Priyan, Harshith

AbstractBackground Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) anatomy is challenging. Overtube-assisted enteroscopy (OAE) is usually needed to perform ERCP in these patients. There is significant variation in the reported rates of success and adverse events across published studies. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to reliably estimate the pooled rates of success and adverse events.Methods We performed a systematic search of multiple electronic databases through February 2020 to identify studies reporting outcomes of OAE-ERCP in post-RYGB patients. The pooled rates of enteroscopy success, technical success, and adverse events were estimated for OAE-ERCP. The pooled rates of success and adverse events were also estimated for ERCP using double-balloon enteroscopes (DBE) alone.Results 10 studies reporting a total of 398 procedures were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled rates of enteroscopy and technical success of OAE-ERCP were 75.3 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 64.5 – 83.6) and 64.8 % (95 %CI 53.1 – 74.9) respectively. The pooled rate of adverse events was 8.0 % (95 %CI 5.2 – 12.2). The pooled rates of enteroscopy and technical success of DBE-ERCP (four studies) were 83.5 % (95 %CI 68.3 – 92.2) and 72.5 % (95 %CI 52.3 – 86.4), respectively. The pooled rate of adverse events with DBE-ERCP was 9.0 % (95 %CI 5.4 – 14.5). Substantial heterogeneity was noted.Conclusions OAE-ERCP appears to be effective and safe in post-RYGB patients. Among the currently available techniques, OAE-ERCP is the least invasive approach in this challenging group of patients. Future studies comparing the effectiveness and safety of alternative novel techniques, such as endosonography-directed transgastric ERCP, with OAE-ERCP are needed.

Goals: To develop an encounter decision aid [Barrett’s esophagus Choice (BE-Choice)] for patients and clinicians to engage in shared decision making (SDM) for management of BE with low-grade dysplasia (BE-LGD) and assess its impact on patient-important outcomes. Background: Currently, there are 2 strategies for management of BE-LGD—endoscopic surveillance and ablation. SDM can help patients decide on their preferred management option. Study: Phase-I: Patients and clinicians were engaged in a user-centered design approach to develop BE-Choice. Phase-I included review of evidence on BE-LGD management, observation of usual care (UC), creation, field-testing, and iterative development of BE-Choice in clinical settings. Phase-II: Impact of BE-Choice on patient-important outcomes (patient knowledge, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in decision making) was assessed using a controlled before-after study design (UC vs. BE-Choice). Results: Phase-I: Initial prototype was designed with observation of 8 clinical encounters. With field-testing, 3 successive iterations were made before finalizing BE-Choice. BE-Choice was paper based and fulfilled the qualifying criteria of International patient decision aid standards. Phase II: 29 patients were enrolled, 8 to UC and 21 to BE-Choice. Compared with UC, use of BE-Choice improved patient knowledge (90.4% vs. 70.5%; P =0.03), decisional comfort (89.6 vs. 71.9; P =0.01), and patient involvement (OPTION score: 27.1 vs. 19.2; P =0.01). Conclusions: BE-Choice is a feasible and effective decision aid to promote SDM in the management of BE-LGD. On pilot testing, BE-Choice had promising impact on patient-important outcomes. A larger multicenter trial is needed to confirm our results and promote widespread use of BE-Choice.

114 Background: Clinical staging of early esophageal neoplasia traditionally involves histological confirmation and imaging with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), CT, and PET which have low sensitivity and specificity for staging esophageal cancer (EC). Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) therapy is traditionally used for treatment, but not diagnosis as it is felt to be technically challenging and have a high risk for complications. We applied a new articulating endoscopic knife that permits safe ESD (ESD-CC) to evaluate early neoplasia with potential curative resection. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of patients undergoing ESD to stage or treat suspected early EC (cT1-T2). Clinical stage was done by EUS, CT, and PET. Two expert GI pathologists reviewed all histology. Lesions were examined with high resolution white light endoscopy and narrow band imaging. ESD was done with 1:200,000 epinephrine and methylene blue dye injection for lifting and staining the submucosal space. A 5mm, scissors-like articulated knife was used to perform ESD and hemostasis. Complications during post-ESD observation or follow-up were recorded. Results: A total of 35 patients who underwent ESD-CC were included with median age 70 (IQR 12), 26 males (74%), and followed for a median 3.4 months (IQR 6.4). This group consisted of 32 potential adenocarcinomas and 3 squamous cell cancers. The clinical Pre-ESD diagnoses were cT1 EC (24, 69%) and suspected EC in Barrett’s esophagus (BE) (11, 31%). The cT1 EC cases had ESD staged at least T1b (5, 21%), T1a (11, 46%), EC in situ (1, 4%), and dysplastic BE (7, 29%). The suspected EC cases had ESD staged at least T1b (1, 9%), T1a (2, 18%), and DBE (8, 73%). ESD-CC up-staged 4 (11%), down-staged 10 (29%), and confirmed prior diagnosis in 21 (60%). No complications including bleeding, perforation, or stricture formation regardless of size of ESD, age of patient, or co-morbidities. Conclusions: Staging of early esophageal cancer can be improved using ESD with an articulating knife, without increase in complications. ESD may be used as a staging modality in early esophageal cancer.