Shailendra S. Chauhan

Wireless capsule endoscopy

Over the last decade, WCE has established itself as a valuable test for imaging the small intestine. It is a safe and relatively easy procedure to perform that can provide valuable information in the diagnosis of small-bowel conditions. Its applications still remain limited within the esophagus and colon. Future developments may include improving visualization within the esophagus and developing technologies that may allow manipulation of the capsule within the GI tract and biopsy capabilities.

Diagnostic accuracy of conventional and cholangioscopy-guided sampling of indeterminate biliary lesions at the time of ERCP: a prospective, long-term follow-up study

BACKGROUND The diagnostic accuracy of cholangioscopy-guided sampling has not been rigorously evaluated. OBJECTIVE To prospectively evaluate the accuracy of cholangioscopy-guided mini-forceps sampling and compare it with standard cytology brushings and forceps biopsies for the tissue diagnosis of indeterminate biliary lesions. DESIGN Prospective, long-term follow-up, paired design cohort study. SETTING Tertiary center. PATIENTS Patients undergoing cholangioscopy for the evaluation of indeterminate biliary lesions. INTERVENTIONS Each patient underwent triple sampling with cholangioscopy-guided mini-forceps, cytology brushing, and standard forceps. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS Diagnostic accuracy of each sampling method compared with the patient final status (cancer vs no cancer). RESULTS A total of 26 patients (17 cancer positive/9 cancer negative) were enrolled. The mean follow-up in the patients with no cancer was 21.78 (SD ±6.78) months. The procedure was technically successful in all cases (100%). Sample quality was adequate in 25 of 26 (96.2%) of the cytology brushings, in 26 of 26 (100%) of the standard forceps biopsies, and in 25 of 26 (96.2%) of the mini-forceps biopsies. The sensitivity, accuracy, and negative predictive values were 5.9%, 38.5%, and 36% for standard cytology brushings; 29.4%, 53.8%, and 42.8% for standard forceps biopsies; and 76.5%, 84.6%, and 69.2% for mini-forceps biopsies, respectively. When comparing the 3 methods of sampling, mini-forceps biopsy provided significantly better sensitivity and overall accuracy compared with standard cytology brushing (P < .0001) and standard forceps biopsy (P = .0215). LIMITATIONS Potential for selection bias. CONCLUSIONS Cholangioscopy-guided biopsies of indeterminate biliary lesions have significantly higher accuracy compared with ERCP-guided cytology brushings and standard forceps biopsies, but negative findings on mini-forceps biopsy cannot rule out malignancy with a high degree of certainty. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT01227382.).

Prospective evaluation of the use of fully covered self-expanding metal stents for EUS-guided transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts

2. Rumalla A, Baron TH. Results of direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy, an alternative method for providing jejunal feeding. Mayo Clin Proc 2000;75:807-10. 3. Panagiotakis PH, DiSario JA, Hilden K, et al. DPEJ tube placement prevents aspiration pneumonia in high-risk patients. Nutr Clin Pract 2008;23:172-5. 4. Kwon RS, Banerjee S, Desilets D, et al. Enteral nutrition access devices. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:236-48. 5. Maple JT, Petersen BT, Baron TH, et al. Direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy: outcomes in 307 consecutive attempts. Am J Gastroenterol 2005;100:2681-8. 6. Foutch PG, Talbert GA, Waring JP, et al. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in patients with prior abdominal surgery: virtues of the safe tract. Am J Gastroenterol 1988;83:147-50. 7. Varadarajulu S, Delegge MH. Use of a 19-gauge injection needle as a guide for direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tube placement. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;57:942-5. 8. Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L, et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:446-54.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection

ESD is an established effective treatment modality for premalignant and early-stage malignant lesions of the stomach, esophagus, and colorectum. Compared with EMR, ESD is generally associated with higher rates of en bloc, R0, and curative resections and a lower rate of local recurrence. Oncologic outcomes with ESD compare favorably with competing surgical interventions, and ESD also serves as an excellent T-staging tool to identify noncurative resections that will require further treatment. ESD is technically demanding and has a higher rate of adverse events than most endoscopic procedures including EMR. As such,sufficient training is critical to ensure safe conduct and high-quality resections. A standardized training model for Western endoscopists has not been clearly established,but will be self-directed and include courses, animal model training, and optimally an observership at an expert center.Numerous dedicated ESD devices are now available in the United States from different manufacturers. Although the use of ESD in the United States is increasing, issues related to technical difficulty, limited training opportunities and mentors, risk of adverse events, long procedure duration,and suboptimal reimbursement may limit ESD adoption in the United States to a modest number of academic referral centers for the foreseeable future.

Prospective evaluation of the clinical utility of ERCP-guided cholangiopancreatoscopy with a new direct visualization system

BACKGROUND Older systems for cholangiopancreatoscopy have demonstrated improved diagnostic and therapeutic abilities over standard ERCP but have shown limited feasibility. The SpyGlass Direct Visualization System addresses many of the shortcomings of the older platforms, but its potential advantages have not been rigorously evaluated. OBJECTIVE To prospectively evaluate the feasibility, clinical efficacy, and safety of the SpyGlass system. DESIGN Prospective cohort study. SETTING Tertiary care center. PATIENTS All patients undergoing cholangiopancreatoscopy at our institution. INTERVENTIONS Cholangiopancreatoscopy with the SpyGlass system. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS Procedure success, defined as complete stone clearance for stone cases. For nonstone-related lesions, success was defined when all 3 of the following were met: (1) advancement of the SpyScope to the desired target, (2) adequate visualization, and (3) successful applications of all necessary diagnostic and/or therapeutic maneuvers. RESULTS Overall, SpyGlass was successful in 70 of 75 patients (93.3%). In patients with biliary stones, complete stone clearance was achieved in 24 of 26 patients (92.3%). Cholangioscopy for nonstone-related indications was successful in 43 of 44 patients (97.7%). Pancreatoscopy was attempted in 5 patients and was successful in 3 (60%). The mean total procedure time (standard ERCP plus SpyGlass) was 64.3 minutes, the total SpyGlass time was 27.5 minutes, the mean SpyGlass visualization time was 14.2 minutes, the mean SpyBite sampling time was 12.1 minutes, the mean Spy therapy time was 8.4 minutes, and the mean set-up time was 5 minutes. There were 4 adverse events (4.8%). LIMITATIONS Single-center experience, no comparison group, potential for selection bias. CONCLUSIONS ERCP-guided cholangiopancreatoscopy with the SpyGlass system is technically feasible and can be successfully and safely performed in the vast majority of patients. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT00861198.).

Pain management in chronic pancreatitis: A treatment algorithm

Abdominal pain is common and frequently debilitating in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Medical therapy includes abstinence from tobacco and alcohol and the use of analgesics and adjunctive agents. In many patients, a trial of non-enteric-coated pancreatic enzymes and/or antioxidants may be tried. Endoscopic or surgical therapy requires careful patient selection based on a detailed analysis of pancreatic ductal anatomy. Those with a non-dilated main pancreatic duct have limited endoscopic and surgical alternatives. The presence of a dilated main pancreatic duct makes endoscopic or surgical therapy possible, which may include ductal decompression or pancreatic resection, or both. Randomised trials suggest surgical therapy is more durable and effective than endoscopic therapy. Less commonly employed options include EUS-guided coeliac plexus block, thoracoscopic splanchnicectomy, or total pancreatectomy with auto islet cell transplantation. These are used rarely when all other options have failed and only in very carefully selected patients.

Tissue adhesives: cyanoacrylate glue and fibrin sealant

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported adverse events of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the “related articles” feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the Committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2012 for relevant articles by using the key words cyanoacrylate, cyanoacrylate glue, cyanoacrylate and gastroenterology, cyanoacrylate and endoscopy, fibrin glue, fibrin sealant, tissue glue and endoscopy. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Tools for endoscopic stricture dilation

To promote the appropriate use of new or emerging endoscopic technologies and those technologies that have an impact on endoscopic practice, the ASGE Technology Committee presents relevant information to practicing physicians in the form of technology reviews. Evidence-based methodology is used whereby a MEDLINE literature search is performed to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic, a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search is performed to identify the reported complications of a given technology, and both are supplemented by accessing the “related articles” feature of PubMed and by scrutiny of pertinent references cited in the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking; in such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinion are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Reviews are drafted by 1 or 2 committee members, reviewed in significant detail by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is appropriate, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2012 for articles related to dilation by using the keywords “endoscopic dilation,” “bougie dilators,” “balloon dilators,” “esophageal strictures,” “anastomotic strictures,” “inflammatory bowel strictures,” “pancreatic strictures,” “biliary strictures,” “colonic strictures,” “achalasia,” “pyloric stenosis,” and “self-expanding metal stents.” Practitioners should continue to monitor the medical literature for subsequent data about the efficacy, safety, and socioeconomic aspects of these technologies.

The Utility of Repeat Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration for Suspected Pancreatic Cancer

Background. The utility of repeat EUS in patients with suspicion for pancreatic cancer after non-diagnostic EUS-FNA study is not well established. Aim. Determine the accuracy of repeat EUS-FNA in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer and prior non-diagnostic EUS-FNA. Methods. Retrospective cohort study. Results. From 2002 to 2008 in our institution 28 patients underwent repeat EUS-FNA for suspected pancreatic cancer. Initial EUS showed a pancreatic mass in 24 (85.71%), no mass in 3 (10.71%) and possible mass in 1 (3.58%). FNA was performed and was negative for malignancy in all patients. Repeat EUS showed pancreatic mass in 27 patients (96.42%) and no mass in 1 (3.58%). FNA was performed in all patients and cytology was positive for malignancy in 6 (21.43%). Out of the 28 patients, 17 (60.71%) were eventually confirmed to have cancer. Overall repeat EUS-FNA correctly determined the true final status in 17 out of 28 patients providing sensitivity for the diagnosis of cancer of 35% (95% CI 14%–62%), specificity 100% (95% CI 72%–100%), and overall accuracy of 61%, (95% CI 28%–72%). Conclusion. Repeat EUS-FNA provides reasonable accuracy and may be worthwhile in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer who had had prior negative EUS-FNA.

Technology status evaluation reportElectrosurgical generators

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the “related articles” feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the Committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2012 for articles related to endoscopy by using the key words electrosurgical generators, electrosurgical generator units, electrosurgery and endoscopy, current and endoscopy, Endocut, argon plasma coagulation, complications and endoscopy, monopolar and endoscopy, bipolar and endoscopy, and a variety of related searches. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.