Demetrios Tzimas

Lumen-apposing covered self-expandable metal stents for short benign gastrointestinal strictures: a multicenter study

Background and study aim Use of the fully covered self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) for benign luminal gastrointestinal (GI) stricture (BLGS) has been limited by the migration rate. The role of the lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) for BLGS is not well defined. We assessed the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of LAMS for the treatment of BLGS. Patients and methods This was an observational, open-label, retrospective, single-arm, multicenter consecutive case series of patients undergoing LAMS placement for BLGS. Technical success was defined as successful placement of the LAMS. Short- and long-term clinical success rates were defined as symptom improvement/resolution with indwelling stent and after stent removal, respectively. All adverse events and additional interventions were recorded. Results A total of 30 patients (mean age 51.6 years; 63.3 % women) underwent LAMS placement for GI strictures (83.9 % anastomotic). Median stricture diameter and length were 4.5 mm (range 2 - 10 mm) and 8 mm (range 5 - 10 mm), respectively. Technical success was achieved in 29 patients (96.7 %), with an adverse event rate of 13.3 %. The stent migration rate was 8.0 % (2/25) on follow-up endoscopy. Short-term clinical success was achieved in 90.0 % (27/30) at a median of 60 days (interquartile range [IQR] 40 - 90 days). Most patients (19/23; 82.6 %) experienced sustained symptom improvement/resolution without the need for additional interventions at a median follow-up of 100 days (IQR 60 - 139 days) after LAMS removal. Conclusion This multicenter study demonstrated that LAMS placement represents a safe, feasible, and effective therapeutic option for patients with BLGS and is associated with a low stent migration rate. Our initial findings suggest that future prospective comparative studies are needed on the use of LAMS, endoscopic dilation, and conventional SEMS. .

Efficacy and Safety of Digital Single-Operator Cholangioscopy for Difficult Biliary Stones

BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is not clear whether digital single‐operator cholangioscopy (D‐SOC) with electrohydraulic and laser lithotripsy is effective in removal of difficult biliary stones. We investigated the safety and efficacy of D‐SOC with electrohydraulic and laser lithotripsy in an international, multicenter study of patients with difficult biliary stones. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 407 patients (60.4% female; mean age, 64.2 years) who underwent D‐SOC for difficult biliary stones at 22 tertiary centers in the United States, United Kingdom, or Korea from February 2015 through December 2016; 306 patients underwent electrohydraulic lithotripsy and 101 (24.8%) underwent laser lithotripsy. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify factors associated with technical failure and the need for more than 1 D‐SOC electrohydraulic or laser lithotripsy session to clear the bile duct. RESULTS: The mean procedure time was longer in the electrohydraulic lithotripsy group (73.9 minutes) than in the laser lithotripsy group (49.9 minutes; P < .001). Ducts were completely cleared (technical success) in 97.3% of patients (96.7% of patients with electrohydraulic lithotripsy vs 99% patients with laser lithotripsy; P = .31). Ducts were cleared in a single session in 77.4% of patients (74.5% by electrohydraulic lithotripsy and 86.1% by laser lithotripsy; P = .20). Electrohydraulic or laser lithotripsy failed in 11 patients (2.7%); 8 patients were treated by surgery. Adverse events occurred in 3.7% patients and the stone was incompletely removed from 6.6% of patients. On multivariable analysis, difficult anatomy or cannulation (duodenal diverticula or altered anatomy) correlated with technical failure (odds ratio, 5.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.26–21.2; P = .02). Procedure time increased odds of more than 1 session of D‐SOC electrohydraulic or laser lithotripsy (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.01–1.03; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In a multicenter, international, retrospective analysis, we found D‐SOC with electrohydraulic or laser lithotripsy to be effective and safe in more than 95% of patients with difficult biliary stones. Fewer than 5% of patients require additional treatment with surgery and/or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy to clear the duct.

Multicenter evaluation of the clinical utility of laparoscopy-assisted ERCP in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND AND AIMS The obesity epidemic has led to increased use of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). These patients have an increased incidence of pancreaticobiliary diseases, yet standard ERCP is not possible because of surgically altered gastroduodenal anatomy. Laparoscopy-assisted ERCP (LA-ERCP) has been proposed as an option, but supporting data are derived from single-center small case series. Therefore, we conducted a large multicenter study to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and outcomes of LA-ERCP. METHODS This is a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with RYGB who underwent LA-ERCP in 34 centers. Data on demographics, indications, procedure success, and adverse events were collected. Procedure success was defined when all the following were achieved: reaching the papilla, cannulating the desired duct, and providing endoscopic therapy as clinically indicated. RESULTS A total of 579 patients (median age, 51; 84% women) were included. Indication for LA-ERCP was biliary in 89%, pancreatic in 8%, and both in 3%. Procedure success was achieved in 98%. Median total procedure time was 152 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 109-210), with a median ERCP time of 40 minutes (IQR, 28-56). Median hospital stay was 2 days (IQR, 1-3). Adverse events were 18% (laparoscopy related, 10%; ERCP related, 7%; both, 1%) with the clear majority (92%) classified as mild/moderate, whereas 8% were severe and 1 death occurred. CONCLUSIONS Our large multicenter study indicates that LA-ERCP in patients with RYGB is feasible with a high procedure success rate comparable with that of standard ERCP in patients with normal anatomy. The ERCP-related adverse events rate is comparable with conventional ERCP, but the overall adverse event rate was higher because of the added laparoscopy-related events.