Dear colleagues,
We continue our theme of highlighting innovations in gastroenterology by exploring how endoscopy continues to blur the lines with surgery. In this issue of Perspectives,Dr. RJ Sealock, assistant professor of medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine, and Dr. Thiru Muniraj, associate professor of medicine at the Yale School of Medicine share their experiences performing minimally invasive alternatives to surgery, discussing both sides of gastrointestinal perforations – treating and creating. Dr. Sealock describes how we can “MacGyver” traditional surgical wound vacs to treat Boerhaave's, while Dr. Muniraj shows how lumen-apposing metal stents allow us to treat acute cholecystitis in poor surgical candidates.
We look forward to hearing your thoughts on how endoscopy will continue to evolve @AGA_GIHN.
Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and chief of endoscopy at West Haven (Conn.) VA Medical Center. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.
Endoscopic vacuum therapy for GI perforation
BY ROBERT JAY SEALOCK, MD
Gastrointestinal endoscopy has evolved from a diagnostic modality into a therapeutic tool used to treat a wide variety of luminal pathology. Endoscopic closure of full thickness injuries is a field that has rapidly expanded because of advanced endoscopic tissue resection and the need for subsequent defect closure as well as technological advances in closure devices such an endoscopic suturing platforms and large over-the-scope clips.
Prior to the advent of closure devices, endoscopic means of treating full thickness defects included through-the-scope (TTS) clips and fully covered metal stents. Given the small size, TTS clips are useful for mucosal closure but are limited in their ability to achieve full thickness closure. Fully covered metal stents utilized particularly for upper GI tract perforations and leaks are intended to divert gastrointestinal content away from the site of injury, thereby allowing secondary intention healing. Stents have several limitations, including frequent downstream migration and an inability to create a “watertight” seal in minimizing wound contamination. For decades, our surgical colleagues have utilized negative pressure wound therapy or vacuum therapy to expedite large wound closure. Given their familiarity with the technique, surgeons began adapting vacuum therapy for the treatment of postsurgical anastomotic leaks and fistulas particularly within the rectum.1 Eventually, the same technique was applied to the treatment of upper GI tract anastomotic leaks.2 Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) overcomes many of the limitations of traditional endoscopic closure or diversion using covered stents through the use of suction to promote granulation tissue and aspirate infected wound contents.3
The approach to full thickness luminal injury must be individualized, but for a majority of indications EVT can be considered as a first-line approach. In our own experience, EVT closure can be achieved in more than 80% of patients with a variety of injuries such as iatrogenic endoscopic perforations (e.g., esophageal perforation during Savary dilation), surgical defects (sleeve gastrectomy leaks), and spontaneous perforations (e.g., Boerhaave syndrome). The initial step is endoscopic assessment of the luminal injury as well as the extraluminal cavity. In some situations, it is necessary to manually clean the defect cavity of necrotic material and food.
Once the cavity is cleaned and the size of the defect is assessed, the EVT device is manufactured at the bedside using commonly available materials and tools. A wound vacuum polyurethane sponge is affixed to a nasogastric tube, trimmed to the desired shape and size, and placed either within the defect cavity or within the GI lumen next to the defect opening.4 The EVT device is exchanged at an interval of 3-5 days, which allows the promotion of granulation tissue and subsequent downsizing as the cavity shrinks. In our series, an average number of five exchanges was necessary to achieve closure, with an average time to closure of 25 days.
Most experts would recommend initially placing the EVT device within the defect cavity. Once the cavity size can no longer accommodate the device, complete closure is achieved via intraluminal placement. The use of constant negative pressure (typically 150 mm to 175 mm Hg) prevents migration or dislodgement of the device.
For those who use EVT, there is some satisfaction from assembling and tailoring your own device, much like the protagonist in the 1980s television series “MacGyver,” who would manufacture devices out of readily available materials to address difficult and life-threatening situations. This need for self-assembly also has fostered ingenuity and creativity in the field, which can be found in social media and peer-reviewed sources.5 For some, however, the need to assemble your own device may be a deterrent. There is certainly an opportunity for commercialization and innovation, thereby putting Food and Drug Administration–approved devices into the hands of endoscopists. EVT is also a time- and labor-intensive therapy without specific reimbursement codes. Despite these limitations we continue to use and advocate for EVT given its clinical success in a population of patients with complex luminal injuries.
Dr. Sealock is assistant professor of medicine, department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. He receives research funding from AbbVie and is a consultant to ConMed and Ambu.
Summary content
7 Key Takeaways
-
1
Developed a paper-based colorimetric sensor array for chemical threat detection.
-
2
Can detect 12 chemical agents, including industrial toxins.
-
3
Production cost is under 20 cents per chip.
-
4
Utilizes dye-loaded silica particles on self-adhesive paper.
-
5
Provides rapid, simultaneous identification through image analysis.
-
6
Inspired by the mammalian olfactory system for pattern recognition.
-
7
Future developments include a machine learning-enabled reader device.
The guidelines emphasize four-hour gastric emptying studies over two-hour testing. How do you see this affecting diagnostic workflows in practice?
Dr. Staller: Moving to a four-hour solid-meal scintigraphy will actually simplify decision-making. The two-hour reads miss a meaningful proportion of delayed emptying; standardizing on four hours reduces false negatives and the “maybe gastroparesis” purgatory that leads to repeat testing. Practically, it means closer coordination with nuclear medicine (longer slots, consistent standardized meal), updating order sets to default to a four-hour protocol, and educating front-line teams so patients arrive appropriately prepped. The payoff is fewer equivocal studies and more confident treatment plans.
Metoclopramide and erythromycin are the only agents conditionally recommended for initial therapy. How does this align with what is being currently prescribed?
Dr. Staller: This largely mirrors real-world practice. Metoclopramide remains the only FDA-approved prokinetic for gastroparesis, and short “pulsed” erythromycin courses are familiar to many of us—recognizing tachyphylaxis limits durability. Our recommendation is “conditional” because the underlying evidence is modest and patient responses are heterogeneous, but it formalizes what many clinicians already do: start with metoclopramide (lowest effective dose, limited duration, counsel on neurologic adverse effects) and reserve erythromycin for targeted use (exacerbations, bridging).
Several agents, including domperidone and prucalopride, received recommendations against first-line use. How will that influence discussions with patients who ask about these therapies?
Dr. Staller: Two points I share with patients: evidence and access/safety. For domperidone, the data quality is mixed, and US access is through an FDA IND mechanism; you’re committing patients to EKG monitoring and a non-trivial administrative lift. For prucalopride, the gastroparesis-specific evidence isn’t strong enough yet to justify first-line use. So, our stance is not “never,” it’s just “not first.” If someone fails or cannot tolerate initial therapy, we can revisit these options through shared decision-making, setting expectations about benefit, monitoring, and off-label use. The guideline language helps clinicians have a transparent, evidence-based conversation at the first visit.
The guidelines suggest reserving procedures like G-POEM and gastric electrical stimulation for refractory cases. In your practice, how do you decide when a patient is “refractory” to medical therapy?
Dr. Staller: I define “refractory” with three anchors.
1. Adequate trials of foundational care: dietary optimization and glycemic control; an antiemetic; and at least one prokinetic at appropriate dose/duration (with intolerance documented if stopped early).
2. Persistent, function-limiting symptoms: ongoing nausea/vomiting, weight loss, dehydration, ER visits/hospitalizations, or malnutrition despite the above—ideally tracked with a validated instrument (e.g., GCSI) plus nutritional metrics.
3. Objective correlation: delayed emptying on a standardized 4-hour solid-meal study that aligns with the clinical picture (and medications that slow emptying addressed).
At that point, referral to a center with procedural expertise for G-POEM or consideration of gastric electrical stimulation becomes appropriate, with multidisciplinary evaluation (GI, nutrition, psychology, and, when needed, surgery).
What role do you see dietary modification and glycemic control playing alongside pharmacologic therapy in light of these recommendations?
Dr. Staller: They’re the bedrock. A small-particle, lower-fat, calorie-dense diet—often leaning on nutrient-rich liquids—can meaningfully reduce symptom burden. Partnering with dietitians early pays dividends. For diabetes, tighter glycemic control can improve gastric emptying and symptoms; I explicitly review medications that can slow emptying (e.g., opioids; consider timing/necessity of GLP-1 receptor agonists) and encourage continuous glucose monitor-informed adjustments. Pharmacotherapy sits on top of those pillars; without them, medications will likely underperform.
The guideline notes “considerable unmet need” in gastroparesis treatment. Where do you think future therapies or research are most urgently needed?
Dr. Staller: I see three major areas.
1. Truly durable prokinetics: agents that improve emptying and symptoms over months, with better safety than legacy options (e.g., next-gen motilin/ghrelin agonists, better-studied 5-HT4 strategies).
2. Endotyping and biomarkers: we need to stop treating all gastroparesis as one disease. Clinical, physiologic, and microbiome/omic signatures that predict who benefits from which therapy (drug vs G-POEM vs GES) would transform care.
3. Patient-centered trials: larger, longer RCTs that prioritize validated symptom and quality-of-life outcomes, include nutritional endpoints, and reflect real-world medication confounders.
Our guideline intentionally highlights these gaps to hopefully catalyze better trials and smarter referral pathways.
Dr. Staller is with the Division of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.