Search

Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) anatomy is challenging. Overtube-assisted enteroscopy (OAE) is usually needed to perform ERCP in these patients. There is significant variation in the reported rates of success and adverse events across published studies. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to reliably estimate the pooled rates of success and adverse events., Methods: We performed a systematic search of multiple electronic databases through February 2020 to identify studies reporting outcomes of OAE-ERCP in post-RYGB patients. The pooled rates of enteroscopy success, technical success, and adverse events were estimated for OAE-ERCP. The pooled rates of success and adverse events were also estimated for ERCP using double-balloon enteroscopes (DBE) alone., Results: 10 studies reporting a total of 398 procedures were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled rates of enteroscopy and technical success of OAE-ERCP were 75.3 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 64.5 - 83.6) and 64.8 % (95 %CI 53.1 - 74.9) respectively. The pooled rate of adverse events was 8.0 % (95 %CI 5.2 - 12.2). The pooled rates of enteroscopy and technical success of DBE-ERCP (four studies) were 83.5 % (95 %CI 68.3 - 92.2) and 72.5 % (95 %CI 52.3 - 86.4), respectively. The pooled rate of adverse events with DBE-ERCP was 9.0 % (95 %CI 5.4 - 14.5). Substantial heterogeneity was noted., Conclusions: OAE-ERCP appears to be effective and safe in post-RYGB patients. Among the currently available techniques, OAE-ERCP is the least invasive approach in this challenging group of patients. Future studies comparing the effectiveness and safety of alternative novel techniques, such as endosonography-directed transgastric ERCP, with OAE-ERCP are needed., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: Interval colorectal cancers may be associated with a low serrated polyp detection rate (SDR) and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). We aimed to determine the SDR and AADR for endoscopists in a United States multicenter cohort., Methods: We included average-risk screening colonoscopies from five medical centers in the United States. Endoscopists with data on at least 100 average-risk screening colonoscopies were included. We calculated median SDR and AADR for endoscopists with adequate adenoma detection rates (ADRs) > 25 %. We analyzed the relationship between ADR and SDR, and between ADR and AADR using nonparametric Spearman correlation coefficients, scatter plots, and linear regression., Results: We included 3513 screening colonoscopies performed by 26 gastroenterologists. The mean age of patients was 56.8 years (SD 7.4) and 1585 (45 %) were male. All but one endoscopist had an ADR above 25 %. There was a significant positive but modest correlation between ADR and SDR (rho = 0.67, P  < 0.01), and between ADR and AADR (rho = 0.56, P  < 0.01). For endoscopists with an adequate ADR, median (interquartile range) ADR was 43 % (32.0 % - 48.6 %), median SDR was 8.4 % (7.3 % - 11.4 %), and median AADR was 9.3 % (6.4 % - 12.6 %)., Conclusion: A significant percentage of endoscopists have either a low SDR or low AADR despite an adequate ADR, justifying the need for separate SDR and AADR benchmarks. Based on our multicenter cohort, endoscopists with adequate ADRs had a median SDR and median AADR of about 8 % and 9 %, respectively., Competing Interests: None, (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)