Faculty Bibliography

Background and study aims /UNASSIGNED:Self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) have been increasingly used in benign conditions (e. g. strictures, fistulas, leaks, and perforations). Fully covered SEMS (FSEMS) were introduced to avoid undesirable consequences of partially covered SEMS (PSEMS), but come with higher risk of stent migration. Endoscopic suturing (ES) for stent fixation has been shown to reduce migration of FSEMS. Our aim was to compare the outcomes of FSEMS with ES (FS/ES) versus PSEMS in patients with benign upper gastrointestinal conditions. Patients and methods /UNASSIGNED:We retrospectively identified all patients who underwent stent placement for benign gastrointestinal conditions at seven US tertiary-care centers. Patients were divided into two groups: FSEMS with ES (FS/ES group) and PSEMS (PSEMS group). Clinical outcomes between the two groups were compared. Results /UNASSIGNED: = 0.005. Conclusions /UNASSIGNED:The proportion of stent migration of FS/ES and PSEMS are similar. Rates of other stent-related AEs were higher in the PSEMS group. PSEMS was associated with tissue ingrowth or overgrowth leading to difficult stent removal, and secondary stricture formation. Thus, FSEMS with ES for stent fixation may be the preferred modality over PSEMS for the treatment of benign upper gastrointestinal conditions.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FCSEMSs) have increasingly been used in benign upper gastrointestinal (UGI) conditions; however, stent migration remains a major limitation. Endoscopic suture fixation (ESF) may prevent stent migration. The aims of this study were to compare the frequency of stent migration in patients who received endoscopic suturing for stent fixation (ESF group) compared with those who did not (NSF group) and to assess the impact of ESF on clinical outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent FCSEMS placement for benign UGI diseases. Patients were divided into either the NSF or ESF group. Outcome variables, including stent migration, clinical success (resolution of underlying pathology), and adverse events, were compared. RESULTS: A total of 125 patients (44 in ESF group, 81 in NSF group; 56 benign strictures, 69 leaks/fistulas/perforations) underwent 224 stenting procedures. Stent migration was significantly more common in the NSF group (33 % vs. 16 %; P = 0.03). Time to stent migration was longer in the ESF group (P = 0.02). ESF appeared to protect against stent migration in patients with a history of stent migration (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.09; P = 0.002). ESF was also significantly associated with a higher rate of clinical success (60 % vs. 38 %; P = 0.03). Rates of adverse events were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic suturing for stent fixation is safe and associated with a decreased migration rate, particularly in patients with a prior history of stent migration. It may also improve clinical response, likely because of the reduction in stent migration.

GOALS: To describe a multicenter experience using an endoscopic suturing device for management of gastrointestinal (GI) defects and stent anchorage. BACKGROUND: Endoscopic closure of GI defects including perforations, fistulas, and anastomotic leaks as well as stent anchorage has improved with technological advances. An endoscopic suturing device (OverStitch; Apollo Endosurgery Inc.) has been used. STUDY: Retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic suturing for management of GI defects and/or stent anchorage were enrolled between March 2012 and January 2014 at multiple academic medical centers. Data regarding demographic information and outcomes including long-term success were collected. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-two patients (mean age, 52.6 y; 64.2% females) underwent endoscopic suturing at 8 centers for stent anchorage (n=47; 38.5%), fistulas (n=40; 32.7%), leaks (n=15; 12.3%), and perforations (n=20; 16.4%). A total of 44.2% underwent prior therapy and 97.5% achieved technical success. Immediate clinical success was achieved in 79.5%. Long-term clinical success was noted in 78.8% with mean follow-up of 68 days. Clinical success was 91.4% in stent anchorage, 93% in perforations, 80% in fistulas, but only 27% in anastomotic leak closure. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic suturing for management of GI defects and stent anchoring is safe and efficacious. Stent migration after stent anchoring was reduced compared with published data. Long-term success without further intervention was achieved in the majority of patients. The role of endoscopic suturing for repair of anastomotic leaks remains unclear given limited success in this retrospective study.

BACKGROUND:High-risk patients with cholecystitis have conventionally been offered percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PGBD) for treatment. A growing experience of endoscopic gallbladder drainage (EGBD) has been reported to be effective and safe. OBJECTIVE:To compare the short- and long-term outcomes of EGBD and PGBD. DESIGN/METHODS:A retrospective review. SETTING/METHODS:Single academic tertiary care center. PATIENTS/METHODS:Inpatients diagnosed with cholecystitis. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:Any patient deemed a nonsurgical candidate and who has undergone either PGBD or EGBD was included in the analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:Patient demographics along with procedural and clinical outcomes were recorded for each group. RESULTS:Forty-three patients underwent PGBD and 30 underwent EGBD (24 transpapillary, 6 transmural). Technical (97.6% vs 100%) and clinical (97.6% vs 86.7%) success rates of PGBD and EGBD were similar. However, postprocedure hospital length of stay (16.3 vs 7.6 days), time to clinical resolution (4.6 vs 3.0 days), adverse event rate (39.5% vs 13.3%), number of sessions (2.0 vs 1.0), number of repeat interventions (53.4% vs 13.3%), and postprocedure pain scores (3.8 vs 2.1) were significantly higher for PGBD than EGBD. LIMITATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:Retrospective analysis. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Although EGBD has similar technical and clinical success compared with PGBD, it uses fewer hospital resources and results in fewer adverse events, improved pain scores, and decreased need for repeat gallbladder drainage. EGBD may provide a less-invasive, safer, cost-effective option for gallbladder drainage than PGBD with improved clinical outcomes.