Endoscopy, Pancreas, & Biliary Tract

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has issued a rapid clinical practice update on the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists prior to endoscopy.

The update was partly prompted by consensus-based perioperative guidance issued by the American Society of Anesthesiologists in June 2023, which advises withholding GLP-1 receptor agonists before endoscopy. This recommendation has caused some anesthesia providers to cancel or postpone endoscopic procedures, or even elect general endotracheal intubation over standard sedation.

“Many facilities and medical centers are now struggling to revise preprocedural protocols for patients taking this class of medications despite the lack of high-level evidence regarding how to proceed,” the panelists wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Important questions include whether these preprocedural changes are necessary, if they truly mitigate periprocedural aspiration, or if the delays instituted by following this guidance might further compound the major problem currently faced nationwide: that of large numbers of patients awaiting endoscopic procedures because of delays from the COVID-19 pandemic, reduction in the recommended age threshold to start colorectal cancer screening in 2018, and workforce challenges.”

The rapid clinical practice update, commissioned and approved by the AGA, includes background on the relationship between GLP-1 receptor agonists and endoscopic procedures, followed by clinical strategies for patients taking these medications.

Lead panelist Jana G. Al Hashash, MD, MSc, AGAF, of Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, and colleagues began by noting that GLP-1 receptor agonists have been associated with increased gastric residue in patients with diabetes, and among nondiabetic patients, increased gastric retention of solids but not liquids. Delayed gastric emptying and increased residual gastric contents may be more common among patients on GLP-1 agonists who have vomiting, nausea, dyspepsia, or abdominal bloating, they added.

Mayo Clinic

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has issued a rapid clinical practice update on the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists prior to endoscopy.

The update was partly prompted by consensus-based perioperative guidance issued by the American Society of Anesthesiologists in June 2023, which advises withholding GLP-1 receptor agonists before endoscopy. This recommendation has caused some anesthesia providers to cancel or postpone endoscopic procedures, or even elect general endotracheal intubation over standard sedation.

“Many facilities and medical centers are now struggling to revise preprocedural protocols for patients taking this class of medications despite the lack of high-level evidence regarding how to proceed,” the panelists wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Important questions include whether these preprocedural changes are necessary, if they truly mitigate periprocedural aspiration, or if the delays instituted by following this guidance might further compound the major problem currently faced nationwide: that of large numbers of patients awaiting endoscopic procedures because of delays from the COVID-19 pandemic, reduction in the recommended age threshold to start colorectal cancer screening in 2018, and workforce challenges.”

The rapid clinical practice update, commissioned and approved by the AGA, includes background on the relationship between GLP-1 receptor agonists and endoscopic procedures, followed by clinical strategies for patients taking these medications.

Lead panelist Jana G. Al Hashash, MD, MSc, AGAF, of Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, and colleagues began by noting that GLP-1 receptor agonists have been associated with increased gastric residue in patients with diabetes, and among nondiabetic patients, increased gastric retention of solids but not liquids. Delayed gastric emptying and increased residual gastric contents may be more common among patients on GLP-1 agonists who have vomiting, nausea, dyspepsia, or abdominal bloating, they added.

Mayo Clinic

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has issued a rapid clinical practice update on the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists prior to endoscopy.

The update was partly prompted by consensus-based perioperative guidance issued by the American Society of Anesthesiologists in June 2023, which advises withholding GLP-1 receptor agonists before endoscopy. This recommendation has caused some anesthesia providers to cancel or postpone endoscopic procedures, or even elect general endotracheal intubation over standard sedation.

“Many facilities and medical centers are now struggling to revise preprocedural protocols for patients taking this class of medications despite the lack of high-level evidence regarding how to proceed,” the panelists wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Important questions include whether these preprocedural changes are necessary, if they truly mitigate periprocedural aspiration, or if the delays instituted by following this guidance might further compound the major problem currently faced nationwide: that of large numbers of patients awaiting endoscopic procedures because of delays from the COVID-19 pandemic, reduction in the recommended age threshold to start colorectal cancer screening in 2018, and workforce challenges.”

The rapid clinical practice update, commissioned and approved by the AGA, includes background on the relationship between GLP-1 receptor agonists and endoscopic procedures, followed by clinical strategies for patients taking these medications.

Lead panelist Jana G. Al Hashash, MD, MSc, AGAF, of Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, and colleagues began by noting that GLP-1 receptor agonists have been associated with increased gastric residue in patients with diabetes, and among nondiabetic patients, increased gastric retention of solids but not liquids. Delayed gastric emptying and increased residual gastric contents may be more common among patients on GLP-1 agonists who have vomiting, nausea, dyspepsia, or abdominal bloating, they added.

Mayo Clinic

Reflecting on his career in gastroenterology, Andy Tau, MD, (@DrBloodandGuts on X) claims the discipline chose him, in many ways.

“I love gaming, which my mom said would never pay off. Then one day she nearly died from a peptic ulcer, and endoscopy saved her,” said Dr. Tau, a GI hospitalist who practices with Austin Gastroenterology in Austin, Texas. One of his specialties is endoscopic hemostasis.

Endoscopy functions similarly to a game because the interface between the operator and the patient is a controller and a video screen, he explained. “Movements in my hands translate directly onto the screen. Obviously, endoscopy is serious business, but the tactile feel was very familiar and satisfying to me.”

Advocating for the GI hospitalist and the versatile role they play in hospital medicine, is another passion of his. “The dedicated GI hospitalist indirectly improves the efficiency of an outpatient practice, while directly improving inpatient outcomes, collegiality, and even one’s own skills as an endoscopist,” Dr. Tau wrote in an opinion piece in GI & Hepatology News .

He expounded more on this topic and others in an interview, recalling what he learned from one mentor about maintaining a sense of humor at the bedside.
 

Q: You’ve said that GI hospitalists are the future of patient care. Can you explain why you feel this way?

Dr. Tau: From a quality perspective, even though it’s hard to put into one word, the care of acute GI pathology and endoscopy can be seen as a specialty in and of itself. These skills include hemostasis, enteral access, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), balloon-assisted enteroscopy, luminal stenting, advanced tissue closure, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The greater availability of a GI hospitalist, as opposed to an outpatient GI doctor rounding at the ends of days, likely shortens admissions and improves the logistics of scheduling inpatient cases. 

From a financial perspective, the landscape of GI practice is changing because of GI physician shortages relative to increased demand for outpatient procedures. Namely, the outpatient gastroenterologists simply have too much on their plate and inefficiencies abound when they have to juggle inpatient and outpatient work. Thus, two tracks are forming, especially in large busy hospitals. This is the same evolution of the pure outpatient internist and inpatient internist 20 years ago. 
 

Q: What attributes does a GI hospitalist bring to the table? 

Dr. Tau: A GI hospitalist is one who can multitask through interruptions, manage end-of-life issues, craves therapeutic endoscopy (even if that’s hemostasis), and can keep more erratic hours based on the number of consults that come in. She/he tends to want immediate gratification and doesn’t mind the lack of continuity of care. Lastly, the GI hospitalist has to be brave and yet careful as the patients are sicker and thus complications may be higher and certainly less well tolerated. 

Q: Are there enough of them going into practice right now? 

Dr. Tau: Not really! The demand seems to outstrip supply based on what I see. There is a definite financial lure as the market rate for them rises (because more GIs are leaving the hospital for pure outpatient practice), but burnout can be an issue. Interestingly, fellows are typically highly trained and familiar with inpatient work, but once in practice, most choose the outpatient track. I think it’s a combination of work-life balance, inefficiency of inpatient endoscopy, and perhaps the strain of daily, erratic consultation.

Q: You received the 2021 Travis County Medical Society (TCMS) Young Physician of the Year. What achievements led to this honor? 

Dr. Tau: I am not sure I am deserving of that award, but I think it was related to personal risk and some long hours as a GI hospitalist during the COVID pandemic. I may have the unfortunate distinction of performing more procedures on COVID patients than any other physician in the city. My hospital was the largest COVID-designated site in the city. There were countless PEG tubes in COVID survivors and a lot of bleeders for some reason. A critical care physician on the front lines and health director of the city of Austin received Physician of the Year, deservedly. 

Q: What teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you?

Dr. Tau: David Y. Graham, MD, MACG, got me into GI as a medical student and taught me to never tolerate any loose ends when it came to patient care as a resident. He trained me at every level — from medical school, residency, and through my fellowship. His advice is often delivered sly and dry, but his humor-laden truths continue to ring true throughout my life. One story: my whole family tested positive for Helicobacter pylori after my mother survived peptic ulcer hemorrhage. I was the only one who tested negative! I asked Dr Graham about it and he quipped, “You’re lucky! It’s because your mother didn’t love (and kiss) you as much!”

Even to this moment I laugh about that. I share that with my patients when they ask about how they contracted H. pylori. 

Lightning Round

Favorite junk food?

McDonalds fries

Favorite movie genre?

Psychological thriller

Cat person or dog person?

Dog 

What was your favorite Halloween costume? 

Ninja turtle 

Favorite sport:

Football (played in college)

Introvert or extrovert?

Extrovert unless sleep deprived. 

Favorite holiday:

Thanksgiving

The book you read over and over:

Swiss Family Robinson 

Favorite travel destination:

Hawaii

Optimist or pessimist?  

A happy pessimist.

Reflecting on his career in gastroenterology, Andy Tau, MD, (@DrBloodandGuts on X) claims the discipline chose him, in many ways.

“I love gaming, which my mom said would never pay off. Then one day she nearly died from a peptic ulcer, and endoscopy saved her,” said Dr. Tau, a GI hospitalist who practices with Austin Gastroenterology in Austin, Texas. One of his specialties is endoscopic hemostasis.

Endoscopy functions similarly to a game because the interface between the operator and the patient is a controller and a video screen, he explained. “Movements in my hands translate directly onto the screen. Obviously, endoscopy is serious business, but the tactile feel was very familiar and satisfying to me.”

Advocating for the GI hospitalist and the versatile role they play in hospital medicine, is another passion of his. “The dedicated GI hospitalist indirectly improves the efficiency of an outpatient practice, while directly improving inpatient outcomes, collegiality, and even one’s own skills as an endoscopist,” Dr. Tau wrote in an opinion piece in GI & Hepatology News .

He expounded more on this topic and others in an interview, recalling what he learned from one mentor about maintaining a sense of humor at the bedside.
 

Q: You’ve said that GI hospitalists are the future of patient care. Can you explain why you feel this way?

Dr. Tau: From a quality perspective, even though it’s hard to put into one word, the care of acute GI pathology and endoscopy can be seen as a specialty in and of itself. These skills include hemostasis, enteral access, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), balloon-assisted enteroscopy, luminal stenting, advanced tissue closure, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The greater availability of a GI hospitalist, as opposed to an outpatient GI doctor rounding at the ends of days, likely shortens admissions and improves the logistics of scheduling inpatient cases. 

From a financial perspective, the landscape of GI practice is changing because of GI physician shortages relative to increased demand for outpatient procedures. Namely, the outpatient gastroenterologists simply have too much on their plate and inefficiencies abound when they have to juggle inpatient and outpatient work. Thus, two tracks are forming, especially in large busy hospitals. This is the same evolution of the pure outpatient internist and inpatient internist 20 years ago. 
 

Q: What attributes does a GI hospitalist bring to the table? 

Dr. Tau: A GI hospitalist is one who can multitask through interruptions, manage end-of-life issues, craves therapeutic endoscopy (even if that’s hemostasis), and can keep more erratic hours based on the number of consults that come in. She/he tends to want immediate gratification and doesn’t mind the lack of continuity of care. Lastly, the GI hospitalist has to be brave and yet careful as the patients are sicker and thus complications may be higher and certainly less well tolerated. 

Q: Are there enough of them going into practice right now? 

Dr. Tau: Not really! The demand seems to outstrip supply based on what I see. There is a definite financial lure as the market rate for them rises (because more GIs are leaving the hospital for pure outpatient practice), but burnout can be an issue. Interestingly, fellows are typically highly trained and familiar with inpatient work, but once in practice, most choose the outpatient track. I think it’s a combination of work-life balance, inefficiency of inpatient endoscopy, and perhaps the strain of daily, erratic consultation.

Q: You received the 2021 Travis County Medical Society (TCMS) Young Physician of the Year. What achievements led to this honor? 

Dr. Tau: I am not sure I am deserving of that award, but I think it was related to personal risk and some long hours as a GI hospitalist during the COVID pandemic. I may have the unfortunate distinction of performing more procedures on COVID patients than any other physician in the city. My hospital was the largest COVID-designated site in the city. There were countless PEG tubes in COVID survivors and a lot of bleeders for some reason. A critical care physician on the front lines and health director of the city of Austin received Physician of the Year, deservedly. 

Q: What teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you?

Dr. Tau: David Y. Graham, MD, MACG, got me into GI as a medical student and taught me to never tolerate any loose ends when it came to patient care as a resident. He trained me at every level — from medical school, residency, and through my fellowship. His advice is often delivered sly and dry, but his humor-laden truths continue to ring true throughout my life. One story: my whole family tested positive for Helicobacter pylori after my mother survived peptic ulcer hemorrhage. I was the only one who tested negative! I asked Dr Graham about it and he quipped, “You’re lucky! It’s because your mother didn’t love (and kiss) you as much!”

Even to this moment I laugh about that. I share that with my patients when they ask about how they contracted H. pylori. 

Lightning Round

Favorite junk food?

McDonalds fries

Favorite movie genre?

Psychological thriller

Cat person or dog person?

Dog 

What was your favorite Halloween costume? 

Ninja turtle 

Favorite sport:

Football (played in college)

Introvert or extrovert?

Extrovert unless sleep deprived. 

Favorite holiday:

Thanksgiving

The book you read over and over:

Swiss Family Robinson 

Favorite travel destination:

Hawaii

Optimist or pessimist?  

A happy pessimist.

Reflecting on his career in gastroenterology, Andy Tau, MD, (@DrBloodandGuts on X) claims the discipline chose him, in many ways.

“I love gaming, which my mom said would never pay off. Then one day she nearly died from a peptic ulcer, and endoscopy saved her,” said Dr. Tau, a GI hospitalist who practices with Austin Gastroenterology in Austin, Texas. One of his specialties is endoscopic hemostasis.

Endoscopy functions similarly to a game because the interface between the operator and the patient is a controller and a video screen, he explained. “Movements in my hands translate directly onto the screen. Obviously, endoscopy is serious business, but the tactile feel was very familiar and satisfying to me.”

Advocating for the GI hospitalist and the versatile role they play in hospital medicine, is another passion of his. “The dedicated GI hospitalist indirectly improves the efficiency of an outpatient practice, while directly improving inpatient outcomes, collegiality, and even one’s own skills as an endoscopist,” Dr. Tau wrote in an opinion piece in GI & Hepatology News .

He expounded more on this topic and others in an interview, recalling what he learned from one mentor about maintaining a sense of humor at the bedside.
 

Q: You’ve said that GI hospitalists are the future of patient care. Can you explain why you feel this way?

Dr. Tau: From a quality perspective, even though it’s hard to put into one word, the care of acute GI pathology and endoscopy can be seen as a specialty in and of itself. These skills include hemostasis, enteral access, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), balloon-assisted enteroscopy, luminal stenting, advanced tissue closure, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The greater availability of a GI hospitalist, as opposed to an outpatient GI doctor rounding at the ends of days, likely shortens admissions and improves the logistics of scheduling inpatient cases. 

From a financial perspective, the landscape of GI practice is changing because of GI physician shortages relative to increased demand for outpatient procedures. Namely, the outpatient gastroenterologists simply have too much on their plate and inefficiencies abound when they have to juggle inpatient and outpatient work. Thus, two tracks are forming, especially in large busy hospitals. This is the same evolution of the pure outpatient internist and inpatient internist 20 years ago. 
 

Q: What attributes does a GI hospitalist bring to the table? 

Dr. Tau: A GI hospitalist is one who can multitask through interruptions, manage end-of-life issues, craves therapeutic endoscopy (even if that’s hemostasis), and can keep more erratic hours based on the number of consults that come in. She/he tends to want immediate gratification and doesn’t mind the lack of continuity of care. Lastly, the GI hospitalist has to be brave and yet careful as the patients are sicker and thus complications may be higher and certainly less well tolerated. 

Q: Are there enough of them going into practice right now? 

Dr. Tau: Not really! The demand seems to outstrip supply based on what I see. There is a definite financial lure as the market rate for them rises (because more GIs are leaving the hospital for pure outpatient practice), but burnout can be an issue. Interestingly, fellows are typically highly trained and familiar with inpatient work, but once in practice, most choose the outpatient track. I think it’s a combination of work-life balance, inefficiency of inpatient endoscopy, and perhaps the strain of daily, erratic consultation.

Q: You received the 2021 Travis County Medical Society (TCMS) Young Physician of the Year. What achievements led to this honor? 

Dr. Tau: I am not sure I am deserving of that award, but I think it was related to personal risk and some long hours as a GI hospitalist during the COVID pandemic. I may have the unfortunate distinction of performing more procedures on COVID patients than any other physician in the city. My hospital was the largest COVID-designated site in the city. There were countless PEG tubes in COVID survivors and a lot of bleeders for some reason. A critical care physician on the front lines and health director of the city of Austin received Physician of the Year, deservedly. 

Q: What teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you?

Dr. Tau: David Y. Graham, MD, MACG, got me into GI as a medical student and taught me to never tolerate any loose ends when it came to patient care as a resident. He trained me at every level — from medical school, residency, and through my fellowship. His advice is often delivered sly and dry, but his humor-laden truths continue to ring true throughout my life. One story: my whole family tested positive for Helicobacter pylori after my mother survived peptic ulcer hemorrhage. I was the only one who tested negative! I asked Dr Graham about it and he quipped, “You’re lucky! It’s because your mother didn’t love (and kiss) you as much!”

Even to this moment I laugh about that. I share that with my patients when they ask about how they contracted H. pylori. 

Lightning Round

Favorite junk food?

McDonalds fries

Favorite movie genre?

Psychological thriller

Cat person or dog person?

Dog 

What was your favorite Halloween costume? 

Ninja turtle 

Favorite sport:

Football (played in college)

Introvert or extrovert?

Extrovert unless sleep deprived. 

Favorite holiday:

Thanksgiving

The book you read over and over:

Swiss Family Robinson 

Favorite travel destination:

Hawaii

Optimist or pessimist?  

A happy pessimist.

Dear Friends,

After 6 months in my first faculty position, I have come to appreciate the term “multidisciplinary approach” more than ever. Not only does this facilitate optimal patient care, but I have personally learned so much from experts in other fields. This theme resonates across this issue of The New Gastroenterologist, from treating complex gallbladder disease, to caring for sexual and gender minorities, and collaborating with the tech industry to advance patient care.

Our “In Focus” feature, written by Dr. Andrew Gilman and Dr. Todd Baron, is on endoscopic management of gallbladder disease. They review endoscopic treatment options in patients with benign gallbladder disease, with emphasis on working with surgical and interventional radiology colleagues, as well as relaying endoscopic tips and techniques to achieve success in these complicated procedures.

In the “Short Clinical Reviews” section, Dr. David Chiang and Dr. Victor Chedid highlight the gaps in research and clinical care and competency for sexual and gender minorities, particularly in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. They describe the creation of the Pride in IBD clinic at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., that creates a culturally sensitive space to care for this community.

As trainees transition to early faculty, becoming a mentor is a new role that can be very rewarding and daunting at the same time. Dr. Anna Lok, recipient of the AGA’s Distinguished Mentor Award, and Dr. Vincent Chen share invaluable experiences and advice on being a mentor from senior and early-career perspectives, respectively. Similarly in the transition to early faculty, Erin Anderson, CPA, answers five common financial questions that arise to better understand and manage a significant increase in salary.

Lastly, Dr. Shifa Umar describes her unique experience as part of the AGA’s annual Tech Summit Fellows Program, a cross-section of medicine, technology, and innovation.

If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (tjudy@wustl.edu), or Jillian Schweitzer (jschweitzer@gastro.org), managing editor of TNG.

Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are now without appreciating where we were: The concept of the clinicopathologic conference (CPC) was introduced by Dr. Walter B. Cannon as a medical student at Harvard Medical School.
 

Yours truly,

Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH

Editor-in-Chief

Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology

Washington University in St. Louis

Dear Friends,

After 6 months in my first faculty position, I have come to appreciate the term “multidisciplinary approach” more than ever. Not only does this facilitate optimal patient care, but I have personally learned so much from experts in other fields. This theme resonates across this issue of The New Gastroenterologist, from treating complex gallbladder disease, to caring for sexual and gender minorities, and collaborating with the tech industry to advance patient care.

Our “In Focus” feature, written by Dr. Andrew Gilman and Dr. Todd Baron, is on endoscopic management of gallbladder disease. They review endoscopic treatment options in patients with benign gallbladder disease, with emphasis on working with surgical and interventional radiology colleagues, as well as relaying endoscopic tips and techniques to achieve success in these complicated procedures.

In the “Short Clinical Reviews” section, Dr. David Chiang and Dr. Victor Chedid highlight the gaps in research and clinical care and competency for sexual and gender minorities, particularly in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. They describe the creation of the Pride in IBD clinic at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., that creates a culturally sensitive space to care for this community.

As trainees transition to early faculty, becoming a mentor is a new role that can be very rewarding and daunting at the same time. Dr. Anna Lok, recipient of the AGA’s Distinguished Mentor Award, and Dr. Vincent Chen share invaluable experiences and advice on being a mentor from senior and early-career perspectives, respectively. Similarly in the transition to early faculty, Erin Anderson, CPA, answers five common financial questions that arise to better understand and manage a significant increase in salary.

Lastly, Dr. Shifa Umar describes her unique experience as part of the AGA’s annual Tech Summit Fellows Program, a cross-section of medicine, technology, and innovation.

If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (tjudy@wustl.edu), or Jillian Schweitzer (jschweitzer@gastro.org), managing editor of TNG.

Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are now without appreciating where we were: The concept of the clinicopathologic conference (CPC) was introduced by Dr. Walter B. Cannon as a medical student at Harvard Medical School.
 

Yours truly,

Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH

Editor-in-Chief

Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology

Washington University in St. Louis

Dear Friends,

After 6 months in my first faculty position, I have come to appreciate the term “multidisciplinary approach” more than ever. Not only does this facilitate optimal patient care, but I have personally learned so much from experts in other fields. This theme resonates across this issue of The New Gastroenterologist, from treating complex gallbladder disease, to caring for sexual and gender minorities, and collaborating with the tech industry to advance patient care.

Our “In Focus” feature, written by Dr. Andrew Gilman and Dr. Todd Baron, is on endoscopic management of gallbladder disease. They review endoscopic treatment options in patients with benign gallbladder disease, with emphasis on working with surgical and interventional radiology colleagues, as well as relaying endoscopic tips and techniques to achieve success in these complicated procedures.

In the “Short Clinical Reviews” section, Dr. David Chiang and Dr. Victor Chedid highlight the gaps in research and clinical care and competency for sexual and gender minorities, particularly in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. They describe the creation of the Pride in IBD clinic at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., that creates a culturally sensitive space to care for this community.

As trainees transition to early faculty, becoming a mentor is a new role that can be very rewarding and daunting at the same time. Dr. Anna Lok, recipient of the AGA’s Distinguished Mentor Award, and Dr. Vincent Chen share invaluable experiences and advice on being a mentor from senior and early-career perspectives, respectively. Similarly in the transition to early faculty, Erin Anderson, CPA, answers five common financial questions that arise to better understand and manage a significant increase in salary.

Lastly, Dr. Shifa Umar describes her unique experience as part of the AGA’s annual Tech Summit Fellows Program, a cross-section of medicine, technology, and innovation.

If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (tjudy@wustl.edu), or Jillian Schweitzer (jschweitzer@gastro.org), managing editor of TNG.

Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact because we would not be where we are now without appreciating where we were: The concept of the clinicopathologic conference (CPC) was introduced by Dr. Walter B. Cannon as a medical student at Harvard Medical School.
 

Yours truly,

Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH

Editor-in-Chief

Interventional Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology

Washington University in St. Louis

Introduction

The treatment of benign gallbladder disease has changed substantially in the past decade, but this represents only a snapshot in the evolutionary history of the management of this organ. What began as a problem managed exclusively by open cholecystectomy (CCY) transitioned into a race toward minimally invasive approaches in the 1980s, with advances from gastroenterology, surgery, and radiology.

The opening strides were made in 1980 with the first description of percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) by Dr. R.W. Radder.¹ Shortly thereafter, in 1984, Dr. Richard Kozarek first reported the feasibility of selective cystic duct cannulation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).² Subsequent stenting for the treatment of acute cholecystitis (endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage, ET-GBD) was then reported by Tamada et. al. in 1991.³ Not to be outdone, the first laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) was completed by Dr. Med Erich Mühe of Germany in 1985.⁴ More recently, with the expansion of interventional endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), the first transmural EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) was described by Dr. Baron and Dr. Topazian in 2007.⁵

Techniques & Tips

ET-GBD

• During ERCP, after successful cannulation of the bile duct, attempted wire cannulation of the cystic duct is performed.

A cholangiogram, which clearly delineates the insertion of the cystic duct into the main bile duct, can enhance cannulation success. Rotatable fluoroscopy can facilitate identification.

• After anatomy is clear, wire access is often best achieved using a sphincterotome or stone retrieval (occlusion) balloon.

The balloon, once inflated, can be pulled downward to establish traction on the main bile duct, which can straighten the approach.

• After superficial wire engagement into the cystic duct, the accessory used can be slowly advanced into the cystic duct to stabilize the catheter and then navigate the valves of Heister to reach the gallbladder lumen.

Use of a sphincterotome, which directs toward the patient’s right (most often direction of cystic duct takeoff), is helpful. Angled guidewires are preferable. We often use a 0.035-inch, 260-cm angled hydrophilic wire (GLIDEWIRE; Terumo, Somerset, NJ) to overcome this challenging portion of ET-GBD.

If despite the above maneuvers the guidewire has failed to enter the cystic duct, cholangioscopy can be used to identify the orifice and/or stabilize deep wire cannulation. This is often cumbersome, time consuming, does not always produce success, and requires additional expertise.

• If a stone is encountered that cannot be extracted or traversed by a guidewire, cholangioscopy with electrohydraulic lithotripsy can be pursued.
• After the guidewire has entered the gallbladder, a 5 French or 7 French plastic double pigtail stent is placed. Typical lengths are 9-15 cm.

Some authors prefer to use two side-by-side plastic stents.¹² This has been shown retrospectively to enhance the long term clinical success of ET-GBD but with additional technical difficulty.

• This stent can remain in place indefinitely and need not be exchanged, though it should be removed just prior to CCY if pursued. Alternatively, the surgeon can be alerted to its presence and, if comfortable, it can be removed intraoperatively.

EUS-GBD

• Use of fluoroscopy is optional but can enhance technical success in selected situations.
• Conversion, or internalization, of PC is reasonable and can enhance patient quality of life.¹³
• If the gallbladder wall is not in close apposition to the duodenal (or gastric) wall, consider measuring the distance.

We preferentially use 10-mm diameter by 10-mm saddle length LAMS for EUS-GBD, unless the above distance warrants use of a 15-mm by 15-mm LAMS (AXIOS, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA). If the distance is greater than 15 mm, consider searching for an alternative site, using a traditional biliary fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) for longer length, or converting to ET-GBD. Smaller diameter (8 mm) with an 8-mm saddle length can be used as well. The optimal diameter is unknown and also dependent on whether transluminal endoscopic diagnosis or therapy is a consideration.

• If there is difficulty locating the gallbladder, it may be decompressed or small (particularly if PC or a partial CCY has already been performed).

If a cholecystostomy tube is in place, instillation of sterile water via the tube can sometimes improve the target for LAMS placement, though caution should be made to not over-distend the gallbladder. ERCP with placement of a nasobiliary tube into the gallbladder can also serve this purpose and has been previously described.¹⁴

The gallbladder can be punctured with a 19-gauge FNA needle to instill sterile water and distend the gallbladder with the added benefit of being able to pass a guidewire, which may enhance procedural safety in difficult cases. However, success of this technique is contingent on fluid remaining within the gallbladder and not transiting out via the cystic duct. Expedient exchange of the FNA needle for the LAMS device may be necessary.

• Attempt to confirm location within the duodenum prior to puncture, as gastric origins can pose unique ramifications (i.e. potential for partial gastric outlet obstruction, obstruction of LAMS with food debris, etc.).

It can be easy to mistake an unintentional pre-pyloric position for a position within the duodenum since the working channel is behind (proximal to) the echoprobe.

• Turning off Doppler flow prior to advancement of the cautery enhanced LAMS can reduce obscurement of views on entry into the gallbladder. Lack of certainty about entry or misdeployment after presumed entry herald the most challenging aspect of EUS-GBD.

Utilization of a previously placed guidewire or advancement of one preloaded into the LAMS can aid in both enhancing confidence in location and assist with salvage maneuvers, if needed.

• After successful deployment of the LAMS we routinely place a double pigtail plastic stent through it (typically 7 French by 4 cm) to maintain patency. This may also prevent bleeding from the LAMS flange abrading the wall of either lumen.
• We routinely exchange the LAMS for two double pigtail plastic stents (typically 7 French by 4 cm) 4 weeks after initial placement especially when there is a more than modest residual stone burden (data in press). These plastic stents can remain in place indefinitely.

This exchange can be deferred if the patient is not expected to survive until the one-year anniversary of LAMS deployment. After one year the LAMS plastic covering may degrade and pose additional problems.¹⁵

LAMS Misdeployment Salvage Tips

• Salvage techniques can vary from simple to complex.
• If a wire is in place, it can be used to balloon or catheter dilate the tract and place a FCSEMS traversing the gallbladder and duodenal/gastric lumens. A similar approach can be used if the LAMS deployed on only one side (gallbladder or duodenum/stomach) and the other flange is within the peritoneum.
• The most challenging scenario to salvage is if the LAMS is misdeployed or becomes dislodged and no wire is present. This is why the use of a guidewire, even if preloaded into the LAMS and placement is freehand, is essential for EUS-GBD. A potential technique is to balloon dilate the duodenal/gastric defect and drive the endoscope into the peritoneum to reconnect that lumen to the gallbladder defect or LAMS, depending on the site of misdeployment. Doing so requires a high degree of commitment and skill and should not be done casually.
• If uncertainty remains or if misdeployment has occurred and salvage attempts have failed, consider closure of the duodenal/gastric defect and conversion to ET-GBD.

This may both treat the initial procedural indication and assist with what is essentially a large bile leak, which might also require percutaneous therapy for non-surgical management.

• For endoscopists with limited experience at salvage techniques, it is reasonable for the threshold for conversion to be low, assuming experience with and confidence in ET-GBD is high.
• If salvage is successful but ambiguity remains, consider obtaining a cholangiogram via the LAMS to confirm positioning and absence of leak.

Adverse Events

Both ET-GBD and EUS-GBD should be performed by an endoscopist comfortable with their techniques and the management of their adverse events (AEs). Rates for EUS-GBD AEs in patients at high risk for LC were reported in one international multicenter registry to be 15.3% with a 30-day mortality of 9.2%, with a significant predictor of AE being endoscopist experience less than 25 procedures.¹⁶ A meta-analysis also found an overall AE rate of 18.31%, with rates for perforation and stent related AEs (i.e. migration, occlusion, pneumoperitoneum) being 6.71% and 8.16%, respectively.¹⁷ For this reason, we recommend that patients with cholecystitis who are deemed to be poor surgical candidates be transferred to a tertiary referral center with expertise in these approaches. Rates of AEs for ET-GBD are similar to that for standard ERCP, with reported ranges of 5%-10.3%.¹⁰
 

Comparisons Between Techniques

The decision on which technique to utilize for endoscopic management of cholecystitis or symptomatic cholelithiasis depends first and foremost on the expertise and comfort level of the endoscopist. Given the additional training that an advanced endoscopist needs to perform EUS-GBD, combined with the perhaps slightly higher AE rate and permanency of endoscopic cholecystostomy, it is reasonable to proceed with a trial of ET-GBD if confidence is insufficient. However, ET-GBD can certainly be more technically challenging and less effective than EUS-GBD, with lower reported technical and clinical success rates (technical 85.3% vs 93.0%, clinical 95.2% vs 97.3%).¹⁸ Despite this, the rate of recurrence of cholecystitis is similar between ET-GBD and EUS-GBD (4.6% vs 4.2%).¹⁹ As stated above in the Techniques & Tips section, some authors utilize two plastic stents for ET-GBD for this purpose, though with increased technical difficulty. It is important to remember that these numbers, when paired with AE rates, represent the achievements of expert endoscopists.

Discussion with your surgery team is important when deciding modality. If the patient is felt to be a potential candidate for CCY, and EUS-GBD is not being used as a destination therapy, the surgeon may prefer ET-GBD. EUS-GBD may enhance the difficulty of CCY, though at least one study demonstrated that this was no different than PC with similar rates of conversion from LC to open CCY.²⁰ This conversation is most critical for patients who are potential liver transplant candidates. For patients where this is not a consideration there is some evidence to suggest equivalency between LC and EUS-GBD, though certainly EUS-GBD has not yet supplanted LC as the treatment of choice.²¹

While there may eventually be a shift towards EUS-GBD instead of LC in certain patient groups, what is clearer are the advantages of EUS-GBD over PC. One recent meta-analysis revealed that EUS-GBD has significantly favorable odds of overall adverse events (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.18-1.00), shorter hospital stay (2.76 less days, 95% CI 0.31-5.20 less days), reinterventions (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02-0.98), and unplanned readmissions (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.70) compared to PC.²² Beyond the data, though, are the emotional and psychological impacts an external drain can have on a patient.
 

Conclusion

When expertise is available, endoscopic treatment of benign gallbladder disease has a definite role but should be undertaken only by those with the experience and skill to safely do so. Decision to proceed, especially with EUS-GBD, should be accompanied by conversation and collaboration with surgical teams. If a patient is under consideration for PC instead of LC, it may be worthwhile to seek consultation with a local center with expertise in EUS-GBD or ET-GBD. The adoption of these techniques is part of the paradigm shift, seen broadly throughout medicine, towards minimally invasive interventions, particularly in advanced endoscopy.
 

Dr. Gilman (X @a_gilman) and Dr. Baron (X @EndoTx) are with the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology. Dr. Gilman has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Baron is a consultant and speaker for Ambu, Boston Scientific, Cook Endoscopy, Medtronic, Olympus America, and W.L. Gore.

References

1. Radder RW. Ultrasonically guided percutaneous catheter drainage for gallbladder empyema. Diagn Imaging. 1980;49:330-333.

2. Kozarek RA. Selective cannulation of the cystic duct at time of ERCP. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1984;6:37-40.

3. Tamada K et al. Efficacy of endoscopic retrograde cholecystoendoprosthesis (ERCCE) for cholecystitis. Endoscopy. 1991;23:2-3.

4. Reynolds W. The first laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS. 2001;5:89-94.

5. Baron TH, Topazian MD. Endoscopic transduodenal drainage of the gallbladder: Implications for endoluminal treatment of gallbladder disease. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007 Apr;65(4):735-7. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.07.041.

6. Irani SS et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal gallbladder drainage in patients with acute cholecystitis: A prospective multicenter trial. Ann Surg. 2023 Sep 1;278(3):e556-e562. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005784.

7. Shen Y et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided cholecystostomy for resection of gallbladder polyps with lumen-apposing metal stent. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Oct 23;99(43):e22903. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022903.

8. Pang H et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder endoscopic mucosal resection: A pilot porcine study. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2023 Feb;32(1):24-32. doi: 10.1080/13645706.2022.2153228.

9. Imai H et al. EUS-guided gallbladder drainage for rescue treatment of malignant distal biliary obstruction after unsuccessful ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Jul;84(1):147-51. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.12.024.

10. Saumoy M et al. Endoscopic therapies for gallbladder drainage. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Oct;94(4):671-84. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.05.031.

11. Van der Merwe SW et al. Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy. 2022 Feb;54(2):185-205. doi: 10.1055/a-1717-1391.

12. Storm AC et al. Transpapillary gallbladder stent placement for long-term therapy of acute cholecystitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Oct;94(4):742-8 e1. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.03.025.

13. James TW, Baron TH. Converting percutaneous gallbladder drainage to internal drainage using EUS-guided therapy: A review of current practices and procedures. Endosc Ultrasound. 2018 Mar-Apr;7(2):93-6. doi: 10.4103/eus.eus_110_17.

14. James TW, Baron TH. Transpapillary nasocystic tube placement to allow gallbladder distention for EUS-guided cholecystoduodenostomy. VideoGIE. 2019 Dec;4(12):561-2. doi: 10.1016/j.vgie.2019.08.009.

15. Gilman AJ, Baron TH. Delamination of a lumen-apposing metal stent with tissue ingrowth and stent-in-stent removal. Gastrointest Endosc. 2023 Sep;98(3):451-3. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2023.04.2087.

16. Teoh AY et al. Outcomes of an international multicenter registry on EUS-guided gallbladder drainage in patients at high risk for cholecystectomy. Endosc Int Open. 2019 Aug;7(8):E964-E973. doi: 10.1055/a-0915-2098.

17. Kalva NR et al. Efficacy and safety of lumen apposing self-expandable metal stents for EUS guided cholecystostomy: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;2018:7070961. doi: 10.1155/2018/7070961.

18. Khan MA et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic gallbladder drainage in acute cholecystitis: Is it better than percutaneous gallbladder drainage? Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Jan;85(1):76-87 e3. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.06.032.

19. Mohan BP et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage, transpapillary drainage, or percutaneous drainage in high risk acute cholecystitis patients: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2020 Feb;52(2):96-106. doi: 10.1055/a-1020-3932.

20. Jang JW et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural and percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage are comparable for acute cholecystitis. Gastroenterology. 2012 Apr;142(4):805-11. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.12.051.

21. Teoh AYB et al. EUS-guided gallbladder drainage versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a propensity score analysis with 1-year follow-up data. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Mar;93(3):577-83. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.066.

22. Luk SW et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage versus percutaneous cholecystostomy for high risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2019 Aug;51(8):722-32. doi: 10.1055/a-0929-6603.

Introduction

The treatment of benign gallbladder disease has changed substantially in the past decade, but this represents only a snapshot in the evolutionary history of the management of this organ. What began as a problem managed exclusively by open cholecystectomy (CCY) transitioned into a race toward minimally invasive approaches in the 1980s, with advances from gastroenterology, surgery, and radiology.

The opening strides were made in 1980 with the first description of percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) by Dr. R.W. Radder.¹ Shortly thereafter, in 1984, Dr. Richard Kozarek first reported the feasibility of selective cystic duct cannulation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).² Subsequent stenting for the treatment of acute cholecystitis (endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage, ET-GBD) was then reported by Tamada et. al. in 1991.³ Not to be outdone, the first laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) was completed by Dr. Med Erich Mühe of Germany in 1985.⁴ More recently, with the expansion of interventional endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), the first transmural EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) was described by Dr. Baron and Dr. Topazian in 2007.⁵

Techniques & Tips

ET-GBD

• During ERCP, after successful cannulation of the bile duct, attempted wire cannulation of the cystic duct is performed.

A cholangiogram, which clearly delineates the insertion of the cystic duct into the main bile duct, can enhance cannulation success. Rotatable fluoroscopy can facilitate identification.

• After anatomy is clear, wire access is often best achieved using a sphincterotome or stone retrieval (occlusion) balloon.

The balloon, once inflated, can be pulled downward to establish traction on the main bile duct, which can straighten the approach.

• After superficial wire engagement into the cystic duct, the accessory used can be slowly advanced into the cystic duct to stabilize the catheter and then navigate the valves of Heister to reach the gallbladder lumen.

Use of a sphincterotome, which directs toward the patient’s right (most often direction of cystic duct takeoff), is helpful. Angled guidewires are preferable. We often use a 0.035-inch, 260-cm angled hydrophilic wire (GLIDEWIRE; Terumo, Somerset, NJ) to overcome this challenging portion of ET-GBD.

If despite the above maneuvers the guidewire has failed to enter the cystic duct, cholangioscopy can be used to identify the orifice and/or stabilize deep wire cannulation. This is often cumbersome, time consuming, does not always produce success, and requires additional expertise.

• If a stone is encountered that cannot be extracted or traversed by a guidewire, cholangioscopy with electrohydraulic lithotripsy can be pursued.
• After the guidewire has entered the gallbladder, a 5 French or 7 French plastic double pigtail stent is placed. Typical lengths are 9-15 cm.

Some authors prefer to use two side-by-side plastic stents.¹² This has been shown retrospectively to enhance the long term clinical success of ET-GBD but with additional technical difficulty.

• This stent can remain in place indefinitely and need not be exchanged, though it should be removed just prior to CCY if pursued. Alternatively, the surgeon can be alerted to its presence and, if comfortable, it can be removed intraoperatively.

EUS-GBD

• Use of fluoroscopy is optional but can enhance technical success in selected situations.
• Conversion, or internalization, of PC is reasonable and can enhance patient quality of life.¹³
• If the gallbladder wall is not in close apposition to the duodenal (or gastric) wall, consider measuring the distance.

We preferentially use 10-mm diameter by 10-mm saddle length LAMS for EUS-GBD, unless the above distance warrants use of a 15-mm by 15-mm LAMS (AXIOS, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA). If the distance is greater than 15 mm, consider searching for an alternative site, using a traditional biliary fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) for longer length, or converting to ET-GBD. Smaller diameter (8 mm) with an 8-mm saddle length can be used as well. The optimal diameter is unknown and also dependent on whether transluminal endoscopic diagnosis or therapy is a consideration.

• If there is difficulty locating the gallbladder, it may be decompressed or small (particularly if PC or a partial CCY has already been performed).

If a cholecystostomy tube is in place, instillation of sterile water via the tube can sometimes improve the target for LAMS placement, though caution should be made to not over-distend the gallbladder. ERCP with placement of a nasobiliary tube into the gallbladder can also serve this purpose and has been previously described.¹⁴

The gallbladder can be punctured with a 19-gauge FNA needle to instill sterile water and distend the gallbladder with the added benefit of being able to pass a guidewire, which may enhance procedural safety in difficult cases. However, success of this technique is contingent on fluid remaining within the gallbladder and not transiting out via the cystic duct. Expedient exchange of the FNA needle for the LAMS device may be necessary.

• Attempt to confirm location within the duodenum prior to puncture, as gastric origins can pose unique ramifications (i.e. potential for partial gastric outlet obstruction, obstruction of LAMS with food debris, etc.).

It can be easy to mistake an unintentional pre-pyloric position for a position within the duodenum since the working channel is behind (proximal to) the echoprobe.

• Turning off Doppler flow prior to advancement of the cautery enhanced LAMS can reduce obscurement of views on entry into the gallbladder. Lack of certainty about entry or misdeployment after presumed entry herald the most challenging aspect of EUS-GBD.

Utilization of a previously placed guidewire or advancement of one preloaded into the LAMS can aid in both enhancing confidence in location and assist with salvage maneuvers, if needed.

• After successful deployment of the LAMS we routinely place a double pigtail plastic stent through it (typically 7 French by 4 cm) to maintain patency. This may also prevent bleeding from the LAMS flange abrading the wall of either lumen.
• We routinely exchange the LAMS for two double pigtail plastic stents (typically 7 French by 4 cm) 4 weeks after initial placement especially when there is a more than modest residual stone burden (data in press). These plastic stents can remain in place indefinitely.

This exchange can be deferred if the patient is not expected to survive until the one-year anniversary of LAMS deployment. After one year the LAMS plastic covering may degrade and pose additional problems.¹⁵

LAMS Misdeployment Salvage Tips

• Salvage techniques can vary from simple to complex.
• If a wire is in place, it can be used to balloon or catheter dilate the tract and place a FCSEMS traversing the gallbladder and duodenal/gastric lumens. A similar approach can be used if the LAMS deployed on only one side (gallbladder or duodenum/stomach) and the other flange is within the peritoneum.
• The most challenging scenario to salvage is if the LAMS is misdeployed or becomes dislodged and no wire is present. This is why the use of a guidewire, even if preloaded into the LAMS and placement is freehand, is essential for EUS-GBD. A potential technique is to balloon dilate the duodenal/gastric defect and drive the endoscope into the peritoneum to reconnect that lumen to the gallbladder defect or LAMS, depending on the site of misdeployment. Doing so requires a high degree of commitment and skill and should not be done casually.
• If uncertainty remains or if misdeployment has occurred and salvage attempts have failed, consider closure of the duodenal/gastric defect and conversion to ET-GBD.

This may both treat the initial procedural indication and assist with what is essentially a large bile leak, which might also require percutaneous therapy for non-surgical management.

• For endoscopists with limited experience at salvage techniques, it is reasonable for the threshold for conversion to be low, assuming experience with and confidence in ET-GBD is high.
• If salvage is successful but ambiguity remains, consider obtaining a cholangiogram via the LAMS to confirm positioning and absence of leak.

Adverse Events

Both ET-GBD and EUS-GBD should be performed by an endoscopist comfortable with their techniques and the management of their adverse events (AEs). Rates for EUS-GBD AEs in patients at high risk for LC were reported in one international multicenter registry to be 15.3% with a 30-day mortality of 9.2%, with a significant predictor of AE being endoscopist experience less than 25 procedures.¹⁶ A meta-analysis also found an overall AE rate of 18.31%, with rates for perforation and stent related AEs (i.e. migration, occlusion, pneumoperitoneum) being 6.71% and 8.16%, respectively.¹⁷ For this reason, we recommend that patients with cholecystitis who are deemed to be poor surgical candidates be transferred to a tertiary referral center with expertise in these approaches. Rates of AEs for ET-GBD are similar to that for standard ERCP, with reported ranges of 5%-10.3%.¹⁰
 

Comparisons Between Techniques

The decision on which technique to utilize for endoscopic management of cholecystitis or symptomatic cholelithiasis depends first and foremost on the expertise and comfort level of the endoscopist. Given the additional training that an advanced endoscopist needs to perform EUS-GBD, combined with the perhaps slightly higher AE rate and permanency of endoscopic cholecystostomy, it is reasonable to proceed with a trial of ET-GBD if confidence is insufficient. However, ET-GBD can certainly be more technically challenging and less effective than EUS-GBD, with lower reported technical and clinical success rates (technical 85.3% vs 93.0%, clinical 95.2% vs 97.3%).¹⁸ Despite this, the rate of recurrence of cholecystitis is similar between ET-GBD and EUS-GBD (4.6% vs 4.2%).¹⁹ As stated above in the Techniques & Tips section, some authors utilize two plastic stents for ET-GBD for this purpose, though with increased technical difficulty. It is important to remember that these numbers, when paired with AE rates, represent the achievements of expert endoscopists.

Discussion with your surgery team is important when deciding modality. If the patient is felt to be a potential candidate for CCY, and EUS-GBD is not being used as a destination therapy, the surgeon may prefer ET-GBD. EUS-GBD may enhance the difficulty of CCY, though at least one study demonstrated that this was no different than PC with similar rates of conversion from LC to open CCY.²⁰ This conversation is most critical for patients who are potential liver transplant candidates. For patients where this is not a consideration there is some evidence to suggest equivalency between LC and EUS-GBD, though certainly EUS-GBD has not yet supplanted LC as the treatment of choice.²¹

While there may eventually be a shift towards EUS-GBD instead of LC in certain patient groups, what is clearer are the advantages of EUS-GBD over PC. One recent meta-analysis revealed that EUS-GBD has significantly favorable odds of overall adverse events (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.18-1.00), shorter hospital stay (2.76 less days, 95% CI 0.31-5.20 less days), reinterventions (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02-0.98), and unplanned readmissions (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.70) compared to PC.²² Beyond the data, though, are the emotional and psychological impacts an external drain can have on a patient.
 

Conclusion

When expertise is available, endoscopic treatment of benign gallbladder disease has a definite role but should be undertaken only by those with the experience and skill to safely do so. Decision to proceed, especially with EUS-GBD, should be accompanied by conversation and collaboration with surgical teams. If a patient is under consideration for PC instead of LC, it may be worthwhile to seek consultation with a local center with expertise in EUS-GBD or ET-GBD. The adoption of these techniques is part of the paradigm shift, seen broadly throughout medicine, towards minimally invasive interventions, particularly in advanced endoscopy.
 

Dr. Gilman (X @a_gilman) and Dr. Baron (X @EndoTx) are with the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology. Dr. Gilman has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Baron is a consultant and speaker for Ambu, Boston Scientific, Cook Endoscopy, Medtronic, Olympus America, and W.L. Gore.

References

1. Radder RW. Ultrasonically guided percutaneous catheter drainage for gallbladder empyema. Diagn Imaging. 1980;49:330-333.

2. Kozarek RA. Selective cannulation of the cystic duct at time of ERCP. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1984;6:37-40.

3. Tamada K et al. Efficacy of endoscopic retrograde cholecystoendoprosthesis (ERCCE) for cholecystitis. Endoscopy. 1991;23:2-3.

4. Reynolds W. The first laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS. 2001;5:89-94.

5. Baron TH, Topazian MD. Endoscopic transduodenal drainage of the gallbladder: Implications for endoluminal treatment of gallbladder disease. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007 Apr;65(4):735-7. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.07.041.

6. Irani SS et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal gallbladder drainage in patients with acute cholecystitis: A prospective multicenter trial. Ann Surg. 2023 Sep 1;278(3):e556-e562. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005784.

7. Shen Y et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided cholecystostomy for resection of gallbladder polyps with lumen-apposing metal stent. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Oct 23;99(43):e22903. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022903.

8. Pang H et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder endoscopic mucosal resection: A pilot porcine study. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2023 Feb;32(1):24-32. doi: 10.1080/13645706.2022.2153228.

9. Imai H et al. EUS-guided gallbladder drainage for rescue treatment of malignant distal biliary obstruction after unsuccessful ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Jul;84(1):147-51. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.12.024.

10. Saumoy M et al. Endoscopic therapies for gallbladder drainage. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Oct;94(4):671-84. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.05.031.

11. Van der Merwe SW et al. Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy. 2022 Feb;54(2):185-205. doi: 10.1055/a-1717-1391.

12. Storm AC et al. Transpapillary gallbladder stent placement for long-term therapy of acute cholecystitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Oct;94(4):742-8 e1. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.03.025.

13. James TW, Baron TH. Converting percutaneous gallbladder drainage to internal drainage using EUS-guided therapy: A review of current practices and procedures. Endosc Ultrasound. 2018 Mar-Apr;7(2):93-6. doi: 10.4103/eus.eus_110_17.

14. James TW, Baron TH. Transpapillary nasocystic tube placement to allow gallbladder distention for EUS-guided cholecystoduodenostomy. VideoGIE. 2019 Dec;4(12):561-2. doi: 10.1016/j.vgie.2019.08.009.

15. Gilman AJ, Baron TH. Delamination of a lumen-apposing metal stent with tissue ingrowth and stent-in-stent removal. Gastrointest Endosc. 2023 Sep;98(3):451-3. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2023.04.2087.

16. Teoh AY et al. Outcomes of an international multicenter registry on EUS-guided gallbladder drainage in patients at high risk for cholecystectomy. Endosc Int Open. 2019 Aug;7(8):E964-E973. doi: 10.1055/a-0915-2098.

17. Kalva NR et al. Efficacy and safety of lumen apposing self-expandable metal stents for EUS guided cholecystostomy: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;2018:7070961. doi: 10.1155/2018/7070961.

18. Khan MA et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic gallbladder drainage in acute cholecystitis: Is it better than percutaneous gallbladder drainage? Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Jan;85(1):76-87 e3. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.06.032.

19. Mohan BP et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage, transpapillary drainage, or percutaneous drainage in high risk acute cholecystitis patients: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2020 Feb;52(2):96-106. doi: 10.1055/a-1020-3932.

20. Jang JW et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural and percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage are comparable for acute cholecystitis. Gastroenterology. 2012 Apr;142(4):805-11. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.12.051.

21. Teoh AYB et al. EUS-guided gallbladder drainage versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a propensity score analysis with 1-year follow-up data. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Mar;93(3):577-83. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.066.

22. Luk SW et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage versus percutaneous cholecystostomy for high risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2019 Aug;51(8):722-32. doi: 10.1055/a-0929-6603.

Introduction

The treatment of benign gallbladder disease has changed substantially in the past decade, but this represents only a snapshot in the evolutionary history of the management of this organ. What began as a problem managed exclusively by open cholecystectomy (CCY) transitioned into a race toward minimally invasive approaches in the 1980s, with advances from gastroenterology, surgery, and radiology.

The opening strides were made in 1980 with the first description of percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) by Dr. R.W. Radder.¹ Shortly thereafter, in 1984, Dr. Richard Kozarek first reported the feasibility of selective cystic duct cannulation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).² Subsequent stenting for the treatment of acute cholecystitis (endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage, ET-GBD) was then reported by Tamada et. al. in 1991.³ Not to be outdone, the first laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) was completed by Dr. Med Erich Mühe of Germany in 1985.⁴ More recently, with the expansion of interventional endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), the first transmural EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) was described by Dr. Baron and Dr. Topazian in 2007.⁵

Techniques & Tips

ET-GBD

• During ERCP, after successful cannulation of the bile duct, attempted wire cannulation of the cystic duct is performed.

A cholangiogram, which clearly delineates the insertion of the cystic duct into the main bile duct, can enhance cannulation success. Rotatable fluoroscopy can facilitate identification.

• After anatomy is clear, wire access is often best achieved using a sphincterotome or stone retrieval (occlusion) balloon.

The balloon, once inflated, can be pulled downward to establish traction on the main bile duct, which can straighten the approach.

• After superficial wire engagement into the cystic duct, the accessory used can be slowly advanced into the cystic duct to stabilize the catheter and then navigate the valves of Heister to reach the gallbladder lumen.

Use of a sphincterotome, which directs toward the patient’s right (most often direction of cystic duct takeoff), is helpful. Angled guidewires are preferable. We often use a 0.035-inch, 260-cm angled hydrophilic wire (GLIDEWIRE; Terumo, Somerset, NJ) to overcome this challenging portion of ET-GBD.

If despite the above maneuvers the guidewire has failed to enter the cystic duct, cholangioscopy can be used to identify the orifice and/or stabilize deep wire cannulation. This is often cumbersome, time consuming, does not always produce success, and requires additional expertise.

• If a stone is encountered that cannot be extracted or traversed by a guidewire, cholangioscopy with electrohydraulic lithotripsy can be pursued.
• After the guidewire has entered the gallbladder, a 5 French or 7 French plastic double pigtail stent is placed. Typical lengths are 9-15 cm.

Some authors prefer to use two side-by-side plastic stents.¹² This has been shown retrospectively to enhance the long term clinical success of ET-GBD but with additional technical difficulty.

• This stent can remain in place indefinitely and need not be exchanged, though it should be removed just prior to CCY if pursued. Alternatively, the surgeon can be alerted to its presence and, if comfortable, it can be removed intraoperatively.

EUS-GBD

• Use of fluoroscopy is optional but can enhance technical success in selected situations.
• Conversion, or internalization, of PC is reasonable and can enhance patient quality of life.¹³
• If the gallbladder wall is not in close apposition to the duodenal (or gastric) wall, consider measuring the distance.

We preferentially use 10-mm diameter by 10-mm saddle length LAMS for EUS-GBD, unless the above distance warrants use of a 15-mm by 15-mm LAMS (AXIOS, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA). If the distance is greater than 15 mm, consider searching for an alternative site, using a traditional biliary fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) for longer length, or converting to ET-GBD. Smaller diameter (8 mm) with an 8-mm saddle length can be used as well. The optimal diameter is unknown and also dependent on whether transluminal endoscopic diagnosis or therapy is a consideration.

• If there is difficulty locating the gallbladder, it may be decompressed or small (particularly if PC or a partial CCY has already been performed).

If a cholecystostomy tube is in place, instillation of sterile water via the tube can sometimes improve the target for LAMS placement, though caution should be made to not over-distend the gallbladder. ERCP with placement of a nasobiliary tube into the gallbladder can also serve this purpose and has been previously described.¹⁴

The gallbladder can be punctured with a 19-gauge FNA needle to instill sterile water and distend the gallbladder with the added benefit of being able to pass a guidewire, which may enhance procedural safety in difficult cases. However, success of this technique is contingent on fluid remaining within the gallbladder and not transiting out via the cystic duct. Expedient exchange of the FNA needle for the LAMS device may be necessary.

• Attempt to confirm location within the duodenum prior to puncture, as gastric origins can pose unique ramifications (i.e. potential for partial gastric outlet obstruction, obstruction of LAMS with food debris, etc.).

It can be easy to mistake an unintentional pre-pyloric position for a position within the duodenum since the working channel is behind (proximal to) the echoprobe.

• Turning off Doppler flow prior to advancement of the cautery enhanced LAMS can reduce obscurement of views on entry into the gallbladder. Lack of certainty about entry or misdeployment after presumed entry herald the most challenging aspect of EUS-GBD.

Utilization of a previously placed guidewire or advancement of one preloaded into the LAMS can aid in both enhancing confidence in location and assist with salvage maneuvers, if needed.

• After successful deployment of the LAMS we routinely place a double pigtail plastic stent through it (typically 7 French by 4 cm) to maintain patency. This may also prevent bleeding from the LAMS flange abrading the wall of either lumen.
• We routinely exchange the LAMS for two double pigtail plastic stents (typically 7 French by 4 cm) 4 weeks after initial placement especially when there is a more than modest residual stone burden (data in press). These plastic stents can remain in place indefinitely.

This exchange can be deferred if the patient is not expected to survive until the one-year anniversary of LAMS deployment. After one year the LAMS plastic covering may degrade and pose additional problems.¹⁵

LAMS Misdeployment Salvage Tips

• Salvage techniques can vary from simple to complex.
• If a wire is in place, it can be used to balloon or catheter dilate the tract and place a FCSEMS traversing the gallbladder and duodenal/gastric lumens. A similar approach can be used if the LAMS deployed on only one side (gallbladder or duodenum/stomach) and the other flange is within the peritoneum.
• The most challenging scenario to salvage is if the LAMS is misdeployed or becomes dislodged and no wire is present. This is why the use of a guidewire, even if preloaded into the LAMS and placement is freehand, is essential for EUS-GBD. A potential technique is to balloon dilate the duodenal/gastric defect and drive the endoscope into the peritoneum to reconnect that lumen to the gallbladder defect or LAMS, depending on the site of misdeployment. Doing so requires a high degree of commitment and skill and should not be done casually.
• If uncertainty remains or if misdeployment has occurred and salvage attempts have failed, consider closure of the duodenal/gastric defect and conversion to ET-GBD.

This may both treat the initial procedural indication and assist with what is essentially a large bile leak, which might also require percutaneous therapy for non-surgical management.

• For endoscopists with limited experience at salvage techniques, it is reasonable for the threshold for conversion to be low, assuming experience with and confidence in ET-GBD is high.
• If salvage is successful but ambiguity remains, consider obtaining a cholangiogram via the LAMS to confirm positioning and absence of leak.

Adverse Events

Both ET-GBD and EUS-GBD should be performed by an endoscopist comfortable with their techniques and the management of their adverse events (AEs). Rates for EUS-GBD AEs in patients at high risk for LC were reported in one international multicenter registry to be 15.3% with a 30-day mortality of 9.2%, with a significant predictor of AE being endoscopist experience less than 25 procedures.¹⁶ A meta-analysis also found an overall AE rate of 18.31%, with rates for perforation and stent related AEs (i.e. migration, occlusion, pneumoperitoneum) being 6.71% and 8.16%, respectively.¹⁷ For this reason, we recommend that patients with cholecystitis who are deemed to be poor surgical candidates be transferred to a tertiary referral center with expertise in these approaches. Rates of AEs for ET-GBD are similar to that for standard ERCP, with reported ranges of 5%-10.3%.¹⁰
 

Comparisons Between Techniques

The decision on which technique to utilize for endoscopic management of cholecystitis or symptomatic cholelithiasis depends first and foremost on the expertise and comfort level of the endoscopist. Given the additional training that an advanced endoscopist needs to perform EUS-GBD, combined with the perhaps slightly higher AE rate and permanency of endoscopic cholecystostomy, it is reasonable to proceed with a trial of ET-GBD if confidence is insufficient. However, ET-GBD can certainly be more technically challenging and less effective than EUS-GBD, with lower reported technical and clinical success rates (technical 85.3% vs 93.0%, clinical 95.2% vs 97.3%).¹⁸ Despite this, the rate of recurrence of cholecystitis is similar between ET-GBD and EUS-GBD (4.6% vs 4.2%).¹⁹ As stated above in the Techniques & Tips section, some authors utilize two plastic stents for ET-GBD for this purpose, though with increased technical difficulty. It is important to remember that these numbers, when paired with AE rates, represent the achievements of expert endoscopists.

Discussion with your surgery team is important when deciding modality. If the patient is felt to be a potential candidate for CCY, and EUS-GBD is not being used as a destination therapy, the surgeon may prefer ET-GBD. EUS-GBD may enhance the difficulty of CCY, though at least one study demonstrated that this was no different than PC with similar rates of conversion from LC to open CCY.²⁰ This conversation is most critical for patients who are potential liver transplant candidates. For patients where this is not a consideration there is some evidence to suggest equivalency between LC and EUS-GBD, though certainly EUS-GBD has not yet supplanted LC as the treatment of choice.²¹

While there may eventually be a shift towards EUS-GBD instead of LC in certain patient groups, what is clearer are the advantages of EUS-GBD over PC. One recent meta-analysis revealed that EUS-GBD has significantly favorable odds of overall adverse events (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.18-1.00), shorter hospital stay (2.76 less days, 95% CI 0.31-5.20 less days), reinterventions (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02-0.98), and unplanned readmissions (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.70) compared to PC.²² Beyond the data, though, are the emotional and psychological impacts an external drain can have on a patient.
 

Conclusion

When expertise is available, endoscopic treatment of benign gallbladder disease has a definite role but should be undertaken only by those with the experience and skill to safely do so. Decision to proceed, especially with EUS-GBD, should be accompanied by conversation and collaboration with surgical teams. If a patient is under consideration for PC instead of LC, it may be worthwhile to seek consultation with a local center with expertise in EUS-GBD or ET-GBD. The adoption of these techniques is part of the paradigm shift, seen broadly throughout medicine, towards minimally invasive interventions, particularly in advanced endoscopy.
 

Dr. Gilman (X @a_gilman) and Dr. Baron (X @EndoTx) are with the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology. Dr. Gilman has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Baron is a consultant and speaker for Ambu, Boston Scientific, Cook Endoscopy, Medtronic, Olympus America, and W.L. Gore.

References

1. Radder RW. Ultrasonically guided percutaneous catheter drainage for gallbladder empyema. Diagn Imaging. 1980;49:330-333.

2. Kozarek RA. Selective cannulation of the cystic duct at time of ERCP. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1984;6:37-40.

3. Tamada K et al. Efficacy of endoscopic retrograde cholecystoendoprosthesis (ERCCE) for cholecystitis. Endoscopy. 1991;23:2-3.

4. Reynolds W. The first laparoscopic cholecystectomy. JSLS. 2001;5:89-94.

5. Baron TH, Topazian MD. Endoscopic transduodenal drainage of the gallbladder: Implications for endoluminal treatment of gallbladder disease. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007 Apr;65(4):735-7. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.07.041.

6. Irani SS et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal gallbladder drainage in patients with acute cholecystitis: A prospective multicenter trial. Ann Surg. 2023 Sep 1;278(3):e556-e562. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005784.

7. Shen Y et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided cholecystostomy for resection of gallbladder polyps with lumen-apposing metal stent. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Oct 23;99(43):e22903. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022903.

8. Pang H et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder endoscopic mucosal resection: A pilot porcine study. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2023 Feb;32(1):24-32. doi: 10.1080/13645706.2022.2153228.

9. Imai H et al. EUS-guided gallbladder drainage for rescue treatment of malignant distal biliary obstruction after unsuccessful ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Jul;84(1):147-51. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.12.024.

10. Saumoy M et al. Endoscopic therapies for gallbladder drainage. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Oct;94(4):671-84. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.05.031.

11. Van der Merwe SW et al. Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy. 2022 Feb;54(2):185-205. doi: 10.1055/a-1717-1391.

12. Storm AC et al. Transpapillary gallbladder stent placement for long-term therapy of acute cholecystitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Oct;94(4):742-8 e1. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.03.025.

13. James TW, Baron TH. Converting percutaneous gallbladder drainage to internal drainage using EUS-guided therapy: A review of current practices and procedures. Endosc Ultrasound. 2018 Mar-Apr;7(2):93-6. doi: 10.4103/eus.eus_110_17.

14. James TW, Baron TH. Transpapillary nasocystic tube placement to allow gallbladder distention for EUS-guided cholecystoduodenostomy. VideoGIE. 2019 Dec;4(12):561-2. doi: 10.1016/j.vgie.2019.08.009.

15. Gilman AJ, Baron TH. Delamination of a lumen-apposing metal stent with tissue ingrowth and stent-in-stent removal. Gastrointest Endosc. 2023 Sep;98(3):451-3. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2023.04.2087.

16. Teoh AY et al. Outcomes of an international multicenter registry on EUS-guided gallbladder drainage in patients at high risk for cholecystectomy. Endosc Int Open. 2019 Aug;7(8):E964-E973. doi: 10.1055/a-0915-2098.

17. Kalva NR et al. Efficacy and safety of lumen apposing self-expandable metal stents for EUS guided cholecystostomy: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;2018:7070961. doi: 10.1155/2018/7070961.

18. Khan MA et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic gallbladder drainage in acute cholecystitis: Is it better than percutaneous gallbladder drainage? Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Jan;85(1):76-87 e3. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.06.032.

19. Mohan BP et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage, transpapillary drainage, or percutaneous drainage in high risk acute cholecystitis patients: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2020 Feb;52(2):96-106. doi: 10.1055/a-1020-3932.

20. Jang JW et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural and percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage are comparable for acute cholecystitis. Gastroenterology. 2012 Apr;142(4):805-11. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.12.051.

21. Teoh AYB et al. EUS-guided gallbladder drainage versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis: a propensity score analysis with 1-year follow-up data. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Mar;93(3):577-83. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.066.

22. Luk SW et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage versus percutaneous cholecystostomy for high risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2019 Aug;51(8):722-32. doi: 10.1055/a-0929-6603.

Gastroenterology

October 2023

El-Salhy M et al. Efficacy of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome at 3 Years After Transplantation. Gastroenterology. 2022 Oct;163(4):982-994.e14. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.06.020. Epub 2022 Jun 14. PMID: 35709830.



Bajaj JS and Nagy LE. Natural History of Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease: Understanding the Changing Landscape of Pathophysiology and Patient Care. Gastroenterology. 2022 Oct;163(4):840-851. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.05.031. Epub 2022 May 19. PMID: 35598629; PMCID: PMC9509416.



Lo CH et al. Association of Proton Pump Inhibitor Use With All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality. Gastroenterology. 2022 Oct;163(4):852-861.e2. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.06.067. Epub 2022 Jul 1. PMID: 35788344; PMCID: PMC9509450.



November 2023

Khoshiwal AM et al. The Tissue Systems Pathology Test Outperforms Pathology Review in Risk Stratifying Patients With Low-Grade Dysplasia. Gastroenterology. 2023 Nov;165(5):1168-1179.e6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.07.029. Epub 2023 Aug 30. PMID: 37657759.



Chen YI et al. Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage of First Intent With a Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent vs Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study (ELEMENT Trial). Gastroenterology. 2023 Nov;165(5):1249-1261.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.07.024. Epub 2023 Aug 6. PMID: 37549753.



December 2023

Almario CV et al. Prevalence and Burden of Illness of Rome IV Irritable Bowel Syndrome in the United States: Results From a Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study. Gastroenterology. 2023 Dec;165(6):1475-1487. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.08.010. Epub 2023 Aug 16. PMID: 37595647.



Koopmann BDM et al. The Natural Disease Course of Pancreatic Cyst-Associated Neoplasia, Dysplasia, and Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Results of a Microsimulation Model. Gastroenterology. 2023 Dec;165(6):1522-1532. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.08.027. Epub 2023 Aug 24. PMID: 37633497.


 

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

October 2023

Jung DH et al. Comparison of a Polysaccharide Hemostatic Powder and Conventional Therapy for Peptic Ulcer Bleeding. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Oct;21(11):2844-2253.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.02.031. Epub 2023 Mar 10. PMID: 36906081.



Liang PS et al. Blood Test Increases Colorectal Cancer Screening in Persons Who Declined Colonoscopy and Fecal Immunochemical Test: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Oct;21(11):2951-2957.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.03.036. Epub 2023 Apr 8. PMID: 37037262; PMCID: PMC10523873.



November 2023

Li YK et al. Risk of Postcolonoscopy Thromboembolic Events: A Real-World Cohort Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Nov;21(12):3051-3059.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.09.021. Epub 2022 Sep 24. PMID: 36167228.



Tome J et al. Bile Acid Sequestrants in Microscopic Colitis: Clinical Outcomes and Utility of Bile Acid Testing. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Nov;21(12):3125-3131.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.04.031. Epub 2023 May 10. PMID: 37172800.



Berry SK et al. A Randomized Parallel-group Study of Digital Gut-directed Hypnotherapy vs Muscle Relaxation for Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Nov;21(12):3152-3159.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.06.015. Epub 2023 Jun 28. PMID: 37391055.



December 2023

Kanwal F et al. Risk Stratification Model for Hepatocellular Cancer in Patients With Cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Dec;21(13):3296-3304.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.04.019. Epub 2023 Apr 30. PMID: 37390101; PMCID: PMC10661677.



Forss A et al. Patients With Microscopic Colitis Are at Higher Risk of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events: A Matched Cohort Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Dec;21(13):3356-3364.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.05.014. Epub 2023 May 26. PMID: 37245713.



Zheng T et al. A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Efficacy and Safety of Cannabidiol in Idiopathic and Diabetic Gastroparesis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Dec;21(13):3405-3414.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.07.008. Epub 2023 Jul 22. PMID: 37482172.


 

Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Rengarajan A and Aadam A. Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) and Its Use in Esophageal Dysmotility. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2023 Dec 16. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2023.12.004.



Wang D et al. Sphincterotomy vs Sham Procedure for Pain Relief in Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2023 Nov 7. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2023.10.003


 

Gastro Hep Advances

Gregory MH et al. Short Bowel Syndrome: Transition of Pediatric Patients to Adult Gastroenterology Care. Gastro Hep Advances. 2023 Sep 8. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2023.09.006.



Viser AC et al. Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients in the Ambulatory Setting Commonly Screen Positive for Malnutrition. Gastro Hep Advances. 2023 Nov 16. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2023.11.007.

Gastroenterology

October 2023

El-Salhy M et al. Efficacy of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome at 3 Years After Transplantation. Gastroenterology. 2022 Oct;163(4):982-994.e14. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.06.020. Epub 2022 Jun 14. PMID: 35709830.



Bajaj JS and Nagy LE. Natural History of Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease: Understanding the Changing Landscape of Pathophysiology and Patient Care. Gastroenterology. 2022 Oct;163(4):840-851. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.05.031. Epub 2022 May 19. PMID: 35598629; PMCID: PMC9509416.



Lo CH et al. Association of Proton Pump Inhibitor Use With All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality. Gastroenterology. 2022 Oct;163(4):852-861.e2. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.06.067. Epub 2022 Jul 1. PMID: 35788344; PMCID: PMC9509450.



November 2023

Khoshiwal AM et al. The Tissue Systems Pathology Test Outperforms Pathology Review in Risk Stratifying Patients With Low-Grade Dysplasia. Gastroenterology. 2023 Nov;165(5):1168-1179.e6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.07.029. Epub 2023 Aug 30. PMID: 37657759.



Chen YI et al. Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage of First Intent With a Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent vs Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study (ELEMENT Trial). Gastroenterology. 2023 Nov;165(5):1249-1261.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.07.024. Epub 2023 Aug 6. PMID: 37549753.



December 2023

Almario CV et al. Prevalence and Burden of Illness of Rome IV Irritable Bowel Syndrome in the United States: Results From a Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study. Gastroenterology. 2023 Dec;165(6):1475-1487. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.08.010. Epub 2023 Aug 16. PMID: 37595647.



Koopmann BDM et al. The Natural Disease Course of Pancreatic Cyst-Associated Neoplasia, Dysplasia, and Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Results of a Microsimulation Model. Gastroenterology. 2023 Dec;165(6):1522-1532. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.08.027. Epub 2023 Aug 24. PMID: 37633497.


 

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

October 2023

Jung DH et al. Comparison of a Polysaccharide Hemostatic Powder and Conventional Therapy for Peptic Ulcer Bleeding. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Oct;21(11):2844-2253.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.02.031. Epub 2023 Mar 10. PMID: 36906081.



Liang PS et al. Blood Test Increases Colorectal Cancer Screening in Persons Who Declined Colonoscopy and Fecal Immunochemical Test: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Oct;21(11):2951-2957.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.03.036. Epub 2023 Apr 8. PMID: 37037262; PMCID: PMC10523873.



November 2023

Li YK et al. Risk of Postcolonoscopy Thromboembolic Events: A Real-World Cohort Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Nov;21(12):3051-3059.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.09.021. Epub 2022 Sep 24. PMID: 36167228.



Tome J et al. Bile Acid Sequestrants in Microscopic Colitis: Clinical Outcomes and Utility of Bile Acid Testing. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Nov;21(12):3125-3131.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.04.031. Epub 2023 May 10. PMID: 37172800.



Berry SK et al. A Randomized Parallel-group Study of Digital Gut-directed Hypnotherapy vs Muscle Relaxation for Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Nov;21(12):3152-3159.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.06.015. Epub 2023 Jun 28. PMID: 37391055.



December 2023

Kanwal F et al. Risk Stratification Model for Hepatocellular Cancer in Patients With Cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Dec;21(13):3296-3304.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.04.019. Epub 2023 Apr 30. PMID: 37390101; PMCID: PMC10661677.



Forss A et al. Patients With Microscopic Colitis Are at Higher Risk of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events: A Matched Cohort Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Dec;21(13):3356-3364.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.05.014. Epub 2023 May 26. PMID: 37245713.



Zheng T et al. A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Efficacy and Safety of Cannabidiol in Idiopathic and Diabetic Gastroparesis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Dec;21(13):3405-3414.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.07.008. Epub 2023 Jul 22. PMID: 37482172.


 

Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Rengarajan A and Aadam A. Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) and Its Use in Esophageal Dysmotility. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2023 Dec 16. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2023.12.004.



Wang D et al. Sphincterotomy vs Sham Procedure for Pain Relief in Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2023 Nov 7. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2023.10.003


 

Gastro Hep Advances

Gregory MH et al. Short Bowel Syndrome: Transition of Pediatric Patients to Adult Gastroenterology Care. Gastro Hep Advances. 2023 Sep 8. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2023.09.006.



Viser AC et al. Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients in the Ambulatory Setting Commonly Screen Positive for Malnutrition. Gastro Hep Advances. 2023 Nov 16. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2023.11.007.

Gastroenterology

October 2023

El-Salhy M et al. Efficacy of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome at 3 Years After Transplantation. Gastroenterology. 2022 Oct;163(4):982-994.e14. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.06.020. Epub 2022 Jun 14. PMID: 35709830.



Bajaj JS and Nagy LE. Natural History of Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease: Understanding the Changing Landscape of Pathophysiology and Patient Care. Gastroenterology. 2022 Oct;163(4):840-851. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.05.031. Epub 2022 May 19. PMID: 35598629; PMCID: PMC9509416.



Lo CH et al. Association of Proton Pump Inhibitor Use With All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality. Gastroenterology. 2022 Oct;163(4):852-861.e2. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.06.067. Epub 2022 Jul 1. PMID: 35788344; PMCID: PMC9509450.



November 2023

Khoshiwal AM et al. The Tissue Systems Pathology Test Outperforms Pathology Review in Risk Stratifying Patients With Low-Grade Dysplasia. Gastroenterology. 2023 Nov;165(5):1168-1179.e6. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.07.029. Epub 2023 Aug 30. PMID: 37657759.



Chen YI et al. Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage of First Intent With a Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent vs Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study (ELEMENT Trial). Gastroenterology. 2023 Nov;165(5):1249-1261.e5. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.07.024. Epub 2023 Aug 6. PMID: 37549753.



December 2023

Almario CV et al. Prevalence and Burden of Illness of Rome IV Irritable Bowel Syndrome in the United States: Results From a Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study. Gastroenterology. 2023 Dec;165(6):1475-1487. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.08.010. Epub 2023 Aug 16. PMID: 37595647.



Koopmann BDM et al. The Natural Disease Course of Pancreatic Cyst-Associated Neoplasia, Dysplasia, and Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Results of a Microsimulation Model. Gastroenterology. 2023 Dec;165(6):1522-1532. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.08.027. Epub 2023 Aug 24. PMID: 37633497.


 

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

October 2023

Jung DH et al. Comparison of a Polysaccharide Hemostatic Powder and Conventional Therapy for Peptic Ulcer Bleeding. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Oct;21(11):2844-2253.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.02.031. Epub 2023 Mar 10. PMID: 36906081.



Liang PS et al. Blood Test Increases Colorectal Cancer Screening in Persons Who Declined Colonoscopy and Fecal Immunochemical Test: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Oct;21(11):2951-2957.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.03.036. Epub 2023 Apr 8. PMID: 37037262; PMCID: PMC10523873.



November 2023

Li YK et al. Risk of Postcolonoscopy Thromboembolic Events: A Real-World Cohort Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Nov;21(12):3051-3059.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.09.021. Epub 2022 Sep 24. PMID: 36167228.



Tome J et al. Bile Acid Sequestrants in Microscopic Colitis: Clinical Outcomes and Utility of Bile Acid Testing. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Nov;21(12):3125-3131.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.04.031. Epub 2023 May 10. PMID: 37172800.



Berry SK et al. A Randomized Parallel-group Study of Digital Gut-directed Hypnotherapy vs Muscle Relaxation for Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Nov;21(12):3152-3159.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.06.015. Epub 2023 Jun 28. PMID: 37391055.



December 2023

Kanwal F et al. Risk Stratification Model for Hepatocellular Cancer in Patients With Cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Dec;21(13):3296-3304.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.04.019. Epub 2023 Apr 30. PMID: 37390101; PMCID: PMC10661677.



Forss A et al. Patients With Microscopic Colitis Are at Higher Risk of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events: A Matched Cohort Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Dec;21(13):3356-3364.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.05.014. Epub 2023 May 26. PMID: 37245713.



Zheng T et al. A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Efficacy and Safety of Cannabidiol in Idiopathic and Diabetic Gastroparesis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Dec;21(13):3405-3414.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.07.008. Epub 2023 Jul 22. PMID: 37482172.


 

Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Rengarajan A and Aadam A. Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy (POEM) and Its Use in Esophageal Dysmotility. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2023 Dec 16. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2023.12.004.



Wang D et al. Sphincterotomy vs Sham Procedure for Pain Relief in Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2023 Nov 7. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2023.10.003


 

Gastro Hep Advances

Gregory MH et al. Short Bowel Syndrome: Transition of Pediatric Patients to Adult Gastroenterology Care. Gastro Hep Advances. 2023 Sep 8. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2023.09.006.



Viser AC et al. Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients in the Ambulatory Setting Commonly Screen Positive for Malnutrition. Gastro Hep Advances. 2023 Nov 16. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2023.11.007.

WASHINGTON, DC — The American Gastroenterological Association Center for GI Innovation and Technology recently held its fifth annual Innovation Conference (formerly Consensus Conference) on the Advances in Endosurgery, November 10 – 11. It was organized and chaired by Amrita Sethi, MD, Columbia University Irving Medical Center—NYP and Sri Komanduri, MD, MS, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago.

The conference brought together gastroenterologists (GIs), surgeons, and industry partners to explore what further collaboration and clinical adoption is needed to advance endosurgical applications. Both GIs and surgeons welcomed potential collaboration especially in developing strategies to promote education and training initiatives, including defining what procedures and techniques are to be included in the endosurgery arena. Jeffrey Potkul, Medtronic Endoscopy, noted that this was a “great forum, format, and discussions — it will take novel approaches such as this conference and new collaboration models to ensure technology innovation in the endoluminal space can reach patients and empower improved outcomes in Gastroenterology.”

Dana Johnston

Topics discussed included third space endoscopy, endobariatric and metabolic endoscopy, and endoscopy related to transluminal access. Exciting new developments in robotic endoscopy were also highlighted with an attempt to understand the value proposition of this innovation in the endoscopy space, as well as successes and failures of past efforts to help guide success going forward. Other issues raised were methods for device development including initiating research studies, how to navigate regulatory processes for Food and Drug Administration approval of new devices, and ongoing issues related to billing and reimbursement. There was consensus around the need for collaboration between all stakeholders to drive innovation and its adoption in the field of endosurgery. This meeting is one of the first of its kind to bring innovators across multiple disciplines together with the intention of moving the entire field of endosurgery forward and encouraging creative solutions.

We would like to thank the members of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology Committee and attendees who made this year’s conference a success. The conference was supported by independent grants from Boston Scientific Corporation, Cook Medical Inc., Endo Tools Therapeutics, Fujifilm Healthcare Americas Corporation, Intuitive Surgical, Olympus Corporation, and Medtronic.

WASHINGTON, DC — The American Gastroenterological Association Center for GI Innovation and Technology recently held its fifth annual Innovation Conference (formerly Consensus Conference) on the Advances in Endosurgery, November 10 – 11. It was organized and chaired by Amrita Sethi, MD, Columbia University Irving Medical Center—NYP and Sri Komanduri, MD, MS, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago.

The conference brought together gastroenterologists (GIs), surgeons, and industry partners to explore what further collaboration and clinical adoption is needed to advance endosurgical applications. Both GIs and surgeons welcomed potential collaboration especially in developing strategies to promote education and training initiatives, including defining what procedures and techniques are to be included in the endosurgery arena. Jeffrey Potkul, Medtronic Endoscopy, noted that this was a “great forum, format, and discussions — it will take novel approaches such as this conference and new collaboration models to ensure technology innovation in the endoluminal space can reach patients and empower improved outcomes in Gastroenterology.”

Dana Johnston

Topics discussed included third space endoscopy, endobariatric and metabolic endoscopy, and endoscopy related to transluminal access. Exciting new developments in robotic endoscopy were also highlighted with an attempt to understand the value proposition of this innovation in the endoscopy space, as well as successes and failures of past efforts to help guide success going forward. Other issues raised were methods for device development including initiating research studies, how to navigate regulatory processes for Food and Drug Administration approval of new devices, and ongoing issues related to billing and reimbursement. There was consensus around the need for collaboration between all stakeholders to drive innovation and its adoption in the field of endosurgery. This meeting is one of the first of its kind to bring innovators across multiple disciplines together with the intention of moving the entire field of endosurgery forward and encouraging creative solutions.

We would like to thank the members of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology Committee and attendees who made this year’s conference a success. The conference was supported by independent grants from Boston Scientific Corporation, Cook Medical Inc., Endo Tools Therapeutics, Fujifilm Healthcare Americas Corporation, Intuitive Surgical, Olympus Corporation, and Medtronic.

WASHINGTON, DC — The American Gastroenterological Association Center for GI Innovation and Technology recently held its fifth annual Innovation Conference (formerly Consensus Conference) on the Advances in Endosurgery, November 10 – 11. It was organized and chaired by Amrita Sethi, MD, Columbia University Irving Medical Center—NYP and Sri Komanduri, MD, MS, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago.

The conference brought together gastroenterologists (GIs), surgeons, and industry partners to explore what further collaboration and clinical adoption is needed to advance endosurgical applications. Both GIs and surgeons welcomed potential collaboration especially in developing strategies to promote education and training initiatives, including defining what procedures and techniques are to be included in the endosurgery arena. Jeffrey Potkul, Medtronic Endoscopy, noted that this was a “great forum, format, and discussions — it will take novel approaches such as this conference and new collaboration models to ensure technology innovation in the endoluminal space can reach patients and empower improved outcomes in Gastroenterology.”

Dana Johnston

Topics discussed included third space endoscopy, endobariatric and metabolic endoscopy, and endoscopy related to transluminal access. Exciting new developments in robotic endoscopy were also highlighted with an attempt to understand the value proposition of this innovation in the endoscopy space, as well as successes and failures of past efforts to help guide success going forward. Other issues raised were methods for device development including initiating research studies, how to navigate regulatory processes for Food and Drug Administration approval of new devices, and ongoing issues related to billing and reimbursement. There was consensus around the need for collaboration between all stakeholders to drive innovation and its adoption in the field of endosurgery. This meeting is one of the first of its kind to bring innovators across multiple disciplines together with the intention of moving the entire field of endosurgery forward and encouraging creative solutions.

We would like to thank the members of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology Committee and attendees who made this year’s conference a success. The conference was supported by independent grants from Boston Scientific Corporation, Cook Medical Inc., Endo Tools Therapeutics, Fujifilm Healthcare Americas Corporation, Intuitive Surgical, Olympus Corporation, and Medtronic.

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has published a Clinical Practice Update for managing exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI). The update, which was led by Anna M. Buchner, MD, PhD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, includes 15 best practice advice statements based on available literature and expert opinion.

“EPI is frequently underdiagnosed and, as a result, patients are often not treated appropriately,” the authors wrote in Gastroenterology. “There is an urgent need to increase awareness of and treatment for this condition.”

To this end, the authors offered guidance spanning the patient journey, with recommendations broadly grouped into four categories: clinical features and risk factors, diagnostic strategies, treatment approaches, and disease monitoring.
 

Clinical features and risk factors

The CPU begins by listing the key clinical features of EPI, including bloating, excessive flatulence, fat-soluble vitamin deficiencies, protein-calorie malnutrition, steatorrhea with or without diarrhea, and weight loss.

The authors went on to suggest that EPI should also be considered in patients with high-risk clinical conditions, including previous pancreatic surgery, chronic pancreatitis, cystic fibrosis, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and relapsing acute pancreatitis.

Similarly, suspicion should be increased for individuals with moderate-risk clinical conditions, such as prior intestinal surgery, Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, longstanding diabetes mellitus, and duodenal diseases such as celiac and Crohn’s disease.
 

Diagnostic strategies

The primary diagnostic tool for EPI is the fecal elastase test, according to the update. Levels below 100 mcg/g indicate EPI, whereas levels between 100-200 mcg/g are considered indeterminate. The investigators noted that this test can be conducted even during pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT).

Other tests for EPI are rarely used, such as fecal fat testing, which must be performed on a high-fat diet, and quantitative testing, which is generally impractical for routine clinical use.

The authors also noted that a therapeutic trial of PERT is an unreliable method for diagnosing EPI.

“Patients with nonspecific symptoms, such as bloating, excess gas, and foul-smelling or floating stools may note some improvement in these symptoms while taking PERT, but these symptoms are nonspecific and symptomatic changes may be a placebo effect or masking other disorders, such as celiac disease, causing delays in a correct diagnosis,” they wrote.

While cross-sectional imaging methods such as CT scans, MRI, and endoscopic ultrasound play a significant role in detecting other pancreatic diseases, they cannot identify EPI. Breath tests and direct pancreatic function tests do hold promise, but they are not widely available in the United States.
 

Treatment strategies

Once EPI is diagnosed, treatment with PERT is indicated to prevent complications related to fat malabsorption and malnutrition.

PERT formulations are all equally effective at equivalent doses, according to the update, but non–enteric-coated preparations require concurrent H2 or proton pump inhibitor therapy. PERT should be taken during meals, with an initial adult dose of at least 40,000 USP units of lipase during each meal. Half that dose may be considered for snacks, with further dosage refinements based on meal size and fat content.

Dietary modifications may include supplementation with fat-soluble vitamins alongside smaller, more frequent, low- to moderate-fat meals. Very-low-fat diets should be avoided, the authors cautioned.
 

Surveillance

EPI treatment success can be identified by reduction in steatorrhea and associated gastrointestinal symptoms, as well as weight gain, improved muscle mass and function, and enhanced fat-soluble vitamin levels, Dr. Whitcomb and colleagues wrote, noting that a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan also should be performed at baseline, then repeated every 1-2 years.

The update was commissioned and approved by the AGA. The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Nestlé, Regeneron, and others.

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has published a Clinical Practice Update for managing exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI). The update, which was led by Anna M. Buchner, MD, PhD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, includes 15 best practice advice statements based on available literature and expert opinion.

“EPI is frequently underdiagnosed and, as a result, patients are often not treated appropriately,” the authors wrote in Gastroenterology. “There is an urgent need to increase awareness of and treatment for this condition.”

To this end, the authors offered guidance spanning the patient journey, with recommendations broadly grouped into four categories: clinical features and risk factors, diagnostic strategies, treatment approaches, and disease monitoring.
 

Clinical features and risk factors

The CPU begins by listing the key clinical features of EPI, including bloating, excessive flatulence, fat-soluble vitamin deficiencies, protein-calorie malnutrition, steatorrhea with or without diarrhea, and weight loss.

The authors went on to suggest that EPI should also be considered in patients with high-risk clinical conditions, including previous pancreatic surgery, chronic pancreatitis, cystic fibrosis, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and relapsing acute pancreatitis.

Similarly, suspicion should be increased for individuals with moderate-risk clinical conditions, such as prior intestinal surgery, Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, longstanding diabetes mellitus, and duodenal diseases such as celiac and Crohn’s disease.
 

Diagnostic strategies

The primary diagnostic tool for EPI is the fecal elastase test, according to the update. Levels below 100 mcg/g indicate EPI, whereas levels between 100-200 mcg/g are considered indeterminate. The investigators noted that this test can be conducted even during pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT).

Other tests for EPI are rarely used, such as fecal fat testing, which must be performed on a high-fat diet, and quantitative testing, which is generally impractical for routine clinical use.

The authors also noted that a therapeutic trial of PERT is an unreliable method for diagnosing EPI.

“Patients with nonspecific symptoms, such as bloating, excess gas, and foul-smelling or floating stools may note some improvement in these symptoms while taking PERT, but these symptoms are nonspecific and symptomatic changes may be a placebo effect or masking other disorders, such as celiac disease, causing delays in a correct diagnosis,” they wrote.

While cross-sectional imaging methods such as CT scans, MRI, and endoscopic ultrasound play a significant role in detecting other pancreatic diseases, they cannot identify EPI. Breath tests and direct pancreatic function tests do hold promise, but they are not widely available in the United States.
 

Treatment strategies

Once EPI is diagnosed, treatment with PERT is indicated to prevent complications related to fat malabsorption and malnutrition.

PERT formulations are all equally effective at equivalent doses, according to the update, but non–enteric-coated preparations require concurrent H2 or proton pump inhibitor therapy. PERT should be taken during meals, with an initial adult dose of at least 40,000 USP units of lipase during each meal. Half that dose may be considered for snacks, with further dosage refinements based on meal size and fat content.

Dietary modifications may include supplementation with fat-soluble vitamins alongside smaller, more frequent, low- to moderate-fat meals. Very-low-fat diets should be avoided, the authors cautioned.
 

Surveillance

EPI treatment success can be identified by reduction in steatorrhea and associated gastrointestinal symptoms, as well as weight gain, improved muscle mass and function, and enhanced fat-soluble vitamin levels, Dr. Whitcomb and colleagues wrote, noting that a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan also should be performed at baseline, then repeated every 1-2 years.

The update was commissioned and approved by the AGA. The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Nestlé, Regeneron, and others.

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has published a Clinical Practice Update for managing exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI). The update, which was led by Anna M. Buchner, MD, PhD, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, includes 15 best practice advice statements based on available literature and expert opinion.

“EPI is frequently underdiagnosed and, as a result, patients are often not treated appropriately,” the authors wrote in Gastroenterology. “There is an urgent need to increase awareness of and treatment for this condition.”

To this end, the authors offered guidance spanning the patient journey, with recommendations broadly grouped into four categories: clinical features and risk factors, diagnostic strategies, treatment approaches, and disease monitoring.
 

Clinical features and risk factors

The CPU begins by listing the key clinical features of EPI, including bloating, excessive flatulence, fat-soluble vitamin deficiencies, protein-calorie malnutrition, steatorrhea with or without diarrhea, and weight loss.

The authors went on to suggest that EPI should also be considered in patients with high-risk clinical conditions, including previous pancreatic surgery, chronic pancreatitis, cystic fibrosis, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and relapsing acute pancreatitis.

Similarly, suspicion should be increased for individuals with moderate-risk clinical conditions, such as prior intestinal surgery, Zollinger-Ellison syndrome, longstanding diabetes mellitus, and duodenal diseases such as celiac and Crohn’s disease.
 

Diagnostic strategies

The primary diagnostic tool for EPI is the fecal elastase test, according to the update. Levels below 100 mcg/g indicate EPI, whereas levels between 100-200 mcg/g are considered indeterminate. The investigators noted that this test can be conducted even during pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT).

Other tests for EPI are rarely used, such as fecal fat testing, which must be performed on a high-fat diet, and quantitative testing, which is generally impractical for routine clinical use.

The authors also noted that a therapeutic trial of PERT is an unreliable method for diagnosing EPI.

“Patients with nonspecific symptoms, such as bloating, excess gas, and foul-smelling or floating stools may note some improvement in these symptoms while taking PERT, but these symptoms are nonspecific and symptomatic changes may be a placebo effect or masking other disorders, such as celiac disease, causing delays in a correct diagnosis,” they wrote.

While cross-sectional imaging methods such as CT scans, MRI, and endoscopic ultrasound play a significant role in detecting other pancreatic diseases, they cannot identify EPI. Breath tests and direct pancreatic function tests do hold promise, but they are not widely available in the United States.
 

Treatment strategies

Once EPI is diagnosed, treatment with PERT is indicated to prevent complications related to fat malabsorption and malnutrition.

PERT formulations are all equally effective at equivalent doses, according to the update, but non–enteric-coated preparations require concurrent H2 or proton pump inhibitor therapy. PERT should be taken during meals, with an initial adult dose of at least 40,000 USP units of lipase during each meal. Half that dose may be considered for snacks, with further dosage refinements based on meal size and fat content.

Dietary modifications may include supplementation with fat-soluble vitamins alongside smaller, more frequent, low- to moderate-fat meals. Very-low-fat diets should be avoided, the authors cautioned.
 

Surveillance

EPI treatment success can be identified by reduction in steatorrhea and associated gastrointestinal symptoms, as well as weight gain, improved muscle mass and function, and enhanced fat-soluble vitamin levels, Dr. Whitcomb and colleagues wrote, noting that a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan also should be performed at baseline, then repeated every 1-2 years.

The update was commissioned and approved by the AGA. The investigators disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Nestlé, Regeneron, and others.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today cleared an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy device called the MAGENTIQ-COLO, according to the Israeli-based manufacturer of the same name.

The device helps identify lesions in real time and is associated with a significant increase in the adenoma detection rate (ADR), according to the press release.

The device was cleared under the FDA’s 510(k) process, and follows the European CE Mark and Israel AMAR approval, which were received in mid-2021. It will be available in the United States in the coming weeks.

In a study performed in 2022 with 29 endoscopy experts and more than 950 patients, the device was validated as “one of the best-performing AI solutions in the category, increasing ADR by 26% relatively (7% in absolute values), which translated into a 21% decrease in colorectal cancer occurrence and a 35% decrease in patient mortality,” according to the press release.

In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial conducted at 10 hospitals in Europe, the United States, and Israel, and presented at United European Gastroenterology Week 2022, the authors noted that “apart from diminutive lesions, [MAGENTIQ-COLO] increased the detection of 6- to 9-mm adenomas, suggesting that this novel [computer-aided polyp detection] system is also able to detect more clinically relevant lesions.”

The device “takes the video out of the colonoscopy device, breaks it into frames, and analyzes them in real time with its AI engine to detect polyps in them,” Dror Zur, founder and CEO of MAGENTIQ-EYE, explained in an interview. “If a polyp is detected, then MAGENTIQ-COLO signs it with a bounding box on the video’s overlay and sends it as a video with an overlay to the display monitor so the doctor can look at it and find more polyps.”

As previously reported by this news organization, research has shown that conventional colonoscopies miss about a quarter of adenomas. Many AI systems have recently come on the market, promising to improve detection by overcoming human error in detecting polyps.

Colonoscopy has become standard in most developed countries, with 15-20 million procedures performed every year in the United States alone; however, high missed rates and undetected adenomas during the procedures mean that even patients who get regular, recommended screenings are still at risk of developing colon cancer, notes the press release.

“A missed polyp can lead to interval cancer, which accounts for approximately 8%-10% of all CRC in the U.S., translated to over 13,500 cancer cases that could be prevented every year with better detection,” the press release also states.

According to the National Institutes of Health, colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today cleared an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy device called the MAGENTIQ-COLO, according to the Israeli-based manufacturer of the same name.

The device helps identify lesions in real time and is associated with a significant increase in the adenoma detection rate (ADR), according to the press release.

The device was cleared under the FDA’s 510(k) process, and follows the European CE Mark and Israel AMAR approval, which were received in mid-2021. It will be available in the United States in the coming weeks.

In a study performed in 2022 with 29 endoscopy experts and more than 950 patients, the device was validated as “one of the best-performing AI solutions in the category, increasing ADR by 26% relatively (7% in absolute values), which translated into a 21% decrease in colorectal cancer occurrence and a 35% decrease in patient mortality,” according to the press release.

In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial conducted at 10 hospitals in Europe, the United States, and Israel, and presented at United European Gastroenterology Week 2022, the authors noted that “apart from diminutive lesions, [MAGENTIQ-COLO] increased the detection of 6- to 9-mm adenomas, suggesting that this novel [computer-aided polyp detection] system is also able to detect more clinically relevant lesions.”

The device “takes the video out of the colonoscopy device, breaks it into frames, and analyzes them in real time with its AI engine to detect polyps in them,” Dror Zur, founder and CEO of MAGENTIQ-EYE, explained in an interview. “If a polyp is detected, then MAGENTIQ-COLO signs it with a bounding box on the video’s overlay and sends it as a video with an overlay to the display monitor so the doctor can look at it and find more polyps.”

As previously reported by this news organization, research has shown that conventional colonoscopies miss about a quarter of adenomas. Many AI systems have recently come on the market, promising to improve detection by overcoming human error in detecting polyps.

Colonoscopy has become standard in most developed countries, with 15-20 million procedures performed every year in the United States alone; however, high missed rates and undetected adenomas during the procedures mean that even patients who get regular, recommended screenings are still at risk of developing colon cancer, notes the press release.

“A missed polyp can lead to interval cancer, which accounts for approximately 8%-10% of all CRC in the U.S., translated to over 13,500 cancer cases that could be prevented every year with better detection,” the press release also states.

According to the National Institutes of Health, colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today cleared an artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted colonoscopy device called the MAGENTIQ-COLO, according to the Israeli-based manufacturer of the same name.

The device helps identify lesions in real time and is associated with a significant increase in the adenoma detection rate (ADR), according to the press release.

The device was cleared under the FDA’s 510(k) process, and follows the European CE Mark and Israel AMAR approval, which were received in mid-2021. It will be available in the United States in the coming weeks.

In a study performed in 2022 with 29 endoscopy experts and more than 950 patients, the device was validated as “one of the best-performing AI solutions in the category, increasing ADR by 26% relatively (7% in absolute values), which translated into a 21% decrease in colorectal cancer occurrence and a 35% decrease in patient mortality,” according to the press release.

In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial conducted at 10 hospitals in Europe, the United States, and Israel, and presented at United European Gastroenterology Week 2022, the authors noted that “apart from diminutive lesions, [MAGENTIQ-COLO] increased the detection of 6- to 9-mm adenomas, suggesting that this novel [computer-aided polyp detection] system is also able to detect more clinically relevant lesions.”

The device “takes the video out of the colonoscopy device, breaks it into frames, and analyzes them in real time with its AI engine to detect polyps in them,” Dror Zur, founder and CEO of MAGENTIQ-EYE, explained in an interview. “If a polyp is detected, then MAGENTIQ-COLO signs it with a bounding box on the video’s overlay and sends it as a video with an overlay to the display monitor so the doctor can look at it and find more polyps.”

As previously reported by this news organization, research has shown that conventional colonoscopies miss about a quarter of adenomas. Many AI systems have recently come on the market, promising to improve detection by overcoming human error in detecting polyps.

Colonoscopy has become standard in most developed countries, with 15-20 million procedures performed every year in the United States alone; however, high missed rates and undetected adenomas during the procedures mean that even patients who get regular, recommended screenings are still at risk of developing colon cancer, notes the press release.

“A missed polyp can lead to interval cancer, which accounts for approximately 8%-10% of all CRC in the U.S., translated to over 13,500 cancer cases that could be prevented every year with better detection,” the press release also states.

According to the National Institutes of Health, colorectal cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States.

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

Highlights of advances in pancreaticobiliary disease interventions were reviewed at this year’s Digestive Disease Week (DDW) as part of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) postgraduate course.

(Michigan Medicine)

Over the last several decades, the endoscopic treatment of pancreaticobiliary disease has advanced exponentially. Endoscopic interventions have markedly decreased the need for percutaneous and surgical procedures. Evidence-based advances are changing the landscape of pancreaticobiliary disease management.

While endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with transpapillary stent placement is first-line for the treatment of biliary obstruction, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage has emerged as an effective alternative in cases of failed ERCP. These procedures can be performed via a transhepatic approach (hepaticogastrostomy) from the proximal stomach, an extrahepatic approach (choledochoduodenostomy) from the duodenum, or via the gallbladder. Numerous studies have proved the safety and efficacy of these interventions in malignant biliary obstruction. A recent systematic meta-analysis pooled all of these approaches and concluded that EUS-guided biliary drainage is also reasonable to offer in benign disease when ERCP has failed or is not technically possible.

EUS-guided gallbladder drainage is similarly emerging as an alternative approach for management of acute cholecystitis. This is a reasonable option in patients with acute cholecystitis who are poor surgical candidates, have no evidence of gallbladder perforation, and will tolerate sedation. Moreover, this approach may be preferred over ERCP with cystic duct stent placement in the setting of a large stone burden, gastric outlet obstruction, or when an indwelling metal biliary stent occludes the cystic duct. Multidisciplinary discussion with surgical and interventional radiology services is essential, especially given this technique may preclude future cholecystectomy.

Indeterminate biliary strictures historically pose a major diagnostic challenge, and current approaches in the evaluation of such strictures lack diagnostic sensitivity. ERCP with concurrent brushing of the bile duct for cytology remains the most commonly used method of acquiring tissue. However, the sensitivity of diagnosis on brush cytology remains frustratingly low. Recent compelling evidence for increasing the number of brush passes to 30 in an indeterminate stricture improves diagnostic sensitivity and is a simple, safe, and low-cost intervention. This approach may ultimately decrease the number of patients requiring surgical intervention, which is particularly important when up to one-fifth of suspected biliary malignancies are found to be benign after surgical resection.

Not only have studies addressed increasing the diagnostic yield of stricture evaluation, but the treatment of biliary strictures has also evolved. Various stents are available, and different practice patterns have emerged for management of this entity. In an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating multiple plastic stents versus a single covered metal stent for benign biliary strictures, no difference was found in stricture resolution, stricture recurrence, stent migration or adverse events. However, those patients treated with covered metal stents required fewer sessions of ERCP for stricture resolution. Moreover, no difference in stricture resolution was seen in subgroup analysis between anastomotic strictures, chronic pancreatitis, or bile duct injury. Despite higher cost of the stent itself, covered metal stents may ultimately lead to an overall decrease in health care expenditure.

The above examples are only a small subset of the progress that has been made in endoscopic management of pancreaticobiliary disease. The armamentarium of tools and techniques will continue to evolve to help us provide better minimally invasive care for our patients.

Dr. Schulman is associate professor in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology and the department of surgery at the University of Michigan. She is the incoming chief of endoscopy and the director of bariatric endoscopy. She disclosed consultancy work with Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus and MicroTech. She also disclosed research and grant support from GI Dynamics and Fractyl.

Highlights of advances in pancreaticobiliary disease interventions were reviewed at this year’s Digestive Disease Week (DDW) as part of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) postgraduate course.

(Michigan Medicine)

Over the last several decades, the endoscopic treatment of pancreaticobiliary disease has advanced exponentially. Endoscopic interventions have markedly decreased the need for percutaneous and surgical procedures. Evidence-based advances are changing the landscape of pancreaticobiliary disease management.

While endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with transpapillary stent placement is first-line for the treatment of biliary obstruction, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage has emerged as an effective alternative in cases of failed ERCP. These procedures can be performed via a transhepatic approach (hepaticogastrostomy) from the proximal stomach, an extrahepatic approach (choledochoduodenostomy) from the duodenum, or via the gallbladder. Numerous studies have proved the safety and efficacy of these interventions in malignant biliary obstruction. A recent systematic meta-analysis pooled all of these approaches and concluded that EUS-guided biliary drainage is also reasonable to offer in benign disease when ERCP has failed or is not technically possible.

EUS-guided gallbladder drainage is similarly emerging as an alternative approach for management of acute cholecystitis. This is a reasonable option in patients with acute cholecystitis who are poor surgical candidates, have no evidence of gallbladder perforation, and will tolerate sedation. Moreover, this approach may be preferred over ERCP with cystic duct stent placement in the setting of a large stone burden, gastric outlet obstruction, or when an indwelling metal biliary stent occludes the cystic duct. Multidisciplinary discussion with surgical and interventional radiology services is essential, especially given this technique may preclude future cholecystectomy.

Indeterminate biliary strictures historically pose a major diagnostic challenge, and current approaches in the evaluation of such strictures lack diagnostic sensitivity. ERCP with concurrent brushing of the bile duct for cytology remains the most commonly used method of acquiring tissue. However, the sensitivity of diagnosis on brush cytology remains frustratingly low. Recent compelling evidence for increasing the number of brush passes to 30 in an indeterminate stricture improves diagnostic sensitivity and is a simple, safe, and low-cost intervention. This approach may ultimately decrease the number of patients requiring surgical intervention, which is particularly important when up to one-fifth of suspected biliary malignancies are found to be benign after surgical resection.

Not only have studies addressed increasing the diagnostic yield of stricture evaluation, but the treatment of biliary strictures has also evolved. Various stents are available, and different practice patterns have emerged for management of this entity. In an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating multiple plastic stents versus a single covered metal stent for benign biliary strictures, no difference was found in stricture resolution, stricture recurrence, stent migration or adverse events. However, those patients treated with covered metal stents required fewer sessions of ERCP for stricture resolution. Moreover, no difference in stricture resolution was seen in subgroup analysis between anastomotic strictures, chronic pancreatitis, or bile duct injury. Despite higher cost of the stent itself, covered metal stents may ultimately lead to an overall decrease in health care expenditure.

The above examples are only a small subset of the progress that has been made in endoscopic management of pancreaticobiliary disease. The armamentarium of tools and techniques will continue to evolve to help us provide better minimally invasive care for our patients.

Dr. Schulman is associate professor in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology and the department of surgery at the University of Michigan. She is the incoming chief of endoscopy and the director of bariatric endoscopy. She disclosed consultancy work with Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus and MicroTech. She also disclosed research and grant support from GI Dynamics and Fractyl.

Highlights of advances in pancreaticobiliary disease interventions were reviewed at this year’s Digestive Disease Week (DDW) as part of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) postgraduate course.

(Michigan Medicine)

Over the last several decades, the endoscopic treatment of pancreaticobiliary disease has advanced exponentially. Endoscopic interventions have markedly decreased the need for percutaneous and surgical procedures. Evidence-based advances are changing the landscape of pancreaticobiliary disease management.

While endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with transpapillary stent placement is first-line for the treatment of biliary obstruction, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage has emerged as an effective alternative in cases of failed ERCP. These procedures can be performed via a transhepatic approach (hepaticogastrostomy) from the proximal stomach, an extrahepatic approach (choledochoduodenostomy) from the duodenum, or via the gallbladder. Numerous studies have proved the safety and efficacy of these interventions in malignant biliary obstruction. A recent systematic meta-analysis pooled all of these approaches and concluded that EUS-guided biliary drainage is also reasonable to offer in benign disease when ERCP has failed or is not technically possible.

EUS-guided gallbladder drainage is similarly emerging as an alternative approach for management of acute cholecystitis. This is a reasonable option in patients with acute cholecystitis who are poor surgical candidates, have no evidence of gallbladder perforation, and will tolerate sedation. Moreover, this approach may be preferred over ERCP with cystic duct stent placement in the setting of a large stone burden, gastric outlet obstruction, or when an indwelling metal biliary stent occludes the cystic duct. Multidisciplinary discussion with surgical and interventional radiology services is essential, especially given this technique may preclude future cholecystectomy.

Indeterminate biliary strictures historically pose a major diagnostic challenge, and current approaches in the evaluation of such strictures lack diagnostic sensitivity. ERCP with concurrent brushing of the bile duct for cytology remains the most commonly used method of acquiring tissue. However, the sensitivity of diagnosis on brush cytology remains frustratingly low. Recent compelling evidence for increasing the number of brush passes to 30 in an indeterminate stricture improves diagnostic sensitivity and is a simple, safe, and low-cost intervention. This approach may ultimately decrease the number of patients requiring surgical intervention, which is particularly important when up to one-fifth of suspected biliary malignancies are found to be benign after surgical resection.

Not only have studies addressed increasing the diagnostic yield of stricture evaluation, but the treatment of biliary strictures has also evolved. Various stents are available, and different practice patterns have emerged for management of this entity. In an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating multiple plastic stents versus a single covered metal stent for benign biliary strictures, no difference was found in stricture resolution, stricture recurrence, stent migration or adverse events. However, those patients treated with covered metal stents required fewer sessions of ERCP for stricture resolution. Moreover, no difference in stricture resolution was seen in subgroup analysis between anastomotic strictures, chronic pancreatitis, or bile duct injury. Despite higher cost of the stent itself, covered metal stents may ultimately lead to an overall decrease in health care expenditure.

The above examples are only a small subset of the progress that has been made in endoscopic management of pancreaticobiliary disease. The armamentarium of tools and techniques will continue to evolve to help us provide better minimally invasive care for our patients.

Dr. Schulman is associate professor in the division of gastroenterology and hepatology and the department of surgery at the University of Michigan. She is the incoming chief of endoscopy and the director of bariatric endoscopy. She disclosed consultancy work with Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus and MicroTech. She also disclosed research and grant support from GI Dynamics and Fractyl.

A mitochondrial DNA variant may increase the risk of gallstone disease more than fourfold, according to investigators.

wir0man/GettyImages

Mitochondrial DNA 827A>G disrupts mitochondrial function and leads to abnormal cholesterol transport, which increases gallstone development, reported Dayan Sun, of Fudan University, Shanghai, China, and colleagues.

The investigators noted that the findings add support to a genetic role in gallstone development, which could allow for identification of at-risk individuals and implementation of preventive measures.

“The etiology of gallstone disease is multifactorial; age, sex, pregnancy, diet (macronutrients, alcohol, and coffee), and other factors are involved,” the investigators wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Moreover, the significant familial predisposition and ethnic differences in prevalence of this disease indicate the potential influences of genetic factors.”

In 2002, Nakeeb and colleagues reported that at least 30% of gallstone disease cases stemmed from genetic factors. And genetics may play an even greater role in certain populations, such as Native Americans, among whom more than 70% of women have gallstone disease, based on a study by Everhart and colleagues.

According to Ms. Sun and colleagues, a variety of genetic drivers of gallstone disease have been identified, such as ABCG8, identified as the most common genetic risk factor by at least one study, along with a list of other rare mutations, such as one affecting CFTR that leads to altered bile composition.

Based on previous research that linked mitochondrial DNA variants with metabolic defects and, more specifically, aberrations in lipid metabolism, as well as an observed “maternal bias in the maternal transmission of gallstone disease” that suggest mitochondrial influence, the investigators looked for patterns specifically in mitochondrial DNA variants among patients with gallstones.

The study enrolled 104 probands with confirmed gallstone disease and 300 unrelated controls. After collecting DNA samples from all participants, the investigators sequenced mitochondrial DNA HVS1 regions. A comparison of haplogroups showed that B4b’d’e’j was more common among patients with gallstone disease than among controls (odds ratio, 4.428; P = .00012), and further analysis pinpointed 827A>G, a variant in 12S ribosomal RNA.

“During the evolutionary history of modern humans, haplogroup B4 might have originated in East Asia approximately 40,000 years ago,” the investigators wrote, noting that B2, a subhaplogroup of B4, “was a founder haplogroup and expanded in the Americas after the Last Glacial Maximum (approximately 20,000 years ago).”

According to the investigators, this may explain why Native Americans have a higher prevalence of gallstones than East Asians (14%-35% vs. 3%-12%) because they are more often carriers of B4 (14%-44% vs. 2%-8%).

The investigators sought to characterize the impact that the 827A>G variant has on mitochondrial function and found effects ranging from lower respiratory chain complex activity, diminished mitochondrial function, activated mitochondrial protein quality control and retrograde signaling pathways, abnormal lipid metabolism, and abnormal cholesterol transport processes.

For example, the investigators investigated respiratory chain complex activity by creating two sister branch haplogroup cell models, including six cybrids for 827A and six more for 827G, which is how they detected the lower activity. Another step the investigators took was corroborating this finding by detecting OXPHOS function in the 827A and 827G cybrids to determine mitochondrial function.

“In summary, our study demonstrates a potential link between mitochondrial DNA 827A>G and gallstone disease,” the investigators wrote. “Our findings provide a significant biological basis for the clinical diagnosis and prevention of gallstone disease in the future.”

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the 111 Project, the Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project, the Scientific and Technology Committee of Shanghai Municipality, and the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

A mitochondrial DNA variant may increase the risk of gallstone disease more than fourfold, according to investigators.

wir0man/GettyImages

Mitochondrial DNA 827A>G disrupts mitochondrial function and leads to abnormal cholesterol transport, which increases gallstone development, reported Dayan Sun, of Fudan University, Shanghai, China, and colleagues.

The investigators noted that the findings add support to a genetic role in gallstone development, which could allow for identification of at-risk individuals and implementation of preventive measures.

“The etiology of gallstone disease is multifactorial; age, sex, pregnancy, diet (macronutrients, alcohol, and coffee), and other factors are involved,” the investigators wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Moreover, the significant familial predisposition and ethnic differences in prevalence of this disease indicate the potential influences of genetic factors.”

In 2002, Nakeeb and colleagues reported that at least 30% of gallstone disease cases stemmed from genetic factors. And genetics may play an even greater role in certain populations, such as Native Americans, among whom more than 70% of women have gallstone disease, based on a study by Everhart and colleagues.

According to Ms. Sun and colleagues, a variety of genetic drivers of gallstone disease have been identified, such as ABCG8, identified as the most common genetic risk factor by at least one study, along with a list of other rare mutations, such as one affecting CFTR that leads to altered bile composition.

Based on previous research that linked mitochondrial DNA variants with metabolic defects and, more specifically, aberrations in lipid metabolism, as well as an observed “maternal bias in the maternal transmission of gallstone disease” that suggest mitochondrial influence, the investigators looked for patterns specifically in mitochondrial DNA variants among patients with gallstones.

The study enrolled 104 probands with confirmed gallstone disease and 300 unrelated controls. After collecting DNA samples from all participants, the investigators sequenced mitochondrial DNA HVS1 regions. A comparison of haplogroups showed that B4b’d’e’j was more common among patients with gallstone disease than among controls (odds ratio, 4.428; P = .00012), and further analysis pinpointed 827A>G, a variant in 12S ribosomal RNA.

“During the evolutionary history of modern humans, haplogroup B4 might have originated in East Asia approximately 40,000 years ago,” the investigators wrote, noting that B2, a subhaplogroup of B4, “was a founder haplogroup and expanded in the Americas after the Last Glacial Maximum (approximately 20,000 years ago).”

According to the investigators, this may explain why Native Americans have a higher prevalence of gallstones than East Asians (14%-35% vs. 3%-12%) because they are more often carriers of B4 (14%-44% vs. 2%-8%).

The investigators sought to characterize the impact that the 827A>G variant has on mitochondrial function and found effects ranging from lower respiratory chain complex activity, diminished mitochondrial function, activated mitochondrial protein quality control and retrograde signaling pathways, abnormal lipid metabolism, and abnormal cholesterol transport processes.

For example, the investigators investigated respiratory chain complex activity by creating two sister branch haplogroup cell models, including six cybrids for 827A and six more for 827G, which is how they detected the lower activity. Another step the investigators took was corroborating this finding by detecting OXPHOS function in the 827A and 827G cybrids to determine mitochondrial function.

“In summary, our study demonstrates a potential link between mitochondrial DNA 827A>G and gallstone disease,” the investigators wrote. “Our findings provide a significant biological basis for the clinical diagnosis and prevention of gallstone disease in the future.”

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the 111 Project, the Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project, the Scientific and Technology Committee of Shanghai Municipality, and the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

A mitochondrial DNA variant may increase the risk of gallstone disease more than fourfold, according to investigators.

wir0man/GettyImages

Mitochondrial DNA 827A>G disrupts mitochondrial function and leads to abnormal cholesterol transport, which increases gallstone development, reported Dayan Sun, of Fudan University, Shanghai, China, and colleagues.

The investigators noted that the findings add support to a genetic role in gallstone development, which could allow for identification of at-risk individuals and implementation of preventive measures.

“The etiology of gallstone disease is multifactorial; age, sex, pregnancy, diet (macronutrients, alcohol, and coffee), and other factors are involved,” the investigators wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “Moreover, the significant familial predisposition and ethnic differences in prevalence of this disease indicate the potential influences of genetic factors.”

In 2002, Nakeeb and colleagues reported that at least 30% of gallstone disease cases stemmed from genetic factors. And genetics may play an even greater role in certain populations, such as Native Americans, among whom more than 70% of women have gallstone disease, based on a study by Everhart and colleagues.

According to Ms. Sun and colleagues, a variety of genetic drivers of gallstone disease have been identified, such as ABCG8, identified as the most common genetic risk factor by at least one study, along with a list of other rare mutations, such as one affecting CFTR that leads to altered bile composition.

Based on previous research that linked mitochondrial DNA variants with metabolic defects and, more specifically, aberrations in lipid metabolism, as well as an observed “maternal bias in the maternal transmission of gallstone disease” that suggest mitochondrial influence, the investigators looked for patterns specifically in mitochondrial DNA variants among patients with gallstones.

The study enrolled 104 probands with confirmed gallstone disease and 300 unrelated controls. After collecting DNA samples from all participants, the investigators sequenced mitochondrial DNA HVS1 regions. A comparison of haplogroups showed that B4b’d’e’j was more common among patients with gallstone disease than among controls (odds ratio, 4.428; P = .00012), and further analysis pinpointed 827A>G, a variant in 12S ribosomal RNA.

“During the evolutionary history of modern humans, haplogroup B4 might have originated in East Asia approximately 40,000 years ago,” the investigators wrote, noting that B2, a subhaplogroup of B4, “was a founder haplogroup and expanded in the Americas after the Last Glacial Maximum (approximately 20,000 years ago).”

According to the investigators, this may explain why Native Americans have a higher prevalence of gallstones than East Asians (14%-35% vs. 3%-12%) because they are more often carriers of B4 (14%-44% vs. 2%-8%).

The investigators sought to characterize the impact that the 827A>G variant has on mitochondrial function and found effects ranging from lower respiratory chain complex activity, diminished mitochondrial function, activated mitochondrial protein quality control and retrograde signaling pathways, abnormal lipid metabolism, and abnormal cholesterol transport processes.

For example, the investigators investigated respiratory chain complex activity by creating two sister branch haplogroup cell models, including six cybrids for 827A and six more for 827G, which is how they detected the lower activity. Another step the investigators took was corroborating this finding by detecting OXPHOS function in the 827A and 827G cybrids to determine mitochondrial function.

“In summary, our study demonstrates a potential link between mitochondrial DNA 827A>G and gallstone disease,” the investigators wrote. “Our findings provide a significant biological basis for the clinical diagnosis and prevention of gallstone disease in the future.”

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the 111 Project, the Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Major Project, the Scientific and Technology Committee of Shanghai Municipality, and the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.