. 80.1 mm, P  = 0.01). There was no difference in overall adverse events (21.6 % vs. 15.2 %; P  = 0.72) and bleeding events (4.9 % vs. 3.4 %; P  = 0.54) between the 20-mm and 15-mm LAMS groups, respectively., Conclusions: The 20-mm LAMS showed comparable clinical success and safety profile to the 15-mm LAMS, with the need for fewer DEN sessions for WON resolution., Competing Interests: Drs. Arlt, Ellrichmann, Aparicio, Sejpal, Irani, Pawa, Ahmed, Sedarat, Hampe, Sharaiha, Berzin, Stevens, Willingham, Kushnir, Ngamruengphong, Hugget, Baron, Repici, Adler, Nasr, Kowalski, Kumbhari, and Khashab are consultants for Boston Scientific. Dr. Trindade is a consultant for Pentax Medical and CSA Medical. Dr. Benias is a consultant for Fujifilm, Medtronic, and Apollo. Dr. Sejpal is also a consultant for Olympus America. Dr. Ahmed is also a consultant for Cook Medical. Dr. Hampe is also a consultant for Cook Medical, Olympus America, and B. Braun. Dr. Sharaiha is also a consultant for Olympus America and Apollo. Dr. Chahal is a consultant for Medtronic. Dr. Willingham is also a consultant for RedPath, Cook Medical, Xlumena, Oncolys Biopharma, and has received research funding to the university from Cancer Prevention Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Hugget is also a consultant for Cook Medical. Dr. Repici has also received research funding from Boston Scientific. Dr. Kumbhari is also a consultant for Medtronic, Reshape Lifesciences, and Apollo Endosurgery, and has received research support from ERBE and Apollo Endosurgery. Dr. Singh is a consultant for Abbvie and Novo Nordisk, and is a member of an advisory board for Akcea. Dr. Khashab is also a consultant for Olympus America and Medtronic. All other authors have no conflict of interest to disclose., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background: Larger caliber lumen-apposing stents (LAMSs) have been increasingly used in the management of pancreatic fluid collections, specifically when solid debris is present; however, their advantages over smaller caliber plastic stents in the management of pancreatic pseudocysts are unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of LAMS specifically in the management of pancreatic pseudocysts compared with double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPSs)., Methods: We performed a multicenter, international, retrospective study between January 2012 and August 2016. A total of 205 patients with a diagnosis of pancreatic pseudocysts were included, 80 patients received LAMSs and 125 received DPPSs. Measured outcomes included clinical success, technical success, adverse events, stent dysfunction, pancreatic pseudocyst recurrence, and need for surgery., Results: Technical success was similar between the LAMS and the DPPS groups (97.5 % vs. 99.2 %; P  = 0.32). Clinical success was higher for LAMSs than for DPPSs (96.3 % vs. 87.2 %; P  = 0.03). While the need for surgery was similar between the two groups (1.3 % vs. 4.9 %, respectively; P  = 0.17), the use of percutaneous drainage was significantly lower in the LAMS group (1.3 % vs. 8.8 %; P  = 0.03). At 6-month follow-up, the recurrence rate was similar between the groups (6.7 % vs 18.8 %, respectively; P  = 0.12). The rate of adverse events was significantly higher in the DPPS group (7.5 % vs. 17.6 %; P  = 0.04). There was no difference in post-procedure mean length of hospital stay (6.3 days [standard deviation 27.9] vs. 3.7 days [5.7]; P  = 0.31)., Conclusion: When compared to DPPSs, LAMSs are a safe, feasible, and effective modality for the treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts and are associated with a higher rate of clinical success, shorter procedure time, less need for percutaneous interventions, and a lower overall rate of adverse events., Competing Interests: S. Friedland is a consultant for Boston Scientific and C2 Therapeutics; T. Stevens is a speaker and consultant for Boston Scientific and a speaker for AbbVie pharmaceuticals; C. J. DiMaio is a consultant for Boston Scientific and Medtronic; L. H. Jamil is a consultant for Aries pharmaceutical; P. S. Yachimski is a consultant for Boston Scientific; J. Nieto is a consultant for Boston Scientific; V. Kumbhari is a consultant for ReShape Life Sciences, Apollo Endosurgery, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific, and has received consulting fees from Pentax Medical and C2 Therapeutics; V. Singh is a consultant for Abbvie, D-Pharm, and Santarus; E. J. Shin is a consultant for Boston Scientific and C2 Therapeutics; M. Khashab is a consultant for Boston Scientific and Olympus, and is also on the medical advisory board for Boston Scientific and Olympus. All other co-authors have no conflict of interest disclosures., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background and Aims: Endoscopic drainage (ED) with or without necrosectomy, and minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy (MISN) have been increasingly utilized for treatment of symptomatic sterile and infected pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON). We conducted this systematic review to compare the safety of ED with MISN for management of WON., Methods: We searched several databases from inception through November 9, 2017 to identify comparative studies evaluating the safety of ED versus MISN for management of WON. MISN could be performed using video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement or laparoscopy. We evaluated difference in mortality, major organ failure, adverse events, and length of hospital stay., Results: Six studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 4 observational studies) with 641 patients (326 ED and 315 MISN) were included in this meta-analysis. Rates of mortality for ED and MISN were 8.5% and 14.2%, respectively. Pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval was 0.59 (0.35-0.98), I=0% in favor of ED. On subgroup analysis: no difference in mortality was seen based on randomized controlled trials [OR, 0.65 (0.08-5.11)], while ED had improved survival in observational studies [OR, 0.49 (0.27-0.89)]. Development of new major organ failure rates after interventions were 12% and 54% for ED and MISN, respectively. Pooled OR was 0.12 (0.06-0.31), I=25% in favor of ED. For adverse events, pooled OR was 0.25 (0.10-0.67), I=70% in favor of ED. There was no difference in risk of bleeding [OR, 0.68 (0.44-1.05)], while ED was associated with a significantly lower rate of pancreatic fistula formation [OR, 0.20 (0.11-0.37)], I=0%. Length of stay was also lower with ED, pooled mean difference was -21.07 (-36.97 to -5.18) days., Conclusions: When expertise is available, ED is the preferred invasive management strategy over MISN for management of WON as it is associated with lower mortality, risk of major organ failure, adverse events, and length of hospital stay.

Background and Aims: Self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) are used to relieve malignant biliary obstructions. We aimed to compare stent patency, the adverse events rate, and overall survival of covered versus uncovered self-conformable metal stents in patients with primary malignant extrahepatic biliary strictures, not eligible for surgery., Methods: This is a multicenter randomized trial analyzing 158 patients with inoperable distal malignant biliary obstruction conducted in 5 Italian referral centers between December 2014 and October 2016. Seventy-eight patients were randomized to receive a fully covered SEMS (FCSEMS), and 80 patients received uncovered SEMSs (USEMSs). Data from 148 (72 FCSEMSs and 76 USEMSs) of 158 patients were analyzed., Results: Median time of stent patency was lower for FCSEMSs (240 days vs 541 days for USEMSs; P = .031). Adverse events occurred with 19 FCSEMSs (26.4%) and 10 USEMSs (13.2%); P = .061. The main causes of FCSEMS dysfunction were migration (7% vs 0% in the USEMS group) and early occlusion mainly because of sludge or overgrowth; late stent occlusion because of tumor ingrowth occurred in 13.2% of patients in the USEMS group. There were no significant differences either in levels of conjugated bilirubin improvement or in overall survival between the FCSEMS and USEMS groups. Median survival was 134 days in the FCSEMS group and 112 days in the USEMS group (P = .23)., Conclusion: The number of stent-related adverse events was higher, although not significantly, among patients in the FCSEMS group. FCSEMSs had a significantly higher rate of migration than USEMSs, and stent occlusion occurred earlier. A significant difference in the patency rate was observed in favor of the USEMS group. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02102984.)., (Copyright © 2018 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy and endoscopic necrosectomy, compared with open necrosectomy, might improve outcomes in necrotising pancreatitis, especially in critically ill patients. Evidence from large comparative studies is lacking., Design: We combined original and newly collected data from 15 published and unpublished patient cohorts (51 hospitals; 8 countries) on pancreatic necrosectomy for necrotising pancreatitis. Death rates were compared in patients undergoing open necrosectomy versus minimally invasive surgical or endoscopic necrosectomy. To adjust for confounding and to study effect modification by clinical severity, we performed two types of analyses: logistic multivariable regression and propensity score matching with stratification according to predicted risk of death at baseline (low: <5%; intermediate: ≥5% to <15%; high: ≥15% to <35%; and very high: ≥35%)., Results: Among 1980 patients with necrotising pancreatitis, 1167 underwent open necrosectomy and 813 underwent minimally invasive surgical (n=467) or endoscopic (n=346) necrosectomy. There was a lower risk of death for minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy (OR, 0.53; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.84; p=0.006) and endoscopic necrosectomy (OR, 0.20; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.63; p=0.006). After propensity score matching with risk stratification, minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy remained associated with a lower risk of death than open necrosectomy in the very high-risk group (42/111 vs 59/111; risk ratio, 0.70; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95; p=0.02). Endoscopic necrosectomy was associated with a lower risk of death than open necrosectomy in the high-risk group (3/40 vs 12/40; risk ratio, 0.27; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.88; p=0.03) and in the very high-risk group (12/57 vs 28/57; risk ratio, 0.43; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.77; p=0.005)., Conclusion: In high-risk patients with necrotising pancreatitis, minimally invasive surgical and endoscopic necrosectomy are associated with reduced death rates compared with open necrosectomy., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors declare no support from any organisation for the submitted work, no financial relationships with any organisation that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years, and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Recent literature has demonstrated effectiveness and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage, both as a primary intervention in patients with cholecystitis who are unfit for urgent surgical intervention and as a secondary intervention to internalize biliary drainage after initial placement of a percutaneous cholecystostomy catheter., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Symptomatic pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON) may be managed by endoscopic transmural drainage and endoscopic transmural necrosectomy, with stent placement at endoscopic drainage sites. The optimal stent choice is yet to be determined. We compared outcomes after endoscopic management of WON using either large-caliber fully covered self-expandable metal stents (LC-SEMSs) or double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPSs)., Methods: We performed a retrospective comparison of outcomes among patients who received LC-SEMSs or DPPSs before endoscopic transmural necrosectomy for WON., Results: Among 94 patients included, WON resolution rates did not differ between the DPPS (36 patients) and LC-SEMS (58 patients) groups, whether concomitant percutaneous drainage was considered a failure (75% vs 82.8%; P = .36) or not (91.7% vs 94.8%; P = .55). Of 75 patients (80%) successfully treated without percutaneous drainage, 37 (49%) underwent endoscopic transmural drainage without subsequent endoscopic transmural necrosectomy. WON was more likely to resolve without subsequent endoscopic transmural necrosectomy in the LC-SEMS group than the DPPS group (60.4% vs 30.8%; P = .01). WON resolution without subsequent endoscopic transmural necrosectomy remained more likely with LC-SEMSs (odds ratio, 4.5 [95% confidence interval, 1.5-15.5]) after adjusting for patient age and size and location of WON. Rates of adverse events were similar except for clinically significant bleeding requiring endoscopic intervention, which was higher with DPPSs than LC-SEMSs (14% vs 2%; P = .02)., Conclusion: Management of pancreatic WON with LC-SEMSs appears to decrease both the need for repeated necrosectomy procedures and the risk of intervention-related hemorrhage., (Copyright © 2018 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: Dr. Baron is a consultant for W. L. Gore, Boston Scientific, Olympus, Cook Endoscopy.

In recent years, the management of symptoms of pancreatic fluid collections has shifted from surgical and percutaneous interventions to endoscopic techniques. Available data show that endoscopic drainage can be achieved with minimal morbidity and procedural-related mortality, a high degree of technical and clinical success, and acceptable risk of adverse events. Although endoscopic management of walled-off necrosis provides a durable, minimally invasive treatment option, it is still generally performed only in tertiary care medical centers because of the overall complexity of this clinical scenario., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: The efficacy and safety of endoscopic gallbladder drainage (EGBD) performed via endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC)-based transpapillary stenting or EUS-based transmural stenting are unknown. We aimed to conduct a proportion meta-analysis to evaluate the cumulative efficacy and safety of these procedures and to compare them with percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PGBD)., Methods: We searched several databases from inception through December 10, 2015 to identify studies (with 10 or more patients) reporting technical success and postprocedure adverse events of EGBD. Weighted pooled rates (WPRs) for technical and clinical success, postprocedure adverse events, and recurrent cholecystitis were calculated for both methods of EGBD. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were also calculated to compare the technical success and postprocedure adverse events in patients undergoing EGBD versus PGBD., Results: The WPRs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of technical success, clinical success, postprocedure adverse events, and recurrent cholecystitis for ERC-based transpapillary drainage were 83% (95% CI, 78%-87%; I 2  = 38%), 93% (95% CI, 89%-96%; I 2  = 39%), 10% (95% CI, 7%-13%; I 2  = 27%), and 3% (95% CI, 1%-5%; I 2  = 0%), respectively. The WPRs for EUS-based drainage for technical success, clinical success, postprocedure adverse events, and recurrent cholecystitis were 93% (95% CI, 87%-96%; I 2  = 0%), 97% (95% CI, 93%-99%; I 2  = 0%), 13% (95% CI, 8%-19%; I 2  = 0%), and 4% (95% CI, 2%-9%; I 2  = 0%), respectively. On proportionate difference, EUS-based drainage had better technical (10%) and clinical success (4%) in comparison with ERC-based drainage. The pooled OR for technical success of EGBD versus PGBD was .51 (95% CI, .09-2.88; I 2  = 23%) and for postprocedure adverse events was .33 (95% CI, .14-.80; I 2  = 16%) in favor of EGBD., Conclusions: EGBD is an efficacious and safe therapeutic modality for treatment of patients with acute cholecystitis who cannot undergo surgery. EGBD shows a similar technical success as PGBD but appears to be safer than PGBD., (Copyright © 2017 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Initial reports suggest that fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FCSEMSs) may be better suited for drainage of dense pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), such as walled-off pancreatic necrosis. The primary aim was to analyze the effectiveness and safety of FCSEMSs for drainage of different types of PFCs in a large cohort. The secondary aim was to investigate which type of FCSEMS is superior., Methods: This was a retrospective, noncomparative review of a nationwide database involving all hospitals in Spain performing EUS-guided PFC drainage. From April 2008 to August 2013, all patients undergoing PFC drainage with an FCSEMS were included in a database. The main outcome measurements were technical success, short-term (2 weeks) and long-term (6 months) effectiveness, adverse events, and need for surgery., Results: The study included 211 patients (pseudocyst/walled-off pancreatic necrosis, 53%/47%). The FCSEMSs used were straight biliary (66%) or lumen-apposing (34%). Technical success was achieved in 97% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 93%-99%). Short-term- and long-term clinical success was obtained in 94% (95% CI, 89%-97%) and 85% (95% CI, 79%-89%) of patients, respectively. Adverse events occurred in 21% of patients (95% CI, 16%-27%): infection (11%), bleeding (7%), and stent migration and/or perforation (3%). By multivariate analysis, patient age (>58 years) and previous failed drainage were the most important factors associated with negative outcome., Conclusions: An FCSEMS is effective and safe for PFC drainage. Older patients with a history of unsuccessful drainage are more likely to fail EUS-guided drainage. The type of FCSEMS does not seem to influence patient outcome., (Copyright © 2016 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Patients with acute cholecystitis sometimes require placement of percutaneous cholecystostomy catheters, either as a bridge to surgery or as primary therapy. In patients who cannot undergo surgery, subsequent removal of the catheter can lead to recurrence of cholecystitis, whereas leaving the drain in place can cause adverse events. We investigated internalization of percutaneous cholecystostomy drainage catheters, using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided placement of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) as an alternative treatment strategy. Seven patients (median age, 57 years; 6 men) underwent EUS-guided cholecystoenterostomy for internalization of gallbladder drainage with EUS-guided placement of a 10- or 15-mm LAMS. All had initially been treated with placement of a percutaneous cholecystostomy catheter for cholecystitis and were later deemed unfit for cholecystectomy. Technical success was achieved in all patients in 1 endoscopic session, with subsequent removal of all percutaneous drains. Two patients required placement of self-expandable metal stents within the LAMS to successfully bridge the gallbladder and gastrointestinal lumen. No adverse events occurred after a median follow-up of 2.5 months. EUS-guided cholecystoenterostomy using a LAMS is therefore a viable option for internal gallbladder drainage in patients who have a percutaneous cholecystostomy catheter and are poor candidates for cholecystectomy., (Copyright © 2016 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Nonsurgical techniques for gallbladder drainage are percutaneous, and endoscopic. EUS-guided transmural gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) is a relatively new approach, although data are limited. Our aim was to describe the outcome after EUS-GBD with a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS)., Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data on 15 nonsurgical patients who underwent EUS-GBD for various indications. Procedures were performed at 3 tertiary care centers with expertise in the management of complex biliary problems. The main outcome measures were technical and clinical success and adverse events., Results: Fifteen patients (8 male, 7 female) with a median age of 74 years (range 42-89) underwent EUS-GBD by using a LAMS to decompress the gallbladder (7 patients calculous cholecystitis, 4 acalculous cholecystitis, 2 patients biliary obstruction, 1 patient gallbladder hydrops, 1 patient symptomatic cholelithiasis). Patients were nonsurgical candidates according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System; findings were class IV or higher in 9 patients and advanced malignancies in 6. Percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) was refused by all patients and was further precluded by perihepatic ascites in 3 patients, coagulopathy or need for anticoagulation in 4 patients, and need for internal biliary drainage in 2 patients. Transduodenal access and stenting was achieved in 14 of 15 patients and transgastric stenting was achieved in 1. Technical success was achieved in 14 of 15 patients (93%), whereas clinical success was achieved in all 15 patients with a median follow-up of 160 days. One mild adverse event (postprocedure fever for 3 days) was noted. The limitations of this study are the small select group of patients and retrospective study design., Conclusions: EUS-GBD with a LAMS is technically safe and effective for decompressing the gallbladder for cholecystitis and biliary or cystic duct obstruction in patients who are poor surgical candidates., (Copyright © 2015 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Study Aims: Recently, a novel fully covered and biflanged metal stent (BFMS)dedicated to the drainage of walled-off necrosis(WON) was developed. The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the safety, efficacy, and cost performance of drainage of WON using the novel BFMS compared with a traditional plastic stent., Patients and Methods: A total of 70 patients with symptomatic WON were treated under endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guidance. Initial drainage was conducted using the single gateway technique with placement of one or more plastic stents or a single BFMS.If drainage was unsuccessful,direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN)was performed., Results: There were no statistically significant differences in rates of technical success, clinical success,and adverse events between plastics stents and BFMS, despite the size of WON in the BFMS group being significantly larger than that in the plastic stent group (105.6 vs. 77.1 mm; P=0.003).The mean procedure times for the first EUS-guided drainage and for re-intervention were significantly shorter in the BFMS group than in the plastic stent group (28.8±7.1 vs. 42.6±14.2, respectively,for drainage, P<0.001; and 34.9±8.5 vs.41.8±7.6, respectively, for re-intervention, P<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in the total cost between plastic stent and BFMS use in the treatment of WON ($5352vs. $6274; P=0.25)., Conclusions: Plastic stents and BFMS were safe and effective for the treatment of WON. In particular,BFMS placement appeared to be preferable for initial EUS-guided drainage and additional reintervention(e.g. DEN) as it reduced the procedure time. Prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Background: Walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) is effectively managed with percutaneous and endoscopic techniques such as direct endoscopic necrosectomy. However, they require repeat interventions and lengthy hospital stays., Objective: To evaluate a new platform to manage WOPNs by using a large-bore, through-the-scope, fully covered, self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) to overcome the need for repeat interventions and extended hospital stays., Design: Retrospective, single-center study., Setting: Academic tertiary care center., Patients: Five consecutive patients with symptomatic WOPN underwent EUS-guided drainage of WOPN by using a large-bore FCSEMSs., Interventions: EUS-guided transgastric drainage of WOPN by using a large-bore FCSEMS. Cross-sectional imaging was repeated at 6- to 8-week intervals. The FCSEMS was removed after WOPN resolution., Main Outcome Measurements: Clinical success, number of repeat interventions, and length of hospital stay., Results: Five patients (mean age 60 years) with WOPN (mean diameter, 12.3 cm; range 9.8-14.3 cm) underwent drainage with the described technique. Technical and clinical success was achieved in 100% of patients. Direct endoscopic necrosectomy was not required in any patient. The median number of endoscopic procedures was 1. The median length of hospital stay was 1 day. There were no adverse events., Limitations: Small, retrospective study., Conclusions: The described novel platform facilitates resolution of WOPN with a single procedure, avoiding the need for repeat interventions and lengthy hospital stays., (Copyright © 2014 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Severe acute pancreatitis causes high rates of illness and death. Simple scoring predictors can help identify patients at risk so that treatment, primarily supportive, can begin promptly after presentation. Medical therapy is the mainstay, with supportive therapy consisting of controlled volume resuscitation and enteral feeding. Minimally invasive drainage and debridement play a role in managing infective pancreatic necrosis but in general should not be used until at least 4 weeks after the acute illness.

Background: Up to 15% to 30% of patients develop pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) after pancreatic tail resection. Percutaneous and endoscopic methods have been used to drain these collections, though few data are available that compare outcomes of these modalities., Study Design: From December 1998 to April 2011, we identified all patients who underwent pancreatic tail resection and developed PFCs requiring intervention. The primary aim was to compare overall success rates in resolution of PFCs using endoscopic and percutaneous modalities. Success rates, hospital length of stay, number of CT scans, sinograms and endoscopies performed, and days with drain(s) in place were compared., Results: Forty-eight patients were identified. Percutaneous drainage was performed a median of 25 days postoperatively, compared with 85 days for endoscopic drainage (p < 0.001). Endoscopic and percutaneous methods had similar rates of technical success (100% vs 97%, p = 0.50) and treatment success (80% vs 81%, p = 0.92), respectively. Recurrence rates were 16.6% for the endoscopic group and 23% for the percutaneous group (p = 0.65), and adverse events occurred in 9.4% of those treated endoscopically vs 13.3% of those treated percutaneously (p = 0.68). Location and characteristics of PFCs did not influence success rates. Recurrences were often treated by "salvage" drainage via the other modality. Median hospital stay was longer after primary percutaneous drainage compared with primary endoscopic drainage (5.5 days vs 2 days, p = 0.046). Primary percutaneous drainage patients also had more CT scans (median 3 vs 2, p = 0.03)., Conclusions: Endoscopic drainage and percutaneous drainage appear to be equally effective and complementary interventions for PFCs occurring after pancreatic tail resection. Primary endoscopic drainage may be associated with shorter hospital stay and fewer CT scans., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Pancreatic cancer is a common digestive cancer with high mortality, and surgical resection is the only potential curative treatment option. Pancreatic head cancer is usually accompanied by biliary obstruction, which potentially increases surgical complications following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Thus, preoperative biliary drainage has long been advocated., Methods: A review of the literature using Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases was undertaken., Results: Endoscopic or percutaneous biliary stent placement is technically successful in most patients. The use of routine preoperative biliary drainage in the setting of pancreatic cancer with biliary obstruction is controversial. Prospective studies have shown that complications related to preoperative biliary drainage using endoscopic placement of traditional plastic endoprostheses increase the overall morbidity compared to pancreaticoduodenectomy alone. Placement of self-expandable metal stents could reduce stent-related complication rates such as early occlusion because of prolonged patency, especially when surgery is delayed., Conclusion: Pancreatic cancer patients with deep jaundice and expected delay prior to curative intent surgery are potential candidates for temporary biliary drainage. Cholangitis remains a formal indication for early, urgent preoperative biliary decompression for patients with pancreatic cancer.

Background: Endoscopic therapy of walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) via direct intracavitary debridement is described., Objective: To compare direct endoscopic necrosectomy with conventional transmural endoscopic drainage for the treatment of WOPN., Design: Retrospective, comparative study., Setting: Academic tertiary-care center., Patients: Patients referred to Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, since April 1998 for endoscopic drainage of WOPN., Interventions: Each patient underwent standard endoscopic drainage that consisted of transmural cavity puncture, dilation of the fistula tract, and placement of a large-bore stent(s). Patients were classified into the direct endoscopic necrosectomy group if, during any of their procedures, adjunctive direct endoscopic necrosectomy was performed; all others were in the standard drainage group., Main Outcome Measurements: Success was defined as resolution of the necrotic cavity without the need for operative or percutaneous intervention., Results: Forty-five patients were identified who met study criteria: 25 underwent direct endoscopic necrosectomy, and 20 underwent standard endoscopic drainage. There were no differences in baseline patient or cavity characteristics. Successful resolution was accomplished in 88% who underwent direct endoscopic necrosectomy versus 45% who received standard drainage (P < .01), without a change in the total number of procedures. The maximum size of tract dilation was larger in the direct endoscopic necrosectomy group (17 mm vs 14 mm, P < .02). Complications were limited to mild periprocedural bleeding with equivalent rates between groups., Limitations: Retrospective, referral bias, single center., Conclusions: Direct endoscopic necrosectomy achieves higher rates of resolution, without a concomitant change in the number of endoscopic procedures, complication rate, or time to resolution compared with standard endoscopic drainage for WOPN. The need for fewer postprocedural inpatient hospital days and a decrease in the rate of cavity recurrence are also likely benefits of this technique.

A 47-year-old woman with a history of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass developed a pancreatic pseudocyst after an episode of acute necrotizing pancreatitis. She presented with intractable abdominal pain and weight loss. Computed tomography scan revealed an enlarging pancreatic fluid collection abutting the gastric antrum. The patient underwent exploratory laparotomy, at which a Whipple procedure was aborted due to severe fibrosis and necrosis of her pancreas. Retrograde peroral endoscopic pancreatic pseudocyst drainage was successfully performed through the defunctionalized stomach.

Pancreatic pseudocysts arise as a complication of acute and chronic pancreatitis, pancreatic trauma, or after surgery. Endoscopic treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts can be achieved using transpapillary and/or transmural (transgastric or transduodenal) approaches with acceptable success rates, complication rates, and recurrence rates. Advantages of endoscopic drainage is the avoidance of external pancreatic fistula.

Background: Experience with minimal access, transoral/transmural endoscopic drainage/debridement of walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) after necrotizing pancreatitis is limited. We sought to determine outcome using this technique., Methods: Retrospective analysis., Results: From 1998 to 2006, 53 patients underwent transoral/transmural endoscopic drainage/debridement of sterile (27, 51%) and infected (26, 49%) WOPN. Intervention was performed a median of 49 days (range, 20-300 days) after onset of acute necrotizing pancreatitis. A median of 3 endoscopic procedures/patient (range, 1-12) were performed. Twenty-one patients (40%) required concurrent radiologic-guided catheter drainage of associated or subsequent areas of peripancreatic fluid and/or WOPN. Twelve patients (23%) required open operative intervention a median of 47 days (range, 5-540) after initial endoscopic drainage/debridement, due to persistence of WOPN (n = 3), recurrence of a fluid collection (n = 2), cutaneous fistula formation (n = 2), or technical failure, persistence of pancreatic pain, colonic obstruction, perforation, and flank abscess (n = 1 each). Final outcome after initial endoscopic intervention (median, 178 days) revealed successful endoscopic therapy in 43 (81%) and persistence of WOPN in 10 (19%). Preexistent diabetes mellitus, size of WOPN, and extension of WOPN into paracolic gutter were significant predictive factors for need of subsequent open operative therapy., Conclusions: Successful resolution of symptomatic, sterile, and infected WOPN can be achieved using a minimal access endoscopic approach. Adjuvant percutaneous drainage is necessary in up to 40% of patients, especially when WOPN extends to paracolic gutters or pelvis. Operative intervention for failed endoscopic treatment is required in about 20% of patients.

Background: Pancreatic pseudocysts can be drained endoscopically via the transpapillary or the transmural routes. We sought to assess endoscopic methods of pseudocyst drainage., Methods: A web-based survey was sent to American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) members in the United States (U.S.) and internationally., Results: Of the 3054 endoscopists to whom the survey was sent, 266 (8.7%) replied; 198 performed pseudocyst drainage (103 [52%] ASGE members from the United States and 95 [48%] international members). The median of the total number of drainages per physician was 15 (range 1-364). The transgastric route was the most commonly used drainage route (65%). Transmural entry was performed by using a needle-knife in 53% of transmural drainages that were not EUS-guided. The number of stents placed ranged from 1 to 5 and these remained in place for 2 to 30 weeks. CT scan was used before drainage by 95% of all respondents. EUS imaging was used before drainage by 72 of 103 (70%) US endoscopists compared with 56 of 95 (59%) international endoscopists (p = 0.1). EUS-guided drainage was used by 56% of US endoscopists compared with 43% international endoscopists (p = 0.06)., Conclusions: The most common site of transmural entry for drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts appears to be the transgastric route. Although CT is the most commonly used predrainage imaging modality, EUS is used before and during transmural drainage of pseudocysts in both the U.S. and abroad, particularly in academic medical centers. Use of EUS before or during drainage does not appear to be significantly different among endoscopists in the United States and internationally.

Objective: To evaluate the performance of endoscopic transmural drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) in outpatients., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 19 consecutive outpatient cases in 18 patients who underwent attempted endoscopic transmural drainage of PFCs by a single endoscopist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, over a 5-year period (October 1998 to October 2003). All drainages were performed without EUS-guided entry, using an aspiration needle and no cautery. Two 10-Fr stents were placed after dilation of the entry site., Results: The study group consisted of 12 men and 6 women (median age, 48 years; range, 28-79 years), with 14 cases of pseudocysts and 5 cases of pancreatic necrosis. Transmural drainage approaches included 13 transgastric, 5 transduodenal, and 1 combined transgastric/transpapillary. Drainage was established in 16 of 19 (84%) cases. Hospitalization was noted in 6 of 19 (32%) cases, with median hospitalization duration of 1.5 days (range, 1-19 days). Three patients were hospitalized for overnight observation only. In all instances, the decision to hospitalize was made while the patient was still in recovery. No deaths occurred. Follow-up imaging was available in 15 of 16 (94%) cases in which drainage was established, demonstrating PFC resolution in all 15., Conclusions: Endoscopic transmural drainage of PFCs can be performed safely and effectively in selected outpatients. It is our opinion that outpatient drainage of PFCs be considered only by experienced therapeutic endoscopists with readily available inpatient facilities. Future studies should seek to identify predictors of hospitalization and address cost-effectiveness.

PFCs are heterogeneous, with different underlying pathology and pathophysiology. Each type of PFC is amenable to drainage, although not in every patient. Collections with only a fluid component that have either apposition to the gastric or duodenal wall demonstrated by CT or communication with the main pancreatic duct demonstrated by pancreatography can be drained endoscopically using transmural or transpapillary approaches, respectively. Collections containing significant amounts of solid debris that are treated endoscopically require placement of an irrigation system to evacuate solid debris. Endoscopists considering endoscopic therapy of a pancreatic collection must identify the type of collection being drained and exclude masqueraders of PFCs such as cystic neoplasms. EUS-guided drainage, if available, may decrease the complications of bleeding and perforation during transmural entry of PFCs. Refinement in endoscopic techniques to improve the safety and studies comparing the efficacy of endoscopic therapy with that of other drainage methods are needed.

Background: Much attention has been focused on the competence to perform endoscopic procedures. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of procedure experience on patient outcomes after endoscopic pancreatic fluid collection drainage., Methods: Outcomes for consecutive patients with symptoms from pancreatic fluid collections who were referred for endoscopic transmural and/or transpapillary drainage were analyzed retrospectively. Collections were classified as acute pseudocyst, chronic pseudocyst, and pancreatic necrosis. To assess the impact of endoscopist experience, outcomes for patients who underwent the first 20 procedures were compared with those for patients who had subsequent procedures., Results: In total, 175 patients underwent pancreatic fluid collection drainage; 40 (23%) acute pseudocyst, 78 (44%) chronic pseudocyst, and 57 (33%) pancreatic necrosis. Procedure complication rates, collection recurrence rates, and patient outcomes after acute pseudocyst drainage were independent of endoscopist experience. There was a dramatic improvement in chronic pseudocyst resolution rates after the first 20 procedures versus subsequent procedures (45% vs. 93%; p = 0.0002) and a reduction in days to resolution (50 days, initial 20 procedures vs. 33.5 days, subsequent procedures; p = 0.05). In patients with pancreatic necrosis, there was a decrease in median hospital stay with greater experience (23 days to 15 days; p = 0.04)., Conclusions: Resolution of chronic pseudocyst after endoscopic drainage improves markedly with increasing endoscopist experience. Future prospective studies assessing skill acquisition are required to define the minimum number of collection drainage procedures at which competence can be achieved.

Background: Comparative outcomes after endoscopic drainage of specific types of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections, defined by using standardized nomenclature, have not been described. This study sought to determine outcome differences after attempted endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections classified as pancreatic necrosis, acute pseudocyst, and chronic pseudocyst., Methods: Outcomes were retrospectively analyzed for consecutive patients with symptoms caused by pancreatic fluid collections referred for endoscopic transmural and/or transpapillary drainage., Results: Complete endoscopic resolution was achieved in 113 of 138 patients (82%). Resolution was significantly more frequent in patients with chronic pseudocysts (59/64, 92%) than acute pseudocysts (23/31, 74%, p = 0.02) or necrosis (31/43, 72%, p = 0.006). Complications were more common in patients with necrosis (16/43, 37%) than chronic (11/64, 17%, p = 0.02) or acute pseudocysts (6/31, 19%, p = NS). At a median follow-up of 2.1 years after successful endoscopic treatment (resolution), pancreatic fluid collections had recurred in 18 of 113 patients (16%). Recurrences developed more commonly in patients with necrosis (9/31, 29%) than acute pseudocysts (2/23, 9%, p = 0.07) or chronic pseudocysts (7/59, 12%, p = 0.047)., Conclusions: Successful resolution of pancreatic fluid collections may be achieved endoscopically by an experienced therapeutic endoscopist. Outcomes differ depending on the type of pancreatic fluid collection drained. Further studies of endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections must use defined terminology to allow meaningful comparisons.

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) using a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS). Background: For patients with acute cholecystitis who are poor surgical candidates, EUS-GBD using a LAMS is an important treatment alternative to percutaneous gallbladder drainage. Methods: We conducted a regulatory-compliant, prospective multicenter trial at 7 tertiary referral centers in the United States of America and Belgium. Thirty consecutive patients with mild or moderate acute cholecystitis who were not candidates for cholecystectomy were enrolled between September 2019 and August 2021. Eligible patients had a LAMS placed transmurally with 30 to 60-day indwell if removal was clinically indicated, and 30-day follow-up post-LAMS removal. Endpoints included days until acute cholecystitis resolution, reintervention rate, acute cholecystitis recurrence rate, and procedure-related adverse events (AEs). Results: Technical success was 93.3% (28/30) for LAMS placement and 100% for LAMS removal in 19 patients for whom removal was attempted. Five (16.7%) patients required reintervention. Mean time to acute cholecystitis resolution was 1.6±1.5 days. Acute cholecystitis symptoms recurred in 10.0% (3/30) after LAMS removal. Five (16.7%) patients died from unrelated causes. Procedure-related AEs were reported to the FDA in 30.0% (9/30) of patients, including one fatal event 21 days after LAMS removal; however, no AEs were causally related to the LAMS. Conclusions: For selected patients with acute cholecystitis who are at elevated surgical risk, EUS-GBD with LAMS is an alternative to percutaneous gallbladder drainage. It has high technical and clinical success, with low recurrence and an acceptable AE rate. Clinicaltrials.gov, Number: NCT03767881. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Tokyo Guidelines 2013 ( TG13) include new topics in the biliary drainage section. From these topics, we describe the indications and new techniques of biliary drainage for acute cholangitis with videos. Recently, many novel studies and case series have been published across the world, thus TG13 need to be updated regarding the indications and selection of biliary drainage based on published data. Herein, we describe the latest updated TG13 on biliary drainage in acute cholangitis with meta-analysis. The present study showed that endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage regardless of the use of nasobiliary drainage or biliary stenting, should be selected as the first-line therapy for acute cholangitis. In acute cholangitis, endoscopic sphincterotomy ( EST) is not routinely required for biliary drainage alone because of the concern of post- EST bleeding. In case of concomitant bile duct stones, stone removal following EST at a single session may be considered in patients with mild or moderate acute cholangitis except in patients under anticoagulant therapy or with coagulopathy. We recommend the removal of difficult stones at two sessions after drainage in patients with a large stone or multiple stones. In patients with potential coagulopathy, endoscopic papillary dilation can be a better technique than EST for stone removal. Presently, balloon enteroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography ( BE- ERCP) is used as the first-line therapy for biliary drainage in patients with surgically altered anatomy where BE- ERCP expertise is present. However, the technical success rate is not always high. Thus, several studies have revealed that endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage ( EUS- BD) can be one of the second-line therapies in failed BE- ERCP as an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage where EUS- BD expertise is present. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]