Gastroenterology Insights — Clinical Updates, Guides & Resources

11 min readAug 27, 202617reads

Daraxonrasib for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: What the FDA Approval and RASolute 302 Trial Mean for Clinicians

Evidence verification BBC report: US drug agency approves breakthrough treatment for pancreatic cancer — published August 26, 2026. Underlying study: Daraxonrasib or Chemotherapy in Previously Treated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer. Journal: The New England Journal of Medicine. Publication: Published online May 31, 2026; published in the July 23, 2026 issue. Study: RASolute 302, phase 3, international, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial. Population: 500 patients with previously treated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Intervention: Oral daraxonrasib versus investigator-selected chemotherapy. Primary clinical finding: Daraxonrasib significantly prolonged overall and progression-free survival compared with chemotherapy in the prespecified RAS G12 population, with similar benefit in the overall randomized population. Pancreatic Malignancy is one of the most difficult to treat malignancy. Usually once patient presented to the physician it is usually in advanced stage disease where someting meaninful cannot be done. Even after curative Resection, 5 years survival is dismal as we do not have any good Chemotherapy as well as Immunotherapy backup. These are the two most difficult part in Pancreatic Cancer managment. But with daraxonrasib data and rapid approval there is some light across the tunnel in patients suffiring from this difficult disease. I think this will open many doors in the managment in patients with pancreatic cancer.  On August 26, 2026, the US Food and Drug Administration approved daraxonrasib , marketed as Rasonque , for adults with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma who have received at least one prior systemic therapy or who are not candidates for multiagent systemic therapy. The BBC report describing the approval highlighted the result that has attracted broad attention across gastrointestinal oncology: in a late-stage trial involving 500 patients, survival with the oral RAS inhibitor was substantially longer than with chemotherapy. The approval is supported by RASolute 302 , a phase 3 randomized trial published in The New England Journal of Medicine . Unlike early single-arm studies that can generate promising response signals but leave uncertainty about comparative benefit, RASolute 302 directly compared daraxonrasib against active chemotherapy and demonstrated an improvement in the endpoint that matters most in metastatic pancreatic cancer: overall survival. Why RAS remains such an important target in pancreatic cancer Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is characterized by aggressive biology, frequent late-stage presentation and historically limited therapeutic options after progression. Aberrant RAS signaling is central to this disease. More than 90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas harbor oncogenic RAS mutations, most commonly involving KRAS codon 12. That molecular abnormality has been recognized for decades, but translating it into effective treatment has proved difficult. Daraxonrasib is an oral RAS(ON) multiselective tri-complex inhibitor . It targets the active, guanosine triphosphate-bound state of mutant and wild-type RAS. In practical terms, rather than focusing on only one narrowly defined KRAS variant, the drug is designed to inhibit active RAS signaling across several forms of RAS. The biological rationale is therefore compelling, but mechanism alone is not sufficient evidence of clinical value. What makes RASolute 302 important is that the molecular strategy translated into better outcomes in a randomized phase 3 comparison. What exactly did RASolute 302 test? RASolute 302 was an international, randomized, open-label, multicenter phase 3 trial enrolling 500 patients with previously treated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Patients were randomized 1:1 to daraxonrasib or investigator-selected standard-of-care chemotherapy. A total of 248 patients received daraxonrasib and 252 received chemotherapy. Of the overall trial population, 91.8% had RAS G12 mutations. The dual primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in patients with RAS G12 mutations. Key secondary outcomes included overall survival and progression-free survival in the overall population, which also included patients with other RAS alterations or without an identified RAS mutation. Objective response, patient-reported quality of life and safety were also assessed. The open-label nature of the study deserves attention. Patients and investigators knew which treatment was being given. This can influence subjective outcomes, particularly symptoms, quality-of-life assessments and aspects of adverse-event reporting. Overall survival, however, is an objective endpoint and is considerably less susceptible to this form of bias. The survival result is the central finding Among patients with RAS G12-mutated disease, median overall survival was 13.2 months with daraxonrasib versus 6.6 months with chemotherapy. The hazard ratio for death was 0.40. The result was essentially reproduced in the overall randomized population: median overall survival was 13.2 months with daraxonrasib versus 6.7 months with chemotherapy, again with a hazard ratio of 0.40. That is a clinically important result, but the statistics require careful communication. A median survival of 13.2 months does not mean every patient receiving daraxonrasib will live approximately six months longer. Median survival describes the time at which half of the study population remained alive. Similarly, a hazard ratio of 0.40 should not be interpreted as guaranteeing a particular survival extension for an individual patient. Rather, the randomized comparison indicates a substantially lower risk of death during follow-up among patients assigned to daraxonrasib compared with those assigned to chemotherapy. This distinction also matters when discussing association versus causation. RASolute 302 was not an observational study in which patients who happened to receive one treatment were compared retrospectively with those receiving another. Treatment assignment was randomized. Within the population studied, this design provides substantially stronger support for a causal treatment effect. That does not mean the findings can automatically be extrapolated beyond that population. Progression and tumor response moved in the same direction The overall survival finding was supported by other efficacy endpoints. In the RAS G12 population, median progression-free survival was 7.3 months with daraxonrasib versus 3.5 months with chemotherapy. In the overall randomized population, median progression-free survival was 7.2 versus 3.6 months, respectively. The FDA also reported an objective response rate of approximately 30% with daraxonrasib versus 11% with chemotherapy in the overall population. The consistency is clinically relevant. The survival improvement was accompanied by delayed disease progression and a higher probability of measurable tumor response rather than representing an isolated statistical signal. For metastatic pancreatic cancer, where progression can be rapid and available treatment options after first-line therapy have historically been limited, this concordance strengthens the interpretation that daraxonrasib has meaningful antitumor activity. Safety needs more nuance than “fewer side effects” The BBC report noted lower rates of severe treatment-related toxicity with daraxonrasib than with chemotherapy. The underlying publications help clarify an important distinction between treatment-related severe adverse events and all grade 3 or higher adverse events, which are not identical measures. In the NEJM report, grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring after treatment initiation were reported in 61.8% of patients receiving daraxonrasib and 69.6% receiving chemotherapy. Treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation occurred in 1.2% versus 11.2%, respectively. The BBC's reported severe-toxicity figures of approximately 44% versus 57.5% are consistent with the separately reported rate of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events, rather than all-cause severe adverse events. The distinction matters when clinicians communicate safety data. Daraxonrasib should therefore not be described as a low-toxicity treatment. The FDA lists common adverse effects including rash, diarrhea, stomatitis, nausea, fatigue, vomiting, abdominal pain, edema, decreased appetite and hemorrhage. The prescribing information contains warnings and precautions concerning dermatologic and soft-tissue toxicity, stomatitis and oral disorders, diarrhea, gastrointestinal perforation, interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis and embryo-fetal toxicity. The appropriate interpretation is that daraxonrasib has a different toxicity profile from cytotoxic chemotherapy, with toxicity remaining clinically relevant and requiring active monitoring. What exactly has the FDA approved? The regulatory indication is worth reading carefully. Daraxonrasib is approved for adults with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma who have received at least one previous systemic therapy or who are not candidates for multiagent systemic therapy. The FDA-recommended dose is 300 mg orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The pivotal phase 3 evidence primarily comes from patients whose metastatic disease had progressed after one previous line of systemic therapy. That distinction is important because regulatory indications and the precise populations studied in pivotal trials are related but not always identical. The approval is also not restricted to documented RAS G12-mutated disease. Although 91.8% of trial participants had RAS G12 mutations and the dual primary endpoints were defined in this population, the survival benefit was also demonstrated in the overall randomized cohort. This should not be interpreted as evidence that molecular characterization of pancreatic cancer is unimportant. Rather, RASolute 302 answers a specific treatment question; broader decisions about genomic profiling and sequencing of alternative targeted therapies involve clinical considerations beyond this trial. What clinicians should not conclude Several overinterpretations should be avoided. Daraxonrasib has not been shown to cure metastatic pancreatic cancer. RASolute 302 demonstrated improved survival and disease control, not eradication of disease. The findings also should not automatically be extrapolated to resectable disease, borderline-resectable disease, locally advanced pancreatic cancer, adjuvant therapy or first-line metastatic treatment. Those clinical settings were not established by the pivotal randomized study. Similarly, oral administration should not be confused with absence of significant toxicity. Rash, gastrointestinal toxicity, stomatitis and other adverse events remain important. Population-level median survival also cannot predict how long an individual patient will live. Individual outcomes can differ substantially according to disease biology, prior therapy, performance status, tumor burden, treatment tolerance and other clinical variables. Finally, the RASolute 302 study was funded by Revolution Medicines, the manufacturer of daraxonrasib. Industry sponsorship does not invalidate the randomized trial or its outcomes, but sponsorship remains relevant when clinicians assess trial reporting, longer-term follow-up and the value of independent and post-marketing evidence. Why the evidence is unusually compelling for this disease Several features strengthen RASolute 302. This was a phase 3 randomized trial, not a small early-phase cohort. The comparator was active chemotherapy rather than placebo or historical controls. The study included 500 patients and examined overall survival as a principal endpoint. Furthermore, the direction of benefit was consistent across overall survival, progression-free survival and objective response. The survival result also appeared both in the prespecified RAS G12 population and the overall randomized population. Taken together, these features make the evidence considerably stronger than the observational or early-phase findings that often generate headlines around novel cancer therapies. What remains unanswered Important questions remain despite the positive phase 3 findings. The trial primarily establishes daraxonrasib in previously treated metastatic pancreatic cancer. Whether similar benefits will occur if the drug is moved into first-line treatment, combined with other systemic therapies or evaluated in earlier-stage disease cannot be concluded from RASolute 302. The molecular composition of the study also matters. More than nine in ten participants had RAS G12-mutated tumors. The overall analysis included patients with other RAS alterations and patients without an identified RAS mutation, but these represented a relatively small fraction of the population. Further follow-up will also be important for understanding durability of response, longer-term toxicity and mechanisms of resistance. Another major research question is whether broad RAS inhibition can be combined successfully with other approaches without producing prohibitive toxicity. The present trial establishes a new therapeutic benchmark; it does not determine the optimal future sequencing or combination strategy. A major advance, without needing exaggerated language The BBC described daraxonrasib as a potential breakthrough, and the randomized phase 3 data explain why the approval has received unusual attention. For patients with previously treated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, increasing median overall survival from approximately 6.6–6.7 months to 13.2 months represents a substantial difference within the context of this disease. The most appropriate clinical interpretation is therefore neither dismissive nor hyperbolic. Daraxonrasib represents a major new treatment option and provides strong randomized evidence that pharmacologic targeting of active RAS signaling can translate into improved clinical outcomes in metastatic pancreatic cancer. At the same time, the evidence does not yet establish its role in every pancreatic-cancer setting. For gastroenterologists, pancreatologists, oncologists, surgeons, fellows and multidisciplinary pancreatic-cancer teams, the immediate significance is clear: the therapeutic landscape for previously treated metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma has changed. The next questions concern implementation, toxicity management, resistance, treatment sequencing and whether the survival benefit can eventually be extended to earlier stages of disease. Clinical Takeaway Daraxonrasib is now FDA-approved for adults with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma after prior systemic therapy or when multiagent systemic therapy is inappropriate. In the randomized phase 3 RASolute 302 trial, it substantially improved overall survival compared with chemotherapy. This is strong treatment-effect evidence in previously treated metastatic disease—but it should not yet be extrapolated to first-line, localized or perioperative pancreatic cancer without supporting trials. Five key clinical takeaways Daraxonrasib introduces a first-in-class RAS-targeted treatment option for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma following FDA approval on August 26, 2026. Overall survival was the major result: median OS was 13.2 months with daraxonrasib versus 6.6 months in the RAS G12 chemotherapy group and 6.7 months in the overall chemotherapy population. The efficacy signal was consistent: progression-free survival and objective response also favored daraxonrasib. Toxicity remains clinically important. Daraxonrasib produced substantial adverse events, although severe toxicity and treatment discontinuation were lower than with chemotherapy by several trial measures. Do not overextend the evidence. RASolute 302 directly establishes benefit in previously treated metastatic disease; its role in first-line, localized, neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy remains to be determined. Source references and links Primary news source BBC News. US drug agency approves breakthrough treatment for pancreatic cancer. August 26, 2026. BBC News article Pivotal clinical trial used for verification O’Reilly EM, et al. Daraxonrasib or Chemotherapy in Previously Treated Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. Published online May 31, 2026; published in issue July 23, 2026;395:325–337. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2605555. NEJM study Regulatory verification US Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves daraxonrasib for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. August 26, 2026. FDA approval notice

GGastroAGI TeamPublished on Aug 27, 2026

5 min readAug 24, 202616reads

Converting Advanced HCC to Resectable Disease: What the TALENTOP Trial Means for Atezo-Bev Conversion Surgery

A patient with BCLC-C hepatocellular carcinoma and portal vein invasion is typically steered straight to systemic therapy, with surgery quietly taken off the table. New TALENTOP data complicate that reflex. In 201 carefully selected responders to atezolizumab-bevacizumab, adding conversion surgery pushed time to treatment failure from 11.8 months to 20.4 months. This post walks through what that pathway looks like, who qualifies, and where the caution flags sit. The core clinical problem Macrovascular invasion has long been treated as a line clinicians don't cross with surgery. Portal or hepatic vein tumor thrombus signals biologically aggressive disease, and resecting through it has historically produced poor outcomes with high recurrence. Systemic therapy-atezolizumab-bevacizumab as first-line standard of care-became the default, with surgery reserved for a shrinking subset of early-stage, node-negative disease. The TALENTOP data challenge that boundary, not by abandoning it, but by asking a narrower question: once a patient with macrovascular invasion has already responded to systemic induction therapy, does resecting the residual disease still change the trajectory? For hepatologists, GI oncologists, and hepatobiliary surgeons who see these patients converge in tumor board, that question reframes advanced HCC from a fixed staging decision into a sequential one-treat, reassess, then decide. Systemic Induction as a Bridge, Not an Endpoint The pathway tested in TALENTOP followed a specific sequence: induction with atezolizumab-bevacizumab, then structured response and resectability assessment, then conversion surgery for eligible responders, followed by postoperative therapy. Per this framework, atezo-bev is not simply first-line palliation for unresectable disease-it becomes the mechanism that creates a resectability window that didn't previously exist. The 201 patients analyzed were a specifically selected subset: they had macrovascular invasion, no extrahepatic metastases, and were judged to have resectable disease after induction. That selection matters enormously. This was not "give atezo-bev to everyone with advanced HCC and see who can be resected." It was a structured, response-driven filter applied after treatment had already reduced tumor burden. The 20.4-month versus 11.8-month time-to-treatment-failure difference (HR 0.60) describes outcomes within that already-selected group, not the broader BCLC-C population. This mirrors a concept Kudo described several years earlier as ABC conversion-atezo-bev followed by curative conversion-in intermediate-stage, TACE-unsuitable disease. TALENTOP extends the logic further into macrovascular invasion, a substage where surgery has traditionally been avoided altogether. Case in point A 58-year-old man presents with a 9-cm right lobe HCC and portal vein branch thrombus, Child-Pugh A, no extrahepatic disease. Historically, his BCLC-C classification would route him directly to systemic therapy with resection considered only if disease later regressed dramatically and unpredictably. Following the TALENTOP-informed sequence, he starts atezolizumab-bevacizumab with imaging and multidisciplinary reassessment built in from the outset, rather than resection being an afterthought raised only if response happened to be striking. After several cycles, restaging shows tumor shrinkage with radiographic resolution of thrombus extension, and the surgical team judges the residual disease resectable with adequate future liver remnant. He proceeds to conversion hepatectomy followed by postoperative systemic therapy. The decision to operate isn't made because the tumor "responded well"-it's made against a defined resectability assessment built into the treatment plan from day one. Toxicity and Patient Selection Are Where This Gets Harder Conversion surgery carries a real cost. Grade 3–4 toxicity occurred in 39% of the surgical group versus 21% without surgery, and two treatment-related deaths were reported. Those numbers belong in the same sentence as the treatment-failure benefit, not a footnote after it. This is where patient selection does most of the clinical work. The 201 patients weren't representative of all BCLC-C HCC-they were already screened for absence of extrahepatic metastases, adequate liver function, and surgical candidacy after induction. A patient who technically has "response" on imaging but marginal liver reserve, borderline performance status, or a complex resection requiring major vascular reconstruction is a different risk calculation than the trial population. Applying this pathway outside expert hepatobiliary-surgical programs with mature multidisciplinary HCC infrastructure risks importing the toxicity signal without the careful selection that offset it in the trial. A frequently overlooked point The instinct after seeing a hazard ratio this favorable is to ask which patients should get conversion surgery. The more useful question, especially early in adopting this pathway, is which patients definitely should not. A rising AFP despite radiographic response, any hint of extrahepatic spread on restaging, or borderline hepatic reserve after systemic therapy are reasons to hold rather than proceed, even when resectability looks technically feasible on a single scan. Response assessment in this setting is not a single time point-it's a trend, and operating on a good scan taken in isolation, without confirming the trajectory is holding, is how a promising pathway turns into an avoidable postoperative death. Bottom line for clinical practice In selected advanced HCC responders to atezolizumab-bevacizumab-macrovascular invasion, no extrahepatic metastases, confirmed resectability-conversion surgery prolonged time to treatment failure (20.4 vs 11.8 months, HR 0.60). The benefit shown is time to treatment failure, not overall survival; a definitive survival advantage remains unproven. Surgery came with meaningfully higher grade 3–4 toxicity (39% vs 21%) and two treatment-related deaths, making patient selection the determining variable, not the regimen itself. This pathway belongs in centers with mature hepatobiliary surgery and multidisciplinary HCC review, not as a general extension of atezo-bev practice. Reassess resectability as a trend across multiple imaging points, not a single favorable scan. Cases like this-where a systemic regimen quietly reopens a surgical option that staging once closed-are exactly where a structured, guideline-anchored second opinion earns its place. For a broader look at how risk-stratified selection changes decisions in advanced liver disease, see our post on ACLF-3 transplant futility. Next time a macrovascular invasion case reaches your tumor board, walk GastroAGI through the imaging and functional status-it will return a reasoned, evidence-anchored read in seconds. Related Blog: When Is ACLF-3 Too Sick for Transplant?

GastroAGI TeamRead more

5 min readAug 24, 202613reads

Predicting a Hard Cholecystectomy Before You're In the Abdomen: What New TG18 Data Add to Surgical Planning

A 58-year-old man with TG18 Grade II cholecystitis, a calcified stone impacted in the cystic duct, and a Charlson comorbidity index that puts him at real perioperative risk is booked for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The surgical difficulty score used to justify converting to open or performing a subtotal resection has always been calculated after the fact - once the surgeon is already looking at a frozen Calot's triangle. A 2025 study out of Mie University asks a more useful question: could this have been predicted before the first port went in. The Tokyo Guidelines 2018 Surgical Difficulty Score, or TGDS18, was designed to standardize how surgeons describe an operatively difficult gallbladder - scoring findings around the gallbladder, at Calot's triangle, at the gallbladder bed, and beyond. It has done that job well. What it has never done is help a surgical team decide, before the case starts, whether to block extra OR time, request a more experienced operator, or have a frank conversion conversation with the patient during consent. Difficulty scores calculated intraoperatively are audit tools, not planning tools. The clinical gap has been obvious for years: everything that makes a cholecystectomy hard is usually already visible on a preoperative CT and a chart review, if anyone bothered to correlate it with the score that matters. TG18 Surgical Difficulty Score: Built for the Intraoperative View TGDS18 was introduced as part of the Tokyo Guidelines 2018 update specifically to bring structure to a problem every surgeon recognizes but few standardized: some cholecystectomies take 40 minutes, and some take three hours with a subtotal resection at the end. The score sums findings across five domains - condition around the gallbladder, condition of Calot's triangle, condition of the gallbladder bed, additional operative findings, and factors unrelated to inflammation - into a composite that correlates with operative time, blood loss, and length of stay. That correlation is the score's strength and its limitation in the same breath. Because TGDS18 is scored from what the surgeon sees during dissection, it has functioned mainly as a retrospective descriptor: a way to document why a case ran long, or to standardize difficulty across multicenter outcome studies. It was never built to answer the question a surgical team actually needs answered on the morning of the case - is this the gallbladder that needs the senior partner, the extra hour of block time, or the more explicit conversation about subtotal cholecystectomy before the patient signs consent. (Run a case through our Tokyo Guidelines severity calculator to see where a given presentation lands on TG18 grading before applying the preoperative flags below.) Case in point A 64-year-old woman presents with TG18 Grade II acute cholecystitis, four days of symptoms, and a CT showing a calcified stone lodged in the cystic duct with pericholecystic fat stranding. Her age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index is 8. On the original schedule, she's booked as a routine same-day laparoscopic cholecystectomy between two other cases. Applying the six preoperative flags identified in the 2025 Mie University analysis - TG18 Grade ≥2, calcified cystic duct stone, urgent operation, pericholecystic inflammation, and an ACCI ≥7, four of which she meets outright - her case is reclassified before the incision is made. The operating surgeon requests an additional 45 minutes of block time and involves a second attending for backup, rather than discovering the difficulty midway through a frozen dissection with the next case already prepping next door. From TGDS18 to Preoperative Prediction: Six Clinical Flags The Mie University group, analyzing 369 laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed for cholecystitis between 2014 and 2024, worked backward from intraoperative TGDS18 scores to find which preoperative variables predicted them. Restricting analysis to 69 patients with CT imaging obtained within 14 days of surgery, they identified six factors independently associated with higher TGDS18 sub-scores: a calcified stone in the cystic duct, TG18 severity grade of II or higher, preoperative gallbladder drainage already in place, an urgent (rather than elective) operation, pericholecystic inflammation on imaging, and an age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index of 7 or above. None of these six variables requires a new test. Every one of them is already sitting in the chart or on the CT report by the time a cholecystectomy is scheduled - which is precisely what makes the finding useful rather than academic. Patients who underwent subtotal cholecystectomy in the cohort had a median TGDS18 of 20, and the score correlated with operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay at a level reaching statistical significance across the board. The practical shift is moving surgical difficulty assessment from something documented in the operative note to something considered at the scheduling desk. A frequently overlooked point The instinct to treat TG18 severity grade as the only preoperative signal that matters is where most teams stop short. Grade alone misses roughly half the picture - a Grade I gallbladder with a calcified impacted cystic duct stone and a rising comorbidity burden can still turn into the case that runs three hours over. The six-factor framework doesn't replace clinical judgment or TG18 grading; it gives that judgment a checklist to run against before the OR schedule is finalized, rather than relying on a surgeon's gut sense that "this one might be tricky" based on grade alone. Bottom line for clinical practice Run the six-factor check - calcified cystic duct stone, TG18 Grade ≥2, preoperative GB drainage, urgent operation, pericholecystic inflammation, ACCI ≥7 - at scheduling, not at incision. Confirm the patient's TG18 severity grade first using the Tokyo Guidelines severity calculator , then layer the additional five factors on top. A patient meeting three or more factors is a reasonable candidate for extended block time, a second attending, or explicit subtotal cholecystectomy discussion during consent. Don't rely on TG18 severity grade alone as a difficulty proxy; the Mie University data show comorbidity burden and imaging findings carry independent predictive weight. Preoperative CT within 14 days of surgery is where most of these flags become visible - read it with difficulty prediction in mind, not just diagnostic confirmation. Next time a cholecystitis case is coming up for scheduling, walk GastroAGI through the CT findings and comorbidity profile - it can flag which of these six difficulty predictors apply before you're standing at the table finding out the hard way.

GastroAGI TeamRead more

5 min readAug 19, 202628reads

Biomarker-Driven First-Line Therapy in Advanced Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma

A 61-year-old man presents with a new diagnosis of metastatic gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Ten years ago, his oncologist would have started platinum-based chemotherapy and moved on. Today, that same decision hinges on four separate biomarker results - and getting the sequence wrong means missing a survival benefit that's now considered standard of care. Advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma has quietly become one of the most biomarker-dependent disease states in solid tumor oncology. Where histology once dictated treatment, a structured molecular workup now does. The shift has happened fast enough that many general gastroenterologists - who are often the ones ordering the initial biopsy and fielding the first patient questions - haven't fully absorbed the new sequence. Per NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines, HER2, programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), and claudin 18 isoform 2 (CLDN18.2) testing are recommended at the time of diagnosis if advanced or metastatic disease is documented or suspected, alongside universal MMR/MSI testing. Missing any one of these tests at diagnosis doesn't just delay treatment - it can mean a patient never receives a therapy that would have meaningfully extended survival. The Biomarker Testing Sequence That Now Drives Treatment The modern workup follows a specific order, and the order matters clinically, not just administratively. Universal testing for microsatellite instability status by PCR/NGS or mismatch repair status by IHC is recommended in all newly diagnosed patients, since MSI-high/dMMR tumors - a small but critical subset - respond dramatically to immunotherapy alone and can sometimes be managed without chemotherapy entirely. This gets checked first because it changes the entire treatment conversation. Next comes HER2. HER2 expression is seen in approximately 15% of gastric cancers and up to 30% of gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas, and HER2 abnormalities may include overexpression, amplification, or mutation, with all forms capable of influencing treatment decisions. PD-L1 and CLDN18.2 are tested in parallel - not sequentially - because both inform therapy regardless of HER2 status. CLDN18.2 positivity is generally defined by moderate-to-strong membranous staining in at least 75% of tumor cells, and unlike some other molecular features in gastroesophageal cancer, its expression appears relatively consistent across geographic regions. The practical takeaway: order all four tests reflexively at diagnosis rather than waiting to see if the first result changes management. Sequential testing costs time patients with rapidly progressive disease often don't have. HER2-Positive Disease: Why PD-L1 Status Changes the Regimen HER2-positive disease is where PD-L1 co-testing has the sharpest clinical consequence. The KEYNOTE-811 trial established that pembrolizumab in combination with trastuzumab and fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy is approved for first-line treatment of HER2-positive locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1 with a CPS of 1 or greater. That CPS cutoff isn't a minor eligibility detail - it's the line that separates two different standards of care. The data backing this split is specific rather than marginal. Patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥1 had a hazard ratio of 0.79 for the addition of pembrolizumab, while the smaller group with CPS <1 did not show benefit from adding immunotherapy. As one KEYNOTE-811 investigator put it, in HER2-positive disease with CPS ≥1, adding pembrolizumab to trastuzumab and chemotherapy is now strongly favored, while CPS <1 patients remain on trastuzumab plus chemotherapy without the immunotherapy addition - a distinction with real implications for both drug toxicity burden and cost. Case in Point A 58-year-old woman presents with dysphagia and a 12-pound weight loss over three months. Upper endoscopy reveals a circumferential GEJ mass; biopsy confirms adenocarcinoma, and CT shows liver metastases. Biomarker panel returns HER2 IHC 3+ (confirmed HER2-positive), PD-L1 CPS of 8, MMR-proficient, and CLDN18.2 not clinically actionable given HER2 status. Because her tumor is both HER2-positive and PD-L1 CPS ≥1, she meets criteria for the triplet regimen - trastuzumab plus chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab - rather than trastuzumab and chemotherapy alone. Had her CPS returned below 1, the same HER2-positive result would have led to a different first-line regimen, with immunotherapy withheld. The biopsy and the biomarker panel, not the endoscopic appearance of the tumor, are what determined her treatment. HER2-Negative Disease: PD-L1 and CLDN18.2 Take the Lead When HER2 is negative - the majority of cases - PD-L1 and CLDN18.2 become the operative biomarkers. Higher PD-L1 CPS thresholds correlate with greater immunotherapy benefit in this population; as one recent analysis noted, benefit from checkpoint inhibition in HER2-negative disease increases across CPS strata, with the strongest effect seen at CPS ≥10, reinforcing that CPS is not simply a binary positive/negative cutoff but a gradient that should shape how strongly immunotherapy is weighted in the regimen. CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative disease has its own targeted option. The GLOW trial established zolbetuximab, a CLDN18.2-directed monoclonal antibody, plus capecitabine and oxaliplatin as a first-line option for CLDN18.2-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma - filling a gap in a population that previously had no targeted first-line therapy beyond chemotherapy and, where eligible, immunotherapy. A Frequently Overlooked Point The mistake I see most often isn't choosing the wrong regimen - it's treating biomarker testing as sequential rather than parallel, or worse, treating HER2 status as sufficient on its own. A HER2-positive result doesn't complete the workup; it opens a second question about PD-L1 that changes the regimen entirely. Community pathology reports don't always flag CLDN18.2 or MSI status clearly, and it falls on the ordering clinician to confirm all four markers were actually run before treatment starts, not just the one that happened to come back first. A tumor board that reflexively assumes "HER2-positive means trastuzumab and we're done" is a year and a half behind current evidence. Bottom Line for Clinical Practice Order HER2, PD-L1, MMR/MSI, and CLDN18.2 testing simultaneously at diagnosis of advanced or metastatic disease - not sequentially. In HER2-positive disease, check PD-L1 CPS before finalizing the regimen: CPS ≥1 supports adding pembrolizumab to trastuzumab and chemotherapy; CPS <1 does not. In HER2-negative disease, CLDN18.2 positivity opens the door to zolbetuximab-based first-line therapy. Confirm MSI-H/dMMR status is resulted before treatment starts - this subgroup's management diverges most sharply from standard chemo-immunotherapy. Histology alone no longer determines first-line therapy; molecular profiling does. Closing Cases like this - where four biomarker results determine which of several distinct first-line regimens a patient receives - are exactly the kind of layered decision GastroAGI is built to help you work through in real time. For a broader look at how AI-assisted clinical reasoning is being applied across GI oncology, see our post on AI for gastroenterology . Walk your next biomarker panel through GastroAGI for a guideline-anchored read on the regimen it points to.

GastroAGI TeamRead more

5 min readAug 14, 202628reads

NG Tubes in Small Bowel Obstruction: When to Place, When to Pull, and What Not to Miss

A 68-year-old man with a history of two prior laparotomies presents with three days of obstipation, bilious vomiting, and a distended, tympanic abdomen. CT confirms a transition point consistent with adhesive small bowel obstruction. The admitting team reflexively orders an NG tube "for decompression" - the same order they'd write for any post-op patient with a slow return of bowel function. One of these patients needs that tube. The other doesn't, and knowing which is which changes the entire trajectory of the admission. The reflex to place an NG tube on anyone with vomiting, distension, or a sluggish gut is deeply ingrained, and for decades it was standard practice after almost any abdominal surgery. That reflex has not aged well. In genuine mechanical obstruction - adhesive small bowel obstruction, severe distension with a competent pylorus, ongoing emesis with aspiration risk - an NG tube is the correct first move, decompressing the stomach and proximal bowel while the obstruction is worked up or allowed to resolve conservatively. But routine, prophylactic use after elective GI surgery is a different question entirely, and the evidence answering it has been consistent for over a decade: the tube adds a complication burden without changing outcomes. The clinical skill isn't knowing that NG tubes exist - it's knowing which patient in front of you actually needs one. When Decompression Is the Right Call Mechanical small bowel obstruction remains the clearest indication. When bowel proximal to a transition point is dilated and the patient is vomiting, an NG tube on low intermittent suction relieves the pressure driving nausea, reduces aspiration risk, and buys time for conservative management - IV fluids, bowel rest, correction of electrolytes - to work before anyone commits to surgery. Ileus with significant distension behaves the same way clinically, even though the underlying mechanism is motility failure rather than a fixed lesion; the stomach and bowel still need decompressing if they're acting as a reservoir the patient can't empty on their own. Severe, persistent vomiting is the other clear indication, independent of the underlying diagnosis. A patient who cannot protect against ongoing emesis - reduced consciousness, recent sedation, a difficult airway, or emesis refractory to antiemetics - has a real aspiration risk that decompression mitigates directly. This is where the tube earns its place: not as a default order, but as a targeted response to a specific mechanical or safety problem. If none of these apply - if the patient has mild distension, is tolerating sips, and has no red flags - placing a tube adds discomfort and risk without a corresponding benefit. Case in point A 55-year-old woman is postoperative day one from an open sigmoid colectomy for diverticular disease. She has mild nausea, a soft but distended abdomen, and has passed flatus once. The covering resident, following old habit, orders NG tube placement "to be safe." The attending declines, noting she has no bilious vomiting, no signs of ileus beyond expected post-op distension, and is tolerating clear sips. She is advanced to a regular diet on postoperative day two per the unit's ERAS pathway, ambulates twice that day, and is discharged on day three without ever needing decompression. Had the tube been placed, she would likely have tolerated oral intake later, spent an extra day or two in the hospital, and carried a measurable risk of pharyngolaryngitis or aspiration from the tube itself - for no gain. Why Routine Post-Op Use Has Fallen Out of Favor The 2018 ERAS® Society guidelines for elective colorectal surgery state plainly that NG tubes should not be used routinely after surgery, and if one is placed intraoperatively, it should come out before the patient wakes up. This isn't a soft recommendation. The 2023 ASCRS/SAGES enhanced recovery guidelines grade avoidance of routine NG tube and intra-abdominal drain use as a strong recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence - as firm a stance as these bodies take on most perioperative questions. The data behind it is consistent across multiple randomized trials in elective colorectal surgery: routine NG decompression does not reduce nausea, vomiting, time to return of bowel function, or length of stay. What it does reliably do is delay tolerance of oral intake by roughly two days and raise the risk of pharyngolaryngitis and other tube-related complications. In other words, the intervention people reach for to speed up recovery measurably slows it down. The shift in practice isn't about abandoning decompression as a tool - it's about reserving it for patients who actually have an obstructive or emetic problem to solve, rather than using it as a prophylactic ritual applied to everyone leaving the OR. A Frequently Overlooked Point The complication that gets missed isn't the tube placement itself - it's what happens after several days of unmonitored suction. A tube left running on low intermittent suction pulls chloride- and potassium-rich gastric secretions out of the body continuously, and if nobody is tracking output against replacement fluids, patients drift into volume depletion, hypokalemia, and a contraction-driven metabolic alkalosis that can be surprisingly severe before it shows up as a clinical problem. This is the tube that was correctly indicated on day one and never reassessed on day four. Daily reassessment of output, electrolytes, and continued need is not a formality - it's the difference between a well-managed decompression and a self-inflicted electrolyte crisis. Bottom Line for Clinical Practice Reserve NG decompression for genuine indications: mechanical small bowel obstruction, severe distension, ongoing emesis, or documented aspiration risk - not as a routine post-op order. Follow ERAS guidance and skip prophylactic NG tubes after elective GI surgery; if one is placed intraoperatively, remove it before the patient emerges from anesthesia. Confirm correct tube placement before any feeding or medication administration - never assume position from insertion length alone. Reassess the need for continued suction daily; don't let an appropriately placed tube run unmonitored. Track output on prolonged suction and replace losses proactively - watch specifically for hypokalemia and metabolic alkalosis before they become symptomatic. Next time you're triaging a distended, vomiting patient and weighing whether decompression is warranted, walk GastroAGI through the presentation - it will return a reasoned, guideline-anchored answer in seconds.

GastroAGI TeamRead more

12 min readAug 14, 202656reads

ESGE 2026 Guideline on Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: Key Updates for Endoscopists and GI Teams

A bleeding ulcer is rarely just an endoscopic problem Peptic ulcer bleeding remains one of those situations in gastroenterology where several decisions arrive at once. The patient may be hypotensive. Hemoglobin is falling. Anticoagulation may be on board. There may be ongoing hematemesis, uncertainty about airway protection, pressure to scope quickly, and—once the ulcer is found—the equally familiar question of which hemostatic tool should come out first. For years, much of the discussion around ulcer bleeding has focused on what happens once the scope reaches the lesion: inject, clip, coagulate, repeat. The 2026 European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy update takes a broader view. The guideline, “Endoscopic diagnosis and management of peptic ulcer bleeding: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2026,” was published online on May 13, 2026, in Endoscopy . It updates the 2021 ESGE guidance on nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage and focuses specifically on the pre-endoscopic, endoscopic, and postendoscopic management of peptic ulcer bleeding. That narrower scope is worth remembering. This is guidance for peptic ulcer hemorrhage, not a universal algorithm for every cause of nonvariceal upper GI bleeding. The methodology matters because not every recommendation carries the same weight ESGE developed the update using structured PICO questions, formal literature searches, evidence synthesis, and the GRADE framework. The search covered English-language literature from 1946 through August 2025 across MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. For the practising gastroenterologist, that matters because guidelines are often read more uniformly than they were written. Some recommendations are strong and rest on relatively mature evidence. Others are conditional, supported by lower-certainty data, or dependent on operator skill and local resources. It is therefore better to think of this document as a decision map rather than a checklist. That distinction becomes particularly important around newer devices, clot management, pre-endoscopy adjuncts, and rescue therapy. Before the scope: stabilize first, then earn the right to hurry The guideline retains the fundamentals. Patients with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage should undergo immediate hemodynamic assessment, with prompt crystalloid volume replacement when instability is present. In hemodynamically stable patients without cardiovascular disease, ESGE supports a restrictive red-cell transfusion strategy using a hemoglobin threshold below 7 g/dL and a post-transfusion target of 7–9 g/dL. For patients with cardiovascular disease, the recommended threshold is more liberal: 8 g/dL, with a target hemoglobin of at least 10 g/dL. These are not glamorous recommendations, but in real practice they matter more than the newest hemostatic device. The endoscopic procedure begins, in effect, before the endoscope enters the room. Risk stratification remains centered on the Glasgow–Blatchford Score. ESGE recommends pre-endoscopic GBS assessment and states that patients with a score of 1 or less can be managed safely as outpatients with outpatient endoscopy. That is clinically useful for two reasons. First, it helps identify the genuinely low-risk patient who does not need admission simply because the presenting complaint contains the words “GI bleed.” Second, it protects resources for those who actually need monitored care, transfusion, urgent intervention, or escalation. In a busy service, avoiding unnecessary admission is not a lesser form of good medicine. Earlier is not always better One of the more important 2026 messages concerns the timing of endoscopy. ESGE does not recommend emergent endoscopy within 6 hours or urgent endoscopy within 12 hours unless the patient remains hemodynamically unstable despite adequate resuscitation. Early endoscopy still matters. The pathway continues to support upper GI endoscopy within 24 hours after resuscitation and risk assessment. But the sequence is important: resuscitate first, scope early, and reserve truly urgent endoscopy for persistent instability. This is a useful corrective to a common procedural reflex. There is understandable pressure to equate faster endoscopy with better care. Sometimes it is. Sometimes a patient needs stabilization more than they need a scope six hours earlier. The guideline makes that distinction explicit. Pre-endoscopy adjuncts: useful when selected, unnecessary when routine The update also places clear boundaries around interventions before endoscopy. Routine video capsule endoscopy or telemetric blood-sensing capsules are not recommended for suspected upper GI hemorrhage. For patients with clinically severe or ongoing active bleeding, intravenous erythromycin remains an option to improve gastric visualization. A practical addition in 2026 is that intravenous metoclopramide may be used when erythromycin is unavailable in selected patients with severe or ongoing upper GI hemorrhage. The strength of that statement matters: it is a conditional recommendation based on low-quality evidence. That is precisely the sort of recommendation that can easily become overgeneralized once it enters a protocol. It should not. Pre-endoscopy high-dose intravenous proton pump inhibitor therapy may also be considered, but ESGE explicitly states that it should not delay early endoscopy. Again, useful adjunct—not a reason to postpone definitive evaluation. Airway protection still requires judgement, not a standing order Another area where the guideline favors selectivity is prophylactic intubation. Routine prophylactic endotracheal intubation before upper GI endoscopy is not recommended. Instead, intubation should be reserved for selected patients, including those with ongoing active hematemesis, agitation, encephalopathy, or inability to adequately protect the airway. This is sensible. A patient with brisk hematemesis and altered consciousness is quite different from a stable patient with melena and preserved airway reflexes. Both technically have upper GI bleeding. Only one may clearly benefit from prophylactic airway protection. Guidelines are most useful when they preserve those distinctions. Forrest classification still earns its place Despite all the newer technology, the Forrest classification remains central to treatment decisions. Active bleeding lesions—Forrest Ia and Ib—require endoscopic hemostasis. A nonbleeding visible vessel, Forrest IIa, is also treated as a high-risk lesion. Low-risk stigmata such as a flat pigmented spot or clean ulcer base do not require endoscopic therapy and can move toward medical management and, where appropriate, earlier discharge. The more interesting territory remains Forrest IIb: the adherent clot. ESGE suggests attempting clot removal and then treating any underlying high-risk stigma, provided the endoscopist has the technical competence to remove the clot safely and manage the bleeding that may be uncovered. That final clause matters enormously. Removing a clot is not simply a diagnostic manoeuvre. One may turn a quiet-looking ulcer into an actively bleeding lesion within seconds. The recommendation therefore belongs to operators who are prepared not only to expose the vessel, but also to control it. Sometimes the clot is less cooperative after you introduce yourself. OTS clips are moving from rescue toward selected first-line use One of the clearest device-related shifts in the 2026 update is the expanded role of over-the-scope clips. For Forrest Ia and Ib lesions, ESGE suggests that an OTS clip may be used as monotherapy as an alternative to combination therapy, based on evidence suggesting a lower risk of further bleeding compared with standard endoscopic hemostatic approaches. For Forrest IIa lesions, the guideline continues to support thermal therapy, mechanical therapy with through-the-scope or over-the-scope clips, or sclerosing injection, either alone or combined with epinephrine. OTS clips may also be used as alternative monotherapy in this setting. The practical shift is significant. OTS clips are no longer confined to the mental category of “what we reach for after standard therapy fails.” They may now move earlier in selected high-risk lesions. But “may be used” should not quietly become “should be used everywhere.” An OTS clip is only as useful as the operator’s ability to reach the lesion, position the cap, capture the correct tissue, and deploy the device safely. Device availability, anatomy, fibrotic ulcer bases, lesion orientation, and local experience all matter. The guideline supports earlier consideration, not indiscriminate deployment. Hemostatic forceps also gain room in the toolbox ESGE also states that hemostatic forceps with soft coagulation may be used as monotherapy for high-risk stigmata including Forrest Ia, Ib, and IIa lesions. For experienced therapeutic endoscopists, this is a useful acknowledgement of what many already recognize at the bedside: a precisely targeted vessel may sometimes be more effectively treated with controlled soft coagulation than with repeated attempts at mechanically awkward clipping. Again, device choice is inseparable from operator familiarity and lesion geometry. No guideline can make a posterior duodenal bulb ulcer more polite. Hemostatic powder: valuable rescue, poor excuse for weak first-line therapy Topical hemostatic agents have become increasingly attractive because they are quick to deploy and can be useful when active bleeding obscures the field. ESGE nevertheless draws a clear boundary. Topical hemostatic agents should not be used as first-line monotherapy for high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding stigmata. Their role is primarily in refractory bleeding. If standard endoscopic hemostasis fails, ESGE suggests considering a topical hemostatic agent or an OTS clip. That distinction is clinically important. Ease of application should not be confused with durability of hemostasis. A powder may control an unpleasant bleeding field and buy time. It should not automatically replace the mechanical or thermal treatment of an identifiable high-risk lesion when definitive therapy is feasible. When the endoscope has done enough Some ulcers will continue to bleed despite well-performed endoscopic therapy. The 2026 pathway is relatively clear about what comes next. When persistent bleeding remains refractory to all available endoscopic modalities—including topical hemostatic agents and OTS clips—transcatheter angiographic embolization should be considered. Surgery becomes appropriate when TAE is unavailable locally or when embolization fails. For recurrent bleeding after initial hemostasis, ESGE recommends another endoscopic attempt and consideration of an OTS clip. If that attempt fails, the pathway again moves toward TAE, with surgery reserved for cases where embolization cannot be performed or is unsuccessful. This escalation sequence matters because recurrent bleeding is one of the situations in which teams can lose time repeating increasingly unproductive procedures. Knowing when to stop endoscoping is part of good endoscopy. What happens after hemostasis matters almost as much The postendoscopy section is one of the most practical parts of the guideline. High-dose PPI therapy should be given after successful endoscopic hemostasis and also to patients with an adherent clot who do not undergo endoscopic therapy. The guideline allows several approaches, including intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion, at least twice-daily intravenous bolus therapy for 72 hours, or oral therapy. The management of Helicobacter pylori remains equally important. Testing should be performed at index endoscopy, with treatment when positive. If initial testing is negative, clinicians should verify that the result is truly negative. Repeat testing is recommended, with PPIs withheld for at least two weeks beforehand. This is not a minor follow-up detail. Acute bleeding and acid suppression can produce false-negative results, and missing H. pylori means leaving a preventable cause of recurrent ulcer disease untreated. Stopping the bleeding while forgetting the cause is an incomplete victory. Anticoagulation, anemia, and nutrition belong in the same pathway For patients who still require anticoagulation, ESGE recommends resuming therapy as soon as clinically indicated according to thromboembolic risk. There is deliberately no universal restart day. The balance depends on the competing risks of recurrent bleeding and thrombosis. Two additional recommendations are particularly practical. ESGE suggests initiating iron therapy before discharge in patients with iron deficiency and/or anemia following peptic ulcer bleeding. It also suggests early oral nutrition within 24 hours after successful hemostasis when durable control has been achieved. These may appear less dramatic than an OTS clip or embolization. They are also the sort of details that determine whether the patient leaves hospital still depleted, weak, and halfway through recovery. What the 2026 update changes—and what it does not Several conclusions are well supported by the guideline. Resuscitation and risk stratification remain foundational. GBS still helps identify very-low-risk patients. Early endoscopy within 24 hours remains the default for appropriate patients, while emergent or urgent endoscopy is discouraged in those who have stabilized. Forrest classification continues to drive endoscopic treatment. OTS clips now have an expanded role in selected high-risk and recurrent bleeding scenarios. Hemostatic forceps are acknowledged as an additional option in experienced hands. Topical agents remain primarily rescue tools rather than preferred definitive first-line monotherapy. And when endoscopic therapy has failed, escalation to TAE should not be indefinitely postponed. There are equally important things clinicians should not conclude. Not every patient needs the fastest possible endoscopy. Not every adherent clot should be removed by every operator. OTS clips do not eliminate the need for anatomical judgement or technical expertise. Hemostatic powders should not become a shortcut around durable first-line treatment. And these recommendations should not be casually generalized to every cause of nonvariceal upper GI hemorrhage, because the 2026 update is specifically focused on peptic ulcer bleeding. Clinical Takeaway The ESGE 2026 guideline does not reinvent peptic ulcer bleeding management. It refines it. The central message is to move through the episode in a disciplined sequence: stabilize first; stratify risk; perform early rather than reflexively emergent endoscopy; classify the ulcer accurately; choose durable hemostasis according to the stigma and operator capability; escalate decisively when endoscopy fails; and complete the job with acid suppression, H. pylori management, anticoagulation planning, iron replacement, and nutrition. For the endoscopist, the most noticeable technical change is probably the earlier role assigned to OTS clips. For the wider GI team, the more important change may be conceptual: good ulcer bleeding care is not defined by how quickly one can deploy a device. It is defined by making the right decision at each stage of the pathway. The guideline also reminds us that new tools do not abolish old principles. Resuscitation still matters. Risk stratification still matters. Forrest classification still matters. Knowing when endoscopy has failed still matters. And perhaps most importantly, the patient still needs care after the vessel has stopped bleeding. Five points worth carrying into practice This is a formal ESGE guideline update. It was developed using PICO questions, systematic literature searching, evidence synthesis, and GRADE methodology. Do not confuse speed with quality. Emergent or urgent endoscopy is not recommended unless hemodynamic instability persists despite adequate resuscitation. Forrest classification remains the treatment backbone. Active bleeding and visible vessels require therapy; adherent clots require selective management by operators capable of treating what lies beneath. OTS clips now have an earlier role. They may be used as alternative monotherapy in selected high-risk lesions and should be considered in recurrent bleeding, but technical expertise and lesion suitability remain important. Have a rescue pathway before you need one. Refractory bleeding should progress from endoscopic rescue modalities to transcatheter angiographic embolization, with surgery when TAE is unavailable or unsuccessful. Source Gralnek IM, Morris J, Laursen SB, Camus M, Tziatzios G, Debels LK, Nigam GB, Erőss B, Goetz M, Forbes N, Cúrdia Gonçalves T, Kurek K, Bretthauer M, Tham TC. Endoscopic diagnosis and management of peptic ulcer bleeding: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2026. Endoscopy. 2026;58:899–924. Published online May 13, 2026. DOI: 10.1055/a-2863-8314.

GastroAGI TeamRead more

10 min readAug 14, 202616reads

GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Aspiration Risk During Endoscopy: What Clinicians Should Take From the New CGH Article

The question now arriving at almost every endoscopy unit It is an increasingly familiar pre-procedure conversation. A patient scheduled for elective endoscopy is taking a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist for type 2 diabetes, obesity, or both. The medication may slow gastric emptying. Someone on the team asks whether aspiration risk is higher. Then come the practical questions: Should the procedure go ahead? Should the medication have been withheld? Does anesthesia need to approach the case differently? These are not theoretical questions anymore. GLP-1 receptor agonists have become common enough that gastroenterologists encounter them across routine practice—in patients undergoing colorectal cancer screening, evaluation of dyspepsia or reflux symptoms, bariatric assessment, metabolic liver disease care, and standard diagnostic endoscopy. The new Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology article, “Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists Are Not Associated with Increased Pulmonary Aspiration During Endoscopy and Colonoscopy,” directly addresses the outcome that has generated much of this concern. The article was authored by Jeong Yun Yang, Ling Chen, Jason D. Wright, and Chin Hur and published online on July 22, 2026. There is, however, an important limitation before we go any further: the accessible source confirms the article title, journal, authors, and publication date, but does not provide the complete abstract, methods, study population, exposure definitions, outcome definitions, or numerical effect estimates. That means the clinically responsible interpretation must remain deliberately narrow. The title tells us that GLP-1 receptor agonist use was not associated with increased pulmonary aspiration during endoscopy and colonoscopy. It does not tell us, from the material currently available, precisely how that conclusion was reached. That distinction matters. Why GLP-1 therapy became an aspiration concern in the first place The concern is biologically reasonable. GLP-1 receptor agonists can delay gastric emptying. Delayed emptying can lead to retained gastric contents. Retained gastric contents, particularly around sedation or upper gastrointestinal procedures, raise concern about regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration. The chain of reasoning is therefore straightforward: GLP-1 therapy → slower gastric emptying → retained gastric contents → possible aspiration. But clinical medicine rarely allows us to treat a plausible physiological pathway as though every step has already been proven to translate into a meaningful clinical event. A drug may increase retained gastric contents without producing a measurable increase in aspiration. Aspiration itself is uncommon, procedural teams may alter their approach when retained contents are encountered, and fasting or bowel preparation may change the amount and character of gastric contents. So the clinically important question is not merely whether GLP-1 receptor agonists affect gastric emptying. We already know why that concern exists. The more relevant question is whether patients taking these medications actually experience more pulmonary aspiration during endoscopic procedures. The title of the CGH article suggests that, in the population studied, they did not. That is reassuring. It is not the same as saying the risk is zero. What we can say with confidence—and what we cannot The accessible source supports a small number of firm conclusions. The article was published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology , appeared online on July 22, 2026, and reports in its title that GLP-1 receptor agonists were not associated with increased pulmonary aspiration during endoscopy and colonoscopy. Beyond that, caution is necessary. We cannot independently verify from the available material whether this was a retrospective cohort, database analysis, case-control study, prospective study, systematic review, or another design. We do not have the sample size, inclusion criteria, comparator group, medication exposure window, procedure distribution, anesthesia setting, or method used to identify aspiration events. Those details are not academic housekeeping. They determine how much weight we should place on the result. A very large administrative database, for example, may be useful when studying a rare event such as aspiration but may depend heavily on diagnostic coding and have limited granular procedural information. A smaller endoscopy cohort might tell us more about retained gastric contents, sedation, fasting, and symptoms but have inadequate statistical power to detect uncommon pulmonary events. Different designs answer slightly different questions. Without the methods, it would be inappropriate to pretend we know which question this study answered best. “Not associated” is not the same as “cannot happen” This is perhaps the most important language point in the paper. The title says GLP-1 receptor agonists were not associated with increased pulmonary aspiration. That is an association statement. It does not mean a patient taking a GLP-1 receptor agonist cannot aspirate. Nor does it establish that medication exposure is irrelevant in every individual clinical situation. Aspiration is rarely a single-variable event. A patient with nausea, vomiting, marked early satiety, known gastroparesis, diabetes-related autonomic dysfunction, obesity, opioid exposure, poor fasting adherence, or an urgent procedural indication is not clinically identical to an asymptomatic patient presenting for a routine elective procedure. The type of procedure also matters. So may the depth of sedation, airway strategy, positioning, and overall comorbidity burden. That is why population-level reassurance should not eliminate bedside judgment. At the same time, the reverse mistake is equally easy to make. A physiologically plausible concern, or even a series of memorable case reports, does not automatically establish that every patient taking a GLP-1 receptor agonist carries a materially increased aspiration risk. We have all seen how quickly peri-procedural caution can turn into a blanket rule. The challenge is to avoid making the medication list more important than the patient sitting in front of us. Colonoscopy deserves separate thought One detail in the article title is easy to overlook: it explicitly includes both endoscopy and colonoscopy. That matters because these are not physiologically or procedurally identical settings. Patients presenting for colonoscopy usually undergo bowel preparation and often follow a period of liquid intake before the procedure. This may alter retained solid gastric content compared with a patient undergoing an upper endoscopy after standard fasting alone. Colonoscopy also does not involve direct instrumentation of the upper gastrointestinal tract. That does not mean aspiration is impossible during colonoscopy. Sedation, nausea, positioning, insufflation, and patient comorbidities can still influence pulmonary risk. What we should not do, however, is assume that because both procedures appear in the article title they necessarily carried the same risk, contributed equally to the dataset, or produced estimates with the same degree of precision. The accessible source does not provide that level of detail. For an endoscopist, that is an important limitation because procedure-specific decisions are precisely where this evidence may eventually prove most useful. The practical implication is not “ignore GLP-1 therapy” The most sensible clinical reading is more nuanced. GLP-1 receptor agonist exposure should not automatically be treated as synonymous with high aspiration risk. But it should not be ignored either. The more useful distinction may be between medication exposure and patient-level procedural risk. Consider two patients. One is on stable long-term GLP-1 therapy, has no nausea, vomiting, early satiety, abdominal distension, or known gastroparesis, and arrives for a screening colonoscopy after completing bowel preparation. Another has recently escalated the dose, reports persistent nausea and early satiety, and is scheduled for upper endoscopy. Even without making assumptions about the exact study population, few clinicians would view those patients as interchangeable. The source itself emphasizes that symptoms, procedural context, and other risk factors remain important considerations. What the article appears to add is reassurance against the idea that GLP-1 receptor agonist use by itself should automatically be equated with pulmonary aspiration. That is a useful distinction. What this article should not become There are several conclusions that would go beyond what the available evidence supports. First, the title should not be translated into “aspiration does not occur in GLP-1 users.” Rare events can occur even when there is no measurable increase at a population level. Second, the article should not be used to dismiss retained gastric contents as clinically irrelevant. Retained contents may still affect visualization, procedure completion, anesthesia decisions, and cancellations. The reported outcome in the title is pulmonary aspiration, not every possible consequence of delayed gastric emptying. Third, this should not automatically be converted into a universal medication-management protocol. A study can inform a guideline. It is not necessarily a guideline. The accessible material does not provide a protocol instructing clinicians to continue or discontinue GLP-1 therapy before every procedure. Fourth, we should resist extending the finding to populations we have not confirmed were studied. Urgent endoscopy, advanced procedures, severe gastroparesis, active vomiting, high-risk anesthesia, and recent GLP-1 initiation or dose escalation may represent quite different clinical circumstances. Finally, absence of increased association is not evidence of benefit. The correct interpretation remains neutral: GLP-1 receptor agonist use was not associated with a higher observed aspiration risk in the setting examined by the investigators. That may sound overly precise. In this case, precision is the entire point. The questions that remain unanswered Even a reassuring aspiration signal does not solve the operational problem facing endoscopy units. Clinicians still need to know which symptoms should lead to postponement, anesthesia consultation, altered fasting, gastric ultrasound, or airway protection. We need to understand whether risk varies by individual drug, daily versus weekly dosing, recent dose escalation, indication for therapy, diabetes status, obesity, and symptoms suggestive of delayed gastric emptying. We also need better procedure-specific information. Is the risk profile the same for upper endoscopy and colonoscopy? Does bowel preparation meaningfully modify retained gastric contents? How should we balance procedural safety against the consequences of repeated cancellations, delayed diagnosis, interrupted metabolic treatment, or disrupted glycemic control? The source identifies these as unresolved implementation questions and emphasizes the need for future studies with more granular information on procedure type, sedation depth, airway management, medication exposure, symptoms, fasting, bowel preparation, and objective clinical outcomes. That is where the field now needs to move. Not merely toward determining whether GLP-1 drugs are “safe” or “unsafe,” but toward identifying which patient, undergoing which procedure, under which circumstances, requires additional precaution. That is a much more clinically useful question. Clinical Takeaway The new Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology article by Yang, Chen, Wright, and Hur addresses one of the most debated periendoscopic concerns surrounding GLP-1 receptor agonists. The source-supported headline is reassuring: GLP-1 receptor agonists were not associated with increased pulmonary aspiration during endoscopy and colonoscopy. But the limits of what we currently have access to are equally important. The available source does not provide sufficient methodological detail to verify the study design, sample size, population, exposure definition, procedural characteristics, outcome ascertainment, or effect estimates. The result should therefore be read as an association-based finding rather than proof of zero risk. For gastroenterologists and endoscopy teams, the useful message is not that GLP-1 therapy can be forgotten before a procedure. It is that GLP-1 use alone should probably not become a surrogate for aspiration risk. Symptoms still matter. Procedure type matters. Sedation and airway strategy matter. The broader clinical context matters. And until more granular evidence is available, periendoscopic decisions should remain individualized rather than being driven by a medication name in isolation. After a few decades in gastroenterology, one becomes wary of both extremes: doing too little because an event is uncommon, and doing too much because an event is imaginable. The emerging evidence around GLP-1 receptor agonists and endoscopy may ultimately help us find the more sensible middle ground. Five points worth carrying into practice The verified finding is an association statement. The article reports that GLP-1 receptor agonists were not associated with increased pulmonary aspiration during endoscopy and colonoscopy. Do not interpret this as zero individual risk. Aspiration remains multifactorial, and patient symptoms and procedural circumstances remain relevant. Retained gastric contents and pulmonary aspiration are not interchangeable outcomes. The absence of increased aspiration does not establish that delayed gastric emptying has no procedural consequences. This is not automatically a medication-management guideline. The accessible source does not support a blanket instruction to continue or withhold GLP-1 receptor agonists before every procedure. Methodological uncertainty matters. The accessible source does not provide sufficient detail to verify the study design, population, exposure definitions, outcome definitions, or numerical effect estimates. Source Yang JY, Chen L, Wright JD, Hur C. Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists Are Not Associated with Increased Pulmonary Aspiration During Endoscopy and Colonoscopy. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Published online July 22, 2026.

GastroAGI TeamRead more

10 min readAug 13, 202617reads

Fidaxomicin First in IBD-Associated C. difficile? A Clinician’s Guide to the 2026 AGA Update

When the familiar IBD flare is not quite what it seems Most gastroenterologists have seen some version of this patient. Someone with ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s colitis who had been reasonably stable returns with more diarrhea, worsening urgency, abdominal discomfort, and inflammatory markers heading in the wrong direction. The clinical picture looks familiar enough that escalation of IBD therapy naturally comes to mind. But Clostridioides difficile infection complicates that reflex. In patients with IBD, CDI and active intestinal inflammation can look remarkably similar. Missing an infection may delay appropriate antimicrobial treatment. At the other extreme, attributing everything to CDI because a molecular assay is positive can distract from active IBD that still needs treatment. That uneasy overlap between infection and inflammation sits at the heart of the 2026 American Gastroenterological Association Clinical Practice Update, “AGA Clinical Practice Update on Management of Clostridioides difficile Infection in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Expert Review.” The review, authored by Sahil Khanna, Jessica R. Allegretti, Jana G. Hashash, and Paul Feuerstadt, was published online on May 15, 2026, in Gastroenterology and appears in Volume 171, Issue 1, pages 184–192. Before considering its recommendations, one point deserves emphasis. This is an AGA Clinical Practice Update Expert Review, not a randomized trial and not a formal systematic review generating graded evidence for every recommendation. It brings together published studies, existing guidelines, systematic reviews, and expert interpretation to provide practical advice for a difficult clinical problem. That distinction does not diminish its usefulness. It simply tells us how confidently to hold the conclusions. CDI in IBD is more than another cause of diarrhea The higher burden of CDI in IBD has been recognized for some time, but the clinical consequences are worth keeping in view. The AGA summary emphasizes prompt evaluation for CDI in patients with IBD involving the colon and reports an approximately eightfold higher risk than in the general population. Patients with IBD also experience more severe illness and more frequent recurrence than those without IBD. The consequences may extend well beyond additional bowel movements. CDI in IBD has been associated with hospitalization, disease flares, escalation or failure of medical therapy, and a greater likelihood of surgery. Association, however, is not the same thing as causation. Patients who develop CDI may already have more severe inflammatory disease, greater healthcare exposure, recent antibiotic use, immunosuppression, or other characteristics that contribute to worse outcomes. It would therefore be overly simplistic to attribute every subsequent deterioration to the infection itself. For the clinician standing at the bedside, the more useful message is simpler: when an IBD patient deteriorates, CDI should remain firmly in the differential rather than being treated as an incidental possibility. And once CDI is identified, management should not become an either-or exercise. The patient may have infection. The patient may have active IBD. Very often, the practical challenge is that both need attention at the same time. The diagnostic problem begins before the prescription pad One of the strongest practical messages in the update concerns testing. Patients with IBD who develop new or worsening diarrhea should be evaluated for CDI, particularly when colonic disease is present. The same principle extends to patients with an end ileostomy or ileal pouch-anal anastomosis who develop an unexplained increase in output. The more interesting question is not simply whether to test, but how to interpret the result. The update favors a multistep toxin-based testing strategy rather than relying on polymerase chain reaction alone. That distinction matters considerably in IBD. PCR is highly capable of identifying the organism, but identification does not necessarily establish toxin-mediated disease. A patient can carry toxigenic C. difficile without CDI being the principal explanation for the current diarrhea. A positive PCR coupled with a negative toxin result may therefore represent colonization rather than clinically active infection. This is one of those areas where laboratory terminology quickly becomes a bedside management issue. A patient with active colitis may have diarrhea from intestinal inflammation, infection, medication effects, bile acid diarrhea, pouch-related disease, postinfectious symptoms, or overlapping functional symptoms. Anchoring on a molecular result can lead us in the wrong direction just as surely as failing to test at all. Twenty-five years of gastroenterology does not make diarrhea diagnostically more obedient. It merely makes one increasingly suspicious of single-test explanations. The update also advises renewed testing when diarrhea recurs after recent treatment for CDI. This should not be interpreted as routine testing to document cure. Rather, recurrent symptoms require reassessment because recurrent CDI and recurrent IBD activity remain clinically difficult to distinguish. Fidaxomicin moves to the front—but with an important qualifier The headline therapeutic recommendation is likely to receive the most attention. For an initial CDI episode in a patient with IBD, the AGA advises preferential use of fidaxomicin. Oral vancomycin remains an appropriate alternative when fidaxomicin is unavailable or its cost is prohibitive. Metronidazole should not be used for initial CDI in this setting. There is biological logic behind the preference. Fidaxomicin is relatively narrow spectrum, targets C. difficile , and causes less disruption to intestinal microbial diversity than broader antimicrobial approaches. The review also points toward lower recurrence rates as an important reason for favoring it over vancomycin. Retrospective IBD studies cited in the source have reported cure rates in the range of approximately 80%–90%. Still, this is exactly where careful wording matters. The update does not provide large IBD-specific randomized trials demonstrating that fidaxomicin is universally superior to vancomycin across every clinical scenario. Many CDI therapeutic trials have excluded patients with IBD, and the antibiotic data available specifically in this population remain limited and substantially retrospective. So the practical conclusion is not: “Every patient with IBD and CDI must receive fidaxomicin.” It is closer to: “When feasible, fidaxomicin deserves to be the preferred initial option, while oral vancomycin remains a clinically legitimate alternative when access or affordability dictates otherwise.” That is a rather less dramatic sentence, but medicine usually improves when the adjectives are kept under control. Availability, cost, disease severity, recurrence history, institutional pathways, and local practice will continue to influence what actually happens in clinic. The update acknowledges that reality rather than pretending it does not exist. Severe disease is where diagnostic ambiguity becomes dangerous The infection-versus-flare distinction becomes particularly consequential when the patient is clinically deteriorating. The AGA advises strong consideration of hospitalization when IBD and CDI coexist with features suggesting severe colitis or systemic toxicity. Warning features include more than six bowel movements per day, severe abdominal pain, marked leukocytosis, hemodynamic instability, or other signs of sepsis. Hospital admission in this situation is not simply about delivering antibiotics in a different building. It allows closer observation, correction of fluid and electrolyte abnormalities, assessment of disease severity, imaging where appropriate, coordination of IBD therapy, and surgical involvement when the clinical trajectory demands it. Importantly, the update does not suggest that every IBD patient with CDI belongs in hospital. These are danger signals that should lower the threshold for admission. There is another limitation worth preserving. The individual clinical markers associated with medically refractory colitis and progression toward fulminant CDI have not been validated together as a single risk model specifically for IBD-associated CDI. They are therefore useful clinical warning signs—not a validated bedside scoring system. That distinction may seem academic until a risk score begins dictating management. Then it becomes very practical indeed. Treat the infection, but do not forget the IBD Perhaps the most clinically reassuring part of the update concerns immunosuppression. When choosing therapy for IBD, the AGA states that no particular immunosuppressive class or mechanism of action has demonstrated a differential CDI risk sufficient to dictate treatment selection. Clinicians should choose the therapy most appropriate for controlling the patient's IBD. More importantly, the presence of acute CDI should not automatically trigger withdrawal of necessary IBD therapy. The update supports continuing required immunomodulators, biologics, or small molecules while CDI is treated. Corticosteroids may also be used when considered clinically necessary. This deserves a careful reading. The recommendation does not establish that immunosuppression during CDI is universally risk-free. The supporting evidence is largely retrospective, and randomized comparative trials are lacking. Rather, the update challenges the reflex assumption that every immunosuppressive therapy must be stopped simply because CDI has been identified. That is an important distinction in practice. If intestinal inflammation remains uncontrolled, successfully treating the infection alone may not restore the patient. Persistent symptoms after approximately 48–72 hours of CDI therapy should therefore prompt reassessment for ongoing IBD activity or another explanation, including cytomegalovirus infection where relevant. The broader principle is familiar: treat what is actually harming the patient, rather than allowing one diagnosis to erase the other. Recurrence changes the conversation Recurrent CDI remains particularly troublesome in IBD because every recurrence can bring another round of antibiotics, further microbiome disruption, renewed diagnostic uncertainty, and potential destabilization of the underlying inflammatory disease. The AGA update therefore brings microbiome-based therapy into the discussion relatively early. For patients who experience at least one recurrence, the authors advise consideration of fecal microbiota transplantation or FDA-approved donor-derived microbiota restoration therapies. That represents an important change in emphasis: recurrence management should not automatically mean another indefinite cycle of antibiotics without considering strategies aimed at restoring colonization resistance. But again, enthusiasm needs boundaries. Evidence is not uniform across microbiome-based products or across different IBD populations. Patient selection, disease phenotype, immunosuppression, product availability, local expertise, safety screening, and regulatory considerations all remain relevant. Microbiome restoration is therefore an increasingly important recurrence-prevention strategy—not a guaranteed solution for every patient with recurrent CDI and IBD. Where the evidence should make us confident—and where it should not The value of this Clinical Practice Update lies partly in how well it organizes a messy clinical problem. But several conclusions would go beyond what the evidence supports. First, fidaxomicin should not be described as definitively superior in every patient with IBD and CDI. The preference is clinically meaningful, but IBD-specific comparative evidence remains limited and largely retrospective. Second, PCR positivity is not synonymous with active toxin-mediated CDI. Colonization remains an important interpretive problem, which is why multistep toxin-based testing matters. Third, continuing IBD therapy does not mean immunosuppression is automatically safe in every circumstance. It means necessary control of active inflammatory disease should not be reflexively abandoned while CDI is treated. Fourth, microbiome-based therapy is not a guaranteed cure for recurrence. Evidence and experience vary by product and by IBD subgroup. And finally, the document itself must be labelled correctly. This is an expert Clinical Practice Update, not a formal systematic review or a randomized comparative trial. Those caveats are not footnotes to the message. They are part of the message. Clinical Takeaway The 2026 AGA Clinical Practice Update encourages a more integrated approach to C. difficile infection in IBD. When an IBD patient develops new or worsening diarrhea, CDI deserves active consideration, but diagnosis should rely on thoughtful interpretation rather than PCR positivity alone. A multistep toxin-based testing strategy helps separate active infection from colonization. For an initial episode of nonfulminant CDI, fidaxomicin is preferred when feasible, while oral vancomycin remains an appropriate alternative when access or cost is limiting. Metronidazole should not be used as initial therapy in this setting. Patients showing severe colitis or systemic toxicity warrant a low threshold for hospitalization. At the same time, clinicians should avoid reflexively withdrawing necessary IBD treatment simply because CDI has been diagnosed. Persistent symptoms despite initial CDI therapy should trigger reassessment for ongoing inflammatory disease or alternative causes. After recurrence, microbiome-based strategies deserve consideration rather than repeatedly defaulting to antibiotic treatment alone. Perhaps the most useful message is also the least fashionable: CDI and active IBD are not mutually exclusive diagnoses. Treat the infection promptly. Interpret the laboratory result in its clinical context. Continue to assess the inflammatory disease. And keep the strength of the underlying evidence in view when moving from guidance to individual patient care. That is not as tidy as an algorithm. It is, however, much closer to the patient sitting in front of us. Five points worth carrying into practice Know what kind of evidence you are reading. This is an AGA Clinical Practice Update Expert Review, not an IBD-specific randomized trial or formal systematic review. Testing strategy matters. New or worsening diarrhea in IBD should prompt evaluation for CDI, with multistep toxin-based testing helping distinguish active infection from colonization. Fidaxomicin moves earlier. It is preferred for initial CDI when feasible, while oral vancomycin remains acceptable when cost or access is limiting. Metronidazole should not be used. Do not reflexively stop necessary IBD therapy. Infection and intestinal inflammation may require concurrent management. Recurrence should trigger a prevention discussion. Microbiome-based therapies are increasingly relevant after recurrent CDI, although evidence varies across products and IBD populations. Source Khanna S, Allegretti JR, Hashash JG, Feuerstadt P. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Management of Clostridioides difficile Infection in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Expert Review. Gastroenterology. 2026;171(1):184–192. Published online May 15, 2026. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2026.03.008. Additional official AGA summary: 12 best practices for managing C. difficile infection in IBD. American Gastroenterological Association, June 9, 2026.

GastroAGI TeamRead more

13 min readAug 11, 202642reads

When Is ACLF-3 Too Sick for Transplant? What Extreme Life Support Data Say About Futility

The Question Nobody on a Transplant Team Takes Lightly There are few moments in hepatology more difficult than discussing liver transplantation for a patient with ACLF-3 who is already intubated, receiving vasopressors, and dependent on dialysis. The urgency is obvious. Without transplantation, mortality can be extraordinarily high. Yet transplantation does not remove the responsibility to ask whether the patient has enough physiologic reserve to survive the operation, recover from critical illness, and derive meaningful benefit from a scarce donor organ. That is where the uncomfortable word futility enters the discussion. The study “Liver Transplantation at the Extreme: Analysis of Outcomes and Predictors of Futility in Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure Grade 3 Patients on Maximal Life Support,” by Melehy and colleagues, published online in JHEP Reports on August 5, 2026, examines precisely this group. These were not simply patients with ACLF-3. The investigators defined an extreme ACLF-3, or eACLF-3, phenotype in which every patient required mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and dialysis at the time of liver transplantation. The study then asked two important questions: Can selected patients at this level of critical illness still achieve acceptable post-transplant survival? And if so, which pre-transplant factors are associated with a higher likelihood that transplantation will ultimately prove futile? This was an observational outcomes and risk-factor analysis, not a randomized study. That distinction is central because the patients included had already passed through a transplant-selection process. The findings therefore inform selection; they do not tell us what would happen if every patient with eACLF-3 were transplanted. “Extreme” Means More Than Three Organ Failures ACLF-3 is already defined by severe multisystem dysfunction, with at least three organ failures and very high short-term mortality. The study deliberately moved further toward the edge of that spectrum. Every patient in the eACLF-3 cohort required three forms of major organ support at transplantation: invasive mechanical ventilation vasopressor therapy renal replacement therapy That is clinically important. Two patients may both be classified as ACLF-3 while looking very different at the bedside. One may have relatively stable cardiovascular physiology and limited respiratory support. Another may require escalating vasopressors, worsening oxygenation, and continuous dialysis. Combining those patients under one severity label can hide clinically meaningful heterogeneity. This analysis focuses specifically on the second group—the patients for whom the transplant discussion is often occurring in the ICU, with the anesthesiologist, intensivist, hepatologist, surgeon, and family all aware that the margin for error is extremely small. What the Investigators Studied The investigators identified adult eACLF-3 liver transplant recipients between January 2010 and December 2021 . They compared patients who did and did not experience what the study defined as a futile outcome: in-hospital mortality or death within one year of transplantation. The analysis examined a range of recipient, physiologic, operative, and donor-related variables to determine which factors were associated with that endpoint. The results were then externally evaluated using data from the Multi-Organ Dysfunction and Evaluation for Liver Transplantation Consortium , or MODEL Consortium. That external comparison strengthens the study. But again, the question is not whether transplantation is appropriate for ACLF-3 in general. The study addresses something narrower and more difficult: Among patients already at the extreme end of ACLF-3, can we distinguish those who still have meaningful transplant potential from those at particularly high risk of poor outcome? Maximal Life Support Did Not Equal Universal Futility At the authors’ centre, 1,608 adults underwent liver transplantation. Of these, 177, or 11%, met the eACLF-3 definition. Among those 177 recipients, 35 patients—20%—experienced the study-defined futile outcome. That figure deserves a moment. It means that even among patients who were intubated, receiving vasopressors, and dependent on dialysis at the time of transplantation, poor outcome was not inevitable. Most selected patients in this cohort did not meet the futility endpoint. The centre reported survival of: 89% at 3 months 85% at 6 months 80% at 12 months For comparison, eACLF-3 patients in the MODEL Consortium had reported survival of: 83% at 3 months 79% at 6 months 70% at 12 months Five-year survival was more similar between the cohorts: 63% versus 59%. The important word here remains selected. These results should not be converted into the claim that any patient with ACLF-3 on maximal organ support should proceed to transplantation. They demonstrate something more nuanced: Extreme acuity alone does not automatically make transplantation futile. The Predictors Were More Informative Than the Organ-Failure Count The study identified several variables associated with the futility endpoint: previous upper abdominal surgery sepsis within 14 days before transplantation intubation because of pneumonia or ARDS rapidly increasing MELD-Na worsening PaO₂₂ ratio worse pre-transplant base deficit higher donor risk index Several associations were substantial. Prior upper abdominal surgery carried a reported odds ratio of 4.78. Sepsis within 14 days before transplantation had an odds ratio of 6.68. Ventilation because of pneumonia or ARDS had an odds ratio of 3.843. A rise in MELD-Na of at least 6% per week was associated with an odds ratio of 3.07. A worsening PaO₂₂ ratio of at least 12% per week had an odds ratio of 4.26. Worst pre-transplant base deficit carried an odds ratio of 1.33 per unit decrease. Higher donor risk index had an odds ratio of 2.542 per unit increase. These are associations, not deterministic thresholds. The useful clinical signal lies in the pattern. Futility appears less related to the simple fact that a patient has three organ failures—everyone in the cohort already did—and more related to trajectory, infection, pulmonary disease, shock physiology, operative complexity, and donor quality. Mechanical Ventilation Is Not One Prognostic Category One of the most useful insights concerns respiratory failure. Every patient in this cohort was intubated. Therefore, intubation itself could not distinguish survivors from patients experiencing futile outcomes. What mattered more was why the patient was ventilated and whether respiratory physiology was worsening. Patients intubated because of pneumonia or ARDS had higher odds of futility. A worsening PaO₂₂ ratio was also associated with poor outcome. This fits an important bedside distinction. A patient intubated primarily for airway protection in severe hepatic encephalopathy is not necessarily physiologically equivalent to a patient with severe inflammatory lung injury, infection, or progressive hypoxemia. Both may appear identical in a database column labelled “mechanically ventilated.” They are not identical patients. The study does not provide an absolute PaO₂₂ threshold beyond which transplantation should be refused. Nor should it be used that way. Its message is more useful: respiratory phenotype and respiratory trajectory matter more than the ventilation label alone. Recent Sepsis Deserves Particular Attention Sepsis within the preceding 14 days was one of the strongest predictors associated with futility. Anyone involved in ACLF transplantation will recognize the difficulty here. “Is the infection controlled?” sounds like a binary question. In practice, it rarely is. Cultures may have cleared while vasopressor requirements remain high. Antibiotics may be appropriate, yet oxygenation is worsening. The source may have been controlled, but the patient remains metabolically unstable. Or a patient may still require broad-spectrum therapy despite an improving hemodynamic trajectory. The study does not establish a universal waiting period after sepsis. It does not define an exact point at which infection becomes sufficiently controlled to proceed. And it cannot prove that recent sepsis itself caused post-transplant death. What it does show is that recent severe infection identifies a substantially higher-risk phenotype in this already critically ill population. The practical response should therefore be better characterization of infection trajectory—not simply adding “sepsis: yes/no” to a checklist. Trajectory May Matter More Than the Snapshot Two of the predictors were explicitly dynamic: increasing MELD-Na worsening PaO₂₂ ratio That is clinically important. Transplant decisions are often made using measurements recorded at a particular moment. But ACLF is not a static disease. A patient with a MELD-Na of 38 that has been stable may not carry the same risk as another patient whose MELD-Na is rapidly worsening toward the same value. Likewise, a patient with impaired oxygenation that is improving may be different from one whose gas exchange is deteriorating despite support. The study supports an approach transplant clinicians have long used intuitively: Direction matters. The patient’s trajectory over the preceding hours and days may tell us more about physiologic reserve than a single laboratory value taken at 06:00. Base Deficit: A Window Into Physiologic Reserve Worsening pre-transplant base deficit was also associated with futility. Base deficit is not a liver-specific variable. That is precisely why it is useful here. In a critically ill ACLF patient, worsening metabolic acidosis may reflect inadequate tissue perfusion, shock physiology, renal failure, sepsis, or a combination of several processes. The association suggests that transplantation outcomes are influenced not only by how dysfunctional the liver is, but by how deeply the rest of the patient’s physiology has been pushed. The liver can be replaced. The consequences of prolonged multisystem shock are rather less cooperative. Again, this is not a validated bedside exclusion threshold. It is a marker that may help transplant teams judge the overall physiologic direction of travel. Donor Quality Becomes Part of the Futility Equation The presence of donor risk index among the predictors is especially interesting. We often discuss transplant futility as though it belongs entirely to the recipient. This analysis suggests otherwise. When a recipient is already operating with very limited physiologic reserve, the characteristics of the graft may influence whether transplantation succeeds. That does not mean higher-risk donor organs should never be used in ACLF-3. The study does not provide such an allocation rule. But it reinforces the importance of donor-recipient matching. An eACLF-3 patient with recent sepsis, worsening oxygenation, significant metabolic derangement, and rapidly progressing disease may tolerate additional graft-related risk differently from a more stable recipient. The transplant decision is therefore not simply: “Is this patient transplantable?” It may also be: “Is this particular graft appropriate for this particular patient at this particular moment?” Why Previous Upper Abdominal Surgery May Matter Previous upper abdominal surgery was also associated with futility. The study identifies the association but does not establish the exact mechanism behind it. A plausible clinical interpretation is that prior surgery may increase operative complexity, adhesions, blood loss, or technical difficulty, but these possibilities should not be converted into proven causal explanations from this study alone. The appropriate conclusion is simpler. In patients whose physiologic reserve is already minimal, factors that may make transplantation more technically demanding deserve additional attention. The operating room is not separate from ICU physiology. The more difficult the transplant, the more reserve the patient may need to recover from it. What the Study Supports Several conclusions can reasonably be drawn. First, eACLF-3 should not automatically be equated with transplant futility. Selected patients receiving ventilation, vasopressors, and dialysis can achieve meaningful short- and longer-term survival after transplantation. Second, patient selection remains critical. The favourable outcomes in this report were achieved in patients who had already been selected for transplantation by an experienced centre. Third, transplant assessment should extend beyond MELD-Na and organ-failure counts. Recent sepsis, respiratory phenotype, oxygenation trend, metabolic shock physiology, disease trajectory, prior surgery, and donor characteristics may all contribute useful information. Fourth, the relevant question is not simply how sick the patient is. It is whether the patient appears recoverably sick or continues to deteriorate despite maximal support. That distinction remains difficult, but this study offers several variables that may help define it more rigorously. What Clinicians Should Not Conclude The study does not show that all patients with eACLF-3 should undergo transplantation. It does not establish any single variable as an absolute contraindication. Recent sepsis does not automatically mean transplantation is futile. ARDS does not automatically rule out transplantation. A worsening MELD-Na or PaO₂₂ ratio does not create an independently validated stopping threshold. Nor does a higher donor risk index automatically make a graft inappropriate. These factors were associated with futility within an observational analysis. Their value is likely cumulative and contextual. The study also should not encourage transplant teams to delay referral while waiting for a patient to “declare themselves.” ACLF-3 can deteriorate rapidly. Futility assessment is only useful if transplant evaluation begins early enough for the team to observe trajectory, control infection, evaluate organ support, and make a decision before the window closes. Selection Bias Is Not a Footnote The most important limitation is inherent to the study design. This was an observational analysis of patients who received transplantation. They had already been selected. Patients considered too unstable, too infected, too frail, or otherwise unsuitable may never have reached the operating room and therefore are not represented in the outcomes. This creates unavoidable selection bias. The finding that 80% of transplanted eACLF-3 patients avoided the study’s futility endpoint does not mean that 80% of all patients with eACLF-3 would benefit from transplantation. That would be a very different study. Residual confounding is also unavoidable. The centre’s transplant expertise, ICU practices, donor selection, operative management, and thresholds for transplantation may all influence outcomes. External evaluation through the MODEL Consortium strengthens confidence that the findings are not entirely centre-specific, but it does not eliminate those limitations. Predictors Are Not Yet a Futility Score The risk factors identified are clinically useful. They are not yet a validated universal decision tool. Prospective studies are needed to determine whether these variables can be combined into a reproducible score that improves transplant selection beyond expert multidisciplinary judgment. Any future tool would also need to answer a difficult question: What probability of one-year or in-hospital mortality should be considered unacceptable? Medicine can build a model. Defining futility remains partly a clinical and ethical judgment. That decision involves expected benefit, organ scarcity, alternative candidates, reversibility of organ failures, patient values, and centre-specific outcomes. A number can inform that discussion. It cannot conduct it for us. The Practical Message for the Transplant Team The most useful way to read this study is not as permission to transplant every patient at the edge of survival, nor as a list of reasons to exclude them. It is an argument for more disciplined selection. When evaluating an eACLF-3 patient, the team should look beyond the fact that the patient is on three forms of life support. Ask instead: Is the infection controlled or still evolving? Why is the patient intubated? Is oxygenation improving or deteriorating? Is MELD-Na stable or rising rapidly? Is metabolic shock improving? What operative challenges are anticipated? What is the quality of the available donor organ? And perhaps most importantly: Is the overall trajectory suggesting recovery potential, or progressive loss of physiologic reserve? Those are not new questions. This study gives them stronger empirical footing. Clinical Takeaway This JHEP Reports study challenges the assumption that ACLF-3 patients requiring maximal life support are automatically beyond the point of meaningful liver transplantation. Among 177 selected eACLF-3 recipients who were all intubated, receiving vasopressors, and dependent on dialysis at transplantation, 20% experienced the study-defined futile outcome, while reported survival reached 80% at one year in the primary cohort. The more important finding, however, is not the survival number alone. It is the pattern of risk. Recent sepsis, pneumonia- or ARDS-related ventilation, worsening oxygenation, rapidly increasing MELD-Na, metabolic acidosis, prior upper abdominal surgery, and higher donor risk were all associated with futility. These variables should not become isolated contraindications. They should sharpen multidisciplinary assessment. The study is practice-informing rather than independently practice-changing. It supports the idea that extreme acuity alone should not close the transplant door, while reminding us that successful transplantation depends on identifying patients whose critical illness is severe but still potentially reversible. In ACLF-3, “too sick to transplant” is rarely a single number. It is a trajectory. Five Key Clinical Takeaways eACLF-3 represented an exceptionally high-acuity population. Every patient required mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and dialysis at the time of transplantation. Maximal life support did not mean universal futility. Among 177 selected eACLF-3 recipients, 20% met the composite endpoint of in-hospital or one-year mortality. Dynamic physiology mattered. Recent sepsis, pneumonia or ARDS, worsening PaO₂₂, increasing MELD-Na, and worse base deficit were associated with poor outcomes. Donor and operative factors also contributed. Higher donor risk index and previous upper abdominal surgery were among the identified predictors, reinforcing that futility assessment extends beyond recipient liver severity alone. These findings are not absolute transplant contraindications. They come from an observational, selected transplant population and require prospective validation before becoming a formal futility decision tool. Source Reference Melehy A, Thepbunchonchai A, Tran BV, Hernaez R, et al. Liver Transplantation at the Extreme: Analysis of Outcomes and Predictors of Futility in Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure Grade 3 Patients on Maximal Life Support. JHEP Reports. Available online August 5, 2026; Article 101959. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhepr.2026.101959.

GastroAGI TeamRead more

11 min readAug 11, 202619reads

Find the Feeder: What Precision EUS Targeting May Change in Gastric Variceal Therapy

The Varix We See May Not Be the Best Target When a gastric varix appears on endoscopy, the instinctive therapeutic target is the varix itself. That makes perfect sense. It is visible, often impressive, and in the wrong clinical moment capable of producing a bleed nobody in the room will forget quickly. EUS, however, changes the perspective. Instead of showing us only the submucosal variceal complex, it can reveal the vascular architecture feeding it—collateral channels, inflow vessels, Doppler flow, and the relationship between the varix and surrounding vessels. The recent Gastrointestinal Endoscopy commentary “Precision gastric variceal therapy: find the feeder,” by Cameron Thompson, published online on August 5, 2026, focuses on this idea. The accompanying clinical question is straightforward: If we can clearly identify the vessel feeding the gastric varix, should we treat the feeder rather than the visible variceal complex? The commentary itself is not a new therapeutic trial. The comparative data behind the concept come from Dhar and colleagues, who examined EUS-guided coil-and-glue embolization directed either at the feeder vessel or at the submucosal variceal complex. That distinction matters. The commentary offers interpretation. The supporting study provides pragmatic comparative data. Neither should be read as definitive randomized evidence establishing feeder targeting as the universal standard for gastric varices. What the Comparative Study Actually Asked Dhar and colleagues evaluated patients undergoing EUS-guided coil-and-glue therapy in whom a discernible feeder vessel could be identified. That qualification is central to the entire study. The investigators compared two anatomical strategies: EUS-guided treatment directed at the feeder vessel EUS-guided treatment directed at the submucosal variceal complex The primary outcome was reintervention rate. Secondary outcomes included: coil use glue use gastric variceal obliteration number of EUS sessions bleeding outcomes at 6 months This was a pragmatic comparative analysis rather than a blinded randomized trial. The question was therefore not whether EUS-guided coil-and-glue therapy works in gastric varices generally. It was more technical: Does choosing a different vascular target make the procedure more efficient? For therapeutic endoscopists, that is a very practical question. The Anatomy Behind the Idea A gastric varix is not an isolated balloon sitting beneath the mucosa. It is part of a collateral vascular circuit. Conventional endoscopy shows us its luminal expression. EUS allows us to see something closer to the plumbing. The “find the feeder” strategy takes advantage of that additional information. Rather than filling or embolizing the visible submucosal complex, the operator identifies the inflow vessel and attempts to interrupt the circulation supplying the varix. The logic is attractive. If one can control the vessel supplying the varix, perhaps fewer coils and less glue are required to achieve obliteration. Anyone who has performed technically difficult vascular EUS will also appreciate the other side of the argument: anatomy is not always kind enough to present the feeder in a clean textbook plane. The strategy only works when the vessel is clearly identified and safely accessible. Who Was Studied? The comparative analysis included 135 patients. Of these: 32 patients underwent feeder-vessel targeting 103 patients underwent targeting of the submucosal variceal complex GOV2 was the most common varix type, reported in 81 patients, representing 60% of the cohort. Arakawa type 1 anatomy was reported in 97 patients, or 71.85%. Both groups received EUS-guided coil-and-glue treatment. The difference lay in where the operator delivered it. That is worth emphasizing because the study is not comparing EUS-guided therapy with conventional glue injection, radiologic intervention, TIPS, or another portal hypertension strategy. It compares two EUS-guided anatomical targets within a selected population. What Happened When the Feeder Was Targeted? The feeder-vessel approach was associated with lower use of both coils and glue. Across the 6-month period, mean overall coil use was: 1.94 ± 0.91 in the feeder-vessel group versus 2.79 ± 1.76 in the submucosal variceal-complex group. Mean overall glue use was: 1.88 ± 0.64 mL versus 2.83 ± 1.70 mL, respectively. The study also reported a lower 6-month reintervention rate: 3.1% with feeder-vessel targeting versus 17.5% when the submucosal variceal complex was targeted. Fewer EUS sessions were also required to achieve complete gastric variceal obliteration in the feeder-targeting group. Taken together, these results support the possibility that a more anatomically precise target may achieve treatment goals with less material and fewer repeat procedures. That is clinically interesting. It is not yet the same thing as proving superiority in every patient. Why Using Less Coil and Glue May Matter At first glance, reduced coil and glue use might sound like a procedural detail best left to the supply room. It deserves more attention than that. EUS-guided gastric variceal therapy can be technically demanding and resource intensive. Reducing material requirements could plausibly: simplify the procedure lower consumable costs reduce the amount of embolic material deployed decrease the need for additional treatment sessions The investigators suggested that this might translate into a more cost-effective approach. The word “might” is doing appropriate work here. The accessible study information does not describe a formal economic analysis. Therefore, lower material use should not be converted into a claim of proven cost-effectiveness. Similarly, less glue exposure might sound intuitively attractive from a safety perspective, but this study does not establish that feeder targeting produces fewer embolic complications. Those remain plausible hypotheses rather than demonstrated outcomes. The More Interesting Shift Is From Appearance to Hemodynamics The larger lesson may not be the exact number of coils used. It is the change in therapeutic thinking. Traditional endoscopy is largely lesion directed. We identify what looks abnormal and treat it. EUS adds another layer: flow-directed intervention. In gastric varices, this means asking not only where the varix is located, but: Where is the inflow? How is the collateral network organized? Which vessel can be safely accessed? Can Doppler confirm the relevant flow before and after embolization? This approach fits a broader evolution in advanced endoscopy. We increasingly treat anatomy not simply as a static structure, but as a functional map. The Dhar study supports that idea by suggesting that the choice of vascular target may influence procedural efficiency. It should still be viewed as a signal requiring prospective validation. What This Means for the Advanced Endoscopist For clinicians already performing EUS-guided gastric variceal therapy, the study raises several useful questions before puncture. Can the feeder vessel be identified confidently? Is its course technically accessible? Is the vessel large and stable enough for safe targeting? Does the anatomy allow coil deployment without creating avoidable risk? Is Doppler assessment adequate? And perhaps most importantly, does the operator have sufficient experience to choose a feeder-targeted approach rather than simply pursue it because the concept is appealing? The study only supports feeder targeting when the feeder vessel is feasible and discernible on EUS. That should not be treated as an incidental footnote. It is the clinical boundary around the entire strategy. A poorly visualized feeder does not become a good target simply because a paper has made feeder targeting interesting. Precision endoscopy is still supposed to be precise. When the Conventional Variceal-Complex Approach May Still Be Reasonable There will be situations in which the submucosal variceal complex remains the more practical target. Examples may include: unclear feeding anatomy unstable scope position poor visualization technically unsafe feeder access limited local experience with vascular EUS interventions The study does not demonstrate that conventional targeting has become obsolete. Nor does it show that feeder-targeting failure should lead to increasingly aggressive attempts to reach a vessel at the expense of procedural safety. A new technical concept should sharpen judgment, not override it. What Hepatologists Should Take From the Study The implications extend beyond the endoscopy unit. Gastric variceal bleeding sits at the intersection of advanced endoscopy, portal hypertension, interventional radiology, and liver disease management. A patient with gastric varices is not simply carrying an endoscopic lesion. The broader questions remain: What is the underlying portal hypertensive anatomy? What is the severity of liver disease? Are radiologic interventions appropriate? Is portal decompression required? What is the likelihood of rebleeding? What expertise is available locally? The study does not answer those questions or replace established portal hypertension management. Its contribution is narrower. In selected patients already undergoing EUS-guided coil-and-glue treatment, targeting the feeder vessel may improve procedural efficiency when the vascular anatomy is clearly defined. That makes the technique potentially valuable within a multidisciplinary gastric variceal programme rather than a standalone solution to portal hypertension. The Evidence Is Encouraging, but the Groups Were Unequal The results favouring feeder targeting are clinically appealing. The design, however, should temper certainty. Only 32 patients underwent feeder-vessel targeting compared with 103 in the submucosal variceal-complex group. Because this was not described as a randomized trial in the accessible study information, treatment selection may have been influenced by anatomy, operator judgment, or technical feasibility. That creates an important possibility: Patients chosen for feeder targeting may have had anatomy that was more suitable for successful targeted embolization in the first place. In other words, some of the apparent benefit could reflect patient selection rather than the target alone. The data remain useful. They simply need to be read with the correct level of confidence. Six Months Is Useful—But Not the Whole Story The reported outcomes extend to 6 months. That is adequate to assess early reintervention and obliteration. It does not answer every clinically relevant question. We still need longer-term data on: recurrent variceal flow delayed rebleeding repeated interventions long-term obliteration patient-centred outcomes adverse events interaction with subsequent portal hypertension therapies Gastric varices belong to a chronic hemodynamic disease process. A technically successful 6-month result does not necessarily tell us what happens several years later. Expertise May Be the Largest Barrier to Generalisation Feeder-vessel targeting is inherently operator dependent. The endoscopist must identify the relevant vascular anatomy, interpret Doppler findings, choose the safest access point, deploy coils appropriately, administer glue, and confirm treatment response. This level of EUS-guided vascular intervention is not uniformly available. A technique that performs well in expert hands may be much less reproducible in lower-volume centres. That does not weaken the concept. It does mean that any move toward widespread adoption would need to address training, procedural standards, equipment, case selection, and centre experience. The success of precision therapy often depends on precision infrastructure. What Clinicians Should Not Conclude This study does not prove that feeder-vessel targeting is superior for every gastric varix. It does not show that feeder targeting eliminates bleeding risk. It does not establish a universal EUS technique for all centres. It does not demonstrate formal cost-effectiveness. It does not establish superior long-term outcomes beyond the reported follow-up. And it certainly does not make other portal hypertension interventions irrelevant. The most defensible conclusion is narrower: In patients with gastric varices in whom a feeder vessel could be clearly delineated on EUS, feeder-vessel targeting was associated with lower coil use, lower glue use, fewer EUS sessions, and a lower 6-month reintervention rate than targeting the submucosal variceal complex. That is a strong procedural signal. It remains a signal. What Should Come Next? The obvious next step is prospective validation. A multicentre randomized or carefully designed prospective study could compare feeder-vessel and variceal-complex targeting using: standardized definitions of feeder anatomy predefined technical criteria consistent coil-and-glue protocols procedural adverse events reintervention rebleeding long-term obliteration costs patient-centred outcomes Future work should also determine how often a feeder vessel can actually be identified in routine practice. That matters. A strategy may perform extremely well in the subgroup in whom it is technically possible while being applicable to only a fraction of all patients. Knowing that denominator will be essential before feeder targeting can be incorporated into a broader treatment algorithm. Clinical Takeaway The phrase “find the feeder” captures an appealing evolution in gastric variceal therapy. Rather than treating only the visible variceal complex, EUS allows the endoscopist to map the vascular inflow sustaining it and, when the anatomy is favourable, target that inflow directly. In the supporting pragmatic comparative analysis, feeder-vessel targeting was associated with less coil and glue use, fewer treatment sessions, and a lower 6-month reintervention rate than targeting the submucosal variceal complex. Those findings deserve attention. They do not yet justify a universal change in practice. The feeder group was smaller, treatment allocation was not established as randomized in the accessible data, follow-up was limited to 6 months, and successful implementation depends heavily on EUS expertise and vascular anatomy. For now, the message is best framed as precision without overreach. If the feeder is clearly visible, safely accessible, and the operator has the appropriate expertise, it may be a more efficient therapeutic target. If it is not, forcing the concept onto unsuitable anatomy would miss the point entirely. In gastric variceal therapy, the future may indeed be increasingly hemodynamic. But the first rule remains the same as it has always been in advanced endoscopy: Understand the anatomy before you treat it. Five Key Clinical Takeaways The “find the feeder” publication is an expert commentary, not a new randomized trial. The supporting evidence comes from a pragmatic comparative analysis of EUS-guided coil-and-glue therapy. The anatomical target mattered in the reported cohort. Feeder-vessel targeting was associated with lower overall coil and glue use than targeting the submucosal variceal complex. Reintervention was lower at 6 months. The feeder group had a reported reintervention rate of 3.1% versus 17.5%, although the study design limits causal certainty. The approach is selective, not universal. Feeder-vessel targeting is relevant only when the feeder can be clearly identified and safely accessed on EUS. This does not replace broader portal hypertension management. Gastric variceal therapy should remain integrated with hepatology, radiology, liver disease severity, and local expertise. Source References Thompson C. Precision gastric variceal therapy: find the feeder. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published online August 5, 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2026.06.045. Dhar J, Thakur R, Gupta P, Samanta J, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided coil and glue embolization of gastric varices targeting feeder vessel versus submucosal variceal complex: A pragmatic comparative analysis (with videos). Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2026. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2026.05.011.

GastroAGI TeamRead more

We are pioneers in clinical intelligence, dedicated to helping gastroenterologists harness the power of artificial intelligence to drive precision, efficiency, and patient growth.

Gastroenterology Insights — Clinical Updates, Guides & Resources

Daraxonrasib for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: What the FDA Approval and RASolute 302 Trial Mean for Clinicians

Converting Advanced HCC to Resectable Disease: What the TALENTOP Trial Means for Atezo-Bev Conversion Surgery

Predicting a Hard Cholecystectomy Before You're In the Abdomen: What New TG18 Data Add to Surgical Planning

Biomarker-Driven First-Line Therapy in Advanced Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma

NG Tubes in Small Bowel Obstruction: When to Place, When to Pull, and What Not to Miss

ESGE 2026 Guideline on Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: Key Updates for Endoscopists and GI Teams

GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Aspiration Risk During Endoscopy: What Clinicians Should Take From the New CGH Article

Fidaxomicin First in IBD-Associated C. difficile? A Clinician’s Guide to the 2026 AGA Update

When Is ACLF-3 Too Sick for Transplant? What Extreme Life Support Data Say About Futility

Find the Feeder: What Precision EUS Targeting May Change in Gastric Variceal Therapy

For You

Core Tools

Explore

Gastroenterology Insights — Clinical Updates, Guides & Resources

Daraxonrasib for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: What the FDA Approval and RASolute 302 Trial Mean for Clinicians

Converting Advanced HCC to Resectable Disease: What the TALENTOP Trial Means for Atezo-Bev Conversion Surgery

Predicting a Hard Cholecystectomy Before You're In the Abdomen: What New TG18 Data Add to Surgical Planning

Biomarker-Driven First-Line Therapy in Advanced Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma

NG Tubes in Small Bowel Obstruction: When to Place, When to Pull, and What Not to Miss

ESGE 2026 Guideline on Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: Key Updates for Endoscopists and GI Teams

GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and Aspiration Risk During Endoscopy: What Clinicians Should Take From the New CGH Article

Fidaxomicin First in IBD-Associated C. difficile? A Clinician’s Guide to the 2026 AGA Update

When Is ACLF-3 Too Sick for Transplant? What Extreme Life Support Data Say About Futility

Find the Feeder: What Precision EUS Targeting May Change in Gastric Variceal Therapy

For You

Core Tools

Explore