Steven O. Ikenberry

Management of antithrombotic agents for endoscopic procedures

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. This guideline combines and updates 2 previously issued guidelines, ‘‘Guideline on the management of antithrombotic and antiplatelet therapy for endoscopic procedures’’ and ‘‘ASGE guideline: the management of lowmolecular-weight heparin and nonaspirin antiplatelet agents for endoscopic procedures.’’ To prepare this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed using PubMed. Studies or reports that described fewer than 10 patients were excluded from analysis if multiple series with more than 10 patients addressing the same issue were available. Additional references were obtained from 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 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 were 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 endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from this guideline.

Endoscopic ultrasound–guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy using linear array and radial scanning endosonography

BACKGROUND Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) accurately stages gastrointestinal malignancies but is less able to differentiate between neoplastic and inflammatory processes. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS FNA) has been reported useful for obtaining a diagnosis in suspected gastrointestinal lesions. We report our entire experience with EUS FNA using both radial and linear array endosonography, including our diagnostic accuracy and complication rate. METHODS Two hundred eight consecutive patients (119 men, 89 women) referred for EUS evaluation of suspected gastrointestinal or mediastinal masses underwent EUS-guided FNA. We performed EUS FNA using radial scanning or linear array endosonography and a 23 gauge, 4 cm needle or a 22 gauge, 12 cm needle. Data collected included lesion types, number of passes, complications, and diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS Two hundred eight lesions were targeted, with a total of 705 FNA passes (mean 3.39 passes/patient). Overall diagnostic accuracy for our study population was 87% with a 89% sensitivity and 100% specificity. The diagnostic accuracy for each subgroup was 95% for mediastinal lymph node, 85% for intra-abdominal lymph node, 85% for pancreatic, 84% for submucosal, and 100% for perirectal masses. EUS FNA provided an adequate specimen in 90% of patients. The FNA results were similar for both types of endosonography. We observed immediate complications in 2% (4 of 208) of patients. All complications occurred with EUS FNA of pancreatic lesions and consisted of bleeding and pancreatitis in 2 patients each. For EUS FNA of pancreatic masses there was a 1.2% (2 of 121) risk of pancreatitis, 1% (1/121) risk of severe bleeding, and risk of death in less than 1%. CONCLUSIONS EUS-guided FNA appears to be technically feasible, safe, and accurate for obtaining diagnostic tissue of suspicious gastrointestinal and mediastinal lesions and provides important preoperative information.

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

Endoscopic Ultrasonography, Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy Guided by Endoscopic Ultrasonography, and Computed Tomography in the Preoperative Staging of Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Comparison Study

Accurate staging of non-small-cell lung cancer plays a crucial role in determining the treatment options available to patients with this disease. The preoperative documentation of metastasis to the mediastinal lymph nodes has therapeutic implications that have traditionally focused on palliation but more recently have included neoadjuvant strategies [1, 2]. Metastasis to the mediastinal lymph nodes occurs in nearly half of all patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. The development of mediastinal metastasis is probably the most frequent deterrent to cure, even when the presentation is localized. If metastasis involves contralateral or large, bulky (>1.5 to 2.0 cm) subcarinal lymph nodes, surgery alone may not be curative [3-9]. As a result of recent revisions to the staging systems for lung cancer, ipsilateral mediastinal and subcarinal lymph node involvement is now classified as potentially resectable, N2 disease; contralateral mediastinal lymph node involvement (N3 disease) precludes resection [10-12]. Computed tomography of the chest is the current method by which mediastinal lymphadenopathy is detected in non-small-cell lung cancer. However, its sensitivity for detection of metastasis to the lymph nodes varies; accuracy in previous studies has ranged from 52% to 88% [13-23]. This inconsistency has been attributed to the variable correlation of lymph node size with the presence of malignancy. When enlarged contralateral or ipsilateral mediastinal lymph nodes are seen on computed tomography of the chest, standard practice is to determine more accurate staging by performing aspiration biopsy of the lymph node with computed tomographic guidance; bronchoscopy; or, less commonly, a transthoracic approach. If these procedures are unsuccessful, open biopsy is performed by using mediastinoscopy or limited thoracotomy [24-26]. If contralateral lymph nodes are positive for malignancy, surgical resection of the primary tumor is contraindicated. The development of endoscopic ultrasonography has now made it possible to visualize, with high resolution, not only the gastrointestinal tract but also surrounding structures. Endoscopic ultrasonography has been shown to be superior to computed tomography in evaluating lymph nodes for metastases in esophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancer [27-29]. Promising results for detecting posterior mediastinal lymph nodes in patients with lung cancer suggest a possible role for endoscopic ultrasonography in staging lymph nodes in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer [30-36]. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy guided by endoscopic ultrasonography was recently reported to further improve the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography in predicting malignancy of gastrointestinal masses, with rates as high as 87% to 91% [37-42]. We previously reported the results of endoscopic ultrasonography in 17 patients with lung cancer. This method was very accurate for detecting mediastinal lymphadenopathy; the overall accuracy was 71% compared with 41% for computed tomography (P = 0.032) [43]. During the initial study, however, fine-needle aspiration biopsy guided by endoscopic ultrasonography was not available. The goal of the present study was to prospectively evaluate the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography alone, endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy, and computed tomography of the chest in detecting mediastinal lymph node metastasis in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods Patient Selection The study sample consisted of all patients presenting to the Indiana University Thoracic Oncology Program between July 1993 and June 1995 with a diagnosis of non-small-cell lung cancer. The study was approved by the institutional review board, and all enrolled patients gave informed consent. Patients were excluded if they had documented unresectable disease (that is, distant metastasis or locally advanced staged disease [stage III b]) as shown on computed tomography of the chest or if they had a serious medical illness and a life expectancy of less than 1 year. All patients underwent initial preoperative intravenous contrast-enhanced computed tomography of the chest; the axial technique was used in 60% of patients, and the spiral technique was used in 40%. Computed tomography was done at the referring hospital or Indiana University Medical Center; the scans were read at Indiana University Medical Center by a senior attending radiologist who has recognized expertise in this area and used currently accepted radiographic techniques to stage the tumor. The radiologists determination of the benign or malignant nature of each lymph node was recorded on a preoperative computed tomography lymph node map; the American Thoracic Society mediastinal staging map (Figure 1) was used to describe the location of each node [12]. Any patient who had a questionably enlarged mediastinal lymph node (>1 cm in diameter) and was considered a surgical candidate was then scheduled for endoscopic ultrasonography. Figure 1. American Thoracic Society scheme for mapping mediastinal lymphadenopathy by anatomic location, as seen from behind with endoscopic ultrasonography. Endoscopic Ultrasonography Endoscopic ultrasonography was performed in an outpatient setting on all patients by one of three experienced endosonographers; the radial scanning echoendoscope (GFUM-20, Olympus America, Melville, New York) or the linear-array scanning echoendoscope (FG32UA, Pentax, Orangeburg, New York) was used for all procedures. When done by an experienced operator, endoscopic ultrasonography is similar to standard upper endoscopy both in technique and duration of the procedure. When fine-needle aspiration biopsy is performed, the procedure is slightly prolonged. Patients were sedated with meperidine and midazolam, the doses of which were titrated to achieve adequate conscious sedation. The instrument was advanced into the stomach, and the celiac axis was imaged. The probe was then withdrawn to the gastroesophageal junction and slowly withdrawn at 1-cm intervals. Images were obtained with 7.5- and 12-MHz frequencies at each interval. All imaged mediastinal lymph nodes were mapped by location according to the American Thoracic Society classification scheme [12]. From these data, an objective assessment was made as to whether the mediastinal lymphadenopathy detected by endoscopic ultrasonography was benign or possibly malignant according to the following previously reported criteria for malignancy: round shape; sharp, distinct borders; hypoechoic texture; and a short-axis diameter greater than 5 mm [36-39]. Malignancy was suspected if all of these criteria were present. All patients who were studied before the availability of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy underwent surgical resection, and endoscopic ultrasonographic findings were correlated to surgical pathologic findings. Patients who were studied after the advent of fine-needle aspiration biopsy and were found to have no suspicious lymph nodes by endoscopic ultrasonography were directly referred for surgery because there was no indication for aspiration biopsy. Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided aspiration biopsy became available after the first 17 patients were enrolled in our pilot study. All posterior mediastinal lymph nodes that were suspicious for malignant involvement according to the endoscopic ultrasonographic criteria were noted; selected nodes underwent biopsy during the same procedure. Many of the patients had more than one suspicious lymph node. We performed biopsy only on the most suspicious lymph node, which would have the greatest effect on clinical staging (that is, determination of whether the metastasis was contralateral or subcarinal). This technique for ultrasonography-guided aspiration biopsy was initially developed for use with the linear-array instrument (Figure 2) and is described elsewhere [40-42]. We recently reported a similar technique that uses a radial scanning echoendoscope (Figure 3) [37]. Ultrasonography-guided aspiration biopsy involves the insertion of an aspiration catheter needle device through the accessory channel port of the echoendoscope; the needle is then deployed into the lymph node to be sampled under endoscopic ultrasonographic guidance. Aspiration biopsy is done by introducing a specially designed fine-needle aspiration catheter system that consists of a 4-cm long, 23-gauge needle attached to a 180-cm long, 5-French aspiration catheter (Wilson-Cook, Winston-Salem, North Carolina); in and out movements of the catheter are used while the operator firmly grasps the catheter at the point at which it enters the accessory port. Figure 2. A mediastinal lymph node as imaged with the linear-array endoscopic ultrasonography system. arrow Figure 3. Endoscopic ultrasonographic image obtained from the radial scanning instrument showing a large hypoechoic, oval subcarinal lymph node (LN) suspicious for metastatic involvement. Preliminary cytologic findings were obtained during fine-needle aspiration biopsy by a cytopathologist who was present during the procedure. Before the sample was reviewed, Diff-Quik stain (Harleco, Gibbstown, New Jersey) was applied to the slide that contained the deposited specimen. Additional passes were made until a positive cytologic result or a negative result on an adequate tissue sample was obtained [37]. Patients who were considered eligible for surgical resection after staging by computed tomography and endoscopic ultrasonography (that is, patients with a negative result on aspiration biopsy of contralateral or bulky subcarinal lymph nodes or those with nodes that seemed to be benign according to endoscopic ultrasonographic criteria) underwent thoracotomy for pulmonary resection with ipsilateral mediastinal and subcarinal lymph node dissection. During mediastinal dissection, each lymph node was placed in th

A prospective randomized comparison of endoscopic ultrasound- and computed tomography-guided celiac plexus block for managing chronic pancreatitis pain

A prospective randomized comparison of endoscopic ultrasound- and computed tomography-guided celiac plexus block for managing chronic pancreatitis pain

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus block for managing abdominal pain associated with chronic pancreatitis: a prospective single center experience.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus block for managing abdominal pain associated with chronic pancreatitis: a prospective single center experience

The role of endoscopy in the evaluation of suspected choledocholithiasis

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 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. 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 were based on reviewed studies and were graded on the strength of the supporting evidence (Table 1). 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. Gallstone disease affects more than 20 million American adults at an annual cost of

Management of ingested foreign bodies and food impactions

6.2 billion. A subset of these patients will also have choledocholithiasis, including 5% to 10% of those undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic cholelithiasis and 18% to 33% of patients with acute biliary pancreatitis. The approach to patients with suspected choledocholithiasis requires careful consideration because missed common bile duct (CBD) stones pose a risk of recurrent symptoms, pancreatitis, and cholangitis. However, the morbidity and cost

Alterations in pancreatic ductal morphology following polyethylene pancreatic stent therapy

i d t i i t i t f o 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. Studies or reports that described fewer than 10 patients were excluded from analysis if multiple series with more than 10 patients addressing the same issue were available. Additional references were obtained from 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 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 original guideline was published in 1995 and last updated in 2002. The recommendations are based on reviewed studies and are graded on the strength of the supporting evidence (Table 1).1 The strength of individual recommendations is based both on 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 occlusion rate of pancreatic stents

BACKGROUND Polyethylene stents placed in the main pancreatic duct induce morphologic alterations that may resemble chronic pancreatitis. METHODS We reviewed the sequential pancreatograms of stented patients who had long-term follow-up after stent removal. RESULTS Forty patients (66%) had a normal baseline pancreatogram, whereas 21 (34%) showed changes of chronic pancreatitis. In 49 of 61 patients (80.3%), one or more had new morphologic changes immediately after stent withdrawal graded as mild (69%), moderate (29%), or severe (2%). Changes included ductal irregularity (49%), narrowing (35.5%), and side branch change (15.5%). Sixteen of the 21 patients (76.1%) with an abnormal baseline pancreatogram had worsening of the baseline abnormality or additional changes while stented, whereas 33 of 40 (82.5%) with a normal baseline developed new morphologic changes. Correlation of stent-induced changes with stent size, length, patency at removal, and duration of stenting failed to show an association. Twenty-five patients with stent-induced changes had a follow-up pancreatogram at a mean of 192 days (10 to 740) after stent removal. There was complete resolution of the changes in 64%, partial resolution in 32%, and no improvement in 5%. CONCLUSION Morphologic changes induced by polyethylene pancreatic duct stents occurred in 80% of patients. More than one third of these changes did not resolve during the follow-up period. Because of concern over stent-induced fibrosis, the use of pancreatic stents should remain largely experimental.