Search

Background and study aims Pancreatic necrosis is an independent predictor of morbidity and mortality among patients with acute pancreatitis. We compared the safety and outcomes of three techniques including endoscopic necrosectomy, fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous necrosectomy by an interventional radiologist, and surgical necrosectomy. Patients and methods Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, we identified hospitalized patients who underwent pancreatic necrosectomy from 2016 to 2019. They were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Procedure Coding System. Results: Of the 2,281 patients meeting the selection criteria, the method of pancreatic necrosectomy was as follows: endoscopy (n = 672), percutaneous (n = 1,338), and surgery (n = 271). Compared to surgery, the rate of mortality was lowest for endoscopy (hazard ratio (HR) 0.27; 95 % CI 0.08–0.90; P = 0.033) followed by percutaneous (HR 0.44; 95 % CI, 0.20–0.98; P = 0.045). Endoscopy was associated with less post-procedure bleeding compared to percutaneous and surgical necrosectomy (P Conclusions Endoscopic necrosectomy is associated with significantly lower risk of inpatient mortality, adverse events, length of stay, and cost when compared to percutaneous and surgical approaches.

Different classes of medication have been reported in the literature to be associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal perforation. However, little is known about the risk of drug-induced perforated appendicitis.We analyzed the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), a large national database of reported adverse events associated with post-market FDA-approved medications from January 2011 to October 2021. Patients of any age group with appendiceal perforation were included. Duplicated reports and other anatomical areas of gastrointestinal tract perforation outside the appendix were excluded.During the study period, 474 event cases met inclusion criteria, of which 284 were females. Most reports of perforation occurred in patients 40-49 years (Findings from the FAERS database highlight the risk of appendiceal perforation in the context of different classes of drugs. Larger pharmacovigilance studies are needed to confirm these observations.

Recent years have seen the emergence of endoscopic-ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) as an effective alternative to traditional (percutaneous or transjugular) liver biopsy techniques. Comparative studies have demonstrated that both endoscopic and non-endoscopic approaches are similar in terms of diagnostic adequacy, accuracy, and adverse events; however, EUS-LB offers the advantage of reduced recovery time. Additionally, EUS-LB enables the sampling of both lobes of the liver as well as the advantage of portal pressure measurements. However, EUS-LB may be argued to have a high cost, although this procedure can be cost-effective if bundled with other endoscopic procedures. Approaches utilizing EUS-guided liver therapy, such as the administration of chemotherapeutic agents and EUS elastography, are in development, and their optimal integration into clinical care is likely to emerge in the coming years. In the present review, we evaluate the available literature on EUS-LB indications, contraindications, variations in needle biopsy techniques, comparative outcomes, advantages and disadvantages, and future trends and perspectives.

Spontaneous bacterial empyema (SBE) occurs when a hepatic hydrothorax becomes infected and runs a course similar to spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP). It remains underdiagnosed as patients with cirrhosis do not routinely undergo diagnostic thoracentesis. Current understanding is limited by small cohorts, while studies reporting its association with ascites/SBP are conflicting.To explore the incidence of SBE, to determine its association with ascites, and to summarize what is known regarding treatment and outcomes for patients with SBE.Major databases were searched until June 2021. Outcomes include the incidence of SBE in pleural effusions, SBP in peritoneal fluid, and SBE in patients without ascites within our cohort of patients with cirrhosis. We performed a meta-analysis using a random-effects model with pooled proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed heterogeneity usingEight studies with 8899 cirrhosis patients were included. The median age ranged between 41.2 to 69.7 years. The majority of the patients were Child-Pugh B and C. Mean MELD score was 18.6 ± 8.09. A total of 1334 patients had pleural effusions and the pooled incidence of SBE was 15.6% (CI 12.6-19;SBE frequently occurs with concurrent ascites/SBP; our results suggest high incidence rates of SBE even in the absence of ascites. The pleura can be an unrecognized nidus and our findings support the use of diagnostic thoracentesis in patients with decompensated cirrhosis after exclusion of other causes of pleural effusion. Thoracentesis should be considered particularly in patients without ascites and when there is a high suspicion of infection. The need for diagnostic thoracentesis will continue to be important as rates of multi-drug resistant bacterial infections increase and antibiotic susceptibility information is required for adequate treatment.

Background and study aims Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (ERAT) is an endoscopic procedure for management of patients with acute appendicitis (AA). In addition to being minimally invasive, it has the added advantages of preservation of appendix and simultaneous inspection of colon. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on ERAT in patients with AA. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases (from inception through January 2022) to identify studies reporting ERAT in AA. The primary outcome was to evaluate the overall clinical and technical success of ERAT. The secondary outcome was to study the total and individual adverse events (AEs). The meta-analysis was performed using Der Simonian and Laird random effect model. Results Seven studies reporting on 298 patients were included. The majority of the patient population was male (55.3 %), with mean age of 31 ± 12.39 years. The pooled technical success rate was 99.36 % (95 % CI 97.61–100, I2 = 0) and the pooled clinical success rate was 99.29 % (95 % CI 97.48–100, I2 = 0). The pooled AE rate was 0.19 % (95 % CI 0–1.55, I2 = 0). The most common AE was perforation with 0.19 % (95 % CI 0–1.55, I2 = 0). The recurrence rate was 6.01 % (95 % CI 2.9–9.93, I2 = 20.10). Average length of procedure was 41.1 ± 7.16 min. Low heterogeneity was noted in in our meta-analysis. Conclusions ERAT is a safe procedure with high rates of clinical and technical success in patients with AA. Further randomized controlled trials should be performed to assess the utility of ERAT in AA as compared to laparoscopic appendectomy.

Approximately 10-62% of patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) will develop dominant strictures at some point during their disease. Because of the paucity of available data, optimal endoscopic therapeutic strategies remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic balloon dilation vs. balloon dilation plus stenting of dominant strictures in PSC.A comprehensive literature search from inception to November 2020 was performed. Primary outcomes were clinical and technical success. Secondary outcomes reported were adverse events (AE). Clinical success was defined in most studies as improvement in symptoms such as fever, abdominal pain, pruritus, fatigue and/or liver enzymes. The statistical analysis was done using comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA Version 3).The technical success rates for balloon and balloon plus stent were 96.8% and 91.9%, respectively. The clinical success rates for balloon and balloon plus stent were 86.5% and 70.8%, respectively. The overall AE rates for balloon and balloon plus stent were 11.2% and 26.9%, respectively. Other AE rates in balloon and balloon plus stent were cholangitis (4.8% vs. 11.4%), bile duct perforation (1.3% vs. 1.6%), post-procedural pancreatitis (2.2% vs. 9.8%), and bleeding (1.5% vs. 1.2%), respectively. Low to considerable heterogeneity was noted in our meta-analysis.Balloon dilation appears to be superior in terms of clinical and technical successes, with overall lower rates of AE compared to balloon dilation plus stenting for the management of PSC dominant strictures. Further trials are needed to validate our findings.

While safety and effectiveness of advanced endoscopic resection techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been well established in general population, data regarding their utility in patients with cirrhosis is limited.We searched multiple databases from inception through July 2021 to identify studies that reported on outcomes of EMR and/or ESD in patients with cirrhosis. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled rates of immediate and delayed bleeding, perforation, death as well as rates of successful en bloc and R0 resection. Pooled relative risk (RR) was calculated for each outcome between patients with and without cirrhosis.Ten studies with a total of 3244 patients were included in the final analysis. Pooled rates of immediatedelayed bleeding, perforation, and death during EMR and/or ESD in patients with cirrhosis were 9.5% (CI 4.0-21.1), 6.6% (CI 4.2-10.3), 2.1% (CI 1.1-3.9) and 0.6% (CI 0.2-1.7), respectively. Pooled rates of successful en bloc and R0 resection were 93% (CI 85.9-96.7) and 90.8% (CI 86.5-93.8), respectively. While incidence of immediate bleeding was higher in patients with cirrhosis, there was no statistically significant difference in any of the other outcomes between the patient groups.Our study shows that performing EMR and ESD for gastrointestinal lesions in patients with cirrhosis is both safe and effective. The risks of procedural complications parallel those reported in general population.

The optimal sampling techniques for EUS-FNA remain unclear and have not been standardized. To improve diagnostic accuracy, suction techniques for EUS-FNA have been developed and are widely used among endoscopists. The aim of this study was to compare wet-suction and dry-suction EUS-FNA techniques for sampling solid lesions. We performed a comprehensive literature search of major databases (from inception to June 2020) to identify prospective studies comparing wet-suction EUS-FNA and dry-suction EUS-FNA. Specimen adequacy, sample contamination, and histologic accuracy were assessed by pooling data using a random-effects model expressed in terms of odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Six studies including a total of 418 patients (365 wet suction vs. 377 dry suction) were included in our final analysis. The study included a total of 535 lesions (332 pancreatic lesions and 203 nonpancreatic lesions). The pooled odds of sample adequacy was 3.18 (CI: 1.82–5.54, P = 0.001) comparing wet- and dry-suction cohorts. The pooled odds of blood contamination was 1.18 (CI: 0.75–1.86, P = 0.1). The pooled rate for blood contamination was 58.33% (CI: 53.65%–62.90%) in the wet-suction cohort and 54.60% (CI 49.90%– 59.24%) in the dry-suction cohort (P = 0.256). The pooled odds of histological diagnosis was 3.68 (CI 0.82–16.42, P = 0.1). Very few adverse events were observed and did not have an impact on patient outcomes using either method. EUS-FNA using the wet-suction technique offers higher specimen quality through comparable rates of blood contamination and histological accuracy compared to dry-suction EUS-FNA.