Sporadic non-ampullary duodenal adenomas: efficacy and outcomes of endoscopic resection

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Sporadic non-ampullary duodenal adenomas (SNDAs) are often referred to tertiary centers because of the challenges in endoscopic resection. There is a paucity of data on both technical and clinical outcomes. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection for the treatment of SNDA in two western centers.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study reporting data of a cohort of patients referred for resection of SNDA between 2013 and 2017. Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis or ampullary lesions were excluded from present analysis. Outcomes considered for this study were technical success, adverse events, recurrence and need for surgery.

RESULTS

120 patients (mean age 66 ± 11.9 years, 64male) were enrolled in the study. Mean size of the lesions was 23.3 mm (range 5-80). Fifty-six en-bloc endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) (46.6%), 41 piecemeal EMR (pEMR) and 23 endoscopic submucosal dissection were performed. Intra-procedural perforation was observed in 4 patients (3.3%). Fourteen post-procedural (11.6%) adverse events were recorded. All post-procedural perforations occurred in lesions > 30 mm. Recurrence was observed in 11 patients (9.5%) during a mean follow-up of 29 months. All recurrences were successfully managed endoscopically. 119 patients were still alive at last follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic resection can be successfully carried out in majority of patients. Size > 30 mm seems to be the predictor of high adverse events risk.

Efficacy of lumen-apposing metal stents or self-expandable metal stents for endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage is becoming an option for palliation of malignant biliary obstruction. Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are replacing self-expandable metal stents (SEMS). The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LAMS and SEMS for EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS).

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed using PRISMA protocols. Electronic databases were searched for studies on EUS-CDS. The primary outcome was clinical success. Secondary outcomes were technical success, reintervention, and adverse events. We used the random effects model with the DerSimonian-Laird estimation, and the results were depicted using forest plots. Subgroup analyses were also performed with data stratified by selected variable.

RESULTS

Overall, 31 studies (820 patients) were included. The pooled rates of clinical and technical success were 93.6 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 88.6 %-96.5 %) and 94.8 % (95 %CI 90.2 %-97.3 %) for LAMS, and 91.7 % (95 %CI 88.1 %-94.2 %) and 92.7 % (95 %CI 89.9 %-94.9 %) for SEMS, respectively. The pooled rates of adverse events were 17.1 % (95 %CI 12.5 %-22.8 %) for LAMS and 18.3 % (95 %CI 14.3 %-23.0 %) for SEMS. The pooled rates of reintervention were 10.9 % (95 %CI 7.7 %-15.3 %) for LAMS and 13.9 % (95 %CI 9.6 %-19.7 %) for SEMS. Subgroup analyses confirmed these results.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed that LAMS and SEMS are comparable in terms of efficacy for EUS-CDS. Clinical and technical success, post-procedure adverse events, and reintervention rates were similar between LAMS and SEMS use; however, adverse events require further investigation.

Reliability of the Endoscopic Ultrasound Ulcerative Colitis (EUS-UC) score for assessment of inflammation in patients with ulcerative colitis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) may be a useful modality for disease assessment and risk stratification in ulcerative colitis. We assessed the reliability of a newly developed EUS index of inflammation called the EUS-Ulcerative Colitis (EUS-UC) score. Patients and methods  The EUS-UC score components include total wall thickness, hyperemia, and depth of inflammation (DOI). Three blinded expert endosonographers assessed EUS videos of 58 patients with UC in triplicate. Intra- and inter-rater reliability of the hyperemia and DOI component scores were estimated using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs). Total wall thickness reliability estimates could not be assessed in this study. The ICCs were compared to the original indices from which they were derived. Results  For hyperemia, the inter-class ICC was "moderate" at 0.556 (95 % CI = 0.434-0.651) and the intra class ICC was "almost perfect" at 0.884 (95 % CI = 0.835-0.920). The newly defined hyperemia score performed better than the original index from which is was derived. The DOI inter-class ICC was "fair" at 0.335 (95 % CI = 0.201-0.464), and the intra-class ICC was "substantial" at 0.732 (95 % CI = 0.642-0.802). The DOI reliability estimates were similar to the original index from which it was derived. Conclusions  The hyperemia component of the EUS-UC score performed significantly better than the original index from which it was derived, but the reliability of the DOI component was suboptimal. Intra-class correlation was excellent for both components. The EUS-UC score is a promising instrument for assessment of UC and further validation is required.