Adler, Douglas G.

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.

Introduction: Machine learning (ML) has become increasingly pivotal in health care, particularly in colorectal cancer (CRC) detection and diagnosis with the use of predictive models and artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopies. This study evaluates the efficacy of ML models in predicting the risk for CRC and advanced colorectal polyps (ACP) before colonoscopy. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, focusing on studies using ML for CRC and ACP prediction. Data extraction regarding study type, ML methodology, quality of data, and bias assessment was in line with the CHARMS checklist. Meta-analysis was also performed to assess the performance of models for the prediction of CRC, adenoma, or both. Results: This systematic review included 14 studies with 3618 median patients (333 to 263,879). Our study demonstrated considerable heterogeneity in methodologies and outcomes, with area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) ranging from 0.6 to 1. The derivation+validation cohorts showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.832 (95% CI: 0.755-0.889) and specificity of 0.802 (95% CI: 0.722-0.863), with an overall AUROC of 0.883. Conclusion: The review underscores the significant role of ML in CRC and ACP diagnosis and its routine use could efficiently direct high-risk patients to timely colonoscopies and spare the low-risk ones from unnecessary procedures. Despite the promise shown, the variability in methodologies and outcomes highlights the need for standardized approaches and further investigation in this field.

AbstractEUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) using lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) has excellent technical and short-term clinical success for acute cholecystitis (AC). The goals of this study were to determine the long-term clinical outcomes and adverse events (AEs) of EUS-GBD with LAMS.A multicenter, retrospective study was conducted at 18 US tertiary care institutions. Inclusion criteria: any AC patient with attempted EUS-GBD with LAMS and minimum 30-day post-procedure follow-up. Long-term clinical success was defined as absence of recurrent acute cholecystitis (RAC) > 30 days and long-term AE was defined as occurring > 30 days from the index procedure.A total of 109 patients were included. Technical success was achieved in 108 of 109 (99.1%) and initial clinical success in 106 of 109 (97.2%). Long-term clinical success was achieved in 98 of 109 (89.9%) over a median follow-up of 140 days (range 30–1188). On multivariable analysis (MVA), acalculous cholecystitis (odds ratio [OR] 15.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22–208.52, P = 0.04) and the occurrence of a LAMS-specific AE (OR 63.60, 95% CI 5.08–799.29, P <0.01) were associated with RAC. AEs occurred in 38 of 109 patients (34.9%) at any time, and in 10 of 109 (9.17%) > 30 days from the index procedure. Most long-term AEs (7 of 109; 6.42%) were LAMS-specific. No technical or clinical factors were associated with occurrence of AEs. LAMS were removed in 24 of 109 patients (22%). There was no difference in RAC or AEs whether LAMS was removed or not.EUS-GBD with LAMS has a high rate of long-term clinical success and modest AE rates in patients with AC and is a reasonable destination therapy for high-risk surgical candidates.

Abstract Background and study aims Use of fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy is an essential aid in advanced endoscopic interventions. However, it also raises concerns about radiation exposure. This study aimed to develop consensus-based statements for safe and effective use of fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy, prioritizing the safety and well-being of healthcare workers and patients. Methods A modified Delphi approach was employed to achieve consensus over three rounds of surveys. Proposed statements were generated in Round 1. In the second round, panelists rated potential statements on a 5-point scale, with consensus defined as ≥80% agreement. Statements were subsequently prioritized in Round 3, using a 1 (lowest priority) to 10 (highest priority) scale. Results Forty-six experts participated, consisting of 34 therapeutic endoscopists and 12 endoscopy nurses from six continents, with an overall 45.6% female representation (n = 21). Forty-three item statements were generated in the first round. Of these, 31 statements achieved consensus after the second round. These statements were categorized into General Considerations (n = 6), Education (n = 10), Pregnancy (n = 4), Family Planning (n = 2), Patient Safety (n = 4), and Staff Safety (n = 5). In the third round, accepted statements received mean priority scores ranging from 7.28 to 9.36, with 87.2% of statements rated as very high priority (mean score ≥ 9). Conclusions This study presents consensus-based statements for safe and effective use of fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy, addressing the well-being of healthcare workers and patients. These consensus-based statements aim to mitigate risks associated with radiation exposure while maintaining benefits of fluoroscopy, ultimately promoting a culture of safety in healthcare settings.

Abstract EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is one of the preferred methods in biliary drainage where ERCP fails or is contraindicated. The clinical outcomes of EUS-HGS are not well studied because of variability in procedure technique. We conducted a search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings from inception through January 2023. The clinical outcomes studied were pooled technical success, clinical success, and adverse events. Standard meta-analysis methods were used using the random-effects model, and heterogeneity was studied by I 2 statistics. We analyzed 44 studies, which included 19 prospective and 25 retrospective studies. The pooled technical success rate of EUS-HGS was 94.4% (confidence interval [CI], 92.4%–95.9%; I 2 = 0%), and the pooled clinical success rate was 88.6% (CI, 83.7%–92.2%; I 2 = 0%). The pooled adverse outcomes with EUS-HGS were 23.8% (CI, 19.6%–28.5%; I 2 = 0%). The mild adverse event rate associated with HGS was 5.8% (4.2%–8.1%; I 2 = 0%), moderate adverse event rate was 12.1% (9.1%–15.8%; I 2 = 16%), and severe adverse event rate was 4.2% (3.0%–5.7%; I 2 = 61%), whereas fatal adverse event rate was 3.2% (1.9%–5.4%; I 2 = 62%). On subgroup analysis, the pooled rate of adverse events of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy with antegrade stenting was 13.3% (95% CI, 8.2%–21.0%). The pooled technical success with EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy with antegrade stenting was 89.7% (95% CI, 82.6%–94.2%), and clinical success was 92.5% (95% CI, 77.9%–97.7%). On the basis of our analysis of EUS-HGS, the overall technical success was 94.4%, and the clinical success rate was 88.6%, and the overall adverse events were reported to be 23.8%. These data can also help improve the clinical benefits of EUS-HGS in the selected patients in whom it is performed.

Introduction: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis studying the efficacy and safety of cold versus hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for resection of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) ≥10 mm. Methods: Multiple databases were searched until January 2023 for studies reporting outcomes of cold versus hot EMR for SSPs ≥10 mm. The primary outcome was the residual SSP rate. Secondary outcomes included technical success rate, R0 resection rate, and adverse events. We used standard meta-analysis methods using the random-effects model, and I 2% was used to assess heterogeneity. Results: Thirteen studies were included in the final analysis. In all, 1896 SSPs were included with a mean polyp size of 23.7 mm (range, 15.9 to 33). A total of 1452 SSPs were followed up for a median follow-up duration of 15.3 months (range, 6 to 37). The pooled residual SSP rate for cold EMR was 4.5% (95% CI: 1.0-17.4), and 5.1% (95% CI: 2.4-10.4) for hot EMR (P=0.9). The pooled rates of technical success, R0 resection, immediate bleeding, and perforation were comparable. Hot EMR was significantly associated with lower piecemeal resection (59.2% vs. 99.3%, P<0.001), higher en-bloc resection (41.4% vs. 1.4%, P<0.001), and delayed bleeding rate (4% vs. 0.7%, P=0.05) compared to cold EMR. Conclusions: Cold EMR has similar efficacy compared to hot EMR for resection of SSP ≥ 10 mm, despite limitations in piecemeal R0 resection rate reporting. Although hot EMR was associated with a higher rate of en-bloc resection, it also showed an increased risk of delayed bleeding compared to cold EMR.

ABSTRACT EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) has gained momentum in recent years, especially with availability of newer needle designs. Given the emerging comparative data on EUS-LB with second-generation needles and percutaneous LB (PC-LB), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of the two techniques. We searched multiple databases from inception through November 2021 to identify studies comparing outcomes of EUS-LB and PC-LB. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects model, and the results were expressed in terms of pooled proportions and odds ratio (OR) along with relevant 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five studies with 748 patients were included in the final analysis. EUS-LB was performed in 276 patients and PC-LB in 472 patients. Across all studies, PC-LB had an overall higher diagnostic accuracy than EUS-LB, 98.6% confidence interval (CI: 94.7–99.7) versus 88.3% (49.6–98.3), OR: 1.65, P = 0.04. On assessing data from randomized controlled trials, there was no difference between the two. While pooled diagnostic adequacy and overall adverse events were not significantly different between PC-LB and EUS-LB, the former was superior in terms of the mean number of complete portal tracts (CPT) and total specimen length. PC-LB and EUS-LB produce similar results. PC-LB allows obtaining longer samples and more CPT. Further studies are needed to see if these trends hold up as more providers begin to perform EUS-LB.

Abstract Background and study aims Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is a precursor condition to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), resulting in transformation of the squamous epithelium of distal esophagus to columnar-lined epithelium with intestinal metaplasia (IM). Liquid nitrogen spray cryotherapy (LNSC) is a non-contact method of BE eradication and has been used both as primary and salvage therapy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of LNSC. Methods We searched multiple databases from inception through December 2021 to identify studies on use of LNSC for Barrett’s neoplasia. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects model and results were expressed in terms of pooled proportions with relevant 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) of complete eradication (CE) of dysplasia(D), high grade dysplasia (HGD) and IM. Results Fourteen studies with 707 patients were included in our final analysis. Overall pooled rates of CE-D, CE-HGD and CE-IM were 80.8 % (CI 77.4–83.8; I2 62), 90.3 % (CI 85.2–93.7; I2 33) and 55.8 % (CI 51.7–59.8; I2 73) with follow up ranging from 4.25 months to 69.7 months. In patients with follow up beyond 24 months, the rates of CE-D and CE-IM were 83.6 % (CI 77.6–88.2; I2 60) and 54.7 % (CI 47.6–61.6; I2 81). Among LNSC naïve patients with prior history of endoscopic resection, the rates were 79.9 % (CI 73.3–85.2; I2 50) and 67.1 % (CI 59.5–73.8; I2 0). Pooled rate of therapeutic failures, defined as lack of response to LNSC therapy, was 23.6 % (CI 19.4–28.3; I2 73). Post LNSC strictures and perforation pooled rates were 4 % and 0.8 %, respectively, which are similar to those previously reported for RFA. Conclusions Our analysis suggests that liquid nitrogen spray cryotherapy is an acceptable treatment for BE in both ablation naïve and experienced patients.