Shivangi Kothari

Guidelines for privileging, credentialing, and proctoring to perform GI endoscopy

Ashley L. Faulx, MD, FASGE, Jenifer R. Lightdale, MD, MPH, FASGE, NASPGHAN representative, Ruben D. Acosta, MD, Deepak Agrawal, MD, MPH, David H. Bruining, MD, Vinay Chandrasekhara, MD, Mohamad A. Eloubeidi, MD, MHS, FASGE, Suryakanth R. Gurudu, MD, FASGE, Loralee Kelsey, BSN, RN, CGRN, SGNA representative, Mouen A. Khashab, MD, Shivangi Kothari, MD, V. Raman Muthusamy, MD, FASGE, Bashar J. Qumseya, MD, MPH, Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, FASGE, Amy Wang, MD, FASGE, Sachin B. Wani, MD, Julie Yang, MD, John M. DeWitt, MD, FASGE, Chair

Radiation exposure to patients during ERCP is significantly higher with low-volume endoscopists

BACKGROUND Patients are exposed to radiation during ERCP, and this may increase their lifetime risk of the development of cancer and other deleterious radiation effects. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association between the endoscopists ERCP volume and the patient radiation dose during ERCP. DESIGN Single-center, retrospective study. SETTING Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS A total of 197 patients undergoing 331 ERCPs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS Patient radiation exposure parameters including fluoroscopy time, total radiation dose, dose area product, and effective dose for all ERCPs performed at our academic medical center by 2 high-volume endoscopists (HVEs) (≥200 ERCPs/year) and 7 low-volume endoscopists (LVEs). Radiation exposure for each ERCP was adjusted against a validated procedure complexity scale and the Stanford Fluoroscopy Complexity Score, which was created based on the numbers of interventions that would mandate additional radiation exposure. RESULTS ERCPs performed by LVEs were associated with a significantly higher median total radiation dose (98.30 mGy vs 74.13 mGy), dose area product (13.98 Gy-cm(2) vs 8.8 Gy-cm(2)), and effective dose (3.63 mSv vs 2.28 mSv), despite lower median Stanford Fluoroscopy Complexity Scores (3.0 vs 6.0) compared with HVEs. No significant difference was noted in median fluoroscopy time (4.0 minutes vs 3.30 minutes) between LVEs and HVEs. LIMITATIONS Retrospective, single-center study at a tertiary referral center. CONCLUSION ERCPs performed by LVEs are associated with significantly higher radiation exposure to patients compared with those performed by HVEs despite the fact that procedures performed by HVEs are of greater complexity.

Initial experience with a novel EUS-guided core biopsy needle (SharkCore): results of a large North American multicenter study.

Background and aims: The ability to safely and effectively obtain sufficient tissue for pathologic evaluation by using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guidance remains a challenge. Novel designs in EUS needles may provide for improved ability to obtain such core biopsies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of core biopsy specimens obtained using a novel EUS needle specifically designed to obtain core biopsies. Patients and methods: Multicenter retrospective review of all EUS-guided fine-needle biopsies obtained using a novel biopsy needle (SharkCore FNB needle, Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland). Data regarding patient demographics, lesion type/location, technical parameters, and diagnostic yield was obtained. Results: A total of 250 lesions were biopsied in 226 patients (Median age 66 years; 113 (50 %) male). Median size of all lesions (mm): 26 (2 – 150). Overall, a cytologic diagnosis was rendered in 81 % specimens with a median number of 3 passes. When rapid onsite cytologic evaluation (ROSE) was used, cytologic diagnostic yield was 126/149 (85 %) with a median number of 3 passes; without ROSE, cytologic diagnostic yield was 31/45 (69 %, P = 0.03) with a median number of 3 passes. Overall, a pathologic diagnosis was rendered in 130/147 (88 %) specimens with a median number of 2 passes. Pathologic diagnostic yield for specific lesion types: pancreas 70/81 (86 %), subepithelial lesion 13/15 (87 %), lymph node 26/28 (93 %). Ten patients (10/226, 4 %) experienced adverse events: 4 acute pancreatitis, 5 pain, 1 fever/cholangitis. Conclusions: Initial experience with a novel EUS core biopsy needle demonstrates excellent pathologic diagnostic yield with a minimum number of passes.

The role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of inflammatory pancreatic fluid collections

V. Raman Muthusamy, MD, FASGE, Vinay Chandrasekhara, MD, Ruben D. Acosta, MD, David H. Bruining, MD, Krishnavel V. Chathadi, MD, Mohamad A. Eloubeidi, MD, MHS, FASGE, Ashley L. Faulx, MD, FASGE, Lisa Fonkalsrud, BSN, RN, CGRN, SGNA representative, Suryakanth R. Gurudu, MD, FASGE, Mouen A. Khashab, MD, Shivangi Kothari, MD, Jenifer R. Lightdale, MD, MPH, FASGE, NASPGHAN representative, Shabana F. Pasha, MD, John R. Saltzman, MD, FASGE, Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, FASGE, Amy Wang, MD, Julie Yang, MD, Brooks D. Cash, MD, FASGE, Previous Committee Chair, John M. DeWitt, MD, FASGE, Chair

The role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of cystic pancreatic neoplasms

V. Raman Muthusamy, MD, FASGE, Vinay Chandrasekhara, MD, Ruben D. Acosta, MD, David H. Bruining, MD, Krishnavel V. Chathadi, MD, Mohamad A. Eloubeidi, MD, MHS, FASGE, Ashley L. Faulx, MD, FASGE, Lisa Fonkalsrud, BSN, RN, CGRN, SGNA representative, Suryakanth R. Gurudu, MD, FASGE, Mouen A. Khashab, MD, Shivangi Kothari, MD, Jenifer R. Lightdale, MD, MPH, FASGE, NASPGHAN representative, Shabana F. Pasha, MD, John R. Saltzman, MD, FASGE, Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, FASGE, Amy Wang, MD, Julie Yang, MD, Brooks D. Cash, MD, FASGE, Previous Committee Chair, John M. DeWitt, MD, FASGE, Chair

Endoscopic Management of Nonlifting Colon Polyps

Background and Study Aims. The nonlifting polyp sign of invasive colon cancer is considered highly sensitive and specific for cancer extending beyond the mid-submucosa. However, prior interventions can cause adenomas to become nonlifting due to fibrosis. It is unclear whether nonlifting adenomas can be successfully treated endoscopically. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes in a referral practice incorporating a standardized protocol of attempted endoscopic resection of nonlifting lesions previously treated by biopsy, polypectomy, surgery, or tattoo placement. Patients and Methods. Retrospective review of patients undergoing colonoscopy by one endoscopist at two hospitals found to have nonlifting lesions from prior interventions. Lesions with biopsy proven invasive cancer or definite endoscopic features of invasive cancer were excluded. Lesions ≥ 8 mm were routinely injected with saline prior to attempted endoscopic resection. Polypectomy was performed using a stiff snare, followed by argon plasma coagulation (APC) if necessary. Results. 26 patients each had a single nonlifting lesion with a history of prior intervention. Endoscopic resection was completed in 25 (96%). 22 required snare resection and APC. 1 patient had invasive cancer and was referred for surgery. The recurrence rate on follow-up colonoscopy was 26%. All of the recurrences were successfully treated endoscopically. There was 1 postprocedure bleed (4%), no perforations, and no other complications. Conclusions. The majority of adenomas that are nonlifting after prior interventions can be treated successfully and safely by a combination of piecemeal polypectomy and ablation. Although recurrence rates are high at 26%, these too can be successfully treated endoscopically.

Endoscopic mucosal resection with an over-the-counter hyaluronate preparation

BACKGROUND Hyaluronic acid (HA) provides a long-lasting and distinct mucosal elevation for EMR, but expense and inconvenience have limited its adoption. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the safety and efficacy of an over-the-counter 0.15% HA preparation for EMR. DESIGN Retrospective study. SETTING Veterans Administration Hospital and university hospital. PATIENTS 30 patients with a total of 32 colonic lesions and 1 duodenal lesion. INTERVENTION EMR by using HA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS En bloc resection rate and complications. RESULTS EMR was successful in all cases. En bloc resection was achieved in 26 of the 28 lesions up to 25 mm in diameter. Two lesions, both with fibrosis from prior attempted resection, had trace residual tissue necessitating cauterization with argon plasma. Five lesions measuring 30 mm to 60 mm all required piecemeal resection. There was one complication, a postpolypectomy bleed. LIMITATIONS Small number of patients and retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS EMR may be performed safely and effectively by using an inexpensive, over-the-counter 0.15% HA preparation. Further studies are needed to verify the results of this study and to compare the safety and efficacy of this HA preparation with saline solution.

The role of endoscopy in the management of suspected small-bowel bleeding

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 conducted by using PubMed. Additional references were obtained from a search of Web of Science, SCOPUS, and the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time the guidelines were 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 evidence (Table 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

Devices and techniques for ERCP in the surgically altered GI tract

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (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 January 2015 for relevant articles by using the key words “ERCP,” “altered anatomy,” “Billroth II,” “Roux-en-Y,” “double balloon enteroscopy ERCP,” “bariatric surgery,” “pancreaticoduodenectomy,” and “hepaticojejunostomy,” and “Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.” 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,

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Endoscopic Therapy of Barrett’s Esophagus-related Neoplasia

A major paradigm shift has occurred in the management of dysplastic Barretts esophagus (BE) and early esophageal carcinoma. Endoscopic therapy has now emerged as the standard of care for this disease entity. Endoscopic resection techniques like endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection combined with ablation techniques help achieve long-term curative success comparable with surgical outcomes, in this subgroup of patients. This article is an in-depth review of these endoscopic resection techniques, highlighting their role and value in the overall management of BE-related dysplasia and neoplasia.