Schlag, Christoph

Background: EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is an effective option for the management of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Due to the poor prognosis of patients undergoing it, data on its long-term adverse events (AE) is scarce. Herein, we describe a cohort of patients with gastro-entero-colic fistula (GECF) as a late AE of previously successful EUS-GE. Methods: Patients who developed a GECF after EUS-GE from 10 high-volume centers were analyzed. Information collected included demographic characteristics, indications, clinical and technical success rates, stent type and size, fistula characteristics, management, and outcomes. Results: Sixteen cases were identified. The mean interval from index EUS-GE to the diagnosis of GECF was 4 to 8 weeks. The most common cause of GOO was pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The transverse colon was the most common site for the GECF (14 patients). A 20×10 mm lumen apposing metal stent (LAMS) was utilized in 10 patients. Endoscopic management with a variety of modalities was successful in 13 cases. Follow-up interval after endoscopic management of the fistula averaged 2 to 4 weeks. At the time of the manuscript elaboration, 10 patients had died, 5 were alive, and 1 was lost to follow-up. Conclusions: This is the first description of a cohort of patients with GECF after EUS-GE. The exact mechanisms leading to GECF in these cases are unknown. Possible explanations include inadvertent colon puncture during the index procedure and/or entrapment of mesocolon. More data is needed to further characterize this AE.

Summary Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is the most common cause of esophageal food impaction (EFI). Approaches to management of EFI due to EoE have not been well characterized. We conducted a web-based survey to understand approaches to management of EFI due to EoE among endoscopists. Questions focused on management of patients from presentation to post-endoscopy follow-up. The survey was administered to a list of eligible candidates provided by societies of gastroenterology. A total of 308 endoscopists completed the questionnaire. The majority (83%) practiced in Europe and treated adults (78%). Most agreed patients should be advised to seek emergency care (66%) within 1 to 2 hours (41% agreement). There was agreement that medications to induce vomiting should be avoided (84%) and that blood tests or imaging studies were usually not required before endoscopy. By contrast, there was more variability in the type of sedation recommended and the need for endotracheal intubation, especially when comparing more experienced with less experienced EoE-endoscopists. Overall, fewer than half (43%) respondents recommended obtaining esophageal biopsies during the initial endoscopy. However, there were significant differences in the proportion who recommended biopsies based on level of EoE-experience (25, 52, 77%, P < 0.001; less vs. moderate vs. very experienced) and comparing pediatric and adult endoscopists (32, vs. 79%, P < 0.001; adult vs. pediatric). There exists heterogeneity among endoscopists in recommendations to manage EFI in patients with EoE. These findings support development of clinical guidelines and new studies to clarify the rationale for best practices. Key summary: Established knowledge—The optimal management of patients with esophageal food impaction due to eosinophilic esophagitis from presentation at the emergency department to postendoscopy care is unclear. New findings—Considerable recommendation variation exists in the management of EFI in patients with EoE. Our findings provide a rationale for the creation of consensus practice guidelines and further study into best practices.