Gabr, Moamen

Acute cholecystitis affects ∼200,000 individuals annually in the United States, with laparoscopic cholecystectomy as the gold standard treatment. However, in high-risk surgical candidates, alternative drainage methods are necessary. Percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) has traditionally served as the primary alternative intervention, offering rapid decompression, but is limited by a negative impact on the patient’s quality of life, the risk of long-term or even permanent tube placement, adverse events, and high recurrence rates. Endoscopic approaches, such as endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ET-GBD) and, more recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD), have emerged as viable alternatives to PT-GBD. EUS-GBD, first introduced in 2007, offers technical and clinical outcomes comparable to PT-GBD with fewer adverse events, shorter hospital stays, and lower rates of recurrence. The introduction of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) has revolutionized EUS-GBD, simplifying deployment and enabling subsequent internal gallbladder access, which allows additional interventions such as cholecystoscopy and stone removal. EUS-GBD is now supported by international guidelines, and 1 device has achieved FDA approval for the management of acute cholecystitis in nonsurgical candidates. Proper patient selection is essential, guided by multidisciplinary evaluation, with EUS-GBD contraindicated in specific scenarios such as gallbladder perforation, coagulopathy, and large-volume ascites. Technical considerations include choice of access site (transgastric versus transduodenal), stent type, and procedural route [direct (freehand) or wire-guided]. Postprocedural care and stent management remain variable and nonstandardized. Emerging data suggest that interval cholecystectomy can still be performed safely after EUS-GBD. As adoption of EUS-GBD with LAMS expands, structured training and standardization of practice are crucial to optimizing outcomes.

Summary Achalasia is a motility condition defined by failure of relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter and loss of peristalsis in the distal esophagus. Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a technique to reduce lower esophageal sphincter pressure. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between POEM and the clinical outcomes. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis (CRD420251052240). Literature search was done on PubMed and Embase (up to 8 June 2025). Original studies involving achalasia patients who underwent esophageal POEM with impedance planimetry using 8-cm balloon at 30 or 40 mL filling volumes with 325 catheter only (not the 322-N catheter) were included. The outcomes of interest were the clinical response groups (responders’ Eckardt score [ES] < 3 and non-responders’ ES > 3), reflux esophagitis, cross-sectional area (CSA), distensibility index (DI), and diameter. Nineteen studies with 1215 patients were included. The responders (ES < 3) showed a statistically significantly greater increase in DI due to POEM (post-op minus pre-op) (mean difference [MD] = 1.92 mm2/mmHg [0.32, 3.53], P = 0.02) as well as a higher postoperative DI (MD = 1.87 mm2/mmHg [0.04, 3.70], P = 0.05) (40 mL). Reflux esophagitis group had statistically significantly higher CSA and diameter values (CSA MD = 15.68 mm2 [6.91, 24.24], P = 0.0005) (diameter MD = 0.96 mm [0.58, 1.33], P < 0.00001) but no statistically significant difference for DI as compared to the non-reflux esophagitis group (DI MD = 0.19 mm2/mmHg [−0.51, 0.89], P = 0.59). In achalasia patients undergoing esophageal POEM, a greater interval increase in the DI as well as a higher post-procedural DI absolute value predicts a favorable clinical response. Higher postoperative CSA and diameter were linked to reflux esophagitis.

Abstract Background The difference in clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for early Barrett's esophagus (BE) neoplasia remains unclear. We compared the recurrence/residual tissue rates, resection outcomes, and adverse events after ESD and EMR for early BE neoplasia. Methods We included patients who underwent EMR or ESD for BE-associated high grade dysplasia (HGD) or T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) at eight academic hospitals. We compared demographic, procedural, and histologic characteristics, and follow-up data. A time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence/residual disease and a Kaplan–Meier curve was used to compare the groups. Results 243 patients (150 EMR; 93 ESD) were included. EMR had lower en bloc (43 % vs. 89 %; P < 0.001) and R0 (56 % vs. 73 %; P = 0.01) rates than ESD. There was no difference in the rates of perforation (0.7 % vs. 0; P > 0.99), early bleeding (0.7 % vs. 1 %; P > 0.99), delayed bleeding (3.3 % vs. 2.1 %; P = 0.71), and stricture (10 % vs. 16 %; P = 0.16) between EMR and ESD. Patients with non-curative resections who underwent further therapy were excluded from the recurrence analysis. Recurrent/residual disease was 31.4 % [44/140] for EMR and 3.5 % [3/85] for ESD during a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 15.5 (6.75–30) and 8 (2–18) months, respectively. Recurrence-/residual disease-free survival was significantly higher in the ESD group. More patients required additional endoscopic resection procedures to treat recurrent/residual disease after EMR (EMR 24.2 % vs. ESD 3.5 %; P < 0.001). Conclusions ESD is safe and results in more definitive treatment of early BE neoplasia, with significantly lower recurrence/residual disease rates and less need for repeat endoscopic treatments than with EMR.

INTRODUCTION: While esophagectomy is the standard treatment for submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and squamous cell cancer (SCC), many elderly patients -the age group that esophageal cancer tends to affect- are not candidates for surgery. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a minimally invasive procedure that allows for en-bloc resection of early esophageal cancer and allows for precise histopathologic staging of the tumor. ESD could be curative in submucosal cancer without lymph node metastasis, and it allows for precise histopathologic staging. To evaluate the long-term outcomes of ESD in patients with EUS-staged T1b esophageal cancer. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter study was performed at three academic hospitals in the U.S. Patients who underwent ESD with a pre-procedural or post-procedural histopathologic diagnosis of T1b N0 M0 EAC or SCC were included in the study. Data was collected on demographics, tumor and procedure characteristics, procedure pathology, and follow-up. Local recurrence was confirmed by endoscopic findings and pathological analysis. Metastasis was confirmed by cross-sectional imaging. The main outcome was a composite of rate of metastasis and local recurrence. Follow-up time was defined as months from initial procedure to recurrence or last follow-up visit if recurrence-free. A time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients underwent ESD (mean age 69.6 years +/-9; 35 males) (Table 1). Based on available comorbidity data, 42% patients were not fit for surgery, as determined by an age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index > 6. Twenty tumors (62%) were found to be HGD or T1a on post-ESD specimen analysis, while one was staged as T2. Nineteen patients were staged as T1b after ESD. Immediately after ESD, 6 patients were referred for surgery, 3 underwent chemoradiation therapy, and 6 radiation alone (Table 2). Patients were followed for a median of 18 months, and the calculated 24-month recurrence rate was 13% (Figure 1). CONCLUSION: This multicenter trial showed that ESD for T1b esophageal cancer can be acceptable for patients who deemed not surgical candidates. However, close follow up is necessary. ESD can also serve as a staging procedure, as our data confirms inaccurate EUS-staging of T1b cancer, with 62% of tumors being down-staged to T1a, as has been previously reported.

INTRODUCTION: The difference in long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for Barrett’s related superficial neoplasia remains unclear. We aimed to compare the rates of local and metachronous recurrence of ESD and EMR in patients with clinically staged BE-associated high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). METHODS: Multicenter study at six academic hospitals in the U.S. including patients who underwent ESD for BE-HGD or T1a EAC. Primary outcome was a composite of metastasis and local recurrence rate. A time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence. A Kaplan-Meier plot was constructed, and a log-rank test was used to compare the groups. A Cox hazard ratio regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 241 patients were included. 154 underwent EMR, while 84 underwent ESD (Table 1). ESD had higher en bloc (96% vs 33%, P < 0.0001), R0 (76% vs 54%, P = 0.0009) and curative resection rates (75% vs 32%, P < .0001) when compared to EMR. The 24-month local recurrence rate for EMR and ESD was 43% and 11%, respectively ( P = 0.0007) (Figure 1). Significantly more endoscopic resection procedures were required to treat recurrence after EMR compared to after ESD (Table 1). EMR, piecemeal resection, positive margins, and non-curative resection were identified as predictors of recurrence on univariate analysis. En bloc resection remained significant after multivariate analysis (Table 2). CONCLUSION: This multicenter study showed that ESD results in more definitive treatment of BE-associated early neoplasia than EMR, with significant lower recurrence rates and less need for repeat endoscopic therapeutic procedures than EMR.