Endoscopy, Pancreas, & Biliary Tract

The first randomized controlled trial of forceps-assisted cannulation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has shown that this technique can significantly improve the success rate of the procedure.

The results emerged from the small, single-center SOCCER trial of 152 patients recruited from March 2022 to October 2024 and are published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

Both groups had a slightly higher number of female participants, and the mean ages of the participants were 61.9 years in the forceps group and 68.3 years in the no forceps group.

First author Steven M. Hadley Jr, an MD candidate at Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, and colleagues reported that forceps assistance in difficult cannulations yielded significantly higher success rates than no forceps assistance (100% vs 83.9%; P < .001).

The investigators noted that difficult cannulations during ERCP have a frequency of 42%. Cannulation failure is associated with increased morbidity — including longer hospitalization, increased ICU admissions, readmissions, and increased financial cost — as well as mortality rates of up to 10%.

SOCCER defined difficult cannulation as a papilla in or on the rim of a diverticulum, five or more attempts, attempts lasting 5 or more minutes, or two or more unintended pancreatic duct wire passages. Other features were redundant tissue overlaying the papilla or a type 2, 3, or 4 papilla.

The study found forceps assistance also had a nonstatistically significant lower rate of difficult cannulations than no forceps (57.1% vs 69.1%; P = .132). The rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) was similarly low in both groups: 5.7% with forceps vs 3.7% without forceps (P = .705). The no forceps group had significantly more cannulation attempts after randomization than the forceps group (14 vs 8.3; P = .026).

Patients who crossed over to forceps assistance all had successful cannulations.

The technique has long been used to overcome cannulation difficulties, said Timothy B. Gardner, MD, MS, a gastroenterologist at the Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, New Hampshire, and a coauthor of the study. “It was particularly effective for cannulations with redundant tissue limiting access to the papilla,” Gardner told GI & Hepatology News. “We decided to design a randomized trial to determine the extent to which this technique worked. We believed our study would answer an important question that would hopefully lead to an improvement in endoscopy practice.”

While a few case reports and video demos had described the technique, no trials had assessed its effectiveness, Hadley added. “We found the technique to be effective based on our experience, but it was exciting to see that a rigorously designed randomized trial proved that it is indeed a very effective technique to facilitate cannulation.”

Hadley noted the technique does not increase PEP incidence, unlike the commonly used precut sphincterotomy and the double-wire method for difficult cannulations. “As a result, the forceps-assisted technique may be an effective first-line option and may reduce the need for additional, more invasive procedures including surgery and repeat ERCP to obtain the therapeutic intent of the original ERCP.”

The paper outlines the technique’s methodology, he added, “so we believe endoscopists who read the manuscript will be able to start implementing the technique into their practice.”

Commenting on the paper but not involved in it, Christopher J. DiMaio, MD, regional director of Endoscopy for Northwell Health Physician Partners Gastroenterology and a gastroenterologist in Greenlawn, New York, called it potentially helpful but aimed at a niche group of expert practitioners. “The technique appears safe and very effective, which is the number one concern, and I would definitely keep it in my back pocket,” he said. “I expect it will be used more commonly now because of this study.”

He added that although expert endoscopists are familiar with the approach, they use more time-tested and sometimes more aggressive maneuvers to cope with difficult cannulations. “But this is a simple technique using a device that should be available to most high-volume endoscopists.”

DiMaio also noted that he would have liked to see an actual decrease in PEP incidence in the intervention group.

Looking ahead, Hadley said it would be interesting to compare the effectiveness of the double-wire technique against forceps-assisted cannulation in a randomized context. “A study we’re already looking into is seeing whether physician experience with the technique impacts outcomes.”

This study was supported by the American College of Gastroenterology. The authors and DiMaio reported having no relevant competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first randomized controlled trial of forceps-assisted cannulation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has shown that this technique can significantly improve the success rate of the procedure.

The results emerged from the small, single-center SOCCER trial of 152 patients recruited from March 2022 to October 2024 and are published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

Both groups had a slightly higher number of female participants, and the mean ages of the participants were 61.9 years in the forceps group and 68.3 years in the no forceps group.

First author Steven M. Hadley Jr, an MD candidate at Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, and colleagues reported that forceps assistance in difficult cannulations yielded significantly higher success rates than no forceps assistance (100% vs 83.9%; P < .001).

The investigators noted that difficult cannulations during ERCP have a frequency of 42%. Cannulation failure is associated with increased morbidity — including longer hospitalization, increased ICU admissions, readmissions, and increased financial cost — as well as mortality rates of up to 10%.

SOCCER defined difficult cannulation as a papilla in or on the rim of a diverticulum, five or more attempts, attempts lasting 5 or more minutes, or two or more unintended pancreatic duct wire passages. Other features were redundant tissue overlaying the papilla or a type 2, 3, or 4 papilla.

The study found forceps assistance also had a nonstatistically significant lower rate of difficult cannulations than no forceps (57.1% vs 69.1%; P = .132). The rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) was similarly low in both groups: 5.7% with forceps vs 3.7% without forceps (P = .705). The no forceps group had significantly more cannulation attempts after randomization than the forceps group (14 vs 8.3; P = .026).

Patients who crossed over to forceps assistance all had successful cannulations.

The technique has long been used to overcome cannulation difficulties, said Timothy B. Gardner, MD, MS, a gastroenterologist at the Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, New Hampshire, and a coauthor of the study. “It was particularly effective for cannulations with redundant tissue limiting access to the papilla,” Gardner told GI & Hepatology News. “We decided to design a randomized trial to determine the extent to which this technique worked. We believed our study would answer an important question that would hopefully lead to an improvement in endoscopy practice.”

While a few case reports and video demos had described the technique, no trials had assessed its effectiveness, Hadley added. “We found the technique to be effective based on our experience, but it was exciting to see that a rigorously designed randomized trial proved that it is indeed a very effective technique to facilitate cannulation.”

Hadley noted the technique does not increase PEP incidence, unlike the commonly used precut sphincterotomy and the double-wire method for difficult cannulations. “As a result, the forceps-assisted technique may be an effective first-line option and may reduce the need for additional, more invasive procedures including surgery and repeat ERCP to obtain the therapeutic intent of the original ERCP.”

The paper outlines the technique’s methodology, he added, “so we believe endoscopists who read the manuscript will be able to start implementing the technique into their practice.”

Commenting on the paper but not involved in it, Christopher J. DiMaio, MD, regional director of Endoscopy for Northwell Health Physician Partners Gastroenterology and a gastroenterologist in Greenlawn, New York, called it potentially helpful but aimed at a niche group of expert practitioners. “The technique appears safe and very effective, which is the number one concern, and I would definitely keep it in my back pocket,” he said. “I expect it will be used more commonly now because of this study.”

He added that although expert endoscopists are familiar with the approach, they use more time-tested and sometimes more aggressive maneuvers to cope with difficult cannulations. “But this is a simple technique using a device that should be available to most high-volume endoscopists.”

DiMaio also noted that he would have liked to see an actual decrease in PEP incidence in the intervention group.

Looking ahead, Hadley said it would be interesting to compare the effectiveness of the double-wire technique against forceps-assisted cannulation in a randomized context. “A study we’re already looking into is seeing whether physician experience with the technique impacts outcomes.”

This study was supported by the American College of Gastroenterology. The authors and DiMaio reported having no relevant competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first randomized controlled trial of forceps-assisted cannulation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has shown that this technique can significantly improve the success rate of the procedure.

The results emerged from the small, single-center SOCCER trial of 152 patients recruited from March 2022 to October 2024 and are published in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

Both groups had a slightly higher number of female participants, and the mean ages of the participants were 61.9 years in the forceps group and 68.3 years in the no forceps group.

First author Steven M. Hadley Jr, an MD candidate at Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, and colleagues reported that forceps assistance in difficult cannulations yielded significantly higher success rates than no forceps assistance (100% vs 83.9%; P < .001).

The investigators noted that difficult cannulations during ERCP have a frequency of 42%. Cannulation failure is associated with increased morbidity — including longer hospitalization, increased ICU admissions, readmissions, and increased financial cost — as well as mortality rates of up to 10%.

SOCCER defined difficult cannulation as a papilla in or on the rim of a diverticulum, five or more attempts, attempts lasting 5 or more minutes, or two or more unintended pancreatic duct wire passages. Other features were redundant tissue overlaying the papilla or a type 2, 3, or 4 papilla.

The study found forceps assistance also had a nonstatistically significant lower rate of difficult cannulations than no forceps (57.1% vs 69.1%; P = .132). The rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) was similarly low in both groups: 5.7% with forceps vs 3.7% without forceps (P = .705). The no forceps group had significantly more cannulation attempts after randomization than the forceps group (14 vs 8.3; P = .026).

Patients who crossed over to forceps assistance all had successful cannulations.

The technique has long been used to overcome cannulation difficulties, said Timothy B. Gardner, MD, MS, a gastroenterologist at the Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, New Hampshire, and a coauthor of the study. “It was particularly effective for cannulations with redundant tissue limiting access to the papilla,” Gardner told GI & Hepatology News. “We decided to design a randomized trial to determine the extent to which this technique worked. We believed our study would answer an important question that would hopefully lead to an improvement in endoscopy practice.”

While a few case reports and video demos had described the technique, no trials had assessed its effectiveness, Hadley added. “We found the technique to be effective based on our experience, but it was exciting to see that a rigorously designed randomized trial proved that it is indeed a very effective technique to facilitate cannulation.”

Hadley noted the technique does not increase PEP incidence, unlike the commonly used precut sphincterotomy and the double-wire method for difficult cannulations. “As a result, the forceps-assisted technique may be an effective first-line option and may reduce the need for additional, more invasive procedures including surgery and repeat ERCP to obtain the therapeutic intent of the original ERCP.”

The paper outlines the technique’s methodology, he added, “so we believe endoscopists who read the manuscript will be able to start implementing the technique into their practice.”

Commenting on the paper but not involved in it, Christopher J. DiMaio, MD, regional director of Endoscopy for Northwell Health Physician Partners Gastroenterology and a gastroenterologist in Greenlawn, New York, called it potentially helpful but aimed at a niche group of expert practitioners. “The technique appears safe and very effective, which is the number one concern, and I would definitely keep it in my back pocket,” he said. “I expect it will be used more commonly now because of this study.”

He added that although expert endoscopists are familiar with the approach, they use more time-tested and sometimes more aggressive maneuvers to cope with difficult cannulations. “But this is a simple technique using a device that should be available to most high-volume endoscopists.”

DiMaio also noted that he would have liked to see an actual decrease in PEP incidence in the intervention group.

Looking ahead, Hadley said it would be interesting to compare the effectiveness of the double-wire technique against forceps-assisted cannulation in a randomized context. “A study we’re already looking into is seeing whether physician experience with the technique impacts outcomes.”

This study was supported by the American College of Gastroenterology. The authors and DiMaio reported having no relevant competing interests.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Like diners saving on drinks, endoscopists can safely forgo sterile water in favor of tap, reducing both environmental and financial costs, according to a recent narrative review.

“No direct evidence supports the recommendation and widespread use of sterile water during gastrointestinal endosco-py procedures,” lead author Deepak Agrawal, MD, chief of gastroenterology & hepatology at the Dell Medical School, University Texas at Austin, and colleagues, wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “Guidelines recommending sterile water during endoscopy are based on limited evidence and mostly expert opinions.”

After reviewing the literature back to 1975, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues considered the use of sterile water in endoscopy via three frameworks: medical evidence and guidelines, environmental and broader health effects, and financial costs.

Only 2 studies – both from the 1990s – directly compared sterile and tap water use in endoscopy. Neither showed an increased risk of infection from tap water. In fact, some cultures from allegedly sterile water bottles grew pathogenic bacteria, while no patient complications were reported in either study.

“The recommendations for sterile water contradict observations in other medical care scenarios, for example, for the irrigation of open wounds,” Dr. Agrawal and colleagues noted. “Similarly, there is no benefit in using sterile water for enteral feeds in immunosuppressed patients, and tap water enemas are routinely acceptable for colon cleansing before sigmoidoscopies in all patients, irrespective of immune status.”

Current guidelines, including the 2021 US multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes and accessories, recommend sterile water for procedures involving mucosal penetration but acknowledge low-quality supporting evidence. These recommendations are based on outdated studies, some unrelated to GI endoscopy, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues pointed out, and rely heavily on cross-referenced opinion statements rather than clinical data.

They went on to suggest a concerning possibility: all those plastic bottles may actually cause more health problems than prevent them. The review estimates that the production and transportation of sterile water bottles contributes over 6,000 metric tons of emissions per year from US endoscopy units alone. What’s more, as discarded bottles break down, they release greenhouse gases and microplastics, the latter of which have been linked to cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and endocrine disruption.

Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also underscored the financial toxicity of sterile water bottles. Considering a 1-liter bottle of sterile water costs $3-10, an endoscopy unit performing 30 procedures per day spends approximately $1,000-3,000 per month on bottled water alone. Scaled nationally, the routine use of sterile water costs tens of millions of dollars each year, not counting indirect expenses associated with stocking and waste disposal.

Considering the dubious clinical upside against the apparent environmental and financial downsides, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues urged endoscopy units to rethink routine sterile water use. 

They proposed a pragmatic model: start the day with a new sterile or reusable bottle, refill with tap water for subsequent cases, and recycle the bottle at day’s end. Institutions should ensure their tap water meets safety standards, they added, such as those outlined in the Joint Commission’s 2022 R3 Report on standards for water management.

Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also called on GI societies to revise existing guidance to reflect today’s clinical and environmental realities. Until strong evidence supports the need for sterile water, they wrote, the smarter, safer, and more sustainable option may be simply turning on the tap.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Guardant, Exact Sciences, Freenome, and others.
 

Like diners saving on drinks, endoscopists can safely forgo sterile water in favor of tap, reducing both environmental and financial costs, according to a recent narrative review.

“No direct evidence supports the recommendation and widespread use of sterile water during gastrointestinal endosco-py procedures,” lead author Deepak Agrawal, MD, chief of gastroenterology & hepatology at the Dell Medical School, University Texas at Austin, and colleagues, wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “Guidelines recommending sterile water during endoscopy are based on limited evidence and mostly expert opinions.”

After reviewing the literature back to 1975, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues considered the use of sterile water in endoscopy via three frameworks: medical evidence and guidelines, environmental and broader health effects, and financial costs.

Only 2 studies – both from the 1990s – directly compared sterile and tap water use in endoscopy. Neither showed an increased risk of infection from tap water. In fact, some cultures from allegedly sterile water bottles grew pathogenic bacteria, while no patient complications were reported in either study.

“The recommendations for sterile water contradict observations in other medical care scenarios, for example, for the irrigation of open wounds,” Dr. Agrawal and colleagues noted. “Similarly, there is no benefit in using sterile water for enteral feeds in immunosuppressed patients, and tap water enemas are routinely acceptable for colon cleansing before sigmoidoscopies in all patients, irrespective of immune status.”

Current guidelines, including the 2021 US multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes and accessories, recommend sterile water for procedures involving mucosal penetration but acknowledge low-quality supporting evidence. These recommendations are based on outdated studies, some unrelated to GI endoscopy, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues pointed out, and rely heavily on cross-referenced opinion statements rather than clinical data.

They went on to suggest a concerning possibility: all those plastic bottles may actually cause more health problems than prevent them. The review estimates that the production and transportation of sterile water bottles contributes over 6,000 metric tons of emissions per year from US endoscopy units alone. What’s more, as discarded bottles break down, they release greenhouse gases and microplastics, the latter of which have been linked to cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and endocrine disruption.

Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also underscored the financial toxicity of sterile water bottles. Considering a 1-liter bottle of sterile water costs $3-10, an endoscopy unit performing 30 procedures per day spends approximately $1,000-3,000 per month on bottled water alone. Scaled nationally, the routine use of sterile water costs tens of millions of dollars each year, not counting indirect expenses associated with stocking and waste disposal.

Considering the dubious clinical upside against the apparent environmental and financial downsides, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues urged endoscopy units to rethink routine sterile water use. 

They proposed a pragmatic model: start the day with a new sterile or reusable bottle, refill with tap water for subsequent cases, and recycle the bottle at day’s end. Institutions should ensure their tap water meets safety standards, they added, such as those outlined in the Joint Commission’s 2022 R3 Report on standards for water management.

Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also called on GI societies to revise existing guidance to reflect today’s clinical and environmental realities. Until strong evidence supports the need for sterile water, they wrote, the smarter, safer, and more sustainable option may be simply turning on the tap.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Guardant, Exact Sciences, Freenome, and others.
 

Like diners saving on drinks, endoscopists can safely forgo sterile water in favor of tap, reducing both environmental and financial costs, according to a recent narrative review.

“No direct evidence supports the recommendation and widespread use of sterile water during gastrointestinal endosco-py procedures,” lead author Deepak Agrawal, MD, chief of gastroenterology & hepatology at the Dell Medical School, University Texas at Austin, and colleagues, wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “Guidelines recommending sterile water during endoscopy are based on limited evidence and mostly expert opinions.”

After reviewing the literature back to 1975, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues considered the use of sterile water in endoscopy via three frameworks: medical evidence and guidelines, environmental and broader health effects, and financial costs.

Only 2 studies – both from the 1990s – directly compared sterile and tap water use in endoscopy. Neither showed an increased risk of infection from tap water. In fact, some cultures from allegedly sterile water bottles grew pathogenic bacteria, while no patient complications were reported in either study.

“The recommendations for sterile water contradict observations in other medical care scenarios, for example, for the irrigation of open wounds,” Dr. Agrawal and colleagues noted. “Similarly, there is no benefit in using sterile water for enteral feeds in immunosuppressed patients, and tap water enemas are routinely acceptable for colon cleansing before sigmoidoscopies in all patients, irrespective of immune status.”

Current guidelines, including the 2021 US multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes and accessories, recommend sterile water for procedures involving mucosal penetration but acknowledge low-quality supporting evidence. These recommendations are based on outdated studies, some unrelated to GI endoscopy, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues pointed out, and rely heavily on cross-referenced opinion statements rather than clinical data.

They went on to suggest a concerning possibility: all those plastic bottles may actually cause more health problems than prevent them. The review estimates that the production and transportation of sterile water bottles contributes over 6,000 metric tons of emissions per year from US endoscopy units alone. What’s more, as discarded bottles break down, they release greenhouse gases and microplastics, the latter of which have been linked to cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and endocrine disruption.

Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also underscored the financial toxicity of sterile water bottles. Considering a 1-liter bottle of sterile water costs $3-10, an endoscopy unit performing 30 procedures per day spends approximately $1,000-3,000 per month on bottled water alone. Scaled nationally, the routine use of sterile water costs tens of millions of dollars each year, not counting indirect expenses associated with stocking and waste disposal.

Considering the dubious clinical upside against the apparent environmental and financial downsides, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues urged endoscopy units to rethink routine sterile water use. 

They proposed a pragmatic model: start the day with a new sterile or reusable bottle, refill with tap water for subsequent cases, and recycle the bottle at day’s end. Institutions should ensure their tap water meets safety standards, they added, such as those outlined in the Joint Commission’s 2022 R3 Report on standards for water management.

Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also called on GI societies to revise existing guidance to reflect today’s clinical and environmental realities. Until strong evidence supports the need for sterile water, they wrote, the smarter, safer, and more sustainable option may be simply turning on the tap.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Guardant, Exact Sciences, Freenome, and others.
 

Low rates of retained gastric contents were seen in endoscopy patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists ( RAs), a retrospective multicenter cross-sectional analysis reported in The American Journal of Gastroenterology. Moreover, most instances occurred in patients using the drugs for type 2 diabetes (T2D) rather than for weight loss alone.

The findings suggest adopting an individualized approach rather than universal preoperative withholding of GLP-1 RAs before endoscopy, concluded Jennifer Phan, MD, medical director of the Hoag Advanced Endoscopy Center in Newport Beach, California, and colleagues. These agents are associated with slowed gastric emptying, possibly raising the risk for pulmonary aspiration. The study identified comorbid uncontrolled T2D as a risk factor for retained gastric contents.

Recommendations from gastroenterological societies and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) differ regarding pre-endoscopic holding of these ubiquitous agents used for obesity and T2D. “Many patients undergo routine endoscopic procedures, and there was concern from the anesthesia safety perspective for retained gastric contents,” Phan told GI & Hepatology News. “At first these events were seen in a handful of cases; however, out of precaution this resulted in a statement from the ASA recommending that patients hold their GLP-1 medications for at least 1 week prior to a routine endoscopic procedure.”

That guidance resulted in protocol changes within endoscopy units, cancelled procedures, and potential delays in patient care. “We wanted to study whether this concern was clinically valid and to help identify which subgroup of patients are at highest risk in order to best inform anesthesia and endoscopy practices,” Phan added.

The ASA updated its guidance in 2023.

The current study aligns with other research showing that rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents are < 10%, Phan said. For instance, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) published a rapid clinical practice update in November 2023 that found insufficient evidence to support patients stopping the medications before endoscopic procedures. AGA guidance suggests an individual approach for each patient on a GLP-1 RA rather than a blanket statement on how to manage all patients taking the medications.

“Our initial hypothesis was that the rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents in patients on GLP-1 RA medications would be low,” Phan noted. “This was born out of anecdotal experience of the limited number of aborted procedures we experienced before the ASA statement.” 

Her group also hypothesized that the indication for which the GLP-1 RA was prescribed would be important, with patients taking GLP-1 RA medications for diabetes potentially having a higher likelihood of retained contents given the concomitant propensity for delayed gastric motility related to uncontrolled hyperglycemia.

 

The Study

The investigators identified 815 patients on confirmed GLP-1 RA medications of various types receiving endoscopy from 2021 to 2023 at four centers. Demographics, prescribing practices, and procedure outcomes were captured. GLP-1 RA management of preoperative holding was retroactively classified per ASA guidance.

Of the 815 patients (mean age, 67.7 years; 57.7% women; 53.9% White individuals), 70 (8.7%) exhibited retained gastric contents on endoscopy. Of these 65 (93%) had T2D with a median A1c of 6.5%. Among those with retained contents, most had a minimal (10, 14.3%) or moderate (31, 44.3%) amount of food retained, although 29 (41.4%) had a large quantity. Only one patient required unplanned intubation because of a large quantity of residual content, and none had aspiration events.

In multivariate analysis, the odds ratio of retention in those with diabetes was 4.1. “Given the predominance of diabetes in those with retained gastric contents, we highlight the potential to risk-stratify patients who require further preprocedural consideration,” the authors wrote.

Those with GLP-1 RA held per ASA guidance (406, 49.8%) were less likely to have retained contents (4.4% vs 12.7%; P < .001), but no significant differences for intubation (0% vs 2%; P = .53) or aborting procedure rates (28% vs 18%; P = .40) due to gastric retention were observed.

On multivariable analysis, the likelihood of food retention increased by 36% (95% CI, 1.15-1.60) for every 1% increase in glycosylated hemoglobin after adjusting for GLP-1 RA type and preoperative medication hold.

“Our study can help to differentiate which patients can be at largest risk for retained gastric contents,” Phan said, noting the impact of increasing percentages of A1C. “There’s a 36% increased likelihood of food retention in patients on GLP-1 medications, so a blanket policy to hold GLP-1s in patients who are nondiabetic and taking the medication for obesity may not be the best approach. But if patients have uncontrolled hyperglycemia, then an approach of caution is clinically valid.” In that context, holding the GLP-1 RA injection or lengthening the preoperative clear-liquid diet policy should be considered.

She noted that the study results are generalizable because the study was conducted across multiple types of hospital systems, both university and county, and included all types of GLP-1 RA.

Offering an anesthesiologist’s perspective on the study, Paul Potnuru, MD, an assistant professor in the Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine at UTHealth Houston and not involved in the study, called the findings “somewhat reassuring” but said the risk for aspiration was still a consideration.

A recent review, however, reported that the risk for GLP-1 RA-associated pulmonary aspiration was low.

Potnuru acknowledged that the original ASA guidance on preoperative GLP-1 RA cessation led to some confusion. “There were not a lot of data on the issue, but some studies found that even with stopping GLP-1s 2 weeks preoperatively some patients still retained gastric content,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

A study at his center recently reported that 56% of GLP-1 RA users had increased pre-anesthesia residual gastric content compared with 19% of nonusers.

From the anesthesiologist’s clinical vantage point, the margin of safety is an issue even if aspiration risk is low. “If there’s a 1 in 1000 chance or even a 1 in 3000 chance, that can be considered too high,” Potnuru said.

He further noted that the current study included only 815 patients, not nearly enough for definitive data. In addition, a retrospective study based on medical records can’t really capture all the real-world procedural changes made in the operating room. “It’s common for anesthesiologists not to document all cases of intubation, for example,” he said.

While the ideal is a completely empty stomach, he agreed that a practical alternative to stopping GLP-1 RA therapy, especially that prescribed for diabetes, would be a 24-hour liquid diet, which would clear the stomach quickly. “If you stop these drugs in patients taking them for diabetes, you get a worsening of their glycemic control,” he said.

He noted that patients have different risk tolerances, with some willing to go ahead even if ultrasound shows gastric retention, while some opt to cancel.

Prospective studies are needed, Potnuru added, “because you find more if you know what you’re looking for.” His center is starting a clinical trial in 150 patients to assess the impact of a 24-hour, liquids-only diet on gastric retention.

According to Phan, other research is following GLP-1 RA users undergoing colonoscopy. “Future studies can look at the added value of point-of-care abdominal ultrasound to see if it increases precision preoperative management in these patients on GLP-1 medications.”

Other groups are examining the safety of these agents in the general context of sedation. “It’s worth noting that the studies are being done on currently available medications and may not apply to future medications such as triple agonists or anti-amylins that may come on the market in the near future,” Phan said.

This study received no financial support. Neither the study authors nor Potnuru had any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Low rates of retained gastric contents were seen in endoscopy patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists ( RAs), a retrospective multicenter cross-sectional analysis reported in The American Journal of Gastroenterology. Moreover, most instances occurred in patients using the drugs for type 2 diabetes (T2D) rather than for weight loss alone.

The findings suggest adopting an individualized approach rather than universal preoperative withholding of GLP-1 RAs before endoscopy, concluded Jennifer Phan, MD, medical director of the Hoag Advanced Endoscopy Center in Newport Beach, California, and colleagues. These agents are associated with slowed gastric emptying, possibly raising the risk for pulmonary aspiration. The study identified comorbid uncontrolled T2D as a risk factor for retained gastric contents.

Recommendations from gastroenterological societies and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) differ regarding pre-endoscopic holding of these ubiquitous agents used for obesity and T2D. “Many patients undergo routine endoscopic procedures, and there was concern from the anesthesia safety perspective for retained gastric contents,” Phan told GI & Hepatology News. “At first these events were seen in a handful of cases; however, out of precaution this resulted in a statement from the ASA recommending that patients hold their GLP-1 medications for at least 1 week prior to a routine endoscopic procedure.”

That guidance resulted in protocol changes within endoscopy units, cancelled procedures, and potential delays in patient care. “We wanted to study whether this concern was clinically valid and to help identify which subgroup of patients are at highest risk in order to best inform anesthesia and endoscopy practices,” Phan added.

The ASA updated its guidance in 2023.

The current study aligns with other research showing that rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents are < 10%, Phan said. For instance, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) published a rapid clinical practice update in November 2023 that found insufficient evidence to support patients stopping the medications before endoscopic procedures. AGA guidance suggests an individual approach for each patient on a GLP-1 RA rather than a blanket statement on how to manage all patients taking the medications.

“Our initial hypothesis was that the rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents in patients on GLP-1 RA medications would be low,” Phan noted. “This was born out of anecdotal experience of the limited number of aborted procedures we experienced before the ASA statement.” 

Her group also hypothesized that the indication for which the GLP-1 RA was prescribed would be important, with patients taking GLP-1 RA medications for diabetes potentially having a higher likelihood of retained contents given the concomitant propensity for delayed gastric motility related to uncontrolled hyperglycemia.

 

The Study

The investigators identified 815 patients on confirmed GLP-1 RA medications of various types receiving endoscopy from 2021 to 2023 at four centers. Demographics, prescribing practices, and procedure outcomes were captured. GLP-1 RA management of preoperative holding was retroactively classified per ASA guidance.

Of the 815 patients (mean age, 67.7 years; 57.7% women; 53.9% White individuals), 70 (8.7%) exhibited retained gastric contents on endoscopy. Of these 65 (93%) had T2D with a median A1c of 6.5%. Among those with retained contents, most had a minimal (10, 14.3%) or moderate (31, 44.3%) amount of food retained, although 29 (41.4%) had a large quantity. Only one patient required unplanned intubation because of a large quantity of residual content, and none had aspiration events.

In multivariate analysis, the odds ratio of retention in those with diabetes was 4.1. “Given the predominance of diabetes in those with retained gastric contents, we highlight the potential to risk-stratify patients who require further preprocedural consideration,” the authors wrote.

Those with GLP-1 RA held per ASA guidance (406, 49.8%) were less likely to have retained contents (4.4% vs 12.7%; P < .001), but no significant differences for intubation (0% vs 2%; P = .53) or aborting procedure rates (28% vs 18%; P = .40) due to gastric retention were observed.

On multivariable analysis, the likelihood of food retention increased by 36% (95% CI, 1.15-1.60) for every 1% increase in glycosylated hemoglobin after adjusting for GLP-1 RA type and preoperative medication hold.

“Our study can help to differentiate which patients can be at largest risk for retained gastric contents,” Phan said, noting the impact of increasing percentages of A1C. “There’s a 36% increased likelihood of food retention in patients on GLP-1 medications, so a blanket policy to hold GLP-1s in patients who are nondiabetic and taking the medication for obesity may not be the best approach. But if patients have uncontrolled hyperglycemia, then an approach of caution is clinically valid.” In that context, holding the GLP-1 RA injection or lengthening the preoperative clear-liquid diet policy should be considered.

She noted that the study results are generalizable because the study was conducted across multiple types of hospital systems, both university and county, and included all types of GLP-1 RA.

Offering an anesthesiologist’s perspective on the study, Paul Potnuru, MD, an assistant professor in the Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine at UTHealth Houston and not involved in the study, called the findings “somewhat reassuring” but said the risk for aspiration was still a consideration.

A recent review, however, reported that the risk for GLP-1 RA-associated pulmonary aspiration was low.

Potnuru acknowledged that the original ASA guidance on preoperative GLP-1 RA cessation led to some confusion. “There were not a lot of data on the issue, but some studies found that even with stopping GLP-1s 2 weeks preoperatively some patients still retained gastric content,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

A study at his center recently reported that 56% of GLP-1 RA users had increased pre-anesthesia residual gastric content compared with 19% of nonusers.

From the anesthesiologist’s clinical vantage point, the margin of safety is an issue even if aspiration risk is low. “If there’s a 1 in 1000 chance or even a 1 in 3000 chance, that can be considered too high,” Potnuru said.

He further noted that the current study included only 815 patients, not nearly enough for definitive data. In addition, a retrospective study based on medical records can’t really capture all the real-world procedural changes made in the operating room. “It’s common for anesthesiologists not to document all cases of intubation, for example,” he said.

While the ideal is a completely empty stomach, he agreed that a practical alternative to stopping GLP-1 RA therapy, especially that prescribed for diabetes, would be a 24-hour liquid diet, which would clear the stomach quickly. “If you stop these drugs in patients taking them for diabetes, you get a worsening of their glycemic control,” he said.

He noted that patients have different risk tolerances, with some willing to go ahead even if ultrasound shows gastric retention, while some opt to cancel.

Prospective studies are needed, Potnuru added, “because you find more if you know what you’re looking for.” His center is starting a clinical trial in 150 patients to assess the impact of a 24-hour, liquids-only diet on gastric retention.

According to Phan, other research is following GLP-1 RA users undergoing colonoscopy. “Future studies can look at the added value of point-of-care abdominal ultrasound to see if it increases precision preoperative management in these patients on GLP-1 medications.”

Other groups are examining the safety of these agents in the general context of sedation. “It’s worth noting that the studies are being done on currently available medications and may not apply to future medications such as triple agonists or anti-amylins that may come on the market in the near future,” Phan said.

This study received no financial support. Neither the study authors nor Potnuru had any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Low rates of retained gastric contents were seen in endoscopy patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists ( RAs), a retrospective multicenter cross-sectional analysis reported in The American Journal of Gastroenterology. Moreover, most instances occurred in patients using the drugs for type 2 diabetes (T2D) rather than for weight loss alone.

The findings suggest adopting an individualized approach rather than universal preoperative withholding of GLP-1 RAs before endoscopy, concluded Jennifer Phan, MD, medical director of the Hoag Advanced Endoscopy Center in Newport Beach, California, and colleagues. These agents are associated with slowed gastric emptying, possibly raising the risk for pulmonary aspiration. The study identified comorbid uncontrolled T2D as a risk factor for retained gastric contents.

Recommendations from gastroenterological societies and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) differ regarding pre-endoscopic holding of these ubiquitous agents used for obesity and T2D. “Many patients undergo routine endoscopic procedures, and there was concern from the anesthesia safety perspective for retained gastric contents,” Phan told GI & Hepatology News. “At first these events were seen in a handful of cases; however, out of precaution this resulted in a statement from the ASA recommending that patients hold their GLP-1 medications for at least 1 week prior to a routine endoscopic procedure.”

That guidance resulted in protocol changes within endoscopy units, cancelled procedures, and potential delays in patient care. “We wanted to study whether this concern was clinically valid and to help identify which subgroup of patients are at highest risk in order to best inform anesthesia and endoscopy practices,” Phan added.

The ASA updated its guidance in 2023.

The current study aligns with other research showing that rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents are < 10%, Phan said. For instance, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) published a rapid clinical practice update in November 2023 that found insufficient evidence to support patients stopping the medications before endoscopic procedures. AGA guidance suggests an individual approach for each patient on a GLP-1 RA rather than a blanket statement on how to manage all patients taking the medications.

“Our initial hypothesis was that the rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents in patients on GLP-1 RA medications would be low,” Phan noted. “This was born out of anecdotal experience of the limited number of aborted procedures we experienced before the ASA statement.” 

Her group also hypothesized that the indication for which the GLP-1 RA was prescribed would be important, with patients taking GLP-1 RA medications for diabetes potentially having a higher likelihood of retained contents given the concomitant propensity for delayed gastric motility related to uncontrolled hyperglycemia.

 

The Study

The investigators identified 815 patients on confirmed GLP-1 RA medications of various types receiving endoscopy from 2021 to 2023 at four centers. Demographics, prescribing practices, and procedure outcomes were captured. GLP-1 RA management of preoperative holding was retroactively classified per ASA guidance.

Of the 815 patients (mean age, 67.7 years; 57.7% women; 53.9% White individuals), 70 (8.7%) exhibited retained gastric contents on endoscopy. Of these 65 (93%) had T2D with a median A1c of 6.5%. Among those with retained contents, most had a minimal (10, 14.3%) or moderate (31, 44.3%) amount of food retained, although 29 (41.4%) had a large quantity. Only one patient required unplanned intubation because of a large quantity of residual content, and none had aspiration events.

In multivariate analysis, the odds ratio of retention in those with diabetes was 4.1. “Given the predominance of diabetes in those with retained gastric contents, we highlight the potential to risk-stratify patients who require further preprocedural consideration,” the authors wrote.

Those with GLP-1 RA held per ASA guidance (406, 49.8%) were less likely to have retained contents (4.4% vs 12.7%; P < .001), but no significant differences for intubation (0% vs 2%; P = .53) or aborting procedure rates (28% vs 18%; P = .40) due to gastric retention were observed.

On multivariable analysis, the likelihood of food retention increased by 36% (95% CI, 1.15-1.60) for every 1% increase in glycosylated hemoglobin after adjusting for GLP-1 RA type and preoperative medication hold.

“Our study can help to differentiate which patients can be at largest risk for retained gastric contents,” Phan said, noting the impact of increasing percentages of A1C. “There’s a 36% increased likelihood of food retention in patients on GLP-1 medications, so a blanket policy to hold GLP-1s in patients who are nondiabetic and taking the medication for obesity may not be the best approach. But if patients have uncontrolled hyperglycemia, then an approach of caution is clinically valid.” In that context, holding the GLP-1 RA injection or lengthening the preoperative clear-liquid diet policy should be considered.

She noted that the study results are generalizable because the study was conducted across multiple types of hospital systems, both university and county, and included all types of GLP-1 RA.

Offering an anesthesiologist’s perspective on the study, Paul Potnuru, MD, an assistant professor in the Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine at UTHealth Houston and not involved in the study, called the findings “somewhat reassuring” but said the risk for aspiration was still a consideration.

A recent review, however, reported that the risk for GLP-1 RA-associated pulmonary aspiration was low.

Potnuru acknowledged that the original ASA guidance on preoperative GLP-1 RA cessation led to some confusion. “There were not a lot of data on the issue, but some studies found that even with stopping GLP-1s 2 weeks preoperatively some patients still retained gastric content,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

A study at his center recently reported that 56% of GLP-1 RA users had increased pre-anesthesia residual gastric content compared with 19% of nonusers.

From the anesthesiologist’s clinical vantage point, the margin of safety is an issue even if aspiration risk is low. “If there’s a 1 in 1000 chance or even a 1 in 3000 chance, that can be considered too high,” Potnuru said.

He further noted that the current study included only 815 patients, not nearly enough for definitive data. In addition, a retrospective study based on medical records can’t really capture all the real-world procedural changes made in the operating room. “It’s common for anesthesiologists not to document all cases of intubation, for example,” he said.

While the ideal is a completely empty stomach, he agreed that a practical alternative to stopping GLP-1 RA therapy, especially that prescribed for diabetes, would be a 24-hour liquid diet, which would clear the stomach quickly. “If you stop these drugs in patients taking them for diabetes, you get a worsening of their glycemic control,” he said.

He noted that patients have different risk tolerances, with some willing to go ahead even if ultrasound shows gastric retention, while some opt to cancel.

Prospective studies are needed, Potnuru added, “because you find more if you know what you’re looking for.” His center is starting a clinical trial in 150 patients to assess the impact of a 24-hour, liquids-only diet on gastric retention.

According to Phan, other research is following GLP-1 RA users undergoing colonoscopy. “Future studies can look at the added value of point-of-care abdominal ultrasound to see if it increases precision preoperative management in these patients on GLP-1 medications.”

Other groups are examining the safety of these agents in the general context of sedation. “It’s worth noting that the studies are being done on currently available medications and may not apply to future medications such as triple agonists or anti-amylins that may come on the market in the near future,” Phan said.

This study received no financial support. Neither the study authors nor Potnuru had any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has released a comprehensive clinical practice update on lifting agents for endoscopic surgery.

Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the commentary reviews available agents and provides clinically relevant commentary on their indications and use — with the caveat that it is not a formal systematic review but rather empirical advice for endoscopists. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations was performed.

Led by Tobias Zuchelli, MD, a clinical associate professor at Michigan State University and a gastroenterologist at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, the expert panel noted that endoscopists are increasingly resecting precancerous lesions and early cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.

“Although new endoscopic procedures have been developed, there had not been much in terms of high-quality guidance on lifting agents,” panelist Amit V. Patel, MD, a professor of medicine at Duke University and director of Endoscopy at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. “With our better understanding and use of techniques, this commentary was timely. It summarizes the available data on the topic and includes our clinical experiences.”

Filling that knowledge gap, the document reviews in detail the timing and methods of agent injection according to procedure type, including the dynamic needle approach, the empirical merits of different agents such as saline (with or without blue contrast) and viscous agents, as well as lift-enhancing assistive devices — for example, the ERBEJET 2 high-pressure water jet, an adjustable hydrosurgical device to facilitate lifting. A chart provides an at-a-glance summary of agents and their pros and cons.

“The feedback from gastroenterologists so far has been quite positive on social media and on GI channels,” Patel said.

Endoscopic resection has evolved from snare polypectomy to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and now, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The primary benefit of submucosal lifting is the creation of a separating submucosal cushion between the lesion and muscularis propria (MP), which reduces the risk for immediate or delayed perforation of the muscle. Adding a contrast agent also demarcates lesion margins and stains the submucosa, which is fundamental to ESD and allows for assessment of MP injury during EMR.

For decades, homemade solutions were used to lift lesions before removal, with the sentinel agent being normal saline, later mixed with a blue contrast agent, usually indigo carmine or methylene blue. The authors noted that some endoscopists performing ESD start the submucosal injection and incision using a prepackaged viscous solution. “The endoscopist may continue with the viscous fluid or transition to saline or another less expensive solution,” they wrote.

Saline tends to dissipate more quickly than viscous solutions, however. In 2015, the polymer compound SIC-8000 became the first FDA-approved submucosal injection agent. Since then, several other fluids have come on the market, although homemade agents remain available.

Among the update’s recommendations, the fluid selected for EMR should be determined by lesion size, predicted histology, and endoscopist preference. Based on the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer, submucosal injection is optional for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRLs) of intermediate size (10-19 mm).

Cold snare polypectomy without submucosal injection was later found to be non-inferior to other resection methods utilizing submucosal injection for NPCRLs ≤ 15 mm. 

The update noted that the USMSTF considers EMR first-line therapy for most NPCRLs ≥ 20 mm and advocates viscous solutions as preferred, while the use of lifting agents for pedunculated polyps is generally at the discretion of the endoscopist.

For Patel, the main “clinical pearls” in the update are adding a contrast agent to normal saline, using a viscous agent for cold EMR, and manipulating the injection needle first tangentially and then dynamically toward the lumen to maximize separation of the lesion.

In terms of the ideal, an optimal lifting solution would be readily available, inexpensive, and premixed, providing a sustained submucosal cushion. “However, this ideal solution currently does not exist. Injection fluids should, therefore, be selected based on planned resection method, predicted histology, local expertise and preferences, and cost,” the panelists wrote.

Added Patel, “A lot of the agents out there check most of these boxes, but we’re hoping for further development toward the ideal.”

Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the overview, Wasseem Skef, MD, a gastroenterologist at UTHealth Houston, found the update very useful. “It always helps to have the literature summarized,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “It’s a pretty balanced review that pulls together the various options but allows people to stick to their preferred practice.”

In his practice, the lifting agent selected depends on the type of resection. “Viscous agents are generally more popular for EMR-type resections,” Skef said. One unanswered question, he noted, is whether adding a hemostatic agent would be superior to a viscous agent alone. “But overall, this is a nice summary of available agents. Gastroenterologists should consider these different options if doing procedures like EMR.”

This review was sponsored by the AGA Institute. 

Zuchelli is a consultant for Boston Scientific. Patel consults for Medpace, Renexxion, and Sanofi. Skef reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com . 

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has released a comprehensive clinical practice update on lifting agents for endoscopic surgery.

Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the commentary reviews available agents and provides clinically relevant commentary on their indications and use — with the caveat that it is not a formal systematic review but rather empirical advice for endoscopists. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations was performed.

Led by Tobias Zuchelli, MD, a clinical associate professor at Michigan State University and a gastroenterologist at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, the expert panel noted that endoscopists are increasingly resecting precancerous lesions and early cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.

“Although new endoscopic procedures have been developed, there had not been much in terms of high-quality guidance on lifting agents,” panelist Amit V. Patel, MD, a professor of medicine at Duke University and director of Endoscopy at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. “With our better understanding and use of techniques, this commentary was timely. It summarizes the available data on the topic and includes our clinical experiences.”

Filling that knowledge gap, the document reviews in detail the timing and methods of agent injection according to procedure type, including the dynamic needle approach, the empirical merits of different agents such as saline (with or without blue contrast) and viscous agents, as well as lift-enhancing assistive devices — for example, the ERBEJET 2 high-pressure water jet, an adjustable hydrosurgical device to facilitate lifting. A chart provides an at-a-glance summary of agents and their pros and cons.

“The feedback from gastroenterologists so far has been quite positive on social media and on GI channels,” Patel said.

Endoscopic resection has evolved from snare polypectomy to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and now, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The primary benefit of submucosal lifting is the creation of a separating submucosal cushion between the lesion and muscularis propria (MP), which reduces the risk for immediate or delayed perforation of the muscle. Adding a contrast agent also demarcates lesion margins and stains the submucosa, which is fundamental to ESD and allows for assessment of MP injury during EMR.

For decades, homemade solutions were used to lift lesions before removal, with the sentinel agent being normal saline, later mixed with a blue contrast agent, usually indigo carmine or methylene blue. The authors noted that some endoscopists performing ESD start the submucosal injection and incision using a prepackaged viscous solution. “The endoscopist may continue with the viscous fluid or transition to saline or another less expensive solution,” they wrote.

Saline tends to dissipate more quickly than viscous solutions, however. In 2015, the polymer compound SIC-8000 became the first FDA-approved submucosal injection agent. Since then, several other fluids have come on the market, although homemade agents remain available.

Among the update’s recommendations, the fluid selected for EMR should be determined by lesion size, predicted histology, and endoscopist preference. Based on the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer, submucosal injection is optional for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRLs) of intermediate size (10-19 mm).

Cold snare polypectomy without submucosal injection was later found to be non-inferior to other resection methods utilizing submucosal injection for NPCRLs ≤ 15 mm. 

The update noted that the USMSTF considers EMR first-line therapy for most NPCRLs ≥ 20 mm and advocates viscous solutions as preferred, while the use of lifting agents for pedunculated polyps is generally at the discretion of the endoscopist.

For Patel, the main “clinical pearls” in the update are adding a contrast agent to normal saline, using a viscous agent for cold EMR, and manipulating the injection needle first tangentially and then dynamically toward the lumen to maximize separation of the lesion.

In terms of the ideal, an optimal lifting solution would be readily available, inexpensive, and premixed, providing a sustained submucosal cushion. “However, this ideal solution currently does not exist. Injection fluids should, therefore, be selected based on planned resection method, predicted histology, local expertise and preferences, and cost,” the panelists wrote.

Added Patel, “A lot of the agents out there check most of these boxes, but we’re hoping for further development toward the ideal.”

Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the overview, Wasseem Skef, MD, a gastroenterologist at UTHealth Houston, found the update very useful. “It always helps to have the literature summarized,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “It’s a pretty balanced review that pulls together the various options but allows people to stick to their preferred practice.”

In his practice, the lifting agent selected depends on the type of resection. “Viscous agents are generally more popular for EMR-type resections,” Skef said. One unanswered question, he noted, is whether adding a hemostatic agent would be superior to a viscous agent alone. “But overall, this is a nice summary of available agents. Gastroenterologists should consider these different options if doing procedures like EMR.”

This review was sponsored by the AGA Institute. 

Zuchelli is a consultant for Boston Scientific. Patel consults for Medpace, Renexxion, and Sanofi. Skef reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com . 

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has released a comprehensive clinical practice update on lifting agents for endoscopic surgery.

Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the commentary reviews available agents and provides clinically relevant commentary on their indications and use — with the caveat that it is not a formal systematic review but rather empirical advice for endoscopists. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations was performed.

Led by Tobias Zuchelli, MD, a clinical associate professor at Michigan State University and a gastroenterologist at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, the expert panel noted that endoscopists are increasingly resecting precancerous lesions and early cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.

“Although new endoscopic procedures have been developed, there had not been much in terms of high-quality guidance on lifting agents,” panelist Amit V. Patel, MD, a professor of medicine at Duke University and director of Endoscopy at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. “With our better understanding and use of techniques, this commentary was timely. It summarizes the available data on the topic and includes our clinical experiences.”

Filling that knowledge gap, the document reviews in detail the timing and methods of agent injection according to procedure type, including the dynamic needle approach, the empirical merits of different agents such as saline (with or without blue contrast) and viscous agents, as well as lift-enhancing assistive devices — for example, the ERBEJET 2 high-pressure water jet, an adjustable hydrosurgical device to facilitate lifting. A chart provides an at-a-glance summary of agents and their pros and cons.

“The feedback from gastroenterologists so far has been quite positive on social media and on GI channels,” Patel said.

Endoscopic resection has evolved from snare polypectomy to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and now, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The primary benefit of submucosal lifting is the creation of a separating submucosal cushion between the lesion and muscularis propria (MP), which reduces the risk for immediate or delayed perforation of the muscle. Adding a contrast agent also demarcates lesion margins and stains the submucosa, which is fundamental to ESD and allows for assessment of MP injury during EMR.

For decades, homemade solutions were used to lift lesions before removal, with the sentinel agent being normal saline, later mixed with a blue contrast agent, usually indigo carmine or methylene blue. The authors noted that some endoscopists performing ESD start the submucosal injection and incision using a prepackaged viscous solution. “The endoscopist may continue with the viscous fluid or transition to saline or another less expensive solution,” they wrote.

Saline tends to dissipate more quickly than viscous solutions, however. In 2015, the polymer compound SIC-8000 became the first FDA-approved submucosal injection agent. Since then, several other fluids have come on the market, although homemade agents remain available.

Among the update’s recommendations, the fluid selected for EMR should be determined by lesion size, predicted histology, and endoscopist preference. Based on the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer, submucosal injection is optional for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRLs) of intermediate size (10-19 mm).

Cold snare polypectomy without submucosal injection was later found to be non-inferior to other resection methods utilizing submucosal injection for NPCRLs ≤ 15 mm. 

The update noted that the USMSTF considers EMR first-line therapy for most NPCRLs ≥ 20 mm and advocates viscous solutions as preferred, while the use of lifting agents for pedunculated polyps is generally at the discretion of the endoscopist.

For Patel, the main “clinical pearls” in the update are adding a contrast agent to normal saline, using a viscous agent for cold EMR, and manipulating the injection needle first tangentially and then dynamically toward the lumen to maximize separation of the lesion.

In terms of the ideal, an optimal lifting solution would be readily available, inexpensive, and premixed, providing a sustained submucosal cushion. “However, this ideal solution currently does not exist. Injection fluids should, therefore, be selected based on planned resection method, predicted histology, local expertise and preferences, and cost,” the panelists wrote.

Added Patel, “A lot of the agents out there check most of these boxes, but we’re hoping for further development toward the ideal.”

Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the overview, Wasseem Skef, MD, a gastroenterologist at UTHealth Houston, found the update very useful. “It always helps to have the literature summarized,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “It’s a pretty balanced review that pulls together the various options but allows people to stick to their preferred practice.”

In his practice, the lifting agent selected depends on the type of resection. “Viscous agents are generally more popular for EMR-type resections,” Skef said. One unanswered question, he noted, is whether adding a hemostatic agent would be superior to a viscous agent alone. “But overall, this is a nice summary of available agents. Gastroenterologists should consider these different options if doing procedures like EMR.”

This review was sponsored by the AGA Institute. 

Zuchelli is a consultant for Boston Scientific. Patel consults for Medpace, Renexxion, and Sanofi. Skef reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com . 

SAN DIEGO — In treating pancreas divisum, the common use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with minor papilla endoscopic sphincterotomy showed no significant benefit over a sham procedure, suggesting that patients can be spared the intervention, which can carry risks of its own.

“This is a topic that has been debated for decades,” said first author Gregory A. Coté, MD, AGAF, Division Head, professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Oregon Health & Science University, in Portland, Oregon.

“Many doctors believe the procedure helps and offer it because we have limited options to help our patients, whereas others believe the procedure is harmful and doesn’t help,” he explained in a press briefing for the late-breaking study, presented at Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2025.

The study’s findings supported the latter argument.

“Patients who underwent ERCP with sphincterotomy were just as likely as those who did not have this procedure to develop acute pancreatitis again,” Coté reported.

While clinical guidelines currently recommend ERCP as treatment for pancreas divisum, “these guidelines are likely to change based on this study,” he said.

Pancreas divisum, occurring in about 7%-10% of people, is an anatomic variation that can represent an obstructive risk factor for acute recurrent pancreatitis.

The common use of ERCP with minor papilla endoscopic sphincterotomy to treat the condition is based on prior retrospective studies showing that in patients who did develop acute pancreatitis, up to 70% with the treatment never developed acute pancreatitis again. However, there have been no studies comparing the use of the treatment with a control group.

Coté and colleagues conducted the multicenter SHARP trial, in which 148 patients with pancreas divisum were enrolled between September 2018 and August 2024 and randomized to receive either ERCP with minor papilla endoscopic sphincterotomy (n = 75) or a sham treatment (n = 73).

The patients, who had a median age of 51 years, had a median of 3 acute pancreatitis episodes prior to randomization.

With a median follow-up of 33.5 months (range, 6-48 months), 34.7% of patients in the ERCP arm experienced an acute pancreatitis incident compared with 43.8% in the sham arm, for a hazard ratio of 0.83 after adjusting for duct size and the number of episodes, which was not a statistically significant difference (P = .27).

A subgroup analysis further showed no indication of a treatment effect based on factors including age, diabetes status, sex, alcohol or tobacco use, or other factors.

“Compared with a sham ERCP group, we found that minor papillotomy did not reduce the risk of acute pancreatitis, incident chronic pancreatitis, endocrine pancreatic insufficiency or diabetes, or pancreas-related pain events,” Coté said.

The findings are particularly important because the treatment itself is associated with some risks, he added.

“Ironically, the problem with this procedure is that it can cause acute pancreatitis in 10%-20% of patients and may instigate other issues later,” such as the development of scarring of the pancreas related to incisions in the procedure.

“No one wants to offer an expensive procedure that has its own risks if it doesn’t help,” Coté said.

Based on the findings, “pancreas divisum anatomy should no longer be considered an indication for ERCP, even for idiopathic acute pancreatitis,” he concluded.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In treating pancreas divisum, the common use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with minor papilla endoscopic sphincterotomy showed no significant benefit over a sham procedure, suggesting that patients can be spared the intervention, which can carry risks of its own.

“This is a topic that has been debated for decades,” said first author Gregory A. Coté, MD, AGAF, Division Head, professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Oregon Health & Science University, in Portland, Oregon.

“Many doctors believe the procedure helps and offer it because we have limited options to help our patients, whereas others believe the procedure is harmful and doesn’t help,” he explained in a press briefing for the late-breaking study, presented at Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2025.

The study’s findings supported the latter argument.

“Patients who underwent ERCP with sphincterotomy were just as likely as those who did not have this procedure to develop acute pancreatitis again,” Coté reported.

While clinical guidelines currently recommend ERCP as treatment for pancreas divisum, “these guidelines are likely to change based on this study,” he said.

Pancreas divisum, occurring in about 7%-10% of people, is an anatomic variation that can represent an obstructive risk factor for acute recurrent pancreatitis.

The common use of ERCP with minor papilla endoscopic sphincterotomy to treat the condition is based on prior retrospective studies showing that in patients who did develop acute pancreatitis, up to 70% with the treatment never developed acute pancreatitis again. However, there have been no studies comparing the use of the treatment with a control group.

Coté and colleagues conducted the multicenter SHARP trial, in which 148 patients with pancreas divisum were enrolled between September 2018 and August 2024 and randomized to receive either ERCP with minor papilla endoscopic sphincterotomy (n = 75) or a sham treatment (n = 73).

The patients, who had a median age of 51 years, had a median of 3 acute pancreatitis episodes prior to randomization.

With a median follow-up of 33.5 months (range, 6-48 months), 34.7% of patients in the ERCP arm experienced an acute pancreatitis incident compared with 43.8% in the sham arm, for a hazard ratio of 0.83 after adjusting for duct size and the number of episodes, which was not a statistically significant difference (P = .27).

A subgroup analysis further showed no indication of a treatment effect based on factors including age, diabetes status, sex, alcohol or tobacco use, or other factors.

“Compared with a sham ERCP group, we found that minor papillotomy did not reduce the risk of acute pancreatitis, incident chronic pancreatitis, endocrine pancreatic insufficiency or diabetes, or pancreas-related pain events,” Coté said.

The findings are particularly important because the treatment itself is associated with some risks, he added.

“Ironically, the problem with this procedure is that it can cause acute pancreatitis in 10%-20% of patients and may instigate other issues later,” such as the development of scarring of the pancreas related to incisions in the procedure.

“No one wants to offer an expensive procedure that has its own risks if it doesn’t help,” Coté said.

Based on the findings, “pancreas divisum anatomy should no longer be considered an indication for ERCP, even for idiopathic acute pancreatitis,” he concluded.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In treating pancreas divisum, the common use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with minor papilla endoscopic sphincterotomy showed no significant benefit over a sham procedure, suggesting that patients can be spared the intervention, which can carry risks of its own.

“This is a topic that has been debated for decades,” said first author Gregory A. Coté, MD, AGAF, Division Head, professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Oregon Health & Science University, in Portland, Oregon.

“Many doctors believe the procedure helps and offer it because we have limited options to help our patients, whereas others believe the procedure is harmful and doesn’t help,” he explained in a press briefing for the late-breaking study, presented at Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2025.

The study’s findings supported the latter argument.

“Patients who underwent ERCP with sphincterotomy were just as likely as those who did not have this procedure to develop acute pancreatitis again,” Coté reported.

While clinical guidelines currently recommend ERCP as treatment for pancreas divisum, “these guidelines are likely to change based on this study,” he said.

Pancreas divisum, occurring in about 7%-10% of people, is an anatomic variation that can represent an obstructive risk factor for acute recurrent pancreatitis.

The common use of ERCP with minor papilla endoscopic sphincterotomy to treat the condition is based on prior retrospective studies showing that in patients who did develop acute pancreatitis, up to 70% with the treatment never developed acute pancreatitis again. However, there have been no studies comparing the use of the treatment with a control group.

Coté and colleagues conducted the multicenter SHARP trial, in which 148 patients with pancreas divisum were enrolled between September 2018 and August 2024 and randomized to receive either ERCP with minor papilla endoscopic sphincterotomy (n = 75) or a sham treatment (n = 73).

The patients, who had a median age of 51 years, had a median of 3 acute pancreatitis episodes prior to randomization.

With a median follow-up of 33.5 months (range, 6-48 months), 34.7% of patients in the ERCP arm experienced an acute pancreatitis incident compared with 43.8% in the sham arm, for a hazard ratio of 0.83 after adjusting for duct size and the number of episodes, which was not a statistically significant difference (P = .27).

A subgroup analysis further showed no indication of a treatment effect based on factors including age, diabetes status, sex, alcohol or tobacco use, or other factors.

“Compared with a sham ERCP group, we found that minor papillotomy did not reduce the risk of acute pancreatitis, incident chronic pancreatitis, endocrine pancreatic insufficiency or diabetes, or pancreas-related pain events,” Coté said.

The findings are particularly important because the treatment itself is associated with some risks, he added.

“Ironically, the problem with this procedure is that it can cause acute pancreatitis in 10%-20% of patients and may instigate other issues later,” such as the development of scarring of the pancreas related to incisions in the procedure.

“No one wants to offer an expensive procedure that has its own risks if it doesn’t help,” Coté said.

Based on the findings, “pancreas divisum anatomy should no longer be considered an indication for ERCP, even for idiopathic acute pancreatitis,” he concluded.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Both endoscopic ultrasound–guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) and precut sphincterotomy are equally effective salvage techniques for patients with benign biliary obstruction and difficult bile duct cannulation, new data suggest.

Selective deep cannulation of the common bile duct remains the key rate-limiting step in successful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), especially in benign biliary disease.

In cases of difficult cannulation, the traditional fallback has been precut sphincterotomy. Recently, EUS-RV has emerged as an alternative. However, head-to-head comparisons of these salvage techniques in homogeneous patient populations have been lacking, until now. 

A team led by Arup Choudhury, MD, DM, with Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, compared the two salvage techniques in a single-center, randomized controlled trial of 100 patients with benign biliary disease and difficult bile duct cannulation.

There were 50 patients in each group. When one technique failed, patients were crossed over to the other technique.

The technical success rate for achieving deep biliary, the primary outcome measure, was similar with EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy (92% and 90%, respectively; P = 1.00; relative risk [RR], 1.02), the authors reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Median procedure time was also comparable (10.1 minutes with EUS-RV and 9.75 minutes with precut sphincterotomy). As expected, radiation exposure was notably higher in the EUS-RV group (median, 200.2 vs 67.8 mGy).

There was no difference in overall complication rates (12% and 10%, respectively; RR, 1.20).

Five patients in each group (10%) developed post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP); one patient in the EUS-RV had moderately severe pancreatitis, whereas the rest had mild pancreatitis.

In an exploratory analysis of the subcohort of 72 patients who did not have 1 or more inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation, two (5.6%) patients in the precut sphincterotomy group had PEP, whereas none of the patients in the EUS-RV had PEP (RR, 0.21). The investigators caution that a larger, multicenter, randomized controlled trial would be required to evaluate the “probable benefit” of lower PEP in the EUS-RV approach.

None of the patients had bleeding or perforation, but two (4%) patients in the EUS-RV group had an infection after the intervention. One required repeated ERCP due to post procedure cholangitis, whereas the other developed lower respiratory tract infection with transient acute lung injury and sputum showing gram-negative organism. None of the patients required surgical intervention.

“Interestingly,” said the investigators, on crossover from one salvage technique to the other, all of the cases could be successfully cannulated, suggesting the two salvage techniques are “complementary to each other and can help achieve successful cannulation in all cases when used in any sequence.”

Summing up, they said it appears from this head-to-head comparison that both EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy can be considered effective salvage techniques in expert centers with similar safety and success profiles.

Limitations included the single-center design with both procedures performed by expert operators. EUS-RV entailed additional cost of needle and use of a separate scope, and a cost-efficacy analysis was not done.

This study had no specific funding. Disclosures for the authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Both endoscopic ultrasound–guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) and precut sphincterotomy are equally effective salvage techniques for patients with benign biliary obstruction and difficult bile duct cannulation, new data suggest.

Selective deep cannulation of the common bile duct remains the key rate-limiting step in successful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), especially in benign biliary disease.

In cases of difficult cannulation, the traditional fallback has been precut sphincterotomy. Recently, EUS-RV has emerged as an alternative. However, head-to-head comparisons of these salvage techniques in homogeneous patient populations have been lacking, until now. 

A team led by Arup Choudhury, MD, DM, with Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, compared the two salvage techniques in a single-center, randomized controlled trial of 100 patients with benign biliary disease and difficult bile duct cannulation.

There were 50 patients in each group. When one technique failed, patients were crossed over to the other technique.

The technical success rate for achieving deep biliary, the primary outcome measure, was similar with EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy (92% and 90%, respectively; P = 1.00; relative risk [RR], 1.02), the authors reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Median procedure time was also comparable (10.1 minutes with EUS-RV and 9.75 minutes with precut sphincterotomy). As expected, radiation exposure was notably higher in the EUS-RV group (median, 200.2 vs 67.8 mGy).

There was no difference in overall complication rates (12% and 10%, respectively; RR, 1.20).

Five patients in each group (10%) developed post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP); one patient in the EUS-RV had moderately severe pancreatitis, whereas the rest had mild pancreatitis.

In an exploratory analysis of the subcohort of 72 patients who did not have 1 or more inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation, two (5.6%) patients in the precut sphincterotomy group had PEP, whereas none of the patients in the EUS-RV had PEP (RR, 0.21). The investigators caution that a larger, multicenter, randomized controlled trial would be required to evaluate the “probable benefit” of lower PEP in the EUS-RV approach.

None of the patients had bleeding or perforation, but two (4%) patients in the EUS-RV group had an infection after the intervention. One required repeated ERCP due to post procedure cholangitis, whereas the other developed lower respiratory tract infection with transient acute lung injury and sputum showing gram-negative organism. None of the patients required surgical intervention.

“Interestingly,” said the investigators, on crossover from one salvage technique to the other, all of the cases could be successfully cannulated, suggesting the two salvage techniques are “complementary to each other and can help achieve successful cannulation in all cases when used in any sequence.”

Summing up, they said it appears from this head-to-head comparison that both EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy can be considered effective salvage techniques in expert centers with similar safety and success profiles.

Limitations included the single-center design with both procedures performed by expert operators. EUS-RV entailed additional cost of needle and use of a separate scope, and a cost-efficacy analysis was not done.

This study had no specific funding. Disclosures for the authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Both endoscopic ultrasound–guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) and precut sphincterotomy are equally effective salvage techniques for patients with benign biliary obstruction and difficult bile duct cannulation, new data suggest.

Selective deep cannulation of the common bile duct remains the key rate-limiting step in successful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), especially in benign biliary disease.

In cases of difficult cannulation, the traditional fallback has been precut sphincterotomy. Recently, EUS-RV has emerged as an alternative. However, head-to-head comparisons of these salvage techniques in homogeneous patient populations have been lacking, until now. 

A team led by Arup Choudhury, MD, DM, with Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, compared the two salvage techniques in a single-center, randomized controlled trial of 100 patients with benign biliary disease and difficult bile duct cannulation.

There were 50 patients in each group. When one technique failed, patients were crossed over to the other technique.

The technical success rate for achieving deep biliary, the primary outcome measure, was similar with EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy (92% and 90%, respectively; P = 1.00; relative risk [RR], 1.02), the authors reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Median procedure time was also comparable (10.1 minutes with EUS-RV and 9.75 minutes with precut sphincterotomy). As expected, radiation exposure was notably higher in the EUS-RV group (median, 200.2 vs 67.8 mGy).

There was no difference in overall complication rates (12% and 10%, respectively; RR, 1.20).

Five patients in each group (10%) developed post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP); one patient in the EUS-RV had moderately severe pancreatitis, whereas the rest had mild pancreatitis.

In an exploratory analysis of the subcohort of 72 patients who did not have 1 or more inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation, two (5.6%) patients in the precut sphincterotomy group had PEP, whereas none of the patients in the EUS-RV had PEP (RR, 0.21). The investigators caution that a larger, multicenter, randomized controlled trial would be required to evaluate the “probable benefit” of lower PEP in the EUS-RV approach.

None of the patients had bleeding or perforation, but two (4%) patients in the EUS-RV group had an infection after the intervention. One required repeated ERCP due to post procedure cholangitis, whereas the other developed lower respiratory tract infection with transient acute lung injury and sputum showing gram-negative organism. None of the patients required surgical intervention.

“Interestingly,” said the investigators, on crossover from one salvage technique to the other, all of the cases could be successfully cannulated, suggesting the two salvage techniques are “complementary to each other and can help achieve successful cannulation in all cases when used in any sequence.”

Summing up, they said it appears from this head-to-head comparison that both EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy can be considered effective salvage techniques in expert centers with similar safety and success profiles.

Limitations included the single-center design with both procedures performed by expert operators. EUS-RV entailed additional cost of needle and use of a separate scope, and a cost-efficacy analysis was not done.

This study had no specific funding. Disclosures for the authors are available with the original article.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Placing two cystic duct stents instead of one during endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) is associated with a lower rate of unplanned reintervention, according to a retrospective multicenter study.

These findings suggest that endoscopists should prioritize dual stent placement when feasible, and consider adding a second stent in patients who previously received a single stent, James D. Haddad, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and colleagues reported.

 

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has recognized the role of endoscopic drainage in managing acute cholecystitis in high-risk patients, but specific guidance on optimal technique and follow-up remains unclear, the investigators wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

“Despite accumulating data and increased interest in this technique, clear guidance on the ideal strategy for ETGBD is lacking,” Dr. Haddad and colleagues wrote. “For example, the optimal size, number, and follow-up of cystic duct stents for patients undergoing ETGBD has not been well established.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators analyzed data from 75 patients at five academic medical centers who had undergone ETGBD between June 2013 and October 2022. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received one or two cystic duct stents. 

The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as symptom resolution without requiring another drainage procedure. Secondary outcomes included technical success (defined as successful stent placement), along with rates of adverse events and unplanned reinterventions. 

Out of the 75 patients, 59 received a single stent, while 16 received dual stents. The median follow-up time was 407 days overall, with a longer follow-up in the single-stent group (433 days), compared with the double-stent group (118 days).

Clinical success was reported in 81.3% of cases, which technical success was achieved in 88.2% of cases. 

Patients who received two stents had significantly lower rates of unplanned reintervention, compared with those who received a single stent (0% vs 25.4%; P = .02). The median time to unplanned reintervention in the single-stent group was 210 days.

Use of a 7 French stent was strongly associated with placement of two stents (odd ratio [OR], 15.5; P = .01). Similarly, patients with a prior percutaneous cholecystostomy tube were significantly more likely to have two stents placed (OR, 10.8; P = .001).

Adverse event rates were uncommon and not statistically different between groups, with an overall rate of 6.7%. Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis was the most common adverse event, occurring in two patients in the single-stent group and one patient in the double-stent group. There were no reported cases of cystic duct or gallbladder perforation.

“In conclusion,” the investigators wrote, “ETGBD with dual transpapillary gallbladder stenting is associated with a lower rate of unplanned reinterventions, compared with that with single stenting, and has a low rate of adverse events. Endoscopists performing ETGBD should consider planned exchange of solitary transpapillary gallbladder stents or interval ERCP for reattempted placement of a second stent if placement of two stents is not possible at the index ERCP.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Motus GI, and ConMed.







 

Placing two cystic duct stents instead of one during endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) is associated with a lower rate of unplanned reintervention, according to a retrospective multicenter study.

These findings suggest that endoscopists should prioritize dual stent placement when feasible, and consider adding a second stent in patients who previously received a single stent, James D. Haddad, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and colleagues reported.

 

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has recognized the role of endoscopic drainage in managing acute cholecystitis in high-risk patients, but specific guidance on optimal technique and follow-up remains unclear, the investigators wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

“Despite accumulating data and increased interest in this technique, clear guidance on the ideal strategy for ETGBD is lacking,” Dr. Haddad and colleagues wrote. “For example, the optimal size, number, and follow-up of cystic duct stents for patients undergoing ETGBD has not been well established.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators analyzed data from 75 patients at five academic medical centers who had undergone ETGBD between June 2013 and October 2022. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received one or two cystic duct stents. 

The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as symptom resolution without requiring another drainage procedure. Secondary outcomes included technical success (defined as successful stent placement), along with rates of adverse events and unplanned reinterventions. 

Out of the 75 patients, 59 received a single stent, while 16 received dual stents. The median follow-up time was 407 days overall, with a longer follow-up in the single-stent group (433 days), compared with the double-stent group (118 days).

Clinical success was reported in 81.3% of cases, which technical success was achieved in 88.2% of cases. 

Patients who received two stents had significantly lower rates of unplanned reintervention, compared with those who received a single stent (0% vs 25.4%; P = .02). The median time to unplanned reintervention in the single-stent group was 210 days.

Use of a 7 French stent was strongly associated with placement of two stents (odd ratio [OR], 15.5; P = .01). Similarly, patients with a prior percutaneous cholecystostomy tube were significantly more likely to have two stents placed (OR, 10.8; P = .001).

Adverse event rates were uncommon and not statistically different between groups, with an overall rate of 6.7%. Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis was the most common adverse event, occurring in two patients in the single-stent group and one patient in the double-stent group. There were no reported cases of cystic duct or gallbladder perforation.

“In conclusion,” the investigators wrote, “ETGBD with dual transpapillary gallbladder stenting is associated with a lower rate of unplanned reinterventions, compared with that with single stenting, and has a low rate of adverse events. Endoscopists performing ETGBD should consider planned exchange of solitary transpapillary gallbladder stents or interval ERCP for reattempted placement of a second stent if placement of two stents is not possible at the index ERCP.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Motus GI, and ConMed.







 

Placing two cystic duct stents instead of one during endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) is associated with a lower rate of unplanned reintervention, according to a retrospective multicenter study.

These findings suggest that endoscopists should prioritize dual stent placement when feasible, and consider adding a second stent in patients who previously received a single stent, James D. Haddad, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and colleagues reported.

 

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has recognized the role of endoscopic drainage in managing acute cholecystitis in high-risk patients, but specific guidance on optimal technique and follow-up remains unclear, the investigators wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

“Despite accumulating data and increased interest in this technique, clear guidance on the ideal strategy for ETGBD is lacking,” Dr. Haddad and colleagues wrote. “For example, the optimal size, number, and follow-up of cystic duct stents for patients undergoing ETGBD has not been well established.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators analyzed data from 75 patients at five academic medical centers who had undergone ETGBD between June 2013 and October 2022. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received one or two cystic duct stents. 

The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as symptom resolution without requiring another drainage procedure. Secondary outcomes included technical success (defined as successful stent placement), along with rates of adverse events and unplanned reinterventions. 

Out of the 75 patients, 59 received a single stent, while 16 received dual stents. The median follow-up time was 407 days overall, with a longer follow-up in the single-stent group (433 days), compared with the double-stent group (118 days).

Clinical success was reported in 81.3% of cases, which technical success was achieved in 88.2% of cases. 

Patients who received two stents had significantly lower rates of unplanned reintervention, compared with those who received a single stent (0% vs 25.4%; P = .02). The median time to unplanned reintervention in the single-stent group was 210 days.

Use of a 7 French stent was strongly associated with placement of two stents (odd ratio [OR], 15.5; P = .01). Similarly, patients with a prior percutaneous cholecystostomy tube were significantly more likely to have two stents placed (OR, 10.8; P = .001).

Adverse event rates were uncommon and not statistically different between groups, with an overall rate of 6.7%. Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis was the most common adverse event, occurring in two patients in the single-stent group and one patient in the double-stent group. There were no reported cases of cystic duct or gallbladder perforation.

“In conclusion,” the investigators wrote, “ETGBD with dual transpapillary gallbladder stenting is associated with a lower rate of unplanned reinterventions, compared with that with single stenting, and has a low rate of adverse events. Endoscopists performing ETGBD should consider planned exchange of solitary transpapillary gallbladder stents or interval ERCP for reattempted placement of a second stent if placement of two stents is not possible at the index ERCP.”

The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Motus GI, and ConMed.