Given that gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms are a prominent extrapulmonary manifestation of COVID-19, we investigated intestinal infection with SARS-CoV-2, its effect on pathogenesis, and clinical significance.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the recommended technique for biliary decompression in pancreatic cancer. Previous studies have suggested racial, socioeconomic and geographic differences in diagnosis, treatment and outcomes of pancreatic cancer patients.

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) offers minimally invasive decompression when conventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography fails. Stents can be placed from the intrahepatic ducts into the stomach (hepaticogastrostomy [HG]) or from the extrahepatic bile duct into the small intestine (choledochoduodenostomy [CCD]). Long-term patency of these stents is unknown. In this study, we aim to compare long-term patency of CCD versus HG.

Background and study aims  Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a new technology available for evaluation of indeterminate biliary strictures. It allows under-the-surface visualization and preliminary studies have confirmed standardized characteristics associated with malignancy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the first interobserver agreement in identifying previously agreed upon OCT criteria and diagnosing of malignant versus benign disease. Patients and methods  Fourteen endoscopists were asked to review an atlas of reference clips and images of eight criteria derived from expert consensus A total of 35 de-identified video clips were then evaluated for presence of the eight criteria and for final diagnosis of malignant versus benign using the atlas as reference Intraclass correlation (ICC) analysis was done to evaluate interrater agreement. Results  Clips of 23 malignant lesions and 12 benign lesions were scored. Excellent interobserver agreement was seen with dilated hypo-reflective structures (0.85) and layering effacement (0.89); hyper-glandular mucosa (0.76), intact layering (0.81), and onion-skin layering (0.77); fair agreement was seen with scalloping (0.58), and thickened epithelium (0.4); poor agreement was seen with hyper-reflective surface (0.36). The diagnostic ICC for both neoplastic (0.8) and non-neoplastic (0.8) was excellent interobserver agreement. The overall diagnostic accuracy was 51 %, ranging from 43 % to 60 %. Conclusions  Biliary OCT is a promising new modality for evaluation of indeterminate biliary strictures. Interobserver agreement ranged from fair to almost perfect on eight previously identified criteria. Interobserver agreement for malignancy diagnosis was substantial (0.8). Further studies are needed to validate this data.

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has been used as a salvage modality for relief of malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) after a failed ERCP. Multiple recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies have been published to assess the suitability of EUS-BD as a first-line modality for achieving palliative BD. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing primary EUS-BD versus ERCP for MBO. We searched PubMed, Medline, and Embase up to January 1, 2019, to identify RCTs and observational studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of primary EUS-BD (without a prior attempted ERCP) versus ERCP. Quality of RCTs and observational studies was assessed using Jadad and Newcastle-Ottawa scores, respectively. The outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, odds of requiring a repeat intervention, and procedure-related adverse events. Odds ratios (ORs) and standard mean difference were calculated for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Meta-analysis was performed using the random effects model in RevMan 5.3 (the Cochrane Collaboration, the Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark). Five studies (three RCTs and two observational studies) with 361 patients were included. Both procedures achieved comparable technical success (OR: 1.20 [0.44-3.24], I2 = 0%) and clinical success (OR: 1.44, confidence interval [CI]: 0.63-3.29, I2 = 0%). The overall adverse outcomes (OR: 1.59 [0.89-2.84]) did not differ between the two groups. In the ERCP group, 9.5% of patients developed procedure-related pancreatitis versus zero in the EUS group (risk difference = 0.08%, P = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference in nonpancreatitis-related adverse events. The odds of requiring reintervention for BD (1.68 [0.76-3.73], I2 = 42%) did not differ significantly. The ERCP group had significantly higher odds of requiring reintervention due to tumor overgrowth (5.35 [1.64-17.50], I2 = 0%). EUS-BD has comparable technical and clinical success to ERCP and can potentially be used as a first-line palliative modality for MBO where expertise is available. ERCP-related pancreatitis which can cause significant morbidity can be completely avoided with EUS.