Citations

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 Objectives Gastric varices (GVs) are associated with a higher risk of uncontrolled bleeding and death when compared with esophageal varices. While endoscopic glue injection therapy has been traditionally used for secondary prophylaxis in GV, data regarding primary prophylaxis continue to emerge. Recently, EUS–guided therapies have been used in GV bleeding. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of several major databases from inception to June 2022. Our primary goals were to estimate the pooled rates of treatment efficacy, GV obliteration, GV recurrence, and rebleeding with EUS-guided therapy in primary and secondary prophylaxis. Overall adverse events and technical failures were assessed. Random-effects model was used for our meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 % statistics. Results Eighteen studies with 604 patients were included. In primary prophylaxis, pooled rate of GV obliteration was 90.2% (confidence interval [CI], 81.1–95.2; I 2 = 0). With combination EUS–glue and coil therapy, the rate was 95.4% (CI, 86.7%–98.5%; I 2 = 0). Pooled rate of posttherapy GV bleeding was 4.9% (CI, 1.8%–12.4%; I 2 = 0). In secondary prophylaxis, pooled rate of treatment efficacy was 91.9% (CI, 86.8%–95.2%; I 2 = 12). With EUS-glue, EUS-coil, and combination EUS–glue and coil, the rates were 94.3% (CI, 88.9%–97.1%; I 2 = 0), 95.5% (CI, 80.3%–99.1%; I 2 = 0), and 88.7% (CI, 76%–95.1%; I 2 = 14), respectively. Pooled rate of GV obliteration was 83.6% (CI, 71.5%–91.2%; I 2 = 74). With EUS-glue, EUS-coil, and combination EUS–glue and coil, the rates were 84.6% (CI, 75.9%–90.6%; I 2 = 31), 92.3% (CI, 81.1%–97.1%; I 2 = 0), and 84.5% (CI, 50.8%–96.7%; I 2 = 75), respectively. Pooled rates of GV rebleeding and recurrence were 18.1% (CI, 13.1%–24.3%; I 2 = 16) and 20.6% (CI, 9.3%–39.5%; I 2 = 66), respectively. Conclusion Our analysis shows that EUS-guided therapy for GVs is technically feasible and clinically successful in both primary and secondary prophylaxis of GV.

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 Background and Aims: Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) have shown inconsistent effectiveness of FMT among IBD patients. This study aimed to appraise the evidence for clinically relevant outcomes with FMT in IBD patients using published SRMAs. Methods: We searched major databases from inception through Nov 2023 to identify SRMAs assessing the effectiveness of FMT in IBD patients. Primary outcomes included clinical remission, clinical response, endoscopic remission/response, a composite endpoint, and adverse effects. We included SRMAs investigating FMT's effect in IBD patients using RCTs and observational studies data. Methodological quality and evidence certainty were assessed using AMSTAR 2 and GRADE. Results: Out of 106 citations, 16 SRMAs were included with varying study sizes (2 to 60 primary studies) and participants (112 to 1169 per SRMA). Five SRMAs assessed FMT in IBD, while 11 focused on Ulcerative Colitis (UC). Seven SRMAs included RCTs only, and nine included both RCTs and observational studies. Methodological quality was critically low in 9 SRMAs (56%) and low in 7 studies (44%). FMT showed clinical remission benefit in all 16 SRMAs, with varying certainty: 3 high, 4 moderate, 4 low, and 5 very low. Endoscopic remission/response was reported in 5 meta-analyses on UC, with 1 high, 3 moderate, and 1 very low certainty. Combined clinical remission and endoscopic response were reported in 3 SRMAs on UC, with 1 low and 2 moderate certainty. Adverse events were reported in 6 SRMAs, with 1 high, 3 moderate, 1 low, and 1 very low certainty. Conclusion: Current evidence shows potential benefits of FMT in IBD, particularly UC, supported by significant associations in 16 meta-analyses. However, poor methodological quality and variability in evidence certainty call for high-quality RCTs to strengthen the evidence.

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.