Introduction

Since the report of Shaker in 1994, transnasal esophagogastroduodenoscopy (T-EGDS) has been reported worldwide as one technique to facilitate comfortable procedures avoiding sedation. From 1996 in our Centre, we routinely use this technique in all the patients for diagnostic and selected operative EGDS. This approach is also suitable for the placement of percutaneous endoscopy gastrostomy (PEG) but in the published papers it has been performed only when conventional upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was unusable (dysphagic patients with neurological disease or with stenosis and/or occlusion of the mouth or pharynx). On the contrary, since 2000 we have routinely used the transnasal approach for all patients requiring PEG, reserving the oral technique when the transnasal access route is impossible.

Aims & Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent PEG placement between January 2000 and March 2023 in the Unit of Gastroenterology of San Camillo De Lellis Hospital, Rieti, Italy, in order to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of T-PEG placement in routine practice. We used ultrathin gastroscope through a nostril after assessment and lubrification, and the pull technique was used for tube placement.

Results

PEG placement was required for 256 consecutive patients (male 49.4%; female 51.6%), the average age was 79 years, within a range from 26 to 104 years. Transnasal approach was used in 162 patients (nasal group: 63.3%) while oral approach was used in 94 (oral group: 36.7%). The failure of transnasal approach was related to impossibility of nasal intubation due to narrow nasal passages or to inability to transilluminate the stomach. In these cases we needed transoral route. 14 patients underwent transoral PEG placement due to unavailability of transnasal gastroscope. The duration of the procedures was similar in both approaches (12 ±3 minutes oral vs 13±4 minutes nasal).
The most common indications for PEG insertion were neurologic disorders (n=132, 51.6 %), cerebrovascular accident (n=73, 28.5 %), esophageal cancer or head and neck cancer (n=18, 7 %), other pathologies (n=33, 12.9 %). 167 procedures were performed without sedation: 77.8 % ( n= 130) in the nasal group and only 22.1% (n=37) in the oral group. Outpatient regimen PEG placement was also significantly higher in trans nasal group (79 % vs 58 % oral group). We registered 3 major complications, 1 in oral group and 2 in nasal group (one necessitated surgery). No procedure-related death was registered. There were no unplanned re-admissions of outpatients discharged from the gastroenterology unit for procedure-related complications.

Conclusion

The more than twenty years’ experience of our center demonstrates that the transnasal approach is safety, feasible and could be routinely used in daily endoscopic practice for PEG placement. The minimally invasive technique therefore reserves sedation to a few selected cases to reduce costs, improve logistic organization and avoid anesthesia related complications.

References

1. Campo R, Montserrat A, Brullet E. Transnasal gastroscopy compared to conventional gastroscopy: a randomized study of feasibility, safety, and tolerance. Endoscopy. 1998 Jun;30(5):448-52.
2. Schuldt AL, Kirsten H, Tuennemann J, Heindl M, van Bommel F, Feisthammel J, Hollenbach M, Hoffmeister A. Necessity of transnasal gastroscopy in routine diagnostics: a patient-centred requirement analysis. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2019 Apr 14;6(1):e000264.
3. Dumortier J, Lapalus MG, Pereira A, Lagarrigue JP, Chavaillon A, Ponchon T. Unsedated transnasal PEG placement. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Jan;59(1):54-7.
4. Dumortier J, Napoleon B, Hedelius F, Pellissier PE, Leprince E, Pujol B, Ponchon T. Unsedated transnasal EGD in daily practice: results with 1100 consecutive patients. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Feb;57(2):198-204
5. Preiss C, Charton JP, Schumacher B, Neuhaus H. A randomized trial of unsedated transnasal small-caliber esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) versus peroral small-caliber EGD versus conventional EGD. Endoscopy. 2003 Aug;35(8):641-6.

Introduction

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a cornerstone in the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatobiliary diseases. However, it carries the risk of complications including potentially fatal post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Despite ongoing efforts, effective strategies for managing PEP remain unestablished. Current guidelines define PEP based on symptoms and findings occurring within 24 hours after ERCP; however, early diagnosis and intervention may prevent its incidence and severity. Recently, urinary trypsinogen-2 (UT2) has emerged as a potential biomarker for early acute pancreatitis, but its role and the optimal timing for PEP remain unclear. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of UT2 at multiple time points following ERCP.

Aims & Methods

This is a single-center prospective observational study conducted at The University of Tokyo Hospital. Patients who underwent their initial ERCP at our institution between February 2022 and June 2024 were enrolled. Patients with choledochojejunostomy, biliary pancreatitis, or those undergoing hemodialysis were excluded. UT2 levels were measured using a rapid dipstick test before ERCP, immediately after, and at 1 and 3 hours post-procedure. Serum amylase (AMY) levels were measured 3 hours after ERCP. We evaluated the diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy) of UT2 at multiple time points, for the diagnosis of PEP. PEP was defined as an elevation in pancreatic enzyme >3x upper limit of normal with abdominal pain at 24 hours post-pocedure.

Results

A total of 521 patients underwent initial ERCP during the study period, and 337 were included in the final analysis. The median age was 74 years, and 64% were male. A naïve papilla was present in 89% of patients. The indications for ERCP included bile duct stones (39%), malignant biliary obstruction due to pancreatic cancer (13%) or non-pancreatic cancer (18%), benign biliary stricture (5%), diagnostic pancreatogram (24%), and others (1.2%). EST, EPBD, and EPLBD were performed in 37%, 6.5%, and 4.5%, respectively. Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement and rectal NSAIDs administration were performed in 29% and 20%, respectively. PEP occurred in 10% (mild 8.6%, moderate 1.2%, and severe 0.3%) of patients. UT2 demonstrated a trend toward higher sensitivity compared to AMY (AMY: 52.9% vs. UT2 at 0 h: 52.9%, 1 h: 64.7%, 3 h: 64.7%), while AMY exhibited significantly higher specificity (AMY: 92.7% vs. UT2 at 0 h: 65.3%, 1 h: 64.7%, 3 h: 65.0%) and accuracy (AMY: 88.7% vs. UT2 at 0 h: 64.1%, 1 h: 64.7%, 3 h: 65.0%). Notably, 28.5% of patients were positive for UT2 prior to undergoing ERCP. These patients were significantly older (79 vs. 71 years, P < 0.01), more likely to have pancreatic cancer (19.8% vs. 9.5%, P = 0.02), and less likely to have chronic pancreatitis (3.1% vs. 12.9%, P = 0.01). After excluding 96 cases (28.5%) who were UT2-positive before ERCP, we further evaluated the diagnostic performance of UT2 and AMY. UT2 at 0 h had lower sensitivity compared to AMY (AMY: 54.2% vs. UT2 at 0 h: 37.5%, 1 h: 54.2%, 3 h: 54.2%). In contrast, specificity was similarly high across all markers (AMY: 91.7% vs. UT2 at 0 h: 88.9%, 1 h: 87.1%, 3 h: 87.1%). Diagnostic accuracy was comparable between AMY and UT2 (AMY: 88.0% vs. UT2 at 0 h: 83.8%, 1 h: 83.8%, 3 h: 83.8%).

Conclusion

UT2 showed slightly lower predictive performance for PEP compared to AMY. However, excluding UT2-positive pre-ERCP improved the diagnostic accuracy. The diagnostic performance plateaued at 1 hour after ERCP, suggesting its potential utility in predicting PEP earlier.

Disclosure

The author is affiliated with Nipro Corporation through a labor-related arrangement, but has received no financial support or remuneration related to this study.

Introduction

Pancreatic cancer (PC) screening can improve survival in high-risk patients by detecting preneoplastic lesions or early-stage tumors.
Surveillances is mainly based on annual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). However, little has been described regarding the possibility of finding other morphological changes that may be also important.

Aims & Methods

The aim of the study is to evaluate all the findings described in screening test and to analyze the correlation between these two screening techniques.
Descriptive observational single-center study that includes high-risk PC patients either due to family history (familial pancreatic cancer) or because they belong to hereditary syndromes, who have been undergone pancreatic cancer screening at our center from 2015 to 2023. Demographic variables and findings described in the EUS or MRI were collected.

Results

Thirty-five patients were included, with a mean age of 57.3 ± 8.2 years and a predominance of females (65.7%). Four patients (11.4%) were smokers, two were diabetic (5.7%), and one had a history of chronic pancreatitis (2.9%). The median follow-up time was 23 months (interquartile range 8-59 months).
The most frequent hereditary syndrome was hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome (n=19, 54.3%), followed by familial atypical multiple mole melanoma syndrome (n=4; 11.4%). The BRCA2 mutation was the most common identifiable genetic factor (34.8%).
Regarding screening test findings, solid tumors were detected in three patients (8.6%) (Two stage I and IV adenocarcinomas and one stage I neuroendocrine tumor). In two individuals (5.7%) branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm were observed. Other pancreatic abnormalities were detected in 18 patients (51.4%) that include chronic pancreatitis-like parenchymal changes (34.3%), peripancreatic lymph nodes and fatty pancreas (5.7%). Finally, in 12 patients (34.3%) the screening tests were normal.
In relation to the concordance between MRI and EUS, in ten patients (28.6%) there was no agreement between these two techniques. EUS detected more parenchymal changes (n=5), pancreatic steatosis (n=2) and one neuroendocrine tumor that were not described on MRI. In contrast, MRI detected a cystic lesion and a pseudonodular enhancement that were not found on EUS.

Conclusion

Pancreatic cancer screening in high-risk individuals, detects neoplastic and preneoplastic lesions at a high rate.
Other findings, such as chronic pancreatitis-like parenchymal changes, peripancreatic lymph nodes or fatty pancreas, were also common in these patients
MRI and EUS have a good correlation, but EUS detects more parenchymal changes.

References

1. Goggins M, Overbeek KA, Brand R et al. Management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer: updated recommendations from the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium. Gut 2020; 69 (1): 7-17
2. Bogdanski AM, van Hooft JE, Boekestijn B, Bonsing BA, Wasser MNJM, Klatte DCF, van Leerdam ME. Aspects and outcomes of surveillance for individuals at high‑risk of pancreatic cancer. Fam Cancer 2024; 23(3):323-339.
3. Blackford AL, Canto MI, Dbouk M, Hruban RH, Katona BW, Chak A et al. Pancreatic Cancer Surveillance and Survival of High-Risk Individuals. JAMA Oncol. 2024;10(8):1087-1096.
4. Maurer E, Lehman B, Matthäi E, Denzer U, Figiel J, Jseinghaus M et al. Pancreatic cancer screening is effective in individuals at risk with predisposing germline gene variants, but not in gene variant‐negative familial pancreatic cancer families. United European Gastroenterol J 2024; 12 (9): 1211-1221

Introduction

Aims & Methods

Results

SVT was identified in 3.7% of patients diagnosed with acute pancreatitis (73 out of 1,969), with the splenic vein being the most commonly involved segment (69.9%). Compared to patients without SVT (n = 1,896), patients with thrombosis were more frequently male (61.6% vs. 49.0%, p = 0.030) and significantly younger (58.8 ± 14.9 years vs. 63.7 ± 16.6 years, p = 0.001). Among the 73 patients with SVT, 58.9% developed signs of PHT, including splenomegaly (16.4%), collateral circulation (39.7%), and esophageal varices (17.8%), while 8.2% developed ascites and 4.1% experienced variceal bleeding as manifestations of portal hypertension decompensation, during a median follow-up of 4.9 months (range: 0.2–68.8 months). Active smoking was significantly more common in SVT patients than in the control group (24.7% vs. 8.2%, p = 0.001). Subgroup analysis was performed on 45 patients with available follow-up CT scans. Recanalization occurred in 10 out of 45 patients (22.2%). Among the 35 non-recanalized patients, 68.5% developed PHT, and 7 (29.1%) experienced decompensation (2 with variceal bleeding and 5 with ascites). Complete thrombosis, irrespective of splanchnic site, was the only significant predictor of non-recanalization (7.7% in the recanalized group vs. 42.1% in the non-recanalized group, p = 0.006). Anticoagulation showed a trend toward association with recanalization (27.8% in the anticoagulated group vs. 0.0% in the non-anticoagulated group, p = 0.08), although it did not impact overall survival. Two deaths occurred in patients with severe AP and absence of recanalization of SVT.

Conclusion

Introduction

Branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (BD-IPMNs) are frequently associated with acute (AP) or recurrent pancreatitis (RP), likely due to the mucin-induced obstruction of the main pancreatic duct (MPD). According to the 2024 Kyoto Guidelines, pancreatitis represents an indication for surgical evaluation in IPMN patients. However, pancreatic sphincterotomy (PS) may represent a less invasive alternative for patients who are unfit for surgery or as a bridge to surgery, aiming to reduce the risk of further pancreatitis episodes.

Aims & Methods

This single-center retrospective study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of PS in patients with BD-IPMN and RP. We included 33 patients who underwent PS between 2016 and 2023, with at least 12 months of follow-up. Patients with other causes of RP or prior pancreatic surgery were excluded. The frequency of pancreatitis episodes before and after PS was compared. Clinical success was defined as complete resolution or ≥50% reduction in pancreatitis episodes. Adverse events, presence of worrisome features (WF), and progression to high-risk stigmata (HRS) were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using paired t-test and Fisher’s exact test, with p < 0.05 considered significant.

Results

Among the 33 patients analyzed (39.4% female, 60.6% male, mean age 59 ± 13.9 years) clinical success was achieved in 81.8% of the cases. Specifically, 72.7% of the patients experienced no further AP episodes after PS and 9.1% experienced a reduction in episode frequency, while 18.2% of patients did not respond to treatment. Adverse events occurred in 15% of patients, including: 12% with post-ERCP pancreatitis (all mild) and 3% with intra-procedural bleeding; no perforations were reported. During follow-up WF emerged in 5 patients (15%), while no cases of HRS were identified. Among the 6 non-responders, 3 underwent a second PS, with 2 achieving clinical improvement, and 3 underwent duodenocephalopancreasectomy (DCP), including 1 for a concomitant pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) unrelated to IPMN progression. Notably, no cases of IPMN degeneration were observed in the series

Conclusion

Pancreatic sphincterotomy appears to be a safe and effective approach for managing recurrent pancreatitis in patients with BD-IPMN, potentially reducing the need for surgery in selected cases.