Background and Aim Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided biliary drainage (EUS‐BD) can be carried out by two different approaches: choledochoduodenostomy (CDS) and hepaticogastrostomy (HGS). We compared the efficacy and safety of these approaches in malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) patients using a prospective, randomized clinical trial. Methods Patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography were randomly selected for either CDS or HGS. The procedures were carried out at nine tertiary centers from September 2013 to March 2016. Primary endpoint was technical success rate, and the noninferiority of HGS to CDS was examined with a one‐sided significance level of 5%, where the noninferiority margin was set at 15%. Secondary endpoints were clinical success, adverse events (AE), stent patency, survival time, and overall technical success including alternative EUS‐BD procedures. Results Forty‐seven patients (HGS, 24; CDS, 23) were enrolled. Technical success rates were 87.5% and 82.6% in the HGS and CDS groups, respectively, where the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval of the risk difference was −12.2% (P = 0.0278). Clinical success rates were 100% and 94.7% in the HGS and CDS groups, respectively (P = 0.475). Overall AE rate, stent patency, and survival time did not differ between the groups. Overall technical success rates were 100% and 95.7% in the HGS and CDS groups, respectively (P = 0.983). Conclusions This study suggests that HGS is not inferior to CDS in terms of technical success. When one procedure is particularly challenging, readily switching to the other could increase technical success.

INTRODUCTION: During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, whether endoscopy generates aerosols needs to be determined. METHODS: In patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with an enclosure covering their heads, 0.3–10-μm aerosols were measured for 60 seconds before, during, and after endoscopy by an optical counter. Whether aerosols increased in the situation with and without endoscopy was examined. RESULTS: The analysis included 103 consecutive patients undergoing endoscopy and 90 control patients. Aerosols increased significantly during endoscopy compared with the control group. Body mass index and burping were significant factors related to increased aerosols during endoscopy. DISCUSSION: Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was an aerosol-generating procedure.

The present study is the first to evaluate EUS-HGAS. EUS-HGAS has clinical benefit for obtaining long stent patency and avoiding adverse events, although the possibility of acute pancreatitis as a result of obstruction of the orifice of the pancreatic duct must be considered.

Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) refers to human infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic on March 11, 2020. By April 21, 2020, the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases had increased to more than 2,397,000 globally, with an overall mortality rate of 6.8%. 1 COVID-19 is mainly spread through direct contact or aerosol droplets. 2,3 Whether endoscopy represents an aerosol-generating procedure remains unclear, but insuf

ObjectiveStenting is an established endoscopic therapy for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (mGOO). The choice of stent (covered vs uncovered) has been examined in prior randomised studies without clear results.DesignIn a multicentre randomised prospective study, we compared covered (CSEMS) with uncovered self-expandable metal stents (UCSEMS) in patients with mGOO; main outcomes were stent dysfunction and patient survival, with subgroup analyses of patients with extrinsic and intrinsic tumours.ResultsOverall survival was poor with no difference between groups (probability at 3 months 49.7% for covered vs 48.4% for uncovered stents; log-rank for overall survival p=0.26). Within that setting of short survival, the proportion of stent dysfunction was significantly higher for uncovered stents (35.2% vs 23.4%, p=0.01) with significantly shorter time to stent dysfunction. This was mainly relevant for patients with extrinsic tumours (stent dysfunction rates for uncovered stents 35.6% vs 17.5%, p<0.01). Subgrouping was also relevant with respect to tumour ingrowth (lower with covered stents for intrinsic tumours; 1.6% vs 27.7%, p<0.01) and stent migration (higher with covered stents for extrinsic tumours: 15.3% vs 2.5%, p<0.01).ConclusionsDue to poor patient survival, minor differences between covered and uncovered stents may be less relevant even if statistically significant; however, subgroup analysis would suggest to use covered stents for intrinsic and uncovered stents for extrinsic malignancies.