Faculty Bibliography

GOAL:We aim to perform a multicenter retrospective cohort study to determine if elevated serum lipase determines clinical outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). BACKGROUND:Several cases of acute pancreatitis (AP) have recently been reported in association with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Most of the evidence is based on elevated serum lipase values without objective demonstration of pancreatic inflammation or necrosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS:A population-based, multicenter, retrospective cohort study utilizing TriNetX was performed to obtain aggregated health records of ∼69 million patients from 49 health care organizations from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020. Adult patients (18 y and above) diagnosed with COVID-19 were identified using appropriate International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes and were stratified into 2 groups, with elevated (≥180 U/L) and with normal (≤80 U/L) serum lipase. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality; other outcomes were 30-day rehospitalization, need for mechanical ventilation, need for vasopressor use, acute kidney injury. RESULTS:A total of 435,731 adult patients with COVID-19 were identified, and 1406 of them had elevated serum lipase which was associated with higher 30-day mortality [risk ratio (RR)=1.53, P<0.001], risk of acute kidney injury (RR=1.5, P=0.003), and vasopressor use (RR=1.69, P<0.001) without any difference in 30-day rehospitalization (RR=0.98, P=0.54), or need for mechanical ventilation (RR=1.20, P=0.26). The negative predictive value of normal serum lipase for 3-month mortality in patients with COVID-19 was 91%. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with COVID-19 who have elevated serum lipase experience worse clinical outcomes even in the absence of AP. If these findings can be replicated in prospective studies, serum lipase can be utilized as a marker of disease severity in patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to investigate survival in patients who received celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) compared with patients who received opioids. METHODS:The Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database was used to identify patients older than 65 years diagnosed with pancreatic cancer between 2007 and 2015. We used claims data to identify patients with a history of CPN and opioid use within 1 year of diagnosis, and other demographic, clinical, and treatment variables. Kaplan-Meier analyses and inverse propensity-weighted adjusted Cox proportional hazard ratios were used to evaluate survival. RESULTS:We identified 648 patients who underwent CPN (19.0%) compared with 2769 patients who received opioids (81.0%). The median survival and interquartile range for patients who received CPN was 4.0 months (2.0-8.0 months) compared with 7.0 months (3.0-12.0 months) for opioid users (P < 0.0001). After adjusting for confounders and propensity score, the patients who received CPN showed worsened survival (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.59-1.79). CONCLUSIONS:Pancreatic cancer patients who underwent CPN had decreased survival compared with opioid users. This suggests that opioid sparing methods to reduce pancreatic cancer pain may actually be harmful. Future prospective studies should investigate whether other opioid sparing therapies impact pancreatic cancer survival.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Biliary drainage using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS-BD) has been developed as a novel technique to obtain biliary access and drainage when ERCP fails. Numerous studies have demonstrated its safety and efficacy specifically pertaining to those with malignant distal biliary obstruction or altered foregut anatomy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EUS-BD in benign indications in patients with normal foregut anatomy. METHODS:We performed a retrospective comparative study from 5 academic medical centers (2008-2018) involving patients with benign biliary obstruction and native foregut anatomy who had an initial failed ERCP with subsequent attempt at biliary decompression via EUS-BD or by repeating ERCP. RESULTS:36 patients (mean age 61.6 ± 2.2, 38.9% female) who underwent attempted EUS-BD following initial failed ERCP were compared to 50 patients (mean age 62.7 ± 2.3, 73.5% female) who underwent repeat ERCP following an initial failed cannulation. EUS-BD was technically successful in 28 (77.8%) patients with rendezvous being the most common approach (86.1%). A higher level of pre-procedural bilirubin was found to be associated with technical success of EUS-BD (3.65 ± 0.63 versus 1.1 ± 0.4, p value 0.04). Success of repeat ERCP following failed cannulation was 86%. Adverse events were significantly more frequent in the EUS-BD cohort when compared to the repeat ERCP (10 (27.8%) versus 4 (8.0%), p = 0.02, OR 4.32. CONCLUSIONS:EUS-BD remains a viable therapeutic option in the setting of benign biliary disease, with success rates of 77.8%. Adverse events were significantly more common with EUS-BD vs. repeat ERCP, emphasizing the need to perform in expert centers with appropriate multidisciplinary support and to strongly consider the urgency of biliary decompression before considering same session EUS-BD after failed initial biliary access.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Esophageal function testing is an integral component of the evaluation of refractory GERD and esophageal motility disorders. This review summarizes the current technologies available for esophageal function testing, including the functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP), high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM), and multichannel intraluminal impedance (MII) and pH monitoring. METHODS:We performed a MEDLINE, PubMed, and MAUDE database literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies through March 2021 using the following key words: esophageal manometry, HRM, esophageal impedance, FLIP, MII, and esophageal pH testing. Technical data were gathered from traditional and web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. The report was drafted, reviewed, and edited by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Technology Committee and approved by the Governing Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. RESULTS:FLIP is a high-resolution impedance planimetry system used for pressure and dimension measurement in the esophagus, pylorus, and anal sphincter. FLIP provides complementary information to HRM for esophageal motility disorders, especially achalasia. The Chicago classification, based on HRM data, is a widely adopted algorithmic scheme used to diagnose esophageal motility disorders. MII detects intraluminal bolus movement and, combined with pH measurement or manometry, provides information on acid and non-acid gastroesophageal reflux and bolus transit in patients with refractory GERD and for preoperative evaluation for anti-reflux procedures. CONCLUSIONS:Esophageal function testing techniques (FLIP, HRM, and MII-pH) have diagnostic and prognostic value in the evaluation of esophageal motility disorders and refractory GERD. Newer technologies and classification systems have enabled an increased understanding of these diseases.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE: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/CONCLUSIONS: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.

Small bowel neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) represent approximately one-third of NETs of the gastrointestinal tract, and their incidence is increasing. When determining if endoscopic resection is appropriate, endoscopic ultrasound is used to assess the lesion size and depth of invasion for duodenal NETs. A number of techniques, including endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), band-assisted EMR (band-EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and over-the-scope clip-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR), have been studied; however, the best technique for endoscopic resection remains unclear. The vast majority of currently available data are retrospective, and prospective studies with longer follow-up times are required. For jejunal and ileal NETs, endoscopic techniques such as video capsule endoscopy (VCE) and balloon enteroscopy (BE) assist in diagnosis. This includes localization of the primary NET in metastatic disease where initial workup has been negative, and the identification of multifocal disease, which may change management and prognostication.