One-step versus two-step procedure for management procedures for management of concurrent gallbladder and common bile duct stones. Outcomes and cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: The management of cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis combined is controversial. The more frequent approach is a two-stage procedure, with endoscopic sphincterotomy and stone removal from the bile duct followed by laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This study aims to demonstrate how, on the basis of the personal experience, the Rendez-vous technique, that combines the two techniques in a single-stage operation is better than the sequential treatment. METHODS: Between June 2017 to December 2019, 40 consecutive patients with cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis combined were enrolled for the study: 20 were treated with the sequential treatment and 20 with the Rendez-vous method. The preoperative diagnostic work-up was similar in the two group. The endpoints of the study included incidence of endoscopic and surgical complications, rate of hospitalization and cost analysis. RESULTS: The study showed no difference in demographic parameters between the two groups, but the success rate of clearance of CBD was significantly smaller for sequential arm, with the need of additional procedures. We found a statistical reduction of postoperative acute pancreatitis, hospital stay and charges in Rendez-vous group, at the expense of a prolonged total operating time. CONCLUSIONS: The data of the study confirm the superiority of the Rendez-vous technique because it resolves cholelithiasis associated with choledocholithiasis in a single surgical act, with greater acceptance of the patient who avoids a second invasive surgical act, and with a reduction in complications; moreover, it requires shorter hospitalization, resulting in reduced costs. We propose this option in the management of cases where preoperative ERCP-ES has failed. KEY WORDS: Common bile duct stones, Cholecysto-choledocholithiasis, Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic sphincterotomy, Laparoscopic cholecystectomy, Laparo-endoscopic Rendez-vous.

How to measure quality in endoscopic ultrasound.

Quality is a key focus for gastrointestinal endoscopy and main international gastroenterology societies instituted specific task forces focused on this issue. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) represents one of the most fascinating fields to explore in gastrointestinal endoscopy due to its relatively limited availability out of high-volume centers. This leads to a particular need to define widely accepted quality indicators (QIs) and the ways to measure them. The current manuscript reviews these indicators in light of their impact on common clinical practice.

Diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions guided by endoscopic ultrasound elastography.

BACKGROUND: Real-time elastography (RTE) may increase the diagnostic accuracy of fine-needle aspiration guided by endoscopic ultrasound. The aim of this study was to establish the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of this combined methodological approach in a cohort of patients with solid pancreatic masses. METHODS: We reviewed data from 54 patients with solid pancreatic lesions referred to our institution between January 2014 and June 2015. RTE, assessed in terms of strain ratio, was performed both qualitatively and semi-quantitatively, and a 25G needle was inserted into the most suspicious part of the lesion. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, positive and negative predictive values were calculated. RESULTS: The median lesion size was 35 mm (interquartile range: 25-43 mm). A diagnosis of adenocarcinoma was confirmed in 85.1% of cases. RTE, with a strain ratio cutoff of 4.21, showed a sensitivity of 86.9%, a specificity of 75%, and diagnostic accuracy of 85.1%. The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the combined methodology were 94.4%, 93.4%, and 100%, respectively. The positive predictive value was 100%, the negative predictive value 72.7% and the negative likelihood ratio 6.5. No severe adverse events were registered. CONCLUSION: The combination of RTE with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration appears to be an efficient and safe technique for the characterization of solid pancreatic masses.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: Change in liver stiffness during anti-viral therapy in patients with hepatitis B.

BACKGROUND: Time-varying impact of anti-viral therapy on liver stiffness in patients with hepatitis B is unclear. AIMS: To estimate the magnitude and kinetics of change in liver stiffness in hepatitis B patients treated with nucleot(s)ide analogs. METHODS: Through a systematic review of multiple databases, we identified 24 studies in adults with hepatitis B who underwent transient elastography before and at least 6 months after starting nucleot(s)ide analogs therapy. We estimated change in liver stiffness 6 m, 12 m, 24 m, 36 m and 60 m after starting therapy, as weighted mean difference and 95% confidence intervals, using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Liver stiffness significantly declined by 2.21 kPa (95% CI, -1.36 to -3.05), 2.56 kPa (-2.23 to -2.89), 3.73 kPa (-2.98 to -4.49), 4.15 kPa (-2.75 to -5.54), and 5.19 kPa (-3.34 to -7.03) at 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 5 years from the start of therapy, respectively (p < 0.001). High baseline alanine aminotransferase level, viral load and liver stiffness were associated with greater magnitude of decline in liver stiffness. CONCLUSIONS: Antiviral therapy is associated with progressive decline in liver stiffness in patients with hepatitis B, particularly in patients with high baseline alanine aminotransferase and viral load.

Long-term liver stiffness assessment in hepatitis C virus patients undergoing antiviral therapy: Results from a 5-year cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Observational studies showed significant liver stiffness regression after sustained virological response, but long-term effects of antiviral therapy are still unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the magnitude of change in stiffness up to 5 years after therapy in hepatitis C patients undergoing antiviral treatment. METHODS: Data of 153 patients were retrieved. Stiffness was assessed by Fibroscan at baseline, end of treatment, 6 months after treatment, and every year hereafter up to 5 years. RESULTS: Seventy patients were treated with interferon-based regimens and 83 with direct antiviral agents. Baseline cirrhosis was diagnosed in 53 (34.6%) patients. Sustained virological response was achieved in 112 patients, whereas 41 were non-responders. In responders, stiffness decreased from 12.3 kPa (9-17.8) to 6.6 kPa (5.3-7.4) at 5 years. A sharper decline was observed immediately after treatment (-2.5 kPa at the end of treatment and -3.7 kPa at 6 months), while from 1 year onwards, the magnitude of stiffness decrease was progressively lower. In non-responders, stiffness showed a slight decrease at the end of treatment (from 19.2 to 18.1 kPa), then returned to baseline levels at 6 months (19.4 kPa), and finally increased over time up to 23.7 kPa (15-32.5) at 5 years. The proportion of cirrhotic patients decreased by 50% at 6 months and finally fell < 5% at 4 years after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Stiffness declines significantly after achieving response, and the magnitude of decline is greater in the first year after treatment, while it tends to plateau from 1 year onwards.

Comparative Efficacy of Colonoscope Distal Attachment Devices in Increasing Rates of Adenoma Detection: A Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Several add-on devices have been developed to increase rates of colon adenoma detection (ADR). We assessed their overall and comparative efficacy, and estimated absolute magnitude of benefit through a network meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched the PubMed/Medline and Embase database through March 2017 and identified 25 randomized controlled trials (comprising 16,103 patients) that compared the efficacy of add-on devices (cap; Endocuff; Arc Medical Design Ltd, Leeds, UK, and Endorings; Us Endoscopy, Mentor, OH) with each other or with standard colonoscopy. The primary outcome was ADR; secondary outcomes included rate of polyp detection, and rate of and time to cecal intubation. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses, and appraised quality of evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. We estimated the magnitude of increase in ADR by low-performing endoscopists (baseline ADR, 10%) and high-performing endoscopists (baseline ADR, 40%) with use of these devices. RESULTS: Overall, distal attachment devices increased ADR compared with standard colonoscopy (relative risk [RR], 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.23; low-quality evidence), with potential absolute increases in ADR to 11.3% for low-performing endoscopists and to 45.2% for high-performing endoscopists. In a comparative evaluation, we found low-quality evidence that Endocuff increases ADR compared with standard colonoscopy (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.03-1.41), with anticipated increases in ADR to 12% for low-performing endoscopists and to 48% for high-performing endoscopists. We found very low quality evidence to support the use of Endorings (RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.86-3.36) or caps (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.96-1.19) vs standard colonoscopy for increasing ADR. The benefit of one distal attachment device over another was uncertain due to very low quality evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Based on network meta-analysis, we anticipate only modest improvement in ADRs with use of distal attachment devices, especially in low-performing endoscopists.