Barthet, Marc

AbstractThis joint ASGE-ESGE guideline provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs) in the management of obesity. The document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. It evaluates the efficacy and safety of EBMT devices and procedures that currently have CE mark or FDA-clearance/approval, or that had been approved within five years of document development. The guideline suggests the use of EBMTs plus lifestyle modification in patients with a BMI of ≥30 kg/m2, or with a BMI of 27.0–29.9 kg/m2 with at least 1 obesity-related comorbidity. Furthermore, it suggests the utilization of intragastric balloons and devices for endoscopic gastric remodeling (EGR) in conjunction with lifestyle modification for this patient population.

Main Recommendations 1 ESGE recommends a prolonged course of a prophylactic broad-spectrum antibiotic in patients with ascites who are undergoing therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents during EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy for biliary drainage in malignant disease.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be performed in high volume expert centers, owing to the complexity of this technique and the high risk of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends a stepwise approach to EUS-guided PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy, starting with rendezvous-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (RV-ERP), followed by antegrade or transmural drainage only when RV-ERP fails or is not feasible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE suggests performing transduodenal EUS-guided gallbladder drainage with a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS), rather than using the transgastric route, as this may reduce the risk of stent dysfunction.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends using saline instillation for small-bowel distension during EUS-guided gastroenterostomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 ESGE recommends the use of saline instillation with a 19G needle and an electrocautery-enhanced LAMS for EUS-directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (EDGE) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE recommends the use of either 15- or 20-mm LAMSs for EDGE, with a preference for 20-mm LAMSs when considering a same-session ERCP.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Main Recommendations 1 ESGE recommends the use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) over percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in malignant distal biliary obstruction when local expertise is available. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2 ESGE suggests EUS-BD with hepaticogastrostomy only for malignant inoperable hilar biliary obstruction with a dilated left hepatic duct when inadequately drained by ERCP and/or PTBD in high volume expert centers. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends that EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be considered in symptomatic patients with an obstructed PD when retrograde endoscopic intervention fails or is not possible. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends rendezvous EUS techniques over transmural PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy owing to its lower rate of adverse events. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE recommends that, in patients at high surgical risk, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (GBD) should be favored over percutaneous gallbladder drainage where both techniques are available, owing to the lower rates of adverse events and need for re-interventions in EUS-GBD. Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6 ESGE recommends EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), in an expert setting, for malignant gastric outlet obstruction, as an alternative to enteral stenting or surgery. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 ESGE recommends that EUS-GE may be considered in the management of afferent loop syndrome, especially in the setting of malignancy or in poor surgical candidates. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE suggests that endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) can be offered, in expert centers, to patients with a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass following multidisciplinary decision-making, with the aim of overcoming the invasiveness of laparoscopy-assisted ERCP and the limitations of enteroscopy-assisted ERCP. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Abstract Background and study aims Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are increasingly used for drainage of walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). Recent studies suggested greater adverse event (AE) rates with LAMS for WON. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of LAMS with double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) for endoscopic drainage of WON. The primary aim was to evaluate stent-related AEs. Methods In October 2019, we searched the Ovid (Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane) and Scopus databases for studies assessing a specific LAMS or DPPS for WON drainage conducted under EUS guidance. Safety outcomes were AE rates of bleeding, stent migration, perforation, and stent occlusion. Efficacy outcomes were WON resolution and number of procedures needed to achieve resolution. A subanalysis including non-EUS-guided cases was performed. Results Thirty studies including one randomized controlled trial (total 1,524 patients) were analyzed. LAMS were associated with similar bleeding (2.5 % vs. 4.6 %, P = 0.39) and perforation risk (0.5 % vs. 1.1 %, P = 0.35) compared to DPPS. WON resolution (87.4 % vs. 87.5 %, P = 0.99), number of procedures to achieve resolution (2.09 vs. 1.88, P = 0.72), stent migration (5.9 % vs. 6.8 %, P = 0.79), and stent occlusion (3.8 % vs. 5.2 %, P = 0.78) were similar for both groups. Inclusion of non-EUS-guided cases led to significantly higher DPPS bleeding and perforation rates. Conclusions LAMS and DPPS were associated with similar rates of AEs and WON resolution when limiting analysis to EUS-guided cases. Higher bleeding rates were seen in historical studies of DPPS without EUS guidance. Additional high-quality studies of WON treatment using consistent outcome definitions are needed.