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

Background. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to compare the safety and efficacy of supine vs. nonsupine positions during intubation. Methods. Based on the literature from inception to October 2020, 13 studies with nonemergent intubation in supine and nonsupine positions were chosen using PRISMA and MOOSE protocols. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models with 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary outcome was a successful intubation, attempt, and duration of intubation. The secondary outcome was adverse events (trauma and hypoxia). Bias was evaluated qualitatively, by visual analysis, and quantitatively through the Egger test. Results. The final analysis included 13 clinical trials with 1,916 patients. The pooled success rates in the supine vs. lateral positions were 99.21% and 98.82%. The supine vs. semierect positions were 99.21% and 98.82%. The 1st attempt success rate in the supine vs. lateral position was 85.35% and 88.56% compared to 91.38% and 90.76% for the supine vs. semierect position. The rate of total adverse events in the supine position was 3.73% vs. 6.74% in the lateral position, and the rate of total adverse events in the supine position was 0.44% vs. 0.93% in semierect position. Low to substantial heterogeneity was noted in our analysis. Discussion. There is no significant difference between total successful intubations and success from 1st intubation attempt between supine and nonsupine positions. However, there are slightly higher rates of adverse events in nonsupine position. Addition of more recent studies on supine vs. nonsupine intubations would improve this study. Given these findings, it is important to develop more studies regarding different intubation positions and techniques with the aim of improving efficacy and decreasing adverse outcomes. Other. This review is not registered in a public database. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

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.

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.

Background/Aim: Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a commonly encountered emergency where early identification of complicated cases is important. Inflammatory markers like lymphocyte to monocyte ratio (LMR) and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) are simple and readily available markers. In this study, we evaluated the utility of these markers in the early identification of patients with complicated AP. Patients and Methods: All patients with a diagnosis of AP admitted to the University Medical Center in Las Vegas/Nevada between August 2015 and September 2018 were identified using ICD-10 codes. Medical records were reviewed retrospectively. Epidemiological measures and their associated confidence intervals were calculated using MedCalc (v. 18). Results: The LMR showed a significant difference between groups, with the non-complicated cases consistently higher than the complicated cases but without significant temporal differences. The NLR showed a significant difference with a significant temporal relation. Using the bound of the 95% confidence interval separating the two groups, LMR 10.5 was suggestive of a complicated case. High specificity (85–92%) with low sensitivity (23–69%) was noted; hence, these cut points were very good at discerning non-complicated cases. Conclusion: Our data show persistently low LMR that is associated with severe AP and a value of 10.5 that can be used to predict severe complicated AP and to monitor response to treatment over time.

Background and study aims Despite the clinical efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), postoperative symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) remains a major concern. While it is known that length of the gastric myotomy affects postoperative GERD, the clinical relevance of variation in esophageal myotomy length is not well known. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing outcomes of short versus standard myotomy length in patients with achalasia. Patients and methods We searched multiple databases from inception through November 2020 to identify studies that reported on outcomes of achalasia patients who underwent short compared with standard esophageal myotomy. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled odds ratio (OR) of clinical success, GERD outcomes, and adverse events with the two techniques. Results 5 studies with 474 patients were included in the final analysis (short myotomy group 214, standard myotomy group 260). There was no difference in clinical success (OR 1.17, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.54–2.52; I2 0 %; P = 0.69), postoperative symptomatic GERD (OR 0.87, 95 %CI 0.44–1.74; I2 29 %; P = 0.70), and overall adverse events (OR 0.52, 95 %CI 0.19–1.38; I2 40 %; P = 0.19), between the two groups. Incidence of postoperative erosive esophagitis as determined by endoscopy was lower in the short myotomy group (OR 0.50, 95 %CI 0.24–1.03; I2 0 %; P = 0.06). Conclusion Our analysis showed that performing POEM with short esophageal myotomy in achalasia was as safe and effective as standard myotomy, with lower incidence of postoperative erosive esophagitis.

Background and study aims Endoscopic and surgical techniques have been utilized for palliation of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Enteral stenting (ES) is an established technique with high clinical success and low morbidity rate. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel approach that aims to provide sustained palliation of GOO. We conducted a comprehensive review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness in terms of clinical and technical success, as well as the safety profile of EUS-GE and ES. Methods We searched multiple databases from inception through July 2020 to identify studies that reported on safety and effectiveness of EUS-GE in comparison to ES. Pooled rates of technical success, clinical success, and adverse events (AEs) were calculated. Study heterogeneity was assessed using I2% and 95 % confidence interval. Results Five studies including 659 patients were included in our final analysis. Pooled rate of technical and clinical success for EUS-GE was 95.2 % (CI 87.2-.98.3, I2 = 42) and 93.3 % (CI 84.4–97.3, I2 = 59) while for ES it was 96.9 % (CI 90.9–99, I2 = 64) and 85.6 % (CI 73–92.9, I2 = 85), respectively. Pooled rate of re-intervention was significantly lower with EUS-GE i. e. 4 % (CI 1.8–8.7, I2 = 35) compared to ES, where it was 23.6 % (CI 17.5–31, I2 = 35), p = 0.001. Pooled rates of overall and major AEs were comparable between the two techniques. Conclusion EUS-GE is comparable in terms of technical and clinical effectiveness and has a similar safety profile when compared to ES for palliation of GOO.

Background: 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., Methods: 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)., Results: 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., Conclusions: 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., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: None, (Copyright: © Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology.)

Background: Splanchnic vein thrombosis is a well-recognized local vascular complication of acute pancreatitis (AP), estimated to occur in approximately 15% of patients. While splanchnic vein recanalization occurs spontaneously in approximately one third of patients, severe complications such as bowel ischemia and liver failure have also been reported. At present, there is no consensus on whether patients presenting with AP-associated splanchnic vein thrombosis should receive therapeutic anticoagulation., Methods: We searched multiple databases from inception through December 2020 to collect studies that compared the clinical outcomes of patients with AP and splanchnic vein thrombosis who received therapeutic anticoagulation (AC group) with those who did not (N-AC group). A meta-analysis was performed to calculate the relative risk (RR) of vessel recanalization, bleeding complications, collateral formation and death in the 2 groups., Results: Seven studies with 8353 patients, 339 of whom had splanchnic vein thrombosis, were included in the final analysis. A total of 154 patients (45.4%) had acute severe pancreatitis. A significantly higher proportion of patients had vessel recanalization in the AC group: RR 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.17-2.27; I 2 =0%; P=0.004. There was no difference between the 2 groups in the RR of bleeding complications, collateral formation and death., Conclusions: Our analysis demonstrated that, among patients with AP-associated splanchnic vein thrombosis, therapeutic anticoagulation resulted in recanalization of the involved vessels without significantly increasing the risk of bleeding complications. There was no difference in the RR of death or the rates of collateral vessel formation during the follow up., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: Douglas G. Adler is a consultant at Boston Scientific. All other authors report no conflict of interest, (Copyright: © Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology.)

Background: Modifying patient position during colonoscopy has been proposed as a simple and inexpensive technique to increase luminal distention and improve navigation through the large bowel. The left lateral (LL) decubitus starting position is commonly used during colonoscopy. However, reports indicate that other starting positions may offer additional benefit. We aimed to determine if the right lateral (RL) starting position compared to the standard LL starting position could improve outcomes in colonoscopy., Methods: We searched PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE through June 2020 to identify studies comparing RL and LL starting positions during colonoscopy. The primary outcomes included mean cecal insertion time and cecal intubation rate, and adverse events were assessed by pooling data using a random-effects model expressed in terms of odds ratio (OR), mean difference, and 95% confidence interval (CI)., Results: We identified 5 randomized controlled trials, including 809 participants, that compared LL vs. RL colonoscopy. The pooled OR for cecal intubation rate was 1.3 (95%CI 0.8-2.3; P=0.3). The mean difference in mean cecal insertion time was 0.08 (95%CI -0.09 to 0.26; P=0.4). Heterogeneity between studies was low ( I 2 =0%). No complications were reported in either arm of the study. Pain scores assessed using a visual analog scale were comparable among both arms of the study., Conclusion: The RL starting position for colonoscopy was comparable to the LL and offered no additional benefit in terms of cecal intubation time, intubation rate, or patient discomfort., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: Douglas G. Adler: Consultant – Boston Scientific; all other authors: no conflicts of interest, (Copyright: © Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology.)