Endocut Versus Conventional Blended Electrosurgical Current for Endoscopic Biliary Sphincterotomy: A Meta-Analysis of Complications

Pure cut vs. Endocut in endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Background and study aims Biliary sphincterotomy is a crucial step in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), a procedure known to carry a 5% to 10% risk of complications. The relationship between Pure cut, Endocut, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and bleeding is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared these two current types and their relationships with adverse events. Patients and methods This systematic review involved searching articles in multiple databases until August 2023 comparing pure cut versus Endocut in biliary sphincterotomy. The meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Results A total of 987 patients from four randomized controlled trials were included. Overall pancreatitis: A higher risk of pancreatitis was found in the Endocut group than in the Pure cut group ( P =0.001, RD=0.04 [range, 0.01 to 0.06]; I 2 =29%). Overall immediate bleeding: Statistical significance was found to favor Endocut, ( P =0.05; RD=-0.15 [range, -0.29 to -0.00]; I 2 =93%). No statistical significance between current modes was found in immediate bleeding without endoscopic intervention ( P =0.10; RD=-0.13 [range, -0.29 to 0.02]; I 2 =88%), immediate bleeding with endoscopic intervention ( P =0.06; RD=-0.07 [range, -0.14 to 0.00]; I 2 =76%), delayed bleeding (P=0.40; RD=0.01 [range, -0.02 to 0.05]; I 2 =72%), zipper cut ( P =0.58; RD=-0.03 [range, -0.16 to 0.09]; I 2 =97%), perforation ( P =1.00; RD=0.00 [range, -0.01 to 0.01]; I 2 =0%) and cholangitis ( P =0.77; RD=0.00 [range, -0.01 to 0.02]; I 2 =29%). Conclusions The available data in the literature show that Endocut carries an increased risk for PEP and does not prevent delayed or clinically significant bleeding, although it prevents intraprocedural bleeding. Based on such findings, Pure cut should be the preferred electric current mode for biliary sphincterotomy.

Pure Cut or Endocut for Biliary Sphincterotomy? A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Adverse events (AE) after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are not uncommon and post-ERCP acute pancreatitis (PEP) is the most important one. Thermal injury from biliary sphincterotomy may play an important role and trigger PEP or bleeding. Therefore, this study evaluated the outcomes of 2 electric current modes used during biliary sphincterotomy.

METHODS

From October 2019 to August 2021, consecutive patients with native papilla undergoing ERCP with biliary sphincterotomy were randomized to either the pure cut or endocut after cannulation. The primary outcome was PEP incidence. Secondary outcomes included intraprocedural and delayed bleeding, infection, and perforation.

RESULTS

A total of 550 patients were randomized (272 pure cut and 278 endocut). The overall PEP rate was 4.0% and significantly higher in the endocut group (5.8% vs 2.2%, P = 0.034). Univariate analysis revealed >5 attempts ( P = 0.004) and endocut mode ( P = 0.034) as risk factors for PEP. Multivariate analysis revealed >5 attempts ( P = 0.005) and a trend for endocut mode as risk factors for PEP ( P = 0.052). Intraprocedural bleeding occurred more often with pure cut ( P = 0.018), but all cases were controlled endoscopically during the ERCP. Delayed bleeding was more frequent with endocut ( P = 0.047). There was no difference in perforation ( P = 1.0) or infection ( P = 0.4999) between the groups.

DISCUSSION

Endocut mode may increase thermal injury leading to higher rates of PEP and delayed bleeding, whereas pure cut is associated with increased intraprocedural bleeding without clinical repercussion. The electric current mode is not related to perforation or infection. Further RCT assessing the impact of electric current on AE with overlapping preventive measures such as rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and hyperhydration are needed. The study was submitted to the Brazilian Clinical Trials Platform ( http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br ) under the registry number RBR-5d27tn.

Electrosurgical unit in GI endoscopy: the proper settings for practice

INTRODUCTION

Electrosurgical unit (ESU) is integral to the endoscopy unit. The proper knowledge of the Mode with setting is essential for good therapeutic outcomes and the safety of the patients.

AREAS COVERED

ESU generates high-frequency electric current, which could perform cutting and coagulation for various therapeutic interventions. We review the proper settings for common endoscopic interventions like hemostasis, polypectomy, sphincterotomy, and advanced procedures like endoscopic ultrasound-guided cysto-gastrostomy, bile duct drainage, and endoscopic Ampullectomy. We review the various waveforms of ESU in practice in endoscopy, including special conditions like patients with pacemakers.

EXPERT OPINION

Knowledge of the waveforms' duty cycle and crest factor is necessary. A high-duty cycle and lower crest factor lead to a good cutting effect on the tissue. Endocut is the most commonly used Mode in ESU in endoscopic practices like sphincterotomy and polypectomy. Endocut I mode (effect 1-2, duration 3, interval 3) is used for endoscopic sphincterotomy, while Forced Coag mode (Effect 2, 60 W) controls post-sphincterotomy bleeding. Endocut Q mode (Effect 2-3, duration 1, interval 3) is used for cutting the polyp, while Forced Coag mode (Effect 2, 60 W) is used before cutting for pre-coagulation of the stalk.

Outcomes of cold snare piecemeal EMR for nonampullary small-bowel adenomas larger than 1 cm: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Nonampullary small-bowel adenomas ≥10 mm are typically resected using cautery-based polypectomy, which is associated with significant adverse events. Studies have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of piecemeal cold snare EMR for removing large colon polyps. Our aim was to assess the safety and efficacy of cold snare EMR for removal of large adenomas in the small bowel.

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients who underwent lift and piecemeal cold snare EMR of small-bowel adenomas ≥1 cm between January 2014 and March 2019 was conducted at a tertiary care medical center. Polyp characteristics at the time of index and surveillance endoscopy were collected. Primary outcomes were residual or recurrent adenoma (RRA) seen on surveillance endoscopy, polyp eradication rate, and number of endoscopic procedures required for eradication. Adverse events including immediate and delayed bleeding, perforation, stricture, pancreatitis, and postpolypectomy syndrome were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 43 patients who underwent piecemeal cold snare EMR, 39 had follow-up endoscopy. Polyps ranged in size from 10 to 70 mm (mean, 26.5 mm). RRA was found in 18 patients (46%), with increased polyp size correlating with higher recurrence (P < .001). Polyp eradication was observed in 35 patients (89%), requiring a median of 2 (range, 1-6) endoscopic procedures. Only 1 patient (2.3%) had immediate postprocedural bleeding. No cases of perforation or postpolypectomy syndrome were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

Piecemeal cold snare EMR may be a feasible, safe, and efficacious technique for small-bowel polyps >10 mm. Prospective, randomized studies are needed to assess how outcomes compare with traditional cautery-based polypectomy.

Expert consensus on the clinical application of high-frequency electrosurgery in digestive endoscopy (2020, Shanghai)

High-frequency electrosurgery has been widely applied in digestive endoscopy with constantly expanding indications. However, high-frequency electrosurgery may cause possible complications such as hemorrhage or perforation during or after the procedure, of which endoscopists must be cautious. Digestive endoscopists must have a firm grasp of the principles of high-frequency electrosurgery as well as its safety issues so as to improve the safety of its clinical application. To this end, experts in gastroenterology and hepatology, digestive endoscopy, surgery, nursing and other related fields were invited to draft a consensus on the clinical application of high-frequency electrosurgery in digestive endoscopy based on relevant domestic and international literatures and their experiences.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles, and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

Revising the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) research priorities: a research progress update

BACKGROUND

One of the aims of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is to encourage high quality endoscopic research at a European level. In 2016, the ESGE research committee published a set of research priorities. As endoscopic research is flourishing, we aimed to review the literature and determine whether endoscopic research over the last 4 years had managed to address any of our previously published priorities.

METHODS

As the previously published priorities were grouped under seven different domains, a working party with at least two European experts was created for each domain to review all the priorities under that domain. A structured review form was developed to standardize the review process. The group conducted an extensive literature search relevant to each of the priorities and then graded the priorities into three categories: (1) no longer a priority (well-designed trial, incorporated in national/international guidelines or adopted in routine clinical practice); (2) remains a priority (i. e. the above criterion was not met); (3) redefine the existing priority (i. e. the priority was too vague with the research question not clearly defined).

RESULTS

The previous ESGE research priorities document published in 2016 had 26 research priorities under seven domains. Our review of these priorities has resulted in seven priorities being removed from the list, one priority being partially removed, another seven being redefined to make them more precise, with eleven priorities remaining unchanged. This is a reflection of a rapid surge in endoscopic research, resulting in 27 % of research questions having already been answered and another 27 % requiring redefinition.

CONCLUSIONS

Our extensive review process has led to the removal of seven research priorities from the previous (2016) list, leaving 19 research priorities that have been redefined to make them more precise and relevant for researchers and funding bodies to target.

Severe complications of chronic cholelithiasis treatment

BACKGROUND

Gallstone disease is a burden affecting about 15% percent of the population around the world. The complications of gallstone disease are numerous and many require emergency care. Severe complications are not uncommon and require special attention, as lethal outcome is possible.

CASE PRESENTATION

We present a retrospective analysis of eight cases describing severe complications of gallstones in patients undergoing endoscopic treatment of chronic gallstones conditions. All patients were admitted to our emergency care department following symptoms onset. The diagnostic difficulties, treatment strategies and outcomes are presented. The associated risk factors and preventative measures are discussed. Two patients developed profuse bleeding, two developed acute pancreatitis, two patients had perforation related complications. One rare case of bilioma and one case of iatrogenic injury are presented. All patients had severe condition, in two cases lethal outcome was a result of co-morbidity and difficulties in management.

CONCLUSION

Special care should be taken in patients with risk factors of severe complications in order to improve outcome and prevent the development of life-threatening conditions.

Safety of different electrocautery modes for endoscopic sphincterotomy: a Bayesian network meta-analysis

Background and aims:

Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography acute pancreatitis (PAP) and post-sphincterotomy hemorrhage are known adverse events of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Various electrosurgical currents can be used for endoscopic sphincterotomy. The extent to which this influences adverse events remains unclear. We assessed the comparative safety of different electrosurgical currents, through a Bayesian network meta-analysis of published studies merging direct and indirect comparison of trials.

Methods:

We performed a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared the safety of different electrocautery modes for endoscopic sphincterotomy.

Results:

Nine studies comparing four electrocautery modes (blended cut, pure cut, endocut, and pure cut followed by blended cut) with a combined enrollment of 1615 patients were included. The pooled results of the network meta-analysis did not show a significant difference in preventing post-sphincterotomy pancreatitis when comparing electrocautery modes. However, pure cut was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of bleeding compared with endocut [relative risk = 4.30; 95% confidence interval (1.53–12.87)]. On the other hand, the pooled results of the network meta-analysis showed no significant difference in prevention of bleeding when comparing blended cut versus endocut, pure cut followed by blended cut versus endocut, pure cut followed by blended cut versus blended cut, pure cut versus blended cut, and pure cut versus pure cut followed by blended cut. The results of rank probability found that endocut was most likely to be ranked the best.

Conclusion:

No electrocautery mode was superior to another with regard to preventing PAP. Endocut was superior with respect to preventing bleeding. Therefore, we suggest performing endoscopic sphincterotomy with endocut.

Adverse events after biliary sphincterotomy: Does the electric current mode make a difference? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Biliary sphincterotomy is an invasive method that allows access to the bile ducts, however, this procedure is not exempt of complications. Studies in the literature indicate that the mode of electric current used for sphincterotomy may carry different incidences of adverse events such as pancreatitis, hemorrhage, perforation, and cholangitis.

AIM

To evaluate the safety of different modes of electrical current during biliary sphincterotomy based on incidence of adverse events.

METHODS

We searched articles for this systematic review in Medline, EMBASE, Central Cochrane, Lilacs, and gray literature from inception to September 2019. Data from studies describing different types of electric current were meta-analyzed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The following electric current modalities were evaluated: endocut, blend, pure cut, pure cut followed by blend, monopolar, and bipolar.

RESULTS

A total of 1791 patients from 11 randomized clinical trials evaluating the following comparisons: 1. Endocut vs Blend: No statistical difference in the incidence of bleeding (7% vs 13.4%; RD: -0.11 [-0.31, 0.08], P=0.27, I²=86%), pancreatitis (4.4% vs 3.5%; RD: 0.01 [-0.03, 0.04], P=0.62, I²=48%) and perforation (absence of cases in both arms). 2. Endocut vs Pure cut: Higher incidence of mild bleeding (without drop in hemoglobin levels, clinical repercussion or need for endoscopic intervention) in the pure cut group (9.2% vs 28.8%; RD: -0.19 [-0.27, -0.12], P<0.00001, I²=0%). No statistical difference regarding pancreatitis (5.2% vs 0.9%; RD: 0.05 [-0.01, 0.11], P=0.12, I²=57%), perforation (0.4% vs 0%; RD: 0.00 [-0.01, 0.02], P=0.7, I²=0%) or cholangitis (1.8% vs 3.2%; RD: -0.01 [-0.09, 0.06], P=0,7). 3. Pure cut vs blend: higher incidence of mild bleeding in the pure cut group (40.4% vs 16.7%; RD: 0.24 [0.15, 0.33], P<0.00001, I²=0%). No statistical difference concerning incidence of pancreatitis or cholangitis. 4. Pure cut vs Pure cut followed by Blend: No statistical difference regarding incidence of bleeding (22.5% vs 11.7%; RD: -0.10 [-0.24, 0.04], P=0.18, I²=61%) and pancreatitis (8.9% vs 14.8%; RD 0.06 [-0.02, 0.13], P=0.12, I²=0%). 5. Blend vs pure cut followed by blend: no statistical difference regarding incidence of bleeding and pancreatitis (11.3% vs 10.4%; RD -0.01 [-0.11, 0.09], P=0.82, I²=0%). 6. Monopolar vs bipolar: higher incidence of pancreatitis in the monopolar mode group (12% vs 0%; RD 0.12 [0.02, 0.22], P=0.01).

CONCLUSION

Pure cut carries higher incidences of mild bleeding compared to endocut and blend. However, this modality might present a lower incidence of pancreatitis. The monopolar mode elicits higher rates of pancreatitis in comparison with the bipolar mode. There is no difference in incidence of cholangitis or perforation between different types of electric current. There is a lack of evidence in the literature to recommend one method over the others, therefore new studies are warranted. As there is no perfect electric current mode, the choice in clinical practice must be based on the patient risk factors.