BackgroundAlthough evidence suggests frequent gastrointestinal (GI) involvement during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), endoscopic findings are scarcely reported.AimsWe aimed at registering endoscopic abnormalities and potentially associated risk factors among patients with COVID-19.MethodsAll consecutive patients with COVID-19 undergoing endoscopy in 16 institutions from high-prevalence regions were enrolled. Mann-Whitney U, χ2 or Fisher’s exact test were used to compare patients with major abnormalities to those with negative procedures, and multivariate logistic regression to identify independent predictors.ResultsBetween February and May 2020, during the first pandemic outbreak with severely restricted endoscopy activity, 114 endoscopies on 106 patients with COVID-19 were performed in 16 institutions (men=70.8%, median age=68 (58–74); 33% admitted in intensive care unit; 44.4% reporting GI symptoms). 66.7% endoscopies were urgent, mainly for overt GI bleeding. 52 (45.6%) patients had major abnormalities, whereas 13 bled from previous conditions. The most prevalent upper GI abnormalities were ulcers (25.3%), erosive/ulcerative gastro-duodenopathy (16.1%) and petechial/haemorrhagic gastropathy (9.2%). Among lower GI endoscopies, 33.3% showed an ischaemic-like colitis.Receiver operating curve analysis identified D-dimers >1850 ng/mL as predicting major abnormalities. Only D-dimers >1850 ng/mL (OR=12.12 (1.69–86.87)) and presence of GI symptoms (OR=6.17 (1.13–33.67)) were independently associated with major abnormalities at multivariate analysis.ConclusionIn this highly selected cohort of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring endoscopy, almost half showed acute mucosal injuries and more than one-third of lower GI endoscopies had features of ischaemic colitis. Among the hospitalisation-related and patient-related variables evaluated in this study, D-dimers above 1850 ng/mL was the most useful at predicting major mucosal abnormalities at endoscopy.Trial registration numberClinicalTrial.gov (ID: NCT04318366).

Background and study aims: How enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (e-ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) compare in patients with surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy is currently unknown. The aims of this study were to compare efficacy and safety of both techniques and study predictors of these outcomes. Patients and methods: This was an international, multicenter comparative cohort study at 10 tertiary centers. Outcomes data included technical success (biliary access with cholangiography and stent placement [when indicated]), clinical success (resolution of biliary obstruction) and adverse events (AEs) (graded according to the ASGE lexicon). Results: A total of 98 patients underwent EUS-BD (n = 49) or e-ERCP (n = 49). Technical success was achieved in 48 (98 %) patients in the EUS-BD group as compared to 32 (65.3 %) patients in the e-ERCP group (OR 12.48, P = 0.001). Clinical success was attained in 88 % of patients in EUS-BD group as compared to 59.1 % in the e-ERCP group (OR 2.83, P = 0.03). Procedural time was significantly shorter in the EUS-BD group (55 min vs 95 min, P < 0.0001). AEs occurred more commonly in the EUS-BD group (20 % vs. 4 %, P = 0.01). However, the majority (90 %) of AEs were mild/moderate. Length of stay was significantly longer in the EUS-BD group (6.6 d vs. 2.4 d, P < 0.0001). Conclusions: EUS-BD can be performed with a higher degree of clinical efficacy and shorter procedure time than e-ERCP in patients with surgically-altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy. Whether or not this approach should be first-line therapy in this patient population is highly dependent on the indication for the procedure, the patient’s anatomy, and local practice and expertise.

Background and aims: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative to traditional radiologic and surgical drainage procedures after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, prospective multicenter data are lacking. The aims of this study were to prospectively assess the short- and long-term efficacy and safety of EUS-BD in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction. Patients and methods: Consecutive patients at 12 tertiary centers (5 US, 5 European, 1 Asian, 1 South American) with malignant distal biliary obstruction and failed ERCP underwent EUS-BD. Technical success was defined as successful stent placement in the desired position. Clinical success was defined as a reduction in bilirubin by 50 % at 2 weeks or to below 3 mg/dL at 4 weeks. Adverse events were prospectively tracked and graded according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) lexicon’s severity grading system. Overall survival and duration of stent patency were calculated using Kaplan–Meier analysis. Results: A total of 96 patients (mean age 66 years, female 45 %, pancreatic cancer 55 %) underwent EUS-BD. Stent placement (technical success) was achieved in 92 (95.8 %) patients (metallic stent 84, plastic stent 8). Mean procedure time was 40 minutes. Clinical success was achieved in 86 (89.5 %) patients. A total of 10 (10.5 %) adverse events occurred: pneumoperitoneum (n = 2), sheared wire (n = 1), bleeding (n = 1), bile leak (n = 3), cholangitis (n = 2), and unintentional perforation (n = 1); 4 graded as mild, 4 moderate, 1 severe, and 1 fatal (due to perforation). A total of 38 (44 %) patients died of disease progression during the study period. The median patient survival was 167 days (95 %CI 112 – 221) days. The 6-month stent patency rate was 95 % (95 %CI 94.94 – 95.06 %) and the 1-year stent patency was 86 % (95 %CI 85.74 – 86.26 %). Conclusion: This study on EUS-BD demonstrates excellent efficacy and safety of EUS-BD when performed by experts.Study registration: NCT01889953

SEMS are associated with lower stent dysfunction, lower re-intervention rates, better survival, and higher patency time. Complications and costs showed no difference.

Objective To compare the prevalence of esophageal and periesophageal thermal injury in patients undergoing radiofrequency (RF) atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation using 8 mm tip catheters during three different esophageal protection strategies. Methods Forty‐five consecutive patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF underwent first ablation procedure, besides esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) combined with radial endosonography (EUS) performed before and after the pulmonary vein (PV) isolation. Before the procedure, patients were randomly assigned to one of three esophageal lesion protection strategies: group I—without any protective or monitoring dispositive and limiting RF applications to 30 W for 20 seconds, in left atrium posterior wall (LAPW); group II—power and time of RF delivery, up to 50 W for 20 seconds at LAPW, limited by esophageal temperature monitoring; group III—applications of RF in LAPW with fixed power application of 50 W for 20 seconds during continuous esophageal cooling. Results Baseline characteristics of patients were similar in all groups. The four PVs were isolated in 14 (93.3%), 13 (86.7%), and 15 (100%) patients, respectively in groups I, II, and III. The mean RF power was significantly higher (P < .001) in the posterior side of PVs in group III. Post‐AF ablation EGD and EUS revealed two esophageal wall ulcerations and two periesophageal mediastinal edemas only in the esophageal cooling group (P = .008). Conclusion Esophageal cooling balloon strategy resulted in a higher RF power energy delivery when ablating at the LA posterior wall, using 8 mm nonirrigated tip catheters under temperature mode control. Despite that, patients presented a relatively low incidence of esophageal and periesophaeal injuries.