8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      International Consensus Recommendations for Safe Use of LAMS for On- and Off-Label Indications Using a Modified Delphi Process

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          INTRODUCTION:

          The study aimed to develop international consensus recommendations on the safe use of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) for on- and off-label indications.

          METHODS:

          Based on the available literature, statements were formulated and grouped into the following categories: general safety measures, peripancreatic fluid collections, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-biliary drainage, EUS-gallbladder drainage, EUS-gastroenterostomy, and gastric access temporary for endoscopy. The evidence level of each statement was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.

          International LAMS experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi process. When no 80% consensus was reached, the statement was modified based on expert feedback. Statements were rejected if no consensus was reached after the third Delphi round.

          RESULTS:

          Fifty-six (93.3%) of 60 formulated statements were accepted, of which 35 (58.3%) in the first round. Consensus was reached on the optimal learning path, preprocedural imaging, the need for airway protection and essential safety measures during the procedure, such as the use of Doppler, and measurement of the distance between the gastrointestinal lumen and the target structure. Specific consensus recommendations were generated for the different LAMS indications, covering, among others, careful patient selection, the preferred size of the LAMS, the need for antibiotics, the preferred anatomic location of the LAMS, the need for coaxial pigtail placement, and the appropriate management of LAMS-related adverse events.

          DISCUSSION:

          Through a modified international Delphi process, we developed general and indication-specific experience- and evidence-based recommendations on the safe use of LAMS.

          Related collections

          Most cited references82

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Delphi methodology in healthcare research: How to decide its appropriateness

            The Delphi technique is a systematic process of forecasting using the collective opinion of panel members. The structured method of developing consensus among panel members using Delphi methodology has gained acceptance in diverse fields of medicine. The Delphi methods assumed a pivotal role in the last few decades to develop best practice guidance using collective intelligence where research is limited, ethically/logistically difficult or evidence is conflicting. However, the attempts to assess the quality standard of Delphi studies have reported significant variance, and details of the process followed are usually unclear. We recommend systematic quality tools for evaluation of Delphi methodology; identification of problem area of research, selection of panel, anonymity of panelists, controlled feedback, iterative Delphi rounds, consensus criteria, analysis of consensus, closing criteria, and stability of the results. Based on these nine qualitative evaluation points, we assessed the quality of Delphi studies in the medical field related to coronavirus disease 2019. There was inconsistency in reporting vital elements of Delphi methods such as identification of panel members, defining consensus, closing criteria for rounds, and presenting the results. We propose our evaluation points for researchers, medical journal editorial boards, and reviewers to evaluate the quality of the Delphi methods in healthcare research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A step-up approach or open necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis.

              Necrotizing pancreatitis with infected necrotic tissue is associated with a high rate of complications and death. Standard treatment is open necrosectomy. The outcome may be improved by a minimally invasive step-up approach. In this multicenter study, we randomly assigned 88 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and suspected or confirmed infected necrotic tissue to undergo primary open necrosectomy or a step-up approach to treatment. The step-up approach consisted of percutaneous drainage followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive retroperitoneal necrosectomy. The primary end point was a composite of major complications (new-onset multiple-organ failure or multiple systemic complications, perforation of a visceral organ or enterocutaneous fistula, or bleeding) or death. The primary end point occurred in 31 of 45 patients (69%) assigned to open necrosectomy and in 17 of 43 patients (40%) assigned to the step-up approach (risk ratio with the step-up approach, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.87; P=0.006). Of the patients assigned to the step-up approach, 35% were treated with percutaneous drainage only. New-onset multiple-organ failure occurred less often in patients assigned to the step-up approach than in those assigned to open necrosectomy (12% vs. 40%, P=0.002). The rate of death did not differ significantly between groups (19% vs. 16%, P=0.70). Patients assigned to the step-up approach had a lower rate of incisional hernias (7% vs. 24%, P=0.03) and new-onset diabetes (16% vs. 38%, P=0.02). A minimally invasive step-up approach, as compared with open necrosectomy, reduced the rate of the composite end point of major complications or death among patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and infected necrotic tissue. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN13975868.) 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                American Journal of Gastroenterology
                Am J Gastroenterol
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                0002-9270
                1572-0241
                2024
                April 2024
                November 7 2023
                : 119
                : 4
                : 671-681
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium;
                [2 ]Diagnostic Center Bled Group, Bled, Slovenia;
                [3 ]Centura Health, Center for Advanced Therapeutic Endoscopy, Colorado, Englewood, USA;
                [4 ]Department of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Carl von Ossietzky University Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany;
                [5 ]Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA;
                [6 ]Interventional Endoscopy Services, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, California, USA;
                [7 ]Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Imelda Hospital Bonheiden and University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium;
                [8 ]Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands;
                [9 ]Nancy Teaching Hospital, Nancy University, Nancy, France;
                [10 ]Department of Medicine, Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, The Pancreas Institute, University Hospital of Verona, Verona, Italy;
                [11 ]Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Brussels, Belgium;
                [12 ]University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA;
                [13 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology and Digestive Oncology, Saint-Pierre University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium;
                [14 ]Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Paoli Calmettes Institute, Marseille Cedex 9, France;
                [15 ]Gastroenterology Department, Hospital Universitario Río Hortega, Valladolid, Spain;
                [16 ]Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Inova Fairfax Hospital, Falls Church, Virginia, USA;
                [17 ]Amsterdam University Medical Center, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands;
                [18 ]Center for Interventional Endoscopy, AdventHealth, Orlando, Florida, USA.
                Article
                10.14309/ajg.0000000000002571
                37934190
                1daf6814-186e-4fd6-900d-41b98b812434
                © 2023
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                7
                0
                3
                0
                Smart Citations
                7
                0
                3
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Cited by2

                Most referenced authors1,111