Swanström, Lee L.

Background Methods: The question prompt list content was derived through a modified Delphi process consisting of 3 rounds. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts “What general questions should patients ask when given a new diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus” and “What questions do I not hear patients asking, but given my expertise, I believe they should be asking?” Questions were reviewed and categorized into themes. In round 2, experts rated questions on a 5-point Likert scale. In round 3, experts rerated questions modified or reduced after the previous rounds. Only questions rated as “essential” or “important” were included in Barrett’s esophagus question prompt list (BE-QPL). To improve usability, questions were reduced to minimize redundancy and simplified to use language at an eighth-grade level (Fig. 1). Results: Twenty-one esophageal medical and surgical experts participated in both rounds (91% males; median age 52 years). The expert panel comprised of 33% esophagologists, 24% foregut surgeons, and 24% advanced endoscopists, with a median of 15 years in clinical practice. Most (81%), worked in an academic tertiary referral hospital. In this 3-round Delphi technique, 220 questions were proposed in round 1, 122 (55.5%) were accepted into the BE-QPL and reduced down to 76 questions (round 2), and 67 questions (round 3). These 67 questions reached a Flesch Reading Ease of 68.8, interpreted as easily understood by 13 to 15 years olds. Conclusions: With multidisciplinary input, we have developed a physician-derived BE-QPL to optimize patient-physician communication. Future directions will seek patient feedback to distill the questions further to a smaller number and then assess their usability.

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) using a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS). Background: For patients with acute cholecystitis who are poor surgical candidates, EUS-GBD using a LAMS is an important treatment alternative to percutaneous gallbladder drainage. Methods: We conducted a regulatory-compliant, prospective multicenter trial at 7 tertiary referral centers in the United States of America and Belgium. Thirty consecutive patients with mild or moderate acute cholecystitis who were not candidates for cholecystectomy were enrolled between September 2019 and August 2021. Eligible patients had a LAMS placed transmurally with 30 to 60-day indwell if removal was clinically indicated, and 30-day follow-up post-LAMS removal. Endpoints included days until acute cholecystitis resolution, reintervention rate, acute cholecystitis recurrence rate, and procedure-related adverse events (AEs). Results: Technical success was 93.3% (28/30) for LAMS placement and 100% for LAMS removal in 19 patients for whom removal was attempted. Five (16.7%) patients required reintervention. Mean time to acute cholecystitis resolution was 1.6±1.5 days. Acute cholecystitis symptoms recurred in 10.0% (3/30) after LAMS removal. Five (16.7%) patients died from unrelated causes. Procedure-related AEs were reported to the FDA in 30.0% (9/30) of patients, including one fatal event 21 days after LAMS removal; however, no AEs were causally related to the LAMS. Conclusions: For selected patients with acute cholecystitis who are at elevated surgical risk, EUS-GBD with LAMS is an alternative to percutaneous gallbladder drainage. It has high technical and clinical success, with low recurrence and an acceptable AE rate. Clinicaltrials.gov, Number: NCT03767881.

Background: The American Foregut Society (AFS) is dedicated to advancing patient care and digestive health within the realm of foregut disease. One of the most common and debilitating esophageal conditions is gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The Hill grade is an endoscopic classification of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) based on the appearance of the gastroesophageal flap valve from a retroflexed view of the hiatus. This endoscopic classification provides insight into the anatomic disruption of the EGJ which has been shown to correlate with GERD. However, clinical utilization of this classification by endoscopists has been limited due to the perceived relevance and subjectivity of the classification. With the advent of endoscopic treatment options for GERD, there is renewed enthusiasm to develop a grading system of the EGJ that can objectively define anatomical impairment and reduce interobserver grading variability. Methods: The AFS convened a 13-member working group tasked with reviewing the Hill grade classification and formulating a proposal for its revision utilizing a modified Delphi method. This white paper summarizes the output from this working group. Results: The working group concluded that all components of the antireflux barrier—the lower esophageal sphincter and its sling fibers, the crural diaphragm, and the gastroesophageal flap valve—contribute to EGJ integrity. Using defined objective parameters of extent of hiatal axial herniation and crural disruption and presence or absence of a flap valve, the new AFS classification stratifies EGJ integrity from normal (grade 1) to increasing degrees of EGJ disruption (grade 2-4) beginning with loss of the flap valve and progressing to increasing degrees of crural disruption and hiatus hernia. This AFS classification also stipulates appropriate endoscopic methodology to utilize in making the assessment and provides a basic nomenclature for communication among endoscopists. Conclusions: The AFS endoscopic classification of the EGJ expands on the Hill classification by including assessment of axial hiatal hernia length (L), hiatal aperture diameter (D), and presence or absence of the flap valve (F) making it more comprehensive - LDF components. Future directions include validation studies correlating the ability of the AFS classification in predicting the presence and severity of GERD.

Background: Question prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease-specific questions that enhance patient-physician communication by encouraging patients to ask questions during consultations. Aim: The aim of this study was to develop a preliminary achalasia-specific QPL created by esophageal experts. Methods: The QPL content was derived through a modified Delphi method consisting of 2 rounds. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts “What general questions should patients ask when given a new diagnosis of achalasia” and “What questions do I not hear patients asking, but given my expertise, I believe they should be asking?” In round 2, experts rated questions on a 5-point Likert scale. Questions considered “essential” or “important” were accepted into the QPL. Feedback regarding the QPL was obtained in a pilot study wherein patients received the QPL before their consultation and completed surveys afterwards. Results: Nineteen esophageal experts participated in both rounds. Of 148 questions from round 1, 124 (83.8%) were accepted into the QPL. These were further reduced to 56 questions to minimize redundancy. Questions were categorized into 6 themes: “What is achalasia,” “Risks with achalasia,” “Symptom management in achalasia,” “Treatment of achalasia,” “Risk of reflux after treatment,” and “Follow-up after treatment.” Nineteen patients participated in the pilot, most of whom agreed that the QPL was helpful (84.2%) and recommended its wider use (84.2%). Conclusions: This is the first QPL developed specifically for adults with achalasia. Although well-received in a small pilot, follow-up studies will incorporate additional patient feedback to further refine the QPL content and assess its usability, acceptability, and feasibility.

The following on achalasia and disorders of the esophageal body includes commentaries on controversies regarding whether patients with complete lower esophageal sphincter (LES) relaxation can be considered to exhibit early achalasia; the roles of different mucle components of the LES in achalasia; sensory neural pathways impaired in achalasia; indications for peroral endoscopic myotomy and advantages of the technique over laparoscopic and thorascopic myotomy; factors contributing to the success of surgical therapy for achalasia; modifications to the classification of esophageal body primary motility disorders in the advent of high‐resolution manometry (HRM); analysis of the LES in differentiating between achalasia and diffuse esophageal spasm (DES); and appropriate treatment for DES, nutcracker esophagus (NE), and hypertensive LES (HTLES).