Kushnir, Vladimir

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.

ABSTRACT Background Retrospective evaluations of multidisciplinary team (MDT) review of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) demonstrate improved PCL management. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) evaluates PCL for worrisome features; however, its influence on MDT is unclear and may be attenuated by anchoring/confirmation bias. We aimed to evaluate the impact of EUS and the overall performance of MDT evaluation of PCL. Methods Four mock MDT sessions at two institutions were presented imaging from 40 consecutive PCL cases (20 “high‐risk” with advanced neoplasia, 20 “low‐risk” with pathologic low‐grade dysplasia or ≥ 3 years of non‐progression on surveillance), with and without upfront EUS/FNA (cytology, CEA, Amylase), in a randomized, crossover design. Group 1 adjudicated without EUS, Group 2 adjudicated with EUS, and Group 3 adjudicated with EUS after initially adjudicating without it. Results The cohort included branch‐duct ( n = 20), mixed type ( n = 6), and main duct ( n = 4) IPMN, MCN ( n = 5), and non‐mucinous PCL ( n = 5). Group 2 (EUS) correctly identified mucinous PCL with 97% sensitivity and 70% specificity, significantly higher than Group 1 (No EUS) (Sensitivity 91%, Specificity 20%; p = 0.04). Group 3 (Unblinded to EUS) performed significantly worse in mucinous PCL identification compared with Group 2, indicating cognitive bias (Sensitivity 97%, Specificity 10% ( p = 0.0003)). Group 2 correctly identified high‐risk PCL that required surgical intervention with 85% sensitivity and 85% specificity, significantly higher than Group 1 (Sensitivity 60%, Specificity 75%; p = 0.0016) and Group 3 (Sensitivity 73%, Specificity 80%, p = 0.0485). Conclusion While susceptible to cognitive bias, EUS significantly improves MDT assessment of PCL. MDT establishes a high bar for iterative additions of biomarkers to PCL analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The American College of Gastroenterology assembled a multidisciplinary task force to evaluate the current state and future direction of artificial intelligence (AI) in gastroenterology, hepatology, and endoscopy leading to the development of consensus-based recommendations for responsible AI integration in clinical practice. METHODS: A total of 32 subject-matter experts and 12 industry partners, representing diverse practice settings and expertise, conducted subgroup literature reviews across 5 key areas (endoscopy, practice management clinical applications, training and education, inflammatory bowel disease and liver disease, ethics and equity). Draft statements were developed and rated on a 5-point Likert scale using a modified Delphi process. A consensus was set at ≥70% combined agreement. Nonconsensus items were revised and revoted electronically. RESULTS: A total of 43 statements, 40 (93%) reached consensus in round 1 and the remaining 3 achieved consensus after round 2. Evidence supports computer-aided detection improving adenoma detection rate and miss rate in controlled studies, with mixed real-world impact and insufficient long-term outcomes (e.g., interval colon cancer rate). Recommendations emphasize thorough validation and reduction of bias by heterogeneous Data sets. Outside endoscopy, ambient AI scribes, natural language processing (NLP)-enabled coding, workflow optimization, and previous authorization support show potential. Training recommendations endorse a structured AI curriculum while preserving independent procedural competence to avoid deskilling. In inflammatory bowel disease and hepatology, AI could help improve diagnostic accuracy, help predict risk of disease progression, and help guide therapy. Equity, governance, and reimbursement statements call for chain-of-custody data protections, specialty-society oversight, and payment models that reward quality and cost reduction. DISCUSSION: This consensus outlines how AI can augment rather than replace clinical expertise while promoting safety, transparency, interoperability, and equity. Priorities include pragmatic and prospective trials, multi-institutional data-sharing consortia, bias mitigation, and workforce training to enable trustworthy and clinically impactful AI adoption in gastroenterology, liver, and endoscopy care.

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.

INTRODUCTION: Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) is effective for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk cases, but the optimal technical approach to this intervention remains uncertain. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of 787 clinical trial patients who underwent successful stent placement, we studied the impact of (i) whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP or naturally during the conduct of the case, (ii) the amount of effort expended on PSP, (iii) stent length, (iv) stent diameter, and (v) guidewire caliber. We used logistic regression models to examine the adjusted association between each technical factor and post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). RESULTS: Ninety-one of the 787 patients experienced PEP. There was no clear association between PEP and whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP (vs occurring naturally; odds ratio [OR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–1.84), whether substantial effort expended on stent placement (vs nonsubstantial effort; OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.73–3.45), stent length (>5 vs ≤5 cm; OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.63–1.61), stent diameter (≥5 vs <5 Fr; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.65–1.96), or guidewire caliber (0.035 vs 0.025 in; 0.83, 95% CI 0.49–1.41). DISCUSSION: The 5 modifiable technical factors studied in this secondary analysis of large-scale randomized trial data did not appear to have a strong impact on the benefit of prophylactic PSP in preventing PEP after high-risk ERCP. Within the limitations of post hoc subgroup analysis, these findings may have important implications in procedural decision making and suggest that the benefit of PSP is robust to variations in technical approach.

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.

AbstractBackgroundAn association between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and obesity has been observed. Little is known about the effect of weight loss on IBD course. Our aim was to determine the impact of bariatric surgery on long-term clinical course of obese patients with IBD, either Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC).MethodsPatients with IBD who underwent bariatric surgery subsequent to IBD diagnosis were identified from 2 tertiary IBD centers. Complications after bariatric surgery were recorded. Patients were matched 1:1 for age, sex, IBD subtype, phenotype, and location to patients with IBD who did not undergo bariatric surgery. Controls started follow-up at a time point in their disease similar to the disease duration in the matched case at the time of bariatric surgery. Inflammatory bowel disease medication usage and disease-related complications (need for corticosteroids, hospitalizations, and surgeries) among cases and controls were compared.ResultsForty-seven patients met inclusion criteria. Appropriate matches were found for 25 cases. Median follow-up among cases (after bariatric surgery) and controls was 7.69 and 7.89 years, respectively. Median decrease in body mass index after bariatric surgery was 12.2. Rescue corticosteroid usage and IBD-related surgeries were numerically less common in cases than controls (24% vs 52%; odds ratio [OR], 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08–1.23; 12% vs 28%; OR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.004–1.79). Two cases and 1 control were able to discontinue biologics during follow-up.ConclusionsInflammatory bowel disease patients with weight loss after bariatric surgery had fewer IBD-related complications compared with matched controls. This observation requires validation in a prospective study design.