Quality indicators for EUS

Development of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy standards for training in advanced endoscopy within dedicated advanced endoscopy fellowship programs

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Training in interventional endoscopy is offered by nonaccredited advanced endoscopy fellowship programs (AEFPs). The number of these programs has increased dramatically with a concurrent increase in the breadth and complexity of interventional endoscopy procedures. Accreditation is governed by competency-based education, yet what constitutes a "high-quality" nonaccredited AEFP has not been defined. Using an evidence-based consensus process, we aimed to establish standards for AEFPs.

METHODS

The RAND UCLA appropriateness method, a well-described modified Delphi process to develop quality indicators, was used. A task force established by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy drafted potential quality indicators (structure, process, and outcome) in 6 categories: activity preceding training; structure of AEFPs; training in ERCP, EUS, and EMR; and luminal stent placement. Three rounds of iterative feedback from 20 experts were conducted. Round 0 involved discussion of project details. In round 1, experts independently ranked proposed quality indicators on a 9-point interval scale ranging from highly inappropriate (1) to highly appropriate (9). Next, proposed quality indicators were discussed and reworded in a group meeting followed by round 2, in which experts independently reranked proposed quality indicators and provided benchmarks (when applicable). The median score for each quality indicator was calculated. Mean absolute deviation from the median was calculated, and appropriateness of potential quality indicators was assessed using the BIOMED concerted action on appropriateness definition, P value method, and interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry definition. A quality indicator was deemed appropriate if the median score was ≥7 and met criteria for appropriateness using all 3 defined statistical methods.

RESULTS

Of 89 proposed quality indicators, 37 statements met criteria as appropriate for a quality indicator (activity preceding training, 2; structure of AEFPs, 10; training in ERCP, 7; training in EUS, 8; training in EMR, 7; luminal stent placement, 3). Minimum thresholds were defined for 19 relevant quality indicators for number of trainers, procedures during fellowship, and procedures before assessment of competence. Among the final appropriate quality indicators were that all trainees should undergo qualitative and quantitative competence assessments using validated tools at least quarterly with documented feedback throughout the training period and that trainees should track outcomes and relevant quality metrics for specific procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

This consensus process using validated methodology established standards for an AEFP in an effort to ensure adequate training in the most commonly taught interventional endoscopic procedures (ERCP, EUS, EMR, and luminal stent placement) during fellowship. An important component of an AEFP is the use of competency-based assessments that are compliant with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's Next Accreditation System, with the goal of ensuring that trainees achieve specific milestones in their progression to achieving cognitive and technical competency.

Quality indicators of endoscopic ultrasound in the pancreatobiliary system: a brief review of current guidelines

Since its development, the use of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in the pancreas and the biliary tract has become increasingly important. The accuracy of EUS varies depending on the experience of the endoscopist. Hence, quality control measures using appropriate indicators are required to reduce these variations. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy have announced the EUS quality indicators. Here, we reviewed the quality indicators of the EUS procedure in the current published guidelines.

UK and Ireland Joint Advisory Group (JAG) consensus statements for training and certification in diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

International endoscopy societies vary in their approach for credentialing individuals in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) to enable independent practice; however, there is no consensus in this or its implementation. In 2019, the Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy (JAG) commissioned a working group to examine the evidence relating to this process for EUS. The aim of this was to develop evidence-based recommendations for EUS training and certification in the UK.

METHODS

Under the oversight of the JAG quality assurance team, a modified Delphi process was conducted which included major stakeholders from the UK and Ireland. A formal literature review was made, initial questions for study were proposed and recommendations for training and certification in EUS were formulated after a rigorous assessment using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool and subjected to electronic voting to identify accepted statements. These were peer reviewed by JAG and relevant stakeholder societies before consensus on the final EUS certification pathway was achieved.

RESULTS

39 initial questions were proposed of which 33 were deemed worthy of assessment and finally formed the key recommendations. The statements covered four key domains, such as: definition of competence (13 statements), acquisition of competence (10), assessment of competence (5) and postcertification mentorship (5). Key recommendations include: (1) minimum of 250 hands-on cases before an assessment for competency can be made, (2) attendance at the JAG basic EUS course, (3) completing a minimum of one formative direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) every 10 cases to allow the learning curve in EUS training to be adequately studied, (4) competent performance in summative DOPS assessments and (5) a period of mentorship over a 12-month period is recommended as minimum to support and mentor new service providers.

CONCLUSIONS

An evidence-based certification pathway has been commissioned by JAG to support and quality assure EUS training. This will form the basis to improve quality of training and safety standards in EUS in the UK and Ireland.

Validation of a real-time biliopancreatic endoscopic ultrasonography analytical device in China: a prospective, single-centre, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is a key procedure for the diagnosis of biliopancreatic diseases. However, the performance among EUS endoscopists varies greatly and leads to blind spots during the operation, which can impair the health outcomes of patients. We previously developed an artificial intelligence (AI) device that accurately identified EUS standard stations and significantly reduced the difficulty of ultrasonography image interpretation. In this study, we updated the device (named EUS-IREAD) and validated its performance in improving the quality of EUS procedures.

METHODS

In this single-centre, randomised, controlled trial, we updated EUS-IREAD so it consisted of five learning models to identify eight EUS stations and 24 anatomical structures. The trial was done at the Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University (Wuhan, China) and included patients aged 18 years or older with suspected biliopancreatic (pancreas and biliopancreatic duct) lesions due to clinical symptoms, radiological findings, or laboratory findings, and with a high risk of pancreatic cancer. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a dedicated research assistant using a computer-generated random number series (with a block size of four) to undergo the EUS procedure with or without the assistance of EUS-IREAD. Endoscopists in the EUS-IREAD-assisted group were required to observe all standard stations and anatomical structures according to the prompts by the AI device. Data collectors, the independent data anaylsis team, and patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was the missed scanning rate of standard stations between the two groups, which was assessed in patients who underwent EUS procedure in accordance with the assigned intervention (per protocol). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05457101.

FINDINGS

Between July 9, 2022, and Feb 28, 2023, 290 patients (mean age 55·93 years [SD 14·06], 152 [52%] male, and 138 [48%] female) were randomly assigned and analysed, including 144 in the EUS-IREAD-assisted group and 146 in the control group. The EUS-IREAD-assisted group had a lower missed scanning rate of stations than the control group (4·5% [SD 0·8] vs 14·3% [1·0], -9·8% [95% CI -12·2 to -7·5]; odds ratio 3·6 [95% Cl 2·6 to 4·9]; p<0·0001). No significant adverse event was found during the study.

INTERPRETATION

Our study confirms the capability of EUS-IREAD to monitor the blind spots and reduce the missed rate of stations and structures during EUS procedures. The EUS-IREAD has the potential to play an essential part in EUS quality control.

FUNDING

Innovation Team Project of Health Commission of Hubei Province and College-enterprise Deepening Reform Project of Wuhan University.

Diagnostic performance of endoscopic tissue acquisition for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the PREOPANC and PREOPANC-2 trials

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant treatment for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has increased, necessitating histopathologic confirmation of cancer. This study evaluates the performance of endoscopic tissue acquisition (TA) procedures for borderline resectable and resectable PDAC.

METHODS

Pathology reports of patients included in two nationwide randomized controlled trials (PREOPANC and PREOPANC-2) were reviewed. The primary outcome was sensitivity for malignancy (SFM), considering both "suspicious for" and "malignant" as positive. Secondary outcomes were rate of adequate sampling (RAS) and diagnoses other than PDAC.

RESULTS

Overall, 892 endoscopic procedures were performed in 617 patients, including endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided TA in 550 (89.1%), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-guided brush cytology in 188 (30.5%), and periampullary biopsies in 61 patients (9.9%). The SFM was 85.2% for EUS, 88.2% for repeat EUS, 52.7% for ERCP, and 37.7% for periampullary biopsies. The RAS ranged 94-100%. Diagnoses other than PDAC were other periampullary cancers in 24 (5.4%), premalignant disease in five (1.1%), and pancreatitis in three patients (0.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-guided TA of patients with borderline resectable and resectable PDAC included in RCTs had an SFM above 85% for both first and repeat procedures, meeting international standards. Two percent had false positive result for malignancy and 5% had other (non-PDAC) periampullary cancers.

Umbrella systematic review of potential quality indicators for the detection of dysplasia and cancer at upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Background and study aims Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy lacks established quality indicators. We conducted an umbrella systematic review of potential quality indicators for the detection of UGI cancer and dysplasia. Methods Bibliographic databases were searched up to December 2021 for systematic reviews and primary studies. Studies reporting diagnostic accuracy, detection rates or the association of endoscopy or endoscopist-related factors with UGI cancer or dysplasia detection were included. AMSTAR2 and JBI checklists were used to assess systematic review and primary study quality. Clinical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis and findings are summarized narratively. Results Eight systematic reviews and nine primary studies were included. Image enhancement, especially narrow band imaging, had high diagnostic accuracy for dysplasia and early gastric cancer (pooled sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.84-0.89) and specificity 0.97 (0.97-0.98)). Higher detection rates with longer endoscopy examination times were reported in three studies, but no difference was observed in one study. Endoscopist biopsy rate was associated with increased gastric cancer detection (odds ratio 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-2.9). Early esophageal cancer (0.17% vs 0.14%, P =0.04) and gastric cancer (0.16% vs 0.12%, P =0.02) detection rates were higher with propofol sedation compared to no sedation. Endoscopies performed by trained endoscopists on dedicated Barrett's surveillance lists had higher detection rates (8% vs 3%, P <0.001). The neoplasia detection rate during diagnostic endoscopies for Barrett's esophagus was 7% (95% CI 4%-10%). Conclusions Image enhancement use, longer examination times, biopsy rate and propofol sedation are potential quality indicators for UGI endoscopy. Neoplasia detection rate and dedicated endoscopy lists are additional potential quality indicators for Barrett's esophagus.

Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) Guided Elastography

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an essential technique for the management of several diseases. Over the years, new technologies have been developed to improve and overcome certain limitations related to EUS-guided tissue acquisition. Among these new methods, EUS-guided elastography, which is a real-time method for the evaluation of tissue stiffness, has arisen as one of the most widely recognized and available. At present, there are available two different systems to perform an elastographic evaluation: strain elastography and shear wave elastography. Strain elastography is based on the knowledge that certain diseases lead to a change in tissue hardness while shear wave elastography monitored shear-wave propagation and measures its velocity. EUS-guided elastography has shown in several studies high accuracy in differentiating benign from malignant lesions from many different locations, mostly in the pancreas and lymph nodes. Therefore, nowadays, there are well-established indications for this technology, mainly for supporting the management of pancreatic diseases (diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis and differential diagnosis of solid pancreatic tumors) and characterization of different diseases. However, there are more data on new potential indications for the near future. In this review, we will present the theoretical bases of this technology and we will discuss the scientific evidence to support its use.

The Saudi Gastroenterology Association guidelines for quality indicators in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

The quality and safety of gastrointestinal endoscopy varies considerably across regions and facilities worldwide. In this field, quality management has traditionally focused on individual performance of endoscopists, with most indicators addressing process measures and limited evidence of improvement in health outcomes. Indicators of quality can be classified according to their nature and sequence. The various professional societies and organizations have proposed many systems of indicators, but a universal system is necessary so that healthcare professionals are not overburdened and confused with a variety of quality improvement approaches. In this paper, we propose guidelines by the Saudi Gastroenterology Association pertaining to quality in endoscopic procedures aiming to improve the awareness of endoscopy unit staff toward important quality indications to enhance and standardize quality of care provided to our patients.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy with or without macroscopic on-site evaluation: a randomized controlled noninferiority trial

BACKGROUND : The advantage of using the macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) technique during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) performed with 22G Franseen needles has not been investigated. We aimed to compare EUS-FNB with MOSE vs. EUS-FNB performed with three needle passes. METHODS : This randomized trial involved 10 Italian referral centers. Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNB of pancreatic or nonpancreatic solid lesions were included in the study and randomized to the two groups. MOSE was performed by gross visualization of the collected material by the endoscopists and considered adequate when a white/yellowish aggregate core longer than 10 mm was retrieved. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were specimen adequacy, number of needle passes, and safety. RESULTS : 370 patients with 234 pancreatic lesions (63.2 %) and 136 nonpancreatic lesions (36.8 %) were randomized (190 EUS-FNB with MOSE and 180 with standard EUS-FNB). No statistically significant differences were found between EUS-FNB with MOSE and conventional EUS-FNB in terms of diagnostic accuracy (90.0 % [95 %CI 84.8 %-93.9 %] vs. 87.8 % [95 %CI 82.1 %-92.2 %]; P = 0.49), sample adequacy (93.1 % [95 %CI 88.6 %-96.3 %] vs. 95.5 % [95 %CI 91.4 %-98 %]; P = 0.31), and rate of adverse events (2.6 % vs. 1.1 %; P = 0.28). The median number of passes was significantly lower in the EUS-FNB with MOSE group (1 vs. 3; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS : The accuracy of EUS-FNB with MOSE is noninferior to that of EUS-FNB with three needle passes. MOSE reliably assesses sample adequacy and reduces the number of needle passes required to obtain the diagnosis with a 22G Franseen needle.

EUS development in China: Results from national surveys in 2013 and 2020

Background and Objectives

EUS has recently gained attraction in mainland China. This study aimed to evaluate the development of EUS from results of two national surveys.

Methods

EUS-related information, including infrastructure, personnel, volume, and quality indicator, was extracted from the Chinese Digestive Endoscopy Census. Data from 2012 and 2019 were compared, and differences among various hospitals and regions were analyzed. The EUS rates (EUS annual volume per 100,000 inhabitants) between China and developed countries were also compared.

Results

The number of hospitals performing EUS in mainland China increased from 531 to 1236 (2.33-fold), and 4025 endoscopists performed EUS in 2019. The volumes of all EUS and interventional EUS increased from 207,166 to 464,182 (2.24-fold) and 10,737 to 15,334 (1.43-fold), respectively. The EUS rate in China was lower than that in developed countries but showed a higher growth rate. EUS rate varied substantially among different provincial regions (in 2019: 4.9-152.0 per 100,000 inhabitants) and showed significant positive association with gross domestic product per capita (in 2019: r = 0.559, P = 0.001). The EUS-FNA-positive rate in 2019 was comparable between hospitals in terms of annual volume (≥50 or < 50: 79.9% vs. 71.6%, P = 0.704) and practice duration (starting EUS-FNA before or after 2012: 78.7% vs. 72.6%, P = 0.565).

Conclusion

EUS has developed considerably in China in recent years but still needs substantial improvement. More resources are in demand for hospitals in less-developed regions and with low EUS volume.

Endoscopic ultrasonography: Enhancing diagnostic accuracy

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an essential technique for the management of several diseases. Over the years, new technologies have been developed because to improve and overcome certain limitations related to EUS guided tissue acquisition. Among these new methods, EUS guided elastography and contrast enhanced EUS has arisen as the most widely recognized and available. We will review in this manuscript the different techniques of elastography and contrast enhancement. Nowadays, there are well establish indications for advance imaging, mainly for supporting the management of pancreatic diseases (diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis and differential diagnosis of solid and cystic pancreatic tumors) and characterization of lymph nodes. However, there are more data on new potential indications for the near future.

Quality indicators for capsule endoscopy and deep enteroscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Capsule endoscopy (CE) and deep enteroscopy (DE) can be useful for diagnosing and treating suspected small-bowel disease. Guidelines and detailed recommendations exist for the use of CE/DE, but comprehensive quality indicators are lacking. The goal of this task force was to develop quality indicators for appropriate use of CE/DE by using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

METHODS

An expert panel of 7 gastroenterologists with diverse practice experience was assembled to identify quality indicators. A literature review was conducted to develop a list of proposed quality indicators applicable to preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure periods. The panelists reviewed the literature; identified and modified proposed quality indicators; rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, validity, and necessity; and determined proposed performance targets. Agreement and consensus with the proposed indicators were verified using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

RESULTS

The voting procedure to prioritize metrics emphasized selecting measures to improve quality and overall patient care. Panelists rated indicators on the perceived appropriateness and necessity for clinical practice. After voting and discussion, 2 quality indicators ranked as inappropriate or uncertain were excluded. Each quality indicator was categorized by measure type, performance target, and summary of evidence. The task force identified 13 quality indicators for CE and DE.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive quality indicators have not existed for CE or DE. The task force identified quality indicators that can be incorporated into clinical practice. The panel also addressed existing knowledge gaps and posed research questions to better inform future research and quality guidelines for these procedures.

Quality Indicators for Capsule Endoscopy and Deep Enteroscopy

INTRODUCTION

Capsule endoscopy (CE) and deep enteroscopy (DE) can be useful for diagnosing and treating suspected small-bowel disease. Guidelines and detailed recommendations exist for the use of CE/DE, but comprehensive quality indicators are lacking. The goal of this task force was to develop quality indicators for appropriate use of CE/DE by using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

METHODS

An expert panel of 7 gastroenterologists with diverse practice experience was assembled to identify quality indicators. A literature review was conducted to develop a list of proposed quality indicators applicable to preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure periods. The panelists reviewed the literature; identified and modified proposed quality indicators; rated them on the basis of scientific evidence, validity, and necessity; and determined proposed performance targets. Agreement and consensus with the proposed indicators were verified using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

RESULTS

The voting procedure to prioritize metrics emphasized selecting measures to improve quality and overall patient care. Panelists rated indicators on the perceived appropriateness and necessity for clinical practice. After voting and discussion, 2 quality indicators ranked as inappropriate or uncertain were excluded. Each quality indicator was categorized by measure type, performance target, and summary of evidence. The task force identified 13 quality indicators for CE and DE.

DISCUSSION

Comprehensive quality indicators have not existed for CE or DE. The task force identified quality indicators that can be incorporated into clinical practice. The panel also addressed existing knowledge gaps and posed research questions to better inform future research and quality guidelines for these procedures.

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Indications for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) in Patients with Pancreatic and Biliary Disease—Novel Interventional Procedures

There is growing evidence supporting the substantial, essential and indispensable role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) as a key diagnostic armamentarium for upper GI oncologic surgery. Well described in countless publications, EUS holds that position in gastroenterological expert centers all over Europe. Despite its undisputable contributions to oncologic upper GI surgery, the availability of this technique at the expert level shows up in an irregular spread pattern. Endoscopic ultrasound’s primary use during the first few years after its creation was the detection of pancreatic cancer. From then on, EUS developed in different directions, becoming a diagnostic tool that increasingly better defines its status as a method of minimally invasive therapeutic applications and a useful addition to surgical options. As a result, several surgical interventions could even be replaced by ultrasound-targeted interventions. This process took place in just a few years and was made possible by technical development that sensibly combined high-resolution ultrasound with therapeutic endoscopy. The present article will serve to cover the most prevalent uses with supporting data considering the growing list of suggested indications for EUS while also examining cutting-edge initiatives that might soon become the standard of clinical practice. Endoscopic centers with high expertise are needed to train future experts in the growing field of EUS interventions.

Utilization and quality assessment of digestive endoscopy in China: results from 5-year consecutive nationwide surveys

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, the volume and availability of digestive endoscopy have undergone dramatic development in recent years, with increasing attention on quality assurance. We investigated the utilization and quality of digestive endoscopy in China from 2015 to 2019 and developed a quantitative quality evaluation tool for medical institutions.

METHODS

We invited all tertiary/secondary hospitals in Chinese mainland to participate in the survey annually. The questionnaires included the personnel, annual volume, and quality indicators of endoscopy. An endoscopy quality index (EQI) was developed based on recorded quality indicators using principal component analysis to determine the relative weight.

RESULTS

From 2015 to 2019, 806, 1412, 2644, 2468, and 2541 hospitals were respectively enrolled in this study. The average annual volume of endoscopy increased from 12,445 to 16,206 (1.30-fold) and from 2938 to 4255 (1.45-fold) in tertiary and secondary hospitals, respectively. The most obvious growth was observed in diagnostic colonoscopy (1.44-fold for all hospitals after standardization). The proportion of early cancer among all esophageal and gastric cancers during diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy increased from 12.3% (55,210/448,861) to 17.7% (85,429/482,647) and from 11.4% (69,411/608,866) to 16.9% (107,192/634,235), respectively. The adenoma detection rate of diagnostic colonoscopy increased from 14.9% (2,118,123/14,215,592) to 19.3% (3,943,203/20,431,104). The EQI model included 12 quality indicators, incorporating 64.9% (7.792/12) of the total variance into one comprehensive index. According to the EQI measurements, the quality of endoscopy was higher in tertiary hospitals and hospitals in developed areas with higher volume or more endoscopists than that in other hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Digestive endoscopy in China has developed considerably in recent years in terms of both volume and quality. The EQI is a promising tool to quantify the quality of endoscopy at different hospitals.

Cumulative sum learning curves guiding multicenter multidisciplinary quality improvement of EUS-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions

Background and study aims  In this study, we evaluated the performance of community hospitals involved in the Dutch quality in endosonography team regarding yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (TA) of solid pancreatic lesions using cumulative sum (CUSUM) learning curves. The aims were to assess trends in quality over time and explore potential benefits of CUSUM as a feedback-tool. Patients and methods  All consecutive EUS-guided TA procedures for solid pancreatic lesions were registered in five community hospitals between 2015 and  2018. CUSUM learning curves were plotted for overall performance and for performance per center. The American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-defined key performance indicators, rate of adequate sample (RAS), and diagnostic yield of malignancy (DYM) were used for this purpose. Feedback regarding performance was provided on multiple occasions at regional interest group meetings during the study period. Results  A total of 431 EUS-guided TA procedures in 403 patients were included in this study. The overall and per center CUSUM curves for RAS improved over time. CUSUM curves for DYM revealed gradual improvement, reaching the predefined performance target (70 %) overall, and in three of five contributing centers in 2018. Analysis of a sudden downslope development in the CUSUM curve of DYM in one center revealed temporary absence of a senior cytopathologist to have had a temporary negative impact on performance. Conclusions  CUSUM-derived learning curves allow for assessment of best practices by comparison among peers in a multidisciplinary multicenter quality improvement initiative and proved to be a valuable and easy-to-interpret means to evaluate EUS performance over time.

Overview of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Quality Standards and Indicators for Pediatric Endoscopy: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

Pediatric-specific quality standards for endoscopy are needed to define best practices, while measurement of associated indicators is critical to guide quality improvement. The international Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) working group was assembled to develop and define quality standards and indicators for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures through a rigorous guideline consensus process.

METHODS

The Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument guided PEnQuIN members, recruited from 31 centers of various practice types representing 11 countries, in generating and refining proposed quality standards and indicators. Consensus was sought via an iterative online Delphi process, and finalized at an in-person conference. Quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

Forty-nine quality standards and 47 indicators reached consensus, encompassing pediatric endoscopy facilities, procedures, endoscopists, and the patient experience. The evidence base for PEnQuIN standards and indicators was largely adult-based and observational, and downgraded for indirectness, imprecision, and study limitations to "very low" quality, resulting in "conditional" recommendations for most standards (45/49).

CONCLUSIONS

The PEnQuIN guideline development process establishes international agreement on clinically meaningful metrics that can be used to promote safety and quality in endoscopic care for children. Through PEnQuIN, pediatric endoscopists and endoscopy services now have a framework for auditing, providing feedback, and ultimately, benchmarking performance. Expansion of evidence and prospective validation of PEnQuIN standards and indicators as predictors of clinically relevant outcomes and high-quality pediatric endoscopic care is now a research priority.

A core curriculum for basic EUS skills: An international consensus using the Delphi methodology

Background and Objectives:

Materials and Methods:

Results:

Conclusions:

Two Needle Passes Achieve Similar Diagnostic Yield Compared to Three Passes Regarding Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration

Current guidelines advocate 3–4 passes with a fine-needle aspiration (FNA) to achieve high rates of diagnostic samples for malignancy when performing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions, in the absence of on-site cytologic evaluation. The aim of this study is to compare 2 vs. 3 needle passes in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions in terms of incremental diagnostic yield and to identify factors associated with the procedure’s outcome. In this retrospective study, 2 passes of EUS-FNA were found to have similar diagnostic yield compared to 3 passes for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses, suggesting that there might be no significant incremental tissue yield when 3 passes are performed.

Important Quality Metrics and Standardization in Endoscopy

Quality metrics and standardization has become critical as the Affordable Care Act mandates that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services change reimbursement from volume to a value-based system. While the most commonly used quality indicators are related to that of colonoscopy, quality metrics for other procedures and endoscopy units have been developed mainly by the American College of Gastroenterology and the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Data to show that these quality metrics, especially in the field of advanced endoscopy as well as in the era of COVID-19 pandemic, can improve patient outcomes, are anticipated.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-needle Biopsy With or Without Rapid On-site Evaluation for Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The benefit of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) has never been evaluated in a randomized study. This trial aimed to test the hypothesis that in solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB without ROSE was not inferior to that of EUS-FNB with ROSE.

METHODS

A noninferiority study (noninferiority margin, 5%) was conducted at 14 centers in 8 countries. Patients with SPLs requiring tissue sampling were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo EUS-FNB with or without ROSE using new-generation FNB needles. The touch-imprint cytology technique was used to perform ROSE. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy, and secondary endpoints were safety, tissue core procurement, specimen quality, and sampling procedural time.

RESULTS

Eight hundred patients were randomized over an 18-month period, and 771 were analyzed (385 with ROSE and 386 without). Comparable diagnostic accuracies were obtained in both arms (96.4% with ROSE and 97.4% without ROSE, P = .396). Noninferiority of EUS-FNB without ROSE was confirmed with an absolute risk difference of 1.0% (1-sided 90% confidence interval, -1.1% to 3.1%; noninferiority P < .001). Safety and sample quality of histologic specimens were similar in both groups. A significantly higher tissue core rate was obtained by EUS-FNB without ROSE (70.7% vs. 78.0%, P = .021), with a significantly shorter mean sampling procedural time (17.9 ± 8.8 vs 11.7 ± 6.0 minutes, P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy in evaluating SPLs independently on execution of ROSE. When new-generation FNB needles are used, ROSE should not be routinely recommended. (ClinicalTrial.gov number NCT03322592.).

Rapid On-Site Evaluation by Endosonographer of Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Aspiration of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

Rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) by cytopathologists during endoscopic ultrasound-fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) improves adequacy and diagnostic accuracy while reducing the number of needle passes. We evaluated the usefulness of ROSE performed by the endosonographer.

METHODS

Patients with an SPL were randomly assigned to EUS-FNA with ROSE or non-ROSE. Procedure duration, number of needle passes, specimen adequacy, and adverse event rates were compared.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients were enrolled (33 in the ROSE vs 32 in the non-ROSE group). Both groups were similar in terms of age, sex, size, and location of the lesion. Specimen adequacy rates were high and similar between groups. Mean (standard deviation) procedure duration was shorter in the ROSE versus non-ROSE group (30.0 [11.3] vs 37.0 [7.2] minutes, P < 0.005), as well as the mean (standard deviation) number of needle passes (2.6 [0.8] vs 3.5 [0.8], P < 0.005). Accuracy parameters as sensitivity and accuracy of ROSE by the endosonographer for malignancy were 93% and 88%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

After specific training, the endosonographer can accurately evaluate samples during EUS-FNA of SPL, allowing for a shorter procedure duration and a lower number of needle passes.

Quality metrics in the performance of EUS: a population-based observational cohort of the United States

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There are few data on the quality of EUS in the community setting. We characterized EUS performance at the individual facility level in 3 large American states, using need for repeat biopsy (NRB) as a metric for procedural failure, and the rate of unplanned hospital encounters (UHEs) as a metric for adverse events.

METHODS

We collected data on 76,614 EUS procedures performed at 166 facilities in California, Florida, and New York (2009-2014). The endpoints for the study were 7-day rate of UHEs after EUS, and 30-day rate of NRB after EUS with fine-needle aspiration. Facility-level factors analyzed included annual procedure volume, urban/rural location, and free-standing status (facilities not attached to a larger hospital). Predictors for UHE and NRB were analyzed in both multivariable regression and nonparametric local regression.

RESULTS

Facility volume did not predict risk for UHEs. However, high facility volume protected against NRB (P trend <.001) even after adjustment for other facility-level factors. When regressing facility volume against risk for NRB in local regression, a join point (inflection point) was identified at 97 procedures per annum. Once facilities reached this threshold volume, there appeared little additional protective effect of higher volume. Rural facility location (odds ratio, 1.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-2.40) and free-standing status (odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.13) were also associated with NRB.

CONCLUSION

Facility volume does not predict risk for adverse events after EUS. However, high facility volume is associated with decreased rates of technical failure (as assessed by NRB). These data provide one of the first descriptions of EUS practice in community settings and highlight opportunities to improve endoscopic quality nationally.

Accuracy and other quality indicators of solid pancreatic mass endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsy in two academic endoscopy centers

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/FNB) is highly accurate, but discrepancies between cytological and surgical diagnoses are still observed. We aimed to determine its accuracy and monitor quality indicators in our facilities.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of all cases of pancreatic solid lesions evaluated by EUS-FNA/FNB, between July 2015 and June 2018, in two centers. Cytological and surgical findings were categorized into five groups: benign, malignant, suspect of malignancy, undetermined and insufficient for diagnosis. Final diagnosis was based on surgical diagnosis and, in patients who did not undergo surgery, on clinical outcome after 6 months follow-up.

RESULTS

Altogether, 142 patients were included. FNA was the preferred tissue acquisition method (88%), with a predilection for the FNA 22G needle (57%). Cytology was insufficient for diagnosis in 2 cases, therefore a full diagnostic sample was available in 98.6% of the patients (>90%, ESGE target). Fifty-five (38.7%) patients underwent surgery. In term of cancer diagnosis, comparison with final surgical pathology (n=55) revealed 89% true positives, 5.5% true negatives, 3.6% false positives and 1.8% false negatives. When combining surgical diagnosis and clinical outcomes together, EUS-guided sampling sensitivity was 97.4% (92.5-99.5), specificity was 92.3% (74.9-99.1), positive predictive value was 98.2% (93.6- 99.5), negative predictive value was 88.9% (72.3-96.1) and accuracy was 96.4% (91.9-98.8). Post-procedural acute pancreatitis was reported in 2 patients (1.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

These results reveal a performance for diagnostic tissue sampling well above the ESGE proposed target standard. Also, the uncommon high specificity illustrates the determining role of the pathologist's final interpretation and diagnosis.

Quality of reporting in endoscopic ultrasound: Results of an international multicenter survey (the QUOREUS study)

Background and study aims  The endoscopic report has a key role in quality improvement for gastrointestinal endoscopy. High quality standards have been set by the endoscopic societies in this field. Unlike other digestive endoscopy procedures, the quality of reporting in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has not been thoroughly evaluated and a reference standard is lacking. Methods  We performed an international online survey concerning the attitudes of endosonographers towards EUS reports in order to understand the needs for standardization and quality improvement. Endosonographers from different countries and institutional setting, with varying case volume and experience were invited to take part to complete a structured questionnaire. Results  We collected replies from 171 endosonographers. Overall analysis of results according to case volume, experience and working environment of respondents (academic, public hospital, private) are provided. In brief, everyone agreed on the need for standardization of EUS reporting. The use of minimal standard terminology and a structured tree with mandatory items was considered of primary importance. Image documentation was also deemed fundamental in complementing EUS reports both for patient documentation and research purposes. A strong demand for connection and consultation among endosonographers for clinical and training needs was also found. In this respect, a formal expert consultation network was advocated in order to improve the quality of reporting in EUS. Conclusions  Our survey showed a strong agreement among endosonographers who expressed the need for a standardization in order to improve the report and, as a consequence, the quality of EUS.

GAPS-EUS: a new and reliable tool for the assessment of basic skills and performance in EUS among endosonography trainees

Objective

Endosonography (EUS) is a useful but complex diagnostic modality which requires advanced endoscopy training and guidance by a supervisor. Since learning curves vary among individuals, assessment of the actual competence among EUS trainees is important.

Design/methods

We designed a novel assessment tool entitled Global Assessment of Performance and Skills in EUS (GAPS-EUS) for assessing skills among EUS trainees. Five quality indicators were marked on a five-grade scale by the supervisor (Observer Score) and by the trainee (Trainee Score). Trainees were included in two high-volume centres (Gothenburg, Sweden, and Bologna, Italy). Outcomes were feasibility, patient safety, reliability, and validity of GAPS-EUS in trainee-performed EUS procedures.

Results

Twenty-two EUS-trainees were assessed in a total of 157 EUS procedures with a completion rate of 157/157 (100 %) and a patient adverse event rate of 2/157 (1.3 %; gastroenteritis n=1, fever n=1). GAPS-EUS showed a high measurement reliability (Cronbach’s alpha coefficient=0.87) and a high inter-rater reliability comparing the supervisor and the trainee (r=0.83, r²=0.69, p<0.001). The construct of GAPS-EUS was verified by comparing low-level and high-level performance procedures and the content validity by recording that the EUS-FNA manoeuvre resulted in a lower score than other aspects of EUS 3.07 (95% CI 2.91 to 3.23) vs 3.51 (95% CI 3.37 to 3.65) (p<0.001). External validity was confirmed via similar findings in both centres.

Conclusion

GAPS-EUS is an easy-to-use and reliable tool with a recorded high validity for the assessment of competence among trainees in EUS. It can be recommended to centres involved in the education of future endosonographers.

Trial registration number

NCT02455570.

Comparative diagnostic accuracy of EUS needles in solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling is the standard of care for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions. While many two-way comparisons between needle types have been made in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is unclear which size and type of needle offers the best probability of diagnosis. We therefore performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare different sized and shaped needles to rank the diagnostic performance of each needle. Methods  We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases through August, 2020 for RCTs that compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and biopsy (FNB) needles in solid pancreatic masses. Using a random-effects NMA under the frequentist framework, RCTs were analyzed to identify the best needle type and sampling technique. Performance scores (P-scores) were used to rank the different needles based on pooled diagnostic accuracy. The NMA model was used to calculate pairwise relative risk (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals. Results  Review of 2577 studies yielded 29 RCTs for quantitative synthesis, comparing 13 different needle types. All 22G FNB needles had an RR > 1 compared to the reference 22G FNA (Cook) needle. The highest P-scores were seen with the 22G Medtronic FNB needle (0.9279), followed by the 22G Olympus FNB needle (0.8962) and the 22G Boston Scientific FNB needle (0.8739). Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between needles with or without suction. Conclusions  In comparison to FNA needles, FNB needles offer the highest diagnostic performance in sampling pancreatic masses, particularly with 22G FNB needles.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in children and adults: How do they differ?

Gastrointestinal endoscopy has grown dramatically over the past century, and with subsequent improvements in technology and anaesthesia, it has become a safe and useful tool for evaluation of GI pathology in children. There are substantial differences between paediatric and adult endoscopy beyond size, including: age-related patho-physiology and the different spectrum of diseases in children. Literature on endoscopic procedures in children is sparse but significant. The present review aims at describing the current knowledges on paediatric endoscopy practice and highlights the main areas of differences between paediatric and adult practice.

Factors influencing diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in pancreatic and biliary tumors

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is influenced by several factors, primarily operator expertise. Formal training in EUS-FNA, as suggested by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, is not always available and is often expensive and time-consuming. In this study we evaluate factors influencing the diagnostic accuracy of pancreatic EUS-FNA.

METHODS

In a retrospective study, 557 consecutive EUS-FNAs were evaluated. Several variables relating to the procedures were considered to calculate the EUS-FNA performance over eight years.

RESULTS

A total of 308 out of 557 EUS-FNAs were selected. Overall sensitivity of EUS-FNA was 66% (95% CI: 60.8-71.8), specificity 100%, and diagnostic accuracy 69% (95% CI: 64.0-74.4). An increase in diagnostic accuracy was observed to >90% using a new fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle and in the case of simultaneous sampling of primary and metastatic lesions. Diagnostic accuracy >80% was observed after 250 procedures, in the absence of rapid on-site cytopathological examination (ROSE). Multivariate logistic regression analysis confirmed that the FNB needle, operator skill, and double EUS-FNA sampling are associated with high diagnostic accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

The learning curve for EUS-FNA may be longer and a considerable number of procedures are needed to achieve high diagnostic accuracy in the absence of ROSE. However, the use of FNB needles and the simultaneous sampling of primary and metastatic lesions can rapidly improve the diagnostic accuracy of the procedure.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Quality Metrics in Clinical Practice

Recent advances in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), particularly EUS-guided tissue acquisition, may have affected EUS procedural performance as measured by current American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE)/American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) quality indicators. Our study aims to assess how these quality metrics are met in clinical practice. We retrospectively analyzed 732 EUS procedures; data collected were procedural indications, technical aspects and outcomes, completeness of documentation, and malignancy staging. EUS was performed in 660 patients for a variety of indications. All ASGE/ACG EUS procedural quality metrics were met or exceeded. Intervention was successful in 97.7% (715/732) of cases, with complication rate of 0.4% (3/732). EUS outcomes changed clinical management in 58.7% of all cases and in 91.2% of malignancy work-up cases; in 26.0% of suspected choledocholithiasis cases, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was avoided after EUS. Locoregional EUS staging was accurate in 61/65 (93.8%) cases of non-metastatic disease and in 15/22 (68.2%) cases of metastatic disease. Pancreatic mass malignancy detection rate with EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) or fine needle biopsy (FNB) was 75.8%, with a sensitivity of 96.2%; a significant increase in detection rate from 46.2% (6/13) to 95.0% (19/20) (p = 0.0026) was observed with a transition to the predominant use of FNB for tissue acquisition. All ASGE/ACG EUS quality metrics were met or exceeded for EUS procedures performed for a wide variety of indications in a diverse patient population. EUS was instrumental in changing clinical management, with a low complication rate. The malignancy detection rate in pancreatic masses significantly increased with FNB use.

Standard reporting elements for the performance of EUS: Recommendations from the FOCUS working group

Background and Objectives

Quality indicators for the performance of EUS have been developed to monitor and improve service value and patient outcomes. To support the incorporation of these indicators and standardize EUS documentation, we propose standard EUS reporting elements for endosonographers and endoscopy units.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search and review was performed to identify EUS quality indicators and key components of high-quality standardized EUS reporting. Guidance statements regarding standard EUS reporting elements were developed and reviewed at the Forum for Canadian Endoscopic Ultrasound (FOCUS) 2019 Annual Meeting.

Results

EUS reporting elements can be divided into preprocedural, intraprocedural, and postprocedural items. Preprocedural components include the type, indication, and urgency of the procedure and patient clinical information and consent. Intraprocedural components include the adequacy and extent of examination, relevant landmarks, lesion characteristics, sampling method, specimen quality, and intraprocedural adverse events. Postprocedural components include a summary and synthesis of relevant findings as well as recommended management and follow-up.

Conclusions

Standardizing reporting elements may help improve the care of patients undergoing EUS procedures. Our review provides a practical guide and compilation of recommended reporting elements to ensure ongoing best practices and quality improvement in EUS.

Quality in Endoscopy

Quality improvement is a dynamic process that requires continuously monitoring quality indicators and benchmarking these with national and professional standards. Endoscopists have formed societal task forces to propose quality indicators and performance goals. Institutions are now incentivized by payers and value-based reimbursement agreements to have processes in place to measure, report, and act on these quality metrics. Nationwide registries, such as the Gastrointestinal Quality Improvement Consortium, are used to report quality data to these merit-based incentive payment systems. Quality improvement processes such as these are instrumental to improve patient safety, health, and satisfaction while decreasing costs and medical errors.

Collaboration of community hospital endosonographers improves diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasonography guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic lesions

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (TA) is the method of choice for establishing a pathological diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. Data on quality and yield of EUS-guided TA performed in community hospitals are lacking. A study was performed to determine and improve the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided TA in a group of community hospitals. Methods  Following analysis of the last 20 EUS-guided TA procedures of solid pancreatic lesions performed in each of four community hospitals, a collaborative EUS interest group was formed and a prospective registry was started. During meetings of the interest group, feedback on results per center were provided and strategies for improvement were discussed. Results  In the BEFORE team formation cohort, 80 procedures were performed in 66 patients. In the AFTER team formation cohort, 133 procedures were performed in 125 patients. After team formation, the rate of adequate sample increased from 80 % (95 %CI [0.7 - 0.9]) to 95 % (95 %CI [0.9 - 1.0]) , diagnostic yield of malignancy improved from 28 % (95 %CI [0.2 - 0.4]) to 64 % (95 % CI [0.6 - 0.7]), and sensitivity of malignancy improved from 63 % (95 %CI [0.4 - 0.8]) to 84 % (95 %CI [0.8 - 0.9]). Multivariate regression analysis revealed team formation to be the only variable significantly associated with an increased rate of adequate sample. Conclusions  Formation of a regional EUS interest group with regular feedback on results per center, and discussions on methods and techniques used, significantly improved the outcome of EUS-guided TA procedures in patients with solid pancreatic lesions in community hospitals.

Setting minimum standards for training in EUS and ERCP: results from a prospective multicenter study evaluating learning curves and competence among advanced endoscopy trainees

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Minimum EUS and ERCP volumes that should be offered per trainee in "high quality" advanced endoscopy training programs (AETPs) are not established. We aimed to define the number of procedures required by an "average" advanced endoscopy trainee (AET) to achieve competence in technical and cognitive EUS and ERCP tasks to help structure AETPs.

METHODS

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE)-recognized AETPs were invited to participate; AETs were graded on every fifth EUS and ERCP examination using a validated tool. Grading for each skill was done using a 4-point scoring system, and learning curves using cumulative sum analysis for overall, technical, and cognitive components of EUS and ERCP were shared with AETs and trainers quarterly. Generalized linear mixed-effects models with a random intercept for each AET were used to generate aggregate learning curves, allowing us to use data from all AETs to estimate the average learning experience for trainees.

RESULTS

Among 62 invited AETPs, 37 AETs from 32 AETPs participated. Most AETs reported hands-on EUS (52%, median 20 cases) and ERCP (68%, median 50 cases) experience before starting an AETP. The median number of EUS and ERCPs performed per AET was 400 (range, 200-750) and 361 (range, 250-650), respectively. Overall, 2616 examinations were graded (EUS, 1277; ERCP-biliary, 1143; pancreatic, 196). Most graded EUS examinations were performed for pancreatobiliary indications (69.9%) and ERCP examinations for ASGE biliary grade of difficulty 1 (72.1%). The average AET achieved competence in core EUS and ERCP skills at approximately 225 and 250 cases, respectively. However, overall technical competence was achieved for grade 2 ERCP at about 300 cases.

CONCLUSION

The thresholds provided for an average AET to achieve competence in EUS and ERCP may be used by the ASGE and AETPs in establishing the minimal standards for case volume exposure for AETs during their training. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02509416.).

A "Back Light System" for Identification of Sites for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration in Solid Pancreatic Masses: A Prospective, Randomized Study with a Crossover Design

Background/Aims

We applied a back light system (BLS) with a magnifying glass to improve the ability to assess the adequacy of specimen sampling using endosonography. We conducted this study to evaluate the efficacy of the BLS in sampling of specimens by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of solid pancreatic masses.

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, crossover, single-center clinical trial. An endosonographer evaluated adequacy on gross visual inspection and identified whitish specimen sampling sites with and without the BLS according to a randomization sequence in the first and second passes with a 25-G needle. On cytological evaluation, the presence of well-defined pancreatic ductal epithelium was evaluated by a cytopathologist who was blinded to any clinical information.

Results

A total of 80 consecutive patients were eligible during the study period. Adequacy was observed for 52 specimens (65%) with the BLS and 54 (68%) without the BLS (p=0.88). In assessment of specimen adequacy on gross examination, only fair agreement was observed both with and without BLS (kappa score 0.40 and 0.29, respectively).

Conclusions

The BLS did not influence the ability to identify specimen sampling sites or reliable assessment of specimen site adequacy using gross visual inspection.

Rectal Endoscopic Ultrasound in Clinical Practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is routinely utilized for evaluation of disorders of the lower gastrointestinal tract. In this review, we summarize the current status of rectal EUS in clinical practice and describe recent developments in diagnostic and therapeutic rectal EUS.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent guidelines recommend rectal EUS for rectal cancer staging as a second line modality in cases where MRI is contraindicated. Forward-viewing echoendoscopes and through the scope EUS miniprobes allow for EUS imaging of lesions through the entire colon and for evaluation beyond stenoses or luminal narrowings. EUS can be used to assess perianal disease and drain pelvic abscess associated with IBD, along with newer applications currently under investigation. For rectal varices, EUS can confirm the diagnosis, assess the optimal site for banding, guide therapy placement with sclerotherapy and/or coils, and assess response to treatment by confirming absence of flow. Therapeutic rectal EUS is emerging as a promising modality for drainage of pelvic fluid collection drainage and fiducial placement for rectal or prostatic cancer. Drug delivery mechanisms and substances that may increase the scope of therapy with rectal EUS are in varying stages of development. Rectal EUS continues to be an important modality for evaluation of benign and malignant disorders of the lower gastrointestinal tract, although its use as a cancer staging modality has declined due to improvements in MRI technology. Various technologies to enhance ultrasound imaging and for therapeutics have been developed that have or may contribute to expanded indications for rectal EUS.

Prospective comparison of slow-pull and standard suction techniques of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic cancer

Background

The usage of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic cancer is increasing, however mainly retrospective studies are available about the detailed methods of sampling.

Methods

To compare prospectively the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA samples obtained with slow-pull (SP) and with standard suction technique (SS).

Results

EUS-FNA sampling was diagnostic in 72 of 92 cases (78.3%). Diagnostic yield was 67.4% in the SS and 65.2% in the SP group. The number of smear pairs (1.84 vs. 3.56; p < 0.001) and blood contamination (1.50 vs. 2.19; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the SS group, which resulted in lower rate of diagnostic samples (41.8% vs. 30.0%; p = 0.003). There was no difference in the cellularity (1.58 vs. 1.37; p = 0.2554), or in the sensitivity and specificity in the identification of malignancy between SP and SS subgroups (69.9, 100% vs. 73.5, 100%). Histological samples were obtained in 60 cases (with SP: 49 cases; with SS: 46 cases). There was no difference in the diagnostic yield of histological samples between the groups (63 and 58.7%).

Conclusion

The diagnostic yield, the cellularity of smears and the rate of acquiring sufficient histological material are similar in the SP and SS group, but due to lower bloodiness and decreased number of slides, the pathological diagnosis is faster and more cost-effective.

EUS anatomy of the pancreatobiliary system in a swine model: The WISE experience

Background and Objectives

EUS training is recognized to have a substantial learning curve. To date, few dedicated training programs for EUS have been described. The swine model has been highlighted as a realistic tool to enhance EUS training. Studies extensively describing EUS swine anatomy are lacking in the current literature. The article aims to describe both radial and linear EUS pancreatobiliary swine anatomy.

Materials and Methods

Four live pigs were endoscoped under general anesthesia using both radial and linear array echoendoscopes. Relevant images and videos were recorded.

Results

It was possible to effectively image aorta, crus of the diaphragm, celiac trunk, superior mesenteric artery, pancreas, common bile duct, gallbladder, portal vein, kidneys, spleen, and hepatic hilum. Images were comparable to human EUS findings, with some remarkable differences. The pancreas was relatively larger in swine and in contrast to humans has three segments (duodenal, splenic, and connecting lobe).

Conclusions

The swine model was a highly realistic teaching model for linear and radial pancreatobiliary EUS and a useful tool for training in the setting of in vivo hands-on sessions.

Advanced Endoscopy Trainee Involvement Early in EUS Training May Be Associated with an Increased Risk of Adverse Events

Background

The quality of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) involving advanced endoscopy trainees (AETs) is not well understood. In this study, we aimed to examine adverse events (AE) risk and diagnostic yield of EUS procedures involving AETs.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective single-centre review from September 2009 to August 2015. Clinical, procedural, cytological, and hospital visit data within 30 days of the EUS procedure was collected. Primary outcomes were occurrence of an AE and a diagnostic specimen on cytopathology. Each AE was classified as “definitely related,” “possibly related,” or “not related” to the EUS procedure based on a previously defined consensus approach. Advanced endoscopy trainee involvement was established through the operative report.

Results

Our study included 1657 EUS procedures, of which 27% (451 of 1657) involved AETs. Endoscopic ultrasound was most commonly performed to evaluate pancreatic pathology (46% of cases). Overall AE incidence was 3.4%; it was 4.9% when an AET was involved and 2.8% when the EUS was performed without an AET (P = 0.04). The risk of an AE when AETs were involved was greatest in the first three months of training (7.9% versus 2.7%, P = 0.04). Multivariate analysis limited to the first three months of training demonstrated AET involvement to be associated with an increased AE risk after adjusting for patient and procedural factors (adjusted OR 3.2; 95% CI, 1.1–8.7; P = 0.03). The overall diagnostic yield was 76%. This was not compromised by AET involvement for any quartile of training.

Conclusions

We observed an increased risk of EUS-related AEs when procedures involved AETs during the first three months of training.

The assessment of endosonographers in training

Endosonography (EUS) has an estimated long learning curve including the acquisition of both technical and cognitive skills. Trainees in EUS must learn to master intraprocedural steps such as echoendoscope handling and ultrasonographic imaging with the interpretation of normal anatomy and any pathology. In addition, there is a need to understand the periprocedural parts of the EUS-examination such as the indications and contraindications for EUS and potential adverse events that could occur post-EUS. However, the learning process and progress vary widely among endosonographers in training. Consequently, the performance of a certain number of supervised procedures during training does not automatically guarantee adequate competence in EUS. Instead, the assessment of EUS-competence should preferably be performed by the use of an assessment tool developed specifically for the evaluation of endosonographers in training. Such a tool, covering all the different steps of the EUS-procedure, would better depict the individual learning curve and better reflect the true competence of each trainee. This mini-review will address the issue of clinical education in EUS with respect to the evaluation of endosonographers in training. The aim of the article is to provide an informative overview of the topic. The relevant literature of the field will be reviewed and discussed. The current knowledge on how to assess the skills and competence of endosonographers in training is presented in detail.

Competence in Endoscopic Ultrasound and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography, From Training Through Independent Practice

BACKGROUND & AIMS

It is unclear whether participation in competency-based fellowship programs for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) results in high-quality care in independent practice. We measured quality indicator (QI) adherence during the first year of independent practice among physicians who completed endoscopic training with a systematic assessment of competence.

METHODS

We performed a prospective multicenter cohort study of invited participants from 62 training programs. In phase 1, 24 advanced endoscopy trainees (AETs), from 20 programs, were assessed using a validated competence assessment tool. We used a comprehensive data collection and reporting system to create learning curves using cumulative sum analysis that were shared with AETs and trainers quarterly. In phase 2, participating AETs entered data into a database pertaining to every EUS and ERCP examination during their first year of independent practice, anchored by key QIs.

RESULTS

By the end of training, most AETs had achieved overall technical competence (EUS 91.7%, ERCP 73.9%) and cognitive competence (EUS 91.7%, ERCP 94.1%). In phase 2 of the study, 22 AETs (91.6%) participated and completed a median of 136 EUS examinations per AET and 116 ERCP examinations per AET. Most AETs met the performance thresholds for QIs in EUS (including 94.4% diagnostic rate of adequate samples and 83.8% diagnostic yield of malignancy in pancreatic masses) and ERCP (94.9% overall cannulation rate).

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective multicenter study, we found that although competence cannot be confirmed for all AETs at the end of training, most meet QI thresholds for EUS and ERCP at the end of their first year of independent practice. This finding affirms the effectiveness of training programs. Clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT02509416.

Performance measures for ERCP and endoscopic ultrasound: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key and one minor performance measures for EUS and ERCP, for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at center and endoscopist level: 1: Adequate antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 2: Antibiotic prophylaxis before EUS-guided puncture of cystic lesions (key performance measure, at least 95 %); 3: Bile duct cannulation rate (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 4: Tissue sampling during EUS (key performance measure, at least 85 %); 5: Appropriate stent placement in patients with biliary obstruction below the hilum (key performance measure, at least 95 %); 6: Bile duct stone extraction (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 7: Post-ERCP pancreatitis (key performance measure, less than 10 %). 8: Adequate documentation of EUS landmarks (minor performance measure, at least 90 %).This present list of quality performance measures for ERCP and EUS recommended by ESGE should not be considered to be exhaustive: it might be extended in future to address further clinical and scientific issues.

Performance measures for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound: A European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key and one minor performance measures for EUS and ERCP, for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at centre and endoscopist level: 1 Adequate antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP (key performance measure, at least 90%); 2 antibiotic prophylaxis before EUS-guided puncture of cystic lesions (key performance measure, at least 95%); 3 bile duct cannulation rate (key performance measure, at least 90%); 4 tissue sampling during EUS (key performance measure, at least 85%); 5 appropriate stent placement in patients with biliary obstruction below the hilum (key performance measure, at least 95%); 6 bile duct stone extraction (key performance measure, at least 90%); 7 post-ERCP pancreatitis (key performance measure, less than 10%); and 8 adequate documentation of EUS landmarks (minor performance measure, at least 90%). This present list of quality performance measures for ERCP and EUS recommended by the ESGE should not be considered to be exhaustive; it might be extended in future to address further clinical and scientific issues.

Comparing endoscopic ultrasound-guided core biopsies of solid pancreatic and extrapancreatic lesions: a large single-operator experience with a new fine-needle biopsy needle

Background

There has been a paradigm shift in tertiary centers from endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle aspiration to EUS fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for tissue acquisition in solid lesions. While data exists on the use of FNB needles in solid pancreatic lesions, very few studies looked at the utility of FNB in solid extrapancreatic lesions. Our aim was to study and compare the technical success and feasibility of EUS-FNB in evaluating solid pancreatic and extrapancreatic lesions using a novel FNB needle.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with solid masses or lesions needing EUS-guided core biopsy at the University of Utah between May 2016 and November 2017. All core biopsies were obtained using an Acquire™Fine Needle Biopsy Device (Boston Scientific Corporation, Natick MA, USA). Rapid on-site evaluation was performed by a board-certified cytopathologist in all cases.

Results

One hundred thirty-two patients (87 male) were included. Ninety-nine (73.3%) of the lesions were located in the pancreas. All needle sizes (19 G, 22 G and 25 G) had similar yield. The mean number of passes needed was 2.28±0.7. EUS-FNB of the pancreatic lesions had a diagnostic accuracy of 97.9%, comparable to the 97.2% for the biopsied extra-pancreatic lesions. Only 3 of 132 cases needed re-biopsy at a later date. No immediate adverse events were reported.

Conclusion

In this large, single-center study, EUS-FNB with a novel Franseen-design needle was proven to be an effective modality for tissue acquisition from both pancreatic and extrapancreatic solid lesions.