Does same session EUS-guided tissue acquisition and ERCP increase the risk of pancreatitis in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction?

Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) are increasingly performed in the same session in patients with malignant biliary obstruction. In this retrospective analysis, we investigated adverse events (AE) after same session ERCP and EUS-TA. Methods: Patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-TA and/or ERCP with self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement from January 2015 to April 2020 were included. Primary outcome was post-procedural pancreatitis (PPP). Secondary outcomes were other procedure-related AE. Results: We included 494 patients, of which 118 patients (24%) underwent same session EUS-TA+ERCP, 51 patients (10%) underwent separate session EUS-TA & ERCP, 90 patients (18%) ERCP-only and 235 patients (48%) EUS-TA only. PPP occurred in 22 patients (19%) after same session EUS-TA+ERCP and in 6 patients (12%) after separate EUS-TA & ERCP (p = 0.270). When adjusted for other known risk factors (i.e., difficult procedure), the difference in PPP remained non-significant (adjusted odds ratio 1.74 (95%-CI 0.65-4.67, p = 0.268). The incidence of other AE was similar, although the overall AE rate was significantly higher after same session EUS-TA+ERCP (36% vs. 20%, p = 0.030). Conclusion: Same session EUS-TA+ERCP did not significantly increase the incidence of PPP, although overall AE were significantly higher. These data warrant further prospective studies.Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog

Does same session EUS-guided tissue acquisition and ERCP increase the risk of pancreatitis in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction?

Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) are increasingly performed in the same session in patients with malignant biliary obstruction. In this retrospective analysis, we investigated adverse events (AE) after same session ERCP and EUS-TA. Methods: Patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-TA and/or ERCP with self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement from January 2015 to April 2020 were included. Primary outcome was post-procedural pancreatitis (PPP). Secondary outcomes were other procedure-related AE. Results: We included 494 patients, of which 118 patients (24%) underwent same session EUS-TA+ERCP, 51 patients (10%) underwent separate session EUS-TA & ERCP, 90 patients (18%) ERCP-only and 235 patients (48%) EUS-TA only. PPP occurred in 22 patients (19%) after same session EUS-TA+ERCP and in 6 patients (12%) after separate EUS-TA & ERCP (p = 0.270). When adjusted for other known risk factors (i.e., difficult procedure), the difference in PPP remained non-significant (adjusted odds ratio 1.74 (95%-CI 0.65-4.67, p = 0.268). The incidence of other AE was similar, although the overall AE rate was significantly higher after same session EUS-TA+ERCP (36% vs. 20%, p = 0.030). Conclusion: Same session EUS-TA+ERCP did not significantly increase the incidence of PPP, although overall AE were significantly higher. These data warrant further prospective studies

Adverse events of endoscopic full-thickness resection: results from the German and Dutch nationwide colorectal FTRD registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is emerging as a minimally invasive alternative to surgery for complex colorectal lesions. Previous studies have demonstrated favorable safety results; however, large studies representing a generalizable estimation of adverse events (AEs) are lacking. Our aim was to provide further insight in AEs after eFTR. METHODS: Data from all registered eFTR procedures in the German and Dutch colorectal full-thickness resection device registries between July 2015 and March 2021 were collected. Safety outcomes included immediate and late AEs. RESULTS: Of 1892 procedures, the overall AE rate was 11.3% (213/1892). No AE-related mortality occurred. Perforations occurred in 2.5% (47/1892) of all AEs, 57.4% (27/47) of immediate AEs, and 42.6% (20/47) of delayed AEs. Successful endoscopic closure was achieved in 29.8% of cases (13 immediate and 1 delayed), and antibiotic treatment was sufficient in 4.3% (2 delayed). The appendicitis rate for appendiceal lesions was 9.9% (13/131), and 46.2% (6/13) could be treated conservatively. The severe AE rate requiring surgery was 2.2% (42/1892), including delayed perforations in .9% (17/1892) and immediate perforations in .7% (13/1892). Delayed perforations occurred between days 1 and 10 (median, 2) after eFTR, and 58.8% (10/17) were located on the left side. Other severe AEs were appendicitis (.4%, 7/1892), luminal stenosis (.1%, 2/1892), delayed bleeding (.1%, 1/1892), pain after eFTR close to the dentate line (.1%, 1/1892), and grasper entrapment in the clip (.1%, 1/1892). CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal eFTR is a safe procedure with a low risk for severe AEs in everyday practice and without AE-related mortality. These results further support the position of eFTR as an established minimally invasive technique for complex colorectal lesions