Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objectives Combined biliary obstruction and gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) represent a challenging clinical scenario despite developments in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as GOO might impair EUS‐guided biliary drainage. Little is known about the effectiveness of different therapeutic combinations used to treat double obstruction, especially regarding stent patency. Methods All consecutive patients with double obstruction treated between 2016 and 2021 in three tertiary academic centres were eligible for inclusion. Five combinations involving enteral stenting (ES), EUS‐guided gastroenterostomy (EUS‐GE), hepaticogastrostomy (EUS‐HGS), choledochoduodenostomy (EUS‐CDS), and transpapillary biliary stenting (TPS) were evaluated for dysfunction during follow‐up, either as proportions or dysfunction‐free survival (DFS) using Kaplan–Meier estimates. Results Ninety‐three patients were included (male 46%; age 67 [interquartile range 60–76] years; pancreatic cancer 73%, metastatic 57%), resulting in 103 procedure combinations. Different combinations showed significantly different overall dysfunction rates (p = 0.009), ranging from the null rate of EUS‐GE+HG to the 18% rate of EUS‐GE+TPS, 31% of EUS‐GE+EUS‐CD, 53% of ES+TPS and 83% of ES+EUS‐CDS. Sub‐analyses restricted to biliary dysfunction confirmed these trends. A multivariate Cox proportional‐hazards regression of DFS, a stenosis distal to the papilla (HR 3.2 [1.5–6.9]) and ES+EUS‐CDS (HR 5.6 [2–15.7]) independently predicted dysfunction. Conclusions Despite a lack of statistical power per combination, this study introduces new associations beyond the increased risk of GOO recurrence with ES versus EUS‐GE. EUS‐CDS showed reduced effectiveness and frequent dysfunction in the context of GOO, especially when combined with ES. EUS‐GE+HGS or EUS‐GE+TPS in this setting might result in superior patency. These results suggest that a prospective evaluation of the optimal endoscopic approach to malignant double obstruction is needed.

ObjectivesWhere palliative surgery or percutaneous drainage used to be the only option in patients with afferent loop syndrome, endoscopic management by EUS-guided gastroenterostomy has been gaining ground. However, EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy might also provide sufficient biliary drainage. Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy for the management of afferent loop syndrome and provide comparative data on the different approaches.MethodsThe institutional databases were queried for all consecutive minimally invasive procedures for afferent loop syndrome. A retrospective, dual-centre analysis was performed, separately analysing EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy, EUS-guided gastroenterostomy and percutaneous drainage. Efficacy, safety, need for re-intervention, hospital stay and overall survival were compared.ResultsIn total, 17 patients were included (mean age 59 years (± SD 10.5), 23.5% female). Six patients, which were ineligible for EUS-guided gastroenterostomy, were treated with EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy. EUS-guided gastroenterostomy and percutaneous drainage were performed in 6 and 5 patients respectively. Clinical success was achieved in all EUS-treated patients, versus 80% in the percutaneous drainage group (p = 0.455). Furthermore, higher rates of bilirubin decrease were seen among patients undergoing EUS: > 25% bilirubin decrease in 10 vs. 1 patient(s) in the percutaneously drained group (p = 0.028), with > 50% and > 75% decrease identified only in the EUS group. Using the ASGE lexicon for adverse event grading, adverse events occurred only in patients treated with percutaneous drainage (60%, p = 0.015). And last, the median number of re-interventions was significantly lower in patients undergoing EUS (0 (IQR 0.0–1.0) vs. 1 (0.5–2.5), p = 0.045) when compared to percutaneous drainage.ConclusionsIn the management of afferent loop syndrome, EUS seems to outperform percutaneous drainage. Moreover, in our cohort, EUS-guided gastroenterostomy and hepaticogastrostomy provided similar outcomes, suggesting EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy as the salvage procedure in situations where EUS-guided gastroenterostomy is not feasible or has failed.

The incidence of incidental pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) has risen in recent years, largely due to advances in and increased use of imaging techniques. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become a crucial tool for evaluating and characterising PCLs, allowing for detailed morphological assessment and aiding in the identification of lesions with a higher risk of progression to high-grade dysplasia or invasive pancreatic carcinoma. This review aims to outline the key aspects of EUS in the evaluation of PCLs, covering a range of modalities from morphological assessment and contrast-enhanced imaging to elastography, fine-needle aspiration for biomarker analysis, cytology, DNA sequencing, histological evaluation and the emerging role of confocal laser endomicroscopy or artificial intelligence. Additionally, we address therapeutic EUS modalities for PCLs, the current limitations of EUS, anticipated technological advancements and the diverse management strategies recommended by leading scientific societies for the clinical handling of PCLs.

Objectives Malignant double obstruction, defined as the simultaneous presence of biliary and gastric outlet obstruction, represents a challenging clinical scenario. Previous retrospective experiences have demonstrated shorter dysfunction‐free survival (DyFS) of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS‐CDS) versus EUS‐hepaticogastrostomy (EUS‐HGS) in this setting, but no prospective evidence is available. Methods Twenty consecutive patients with malignant double obstruction, treated with EUS‐gastroenterostomy (and EUS‐guided biliary drainage, following a previously failed ERCP, were enrolled in a prospective observational study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04813055) comparing EUS‐CDS versus EUS‐HGS. Efficacy and safety were evaluated, with Biliary Dysfunctions as the primary outcome and DyFS using Kaplan‐Meier estimates as a primary measure. Results Twenty patients (75% with pancreatic cancer, 50% with metastatic disease) with EUS‐gastroenterostomy were included (seven EUS‐CDS and 13 EUS‐HGS). No significant difference was detected at baseline. Technical success was 100% in both groups. EUS‐CDS compared to EUS‐HGS showed similar clinical success (100% vs. 92.3%, p = 0.5), a higher rate of post‐procedural adverse events (42.9% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.067, mostly related to severe/fatal cholangitis in the EUS‐CDS group) and a higher rate of biliary dysfunctions during follow‐up (71.4% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.002). DyFS was significantly shorter in the EUS‐CDS group (39 [15–62] vs. 268 [192–344] days, p = 0.0023), with a 30‐days DyFS probability of 57.1% vs. 100% (hazard ratio = 7.8 [1.4–44.2]). Conclusions In this prospective comparison of patients with malignant double obstruction undergoing EUS‐gastroenterostomy, treating jaundice with EUS‐CDS versus EUS‐HGS resulted in a reduced probability of survival without biliary events and an increased risk of biliary dysfunctions (number needed to harm = 1.8), with detection of severe/fatal cholangitis.

In the published publication [...]

Cholecystectomy (CCY) is the gold standard treatment of acute cholecystitis (AC). Nonsurgical management of AC includes percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD). This study aims to compare outcomes of patients who undergo CCY after having received EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD. A multicenter international study was conducted in patients with AC who underwent EUS-GBD or PT-GBD, followed by an attempted CCY, between January 2018 and October 2021. Demographics, clinical characteristics, procedural details, postprocedure outcomes, and surgical details and outcomes were compared. One hundred thirty-nine patients were included: EUS-GBD in 46 patients (27% male, mean age 74 years) and PT-GBD in 93 patients (50% male, mean age 72 years). Surgical technical success was not significantly different between the 2 groups. In the EUS-GBD group, there was decreased operative time (84.2 vs 165.4 minutes, P < 0.00001), time to symptom resolution (4.2 vs 6.3 days, P = 0.005), and length of stay (5.4 vs 12.3 days, P = 0.001) compared with the PT-GBD group. There was no difference in the rate of conversion from laparoscopic to open CCY: 5 of 46 (11%) in the EUS-GBD arm and 18 of 93 (19%) in the PT-GBD group ( P value 0.2324). Patients who received EUS-GBD had a significantly shorter interval between gallbladder drainage and CCY, shorter surgical procedure times, and shorter length of stay for the CCY compared with those who received PT-GBD. EUS-GBD should be considered an acceptable modality for gallbladder drainage and should not preclude patients from eventual CCY.

Choledocholithiasis is one of the most common indications for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in daily practice. Although the majority of stones are small and can be easily removed in a single endoscopy session, approximately 10–15% of patients have complex biliary stones, requiring additional procedures for an optimum clinical outcome. A plethora of endoscopic methods is available for the removal of difficult biliary stones, including papillary large balloon dilation, mechanical lithotripsy, and electrohydraulic and laser lithotripsy. In-depth knowledge of these techniques and the emerging literature on them is required to yield the most optimal therapeutic effects. This narrative review aims to describe the definition of difficult bile duct stones based on certain characteristics and streamline their endoscopic retrieval using various modalities to achieve higher clearance rates.

Background and Objectives: Biliary drainage (BD) in patients with surgically altered anatomy (SAA) could be obtained endoscopically with different techniques or with a percutaneous approach. Every endoscopic technique could be challenging and not clearly superior over another. The aim of this survey is to explore which is the standard BD approach in patients with SAA. Materials and Methods: A 34-question online survey was sent to different Italian tertiary and non-tertiary endoscopic centers performing interventional biliopancreatic endoscopy. The core of the survey was focused on the first-line and alternative BD approaches to SAA patients with benign or malignant obstruction. Results: Out of 70 centers, 39 answered the survey (response rate: 56%). Only 48.7% of them declared themselves to be reference centers for endoscopic BD in SAA. The total number of procedures performed per year is usually low, especially in non-tertiary centers; however, they have a low tendency to refer to more experienced centers. In the case of Billroth-II reconstruction, the majority of centers declared that they use a duodenoscope or forward-viewing scope in both benign and malignant diseases as a first approach. However, in the case of failure, the BD approach becomes extremely heterogeneous among centers without any technique prevailing over the others. Interestingly, in the case of Roux-en-Y, a significant proportion of centers declared that they choose the percutaneous approach in both benign (35.1%) and malignant obstruction (32.4%) as a first option. In the case of a previous failed attempt at BD in Roux-en-Y, the subsequent most used approach is the EUS-guided intervention in both benign and malignant indications. Conclusions: This survey shows that the endoscopic BD approach is extremely heterogeneous, especially in patients with Roux-en-Y reconstruction or after ERCP failure in Billroth-II reconstruction. Percutaneous BD is still taken into account by a significant proportion of centers in the case of Roux-en-Y anatomy. The total number of endoscopic BD procedures performed in non-tertiary centers is usually low, but this result does not correspond to an adequate rate of referral to more experienced centers.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has changed the way we work, and health care services have to adapt. The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the delay of non-urgent procedures were the immediate measures adopted by Gastrointestinal (GI) Endoscopy Units at the time of crisis. As the peak has now passed in most countries, GI facilities are facing the next challenge of this pandemic: service providers must adapt their routine work to a ‘new normal’. Routine casework must resume, and waiting lists must be addressed: all in the awareness of the ongoing potential risks of COVID-19, and the threat of a second wave. In this review, we discuss strategies to manage the workload by improving procedure appropriateness and prioritization, whilst maintaining a ‘COVID-free’ environment. This includes monitoring of an adequate stock of PPE and the implications for the staff’s workload, and the GI trainees’ need of training.