Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectivesInterventional endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) procedures are gaining popularity and the most commonly performed procedures include EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst, EUS-guided biliary drainage, EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage and EUS-guided celiac plexus ablation. The aim of this paper is to formulate a set of practice guidelines addressing various aspects of the above procedures.MethodsFormulation of the guidelines was based on the best scientific evidence available. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology (RAM) was used. Panellists recruited comprised experts in surgery, interventional EUS, interventional radiology and oncology from 11 countries. Between June 2014 and October 2016, the panellists met in meetings to discuss and vote on the clinical scenarios for each of the interventional EUS procedures in question.ResultsA total of 15 statements on EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst, 15 statements on EUS-guided biliary drainage, 12 statements on EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage and 14 statements on EUS-guided celiac plexus ablation were formulated. The statements addressed the indications for the procedures, technical aspects, pre- and post-procedural management, management of complications, and competency and training in the procedures. All statements except one were found to be appropriate. Randomised studies to address clinical questions in a number of aspects of the procedures are urgently required.ConclusionsThe current guidelines on interventional EUS procedures are the first published by an endoscopic society. These guidelines provide an in-depth review of the current evidence and standardise the management of the procedures.

BackgroundAlthough surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ) is the standard method for palliation of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), an endoscopic method—endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE)—has been proposed as a novel, less invasive approach.ObjectiveWe compared both methods to determine whether clinical outcomes for EUS-GE are superior to surgery.DesignWe conducted a multicentre, randomised superiority trial of patients with malignant GOO to receive either EUS-GE or SGJ. Primary endpoint was composite measure, consisting of Gastric Outlet Obstruction Scoring System (GOOSS) score of 0 or 1 at hospital discharge, need for reinterventions or supplemental nutrition, or procedure-related adverse events during 6-month follow-up or until death. Secondary endpoints were time to solid diet, length of hospitalisation, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment costs.Results74 patients were randomly assigned to EUS-GE (38 patients) or SGJ (36 patients). Primary endpoint occurred in 7.9% of patients who received EUS-GE and 38.9% in SGJ (risk difference −31.0%, 95% CI −47.6% to −11.4%, p=0.002). EUS-GE was associated with more rapid advancement to solid diet (median 2 days (P25–P75, 2–3) vs 5 days (P25–P75, 3.5–9)), shorter hospitalisation (median 3 days (P25–P75, 3–6) vs 9 days (P25–P75, 6–12.5)), better HRQoL for physical (p=0.0016) and social functioning (p=0.011) and lower treatment costs (US $33 934 vs US$ 51 437, difference −US $17 503 (95% CI −US$ 27 807 to −US$7920)).ConclusionIn this randomised trial, EUS-GE was superior to SGJ with regards to oral intake, need for reinterventions or supplemental nutrition, length of hospitalisation, quality of life and treatment costs.Trial registration numberNCT05548114.

Device-assisted enteroscopy has revolutionized the management of small-bowel disorders (SBD). No study to date has compared both novel motorized spiral enteroscopy (NMSE) and single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) as a randomized controlled trial. Hence, this study was planned to include patients having SBD with the primary aim to compare the total enteroscopy rate (TER). This study was conducted at the Asian Institute of Gastroenterology (AIG Hospitals), Hyderabad, India, from September 20, 2022, to December 15, 2022. All consecutive patients, older than 18 years with suspected SBD, and planned for total enteroscopy were screened for inclusion. The primary outcome was to compare the TER, and secondary outcomes were to compare the technical success, time taken to reach the depth of maximal insertion, withdrawal time, total procedure time, diagnostic yield, therapeutic success, and adverse events (AE). Seventy-two patients of the 110 patients screened were randomized in either NMSE (n = 35) or SBE (n = 37) group. The most common indication for the procedures was obscure gastrointestinal bleed (48%), others being unexplained abdominal pain with indeterminate radiologic findings (32%) and chronic diarrhea (20%). In NMSE group, the TER was 71.4%, whereas in the SBE group, it was 10.8% ( P < 0.0001). The total procedure time (minutes) was much lesser with NMSE (58.17 ± 21.5 minutes) vs SBE (114.2 ± 33.5 minutes) ( P < 0.0001). The diagnostic yield of NMSE (80%) was comparatively higher than SBE (62.1%) ( P = 0.096). Minor AE (grade I) were observed in both the groups: NMSE 8.5% (3/35) and SBE 5.4% (2/37). This randomized controlled trial shows that with NMSE higher TER can be achieved in shorter duration with minimal AE, compared with SBE.