Successful endoscopic closure of iatrogenic duodenal perforation with the new Padlock Clip

n/

Tips and tricks for the diagnosis and management of biliary stenosis-state of the art review

Biliary stenosis may represent a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge resulting in a delay in diagnosis and initiation of therapy due to the frequent difficulty in distinguishing a benign from a malignant stricture. In such cases, the diagnostic flowchart includes the sequential execution of imaging techniques, such as magnetic resonance, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, and endoscopic ultrasound, while endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is performed to collect tissue for histopathological/cytological diagnosis or to treat the stenosis by insertion of stent. The execution of percutaneous transhepatic drainage with subsequent biopsy has been shown to increase the possibility of tissue diagnosis after failure of the above techniques. Although the diagnostic yield of histopathology and imaging has increased with improvements in endoscopic ultrasound and peroral cholangioscopy, differential diagnosis between malignant and benign stenosis may not be easy in some patients, and strictures are classified as indeterminate. In these cases, a multidisciplinary workup including biochemical marker assays and advanced technologies available may speed up a diagnosis of malignancy or avoid unnecessary surgery in the event of a benign stricture. Here, we review recent advancements in the diagnosis and management of biliary strictures and describe tips and tricks to increase diagnostic yields in clinical routine

Impact of the COVID-19 Outbreak on Anesthesiologist Assistance for Endoscopic Procedures

Background/Aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has modified the activities of endoscopy units worldwide. Herein, we investigated the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on anesthesiologist assistance for endoscopic procedures in Lombardy, Italy. Methods: A questionnaire concerning anesthesiologist assistance provided from October 26 to December 6, 2020, in comparison with the same period in 2019, was sent to endoscopic units in Lombardy. Results: Approximately 54% (34/63) of the units responded. A reduction in the number of all endoscopies (-33.5%; 18792 in 2020 vs. 28264 in 2019) and anesthesiologist-assisted endoscopies (-15.3%; 2652 in 2020 vs. 3132 in 2019) was reported. A greater reduction in anesthesiologist assistance was observed in government community units (-29.5%) than in academic (-14%) and private community units (-4.6%). Among all units, 85% reported a reduction in anesthesiologist assistance; 65% observed a delay/cancellation of procedures; 59%, a restricted patient selection; 17%, the need to transfer some patients to other hospitals; and 32%, a related worsening of procedure quality. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic compromised the anesthesiologist assistance for endoscopic procedures in Lombardy, which worsened the procedure quality mainly in government community units. The COVID-19 “stress test” suggests a more balanced allocation of anesthesiologic resources in the future

Lumen-apposing metal stent through the meshes of duodenal metal stents for palliation of malignant jaundice

Background and study aims Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the gold standard procedure for malignant jaundice palliation; however, it can be challenging when a duodenal self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) is already in place. Patients and methods The primary aim of our study was to evaluate the technical feasibility of the placement of a lumen apposing metal stent (LAMS) through the mesh (TTM) of duodenal stents. The secondary aims were to evaluate clinical outcomes and adverse events (AEs) related to the procedures. Results Data from 23 patients (11 F and 12 M; mean age: 69.5 ± 11 years old) were collected. In 17 patients (73.9 %) TTM LAMS placement was performed as first intention, while in six patients (26.1 %) it was performed after a failed ERCP. Thirteen patients (56.5 %) underwent the procedure due to advanced pancreatic head neoplasia. One technical failure was experienced (4.3 %). The TTM LAMS placement led to a significant decrease in the serum levels of bilirubin, ALP, GGT, WBC and CRP. No cases of duodenal SEMS occlusion occurred and no other AEs were observed during the follow-up. Conclusions Concomitant malignant duodenal and biliary obstruction is a challenging condition. Palliation of jaundice using TTM LAMS in patients already treated with duodenal stent is associated to promising technical and clinical outcomes

Diagnostic Yield and Miss Rate of EndoRings in an Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: the SMART (Study Methodology for ADR-Related Technology) Trial

Background and aims The add-on EndoRings has been claimed to improve adenoma detection at colonoscopy, but available data are inconsistent. When testing a new technology, parallel and crossover methodologies measure different outcomes, leaving uncertainty on their correspondence. Aims of this study were to compare the diagnostic yield and miss rate of the EndoRings for colorectal neoplasia. Methods Consecutive subjects undergoing colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) within organized screening program in 7 Italian centers, were randomized between a parallel (EndoRings or Standard) or a crossover (EndoRings/Standard or Standard/EndoRings) methodology. Outcomes measures were the detection rates of (advanced) adenomas (A-)ADR in the parallel arms and miss rate of adenomas in the crossover arms. Results Of 958 eligible subjects, 927 (317 EndoRings; 317 Standard; 142 EndoRings/Standard; 151 Standard/Endorings) were included in the final analysis. In the parallel arms (mean ADR: 51.3%; mean AADR: 25.4%), no difference between Standard and EndoRings was found for both ADR (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.95-1.28) and A-ADR (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.88-1.51), as well as for the mean number of adenomas and advanced adenomas per patient (EndoRings: 1.9±1.3 and 1.0±1.2; Standard 2.1±1.5 and 1.0±1.2; p=NS for both comparisons). In the crossover arms, no difference in miss rate for adenomas between EndoRings and Standard was found at per-polyp (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.97-2.10), as well as at per-patient analysis (24% vs 26%; p=0.76). Conclusions No statistically significant difference in diagnostic yield and miss rate between EndoRings and Standard colonoscopy was detected in FIT+ patients. A clinically relevant correspondence between miss and detection rates was shown, supporting a cause-effect relationship

Revising the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) research priorities: a research progress update

AbstractBackground One of the aims of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is to encourage high quality endoscopic research at a European level. In 2016, the ESGE research committee published a set of research priorities. As endoscopic research is flourishing, we aimed to review the literature and determine whether endoscopic research over the last 4 years had managed to address any of our previously published priorities.Methods As the previously published priorities were grouped under seven different domains, a working party with at least two European experts was created for each domain to review all the priorities under that domain. A structured review form was developed to standardize the review process. The group conducted an extensive literature search relevant to each of the priorities and then graded the priorities into three categories: (1) no longer a priority (well-designed trial, incorporated in national/international guidelines or adopted in routine clinical practice); (2) remains a priority (i. e. the above criterion was not met); (3) redefine the existing priority (i. e. the priority was too vague with the research question not clearly defined).Results The previous ESGE research priorities document published in 2016 had 26 research priorities under seven domains. Our review of these priorities has resulted in seven priorities being removed from the list, one priority being partially removed, another seven being redefined to make them more precise, with eleven priorities remaining unchanged. This is a reflection of a rapid surge in endoscopic research, resulting in 27 % of research questions having already been answered and another 27 % requiring redefinition.Conclusions Our extensive review process has led to the removal of seven research priorities from the previous (2016) list, leaving 19 research priorities that have been redefined to make them more precise and relevant for researchers and funding bodies to target

Prediction of morbidity and mortality after early cholecystectomy for acute calculous cholecystitis : results of the SPRi.MACC study

Peer reviewe

Prophylactic Clipping After Colorectal Endoscopic Resection Prevents Bleeding of Large, Proximal Polyps: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Background & Aims The benefits of prophylactic clipping to prevent bleeding after polypectomy are unclear. We conducted an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials to assess the efficacy of clipping in preventing bleeding after polypectomy, overall and according to polyp size and location. Methods We searched the Medline/PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus databases randomized trials that compared effects of clipping vs not clipping to prevent bleeding after polypectomy. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to generate pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs. Multilevel random-effects meta-regression analysis was used to combine data on bleeding after polypectomy and estimate associations between rates of bleeding and polyp characteristics. Results We analyzed data from 9 trials, comprising 7197 colorectal lesions (22.5% 20 mm or larger, 49.2% with proximal location). Clipping, compared with no clipping, did not significantly reduce the overall risk of post-polypectomy bleeding (2.2% with clipping vs 3.3% with no clipping; RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.45–1.08; P=.072). Clipping significantly reduced risk of bleeding after removal of polyps that were 20 mm or larger (4.3% had bleeding after clipping vs 7.6% had bleeding with no clipping; RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.33–0.78; P=.020) or that were in a proximal location (3.0% had bleeding after clipping vs 6.2% had bleeding with no clipping; RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35–0.81; P<.001). In multilevel meta-regression analysis that adjusted for polyp size and location, prophylactic clipping was significantly associated with reduced risk of bleeding after removal of large proximal polyps (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.22–0.61; P=.021) but not small proximal lesions (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.48–1.62; P=0.581). Conclusions In a meta-analysis of randomized trials, we found that routine use of prophylactic clipping does not reduce risk of post-polypectomy bleeding, overall. However, clipping appeared to reduce bleeding after removal of large (more than 20 mm), proximal lesions