Maluf-Filho, Fauze

Recent guidelines on biliary cannulation are lacking. This guideline is an initiative of the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) with the involvement of a panel of experts from Asia, Europe, and America. Relevant clinical questions on four areas (post‐endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography [ERCP] pancreatitis [PEP] prophylaxis, biliary cannulation techniques, sphincterotomy/papillary balloon dilation, and biliary cannulation in special circumstances) were developed and answered after systematic reviews of the literature and using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Successful biliary cannulation and sphincterotomy are cornerstones of ERCP and are indispensable for almost all therapeutic and advanced diagnostic procedures. However, adverse events, particularly PEP, may commonly occur and impair patients' outcomes. A high cannulation rate and a low rate of PEP are quality indicators for ERCP and should be the goal of all endoscopists. With this guideline we aimed to provide clinical practice advice applicable worldwide, regardless of resources and expertise availability. The main recommendations focus on specific aspects of ERCP, including pre‐, intra‐, and postprocedural measures to reduce the risk of PEP, the technique for an initial biliary cannulation attempt, options for cannulation in cases of difficult biliary access, alternatives to ERCP in case of failure (percutaneous‐ and endoscopic ultrasound‐guided), and biliary access in altered anatomy (periampullary diverticulum and postsurgical anatomy) and in the presence of duodenal stenosis.

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.