Background and aims: Clarification of the position of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) regarding the interventional options available for treating patients with chronic pancreatitis. Methods: Systematic literature search to answer explicit key questions with levels of evidence serving to determine recommendation grades. The ESGE funded development of the Guideline. Summary of selected recommendations For treating painful uncomplicated chronic pancreatitis, the ESGE recommends extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy/endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography as the first-line interventional option. The clinical response should be evaluated at 6 – 8 weeks; if it appears unsatisfactory, the patient’s case should be discussed again in a multidisciplinary team. Surgical options should be considered, in particular in patients with a predicted poor outcome following endoscopic therapy (Recommendation grade B). For treating chronic pancreatitis associated with radiopaque stones ≥ 5 mm that obstruct the main pancreatic duct, the ESGE recommends extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy as a first step, combined or not with endoscopic extraction of stone fragments depending on the expertise of the center (Recommendation grade B). For treating chronic pancreatitis associated with a dominant stricture of the main pancreatic duct, the ESGE recommends inserting a single 10-Fr plastic stent, with stent exchange planned within 1 year (Recommendation grade C). In patients with ductal strictures persisting after 12 months of single plastic stenting, the ESGE recommends that available options (e. g., endoscopic placement of multiple pancreatic stents, surgery) be discussed in a multidisciplinary team (Recommendation grade D). For treating uncomplicated chronic pancreatic pseudocysts that are within endoscopic reach, the ESGE recommends endoscopic drainage as a first-line therapy (Recommendation grade A). For treating chronic pancreatitis-related biliary strictures, the choice between endoscopic and surgical therapy should rely on local expertise, patient co-morbidities and expected patient compliance with repeat endoscopic procedures (Recommendation grade D). If endoscopy is elected, the ESGE recommends temporary placement of multiple, side-by-side, plastic biliary stents (Recommendation grade A).

Background & Aims Fully covered self-expanding metal stents (FCSEMS) are gaining acceptance for the treatment of benign biliary strictures. We performed a large prospective multinational study to study the ability to remove these stents after extended indwell and the frequency and durability of stricture resolution. Methods In a nonrandomized study at 13 centers in 11 countries, 187 patients with benign biliary strictures received FCSEMS. Removal was scheduled at 10–12 months for patients with chronic pancreatitis or cholecystectomy and at 4–6 months for patients who received liver transplants. The primary outcome measure was removal success, defined as either scheduled endoscopic removal of the stent with no removal-related serious adverse events or spontaneous stent passage without the need for immediate restenting. Results Endoscopic removal of FCSEMS was not performed for 10 patients because of death (from unrelated causes), withdrawal of consent, or switch to palliative treatment. For the remaining 177 patients, removal success was accomplished in 74.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67.5%–80.8%). Removal success was more frequent in the chronic pancreatitis group (80.5%) than in the liver transplantation (63.4%) or cholecystectomy (61.1%) groups (P = .017). FCSEMS were removed by endoscopy from all patients in whom this procedure was attempted. Stricture resolution without restenting upon FCSEMS removal occurred in 76.3% of patients (95% CI, 69.3%–82.3%). The rate of resolution was lower in patients with FCSEMS migration (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.11–0.46). Over a median follow-up period of 20.3 months (interquartile range, 12.9–24.3 mo), the rate of stricture recurrence was 14.8% (95% CI, 8.2%–20.9%). Stent- or removal-related serious adverse events, most often cholangitis, occurred in 27.3% of patients. There was no stent- or removal-related mortality. Conclusions In a large prospective multinational study, removal success of FCSEMS after extended indwell and stricture resolution were achieved for approximately 75% of patients. ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT01014390.

Distal biliary strictures (DBS) are common and may be caused by both malignant and benign pathologies. While endoscopic procedures play a major role in their management, a comprehensive review of the subject is still lacking. Our consensus statements were formulated by a group of expert Asian pancreatico‐biliary interventional endoscopists, following a proposal from the Digestive Endoscopy Society of Taiwan, the Thai Association for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Tokyo Conference of Asian Pancreato‐biliary Interventional Endoscopy. Based on a literature review utilizing Medline, Cochrane library, and Embase databases, a total of 19 consensus statements on DBS were made on diagnosis, endoscopic drainage, benign biliary stricture, malignant biliary stricture, and management of recurrent biliary obstruction and other complications. Our consensus statements provide comprehensive guidance for the endoscopic management of DBS.

Background and study aims: Histological examination of core tissue samples may have advantages over cytology in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficiency of a new 22G core biopsy needle. Patients and methods: Consecutive patients with a pancreatic mass lesion or peri-intestinal lymphadenopathy sequentially underwent fine needle biopsy with both a newly developed 22G core needle (the FNB needle) and a standard 22G fine needle aspiration (FNA) needle, in randomized order. Results: In 144 patients, mean age 48 years (± standard deviation [SD] 14; range 18 – 82), with 145 lesions (mean lesion size 39 ± 15 mm, range 15 – 99), EUS-guided sampling was technically feasible with both needles in all patients. Mean number of passes to obtain sufficient tissue was 1.2 ± 0.5 with the core needle vs. 2.5 ± 0.9 with the standard needle (P < 0.001). FNB specimens were adequate for evaluation in 125 (86.2 %) vs. 127 (87.6 %) with FNA (P = 0.72). Among 139 patients available for follow-up, FNB provided a correct diagnosis in 110 (79.1 %) and FNA in 112 (80.6 %) (P = 0.73). Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy for diagnosis of malignancy were 90 %, 100 %, 100 %, 93 %, 96 % for FNB and 77 %, 100 %, 100 %, 85 %, 92 % for FNA, respectively (P > 0.05). Conclusion: FNB with the new 22G core needle was technically feasible, efficient and comparable to FNA with a standard needle. The core needle required fewer passes to provide an adequate sample, offering potentially shorter procedure time.