Wong Kee Song, Louis-Michel

Abstract Background and Aims EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is an effective option to palliate symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). While the jejunum is conventionally targeted (EUS-GJ), targeting the duodenum (EUS-GD) may offer clinical advantages. Outcomes were compared for EUS-GJ and EUS-GD. Methods Adult patients who underwent EUS-GE for GOO between 2020 and 2024 were included and categorized as an EUS-GD if the stent entered the transverse or ascending duodenum or an EUS-GJ if the stent entered more distally. The primary outcome was clinical success (soft diet tolerance at 7 days). Secondary outcomes included adverse events (AEs), stent misdeployment, and unplanned endoscopic reintervention. Baseline demographic variables and outcomes were compared with statistical significance at p < 0.05. Results Of the 139 included patients (median age 67 years (IQR 61–74); 41% female), 105 underwent EUS-GJ and 34 underwent EUS-GD. Clinical success was 98% for EUS-GJ and 94% for EUS-GD (p = 0.25). The misdeployment rate was 7% for EUS-GJ and 0% for EUS-GD (p = 0.19). The AE rate was 22% for EUS-GJ and 12% for EUS-GD (p = 0.23). There were no significant differences for stent obstruction (EUS-GJ 12% vs. EUS-GD 6%), bleeding (2% vs. 6%), perforation (4% vs. 0%), stent migration (1% vs. 0%), infection (3% vs. 0%), and unplanned reintervention (14% vs. 9%). Conclusion Both EUS-GJ and EUS-GD demonstrate high clinical success with no significant differences in adverse event rates. These data can support intraprocedural decision-making for endoscopists performing EUS-GE.

Abstract Background and study aims Limited comparative data exist to guide optimal through-the-scope (TTS) clip selection. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, retention, and safety of three industry-leading TTS clips on tissue that mimics common clinical scenarios. Methods A survival study involving six domestic pigs was undertaken. Three commonly used clip models were selected: Assurance (STERIS, Mentor, Ohio, United States), Resolution (Boston Scientific, Boston, Massachusetts, United States), and SureClip (Micro-Tech, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States). To mimic clinical practice, the following scenarios were assessed: (1) normal mucosa; (2) cold snare resection; and (3) hot mucosal resection simulating fibrotic ulcers. Deployment of clips was randomized to target sites. Repeat endoscopy was performed 2 weeks following placement. Endoscopists rated the ease of use of clip placement on a Likert scale of 1 to 5. Results Fifty-four clips (18 Assurance, 18 Resolution, and 18 SureClip) were placed in six pigs. Mucosal healing was noted at all sites on follow up. Overall retention was nine of 18 (50.0%) SureClip, 10 of 18 (55.6%) Assurance, and 13 of 18 (72.2%) Resolution (P=0.369). There was no difference in clip retention on normal and cold snare resection sites; however, clip retention was significantly higher for Resolution clips on fibrotic ulcers (50.0% versus 0% for Assurance and 0% SureClip, P=0.03). No adverse events were reported. Ease of use was equivalent across all models. Conclusions All clips were equivalent in efficacy and safety with successful clip deployment and mucosal healing. Overall retention rate was low for fibrotic tissue, with an improved retention rate observed with Resolution clips.

Abstract Background Unsedated transnasal esophagoscopy (TNE) may offer a less expensive, mobile alternative to sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for evaluations of reflux related complications. Comparisons of imaging quality by these methods are lacking. Methods Two reviewers evaluated videos of TNE and EGD procedures, performed during a community randomized study comparing endoscopic techniques. Subjects were randomized to EGD, TNE in endoscopy suite, or TNE in mobile research unit. Endoscopic quality was assessed using a validated scoring tool. Results In total, 115 videos (58 EGD, 28 endoscopy suite TNE, and 29 mobile TNE) were reviewed. Overall quality scores for TNE and EGD were excellent without a statistically significant difference (P = 0.30). There were no differences in gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) visualization scores, though EGD scored higher in esophageal passage (P < 0.05) and TNE scored higher in esophageal intubation (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in any quality score between mobile TNE and gastrointestinal suite TNE. Conclusion Esophageal assessment with TNE or EGD was comparable in overall quality and GEJ visualization. TNE quality was not affected by procedure location. TNE is a feasible option for endoscopic assessment of reflux complications.