Background Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is a valid option for EUS-guided biliary drainage that has been increasingly used in the last decade. The aims of this study were to provide a systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression of the features and outcomes of this procedure. Methods The MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for literature pertinent to EUS-HGS. Meta-analysis of the proportions and meta-regression of potential modifiers of the main outcome measures were applied. The main outcome was technical success; secondary outcomes were clinical success and procedure-related adverse events (AEs). Results 33 studies, including 1644 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) was the underlying cause in almost all cases (99.6%); the main indications for EUS-HGS were duodenal/papillary invasion (34.8%), surgically altered anatomy (18.4%), and hilar stenosis (16.0%). The pooled technical success of EUS-HGS was 97.7% (95%CI 96.1%–99.0%; I 2 = 0%), the intention-to-treat clinical success rate was 88.1% (95%CI 84.7%–91.2%; I 2 = 33.9%), and procedure-related AEs occurred in 12.0% (95%CI 9.8%–14.5%; I 2 = 20.4%), with cholangitis/sepsis (2.8%) and bleeding (2.3%) the most frequent. The rate of procedure-related AEs was lower with the use of dedicated stents on univariable meta-regression analysis. Meta-regression showed that technical success and clinical success rates were modified by the centers’ experience (>4/year). Conclusions EUS-HGS represents an effective and safe procedure for EUS-guided biliary drainage in patients with MBO. Future studies should address the impact of center experience, patient selection, and the use of dedicated stents to improve performance of this technique.

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy comprises both diagnostic and therapeutic procedures involving the luminal GI tract as well as the biliary tree, liver, and pancreas. GI endoscopy is challenging to learn, requiring both cognitive (nontechnical) and technical skills, and requires extensive practice to attain proficiency. Simulation-based training has been shown to assist trainees and young endoscopists in acquiring new skills and accelerating the learning curve. Moreover, simulation-based training creates an ideal environment for trainees to initially learn and practice skills while making mistakes with no risk to patients. This review, divided in two parts, offers a comprehensive summary of the different classes of simulators available for GI endoscopic training. In Part I, only mechanical simulators are reported and described. In Part II, animal simulators (ex vivo/in vivo) and virtual reality models are detailed, together with prototypes that are currently not commercially available. ^‡ Joint last authors Article published online: 04 April 2025 © 2025. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

INTRODUCTION: The immune mechanisms underlying human autoimmune atrophic gastritis (AAG) are poorly understood. We sought to assess immune mucosal alterations in patients with AAG. METHODS: In 2017–2021, we collected gastric corpus biopsies from 24 patients with AAG (median age 62 years, interquartile range 56–67, 14 women), 26 age-matched and sex-matched healthy controls (HCs), and 14 patients with Helicobacter pylori infection (HP). We investigated the lamina propria mononuclear cell (LPMC) populations and the mucosal expression of thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) and nicotinamide phosphoribosyltransferase (NAMPT). Ex vivo cytokine production by organ culture biopsies, under different stimuli (short TSLP and zinc-l-carnosine), and the gastric vascular barrier through plasmalemma vesicle-associated protein-1 (PV1) were also assessed. RESULTS: In the subset of CD19+ LPMC, CD38+ cells (plasma cells) were significantly higher in AAG compared with HC. Ex vivo production of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-15, and transforming growth factor β1 was significantly higher in AAG compared with HC. At immunofluorescence, both IL-7R and TSLP were more expressed in AAG compared with HC and HP, and short TSLP transcripts were significantly increased in AAG compared with HC. In the supernatants of AAG corpus mucosa, short TSLP significantly reduced TNF-α, while zinc-l-carnosine significantly reduced interferon-γ, TNF-α, IL-21, IL-6, and IL-15. NAMPT transcripts were significantly increased in AAG compared with HC. PV1 was almost absent in AAG, mildly expressed in HC, and overexpressed in HP. DISCUSSION: Plasma cells, proinflammatory cytokines, and altered gastric vascular barrier may play a major role in AAG. TSLP and NAMPT may represent potential therapeutic targets, while zinc-l-carnosine may dampen mucosal inflammation.

Background: Atezolizumab + bevacizumab represent the current standard of care for first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, direct comparison with other combination treatments including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) + tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are lacking. Objectives: This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to indirectly compare the efficacy and the safety of first-line systemic therapies for unresectable advanced HCC. Method: A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and SCOPUS databases was conducted up to October 31, 2022. Phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing TKIs, including sorafenib and lenvatinib, or ICIs reporting overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were included. Individual survival data were extracted from OS and PFS curves to calculate restricted mean survival time. A Bayesian NMA was performed to compare treatments in terms of efficacy (15- and 30-month OS, 6-month PFS) and safety, represented by grade ≥3 (severe) adverse events (SAEs). The incremental safety-effectiveness ratio as measure of net health benefit was calculated as the difference in SAE probability divided by survival difference between the 2 most effective treatments. Results: Nine RCTs enrolling 6,600 patients were included. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed the highest probability (88%) of achieving the 30-month OS landmark. Lenvatinib showed a probability of 86% of achieving best PFS outcomes. ICI monotherapies ranked as most tolerable. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed the best net health benefit for OS, compared to durvalumab plus tremelimumab. When evaluating the net health benefit for PFS, at a willingness-to-risk threshold of 10% of SAEs for life-month gained, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was favoured in 78% of cases, while at threshold of 30% of SAEs for life-month gained, lenvatinib was favoured in 76% of cases. Conclusions: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is the best treatment in terms of net benefit and therefore it should be recommended as standard of care. Compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, lenvatinib monotherapy had the best net benefit for PFS when physicians and patients are available to accept a higher risk of toxicity.

Anastomotic defects are deleterious complications after either oncologic or bariatric surgery, leading to high morbidity and mortality. Besides surgical revision in early stages or instable patients, endoscopic treatment has become the mainstay. To date, many options for endoscopic treatment in this setting exist, including fully covered metal stent placement, endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT), endoscopic internal drainage with pigtail placement (EID), leak closure with through the scope or over the scope clips, endoluminal suturing, fibrin glue sealing and a combination of all these techniques. Current evidence is mostly based on retrospective single and multicenter studies. No guidelines exist in this important field. Treatment options have to be chosen upon each case individually, taking into account clinical and anatomic criteria, such as timing, size, infectious wound complications and hemodynamic stability. Local expertise and availability of treatment devices need to be taken into account whenever choosing a treatment strategy. This review aimed to present current treatment options in terms of effectiveness, advantages and disadvantages in order to guide the clinician for his decision making. Additionally, we aimed to provide a treatment algorithm.