User login
Sterile Water Bottles Deemed Unnecessary for Endoscopy
Like diners saving on drinks,
“No direct evidence supports the recommendation and widespread use of sterile water during gastrointestinal endosco-py procedures,” lead author Deepak Agrawal, MD, chief of gastroenterology & hepatology at the Dell Medical School, University Texas at Austin, and colleagues, wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “Guidelines recommending sterile water during endoscopy are based on limited evidence and mostly expert opinions.”
After reviewing the literature back to 1975, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues considered the use of sterile water in endoscopy via three frameworks: medical evidence and guidelines, environmental and broader health effects, and financial costs.
Only 2 studies – both from the 1990s – directly compared sterile and tap water use in endoscopy. Neither showed an increased risk of infection from tap water. In fact, some cultures from allegedly sterile water bottles grew pathogenic bacteria, while no patient complications were reported in either study.
“The recommendations for sterile water contradict observations in other medical care scenarios, for example, for the irrigation of open wounds,” Dr. Agrawal and colleagues noted. “Similarly, there is no benefit in using sterile water for enteral feeds in immunosuppressed patients, and tap water enemas are routinely acceptable for colon cleansing before sigmoidoscopies in all patients, irrespective of immune status.”
Current guidelines, including the 2021 US multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes and accessories, recommend sterile water for procedures involving mucosal penetration but acknowledge low-quality supporting evidence. These recommendations are based on outdated studies, some unrelated to GI endoscopy, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues pointed out, and rely heavily on cross-referenced opinion statements rather than clinical data.
They went on to suggest a concerning possibility: all those plastic bottles may actually cause more health problems than prevent them. The review estimates that the production and transportation of sterile water bottles contributes over 6,000 metric tons of emissions per year from US endoscopy units alone. What’s more, as discarded bottles break down, they release greenhouse gases and microplastics, the latter of which have been linked to cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and endocrine disruption.
Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also underscored the financial toxicity of sterile water bottles. Considering a 1-liter bottle of sterile water costs $3-10, an endoscopy unit performing 30 procedures per day spends approximately $1,000-3,000 per month on bottled water alone. Scaled nationally, the routine use of sterile water costs tens of millions of dollars each year, not counting indirect expenses associated with stocking and waste disposal.
Considering the dubious clinical upside against the apparent environmental and financial downsides, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues urged endoscopy units to rethink routine sterile water use.
They proposed a pragmatic model: start the day with a new sterile or reusable bottle, refill with tap water for subsequent cases, and recycle the bottle at day’s end. Institutions should ensure their tap water meets safety standards, they added, such as those outlined in the Joint Commission’s 2022 R3 Report on standards for water management.
Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also called on GI societies to revise existing guidance to reflect today’s clinical and environmental realities. Until strong evidence supports the need for sterile water, they wrote, the smarter, safer, and more sustainable option may be simply turning on the tap.
The investigators disclosed relationships with Guardant, Exact Sciences, Freenome, and others.
In an editorial accompanying the study and comments to GI & Hepatology News, Dr. Seth A. Gross of NYU Langone Health urged gastroenterologists to reconsider the use of sterile water in endoscopy.
While the rationale for bottled water has centered on infection prevention, Gross argued that the evidence does not hold up, noting that this practice contradicts modern values around sustainability and evidence-based care.
The two relevant clinical studies comparing sterile versus tap water in endoscopy are almost 30 years old, he said, and neither detected an increased risk of infection with tap water, leading both to conclude that tap water is “safe and practical” for routine endoscopy.
Gross also pointed out the inconsistency of sterile water use in medical practice, noting that tap water is acceptable in procedures with higher infection risk than endoscopy.
“Lastly,” he added, “most people drink tap water and not sterile water on a daily basis without outbreaks of gastroenteritis from bacterial infections.”
Gross’s comments went beyond the data to emphasize the obvious but overlooked environmental impacts of sterile water bottles. He suggested several challenging suggestions to make medicine more ecofriendly, like reducing travel to conferences, increasing the availability of telehealth, and choosing reusable devices over disposables.
But “what’s hiding in plain sight,” he said, “is our use of sterile water.”
While acknowledging that some patients, like those who are immunocompromised, might still warrant sterile water, Gross supported the review’s recommendation to use tap water instead. He called on GI societies and regulatory bodies to re-examine current policy and pursue updated guidance.
“Sometimes going back to the basics,” he concluded, “could be the most innovative strategy with tremendous impact.”
Seth A. Gross, MD, AGAF, is clinical chief in the Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology at NYU Langone Health, and professor at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, both in New York City. He reported no conflicts of interest.
In an editorial accompanying the study and comments to GI & Hepatology News, Dr. Seth A. Gross of NYU Langone Health urged gastroenterologists to reconsider the use of sterile water in endoscopy.
While the rationale for bottled water has centered on infection prevention, Gross argued that the evidence does not hold up, noting that this practice contradicts modern values around sustainability and evidence-based care.
The two relevant clinical studies comparing sterile versus tap water in endoscopy are almost 30 years old, he said, and neither detected an increased risk of infection with tap water, leading both to conclude that tap water is “safe and practical” for routine endoscopy.
Gross also pointed out the inconsistency of sterile water use in medical practice, noting that tap water is acceptable in procedures with higher infection risk than endoscopy.
“Lastly,” he added, “most people drink tap water and not sterile water on a daily basis without outbreaks of gastroenteritis from bacterial infections.”
Gross’s comments went beyond the data to emphasize the obvious but overlooked environmental impacts of sterile water bottles. He suggested several challenging suggestions to make medicine more ecofriendly, like reducing travel to conferences, increasing the availability of telehealth, and choosing reusable devices over disposables.
But “what’s hiding in plain sight,” he said, “is our use of sterile water.”
While acknowledging that some patients, like those who are immunocompromised, might still warrant sterile water, Gross supported the review’s recommendation to use tap water instead. He called on GI societies and regulatory bodies to re-examine current policy and pursue updated guidance.
“Sometimes going back to the basics,” he concluded, “could be the most innovative strategy with tremendous impact.”
Seth A. Gross, MD, AGAF, is clinical chief in the Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology at NYU Langone Health, and professor at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, both in New York City. He reported no conflicts of interest.
In an editorial accompanying the study and comments to GI & Hepatology News, Dr. Seth A. Gross of NYU Langone Health urged gastroenterologists to reconsider the use of sterile water in endoscopy.
While the rationale for bottled water has centered on infection prevention, Gross argued that the evidence does not hold up, noting that this practice contradicts modern values around sustainability and evidence-based care.
The two relevant clinical studies comparing sterile versus tap water in endoscopy are almost 30 years old, he said, and neither detected an increased risk of infection with tap water, leading both to conclude that tap water is “safe and practical” for routine endoscopy.
Gross also pointed out the inconsistency of sterile water use in medical practice, noting that tap water is acceptable in procedures with higher infection risk than endoscopy.
“Lastly,” he added, “most people drink tap water and not sterile water on a daily basis without outbreaks of gastroenteritis from bacterial infections.”
Gross’s comments went beyond the data to emphasize the obvious but overlooked environmental impacts of sterile water bottles. He suggested several challenging suggestions to make medicine more ecofriendly, like reducing travel to conferences, increasing the availability of telehealth, and choosing reusable devices over disposables.
But “what’s hiding in plain sight,” he said, “is our use of sterile water.”
While acknowledging that some patients, like those who are immunocompromised, might still warrant sterile water, Gross supported the review’s recommendation to use tap water instead. He called on GI societies and regulatory bodies to re-examine current policy and pursue updated guidance.
“Sometimes going back to the basics,” he concluded, “could be the most innovative strategy with tremendous impact.”
Seth A. Gross, MD, AGAF, is clinical chief in the Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology at NYU Langone Health, and professor at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine, both in New York City. He reported no conflicts of interest.
Like diners saving on drinks,
“No direct evidence supports the recommendation and widespread use of sterile water during gastrointestinal endosco-py procedures,” lead author Deepak Agrawal, MD, chief of gastroenterology & hepatology at the Dell Medical School, University Texas at Austin, and colleagues, wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “Guidelines recommending sterile water during endoscopy are based on limited evidence and mostly expert opinions.”
After reviewing the literature back to 1975, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues considered the use of sterile water in endoscopy via three frameworks: medical evidence and guidelines, environmental and broader health effects, and financial costs.
Only 2 studies – both from the 1990s – directly compared sterile and tap water use in endoscopy. Neither showed an increased risk of infection from tap water. In fact, some cultures from allegedly sterile water bottles grew pathogenic bacteria, while no patient complications were reported in either study.
“The recommendations for sterile water contradict observations in other medical care scenarios, for example, for the irrigation of open wounds,” Dr. Agrawal and colleagues noted. “Similarly, there is no benefit in using sterile water for enteral feeds in immunosuppressed patients, and tap water enemas are routinely acceptable for colon cleansing before sigmoidoscopies in all patients, irrespective of immune status.”
Current guidelines, including the 2021 US multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes and accessories, recommend sterile water for procedures involving mucosal penetration but acknowledge low-quality supporting evidence. These recommendations are based on outdated studies, some unrelated to GI endoscopy, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues pointed out, and rely heavily on cross-referenced opinion statements rather than clinical data.
They went on to suggest a concerning possibility: all those plastic bottles may actually cause more health problems than prevent them. The review estimates that the production and transportation of sterile water bottles contributes over 6,000 metric tons of emissions per year from US endoscopy units alone. What’s more, as discarded bottles break down, they release greenhouse gases and microplastics, the latter of which have been linked to cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and endocrine disruption.
Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also underscored the financial toxicity of sterile water bottles. Considering a 1-liter bottle of sterile water costs $3-10, an endoscopy unit performing 30 procedures per day spends approximately $1,000-3,000 per month on bottled water alone. Scaled nationally, the routine use of sterile water costs tens of millions of dollars each year, not counting indirect expenses associated with stocking and waste disposal.
Considering the dubious clinical upside against the apparent environmental and financial downsides, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues urged endoscopy units to rethink routine sterile water use.
They proposed a pragmatic model: start the day with a new sterile or reusable bottle, refill with tap water for subsequent cases, and recycle the bottle at day’s end. Institutions should ensure their tap water meets safety standards, they added, such as those outlined in the Joint Commission’s 2022 R3 Report on standards for water management.
Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also called on GI societies to revise existing guidance to reflect today’s clinical and environmental realities. Until strong evidence supports the need for sterile water, they wrote, the smarter, safer, and more sustainable option may be simply turning on the tap.
The investigators disclosed relationships with Guardant, Exact Sciences, Freenome, and others.
Like diners saving on drinks,
“No direct evidence supports the recommendation and widespread use of sterile water during gastrointestinal endosco-py procedures,” lead author Deepak Agrawal, MD, chief of gastroenterology & hepatology at the Dell Medical School, University Texas at Austin, and colleagues, wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “Guidelines recommending sterile water during endoscopy are based on limited evidence and mostly expert opinions.”
After reviewing the literature back to 1975, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues considered the use of sterile water in endoscopy via three frameworks: medical evidence and guidelines, environmental and broader health effects, and financial costs.
Only 2 studies – both from the 1990s – directly compared sterile and tap water use in endoscopy. Neither showed an increased risk of infection from tap water. In fact, some cultures from allegedly sterile water bottles grew pathogenic bacteria, while no patient complications were reported in either study.
“The recommendations for sterile water contradict observations in other medical care scenarios, for example, for the irrigation of open wounds,” Dr. Agrawal and colleagues noted. “Similarly, there is no benefit in using sterile water for enteral feeds in immunosuppressed patients, and tap water enemas are routinely acceptable for colon cleansing before sigmoidoscopies in all patients, irrespective of immune status.”
Current guidelines, including the 2021 US multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes and accessories, recommend sterile water for procedures involving mucosal penetration but acknowledge low-quality supporting evidence. These recommendations are based on outdated studies, some unrelated to GI endoscopy, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues pointed out, and rely heavily on cross-referenced opinion statements rather than clinical data.
They went on to suggest a concerning possibility: all those plastic bottles may actually cause more health problems than prevent them. The review estimates that the production and transportation of sterile water bottles contributes over 6,000 metric tons of emissions per year from US endoscopy units alone. What’s more, as discarded bottles break down, they release greenhouse gases and microplastics, the latter of which have been linked to cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and endocrine disruption.
Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also underscored the financial toxicity of sterile water bottles. Considering a 1-liter bottle of sterile water costs $3-10, an endoscopy unit performing 30 procedures per day spends approximately $1,000-3,000 per month on bottled water alone. Scaled nationally, the routine use of sterile water costs tens of millions of dollars each year, not counting indirect expenses associated with stocking and waste disposal.
Considering the dubious clinical upside against the apparent environmental and financial downsides, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues urged endoscopy units to rethink routine sterile water use.
They proposed a pragmatic model: start the day with a new sterile or reusable bottle, refill with tap water for subsequent cases, and recycle the bottle at day’s end. Institutions should ensure their tap water meets safety standards, they added, such as those outlined in the Joint Commission’s 2022 R3 Report on standards for water management.
Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also called on GI societies to revise existing guidance to reflect today’s clinical and environmental realities. Until strong evidence supports the need for sterile water, they wrote, the smarter, safer, and more sustainable option may be simply turning on the tap.
The investigators disclosed relationships with Guardant, Exact Sciences, Freenome, and others.
FROM GASTRO HEP ADVANCES
More Evidence Supports ‘Individualized Approach’ to Pre-Endoscopy GLP-1 RAs
in The American Journal of Gastroenterology. Moreover, most instances occurred in patients using the drugs for type 2 diabetes (T2D) rather than for weight loss alone.
The findings suggest adopting an individualized approach rather than universal preoperative withholding of GLP-1 RAs before endoscopy, concluded Jennifer Phan, MD, medical director of the Hoag Advanced Endoscopy Center in Newport Beach, California, and colleagues. These agents are associated with slowed gastric emptying, possibly raising the risk for pulmonary aspiration. The study identified comorbid uncontrolled T2D as a risk factor for retained gastric contents.
Recommendations from gastroenterological societies and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) differ regarding pre-endoscopic holding of these ubiquitous agents used for obesity and T2D. “Many patients undergo routine endoscopic procedures, and there was concern from the anesthesia safety perspective for retained gastric contents,” Phan told GI & Hepatology News. “At first these events were seen in a handful of cases; however, out of precaution this resulted in a statement from the ASA recommending that patients hold their GLP-1 medications for at least 1 week prior to a routine endoscopic procedure.”
That guidance resulted in protocol changes within endoscopy units, cancelled procedures, and potential delays in patient care. “We wanted to study whether this concern was clinically valid and to help identify which subgroup of patients are at highest risk in order to best inform anesthesia and endoscopy practices,” Phan added.
The ASA updated its guidance in 2023.
The current study aligns with other research showing that rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents are < 10%, Phan said. For instance, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) published a rapid clinical practice update in November 2023 that found insufficient evidence to support patients stopping the medications before endoscopic procedures. AGA guidance suggests an individual approach for each patient on a GLP-1 RA rather than a blanket statement on how to manage all patients taking the medications.
“Our initial hypothesis was that the rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents in patients on GLP-1 RA medications would be low,” Phan noted. “This was born out of anecdotal experience of the limited number of aborted procedures we experienced before the ASA statement.”
Her group also hypothesized that the indication for which the GLP-1 RA was prescribed would be important, with patients taking GLP-1 RA medications for diabetes potentially having a higher likelihood of retained contents given the concomitant propensity for delayed gastric motility related to uncontrolled hyperglycemia.
The Study
The investigators identified 815 patients on confirmed GLP-1 RA medications of various types receiving endoscopy from 2021 to 2023 at four centers. Demographics, prescribing practices, and procedure outcomes were captured. GLP-1 RA management of preoperative holding was retroactively classified per ASA guidance.
Of the 815 patients (mean age, 67.7 years; 57.7% women; 53.9% White individuals), 70 (8.7%) exhibited retained gastric contents on endoscopy. Of these 65 (93%) had T2D with a median A1c of 6.5%. Among those with retained contents, most had a minimal (10, 14.3%) or moderate (31, 44.3%) amount of food retained, although 29 (41.4%) had a large quantity. Only one patient required unplanned intubation because of a large quantity of residual content, and none had aspiration events.
In multivariate analysis, the odds ratio of retention in those with diabetes was 4.1. “Given the predominance of diabetes in those with retained gastric contents, we highlight the potential to risk-stratify patients who require further preprocedural consideration,” the authors wrote.
Those with GLP-1 RA held per ASA guidance (406, 49.8%) were less likely to have retained contents (4.4% vs 12.7%; P < .001), but no significant differences for intubation (0% vs 2%; P = .53) or aborting procedure rates (28% vs 18%; P = .40) due to gastric retention were observed.
On multivariable analysis, the likelihood of food retention increased by 36% (95% CI, 1.15-1.60) for every 1% increase in glycosylated hemoglobin after adjusting for GLP-1 RA type and preoperative medication hold.
“Our study can help to differentiate which patients can be at largest risk for retained gastric contents,” Phan said, noting the impact of increasing percentages of A1C. “There’s a 36% increased likelihood of food retention in patients on GLP-1 medications, so a blanket policy to hold GLP-1s in patients who are nondiabetic and taking the medication for obesity may not be the best approach. But if patients have uncontrolled hyperglycemia, then an approach of caution is clinically valid.” In that context, holding the GLP-1 RA injection or lengthening the preoperative clear-liquid diet policy should be considered.
She noted that the study results are generalizable because the study was conducted across multiple types of hospital systems, both university and county, and included all types of GLP-1 RA.
Offering an anesthesiologist’s perspective on the study, Paul Potnuru, MD, an assistant professor in the Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine at UTHealth Houston and not involved in the study, called the findings “somewhat reassuring” but said the risk for aspiration was still a consideration.
A recent review, however, reported that the risk for GLP-1 RA-associated pulmonary aspiration was low.
Potnuru acknowledged that the original ASA guidance on preoperative GLP-1 RA cessation led to some confusion. “There were not a lot of data on the issue, but some studies found that even with stopping GLP-1s 2 weeks preoperatively some patients still retained gastric content,” he told GI & Hepatology News.
A study at his center recently reported that 56% of GLP-1 RA users had increased pre-anesthesia residual gastric content compared with 19% of nonusers.
From the anesthesiologist’s clinical vantage point, the margin of safety is an issue even if aspiration risk is low. “If there’s a 1 in 1000 chance or even a 1 in 3000 chance, that can be considered too high,” Potnuru said.
He further noted that the current study included only 815 patients, not nearly enough for definitive data. In addition, a retrospective study based on medical records can’t really capture all the real-world procedural changes made in the operating room. “It’s common for anesthesiologists not to document all cases of intubation, for example,” he said.
While the ideal is a completely empty stomach, he agreed that a practical alternative to stopping GLP-1 RA therapy, especially that prescribed for diabetes, would be a 24-hour liquid diet, which would clear the stomach quickly. “If you stop these drugs in patients taking them for diabetes, you get a worsening of their glycemic control,” he said.
He noted that patients have different risk tolerances, with some willing to go ahead even if ultrasound shows gastric retention, while some opt to cancel.
Prospective studies are needed, Potnuru added, “because you find more if you know what you’re looking for.” His center is starting a clinical trial in 150 patients to assess the impact of a 24-hour, liquids-only diet on gastric retention.
According to Phan, other research is following GLP-1 RA users undergoing colonoscopy. “Future studies can look at the added value of point-of-care abdominal ultrasound to see if it increases precision preoperative management in these patients on GLP-1 medications.”
Other groups are examining the safety of these agents in the general context of sedation. “It’s worth noting that the studies are being done on currently available medications and may not apply to future medications such as triple agonists or anti-amylins that may come on the market in the near future,” Phan said.
This study received no financial support. Neither the study authors nor Potnuru had any conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
in The American Journal of Gastroenterology. Moreover, most instances occurred in patients using the drugs for type 2 diabetes (T2D) rather than for weight loss alone.
The findings suggest adopting an individualized approach rather than universal preoperative withholding of GLP-1 RAs before endoscopy, concluded Jennifer Phan, MD, medical director of the Hoag Advanced Endoscopy Center in Newport Beach, California, and colleagues. These agents are associated with slowed gastric emptying, possibly raising the risk for pulmonary aspiration. The study identified comorbid uncontrolled T2D as a risk factor for retained gastric contents.
Recommendations from gastroenterological societies and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) differ regarding pre-endoscopic holding of these ubiquitous agents used for obesity and T2D. “Many patients undergo routine endoscopic procedures, and there was concern from the anesthesia safety perspective for retained gastric contents,” Phan told GI & Hepatology News. “At first these events were seen in a handful of cases; however, out of precaution this resulted in a statement from the ASA recommending that patients hold their GLP-1 medications for at least 1 week prior to a routine endoscopic procedure.”
That guidance resulted in protocol changes within endoscopy units, cancelled procedures, and potential delays in patient care. “We wanted to study whether this concern was clinically valid and to help identify which subgroup of patients are at highest risk in order to best inform anesthesia and endoscopy practices,” Phan added.
The ASA updated its guidance in 2023.
The current study aligns with other research showing that rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents are < 10%, Phan said. For instance, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) published a rapid clinical practice update in November 2023 that found insufficient evidence to support patients stopping the medications before endoscopic procedures. AGA guidance suggests an individual approach for each patient on a GLP-1 RA rather than a blanket statement on how to manage all patients taking the medications.
“Our initial hypothesis was that the rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents in patients on GLP-1 RA medications would be low,” Phan noted. “This was born out of anecdotal experience of the limited number of aborted procedures we experienced before the ASA statement.”
Her group also hypothesized that the indication for which the GLP-1 RA was prescribed would be important, with patients taking GLP-1 RA medications for diabetes potentially having a higher likelihood of retained contents given the concomitant propensity for delayed gastric motility related to uncontrolled hyperglycemia.
The Study
The investigators identified 815 patients on confirmed GLP-1 RA medications of various types receiving endoscopy from 2021 to 2023 at four centers. Demographics, prescribing practices, and procedure outcomes were captured. GLP-1 RA management of preoperative holding was retroactively classified per ASA guidance.
Of the 815 patients (mean age, 67.7 years; 57.7% women; 53.9% White individuals), 70 (8.7%) exhibited retained gastric contents on endoscopy. Of these 65 (93%) had T2D with a median A1c of 6.5%. Among those with retained contents, most had a minimal (10, 14.3%) or moderate (31, 44.3%) amount of food retained, although 29 (41.4%) had a large quantity. Only one patient required unplanned intubation because of a large quantity of residual content, and none had aspiration events.
In multivariate analysis, the odds ratio of retention in those with diabetes was 4.1. “Given the predominance of diabetes in those with retained gastric contents, we highlight the potential to risk-stratify patients who require further preprocedural consideration,” the authors wrote.
Those with GLP-1 RA held per ASA guidance (406, 49.8%) were less likely to have retained contents (4.4% vs 12.7%; P < .001), but no significant differences for intubation (0% vs 2%; P = .53) or aborting procedure rates (28% vs 18%; P = .40) due to gastric retention were observed.
On multivariable analysis, the likelihood of food retention increased by 36% (95% CI, 1.15-1.60) for every 1% increase in glycosylated hemoglobin after adjusting for GLP-1 RA type and preoperative medication hold.
“Our study can help to differentiate which patients can be at largest risk for retained gastric contents,” Phan said, noting the impact of increasing percentages of A1C. “There’s a 36% increased likelihood of food retention in patients on GLP-1 medications, so a blanket policy to hold GLP-1s in patients who are nondiabetic and taking the medication for obesity may not be the best approach. But if patients have uncontrolled hyperglycemia, then an approach of caution is clinically valid.” In that context, holding the GLP-1 RA injection or lengthening the preoperative clear-liquid diet policy should be considered.
She noted that the study results are generalizable because the study was conducted across multiple types of hospital systems, both university and county, and included all types of GLP-1 RA.
Offering an anesthesiologist’s perspective on the study, Paul Potnuru, MD, an assistant professor in the Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine at UTHealth Houston and not involved in the study, called the findings “somewhat reassuring” but said the risk for aspiration was still a consideration.
A recent review, however, reported that the risk for GLP-1 RA-associated pulmonary aspiration was low.
Potnuru acknowledged that the original ASA guidance on preoperative GLP-1 RA cessation led to some confusion. “There were not a lot of data on the issue, but some studies found that even with stopping GLP-1s 2 weeks preoperatively some patients still retained gastric content,” he told GI & Hepatology News.
A study at his center recently reported that 56% of GLP-1 RA users had increased pre-anesthesia residual gastric content compared with 19% of nonusers.
From the anesthesiologist’s clinical vantage point, the margin of safety is an issue even if aspiration risk is low. “If there’s a 1 in 1000 chance or even a 1 in 3000 chance, that can be considered too high,” Potnuru said.
He further noted that the current study included only 815 patients, not nearly enough for definitive data. In addition, a retrospective study based on medical records can’t really capture all the real-world procedural changes made in the operating room. “It’s common for anesthesiologists not to document all cases of intubation, for example,” he said.
While the ideal is a completely empty stomach, he agreed that a practical alternative to stopping GLP-1 RA therapy, especially that prescribed for diabetes, would be a 24-hour liquid diet, which would clear the stomach quickly. “If you stop these drugs in patients taking them for diabetes, you get a worsening of their glycemic control,” he said.
He noted that patients have different risk tolerances, with some willing to go ahead even if ultrasound shows gastric retention, while some opt to cancel.
Prospective studies are needed, Potnuru added, “because you find more if you know what you’re looking for.” His center is starting a clinical trial in 150 patients to assess the impact of a 24-hour, liquids-only diet on gastric retention.
According to Phan, other research is following GLP-1 RA users undergoing colonoscopy. “Future studies can look at the added value of point-of-care abdominal ultrasound to see if it increases precision preoperative management in these patients on GLP-1 medications.”
Other groups are examining the safety of these agents in the general context of sedation. “It’s worth noting that the studies are being done on currently available medications and may not apply to future medications such as triple agonists or anti-amylins that may come on the market in the near future,” Phan said.
This study received no financial support. Neither the study authors nor Potnuru had any conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
in The American Journal of Gastroenterology. Moreover, most instances occurred in patients using the drugs for type 2 diabetes (T2D) rather than for weight loss alone.
The findings suggest adopting an individualized approach rather than universal preoperative withholding of GLP-1 RAs before endoscopy, concluded Jennifer Phan, MD, medical director of the Hoag Advanced Endoscopy Center in Newport Beach, California, and colleagues. These agents are associated with slowed gastric emptying, possibly raising the risk for pulmonary aspiration. The study identified comorbid uncontrolled T2D as a risk factor for retained gastric contents.
Recommendations from gastroenterological societies and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) differ regarding pre-endoscopic holding of these ubiquitous agents used for obesity and T2D. “Many patients undergo routine endoscopic procedures, and there was concern from the anesthesia safety perspective for retained gastric contents,” Phan told GI & Hepatology News. “At first these events were seen in a handful of cases; however, out of precaution this resulted in a statement from the ASA recommending that patients hold their GLP-1 medications for at least 1 week prior to a routine endoscopic procedure.”
That guidance resulted in protocol changes within endoscopy units, cancelled procedures, and potential delays in patient care. “We wanted to study whether this concern was clinically valid and to help identify which subgroup of patients are at highest risk in order to best inform anesthesia and endoscopy practices,” Phan added.
The ASA updated its guidance in 2023.
The current study aligns with other research showing that rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents are < 10%, Phan said. For instance, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) published a rapid clinical practice update in November 2023 that found insufficient evidence to support patients stopping the medications before endoscopic procedures. AGA guidance suggests an individual approach for each patient on a GLP-1 RA rather than a blanket statement on how to manage all patients taking the medications.
“Our initial hypothesis was that the rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents in patients on GLP-1 RA medications would be low,” Phan noted. “This was born out of anecdotal experience of the limited number of aborted procedures we experienced before the ASA statement.”
Her group also hypothesized that the indication for which the GLP-1 RA was prescribed would be important, with patients taking GLP-1 RA medications for diabetes potentially having a higher likelihood of retained contents given the concomitant propensity for delayed gastric motility related to uncontrolled hyperglycemia.
The Study
The investigators identified 815 patients on confirmed GLP-1 RA medications of various types receiving endoscopy from 2021 to 2023 at four centers. Demographics, prescribing practices, and procedure outcomes were captured. GLP-1 RA management of preoperative holding was retroactively classified per ASA guidance.
Of the 815 patients (mean age, 67.7 years; 57.7% women; 53.9% White individuals), 70 (8.7%) exhibited retained gastric contents on endoscopy. Of these 65 (93%) had T2D with a median A1c of 6.5%. Among those with retained contents, most had a minimal (10, 14.3%) or moderate (31, 44.3%) amount of food retained, although 29 (41.4%) had a large quantity. Only one patient required unplanned intubation because of a large quantity of residual content, and none had aspiration events.
In multivariate analysis, the odds ratio of retention in those with diabetes was 4.1. “Given the predominance of diabetes in those with retained gastric contents, we highlight the potential to risk-stratify patients who require further preprocedural consideration,” the authors wrote.
Those with GLP-1 RA held per ASA guidance (406, 49.8%) were less likely to have retained contents (4.4% vs 12.7%; P < .001), but no significant differences for intubation (0% vs 2%; P = .53) or aborting procedure rates (28% vs 18%; P = .40) due to gastric retention were observed.
On multivariable analysis, the likelihood of food retention increased by 36% (95% CI, 1.15-1.60) for every 1% increase in glycosylated hemoglobin after adjusting for GLP-1 RA type and preoperative medication hold.
“Our study can help to differentiate which patients can be at largest risk for retained gastric contents,” Phan said, noting the impact of increasing percentages of A1C. “There’s a 36% increased likelihood of food retention in patients on GLP-1 medications, so a blanket policy to hold GLP-1s in patients who are nondiabetic and taking the medication for obesity may not be the best approach. But if patients have uncontrolled hyperglycemia, then an approach of caution is clinically valid.” In that context, holding the GLP-1 RA injection or lengthening the preoperative clear-liquid diet policy should be considered.
She noted that the study results are generalizable because the study was conducted across multiple types of hospital systems, both university and county, and included all types of GLP-1 RA.
Offering an anesthesiologist’s perspective on the study, Paul Potnuru, MD, an assistant professor in the Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine at UTHealth Houston and not involved in the study, called the findings “somewhat reassuring” but said the risk for aspiration was still a consideration.
A recent review, however, reported that the risk for GLP-1 RA-associated pulmonary aspiration was low.
Potnuru acknowledged that the original ASA guidance on preoperative GLP-1 RA cessation led to some confusion. “There were not a lot of data on the issue, but some studies found that even with stopping GLP-1s 2 weeks preoperatively some patients still retained gastric content,” he told GI & Hepatology News.
A study at his center recently reported that 56% of GLP-1 RA users had increased pre-anesthesia residual gastric content compared with 19% of nonusers.
From the anesthesiologist’s clinical vantage point, the margin of safety is an issue even if aspiration risk is low. “If there’s a 1 in 1000 chance or even a 1 in 3000 chance, that can be considered too high,” Potnuru said.
He further noted that the current study included only 815 patients, not nearly enough for definitive data. In addition, a retrospective study based on medical records can’t really capture all the real-world procedural changes made in the operating room. “It’s common for anesthesiologists not to document all cases of intubation, for example,” he said.
While the ideal is a completely empty stomach, he agreed that a practical alternative to stopping GLP-1 RA therapy, especially that prescribed for diabetes, would be a 24-hour liquid diet, which would clear the stomach quickly. “If you stop these drugs in patients taking them for diabetes, you get a worsening of their glycemic control,” he said.
He noted that patients have different risk tolerances, with some willing to go ahead even if ultrasound shows gastric retention, while some opt to cancel.
Prospective studies are needed, Potnuru added, “because you find more if you know what you’re looking for.” His center is starting a clinical trial in 150 patients to assess the impact of a 24-hour, liquids-only diet on gastric retention.
According to Phan, other research is following GLP-1 RA users undergoing colonoscopy. “Future studies can look at the added value of point-of-care abdominal ultrasound to see if it increases precision preoperative management in these patients on GLP-1 medications.”
Other groups are examining the safety of these agents in the general context of sedation. “It’s worth noting that the studies are being done on currently available medications and may not apply to future medications such as triple agonists or anti-amylins that may come on the market in the near future,” Phan said.
This study received no financial support. Neither the study authors nor Potnuru had any conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Endoscopic Lifting Agents: AGA Issues New Clinical Practice Update
Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the commentary reviews available agents and provides clinically relevant commentary on their indications and use — with the caveat that it is not a formal systematic review but rather empirical advice for endoscopists. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations was performed.
Led by Tobias Zuchelli, MD, a clinical associate professor at Michigan State University and a gastroenterologist at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, the expert panel noted that endoscopists are increasingly resecting precancerous lesions and early cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.
“Although new endoscopic procedures have been developed, there had not been much in terms of high-quality guidance on lifting agents,” panelist Amit V. Patel, MD, a professor of medicine at Duke University and director of Endoscopy at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. “With our better understanding and use of techniques, this commentary was timely. It summarizes the available data on the topic and includes our clinical experiences.”
Filling that knowledge gap, the document reviews in detail the timing and methods of agent injection according to procedure type, including the dynamic needle approach, the empirical merits of different agents such as saline (with or without blue contrast) and viscous agents, as well as lift-enhancing assistive devices — for example, the ERBEJET 2 high-pressure water jet, an adjustable hydrosurgical device to facilitate lifting. A chart provides an at-a-glance summary of agents and their pros and cons.
“The feedback from gastroenterologists so far has been quite positive on social media and on GI channels,” Patel said.
Endoscopic resection has evolved from snare polypectomy to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and now, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The primary benefit of submucosal lifting is the creation of a separating submucosal cushion between the lesion and muscularis propria (MP), which reduces the risk for immediate or delayed perforation of the muscle. Adding a contrast agent also demarcates lesion margins and stains the submucosa, which is fundamental to ESD and allows for assessment of MP injury during EMR.
For decades, homemade solutions were used to lift lesions before removal, with the sentinel agent being normal saline, later mixed with a blue contrast agent, usually indigo carmine or methylene blue. The authors noted that some endoscopists performing ESD start the submucosal injection and incision using a prepackaged viscous solution. “The endoscopist may continue with the viscous fluid or transition to saline or another less expensive solution,” they wrote.
Saline tends to dissipate more quickly than viscous solutions, however. In 2015, the polymer compound SIC-8000 became the first FDA-approved submucosal injection agent. Since then, several other fluids have come on the market, although homemade agents remain available.
Among the update’s recommendations, the fluid selected for EMR should be determined by lesion size, predicted histology, and endoscopist preference. Based on the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer, submucosal injection is optional for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRLs) of intermediate size (10-19 mm).
Cold snare polypectomy without submucosal injection was later found to be non-inferior to other resection methods utilizing submucosal injection for NPCRLs ≤ 15 mm.
The update noted that the USMSTF considers EMR first-line therapy for most NPCRLs ≥ 20 mm and advocates viscous solutions as preferred, while the use of lifting agents for pedunculated polyps is generally at the discretion of the endoscopist.
For Patel, the main “clinical pearls” in the update are adding a contrast agent to normal saline, using a viscous agent for cold EMR, and manipulating the injection needle first tangentially and then dynamically toward the lumen to maximize separation of the lesion.
In terms of the ideal, an optimal lifting solution would be readily available, inexpensive, and premixed, providing a sustained submucosal cushion. “However, this ideal solution currently does not exist. Injection fluids should, therefore, be selected based on planned resection method, predicted histology, local expertise and preferences, and cost,” the panelists wrote.
Added Patel, “A lot of the agents out there check most of these boxes, but we’re hoping for further development toward the ideal.”
Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the overview, Wasseem Skef, MD, a gastroenterologist at UTHealth Houston, found the update very useful. “It always helps to have the literature summarized,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “It’s a pretty balanced review that pulls together the various options but allows people to stick to their preferred practice.”
In his practice, the lifting agent selected depends on the type of resection. “Viscous agents are generally more popular for EMR-type resections,” Skef said. One unanswered question, he noted, is whether adding a hemostatic agent would be superior to a viscous agent alone. “But overall, this is a nice summary of available agents. Gastroenterologists should consider these different options if doing procedures like EMR.”
This review was sponsored by the AGA Institute.
Zuchelli is a consultant for Boston Scientific. Patel consults for Medpace, Renexxion, and Sanofi. Skef reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the commentary reviews available agents and provides clinically relevant commentary on their indications and use — with the caveat that it is not a formal systematic review but rather empirical advice for endoscopists. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations was performed.
Led by Tobias Zuchelli, MD, a clinical associate professor at Michigan State University and a gastroenterologist at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, the expert panel noted that endoscopists are increasingly resecting precancerous lesions and early cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.
“Although new endoscopic procedures have been developed, there had not been much in terms of high-quality guidance on lifting agents,” panelist Amit V. Patel, MD, a professor of medicine at Duke University and director of Endoscopy at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. “With our better understanding and use of techniques, this commentary was timely. It summarizes the available data on the topic and includes our clinical experiences.”
Filling that knowledge gap, the document reviews in detail the timing and methods of agent injection according to procedure type, including the dynamic needle approach, the empirical merits of different agents such as saline (with or without blue contrast) and viscous agents, as well as lift-enhancing assistive devices — for example, the ERBEJET 2 high-pressure water jet, an adjustable hydrosurgical device to facilitate lifting. A chart provides an at-a-glance summary of agents and their pros and cons.
“The feedback from gastroenterologists so far has been quite positive on social media and on GI channels,” Patel said.
Endoscopic resection has evolved from snare polypectomy to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and now, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The primary benefit of submucosal lifting is the creation of a separating submucosal cushion between the lesion and muscularis propria (MP), which reduces the risk for immediate or delayed perforation of the muscle. Adding a contrast agent also demarcates lesion margins and stains the submucosa, which is fundamental to ESD and allows for assessment of MP injury during EMR.
For decades, homemade solutions were used to lift lesions before removal, with the sentinel agent being normal saline, later mixed with a blue contrast agent, usually indigo carmine or methylene blue. The authors noted that some endoscopists performing ESD start the submucosal injection and incision using a prepackaged viscous solution. “The endoscopist may continue with the viscous fluid or transition to saline or another less expensive solution,” they wrote.
Saline tends to dissipate more quickly than viscous solutions, however. In 2015, the polymer compound SIC-8000 became the first FDA-approved submucosal injection agent. Since then, several other fluids have come on the market, although homemade agents remain available.
Among the update’s recommendations, the fluid selected for EMR should be determined by lesion size, predicted histology, and endoscopist preference. Based on the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer, submucosal injection is optional for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRLs) of intermediate size (10-19 mm).
Cold snare polypectomy without submucosal injection was later found to be non-inferior to other resection methods utilizing submucosal injection for NPCRLs ≤ 15 mm.
The update noted that the USMSTF considers EMR first-line therapy for most NPCRLs ≥ 20 mm and advocates viscous solutions as preferred, while the use of lifting agents for pedunculated polyps is generally at the discretion of the endoscopist.
For Patel, the main “clinical pearls” in the update are adding a contrast agent to normal saline, using a viscous agent for cold EMR, and manipulating the injection needle first tangentially and then dynamically toward the lumen to maximize separation of the lesion.
In terms of the ideal, an optimal lifting solution would be readily available, inexpensive, and premixed, providing a sustained submucosal cushion. “However, this ideal solution currently does not exist. Injection fluids should, therefore, be selected based on planned resection method, predicted histology, local expertise and preferences, and cost,” the panelists wrote.
Added Patel, “A lot of the agents out there check most of these boxes, but we’re hoping for further development toward the ideal.”
Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the overview, Wasseem Skef, MD, a gastroenterologist at UTHealth Houston, found the update very useful. “It always helps to have the literature summarized,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “It’s a pretty balanced review that pulls together the various options but allows people to stick to their preferred practice.”
In his practice, the lifting agent selected depends on the type of resection. “Viscous agents are generally more popular for EMR-type resections,” Skef said. One unanswered question, he noted, is whether adding a hemostatic agent would be superior to a viscous agent alone. “But overall, this is a nice summary of available agents. Gastroenterologists should consider these different options if doing procedures like EMR.”
This review was sponsored by the AGA Institute.
Zuchelli is a consultant for Boston Scientific. Patel consults for Medpace, Renexxion, and Sanofi. Skef reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the commentary reviews available agents and provides clinically relevant commentary on their indications and use — with the caveat that it is not a formal systematic review but rather empirical advice for endoscopists. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations was performed.
Led by Tobias Zuchelli, MD, a clinical associate professor at Michigan State University and a gastroenterologist at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, the expert panel noted that endoscopists are increasingly resecting precancerous lesions and early cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.
“Although new endoscopic procedures have been developed, there had not been much in terms of high-quality guidance on lifting agents,” panelist Amit V. Patel, MD, a professor of medicine at Duke University and director of Endoscopy at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. “With our better understanding and use of techniques, this commentary was timely. It summarizes the available data on the topic and includes our clinical experiences.”
Filling that knowledge gap, the document reviews in detail the timing and methods of agent injection according to procedure type, including the dynamic needle approach, the empirical merits of different agents such as saline (with or without blue contrast) and viscous agents, as well as lift-enhancing assistive devices — for example, the ERBEJET 2 high-pressure water jet, an adjustable hydrosurgical device to facilitate lifting. A chart provides an at-a-glance summary of agents and their pros and cons.
“The feedback from gastroenterologists so far has been quite positive on social media and on GI channels,” Patel said.
Endoscopic resection has evolved from snare polypectomy to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and now, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The primary benefit of submucosal lifting is the creation of a separating submucosal cushion between the lesion and muscularis propria (MP), which reduces the risk for immediate or delayed perforation of the muscle. Adding a contrast agent also demarcates lesion margins and stains the submucosa, which is fundamental to ESD and allows for assessment of MP injury during EMR.
For decades, homemade solutions were used to lift lesions before removal, with the sentinel agent being normal saline, later mixed with a blue contrast agent, usually indigo carmine or methylene blue. The authors noted that some endoscopists performing ESD start the submucosal injection and incision using a prepackaged viscous solution. “The endoscopist may continue with the viscous fluid or transition to saline or another less expensive solution,” they wrote.
Saline tends to dissipate more quickly than viscous solutions, however. In 2015, the polymer compound SIC-8000 became the first FDA-approved submucosal injection agent. Since then, several other fluids have come on the market, although homemade agents remain available.
Among the update’s recommendations, the fluid selected for EMR should be determined by lesion size, predicted histology, and endoscopist preference. Based on the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer, submucosal injection is optional for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRLs) of intermediate size (10-19 mm).
Cold snare polypectomy without submucosal injection was later found to be non-inferior to other resection methods utilizing submucosal injection for NPCRLs ≤ 15 mm.
The update noted that the USMSTF considers EMR first-line therapy for most NPCRLs ≥ 20 mm and advocates viscous solutions as preferred, while the use of lifting agents for pedunculated polyps is generally at the discretion of the endoscopist.
For Patel, the main “clinical pearls” in the update are adding a contrast agent to normal saline, using a viscous agent for cold EMR, and manipulating the injection needle first tangentially and then dynamically toward the lumen to maximize separation of the lesion.
In terms of the ideal, an optimal lifting solution would be readily available, inexpensive, and premixed, providing a sustained submucosal cushion. “However, this ideal solution currently does not exist. Injection fluids should, therefore, be selected based on planned resection method, predicted histology, local expertise and preferences, and cost,” the panelists wrote.
Added Patel, “A lot of the agents out there check most of these boxes, but we’re hoping for further development toward the ideal.”
Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the overview, Wasseem Skef, MD, a gastroenterologist at UTHealth Houston, found the update very useful. “It always helps to have the literature summarized,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “It’s a pretty balanced review that pulls together the various options but allows people to stick to their preferred practice.”
In his practice, the lifting agent selected depends on the type of resection. “Viscous agents are generally more popular for EMR-type resections,” Skef said. One unanswered question, he noted, is whether adding a hemostatic agent would be superior to a viscous agent alone. “But overall, this is a nice summary of available agents. Gastroenterologists should consider these different options if doing procedures like EMR.”
This review was sponsored by the AGA Institute.
Zuchelli is a consultant for Boston Scientific. Patel consults for Medpace, Renexxion, and Sanofi. Skef reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Papilla Sphincterotomy Shows No Risk Reduction in Pancreas Divisum
SAN DIEGO — , suggesting that patients can be spared the intervention, which can carry risks of its own.
“This is a topic that has been debated for decades,” said first author Gregory A. Coté, MD, AGAF, Division Head, professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Oregon Health & Science University, in Portland, Oregon.
“Many doctors believe the procedure helps and offer it because we have limited options to help our patients, whereas others believe the procedure is harmful and doesn’t help,” he explained in a press briefing for the late-breaking study, presented at Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2025.
The study’s findings supported the latter argument.
“Patients who underwent ERCP with sphincterotomy were just as likely as those who did not have this procedure to develop acute pancreatitis again,” Coté reported.
While clinical guidelines currently recommend ERCP as treatment for pancreas divisum, “these guidelines are likely to change based on this study,” he said.
Pancreas divisum, occurring in about 7%-10% of people, is an anatomic variation that can represent an obstructive risk factor for acute recurrent pancreatitis.
The common use of ERCP with minor papilla endoscopic sphincterotomy to treat the condition is based on prior retrospective studies showing that in patients who did develop acute pancreatitis, up to 70% with the treatment never developed acute pancreatitis again. However, there have been no studies comparing the use of the treatment with a control group.
Coté and colleagues conducted the multicenter SHARP trial, in which 148 patients with pancreas divisum were enrolled between September 2018 and August 2024 and randomized to receive either ERCP with minor papilla endoscopic sphincterotomy (n = 75) or a sham treatment (n = 73).
The patients, who had a median age of 51 years, had a median of 3 acute pancreatitis episodes prior to randomization.
With a median follow-up of 33.5 months (range, 6-48 months), 34.7% of patients in the ERCP arm experienced an acute pancreatitis incident compared with 43.8% in the sham arm, for a hazard ratio of 0.83 after adjusting for duct size and the number of episodes, which was not a statistically significant difference (P = .27).
A subgroup analysis further showed no indication of a treatment effect based on factors including age, diabetes status, sex, alcohol or tobacco use, or other factors.
“Compared with a sham ERCP group, we found that minor papillotomy did not reduce the risk of acute pancreatitis, incident chronic pancreatitis, endocrine pancreatic insufficiency or diabetes, or pancreas-related pain events,” Coté said.
The findings are particularly important because the treatment itself is associated with some risks, he added.
“Ironically, the problem with this procedure is that it can cause acute pancreatitis in 10%-20% of patients and may instigate other issues later,” such as the development of scarring of the pancreas related to incisions in the procedure.
“No one wants to offer an expensive procedure that has its own risks if it doesn’t help,” Coté said.
Based on the findings, “pancreas divisum anatomy should no longer be considered an indication for ERCP, even for idiopathic acute pancreatitis,” he concluded.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO — , suggesting that patients can be spared the intervention, which can carry risks of its own.
“This is a topic that has been debated for decades,” said first author Gregory A. Coté, MD, AGAF, Division Head, professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Oregon Health & Science University, in Portland, Oregon.
“Many doctors believe the procedure helps and offer it because we have limited options to help our patients, whereas others believe the procedure is harmful and doesn’t help,” he explained in a press briefing for the late-breaking study, presented at Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2025.
The study’s findings supported the latter argument.
“Patients who underwent ERCP with sphincterotomy were just as likely as those who did not have this procedure to develop acute pancreatitis again,” Coté reported.
While clinical guidelines currently recommend ERCP as treatment for pancreas divisum, “these guidelines are likely to change based on this study,” he said.
Pancreas divisum, occurring in about 7%-10% of people, is an anatomic variation that can represent an obstructive risk factor for acute recurrent pancreatitis.
The common use of ERCP with minor papilla endoscopic sphincterotomy to treat the condition is based on prior retrospective studies showing that in patients who did develop acute pancreatitis, up to 70% with the treatment never developed acute pancreatitis again. However, there have been no studies comparing the use of the treatment with a control group.
Coté and colleagues conducted the multicenter SHARP trial, in which 148 patients with pancreas divisum were enrolled between September 2018 and August 2024 and randomized to receive either ERCP with minor papilla endoscopic sphincterotomy (n = 75) or a sham treatment (n = 73).
The patients, who had a median age of 51 years, had a median of 3 acute pancreatitis episodes prior to randomization.
With a median follow-up of 33.5 months (range, 6-48 months), 34.7% of patients in the ERCP arm experienced an acute pancreatitis incident compared with 43.8% in the sham arm, for a hazard ratio of 0.83 after adjusting for duct size and the number of episodes, which was not a statistically significant difference (P = .27).
A subgroup analysis further showed no indication of a treatment effect based on factors including age, diabetes status, sex, alcohol or tobacco use, or other factors.
“Compared with a sham ERCP group, we found that minor papillotomy did not reduce the risk of acute pancreatitis, incident chronic pancreatitis, endocrine pancreatic insufficiency or diabetes, or pancreas-related pain events,” Coté said.
The findings are particularly important because the treatment itself is associated with some risks, he added.
“Ironically, the problem with this procedure is that it can cause acute pancreatitis in 10%-20% of patients and may instigate other issues later,” such as the development of scarring of the pancreas related to incisions in the procedure.
“No one wants to offer an expensive procedure that has its own risks if it doesn’t help,” Coté said.
Based on the findings, “pancreas divisum anatomy should no longer be considered an indication for ERCP, even for idiopathic acute pancreatitis,” he concluded.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
SAN DIEGO — , suggesting that patients can be spared the intervention, which can carry risks of its own.
“This is a topic that has been debated for decades,” said first author Gregory A. Coté, MD, AGAF, Division Head, professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Oregon Health & Science University, in Portland, Oregon.
“Many doctors believe the procedure helps and offer it because we have limited options to help our patients, whereas others believe the procedure is harmful and doesn’t help,” he explained in a press briefing for the late-breaking study, presented at Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2025.
The study’s findings supported the latter argument.
“Patients who underwent ERCP with sphincterotomy were just as likely as those who did not have this procedure to develop acute pancreatitis again,” Coté reported.
While clinical guidelines currently recommend ERCP as treatment for pancreas divisum, “these guidelines are likely to change based on this study,” he said.
Pancreas divisum, occurring in about 7%-10% of people, is an anatomic variation that can represent an obstructive risk factor for acute recurrent pancreatitis.
The common use of ERCP with minor papilla endoscopic sphincterotomy to treat the condition is based on prior retrospective studies showing that in patients who did develop acute pancreatitis, up to 70% with the treatment never developed acute pancreatitis again. However, there have been no studies comparing the use of the treatment with a control group.
Coté and colleagues conducted the multicenter SHARP trial, in which 148 patients with pancreas divisum were enrolled between September 2018 and August 2024 and randomized to receive either ERCP with minor papilla endoscopic sphincterotomy (n = 75) or a sham treatment (n = 73).
The patients, who had a median age of 51 years, had a median of 3 acute pancreatitis episodes prior to randomization.
With a median follow-up of 33.5 months (range, 6-48 months), 34.7% of patients in the ERCP arm experienced an acute pancreatitis incident compared with 43.8% in the sham arm, for a hazard ratio of 0.83 after adjusting for duct size and the number of episodes, which was not a statistically significant difference (P = .27).
A subgroup analysis further showed no indication of a treatment effect based on factors including age, diabetes status, sex, alcohol or tobacco use, or other factors.
“Compared with a sham ERCP group, we found that minor papillotomy did not reduce the risk of acute pancreatitis, incident chronic pancreatitis, endocrine pancreatic insufficiency or diabetes, or pancreas-related pain events,” Coté said.
The findings are particularly important because the treatment itself is associated with some risks, he added.
“Ironically, the problem with this procedure is that it can cause acute pancreatitis in 10%-20% of patients and may instigate other issues later,” such as the development of scarring of the pancreas related to incisions in the procedure.
“No one wants to offer an expensive procedure that has its own risks if it doesn’t help,” Coté said.
Based on the findings, “pancreas divisum anatomy should no longer be considered an indication for ERCP, even for idiopathic acute pancreatitis,” he concluded.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM DDW 2025
Salvage Rendezvous Technique on Par With Precut Sphincterotomy for Tough Biliary Access
, new data suggest.
Selective deep cannulation of the common bile duct remains the key rate-limiting step in successful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), especially in benign biliary disease.
In cases of difficult cannulation, the traditional fallback has been precut sphincterotomy. Recently, EUS-RV has emerged as an alternative. However, head-to-head comparisons of these salvage techniques in homogeneous patient populations have been lacking, until now.
A team led by Arup Choudhury, MD, DM, with Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, compared the two salvage techniques in a single-center, randomized controlled trial of 100 patients with benign biliary disease and difficult bile duct cannulation.
There were 50 patients in each group. When one technique failed, patients were crossed over to the other technique.
The technical success rate for achieving deep biliary, the primary outcome measure, was similar with EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy (92% and 90%, respectively; P = 1.00; relative risk [RR], 1.02), the authors reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Median procedure time was also comparable (10.1 minutes with EUS-RV and 9.75 minutes with precut sphincterotomy). As expected, radiation exposure was notably higher in the EUS-RV group (median, 200.2 vs 67.8 mGy).
There was no difference in overall complication rates (12% and 10%, respectively; RR, 1.20).
Five patients in each group (10%) developed post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP); one patient in the EUS-RV had moderately severe pancreatitis, whereas the rest had mild pancreatitis.
In an exploratory analysis of the subcohort of 72 patients who did not have 1 or more inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation, two (5.6%) patients in the precut sphincterotomy group had PEP, whereas none of the patients in the EUS-RV had PEP (RR, 0.21). The investigators caution that a larger, multicenter, randomized controlled trial would be required to evaluate the “probable benefit” of lower PEP in the EUS-RV approach.
None of the patients had bleeding or perforation, but two (4%) patients in the EUS-RV group had an infection after the intervention. One required repeated ERCP due to post procedure cholangitis, whereas the other developed lower respiratory tract infection with transient acute lung injury and sputum showing gram-negative organism. None of the patients required surgical intervention.
“Interestingly,” said the investigators, on crossover from one salvage technique to the other, all of the cases could be successfully cannulated, suggesting the two salvage techniques are “complementary to each other and can help achieve successful cannulation in all cases when used in any sequence.”
Summing up, they said it appears from this head-to-head comparison that both EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy can be considered effective salvage techniques in expert centers with similar safety and success profiles.
Limitations included the single-center design with both procedures performed by expert operators. EUS-RV entailed additional cost of needle and use of a separate scope, and a cost-efficacy analysis was not done.
This study had no specific funding. Disclosures for the authors are available with the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new data suggest.
Selective deep cannulation of the common bile duct remains the key rate-limiting step in successful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), especially in benign biliary disease.
In cases of difficult cannulation, the traditional fallback has been precut sphincterotomy. Recently, EUS-RV has emerged as an alternative. However, head-to-head comparisons of these salvage techniques in homogeneous patient populations have been lacking, until now.
A team led by Arup Choudhury, MD, DM, with Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, compared the two salvage techniques in a single-center, randomized controlled trial of 100 patients with benign biliary disease and difficult bile duct cannulation.
There were 50 patients in each group. When one technique failed, patients were crossed over to the other technique.
The technical success rate for achieving deep biliary, the primary outcome measure, was similar with EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy (92% and 90%, respectively; P = 1.00; relative risk [RR], 1.02), the authors reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Median procedure time was also comparable (10.1 minutes with EUS-RV and 9.75 minutes with precut sphincterotomy). As expected, radiation exposure was notably higher in the EUS-RV group (median, 200.2 vs 67.8 mGy).
There was no difference in overall complication rates (12% and 10%, respectively; RR, 1.20).
Five patients in each group (10%) developed post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP); one patient in the EUS-RV had moderately severe pancreatitis, whereas the rest had mild pancreatitis.
In an exploratory analysis of the subcohort of 72 patients who did not have 1 or more inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation, two (5.6%) patients in the precut sphincterotomy group had PEP, whereas none of the patients in the EUS-RV had PEP (RR, 0.21). The investigators caution that a larger, multicenter, randomized controlled trial would be required to evaluate the “probable benefit” of lower PEP in the EUS-RV approach.
None of the patients had bleeding or perforation, but two (4%) patients in the EUS-RV group had an infection after the intervention. One required repeated ERCP due to post procedure cholangitis, whereas the other developed lower respiratory tract infection with transient acute lung injury and sputum showing gram-negative organism. None of the patients required surgical intervention.
“Interestingly,” said the investigators, on crossover from one salvage technique to the other, all of the cases could be successfully cannulated, suggesting the two salvage techniques are “complementary to each other and can help achieve successful cannulation in all cases when used in any sequence.”
Summing up, they said it appears from this head-to-head comparison that both EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy can be considered effective salvage techniques in expert centers with similar safety and success profiles.
Limitations included the single-center design with both procedures performed by expert operators. EUS-RV entailed additional cost of needle and use of a separate scope, and a cost-efficacy analysis was not done.
This study had no specific funding. Disclosures for the authors are available with the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
, new data suggest.
Selective deep cannulation of the common bile duct remains the key rate-limiting step in successful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), especially in benign biliary disease.
In cases of difficult cannulation, the traditional fallback has been precut sphincterotomy. Recently, EUS-RV has emerged as an alternative. However, head-to-head comparisons of these salvage techniques in homogeneous patient populations have been lacking, until now.
A team led by Arup Choudhury, MD, DM, with Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, compared the two salvage techniques in a single-center, randomized controlled trial of 100 patients with benign biliary disease and difficult bile duct cannulation.
There were 50 patients in each group. When one technique failed, patients were crossed over to the other technique.
The technical success rate for achieving deep biliary, the primary outcome measure, was similar with EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy (92% and 90%, respectively; P = 1.00; relative risk [RR], 1.02), the authors reported in Annals of Internal Medicine.
Median procedure time was also comparable (10.1 minutes with EUS-RV and 9.75 minutes with precut sphincterotomy). As expected, radiation exposure was notably higher in the EUS-RV group (median, 200.2 vs 67.8 mGy).
There was no difference in overall complication rates (12% and 10%, respectively; RR, 1.20).
Five patients in each group (10%) developed post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP); one patient in the EUS-RV had moderately severe pancreatitis, whereas the rest had mild pancreatitis.
In an exploratory analysis of the subcohort of 72 patients who did not have 1 or more inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation, two (5.6%) patients in the precut sphincterotomy group had PEP, whereas none of the patients in the EUS-RV had PEP (RR, 0.21). The investigators caution that a larger, multicenter, randomized controlled trial would be required to evaluate the “probable benefit” of lower PEP in the EUS-RV approach.
None of the patients had bleeding or perforation, but two (4%) patients in the EUS-RV group had an infection after the intervention. One required repeated ERCP due to post procedure cholangitis, whereas the other developed lower respiratory tract infection with transient acute lung injury and sputum showing gram-negative organism. None of the patients required surgical intervention.
“Interestingly,” said the investigators, on crossover from one salvage technique to the other, all of the cases could be successfully cannulated, suggesting the two salvage techniques are “complementary to each other and can help achieve successful cannulation in all cases when used in any sequence.”
Summing up, they said it appears from this head-to-head comparison that both EUS-RV and precut sphincterotomy can be considered effective salvage techniques in expert centers with similar safety and success profiles.
Limitations included the single-center design with both procedures performed by expert operators. EUS-RV entailed additional cost of needle and use of a separate scope, and a cost-efficacy analysis was not done.
This study had no specific funding. Disclosures for the authors are available with the original article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Two Cystic Duct Stents Appear Better Than One
according to a retrospective multicenter study.
These findings suggest that endoscopists should prioritize dual stent placement when feasible, and consider adding a second stent in patients who previously received a single stent, James D. Haddad, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and colleagues reported.
The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has recognized the role of endoscopic drainage in managing acute cholecystitis in high-risk patients, but specific guidance on optimal technique and follow-up remains unclear, the investigators wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
“Despite accumulating data and increased interest in this technique, clear guidance on the ideal strategy for ETGBD is lacking,” Dr. Haddad and colleagues wrote. “For example, the optimal size, number, and follow-up of cystic duct stents for patients undergoing ETGBD has not been well established.”
To address this knowledge gap, the investigators analyzed data from 75 patients at five academic medical centers who had undergone ETGBD between June 2013 and October 2022. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received one or two cystic duct stents.
The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as symptom resolution without requiring another drainage procedure. Secondary outcomes included technical success (defined as successful stent placement), along with rates of adverse events and unplanned reinterventions.
Out of the 75 patients, 59 received a single stent, while 16 received dual stents. The median follow-up time was 407 days overall, with a longer follow-up in the single-stent group (433 days), compared with the double-stent group (118 days).
Clinical success was reported in 81.3% of cases, which technical success was achieved in 88.2% of cases.
Patients who received two stents had significantly lower rates of unplanned reintervention, compared with those who received a single stent (0% vs 25.4%; P = .02). The median time to unplanned reintervention in the single-stent group was 210 days.
Use of a 7 French stent was strongly associated with placement of two stents (odd ratio [OR], 15.5; P = .01). Similarly, patients with a prior percutaneous cholecystostomy tube were significantly more likely to have two stents placed (OR, 10.8; P = .001).
Adverse event rates were uncommon and not statistically different between groups, with an overall rate of 6.7%. Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis was the most common adverse event, occurring in two patients in the single-stent group and one patient in the double-stent group. There were no reported cases of cystic duct or gallbladder perforation.
“In conclusion,” the investigators wrote, “ETGBD with dual transpapillary gallbladder stenting is associated with a lower rate of unplanned reinterventions, compared with that with single stenting, and has a low rate of adverse events. Endoscopists performing ETGBD should consider planned exchange of solitary transpapillary gallbladder stents or interval ERCP for reattempted placement of a second stent if placement of two stents is not possible at the index ERCP.”
The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Motus GI, and ConMed.
according to a retrospective multicenter study.
These findings suggest that endoscopists should prioritize dual stent placement when feasible, and consider adding a second stent in patients who previously received a single stent, James D. Haddad, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and colleagues reported.
The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has recognized the role of endoscopic drainage in managing acute cholecystitis in high-risk patients, but specific guidance on optimal technique and follow-up remains unclear, the investigators wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
“Despite accumulating data and increased interest in this technique, clear guidance on the ideal strategy for ETGBD is lacking,” Dr. Haddad and colleagues wrote. “For example, the optimal size, number, and follow-up of cystic duct stents for patients undergoing ETGBD has not been well established.”
To address this knowledge gap, the investigators analyzed data from 75 patients at five academic medical centers who had undergone ETGBD between June 2013 and October 2022. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received one or two cystic duct stents.
The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as symptom resolution without requiring another drainage procedure. Secondary outcomes included technical success (defined as successful stent placement), along with rates of adverse events and unplanned reinterventions.
Out of the 75 patients, 59 received a single stent, while 16 received dual stents. The median follow-up time was 407 days overall, with a longer follow-up in the single-stent group (433 days), compared with the double-stent group (118 days).
Clinical success was reported in 81.3% of cases, which technical success was achieved in 88.2% of cases.
Patients who received two stents had significantly lower rates of unplanned reintervention, compared with those who received a single stent (0% vs 25.4%; P = .02). The median time to unplanned reintervention in the single-stent group was 210 days.
Use of a 7 French stent was strongly associated with placement of two stents (odd ratio [OR], 15.5; P = .01). Similarly, patients with a prior percutaneous cholecystostomy tube were significantly more likely to have two stents placed (OR, 10.8; P = .001).
Adverse event rates were uncommon and not statistically different between groups, with an overall rate of 6.7%. Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis was the most common adverse event, occurring in two patients in the single-stent group and one patient in the double-stent group. There were no reported cases of cystic duct or gallbladder perforation.
“In conclusion,” the investigators wrote, “ETGBD with dual transpapillary gallbladder stenting is associated with a lower rate of unplanned reinterventions, compared with that with single stenting, and has a low rate of adverse events. Endoscopists performing ETGBD should consider planned exchange of solitary transpapillary gallbladder stents or interval ERCP for reattempted placement of a second stent if placement of two stents is not possible at the index ERCP.”
The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Motus GI, and ConMed.
according to a retrospective multicenter study.
These findings suggest that endoscopists should prioritize dual stent placement when feasible, and consider adding a second stent in patients who previously received a single stent, James D. Haddad, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, and colleagues reported.
The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has recognized the role of endoscopic drainage in managing acute cholecystitis in high-risk patients, but specific guidance on optimal technique and follow-up remains unclear, the investigators wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
“Despite accumulating data and increased interest in this technique, clear guidance on the ideal strategy for ETGBD is lacking,” Dr. Haddad and colleagues wrote. “For example, the optimal size, number, and follow-up of cystic duct stents for patients undergoing ETGBD has not been well established.”
To address this knowledge gap, the investigators analyzed data from 75 patients at five academic medical centers who had undergone ETGBD between June 2013 and October 2022. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they received one or two cystic duct stents.
The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as symptom resolution without requiring another drainage procedure. Secondary outcomes included technical success (defined as successful stent placement), along with rates of adverse events and unplanned reinterventions.
Out of the 75 patients, 59 received a single stent, while 16 received dual stents. The median follow-up time was 407 days overall, with a longer follow-up in the single-stent group (433 days), compared with the double-stent group (118 days).
Clinical success was reported in 81.3% of cases, which technical success was achieved in 88.2% of cases.
Patients who received two stents had significantly lower rates of unplanned reintervention, compared with those who received a single stent (0% vs 25.4%; P = .02). The median time to unplanned reintervention in the single-stent group was 210 days.
Use of a 7 French stent was strongly associated with placement of two stents (odd ratio [OR], 15.5; P = .01). Similarly, patients with a prior percutaneous cholecystostomy tube were significantly more likely to have two stents placed (OR, 10.8; P = .001).
Adverse event rates were uncommon and not statistically different between groups, with an overall rate of 6.7%. Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis was the most common adverse event, occurring in two patients in the single-stent group and one patient in the double-stent group. There were no reported cases of cystic duct or gallbladder perforation.
“In conclusion,” the investigators wrote, “ETGBD with dual transpapillary gallbladder stenting is associated with a lower rate of unplanned reinterventions, compared with that with single stenting, and has a low rate of adverse events. Endoscopists performing ETGBD should consider planned exchange of solitary transpapillary gallbladder stents or interval ERCP for reattempted placement of a second stent if placement of two stents is not possible at the index ERCP.”
The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Motus GI, and ConMed.
FROM TECHNIQUES AND INNOVATIONS IN GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
GLP-1 RAs Safe in the Perioperative Period: New Guidance
The new guidance, contrasting with earlier recommendations, says these incrementally used agents can be taken up until the day of surgery, but patients are advised to follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before the procedure. The decision to proceed with endoscopy and other procedures should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and interdisciplinary care teams in conjunction with minimization of the aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying, the guidance stresses.
The five endorsing organizations are the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American Gastroenterological Association, International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. The societies emphasize that the statement is intended as guidance only and is not an evidence-based formal guideline.
GLP-1 RAs are known to delay gastric emptying, raising concerns about regurgitation, aspiration, and airway compromise during anesthesia. Rare serious adverse events have also been observed, prompting the ASA in 2023 to recommend holding these agents for 1 week for the injectable form and 1 day for the oral form before all procedures requiring anesthesia.
That abundance of caution, however, had negative impacts of its own. “This guidance has led to cancellations and postponements of many endoscopic and surgical procedures or required patients to undergo general anesthesia who may otherwise have had their procedures performed under moderate sedation,” said guidance coauthor Allison R. Schulman, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine and surgery and chief of endoscopy at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Nearly all institutions have been forced to revise preprocedural protocols, despite a lack of high-level evidence to suggest that these adjustments are necessary.”
“Studies have yielded mixed results as to whether patients on GLP-1s are at increased risk of these events, and the limited data available are inconsistent,” Schulman said. “As a result, there are inconsistencies in the recommendations from various societies leading to growing uncertainty with proceduralists on how to provide safe, effective, and timely procedural care to patients taking GLP-1 RAs.”
The new joint-society guidance may alleviate some of the uncertainty. Among the recommendations:
- Continuing GLP-1 RAs in the perioperative period should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and all care teams balancing the metabolic need for the GLP-1 RA with individual patient risk.
- Certain variables may increase the risk for delayed gastric emptying and aspiration with the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs: escalation phase — This phase vs the maintenance phase is associated with a higher risk for delayed gastric emptying; higher dose — the higher the dose, the greater the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) side effects; weekly dosing — GI side effects are more common with weekly vs daily formulations; presence of GI symptoms — nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and constipation may suggest delayed gastric emptying; and medical problems beyond GLP-1 RA indications with GI effects — assess for such conditions as bowel dysmotility, gastroparesis, and Parkinson’s disease.
- Risk factors should be assessed in advance to allow sufficient time to adjust preoperative care, including diet modification and medication bridging if GLP-1 RA cessation is deemed advisable.
- If retained gastric contents are a concern on the day of a procedure, point-of-care gastric ultrasound could be used to assess aspiration risk, resources permitting.
- The aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying should be minimized by preoperative diet modification and/or altering the anesthesia plan to consider rapid sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation. A 24-hour preoperative liquid diet, as before colonoscopy and bariatric surgery, can be utilized when delayed gastric emptying is a concern.
- When concern about retained gastric contents exists on procedure day, providers should engage patients in a shared decision-making model and consider the benefits and risks of rapid-sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation to minimize aspiration risk vs procedure cancellation.
“Safe continuation of surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopy, and prevention of procedure cancellation, for patients on GLP-1 RAs can be prioritized following the recommendations above, as would occur for other patient populations with gastroparesis,” the guidance panel wrote.
Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, David B. Purow, MD, managing director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwell Health/Huntington Hospital in Huntington, New York, said the recommendations will encourage clinicians to be more discerning about actual risk in individual cases rather than follow the previous blanket recommendation to stop these agents before procedures requiring sedation.
While GLP-1 RAs were prescribed for the relatively small number of patients with diabetes, he said, the risk was not apparent but became clearer with the widespread use of these agents for weight loss — often unregulated and undisclosed to care providers.
“The pendulum shifted too far the other way, and now it’s shifted back,” he said in an interview. “The new guidance is great because now we can be more thoughtful about managing individual patients.” He cited, for instance, the recommendations on the greater risk in patients in the dose escalation phase or on higher doses, and the risk-reducing measure of a liquid diet for 24 hours before surgery.
His center is already using point-of-care ultrasound and recently had a case in which a patient who forgot and took his GLP-1 RA before a scheduled procedure was found on ultrasound to have a full stomach. “In some cases, these drugs can cause an almost gastroparesis level of delayed emptying,” Purow said.
Purow thinks this early guidance will probably progress to firm guidelines within a year. Schulman is more cautious. “Our understanding of this complex topic is increasing rapidly, and ongoing clinical research will ultimately lead to evidence-based guidelines in this changing landscape,” she said.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Schulman is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, Microtech, and Fractyl. Purow had no competing interests to declare.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new guidance, contrasting with earlier recommendations, says these incrementally used agents can be taken up until the day of surgery, but patients are advised to follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before the procedure. The decision to proceed with endoscopy and other procedures should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and interdisciplinary care teams in conjunction with minimization of the aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying, the guidance stresses.
The five endorsing organizations are the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American Gastroenterological Association, International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. The societies emphasize that the statement is intended as guidance only and is not an evidence-based formal guideline.
GLP-1 RAs are known to delay gastric emptying, raising concerns about regurgitation, aspiration, and airway compromise during anesthesia. Rare serious adverse events have also been observed, prompting the ASA in 2023 to recommend holding these agents for 1 week for the injectable form and 1 day for the oral form before all procedures requiring anesthesia.
That abundance of caution, however, had negative impacts of its own. “This guidance has led to cancellations and postponements of many endoscopic and surgical procedures or required patients to undergo general anesthesia who may otherwise have had their procedures performed under moderate sedation,” said guidance coauthor Allison R. Schulman, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine and surgery and chief of endoscopy at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Nearly all institutions have been forced to revise preprocedural protocols, despite a lack of high-level evidence to suggest that these adjustments are necessary.”
“Studies have yielded mixed results as to whether patients on GLP-1s are at increased risk of these events, and the limited data available are inconsistent,” Schulman said. “As a result, there are inconsistencies in the recommendations from various societies leading to growing uncertainty with proceduralists on how to provide safe, effective, and timely procedural care to patients taking GLP-1 RAs.”
The new joint-society guidance may alleviate some of the uncertainty. Among the recommendations:
- Continuing GLP-1 RAs in the perioperative period should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and all care teams balancing the metabolic need for the GLP-1 RA with individual patient risk.
- Certain variables may increase the risk for delayed gastric emptying and aspiration with the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs: escalation phase — This phase vs the maintenance phase is associated with a higher risk for delayed gastric emptying; higher dose — the higher the dose, the greater the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) side effects; weekly dosing — GI side effects are more common with weekly vs daily formulations; presence of GI symptoms — nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and constipation may suggest delayed gastric emptying; and medical problems beyond GLP-1 RA indications with GI effects — assess for such conditions as bowel dysmotility, gastroparesis, and Parkinson’s disease.
- Risk factors should be assessed in advance to allow sufficient time to adjust preoperative care, including diet modification and medication bridging if GLP-1 RA cessation is deemed advisable.
- If retained gastric contents are a concern on the day of a procedure, point-of-care gastric ultrasound could be used to assess aspiration risk, resources permitting.
- The aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying should be minimized by preoperative diet modification and/or altering the anesthesia plan to consider rapid sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation. A 24-hour preoperative liquid diet, as before colonoscopy and bariatric surgery, can be utilized when delayed gastric emptying is a concern.
- When concern about retained gastric contents exists on procedure day, providers should engage patients in a shared decision-making model and consider the benefits and risks of rapid-sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation to minimize aspiration risk vs procedure cancellation.
“Safe continuation of surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopy, and prevention of procedure cancellation, for patients on GLP-1 RAs can be prioritized following the recommendations above, as would occur for other patient populations with gastroparesis,” the guidance panel wrote.
Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, David B. Purow, MD, managing director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwell Health/Huntington Hospital in Huntington, New York, said the recommendations will encourage clinicians to be more discerning about actual risk in individual cases rather than follow the previous blanket recommendation to stop these agents before procedures requiring sedation.
While GLP-1 RAs were prescribed for the relatively small number of patients with diabetes, he said, the risk was not apparent but became clearer with the widespread use of these agents for weight loss — often unregulated and undisclosed to care providers.
“The pendulum shifted too far the other way, and now it’s shifted back,” he said in an interview. “The new guidance is great because now we can be more thoughtful about managing individual patients.” He cited, for instance, the recommendations on the greater risk in patients in the dose escalation phase or on higher doses, and the risk-reducing measure of a liquid diet for 24 hours before surgery.
His center is already using point-of-care ultrasound and recently had a case in which a patient who forgot and took his GLP-1 RA before a scheduled procedure was found on ultrasound to have a full stomach. “In some cases, these drugs can cause an almost gastroparesis level of delayed emptying,” Purow said.
Purow thinks this early guidance will probably progress to firm guidelines within a year. Schulman is more cautious. “Our understanding of this complex topic is increasing rapidly, and ongoing clinical research will ultimately lead to evidence-based guidelines in this changing landscape,” she said.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Schulman is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, Microtech, and Fractyl. Purow had no competing interests to declare.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The new guidance, contrasting with earlier recommendations, says these incrementally used agents can be taken up until the day of surgery, but patients are advised to follow a liquid diet for 24 hours before the procedure. The decision to proceed with endoscopy and other procedures should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and interdisciplinary care teams in conjunction with minimization of the aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying, the guidance stresses.
The five endorsing organizations are the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), American Gastroenterological Association, International Society of Perioperative Care of Patients with Obesity, and Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. The societies emphasize that the statement is intended as guidance only and is not an evidence-based formal guideline.
GLP-1 RAs are known to delay gastric emptying, raising concerns about regurgitation, aspiration, and airway compromise during anesthesia. Rare serious adverse events have also been observed, prompting the ASA in 2023 to recommend holding these agents for 1 week for the injectable form and 1 day for the oral form before all procedures requiring anesthesia.
That abundance of caution, however, had negative impacts of its own. “This guidance has led to cancellations and postponements of many endoscopic and surgical procedures or required patients to undergo general anesthesia who may otherwise have had their procedures performed under moderate sedation,” said guidance coauthor Allison R. Schulman, MD, MPH, an associate professor of medicine and surgery and chief of endoscopy at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Nearly all institutions have been forced to revise preprocedural protocols, despite a lack of high-level evidence to suggest that these adjustments are necessary.”
“Studies have yielded mixed results as to whether patients on GLP-1s are at increased risk of these events, and the limited data available are inconsistent,” Schulman said. “As a result, there are inconsistencies in the recommendations from various societies leading to growing uncertainty with proceduralists on how to provide safe, effective, and timely procedural care to patients taking GLP-1 RAs.”
The new joint-society guidance may alleviate some of the uncertainty. Among the recommendations:
- Continuing GLP-1 RAs in the perioperative period should be based on shared decision-making with the patient and all care teams balancing the metabolic need for the GLP-1 RA with individual patient risk.
- Certain variables may increase the risk for delayed gastric emptying and aspiration with the periprocedural use of GLP-1 RAs: escalation phase — This phase vs the maintenance phase is associated with a higher risk for delayed gastric emptying; higher dose — the higher the dose, the greater the risk for gastrointestinal (GI) side effects; weekly dosing — GI side effects are more common with weekly vs daily formulations; presence of GI symptoms — nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, and constipation may suggest delayed gastric emptying; and medical problems beyond GLP-1 RA indications with GI effects — assess for such conditions as bowel dysmotility, gastroparesis, and Parkinson’s disease.
- Risk factors should be assessed in advance to allow sufficient time to adjust preoperative care, including diet modification and medication bridging if GLP-1 RA cessation is deemed advisable.
- If retained gastric contents are a concern on the day of a procedure, point-of-care gastric ultrasound could be used to assess aspiration risk, resources permitting.
- The aspiration risk from delayed gastric emptying should be minimized by preoperative diet modification and/or altering the anesthesia plan to consider rapid sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation. A 24-hour preoperative liquid diet, as before colonoscopy and bariatric surgery, can be utilized when delayed gastric emptying is a concern.
- When concern about retained gastric contents exists on procedure day, providers should engage patients in a shared decision-making model and consider the benefits and risks of rapid-sequence induction of general anesthesia for tracheal intubation to minimize aspiration risk vs procedure cancellation.
“Safe continuation of surgery and gastrointestinal endoscopy, and prevention of procedure cancellation, for patients on GLP-1 RAs can be prioritized following the recommendations above, as would occur for other patient populations with gastroparesis,” the guidance panel wrote.
Commenting on the statement but not involved in it, David B. Purow, MD, managing director of the Digestive Health Center at Northwell Health/Huntington Hospital in Huntington, New York, said the recommendations will encourage clinicians to be more discerning about actual risk in individual cases rather than follow the previous blanket recommendation to stop these agents before procedures requiring sedation.
While GLP-1 RAs were prescribed for the relatively small number of patients with diabetes, he said, the risk was not apparent but became clearer with the widespread use of these agents for weight loss — often unregulated and undisclosed to care providers.
“The pendulum shifted too far the other way, and now it’s shifted back,” he said in an interview. “The new guidance is great because now we can be more thoughtful about managing individual patients.” He cited, for instance, the recommendations on the greater risk in patients in the dose escalation phase or on higher doses, and the risk-reducing measure of a liquid diet for 24 hours before surgery.
His center is already using point-of-care ultrasound and recently had a case in which a patient who forgot and took his GLP-1 RA before a scheduled procedure was found on ultrasound to have a full stomach. “In some cases, these drugs can cause an almost gastroparesis level of delayed emptying,” Purow said.
Purow thinks this early guidance will probably progress to firm guidelines within a year. Schulman is more cautious. “Our understanding of this complex topic is increasing rapidly, and ongoing clinical research will ultimately lead to evidence-based guidelines in this changing landscape,” she said.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Schulman is a consultant for Apollo Endosurgery, Boston Scientific, Olympus, Microtech, and Fractyl. Purow had no competing interests to declare.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Screening Options for Rare Malignancies
Dear colleagues,
As gastroenterologists and endoscopists, we spend significant time preventing and diagnosing GI malignancies.
For instance, is it worthwhile screening for pancreatic cancer, and, if so, how should this be done? Likewise, diagnosing cholangiocarcinoma is challenging; how best should one evaluate for this in higher risk populations, such as primary sclerosing cholangitis? And what about the costs, financial and otherwise, associated with screening?
In this issue of Perspectives, Dr. Darshan Kothari and Dr. Daniel Bernstein discuss their approach to pancreatic cancer screening, including who is eligible, the preferred screening modalities, and the barriers to screening. In the accompanying perspective, Dr. Aparna Goel and Dr. Judah Kupferman focus on cholangiocarcinoma screening, identifying high-risk populations and discussing some of the concerns with screening, necessitating shared decision-making.
We welcome your thoughts on this issue. Share with us on X at @AGA_GIHN.
Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.
An Approach to Pancreatic Cancer Screening
BY DANIEL A. BERNSTEIN, MD, AND DARSHAN KOTHARI, MD
Pancreatic cancer carries a dismal prognosis, now accounting for the third-most cancer-related mortality in the United States. A small proportion of patients are diagnosed at a local stage of disease, with over half found to have metastatic disease at presentation. Given the low overall incidence and lifetime risk in the general population, population-based screening is not justified.
About 10% of cases of pancreas cancer are associated with germ-line mutations and/or with a strong family history of pancreatic cancer. Several academic societies and expert committees now recommend regular screening for pancreatic cancer in patients who are considered high-risk individuals, as they carry a fivefold relative risk for pancreatic cancer. Moreover, studies suggest that screening has the potential to identify early-stage resectable disease and decrease mortality in this patient population.
Patients who benefit from pancreatic cancer screening are those who carry an increased lifetime risk (in excess of 5%) of pancreatic cancer. High-risk individuals include those with germ-line mutations and/or those with a family history of pancreatic cancer in first-degree relatives. Consensus guidelines by the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening Consortium and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provide medical centers with detailed recommendations on who and when to start screening.
High-risk individuals fall into three categories:
- Patients with high-risk germline mutations including: familial atypical multiple mole melanoma syndrome (CDKN2A), hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes (BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2), Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (STK11), and hereditary pancreatitis (PRSS1 and SPINK1)
- Patients with low- to moderate-risk germ-line mutations with at least one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer: Lynch Syndrome (particularly MLH1 mutation), ataxia-telangiectasia (ATM), or Li-Fraumeni syndrome (p53)
- Patients with one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer who in turn has one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer (eg, a patient’s mother and maternal aunt or a patient’s father and patient’s sister)
Consistent with established guidelines, we recommend screening for high-risk patients beginning at age 50, or 10 years before the youngest age at which pancreas cancer was diagnosed in an affected relative. Screening is recommended earlier in patients with particularly high risk: at age 40 for patients with CDKN2A and STKI11 mutations and age 40 for patients with PRSS1 mutation or 20 years after the first attack of acute pancreatitis. For patients with a strong family history of pancreas cancer, we recommend comprehensive evaluation by a certified genetic counselor at a high-volume cancer center.
In practice, patients at our institution who are identified as high risk based on the above criteria are referred for an initial consultation at our pancreas center. In most cases, this should occur no sooner than 5 years prior to the recommended starting age for screening. All patients who are identified as high risk should be screened annually for diabetes given the growing evidence base supporting an association between new-onset diabetes and pancreatic cancer.
After an initial visit and discussion of the risks and benefits of screening, most screening protocols start with a baseline endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance abdomen with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRI/MRCP), which will be repeated annually or sooner as the clinical condition warrants. A sooner-interval EUS should be considered for patients already undergoing screening who are newly found to have diabetes.
At our institution, we start with an in-person clinic evaluation followed by EUS. Thereafter, patients undergo MRI/MRCP (synchronized with a same-day clinic visit) alternating with EUS every 6 months to ensure patients are seen twice a year, though there is no specific data to support this approach. Non-diabetics also undergo yearly diabetes screening which will trigger an EUS if patients become diabetic.
We engage in shared decision-making with our high-risk individuals undergoing pancreatic cancer screening and at each visit we review their concurrent medical conditions and suitability to continue screening. We consider discontinuing screening after age 75, at the onset of any life-limiting illness, or after a discussion of risks and benefits if comorbidities lead to a substantial deterioration in a patient’s overall health status.
While a growing body of evidence exists to support the application of pancreatic cancer screening in high-risk individuals, this preventive service remains underutilized. Recent analysis of the screening cohort at our institution showed a demographically homogeneous group of mostly highly educated, high-income White females. These findings are consistent with the patient cohorts described in other pancreatic cancer screening programs and represent only a fraction of people who would qualify for pancreatic cancer screening.
A survey of patients undergoing screening at our institution identified cost, travel, and time associated with pancreatic cancer screening to be frequent challenges to participation. Further studies are needed to fully explore the barriers and psychological burden of pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals, and to identify ways to enrich the cohort of patients undergoing screening. This may involve novel methods to identify family members of patients with a new diagnosis of pancreas cancer and increasing health literacy around pancreatic cancer screening among patients and providers.
Pancreatic cancer screening has the potential to identify early-stage disease in patients who are at high risk because of germ-line mutations and/or family history. We recommend that patients engage in pancreatic cancer screening at high-volume centers with well-supported oncology, genetics, and research infrastructure.
Dr. Bernstein is a gastroenterology fellow at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. Dr. Kothari is an associate professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology at Duke University School of Medicine.
Screening for Cholangiocarcinoma
BY JUDAH KUPFERMAN, MD, AND APARNA GOEL, MD
Cholangiocarcinoma is a rare but aggressive cancer of the bile ducts that poses many diagnostic challenges. Approximately 3% of gastrointestinal cancers are attributed to cholangiocarcinoma, and while the annual incidence of disease in the United States is about 1.26 per 100,000 people, the incidence of intrahepatic disease has been rising considerably.1,2 Screening for cholangiocarcinoma is reserved for high-risk individuals — such as those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), secondary sclerosing cholangitis (SSC), and biliary tract disorders such as choledochal cysts or Caroli’s disease. The goal is to balance the benefits of early diagnosis with the costs and risks associated with screening, particularly given the limitations of available tools like MRI with cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), which has a sensitivity of 70%-85%. In general, we recommend annual cholangiocarcinoma screening for high-risk individuals with MRI and MRCP as well as with cancer antigen (CA) 19-9. .
Screening in Patients with Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis
The lifetime risk of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with PSC is 10%-15% with an annual risk of 0.5%-1.5%. In our experience, this is often the most feared complication for PSC patients, even more so than the risk of liver transplantation. We recommend annual MRI with MRCP in addition to CA 19-9 for patients with PSC in the first decade of their diagnosis, as most cancers are diagnosed during this period. If a patient’s imaging has remained stable for over a decade and there is minimal hepatic fibrosis, we discuss the option of reducing screening frequency to every 2 years to minimize costs and exposure to MRI contrast risks.
If MRI reveals a concerning new large duct stricture, we will evaluate this with an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), as differentiating benign and malignant strictures is quite challenging with MRI. We generally recommend ERCP with brush cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization to improve diagnostic yield. Depending on imaging findings and location of the new large duct stricture, we may consider cholangioscopy during ERCP for direct visualization of the bile duct and directed tissue biopsies. Unfortunately, even in young, asymptomatic patients who undergo regular screening, cholangiocarcinoma is frequently diagnosed at an advanced stage.
Screening in Patients with Secondary Sclerosing Cholangitis
Patients with SSC may develop cholangiocarcinoma because of chronic inflammatory and fibrotic processes, such as IgG4-associated cholangiopathy, sarcoidosis, ischemic cholangiopathy, cystic fibrosis, recurrent pyogenic cholangitis, severe sepsis (as recently seen from SARS-CoV-2), surgical complications, or other etiologies. When the condition is reversible, such as with IgG4-associated cholangiopathy, cancer screening may not be necessary. However, when irreversible damage occurs, the cancer risk increases, though it varies by disease type and severity. In most cases, we recommend routine screening for cholangiocarcinoma with MRI and CA 19-9 in this population.
Screening in Patients with Biliary Tract Disorders
Biliary tract disorders such as choledochal cysts and Caroli’s disease also harbor an increased risk of cholangiocarcinoma. Choledochal cysts are congenital cystic dilations of the bile duct that have a 10%-30% lifetime risk of malignant transformation to cholangiocarcinoma. Surgical intervention to remove the cyst is often recommended because of this high risk. However, some patients may be unable or unwilling to undergo this surgery or they may have residual cysts. We recommend ongoing screening with MRI and CA 19-9 for these patients. Similarly, Caroli’s disease is a congenital disease associated with intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct cysts and associated with a 5%-15% lifetime risk of cholangiocarcinoma. MRI with MRCP and CA 19-9 should be performed routinely for patients with Caroli’s disease and syndrome.
Risks and Challenges in Cholangiocarcinoma Screening
While MRI with MRCP is the gold standard for cholangiocarcinoma screening, its limitations must be carefully considered. One growing concern is the potential for gadolinium retention in the brain, bones, or skin following repeated MRI scans. Though the long-term effects of gadolinium retention are not fully understood, we factor this into screening decisions, particularly for younger patients who may undergo decades of regular imaging.
MRI is not always feasible for certain patients, including those with metal implants, on hemodialysis, or with severe allergic reactions. In such cases, CT or ultrasound may serve as alternatives, though with lower sensitivity for detecting cholangiocarcinoma. Additionally, claustrophobia during MRI can be addressed with sedation, but this underscores the importance of shared decision-making.
From our perspective, cholangiocarcinoma screening in high-risk patients is crucial but not without challenges. Our current screening methods, while essential, are far from perfect, often missing early cancers or leading to unnecessary interventions. Because of these limitations, the window for treatment of localized disease can easily be missed. In our practice, we tailor screening strategies to each patient’s specific needs, weighing the potential benefits against the risks, costs, and the inherent uncertainty of early detection tools. We believe it is essential to involve patients in this decision-making process to provide a balanced, individualized approach that considers both clinical evidence and the personal preferences of each person.
Dr. Kupferman is a gastroenterology fellow at Stanford University School of Medicine in California. Dr. Goel is a transplant hepatologist and a clinical associate professor in gastroenterology & hepatology at Stanford.
References
1. Vithayathil M and Khan SA. J Hepatol. 2022 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.07.022.
2. Patel N and Benipal B. Cureus. 2019 Jan. doi: 10.7759/cureus.3962.
Dear colleagues,
As gastroenterologists and endoscopists, we spend significant time preventing and diagnosing GI malignancies.
For instance, is it worthwhile screening for pancreatic cancer, and, if so, how should this be done? Likewise, diagnosing cholangiocarcinoma is challenging; how best should one evaluate for this in higher risk populations, such as primary sclerosing cholangitis? And what about the costs, financial and otherwise, associated with screening?
In this issue of Perspectives, Dr. Darshan Kothari and Dr. Daniel Bernstein discuss their approach to pancreatic cancer screening, including who is eligible, the preferred screening modalities, and the barriers to screening. In the accompanying perspective, Dr. Aparna Goel and Dr. Judah Kupferman focus on cholangiocarcinoma screening, identifying high-risk populations and discussing some of the concerns with screening, necessitating shared decision-making.
We welcome your thoughts on this issue. Share with us on X at @AGA_GIHN.
Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.
An Approach to Pancreatic Cancer Screening
BY DANIEL A. BERNSTEIN, MD, AND DARSHAN KOTHARI, MD
Pancreatic cancer carries a dismal prognosis, now accounting for the third-most cancer-related mortality in the United States. A small proportion of patients are diagnosed at a local stage of disease, with over half found to have metastatic disease at presentation. Given the low overall incidence and lifetime risk in the general population, population-based screening is not justified.
About 10% of cases of pancreas cancer are associated with germ-line mutations and/or with a strong family history of pancreatic cancer. Several academic societies and expert committees now recommend regular screening for pancreatic cancer in patients who are considered high-risk individuals, as they carry a fivefold relative risk for pancreatic cancer. Moreover, studies suggest that screening has the potential to identify early-stage resectable disease and decrease mortality in this patient population.
Patients who benefit from pancreatic cancer screening are those who carry an increased lifetime risk (in excess of 5%) of pancreatic cancer. High-risk individuals include those with germ-line mutations and/or those with a family history of pancreatic cancer in first-degree relatives. Consensus guidelines by the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening Consortium and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provide medical centers with detailed recommendations on who and when to start screening.
High-risk individuals fall into three categories:
- Patients with high-risk germline mutations including: familial atypical multiple mole melanoma syndrome (CDKN2A), hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes (BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2), Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (STK11), and hereditary pancreatitis (PRSS1 and SPINK1)
- Patients with low- to moderate-risk germ-line mutations with at least one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer: Lynch Syndrome (particularly MLH1 mutation), ataxia-telangiectasia (ATM), or Li-Fraumeni syndrome (p53)
- Patients with one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer who in turn has one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer (eg, a patient’s mother and maternal aunt or a patient’s father and patient’s sister)
Consistent with established guidelines, we recommend screening for high-risk patients beginning at age 50, or 10 years before the youngest age at which pancreas cancer was diagnosed in an affected relative. Screening is recommended earlier in patients with particularly high risk: at age 40 for patients with CDKN2A and STKI11 mutations and age 40 for patients with PRSS1 mutation or 20 years after the first attack of acute pancreatitis. For patients with a strong family history of pancreas cancer, we recommend comprehensive evaluation by a certified genetic counselor at a high-volume cancer center.
In practice, patients at our institution who are identified as high risk based on the above criteria are referred for an initial consultation at our pancreas center. In most cases, this should occur no sooner than 5 years prior to the recommended starting age for screening. All patients who are identified as high risk should be screened annually for diabetes given the growing evidence base supporting an association between new-onset diabetes and pancreatic cancer.
After an initial visit and discussion of the risks and benefits of screening, most screening protocols start with a baseline endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance abdomen with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRI/MRCP), which will be repeated annually or sooner as the clinical condition warrants. A sooner-interval EUS should be considered for patients already undergoing screening who are newly found to have diabetes.
At our institution, we start with an in-person clinic evaluation followed by EUS. Thereafter, patients undergo MRI/MRCP (synchronized with a same-day clinic visit) alternating with EUS every 6 months to ensure patients are seen twice a year, though there is no specific data to support this approach. Non-diabetics also undergo yearly diabetes screening which will trigger an EUS if patients become diabetic.
We engage in shared decision-making with our high-risk individuals undergoing pancreatic cancer screening and at each visit we review their concurrent medical conditions and suitability to continue screening. We consider discontinuing screening after age 75, at the onset of any life-limiting illness, or after a discussion of risks and benefits if comorbidities lead to a substantial deterioration in a patient’s overall health status.
While a growing body of evidence exists to support the application of pancreatic cancer screening in high-risk individuals, this preventive service remains underutilized. Recent analysis of the screening cohort at our institution showed a demographically homogeneous group of mostly highly educated, high-income White females. These findings are consistent with the patient cohorts described in other pancreatic cancer screening programs and represent only a fraction of people who would qualify for pancreatic cancer screening.
A survey of patients undergoing screening at our institution identified cost, travel, and time associated with pancreatic cancer screening to be frequent challenges to participation. Further studies are needed to fully explore the barriers and psychological burden of pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals, and to identify ways to enrich the cohort of patients undergoing screening. This may involve novel methods to identify family members of patients with a new diagnosis of pancreas cancer and increasing health literacy around pancreatic cancer screening among patients and providers.
Pancreatic cancer screening has the potential to identify early-stage disease in patients who are at high risk because of germ-line mutations and/or family history. We recommend that patients engage in pancreatic cancer screening at high-volume centers with well-supported oncology, genetics, and research infrastructure.
Dr. Bernstein is a gastroenterology fellow at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. Dr. Kothari is an associate professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology at Duke University School of Medicine.
Screening for Cholangiocarcinoma
BY JUDAH KUPFERMAN, MD, AND APARNA GOEL, MD
Cholangiocarcinoma is a rare but aggressive cancer of the bile ducts that poses many diagnostic challenges. Approximately 3% of gastrointestinal cancers are attributed to cholangiocarcinoma, and while the annual incidence of disease in the United States is about 1.26 per 100,000 people, the incidence of intrahepatic disease has been rising considerably.1,2 Screening for cholangiocarcinoma is reserved for high-risk individuals — such as those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), secondary sclerosing cholangitis (SSC), and biliary tract disorders such as choledochal cysts or Caroli’s disease. The goal is to balance the benefits of early diagnosis with the costs and risks associated with screening, particularly given the limitations of available tools like MRI with cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), which has a sensitivity of 70%-85%. In general, we recommend annual cholangiocarcinoma screening for high-risk individuals with MRI and MRCP as well as with cancer antigen (CA) 19-9. .
Screening in Patients with Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis
The lifetime risk of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with PSC is 10%-15% with an annual risk of 0.5%-1.5%. In our experience, this is often the most feared complication for PSC patients, even more so than the risk of liver transplantation. We recommend annual MRI with MRCP in addition to CA 19-9 for patients with PSC in the first decade of their diagnosis, as most cancers are diagnosed during this period. If a patient’s imaging has remained stable for over a decade and there is minimal hepatic fibrosis, we discuss the option of reducing screening frequency to every 2 years to minimize costs and exposure to MRI contrast risks.
If MRI reveals a concerning new large duct stricture, we will evaluate this with an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), as differentiating benign and malignant strictures is quite challenging with MRI. We generally recommend ERCP with brush cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization to improve diagnostic yield. Depending on imaging findings and location of the new large duct stricture, we may consider cholangioscopy during ERCP for direct visualization of the bile duct and directed tissue biopsies. Unfortunately, even in young, asymptomatic patients who undergo regular screening, cholangiocarcinoma is frequently diagnosed at an advanced stage.
Screening in Patients with Secondary Sclerosing Cholangitis
Patients with SSC may develop cholangiocarcinoma because of chronic inflammatory and fibrotic processes, such as IgG4-associated cholangiopathy, sarcoidosis, ischemic cholangiopathy, cystic fibrosis, recurrent pyogenic cholangitis, severe sepsis (as recently seen from SARS-CoV-2), surgical complications, or other etiologies. When the condition is reversible, such as with IgG4-associated cholangiopathy, cancer screening may not be necessary. However, when irreversible damage occurs, the cancer risk increases, though it varies by disease type and severity. In most cases, we recommend routine screening for cholangiocarcinoma with MRI and CA 19-9 in this population.
Screening in Patients with Biliary Tract Disorders
Biliary tract disorders such as choledochal cysts and Caroli’s disease also harbor an increased risk of cholangiocarcinoma. Choledochal cysts are congenital cystic dilations of the bile duct that have a 10%-30% lifetime risk of malignant transformation to cholangiocarcinoma. Surgical intervention to remove the cyst is often recommended because of this high risk. However, some patients may be unable or unwilling to undergo this surgery or they may have residual cysts. We recommend ongoing screening with MRI and CA 19-9 for these patients. Similarly, Caroli’s disease is a congenital disease associated with intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct cysts and associated with a 5%-15% lifetime risk of cholangiocarcinoma. MRI with MRCP and CA 19-9 should be performed routinely for patients with Caroli’s disease and syndrome.
Risks and Challenges in Cholangiocarcinoma Screening
While MRI with MRCP is the gold standard for cholangiocarcinoma screening, its limitations must be carefully considered. One growing concern is the potential for gadolinium retention in the brain, bones, or skin following repeated MRI scans. Though the long-term effects of gadolinium retention are not fully understood, we factor this into screening decisions, particularly for younger patients who may undergo decades of regular imaging.
MRI is not always feasible for certain patients, including those with metal implants, on hemodialysis, or with severe allergic reactions. In such cases, CT or ultrasound may serve as alternatives, though with lower sensitivity for detecting cholangiocarcinoma. Additionally, claustrophobia during MRI can be addressed with sedation, but this underscores the importance of shared decision-making.
From our perspective, cholangiocarcinoma screening in high-risk patients is crucial but not without challenges. Our current screening methods, while essential, are far from perfect, often missing early cancers or leading to unnecessary interventions. Because of these limitations, the window for treatment of localized disease can easily be missed. In our practice, we tailor screening strategies to each patient’s specific needs, weighing the potential benefits against the risks, costs, and the inherent uncertainty of early detection tools. We believe it is essential to involve patients in this decision-making process to provide a balanced, individualized approach that considers both clinical evidence and the personal preferences of each person.
Dr. Kupferman is a gastroenterology fellow at Stanford University School of Medicine in California. Dr. Goel is a transplant hepatologist and a clinical associate professor in gastroenterology & hepatology at Stanford.
References
1. Vithayathil M and Khan SA. J Hepatol. 2022 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.07.022.
2. Patel N and Benipal B. Cureus. 2019 Jan. doi: 10.7759/cureus.3962.
Dear colleagues,
As gastroenterologists and endoscopists, we spend significant time preventing and diagnosing GI malignancies.
For instance, is it worthwhile screening for pancreatic cancer, and, if so, how should this be done? Likewise, diagnosing cholangiocarcinoma is challenging; how best should one evaluate for this in higher risk populations, such as primary sclerosing cholangitis? And what about the costs, financial and otherwise, associated with screening?
In this issue of Perspectives, Dr. Darshan Kothari and Dr. Daniel Bernstein discuss their approach to pancreatic cancer screening, including who is eligible, the preferred screening modalities, and the barriers to screening. In the accompanying perspective, Dr. Aparna Goel and Dr. Judah Kupferman focus on cholangiocarcinoma screening, identifying high-risk populations and discussing some of the concerns with screening, necessitating shared decision-making.
We welcome your thoughts on this issue. Share with us on X at @AGA_GIHN.
Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.
An Approach to Pancreatic Cancer Screening
BY DANIEL A. BERNSTEIN, MD, AND DARSHAN KOTHARI, MD
Pancreatic cancer carries a dismal prognosis, now accounting for the third-most cancer-related mortality in the United States. A small proportion of patients are diagnosed at a local stage of disease, with over half found to have metastatic disease at presentation. Given the low overall incidence and lifetime risk in the general population, population-based screening is not justified.
About 10% of cases of pancreas cancer are associated with germ-line mutations and/or with a strong family history of pancreatic cancer. Several academic societies and expert committees now recommend regular screening for pancreatic cancer in patients who are considered high-risk individuals, as they carry a fivefold relative risk for pancreatic cancer. Moreover, studies suggest that screening has the potential to identify early-stage resectable disease and decrease mortality in this patient population.
Patients who benefit from pancreatic cancer screening are those who carry an increased lifetime risk (in excess of 5%) of pancreatic cancer. High-risk individuals include those with germ-line mutations and/or those with a family history of pancreatic cancer in first-degree relatives. Consensus guidelines by the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening Consortium and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provide medical centers with detailed recommendations on who and when to start screening.
High-risk individuals fall into three categories:
- Patients with high-risk germline mutations including: familial atypical multiple mole melanoma syndrome (CDKN2A), hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndromes (BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2), Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (STK11), and hereditary pancreatitis (PRSS1 and SPINK1)
- Patients with low- to moderate-risk germ-line mutations with at least one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer: Lynch Syndrome (particularly MLH1 mutation), ataxia-telangiectasia (ATM), or Li-Fraumeni syndrome (p53)
- Patients with one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer who in turn has one first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer (eg, a patient’s mother and maternal aunt or a patient’s father and patient’s sister)
Consistent with established guidelines, we recommend screening for high-risk patients beginning at age 50, or 10 years before the youngest age at which pancreas cancer was diagnosed in an affected relative. Screening is recommended earlier in patients with particularly high risk: at age 40 for patients with CDKN2A and STKI11 mutations and age 40 for patients with PRSS1 mutation or 20 years after the first attack of acute pancreatitis. For patients with a strong family history of pancreas cancer, we recommend comprehensive evaluation by a certified genetic counselor at a high-volume cancer center.
In practice, patients at our institution who are identified as high risk based on the above criteria are referred for an initial consultation at our pancreas center. In most cases, this should occur no sooner than 5 years prior to the recommended starting age for screening. All patients who are identified as high risk should be screened annually for diabetes given the growing evidence base supporting an association between new-onset diabetes and pancreatic cancer.
After an initial visit and discussion of the risks and benefits of screening, most screening protocols start with a baseline endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance abdomen with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRI/MRCP), which will be repeated annually or sooner as the clinical condition warrants. A sooner-interval EUS should be considered for patients already undergoing screening who are newly found to have diabetes.
At our institution, we start with an in-person clinic evaluation followed by EUS. Thereafter, patients undergo MRI/MRCP (synchronized with a same-day clinic visit) alternating with EUS every 6 months to ensure patients are seen twice a year, though there is no specific data to support this approach. Non-diabetics also undergo yearly diabetes screening which will trigger an EUS if patients become diabetic.
We engage in shared decision-making with our high-risk individuals undergoing pancreatic cancer screening and at each visit we review their concurrent medical conditions and suitability to continue screening. We consider discontinuing screening after age 75, at the onset of any life-limiting illness, or after a discussion of risks and benefits if comorbidities lead to a substantial deterioration in a patient’s overall health status.
While a growing body of evidence exists to support the application of pancreatic cancer screening in high-risk individuals, this preventive service remains underutilized. Recent analysis of the screening cohort at our institution showed a demographically homogeneous group of mostly highly educated, high-income White females. These findings are consistent with the patient cohorts described in other pancreatic cancer screening programs and represent only a fraction of people who would qualify for pancreatic cancer screening.
A survey of patients undergoing screening at our institution identified cost, travel, and time associated with pancreatic cancer screening to be frequent challenges to participation. Further studies are needed to fully explore the barriers and psychological burden of pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals, and to identify ways to enrich the cohort of patients undergoing screening. This may involve novel methods to identify family members of patients with a new diagnosis of pancreas cancer and increasing health literacy around pancreatic cancer screening among patients and providers.
Pancreatic cancer screening has the potential to identify early-stage disease in patients who are at high risk because of germ-line mutations and/or family history. We recommend that patients engage in pancreatic cancer screening at high-volume centers with well-supported oncology, genetics, and research infrastructure.
Dr. Bernstein is a gastroenterology fellow at Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. Dr. Kothari is an associate professor of medicine in gastroenterology and hepatology at Duke University School of Medicine.
Screening for Cholangiocarcinoma
BY JUDAH KUPFERMAN, MD, AND APARNA GOEL, MD
Cholangiocarcinoma is a rare but aggressive cancer of the bile ducts that poses many diagnostic challenges. Approximately 3% of gastrointestinal cancers are attributed to cholangiocarcinoma, and while the annual incidence of disease in the United States is about 1.26 per 100,000 people, the incidence of intrahepatic disease has been rising considerably.1,2 Screening for cholangiocarcinoma is reserved for high-risk individuals — such as those with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), secondary sclerosing cholangitis (SSC), and biliary tract disorders such as choledochal cysts or Caroli’s disease. The goal is to balance the benefits of early diagnosis with the costs and risks associated with screening, particularly given the limitations of available tools like MRI with cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), which has a sensitivity of 70%-85%. In general, we recommend annual cholangiocarcinoma screening for high-risk individuals with MRI and MRCP as well as with cancer antigen (CA) 19-9. .
Screening in Patients with Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis
The lifetime risk of cholangiocarcinoma in patients with PSC is 10%-15% with an annual risk of 0.5%-1.5%. In our experience, this is often the most feared complication for PSC patients, even more so than the risk of liver transplantation. We recommend annual MRI with MRCP in addition to CA 19-9 for patients with PSC in the first decade of their diagnosis, as most cancers are diagnosed during this period. If a patient’s imaging has remained stable for over a decade and there is minimal hepatic fibrosis, we discuss the option of reducing screening frequency to every 2 years to minimize costs and exposure to MRI contrast risks.
If MRI reveals a concerning new large duct stricture, we will evaluate this with an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), as differentiating benign and malignant strictures is quite challenging with MRI. We generally recommend ERCP with brush cytology and fluorescence in situ hybridization to improve diagnostic yield. Depending on imaging findings and location of the new large duct stricture, we may consider cholangioscopy during ERCP for direct visualization of the bile duct and directed tissue biopsies. Unfortunately, even in young, asymptomatic patients who undergo regular screening, cholangiocarcinoma is frequently diagnosed at an advanced stage.
Screening in Patients with Secondary Sclerosing Cholangitis
Patients with SSC may develop cholangiocarcinoma because of chronic inflammatory and fibrotic processes, such as IgG4-associated cholangiopathy, sarcoidosis, ischemic cholangiopathy, cystic fibrosis, recurrent pyogenic cholangitis, severe sepsis (as recently seen from SARS-CoV-2), surgical complications, or other etiologies. When the condition is reversible, such as with IgG4-associated cholangiopathy, cancer screening may not be necessary. However, when irreversible damage occurs, the cancer risk increases, though it varies by disease type and severity. In most cases, we recommend routine screening for cholangiocarcinoma with MRI and CA 19-9 in this population.
Screening in Patients with Biliary Tract Disorders
Biliary tract disorders such as choledochal cysts and Caroli’s disease also harbor an increased risk of cholangiocarcinoma. Choledochal cysts are congenital cystic dilations of the bile duct that have a 10%-30% lifetime risk of malignant transformation to cholangiocarcinoma. Surgical intervention to remove the cyst is often recommended because of this high risk. However, some patients may be unable or unwilling to undergo this surgery or they may have residual cysts. We recommend ongoing screening with MRI and CA 19-9 for these patients. Similarly, Caroli’s disease is a congenital disease associated with intrahepatic and extrahepatic bile duct cysts and associated with a 5%-15% lifetime risk of cholangiocarcinoma. MRI with MRCP and CA 19-9 should be performed routinely for patients with Caroli’s disease and syndrome.
Risks and Challenges in Cholangiocarcinoma Screening
While MRI with MRCP is the gold standard for cholangiocarcinoma screening, its limitations must be carefully considered. One growing concern is the potential for gadolinium retention in the brain, bones, or skin following repeated MRI scans. Though the long-term effects of gadolinium retention are not fully understood, we factor this into screening decisions, particularly for younger patients who may undergo decades of regular imaging.
MRI is not always feasible for certain patients, including those with metal implants, on hemodialysis, or with severe allergic reactions. In such cases, CT or ultrasound may serve as alternatives, though with lower sensitivity for detecting cholangiocarcinoma. Additionally, claustrophobia during MRI can be addressed with sedation, but this underscores the importance of shared decision-making.
From our perspective, cholangiocarcinoma screening in high-risk patients is crucial but not without challenges. Our current screening methods, while essential, are far from perfect, often missing early cancers or leading to unnecessary interventions. Because of these limitations, the window for treatment of localized disease can easily be missed. In our practice, we tailor screening strategies to each patient’s specific needs, weighing the potential benefits against the risks, costs, and the inherent uncertainty of early detection tools. We believe it is essential to involve patients in this decision-making process to provide a balanced, individualized approach that considers both clinical evidence and the personal preferences of each person.
Dr. Kupferman is a gastroenterology fellow at Stanford University School of Medicine in California. Dr. Goel is a transplant hepatologist and a clinical associate professor in gastroenterology & hepatology at Stanford.
References
1. Vithayathil M and Khan SA. J Hepatol. 2022 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.07.022.
2. Patel N and Benipal B. Cureus. 2019 Jan. doi: 10.7759/cureus.3962.
AI Tool Helps Detect, Differentiate Pancreatic Lesions During Endoscopic Ultrasound
PHILADELPHIA —
This was a transatlantic collaborative effort involving researchers in Portugal, Spain, the United States, and Brazil, and the AI tool “works on different platforms and different devices,” Miguel Mascarenhas, MD, PhD, with Centro Hospitalar Universitário de São João, Porto, Portugal, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
Mascarenhas noted that pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are a common incidental finding during imaging and are differentiated by whether they’re mucinous PCLs (M-PCLs) or non-mucinous PCLs (NM-PCLs). The malignancy risk is almost exclusive of PCL with a mucinous phenotype.
Pancreatic solid lesions are also prevalent, and differentiation is challenging. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (P-DAC) is the most common pancreatic solid lesion and has a poor prognosis because of late-stage disease at diagnosis. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (P-NETs) are less common but have malignant potential.
EUS is the “gold standard” for pancreatic lesion evaluation, but its diagnostic accuracy is suboptimal, particularly for lesions < 10 mm, Mascarenhas noted.
With an eye toward improving diagnostic accuracy, he and colleagues developed a convolutional neural network for detecting and differentiating cystic (M-PCL and NM-PCL) and solid (P-DAC and P-NET) pancreatic lesions.
They leveraged data from 378 EUS exams with 126,000 still images — 19,528 M-PCL, 8175 NM-PCL, 64,286 P-DAC, 29,153 P-NET, and 4858 normal pancreas images.
The AI tool demonstrated 99.1% accuracy for identifying normal pancreatic tissue, and it showed 99% and 99.8% accuracy for M-PCL and NM-PCL, respectively.
For pancreatic solid lesions, P-DAC and P-NET were distinguished with 94% accuracy, with 98.7% and 83.6% sensitivity for P-DAC and P-NET, respectively.
Real-Time Validation Next
“AI is delivering promising results throughout medicine, but particularly in gastroenterology, which is one of the most fertile areas of AI research. This comes mostly from the deployment of deep-learning models, most of them convolutional neural networks, which are highly efficient for image analysis,” Mascarenhas told attendees.
This is the “first worldwide convolutional neural network” capable of detecting and differentiating both cystic and solid pancreatic lesions. The use of a large dataset from four centers in two continents helps minimize the impact of demographic bias, Mascarenhas added.
The study is based on still images, not full videos, he noted. As a next step, the team is conducting a multicenter study focused on real-time clinical validation of the model during EUS procedures.
“AI has the potential to improve the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound. We’re just on the tip of the iceberg. There is enormous potential to harness AI, and we welcome all the groups that might want to join our research,” Mascarenhas said.
Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, AGAF, director of Health Services Research at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, who wasn’t involved in the study, is optimistic about emerging applications for AI.
“AI holds incredible promise in gastroenterology, especially for diagnosing complex pancreatic lesions where early, accurate differentiation can be lifesaving,” Spiegel said in an interview.
“This study’s high accuracy across diverse datasets is encouraging; however, as a retrospective analysis, it leaves the real-time clinical impact still to be proven. Prospective studies will be essential to confirm AI’s role in enhancing our diagnostic capabilities,” Spiegel cautioned.
“More generally, AI is rapidly transforming gastroenterology by enhancing our ability to detect, differentiate, and monitor conditions with unprecedented precision. From improving early cancer detection to guiding complex diagnostic procedures, AI stands to become an invaluable tool that complements clinical expertise. As we refine these technologies, the potential for AI to elevate both diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes in GI is truly remarkable,” Spiegel said.
The study had no specific funding. Mascarenhas and Spiegel have declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA —
This was a transatlantic collaborative effort involving researchers in Portugal, Spain, the United States, and Brazil, and the AI tool “works on different platforms and different devices,” Miguel Mascarenhas, MD, PhD, with Centro Hospitalar Universitário de São João, Porto, Portugal, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
Mascarenhas noted that pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are a common incidental finding during imaging and are differentiated by whether they’re mucinous PCLs (M-PCLs) or non-mucinous PCLs (NM-PCLs). The malignancy risk is almost exclusive of PCL with a mucinous phenotype.
Pancreatic solid lesions are also prevalent, and differentiation is challenging. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (P-DAC) is the most common pancreatic solid lesion and has a poor prognosis because of late-stage disease at diagnosis. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (P-NETs) are less common but have malignant potential.
EUS is the “gold standard” for pancreatic lesion evaluation, but its diagnostic accuracy is suboptimal, particularly for lesions < 10 mm, Mascarenhas noted.
With an eye toward improving diagnostic accuracy, he and colleagues developed a convolutional neural network for detecting and differentiating cystic (M-PCL and NM-PCL) and solid (P-DAC and P-NET) pancreatic lesions.
They leveraged data from 378 EUS exams with 126,000 still images — 19,528 M-PCL, 8175 NM-PCL, 64,286 P-DAC, 29,153 P-NET, and 4858 normal pancreas images.
The AI tool demonstrated 99.1% accuracy for identifying normal pancreatic tissue, and it showed 99% and 99.8% accuracy for M-PCL and NM-PCL, respectively.
For pancreatic solid lesions, P-DAC and P-NET were distinguished with 94% accuracy, with 98.7% and 83.6% sensitivity for P-DAC and P-NET, respectively.
Real-Time Validation Next
“AI is delivering promising results throughout medicine, but particularly in gastroenterology, which is one of the most fertile areas of AI research. This comes mostly from the deployment of deep-learning models, most of them convolutional neural networks, which are highly efficient for image analysis,” Mascarenhas told attendees.
This is the “first worldwide convolutional neural network” capable of detecting and differentiating both cystic and solid pancreatic lesions. The use of a large dataset from four centers in two continents helps minimize the impact of demographic bias, Mascarenhas added.
The study is based on still images, not full videos, he noted. As a next step, the team is conducting a multicenter study focused on real-time clinical validation of the model during EUS procedures.
“AI has the potential to improve the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound. We’re just on the tip of the iceberg. There is enormous potential to harness AI, and we welcome all the groups that might want to join our research,” Mascarenhas said.
Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, AGAF, director of Health Services Research at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, who wasn’t involved in the study, is optimistic about emerging applications for AI.
“AI holds incredible promise in gastroenterology, especially for diagnosing complex pancreatic lesions where early, accurate differentiation can be lifesaving,” Spiegel said in an interview.
“This study’s high accuracy across diverse datasets is encouraging; however, as a retrospective analysis, it leaves the real-time clinical impact still to be proven. Prospective studies will be essential to confirm AI’s role in enhancing our diagnostic capabilities,” Spiegel cautioned.
“More generally, AI is rapidly transforming gastroenterology by enhancing our ability to detect, differentiate, and monitor conditions with unprecedented precision. From improving early cancer detection to guiding complex diagnostic procedures, AI stands to become an invaluable tool that complements clinical expertise. As we refine these technologies, the potential for AI to elevate both diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes in GI is truly remarkable,” Spiegel said.
The study had no specific funding. Mascarenhas and Spiegel have declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHILADELPHIA —
This was a transatlantic collaborative effort involving researchers in Portugal, Spain, the United States, and Brazil, and the AI tool “works on different platforms and different devices,” Miguel Mascarenhas, MD, PhD, with Centro Hospitalar Universitário de São João, Porto, Portugal, said in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology.
Mascarenhas noted that pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are a common incidental finding during imaging and are differentiated by whether they’re mucinous PCLs (M-PCLs) or non-mucinous PCLs (NM-PCLs). The malignancy risk is almost exclusive of PCL with a mucinous phenotype.
Pancreatic solid lesions are also prevalent, and differentiation is challenging. Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (P-DAC) is the most common pancreatic solid lesion and has a poor prognosis because of late-stage disease at diagnosis. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (P-NETs) are less common but have malignant potential.
EUS is the “gold standard” for pancreatic lesion evaluation, but its diagnostic accuracy is suboptimal, particularly for lesions < 10 mm, Mascarenhas noted.
With an eye toward improving diagnostic accuracy, he and colleagues developed a convolutional neural network for detecting and differentiating cystic (M-PCL and NM-PCL) and solid (P-DAC and P-NET) pancreatic lesions.
They leveraged data from 378 EUS exams with 126,000 still images — 19,528 M-PCL, 8175 NM-PCL, 64,286 P-DAC, 29,153 P-NET, and 4858 normal pancreas images.
The AI tool demonstrated 99.1% accuracy for identifying normal pancreatic tissue, and it showed 99% and 99.8% accuracy for M-PCL and NM-PCL, respectively.
For pancreatic solid lesions, P-DAC and P-NET were distinguished with 94% accuracy, with 98.7% and 83.6% sensitivity for P-DAC and P-NET, respectively.
Real-Time Validation Next
“AI is delivering promising results throughout medicine, but particularly in gastroenterology, which is one of the most fertile areas of AI research. This comes mostly from the deployment of deep-learning models, most of them convolutional neural networks, which are highly efficient for image analysis,” Mascarenhas told attendees.
This is the “first worldwide convolutional neural network” capable of detecting and differentiating both cystic and solid pancreatic lesions. The use of a large dataset from four centers in two continents helps minimize the impact of demographic bias, Mascarenhas added.
The study is based on still images, not full videos, he noted. As a next step, the team is conducting a multicenter study focused on real-time clinical validation of the model during EUS procedures.
“AI has the potential to improve the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound. We’re just on the tip of the iceberg. There is enormous potential to harness AI, and we welcome all the groups that might want to join our research,” Mascarenhas said.
Brennan Spiegel, MD, MSHS, AGAF, director of Health Services Research at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, who wasn’t involved in the study, is optimistic about emerging applications for AI.
“AI holds incredible promise in gastroenterology, especially for diagnosing complex pancreatic lesions where early, accurate differentiation can be lifesaving,” Spiegel said in an interview.
“This study’s high accuracy across diverse datasets is encouraging; however, as a retrospective analysis, it leaves the real-time clinical impact still to be proven. Prospective studies will be essential to confirm AI’s role in enhancing our diagnostic capabilities,” Spiegel cautioned.
“More generally, AI is rapidly transforming gastroenterology by enhancing our ability to detect, differentiate, and monitor conditions with unprecedented precision. From improving early cancer detection to guiding complex diagnostic procedures, AI stands to become an invaluable tool that complements clinical expertise. As we refine these technologies, the potential for AI to elevate both diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes in GI is truly remarkable,” Spiegel said.
The study had no specific funding. Mascarenhas and Spiegel have declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACG 2024
Baveno VI Criteria Appear Cost-Effective for Detecting Varices in Cirrhosis
Compared with endoscopy, , according to new research.
Although upper gastrointestinal endoscopy continues to be the gold standard for detecting varices, the Baveno VI criteria combine liver stiffness and platelet count values to rule out high-risk varices, which can save on endoscopy costs.
“The Baveno VI criteria can reduce the need for endoscopies in patients with cirrhosis, but it is important to ascertain if they are also cost-effective,” said senior author Emmanuel Tsochatzis, MD, professor of hepatology at the University College London Institute for Liver and Digestive Health and Royal Free Hospital in London.
“Our findings confirm that the application of these criteria is highly cost-effective, and given the fact that they are also safe, should be considered for widespread implementation,” he said.
The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Baveno VI Criteria Analysis
On the basis of the Baveno VI Consensus, endoscopy screening can be avoided in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease and Child-Pugh A cirrhosis who have a platelet count > 150,000/mm3 and a liver stiffness measurement < 20 kPa.
In addition, expanded Baveno VI criteria have suggested optimized cut-off values to avoid even more endoscopies — at a platelet value of > 110,000/mm3 and a liver stiffness < 25 kPa.
Previous research indicates that the expanded criteria could avoid double the number of endoscopies, the authors wrote, with a risk of missing high-risk varices in 1.6% of patients with the criteria and 0.6% of overall study participants. Both criteria have been validated in large groups of patients with compensated cirrhosis of different etiologies, but the cost-effectiveness hasn’t been analyzed.
Dr. Tsochatzis and colleagues created an analytical decision model to estimate the costs and benefits of using the Baveno VI criteria as compared with endoscopy as the standard of care among a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis. The research team looked at costs and clinical outcomes based on the United Kingdom National Health Service perspective at 1 year from diagnosis and then estimated the expected costs and outcomes at 5 years and 20 years, including factors such as liver disease progression and variceal bleeding.
As part of the model, the Baveno VI criteria were implemented at annual screenings with targeted endoscopy for patients who met the criteria, as compared with endoscopy as a biannual screening using esophagogastroduodenoscopy for everyone.
In general, the Baveno VI criteria were cost-effective compared with endoscopy in all analyses, including all time points, as well as deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The cost of using the criteria was £67 per patient, as compared with £411 per patient for esophagogastroduodenoscopy.
For the 1000 patients, the criteria produced 0.16 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient at an incremental cost of £326, or about $443, over 5 years. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £2081, or $2830, per additional QALY gained.
In addition, the incremental net monetary benefit of the Baveno VI criteria was £2808, or $3819, over 5 years per patient.
The results were also consistent and cost-effective in Canada and Spain using relevant cost inputs from those countries. In Canada, the ICER per QALY estimates were €3535, or $3712, over 5 years and €4610, or $4841, over 20 years. In Spain, the ICER per QALY estimates were €1966, or $2064, over 5 years and €2225, or $2336, over 20 years.
Baveno VI Considerations
Despite the small risk of false negatives, the Baveno VI criteria could avoid unnecessary endoscopies and provide significant cost savings, the study authors wrote.
“It should be mentioned, however, that sparing endoscopies could result in missing the incidental detection of esophageal and gastric cancers, particularly in patients with higher risk, such as those who misuse alcohol,” Dr. Tsochatzis said.
Future studies could investigate ways to broaden the applicability of the Baveno VI criteria to other patient subgroups, identify optimal cut-off points, and incorporate patients with systemic therapies.
“Baveno VI criteria can be safely used to avoid endoscopy in a substantial proportion of patients with compensated cirrhosis,” said Wayne Bai, MBChB, a gastroenterologist at Waikato Hospital and the University of Auckland in New Zealand.
Dr. Bai, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the Baveno VI criteria and participated in Baveno VII criteria meetings. In an analysis of more than two dozen studies, he and colleagues found that the Baveno VI criteria had a pooled 99% negative predictive value for ruling out high-risk varices and weren’t affected by the cause of cirrhosis. However, expanding the criteria had suboptimal performance in some cases.
“The progressive change in approach to the management of compensated cirrhosis, progressively focusing on treating portal hypertension with beta-blockers independently of the presence of varices, might render these criteria less relevant,” he said.
The authors were supported by funds from the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration North Thames, the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, and the European Union’s European Regional Development Fund and European Social Fund. Dr Bai reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Compared with endoscopy, , according to new research.
Although upper gastrointestinal endoscopy continues to be the gold standard for detecting varices, the Baveno VI criteria combine liver stiffness and platelet count values to rule out high-risk varices, which can save on endoscopy costs.
“The Baveno VI criteria can reduce the need for endoscopies in patients with cirrhosis, but it is important to ascertain if they are also cost-effective,” said senior author Emmanuel Tsochatzis, MD, professor of hepatology at the University College London Institute for Liver and Digestive Health and Royal Free Hospital in London.
“Our findings confirm that the application of these criteria is highly cost-effective, and given the fact that they are also safe, should be considered for widespread implementation,” he said.
The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Baveno VI Criteria Analysis
On the basis of the Baveno VI Consensus, endoscopy screening can be avoided in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease and Child-Pugh A cirrhosis who have a platelet count > 150,000/mm3 and a liver stiffness measurement < 20 kPa.
In addition, expanded Baveno VI criteria have suggested optimized cut-off values to avoid even more endoscopies — at a platelet value of > 110,000/mm3 and a liver stiffness < 25 kPa.
Previous research indicates that the expanded criteria could avoid double the number of endoscopies, the authors wrote, with a risk of missing high-risk varices in 1.6% of patients with the criteria and 0.6% of overall study participants. Both criteria have been validated in large groups of patients with compensated cirrhosis of different etiologies, but the cost-effectiveness hasn’t been analyzed.
Dr. Tsochatzis and colleagues created an analytical decision model to estimate the costs and benefits of using the Baveno VI criteria as compared with endoscopy as the standard of care among a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis. The research team looked at costs and clinical outcomes based on the United Kingdom National Health Service perspective at 1 year from diagnosis and then estimated the expected costs and outcomes at 5 years and 20 years, including factors such as liver disease progression and variceal bleeding.
As part of the model, the Baveno VI criteria were implemented at annual screenings with targeted endoscopy for patients who met the criteria, as compared with endoscopy as a biannual screening using esophagogastroduodenoscopy for everyone.
In general, the Baveno VI criteria were cost-effective compared with endoscopy in all analyses, including all time points, as well as deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The cost of using the criteria was £67 per patient, as compared with £411 per patient for esophagogastroduodenoscopy.
For the 1000 patients, the criteria produced 0.16 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient at an incremental cost of £326, or about $443, over 5 years. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £2081, or $2830, per additional QALY gained.
In addition, the incremental net monetary benefit of the Baveno VI criteria was £2808, or $3819, over 5 years per patient.
The results were also consistent and cost-effective in Canada and Spain using relevant cost inputs from those countries. In Canada, the ICER per QALY estimates were €3535, or $3712, over 5 years and €4610, or $4841, over 20 years. In Spain, the ICER per QALY estimates were €1966, or $2064, over 5 years and €2225, or $2336, over 20 years.
Baveno VI Considerations
Despite the small risk of false negatives, the Baveno VI criteria could avoid unnecessary endoscopies and provide significant cost savings, the study authors wrote.
“It should be mentioned, however, that sparing endoscopies could result in missing the incidental detection of esophageal and gastric cancers, particularly in patients with higher risk, such as those who misuse alcohol,” Dr. Tsochatzis said.
Future studies could investigate ways to broaden the applicability of the Baveno VI criteria to other patient subgroups, identify optimal cut-off points, and incorporate patients with systemic therapies.
“Baveno VI criteria can be safely used to avoid endoscopy in a substantial proportion of patients with compensated cirrhosis,” said Wayne Bai, MBChB, a gastroenterologist at Waikato Hospital and the University of Auckland in New Zealand.
Dr. Bai, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the Baveno VI criteria and participated in Baveno VII criteria meetings. In an analysis of more than two dozen studies, he and colleagues found that the Baveno VI criteria had a pooled 99% negative predictive value for ruling out high-risk varices and weren’t affected by the cause of cirrhosis. However, expanding the criteria had suboptimal performance in some cases.
“The progressive change in approach to the management of compensated cirrhosis, progressively focusing on treating portal hypertension with beta-blockers independently of the presence of varices, might render these criteria less relevant,” he said.
The authors were supported by funds from the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration North Thames, the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, and the European Union’s European Regional Development Fund and European Social Fund. Dr Bai reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Compared with endoscopy, , according to new research.
Although upper gastrointestinal endoscopy continues to be the gold standard for detecting varices, the Baveno VI criteria combine liver stiffness and platelet count values to rule out high-risk varices, which can save on endoscopy costs.
“The Baveno VI criteria can reduce the need for endoscopies in patients with cirrhosis, but it is important to ascertain if they are also cost-effective,” said senior author Emmanuel Tsochatzis, MD, professor of hepatology at the University College London Institute for Liver and Digestive Health and Royal Free Hospital in London.
“Our findings confirm that the application of these criteria is highly cost-effective, and given the fact that they are also safe, should be considered for widespread implementation,” he said.
The study was published online in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Baveno VI Criteria Analysis
On the basis of the Baveno VI Consensus, endoscopy screening can be avoided in patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease and Child-Pugh A cirrhosis who have a platelet count > 150,000/mm3 and a liver stiffness measurement < 20 kPa.
In addition, expanded Baveno VI criteria have suggested optimized cut-off values to avoid even more endoscopies — at a platelet value of > 110,000/mm3 and a liver stiffness < 25 kPa.
Previous research indicates that the expanded criteria could avoid double the number of endoscopies, the authors wrote, with a risk of missing high-risk varices in 1.6% of patients with the criteria and 0.6% of overall study participants. Both criteria have been validated in large groups of patients with compensated cirrhosis of different etiologies, but the cost-effectiveness hasn’t been analyzed.
Dr. Tsochatzis and colleagues created an analytical decision model to estimate the costs and benefits of using the Baveno VI criteria as compared with endoscopy as the standard of care among a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis. The research team looked at costs and clinical outcomes based on the United Kingdom National Health Service perspective at 1 year from diagnosis and then estimated the expected costs and outcomes at 5 years and 20 years, including factors such as liver disease progression and variceal bleeding.
As part of the model, the Baveno VI criteria were implemented at annual screenings with targeted endoscopy for patients who met the criteria, as compared with endoscopy as a biannual screening using esophagogastroduodenoscopy for everyone.
In general, the Baveno VI criteria were cost-effective compared with endoscopy in all analyses, including all time points, as well as deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The cost of using the criteria was £67 per patient, as compared with £411 per patient for esophagogastroduodenoscopy.
For the 1000 patients, the criteria produced 0.16 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient at an incremental cost of £326, or about $443, over 5 years. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £2081, or $2830, per additional QALY gained.
In addition, the incremental net monetary benefit of the Baveno VI criteria was £2808, or $3819, over 5 years per patient.
The results were also consistent and cost-effective in Canada and Spain using relevant cost inputs from those countries. In Canada, the ICER per QALY estimates were €3535, or $3712, over 5 years and €4610, or $4841, over 20 years. In Spain, the ICER per QALY estimates were €1966, or $2064, over 5 years and €2225, or $2336, over 20 years.
Baveno VI Considerations
Despite the small risk of false negatives, the Baveno VI criteria could avoid unnecessary endoscopies and provide significant cost savings, the study authors wrote.
“It should be mentioned, however, that sparing endoscopies could result in missing the incidental detection of esophageal and gastric cancers, particularly in patients with higher risk, such as those who misuse alcohol,” Dr. Tsochatzis said.
Future studies could investigate ways to broaden the applicability of the Baveno VI criteria to other patient subgroups, identify optimal cut-off points, and incorporate patients with systemic therapies.
“Baveno VI criteria can be safely used to avoid endoscopy in a substantial proportion of patients with compensated cirrhosis,” said Wayne Bai, MBChB, a gastroenterologist at Waikato Hospital and the University of Auckland in New Zealand.
Dr. Bai, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched the Baveno VI criteria and participated in Baveno VII criteria meetings. In an analysis of more than two dozen studies, he and colleagues found that the Baveno VI criteria had a pooled 99% negative predictive value for ruling out high-risk varices and weren’t affected by the cause of cirrhosis. However, expanding the criteria had suboptimal performance in some cases.
“The progressive change in approach to the management of compensated cirrhosis, progressively focusing on treating portal hypertension with beta-blockers independently of the presence of varices, might render these criteria less relevant,” he said.
The authors were supported by funds from the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration North Thames, the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, and the European Union’s European Regional Development Fund and European Social Fund. Dr Bai reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY