Codipilly, Don C.

ABSTRACTBackgroundEsophageal‐pericardial fistula (EPF) is rare with an incidence of 0.016%–0.04%. With novel procedures involving intracardiac or esophageal instrumentation in the last few decades, including atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, further understanding of this unique entity is warranted. In this systematic review, we summarize the etiology, diagnostic features, management, and outcomes of EPF.MethodsA librarian conducted a systematic literature review of case reports/series describing adults diagnosed with EPF through 7 major databases/registries from inception to 7/30/2024.ResultsOne hundred twenty patients from 115 papers met the inclusion criteria. Median age(IQR) was 57(44–67) years, with a male predominance (73.7%). The primary etiology of EPF shifted from benign esophageal diseases before 2000 to AF ablation on/after 2000. Median time(IQR) from AF ablation to EPF presentation/diagnosis was 17(13–23) days. Chest pain (70.8%) and pneumopericardium (90.0%) were, respectively, the most common presenting symptom and pericardial finding. Water‐soluble contrast esophagram (WSCE) had the highest diagnostic sensitivity (82.8%). Management included surgery (47.5%), stent placement (22.5%), combined surgery/stenting (19.2%), and conservative (10.8%). Overall mortality was 37.5%; median(IQR) time to death was 20(9–41) days. EPF from malignancy had poorer survival than those from benign esophageal causes (HR 2.65 [1.36–5.17]; p = 0.004) and cardiac ablation (HR 5.74 [2.41–13.65]; p < 0.0001). Patients who received any intervention (HR 0.28 [0.13‐0.57]; p = 0.0005) or had confirmed EPF resolution (HR 0.27 [0.12–0.59]; p = 0.0009) demonstrated better survival. There was no difference in survival between surgery and stenting alone (p = 0.91).ConclusionsAF ablation is now the leading etiology of EPF. Given its high mortality, a high degree of clinical suspicion is essential in those presenting with key signs/symptoms following AF ablation to enable urgent diagnosis and multi‐disciplinary management. WSCE may be the diagnostic modality to perform, given its high sensitivity. Future studies are warranted to investigate whether stenting should be the primary management given possible non‐inferiority to surgery.

ABSTRACT Background Functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) utility is established in treatment‐naïve achalasia but less clear following lower esophageal sphincter (LES) directed therapy. Methods Achalasia patients with LES directed therapy across three tertiary care centers between 2017 and 2024 with post‐treatment FLIP and timed barium esophagram (TBE) were retrospectively identified. Reduced esophagogastric junction (EGJ) opening was defined by distensibility index (DI) < 2 mm 2 /mmHg and diameter < 12 mm. Abnormal emptying on TBE was defined as column height ≥ 5 cm at 5 min and/or retained tablet. Eckardt scores ≤ 3 defined clinical response. Key Results The study included 222 patients (46% peroral endoscopic myotomy, 46% laparoscopic Heller myotomy, 8% pneumatic dilation) with a median of 1.4 years to post‐treatment TBE/FLIP. Abnormal emptying on TBE was associated with a narrower median EGJ diameter (13.2 vs. 14.8 mm, p = 0.008), a greater frequency of EGJ diameter < 12 mm (36% vs. 21%, p = 0.012), and a smaller change in EGJ diameter (+4.6 vs. +8.6 mm, p = 0.002). Abnormal emptying on TBE occurred more frequently in patients with EGJ DI < 2 mm 2 /mmHg (8.5% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.052), but was not associated with median EGJ DI (4.5 vs. 5.1 mm 2 /mmHg, p = 0.29) nor median change in EGJ DI (+2.9 vs. +3.9 mm 2 /mmHg, p = 0.25). Patients with reduced EGJ DI or EGJ diameter more often had abnormal TBE (37% vs. 22%, p = 0.012). Only the change in DI (+3.8 vs. +1.5 mm 2 /mmHg, p = 0.012) and diameter (+8.2 vs. +1.6 mm, p = 0.002) on FLIP was associated with a clinical response based on Eckardt ≤ 3. Conclusions and Inferences FLIP following achalasia therapy generally correlates with TBE, although discrepant findings are not uncommon. In particular, FLIP EGJ‐diameter has a strong association with esophageal emptying on TBE. Both TBE and FLIP have limited association with clinical response based on Eckardt, with change in DI and diameter on FLIP most strongly associated. Consequently, FLIP as part of multimodal assessment appears useful in the longitudinal follow‐up of treated achalasia.

Objectives: Esophageal cancer (EC) often presents with dysphagia due to tumor obstruction. Esophageal stenting has the potential of palliating dysphagia, improving nutrition, preventing aspiration, and improving quality of life (QoL) but may be associated with risks. The present systematic review and guidelines are intended to assist treatment decision-making when considering stent placement in patients with EC based on the available evidence. Methods: Using the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, timing and study design framework, the evidence was assessed using Cochrane and PRISMA 2020 methodology. Eligible studies included prospective phase II-III trials and retrospective analyses published between January 1, 2010 and December 3, 2024 in the Ovid Medline database. These references were assessed by American Radium Society (ARS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) methodology. RAND-UCLA consensus methodology was used to rate the appropriateness of the use of stents. Results: ARS AUC recommendations include (1) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate in patients with early-stage EC in whom upfront surgery is planned; (2) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate in patients with locally-advanced EC in whom neoadjuvant/perioperative therapy and esophagectomy or definitive chemoradiation is planned; (3) esophageal stenting may be appropriate in the setting of metastatic EC, especially in patients with short life expectancy with limited treatment options; (4) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate for benign stricture following curative-intent therapy; (5) esophageal stenting is usually not appropriate for locally recurrent tumor in the setting of prior radiation; and (6) esophageal stenting is usually appropriate for management of tracheoesophageal fistula before curative-intent treatment. Conclusions: This ARS AUC summary provides guidelines for the use of esophageal stents in patients with EC provides based on available evidence.

AbstractEndoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is recommended for the management of dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (BE) and intramucosal adenocarcinoma. Both radiofrequency (RFA) and cryoballoon ablation (CBA) can induce complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM). We aimed to compare long-term durability following CRIM in patients treated with RFA vs. CBA.We conducted a retrospective cohort study to analyze patient outcomes following EET with RFA or CBA at two referral centers. We measured and compared the recurrence rate of BE, with or without dysplasia, after CRIM, using Cox proportional hazard models and propensity score-matched analyses. Our secondary aim was to identify predictors of recurrence.681 patients who achieved CRIM were included (RFA 610; CBA 71), with median follow-up of 4.1 years and 4.4 years following RFA and CBA, respectively. A multivariable model revealed a higher risk of any recurrence with RFA (hazard ratio [HR] 2.19, 95%CI 1.18–4.06; P = 0.01), but not dysplastic recurrence (HR 0.88, 95%CI 0.39–1.97; P = 0.75). However, a comparable risk of “any recurrence” was observed after excluding intestinal metaplasia of the gastroesophageal junction (HR 1.18, 95%CI 0.61–2.30; P = 0.62). Propensity score-matched analysis (54 cases in each group) showed that the two groups had comparable recurrence risk. Baseline maximum BE length was associated with a higher risk of any recurrence (HR 1.07; P<0.001) and dysplastic recurrence (HR 1.11; P = 0.001).The rates of any BE recurrence and dysplastic recurrence were comparable with the two modalities in this nonrandomized study.

INTRODUCTION: The risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus (BE) increases with advancing degrees of dysplasia. There is a critical need to improve the diagnosis of BE dysplasia, given substantial interobserver variability and overcalls of dysplasia during manual community pathologist reads. We aimed to externally validate a previously cross-validated BE dysplasia diagnosis deep learning model (BEDDLM) that predicts dysplasia grade on whole slide images (WSIs). METHODS: We digitized nondysplastic BE (NDBE), low-grade (LGD), and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) histology slides from 3 external academic centers. A consensus read by 2 expert study pathologists was used as the criterion standard. Slide stain characteristics were normalized using cycle-generative adversarial networks. WSIs were assessed by BEDDLM using an ensemble approach, combining a “You Only Look Once” model followed by a ResNet101 classifier model. RESULTS: We included 489 WSIs. Consensus histopathology revealed 232 NDBE, 117 LGD, and 140 HGD WSIs. The mean age (SD) was 66.9 (11.4) years; 413 (84.7%) were men. Using the BEDDLM ensemble model, sensitivity and specificity for NDBE were 73.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 67.09%–78.85%) and 93.4% (95% CI: 89.62%–96.10%); for LGD, 84.6% (95% CI: 76.78%–90.62%) and 80.6% (95% CI: 76.26%–84.54%); and for HGD, 80.7% (95% CI: 73.19%–86.89%) and 94.8% (95% CI: 91.97%–96.91%), respectively. The F1 score was 0.81, 0 0.69, and 0.83 for NDBE, LGD, and HGD, respectively. DISCUSSION: Our externally validated deep learning model demonstrates substantial accuracy for the diagnosis of BE dysplasia grade on WSIs.

Summary Introduction Peroral plication of the esophagus (POPE) can reduce sump size and improve symptoms in end-stage achalasia. However, its long-term efficacy and safety are unknown. Methods Patients with end-stage achalasia who underwent POPE at our institution (2016–2024) were identified. Data were abstracted for patient demographics, procedural details, and clinical and radiographic outcomes. Results Twelve patients underwent POPE. The technical success rate was 100%, with mean procedural time of 57 minutes and without adverse events. Symptomatic improvement occurred in 75% of patients (mean follow-up of 15 months), while 86% had radiographic improvement in sump size. Repeat POPE in 6 (50%) patients a mean of 2.6 years after index POPE and a third POPE in four (33%) patients a mean of 3.1 years later was performed, with similar technical success rates and outcomes to the index POPE. Conclusions POPE is a safe and repeatable long-term therapeutic option in end-stage achalasia.

AbstractAlthough endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is associated with higher en-bloc and R0 resection rates than cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (cEMR), its comparative impact on achieving complete remission of dysplasia (CRD) and intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) in BE endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is not well defined. We aimed to compare the journey of patients from initial endoscopic resection (ER) with ESD and cEMR to achieving CRD and CRIM.Patients undergoing ESD or cEMR followed by ablation for BE neoplasia at two academic institutions in the United States were included. Primary outcomes included CRD and CRIM rates following ER in the two groups. Secondary outcomes included the number of resection/ablative procedures from initial ER to achieving CRD and CRIM. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance confounding variables between groups.A total of 801 patients (606 cEMR, 195 ESD) were included. ESD group patients had higher en-bloc resection rates (ESD 94.4%, cEMR 44.7%). Higher rates of CRD were observed in patients undergoing initial ESD (HR 1.53, P < 0.01). With time-to-event and IPTW analyses, rates of achieving CRD and CRIM were comparable between the groups. There were no significant differences in mean number of endoscopic resection or ablative procedures among patients undergoing initial cEMR resection compared with those treated with initial ESD.Despite larger lesion sizes and more cancers in patients undergoing ESD, the EET journey to achieving CRD and CRIM was comparable to that in patients receiving cEMR. Prospective studies are required to further study differences between these two treatment approaches.