Gulara Hajiyeva

Similar Efficacies of Endoscopic Ultrasound Gallbladder Drainage With a Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent Versus Percutaneous Transhepatic Gallbladder Drainage for Acute Cholecystitis

Background & Aims Acute cholecystitis in patients who are not candidates for surgery is often managed with percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PT‐GBD). Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided gallbladder drainage (EUS‐GBD) with a lumen‐apposing metal stent (LAMS) is an effective alternative to PT‐GBD. We compared the technical success of EUS‐GBD versus PT‐GBD, and patient outcomes, numbers of adverse events (AEs), length of hospital stay, pain scores, and repeat interventions. Methods We performed a retrospective study to compare EUS‐GBD versus PT‐GBD at 7 centers (5 in the United States, 1 in Europe, and 1 in Asia), from 2013 through 2015, in management of acute cholecystitis in patients who are not candidates for surgery. A total of 90 patients (56 men) with acute cholecystitis (61 calculous, 29 acalculous) underwent EUS‐GBD (n = 45) or PT‐GBD (n = 45). Data were collected on technical success, clinical success (resolution of symptoms or laboratory and/or radiologic abnormalities within 3 days of intervention), and need for repeat intervention. Characteristics were compared using Student t tests for continuous variables and the chi‐square test, or the Fisher exact test, when appropriate, for categorical variables. Adverse events were graded according to American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy definitions and compared using the Fisher exact test. Postprocedure pain scores were compared using the Mann‐Whitney U test. Results Baseline characteristics, type, and clinical severity of cholecystitis were comparable between groups. In the EUS‐GBD group, noncautery LAMS were used in 30 patients and cautery‐enhanced LAMS were used in 15. Technical success was achieved for 98% of patients in the EUS‐GBD and 100% of the patients in the PT‐GBD group (P = .88). Clinical success was achieved by 96% of patients in the EUS‐GBD group and 91% in the PT‐GBD group (P = .20). There was a nonsignificant trend toward fewer AEs in the EUS‐GBD group (5 patients; 11%) than in the PT‐GBD group (14 patients; 32%) (P = .065). There were no significant differences in the severity of the AEs: mild, 2 in the EUS‐GBD group versus 5 in the PT‐GBD group (P = .27); moderate, 4 versus 3 (P = .98); severe, 1 versus 3 (P = .62); or deaths, 1 versus 3 (P = .61). The mean postprocedure pain score was lower in the EUS‐GBD group than in the PT‐GBD group (2.5 vs 6.5; P < .05). The EUS‐GBD group had a shorter average length of stay in the hospital (3 days) than the PT‐GBD group (9 days) (P < .05) and fewer repeat interventions (11 vs 112) (P < .05). The average number of repeat interventions per patients was 0.2 ± 0.4 EUS‐GBD group versus 2.5 ± 2.8 in the PT‐GBD group (P < .05). Median follow‐up after drainage was comparable in EUS‐GBD group (215 days; range, 1–621 days) versus the PT‐GBD group (265 days; range, 1–1638 days). Conclusions EUS‐GBD has similar technical and clinical success compared with PT‐GBD and should be considered an alternative for patients who are not candidates for surgery. Patients who undergo EUS‐GBD seem to have shorter hospital stays, lower pain scores, and fewer repeated interventions, with a trend toward fewer AEs. A prospective, comparative study is needed to confirm these results.

Efficacy and Safety of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for Treatment of Achalasia After Failed Heller Myotomy

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In patients with persistent symptoms after Heller myotomy (HM), treatment options include repeat HM, pneumatic dilation, or peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of POEM in patients with achalasia with prior HM vs without prior HM. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 180 patients with achalasia who underwent POEM at 13 tertiary centers worldwide, from December 2009 through September 2015. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those with prior HM (HM group, exposure; n = 90) and those without prior HM (non‐HM group; n = 90). Clinical response was defined by a decrease in Eckardt scores to 3 or less. Adverse events were graded according to criteria set by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Technical success, clinical success, and rates of adverse events were compared between groups. Patients were followed up for a median of 8.5 months. RESULTS: POEM was technically successful in 98% of patients in the HM group and in 100% of patients in the non‐HM group (P = .49). A significantly lower proportion of patients in the HM group had a clinical response to POEM (81%) than in the non‐HM group (94%; P = .01). There were no significant differences in rates of adverse events between the groups (8% in the HM group vs 13% in the non‐HM group; P = .23). Symptomatic reflux and reflux esophagitis after POEM were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: POEM is safe and effective for patients with achalasia who were not treated successfully by prior HM. Although the rate of clinical success in patients with prior HM is lower than in those without prior HM, the safety profile of POEM is comparable between groups.

Comprehensive Analysis of Adverse Events Associated with per Oral Endoscopic Myotomy in 1826 Patients: An International Multicenter Study

Objectives:The safety of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is still debated since comprehensive analysis of adverse events (AEs) associated with the procedure in large multicenter cohort studies has not been performed. To study (1) the prevalence of AEs and (2) factors associated with occurrence of AEs in patients undergoing POEM.Methods:Patients who underwent POEM at 12 tertiary-care centers between 2009 and 2015 were included in this case–control study. Cases were defined by the occurrence of any AE related to the POEM procedure. Control patients were selected for each AE case by matching for age, gender, and disease classification (achalasia type I and II vs. type III/spastic esophageal disorders).Results:A total of 1,826 patients underwent POEM. Overall, 156 AEs occurred in 137 patients (7.5%). A total of 51 (2.8%) inadvertent mucosotomies occurred. Mild, moderate, and severe AEs had a frequency of 116 (6.4%), 31 (1.7%), and 9 (0.5%), respectively. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that sigmoid-type esophagus (odds ratio (OR) 2.28, P=0.05), endoscopist experience <20 cases (OR 1.98, P=0.04), use of a triangular tip knife (OR 3.22, P=0.05), and use of an electrosurgical current different than spray coagulation (OR 3.09, P=0.02) were significantly associated with the occurrence of AEs.Conclusions:This large study comprehensively assessed the safety of POEM and highly suggests POEM as a relatively safe procedure when performed by experts at tertiary centers with an overall 7.5% prevalence of AEs. Severe AEs are rare. Sigmoid-type esophagus, endoscopist experience, type of knife, and current used can be considered as predictive factors of AE occurrence.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided creation of a transgastric fistula for the management of hepatobiliary disease in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

Background and aims Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients who have undergone Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is technically challenging. We describe our multicenter experience using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) to create an endoscopic ultrasound-guided transgastric fistula (EUS-TG) to facilitate peroral ERCP in these patients. Patients and methods Thirteen patients with RYGB who underwent EUS-TG at three tertiary centers were included. EUS was used to guide puncture of the excluded stomach from the gastric pouch or jejunum; a LAMS was placed across the transgastric fistula. ERCP was performed via a duodenoscope passed through the LAMS. Results The technical success of EUS-TG was 100 % (13/13). ERCP through the LAMS was successful and clinical success was achieved in all patients. LAMS dislodgement during ERCP occurred in two patients and the stent was successfully repositioned without sequelae. After removal of the LAMS, the fistula was closed in 92 % of patients, either by endoscopic closure devices or argon plasma coagulation. None of the patients experienced procedure-related adverse events. Conclusion EUS-TG is an effective and safe method of accessing the excluded stomach and performing ERCP in patients with RYGB.