Search

Background/Aims: Argon plasma coagulation (APC) is the most commonly used endoscopic treatment for gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE). Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) has emerged as an alternative therapy. Our goal was to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of APC and EBL for the treatment of GAVE. This is the first systematic review that included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on this topic. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed using electronic databases to identify RCTs comparing APC and EBL for the treatment of GAVE following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Results: Four RCTs were included, with a total of 204 patients. EBL was related to higher endoscopic eradication rates risk difference [RD], 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.14, 0.44]; I² =0%) and less bleeding recurrence than APC (RD, 0.29; 95% CI [0.15, 0.44]; I² =0%). Patients treated with EBL required fewer blood transfusions (mean difference [MD], 1.49; 95% CI [0.28, 2.71]; I² =96%) and hospitalizations (MD, 0.29; 95% CI [0.19, 0.39]; I² =0%). The number of sessions required for the obliteration of lesions was higher with APC. There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events. Conclusions: EBL is superior to APC in the treatment of GAVE in terms of endoscopic eradication rates, recurrence of bleeding, and transfusion requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims: Carbon dioxide is increasingly used in insufflation during colonoscopy in adult patients; however, air insufflation remains the primary practice among pediatric gastroenterologists. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate insufflation using CO2 versus air in colonoscopies in pediatric patients. Methods: Individualized search strategies were performed using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and LILACS databases following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and Cochrane working methodology. Randomized control trials (RCTs) were selected for the present meta-analysis. Pooled proportions were calculated for outcomes including procedure time and abdominal pain immediately and 24 hours post-procedure. Results: The initial search yielded 644 records, of which five RCTs with a total of 358 patients (CO2: n=178 versus air: n=180) were included in the final analysis. The procedure time was not different between the CO2 and air insufflation groups (mean difference, 10.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.55 to 24.22; p=0.11). Abdominal pain immediately post-procedure was significantly lower in the CO2 group (risk difference [RD], -0.15; 95% CI; -0.26 to -0.03; p=0.01) while abdominal pain at 24 hours post-procedure was similar (RD, -0.05; 95% CI; -0.11 to 0.01; p=0.11). Conclusions: Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCT data, CO2 insufflation reduced abdominal pain immediately following the procedure, while pain was similar at 24 hours post-procedure. These results suggest that CO2 is a preferred insufflation technique when performing colonoscopy in pediatric patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]