EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) and percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography biliary drainage (PTC) are the two alternate methods for biliary decompression in cases where ERCP fails. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic and percutaneous biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction in patients with failed ERCP. A total of ten studies were included, fulfilling the inclusion criteria, including four retrospective studies and six randomized controlled trials. We compared the technical and clinical success rates and the acute, delayed, and total adverse events of EUS-BD with PTC. The odds ratios (ORs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. There was no difference between technical (OR: 0.47 [95% CI: 0.20–1.07]; P = 0.27) and clinical (OR: 2.24 [95% CI: 1.10–4.55]; P = 0.51) success rates between EUS-PD and PTC groups. Procedural adverse events (OR: 0.17 [95% CI: 0.09–0.31]; P = 0.03) and total adverse events (OR: 0.09 [95% CI: 0.02–0.38]; P < 0.01) were significantly different between the two groups; however, delayed adverse events were nonsignificantly different (OR: 0.73 [95% CI: 0.34–1.57]; P = 0.97). This meta-analysis indicates that endoscopic biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is equally effective but safer in terms of acute and total adverse events than percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTC) for biliary decompression in patients with malignant biliary strictures who have failed an ERCP.

EUS-guided tissue acquisition carries certain risks from unnecessary needle puncture in the low-likelihood lesions. Artificial intelligence (AI) system may enable us to resolve these limitations. We aimed to assess the performance of AI-assisted diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) by off-line evaluating the EUS images from different modes. The databases PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, ISI, IEEE, and Association for Computing Machinery were systematically searched for relevant studies. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic curve were estimated using R software. Of 369 publications, 8 studies with a total of 870 PDAC patients were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of AI-assisted EUS were 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87–0.93) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.79–0.96), respectively, with DOR of 81.6 (95% CI, 32.2–207.3), for diagnosis of PDAC. The area under the curve was 0.923. AI-assisted B-mode EUS had pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.91, 0.90, 0.94, and 0.84, respectively; while AI-assisted contrast-enhanced EUS and AI-assisted EUS elastography had sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 0.95, 0.95, 0.97, and 0.90; and 0.88, 0.83, 0.96 and 0.57, respectively. AI-assisted EUS has a high accuracy rate and may potentially enhance the performance of EUS by aiding the endosonographers to distinguish PDAC from other solid lesions. Validation of these findings in other independent cohorts and improvement of AI function as a real-time diagnosis to guide for tissue acquisition are warranted.

The aim of the series of papers on controversies of biliopancreatic drainage procedures is to discuss pros and cons of the varying clinical practices and techniques in ERCP and EUS for drainage of biliary and pancreatic ducts. While the first part focuses on indications, clinical and imaging prerequisites prior to ERCP, sedation options, post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis, and other related technical topics, the second part discusses specific procedural ERCP techniques including precut techniques and their timing as well as management algorithms. In addition, reviews on controversies in EUS-guided bile duct and pancreatic drainage procedures are under preparation.

Background and Objectives: EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) offers minimally invasive decompression when conventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography fails. Stents can be placed from the intrahepatic ducts into the stomach (hepaticogastrostomy [HG]) or from the extrahepatic bile duct into the small intestine (choledochoduodenostomy [CCD]). Long-term patency of these stents is unknown. In this study, we aim to compare long-term patency of CCD versus HG. Methods: Consecutive patients from 12 centers were included in a registry over 14 years. Demographics, procedure info, adverse events, and follow-up data were collected. Student's t-test, Chi–square, and logistic regression analyses were conducted. Only patients with at least 6-month follow-up or who died within 6-month postprocedure were included. Results: One-hundred and eighty-two patients were included (93% male; mean age: 70; HG n = 95, CCD n = 87). No significant difference in indication, diagnosis, dissection instrument, or stent type was seen between the two groups. Technical success was 92% in both groups. Clinical success was achieved in 75/87 (86%) in the HG group and 80/80 (100%) in the CCD group. A trend toward higher adverse events was seen in the CCD group. A total of 25 patients out of 87 needed stent revision in the HG group (success rate 71%), while eight out of 80 were revised in the CCD group (success rate 90%). Chi square shows CCD success higher than HG (90% vs. 71%, P = 0.010). After adjusting for diagnosis, jaundice or cholangitis presentation, instrument used for dissection, and gender, CCD was 4.5 times more likely than HG to achieve longer stent patency or manage obstruction (odds ratio 4.5; 95% 1.1548–17.6500, P = 0.0302). Conclusion: CCD is associated with superior long-term patency than HG but with a trend toward higher adverse events. This is particularly important in patients with increased survival. Additional studies are required before recommending a change in practice.

Background and Objectives: We initially reported EUS-guided lauromacrogol ablation (EUS-LA) to treat pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs); however, its long-term effectiveness remains unknown. This study was performed to further determine the effectiveness of EUS-LA in a larger population with a long-term follow-up based on 5 years of experience with EUS-LA. Materials and Methods: From April 2015 to April 2020, 279 patients suspected of having PCNs were prospectively enrolled, and seventy patients underwent EUS-guided ablation using lauromacrogol alone. Fifty-five patients underwent follow-up, 35 of whom had a follow-up duration of at least 12 months. The effectiveness of ablation was determined based on volume changes. Results: Among the fifty female and twenty male patients with an overall mean age of 50.3 years, cysts were located in the head/neck of the pancreas in 37 patients (52.9%) and in the body/tail of the pancreas in 33 patients (47.1%). The adverse events rate was 3.6% (3/84), with 14 patients undergoing a second ablation. Among the 55 patients who underwent follow-up, the median cystic volume sharply decreased from 11,494.0 mm³ to 523.6 mm³ (P < 0.001), and the mean diameter decreased from 32.0 mm to 11.0 mm (P < 0.001). Postoperative imaging showed complete resolution (CR) in 26 patients (47.3%) and partial resolution (PR) in 15 (27.3%) patients. CR was observed in 18 (51.4%), and PR was observed in 9 (25.7%) patients among the 35 patients followed for at least 12 months. Conclusions: EUS-LA was effective and safe for the treatment of PCNs with stable effectiveness based on at least 12 months of follow-up.

Background and Objectives: EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) has been increasingly performed using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS). However, recent data have suggested higher adverse event rates with LAMS compared to double pigtail plastic stents (DPS) alone. To decrease risks, there has been anecdotal use of placing DPS through the LAMS. We aimed to determine whether the placement of DPS through cautery-enhanced LAMS at time of initial placement decreases adverse events or need for reintervention. Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective study between January 2015 and October 2017 examining patients who underwent EUS-guided drainage of pseudocysts (PP), walled-off necrosis (WON), and postsurgical fluid collection using a cautery enhanced LAMS with and without DPS. Results: There were 68 patients identified at 3 US tertiary referral centers: 44 PP (65%), 17 WON (25%), and 7 PFSC (10%). There were 35 patients with DPS placed through LAMS (Group 1) and 33 with LAMS alone (Group 2). Overall technical success was 100%, clinical success was 94%, and adverse events (bleeding, perforation, stent occlusion, and stent migration) occurred in 28% of patients. Subgroup analysis compared specific types of PFCs and occurrence of adverse events between each group with no significant difference detected in adverse event or reintervention rates. Conclusion: This multicenter study of various types of PFCs requiring EUS-guided drainage demonstrates that deployment of DPS across cautery-enhanced LAMS at the time of initial drainage does not have a significant effect on clinical outcomes, adverse events, or need for reinterventions.

Background and Objectives: EUS-guided transluminal drainage has increasingly developed, especially after the era of lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS): a fully covered, barbell-shaped, metal stent with anti-migratory properties allowing direct therapeutic interventions through a wide and short channel. The aim of this survey is to investigate the current management of patients undergoing LAMS placement nationwide. Materials and Methods: Forty-eight questions were submitted to Italian centers about expertise, peri- and intra-procedural aspects, budget/refund, and future perspectives. Statistical analyzer was SPSS®. Results: Thirty-six centers completed the survey. Indications for LAMS positioning are pancreatic fluid collection drainage (PFCD, 97.2%), biliary drainage (BD, 80.5%), gallbladder drainage (GBD, 75%), and gastroentero-anastomosis (GEA, 19.4%). A total of 77.7% of the endoscopists perform only on-label procedures and 22.2% both on-label and off-label. 38.8% attended a training preliminary course, 27.7% were just supported by an expert, 22.2% had both the opportunities, and 8.3% none of them. Management of antiplatelets and sedation protocol is very heterogeneous. Only 50% involves a multidisciplinary meeting and 30.5% has a specialized clinic for follow-up. Acid suppression is usually continued after PFCD. The type and timing of postprocedural imaging varies widely. 8.3% of the endoscopists work without fluoroscopy. Refund for LAMS is mostly not guaranteed. Main future growing indications appear to be BD, GBD, and GEA (69.4%, 55.5%, and 55.5%, respectively). Conclusions: This is the first survey assessing the state of the art on LAMS almost 10 years after their advent. There are currently wide variations in practice nationwide, which demonstrates a pressing need to define technical, qualitative, and peri-procedural requirements to carry out this procedure, toward a standardization.

Background and Objectives: EUS-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) has been increasingly used for the treatment of pancreatic neoplasms. The role of EUS-RFA in the management of pancreatic cancer has not yet been elucidated. This study aimed to evaluate the survival impact of EUS-RFA in unresectable pancreatic cancer. Methods: Twenty-two patients (n = 14, locally advanced unresectable; n = 8, metastatic) with unresectable pancreatic cancer underwent EUS-RFA combined with subsequent chemotherapy between May 2016 and June 2019. Survival outcomes including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated. Results: EUS-RFA was successful in all patients. The median number of RFA sessions was 5 (interquartile range, [IQR], 3.25–5.75). After successful EUS-RFA, subsequent gemcitabine-based chemotherapy was performed. Early procedure-related adverse events occurred in 4 out of 107 sessions (3.74%), including peritonitis (n = 1) and abdominal pain (n = 3). During follow-up over a median of 21.23 months (IQR, 10.73–27.1), the median OS and PFS were 24.03 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16–35.8) and 16.37 months (95% CI, 8.87–19), respectively. Conclusions: EUS-RFA is technically feasible and safe for the management of unresectable pancreatic cancer. EUS-RFA combined with systemic chemotherapy may be associated with favorable survival outcomes. Further larger-scale prospective comparative study is required to confirm these findings.