Single-use accessories and endoscopes in the era of sustainability and climate change-A balancing act.

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is among the highest waste generator in healthcare facilities. The major reasons include production of large-volume non-renewable waste, use of single-use devices, and reprocessing or decontamination processes. Single-use endoscopic accessories have gradually replaced reusable devices over last two decades contributing to the rising impact of GI endoscopy on ecosystem. Several reports of infection outbreaks with reusable duodenoscopes raised concerns regarding the efficacy and adherence to standard disinfection protocols. Even the enhanced reprocessing techniques like double high-level disinfection have not been found to be the perfect ways for decontamination of duodenoscopes and therefore, paved the way for the development of single-use duodenoscopes. However, the use of single-use endoscopes is likely to amplify the net waste generated and carbon footprint of any endoscopy unit. Moreover, single-use devices challenge one of the major pillars of sustainability, that is, "reuse." In the era of climate change, a balanced approach is required taking into consideration patient safety as well as financial and environmental implications. The possible solutions to provide optimum care while addressing the impact on climate include selective use of disposable duodenoscopes and careful selection of accessories during a case. Other options include use of disposable endcaps and development of effective high-level disinfection techniques. The collaboration between the healthcare professionals and the manufacturers is paramount for the development of environmental friendly devices with low carbon footprint.

Tenofovir versus entecavir for tertiary prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B infection after curative therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Entecavir (ETV) and Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are the first-line drugs for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV). However, the impact of these two antiviral agents on the outcome of HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after curative therapy remains to be explored. The purpose of the present study was to compare the effect of ETV and TDF on recurrence and mortality after curative treatment for HBV-related HCC. A comprehensive literature search of multiple electronic databases was conducted from 2000 to January 2022 for studies comparing ETV and TDF for HBV-related HCC patients after curative therapy. The adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) were pooled using a random-effects model. A total of nine studies with 5298 patients were included in the final meta-analysis. TDF was associated with a lower risk of HCC recurrence [aHR 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-0.81] compared to HCC. TDF reduced the risk of late recurrence compared to ETV (aHR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45-0.76) but not early recurrence (aHR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76-1.02). The mortality risk was also lower with TDF compared to ETV (aHR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50-0.77). TDF was associated with a lower risk of recurrence and mortality than ETV after resection or ablation of HBV-related HCC. Further prospective randomized controlled studies are warranted to validate these results.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Antegrade Stent Placement in Patients with Failed ERCP as a Modality of Preoperative and Palliative Biliary Drainage.

BACKGROUND: No large studies have addressed the role of endoscopic-ultrasound biliary drainage (EUS-BD) as preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) for malignant extrahepatic biliary obstruction (MEBO). We aimed to discuss the outcomes of EUS antegrade stent placement (EUS-AG) in the preoperative and palliative setting. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients who underwent EUS-AG for MEBO between December 2019 and December 2021 was done. Primary outcome measures were technical success and clinical success. Secondary outcome measures were number of days of hospitalization postprocedure, adverse events related to EUS-AG procedure, morbidity related to surgery, and 3-month mortality after surgery. RESULTS: 54 patients underwent attempt for EUS-AG (mean age 54.8 ± 12.1 years; female 44.4%). Most common primary cancer was pancreatic cancer in 42.1% (23/54) patients. Indication was palliative in 34 (62.9%) patients and PBD in 20 (37%) patients. Level of block was distal in 35 (64.8%) and proximal in 19 (35.1%) patients. Technical success of EUS-AG was 88.7% (47/53). Clinical success was seen in 95.7% (45/47) patients. Median number of days of hospitalization postprocedure was 1 day. No procedure-related severe adverse events were seen. Of 20 patients who underwent EUS-AG as PBD, 19 had technical success (95%) with clinical success in 94.5% (18/19). Surgery was performed in 11 patients, of whom 10 patients underwent successful PPPD (one intraoperative liver metastasis). Two patients had Clavein-Dindo III/IV complication post-PPPD, with one mortality within 30 days of surgery. CONCLUSION: EUS-AG is safe and effective after failed ERCP in both preoperative and palliative setting.

EUS-guided biliary drainage in patients with moderate-severe cholangitis is safe and effective: a multi-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Patients with moderate-severe cholangitis require urgent/early biliary drainage and failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) warrants use of percutaneous drainage. While endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has evolved as an effective salvage modality but its safety and efficacy data in moderate-severe cholangitis are limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All consecutive moderate-severe cholangitis patients, with failed/technically non-feasible ERCP requiring EUS-BD in two tertiary care centers were included. Baseline laboratory and demographic parameters were documented. Technical and clinical success were primary outcome measures. Additionally, effective biliary drainage, adverse events due to procedure, hospital stay, ICU stay, and mortality were noted. RESULTS: Of the 49 patients (23 male; 46.9%) presenting with moderate/severe cholangitis, 23 (46.9%) had severe cholangitis. The median Charleston comorbidity index was 7.0 (IQR 2.0). Majority had malignant disease (87.8%) and 25 (51.0%) had inaccessible papilla. Technical success was achieved in 48 cases (98.0%), while clinical success with improvement of cholangitis was noted in 44 of 48 cases (91.7%). Effective biliary drainage was noted in 85.4% (41/48) cases. Adverse events in the form of mostly bleeding and bile leak were noted in 5 cases (10.2%) but managed conservatively. Distal obstruction exhibited significantly better clinical success (100% vs. 78.9%; p = 0.02) than hilar obstruction. Severe cholangitis had significantly lower clinical success (81.8% vs. 100%; p = 0.04) than moderate cholangitis. CONCLUSION: EUS-BD can be a safe and effective alternative option for patients with moderate to severe cholangitis, even with significant pre-morbid conditions, with acceptable adverse events rate.