Joo Ha Hwang

Complications of ERCP

d ( t s f t c s n d i a s a This is one of a series of position statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. This document is an update of a previous ASGE publication.1 In preparing this document, a search of the medical iterature was performed using PubMed. Additional refernces were obtained from the bibliographies of the identied articles and from recommendations of expert consulants. When limited or no data exist from well-designed rospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large eries and reports from recognized experts. Position stateents are based on a critical review of the available data nd expert consensus at the time that the document was rafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed o clarify aspects of this document, which may be revised s necessary to account for changes in technology, new ata, or other aspects of clinical practice. This document is intended to be an educational device o provide information that may assist endoscopists in roviding care to patients. This position statement is not a ule and should not be construed as establishing a legal tandard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requirng, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical ecisions in any particular case involve a complex analsis of the patient’s condition and available courses of ction. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an ndoscopist to take a course of action that varies from this osition statement. Since its introduction in 1968, ERCP has become a comonly performed endoscopic procedure.2 The diagnostic nd therapeutic utility of ERCP has been well demonstrated or a variety of disorders, including the management of choedocholithiasis, the diagnosis and management of biliary nd pancreatic neoplasms, and the postoperative manageent of biliary perioperative complications.3-5 The evolution of the role of ERCP has occurred simultaneously with that of other diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, most notably magnetic resonance imaging/MRCP, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (with or without intraoperative cholangiography), and EUS. For endoscopists to accurately assess the clinical appropriateness of ERCP, it is important to have a thorough

Complications of colonoscopy

Summary Endoscopic complications are rare but inevitable, occurring in fewer than 0.35% of procedures [B]. Knowledge of potential complications and their expected frequency can lead to an improved informed consent process [C]. Complications from the procedure include perforation, hemorrhage, postpolypectomy coagulation syndrome, infection, preparation-associated complications, and death, and are more likely to occur with therapeutic procedures rather than diagnostic procedures [B]. Risk factors for poylpectomy-associated complications include the location and size of the polyp, experience of the operator, polypectomy technique and possibly the type of electrocoagulation current used [B]. Use of saline solution injection under large sessile polyps decreases depth of thermal injury [A] and may decrease complications [B]. Early recognition of complications and prompt intervention may decrease patient morbidity [C]. Treatment of complications range from supportive for postpolypectomy coagulation syndrome, to repeat colonoscopy with injection or electrocoagulation for bleeding, to surgical repair for free perforation [B]. Consideration of the risks and benefits may improve clinical outcome by identifying potential complications and taking appropriate steps to minimize the risks [C].

High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound : Current Potential and Oncologic Applications

OBJECTIVE The objective of this article is to introduce the reader to the principles and applications of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). CONCLUSION Although a great deal about HIFU physics is understood, its clinical applications are currently limited, and multiple trials are underway worldwide to determine its efficacy.

The role of endoscopy in Barrett's esophagus and other premalignant conditions of the esophagus

i ( n d m e This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed using PubMed. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When limited or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results of large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time the guidelines are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. The recommendations were based on reviewed studies and were graded on the strength of the supporting evidence (Table 1).1 The strength of individual recommendations is based on both the aggregate evidence quality and an assessment of the anticipated benefits and harms. Weaker recommendations are indicated by phrases such as “we suggest,” whereas stronger recommendations are typically stated as “we recommend.” This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient’s condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from these guidelines.

The role of endoscopy in the management of acute non-variceal upper GI bleeding

d c p B s i R This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed by using PubMed. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When few or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time that the guidelines are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. The recommendations are based on reviewed studies and are graded on the strength of the supporting evidence1 (Table 1). he strength of individual recommendations is based on oth the aggregate evidence quality and an assessment of the nticipated benefits and harms. Weaker recommendations re indicated by phrases such as “We suggest . . . ,” whereas tronger recommendations are typically stated as “We recmmend . . . .” This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient’s condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from these guidelines.

American gastroenterological association technical review on the diagnosis and management of asymptomatic neoplastic pancreatic cysts.

Pancreatic cysts are being identified with increasing frequency as a result of the escalating use of crosssectional imaging, typically for unrelated reasons. The incidenceof pancreatic cysts in theUSpopulation is estimated tobe between 3% and 15%, with increasing prevalence with age. Identification of a cystic lesion in the pancreas creates anxiety for both patients and clinicians related to the potential specter of a deadly malignancy. Historically, non-neoplastic inflammatory pancreatic pseudocysts were believed to be the most common pancreatic cysts; however, as imaging has become more sensitive, smaller, neoplastic cysts are more frequently detected. Thefindingof apancreatic abnormalitywithpotential association with malignancy is an increasing source of referral to specialists and an important driver of resource utilization, particularly in the United States. Imaging studies varywidely in their quality and interpretation, fueling the need for additional investigation. This technical review discusses the challenges in evaluating pancreatic cysts and critically examines the existing data set for evidence-based medical decision making. Although the concern for current or future malignancy is justified, a rational, evidence-based, cost-effective approach to care of the patient with a pancreatic cyst remains poorly defined. Despite the high prevalence of these lesions, investigators have recently questioned just how frequently a clinically relevant adverse outcome occurs, that is, the development of a life-threatening malignancy. This is a critical consideration given the cost of repeat imaging, performance of invasiveprocedures such as endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) with or without fine-needle aspiration (FNA), and consideration of a major pancreatic resection with the substantial attendant morbidity and mortality, particularly in the aging population with a high rate of prevalent cysts. In a recent analysis, investigators using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database estimated an annual prevalence of 1137 mucin-producing pancreatic adenocarcinomas with a concurrent prevalence of nearly 3.5 million cysts in the samepopulation, concluding thatmalignant transformation is a very rare event. In this clinical context, the American Gastroenterological Association has commissioned an evidence-based review of the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cysts.

A prospective study comparing endoscopy and EUS in the evaluation of GI subepithelial masses

BACKGROUND The purpose of this study is to prospectively evaluate the performance characteristics of endoscopy and EUS in the diagnosis of GI subepithelial masses. METHODS A total of 100 consecutive patients referred for the evaluation of a suspected GI subepithelial lesion were prospectively studied with endoscopy followed by EUS. Size, color, mobility, location (intramural or extramural), consistency (solid, cystic, or vascular), and presumptive diagnosis were recorded at the time of endoscopy. EUS then was performed, and size, echogenicity, location, and presumptive diagnosis were determined. RESULTS A total of 100 subepithelial lesions were evaluated. Endoscopy had 98% sensitivity and 64% specificity in identifying intramural lesions. Size measurement by endoscopy correlated with size measurement by EUS (r = 0.88). Histology was obtained in 23 cases, with the presumptive EUS diagnosis correct in only 48% of cases. Most incorrect EUS diagnoses occurred with hypoechoic 3rd and 4th layer masses. CONCLUSIONS Endoscopy has high sensitivity but low specificity in identifying the location (intramural or extramural) of subepithelial lesions. In addition, EUS imaging alone is insufficient to accurately diagnose 3rd and 4th layer hypoechoic masses, and histologic confirmation should be obtained whenever possible.

The management of antithrombotic agents for patients undergoing GI endoscopy.

Ruben D. Acosta, MD, Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSCE, FASGE (invited content expert, ad-hoc member), Vinay Chandrasekhara, MD, Krishnavel V. Chathadi, MD, Dayna S. Early, MD, FASGE, Mohamad A. Eloubeidi, MD, MHS, FASGE, John A. Evans, MD, Ashley L. Faulx, MD, FASGE, Deborah A. Fisher, MD, MHS, FASGE, Lisa Fonkalsrud, BSN, RN, CGRN, Joo Ha Hwang, MD, PhD, FASGE, Mouen A. Khashab, MD, Jenifer R. Lightdale, MD, MPH, FASGE, V. Raman Muthusamy, MD, FASGE, Shabana F. Pasha, MD, John R. Saltzman, MD, FASGE, Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, FASGE, Amandeep K. Shergill, MD, Amy Wang, MD, Brooks D. Cash, MD, FASGE, previous Committee Chair, John M. DeWitt, MD, FASGE, Chair

A pilot study of in vivo identification of pancreatic cystic neoplasms with needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy under endosonographic guidance

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) is flawed by inadequate diagnostic yield. Needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE) utilizes a sub-millimeter probe that is compatible with an EUS needle and enables real-time imaging with microscopic detail of PCL. The aims of the In vivo nCLE Study in the Pancreas with Endosonography of Cystic Tumors (INSPECT) pilot study were to assess both the diagnostic potential of nCLE in differentiating cyst types and the safety of the technique. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eight referral centers performed nCLE in patients with PCL. Stage 1 defined descriptive terms for structures visualized by an off-line, unblinded consensus review. Cases were reviewed with a gastrointestinal pathologist to identify correlations between histology and nCLE. Stage 2 assessed whether the specific criteria defined in Stage 1 could identify pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCN) including intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms, mucinous cystic adenoma, or adenocarcinoma in an off-line blinded consensus review. RESULTS A total of 66 patients underwent nCLE imaging and images were available for 65, 8 of which were subsequently excluded due to insufficient information for consensus reference diagnosis. The presence of epithelial villous structures based on nCLE was associated with PCN (P=0.004) and provided a sensitivity of 59%, specificity of 100%, positive predictive value of 100 %, and negative predictive value of 50%. The overall complication rate was 9% and included pancreatitis (1 mild case, 1 moderate case), transient abdominal pain (n=1), and intracystic bleeding not requiring any further measures (n=3). CONCLUSIONS These preliminary data suggested that nCLE has a high specificity in the detection of PCN, but may be limited by a low sensitivity. The safety of nCLE requires further evaluation.

Adverse events of upper GI endoscopy

c f s a a e l This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) prepared this text. In preparing this document, a search of the medical literature was performed by using PubMed. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When few or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results of large series and reports from recognized experts. This document is based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time that the document was drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this document. This document may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. This document is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This document is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient’s condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from this document.