Early versus late endoscopic treatment of pancreatic necrotic collections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Recently studies have compared early (<4 weeks) vs. late or standard (>4 weeks) endoscopic treatment of pancreatic necrotic collections (PNC) and have reported favorable results for early treatment. In this meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy and safety of early vs. late endoscopic treatment of PNC. Patients and methods We reviewed several databases from inception to September 30, 2021 to identify studies that compared early with late endoscopic treatment of PNC. Our outcomes of interest were adverse events (AEs), resolution of PNC, performance of direct endoscopic necrosectomy, need for further interventions, and mean number of endoscopic necrosectomy sessions. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for categorical variables and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for continuous variables. Data were analyzed by random effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I 2 statistic. Results We included four studies with 427 patients. We found no significant difference in rates of AEs, RR (95% CI) 1.70 (range, 0.56-5.20), resolution of necrotic or fluid collections, RR (95% CI) 0.89 (range, 0.71-1.11), need for further interventions, RR (95% CI) 1.47 (range, 0.70-3.08), direct necrosectomy, RR (95% CI) 1.39 (range, 0.22-8.80), mortality, RR (95% CI) 2.37 (range, 0.26-21.72) and mean number of endoscopic necrosectomy sessions, MD (95% CI) 1.58 (range,-0.20-3.36) between groups. Conclusions Early endoscopic treatment of PNC can be considered for indications such as infected necrosis or sterile necrosis with symptoms or complications; however, future large multicenter studies are required to further evaluate its safety.

Over-the-Scope Clips Versus Standard Endoscopic Treatment for First Line Therapy of Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Over-The-Scope Clips (OTSC) use have shown promising results for first line treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). We conducted this meta-analysis to compare outcomes in patients treated with OTSC versus standard endoscopic intervention for first line endoscopic treatment of NVUGIB. METHODS: We reviewed several databases from inception to December 9, 2022 to identify studies comparing OTSC and standard treatments as the first line treatment for NVUGIB. The outcomes assessed included re-bleeding, initial hemostasis, need for vascular embolization, mortality, need for repeat endoscopy, 30 day readmission rate, and need for surgery. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 statistic. RESULTS: We included 11 studies with 1608 patients (494 patients in OTSC group and 1114 patients in control group). OTSC use was associated with significantly lower risk of re-bleeding (RR, 0.58; 95% CI 0.41-0.82). We found no significant difference in rates of initial hemostasis (RR, 1.05; 95% CI 0.99- 1.11), vascular embolization rates (RR, 0.93; 95% CI 0.40- 2.13), need for repeat endoscopy (RR, 0.78; 95% CI 0.40-1.49), 30 day readmission rate (RR, 0.59; 95% CI 0.17-2.01), need for surgery (RR, 0.81; 95% CI 0.29-2.28) and morality (RR, 0.69; 95% CI 0.38-1.23). CONCLUSIONS: OTSC are associated with significantly lower risk of re-bleeding compared to standard endoscopic treatments when used as first line endoscopic therapy for NVUGIB.

Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided biliary drainage for benign biliary obstruction - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and Objectives: ERCP is the first line of treatment for benign and malignant biliary obstruction and EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is usually used for patients who have failed ERCP. Recently, several studies have evaluated the role of EUS-BD in the management of benign biliary obstruction. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD in the management of benign biliary obstruction. Methods: We reviewed several databases from inception to July 8, 2022, to identify studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD in the management of benign biliary obstruction. Our outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, and adverse events. Pooled rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all outcomes were calculated using a random effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed including patients with normal anatomy versus surgically altered anatomy (SAA). Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 statistic. Results: We included 14 studies with 329 patients. The pooled rate (95% CI) of technical success was 88% (83%, 92%). The pooled rate (95% CI) of technical success for patients with SAA and normal anatomy was 92% (85%, 96%) and 83% (75%, 89%), respectively. The pooled rates (95% CI) of clinical success and adverse events were 89% (83%, 93%) and 19% (13%, 26%), respectively. We found low heterogeneity in most of the analyses. Conclusions: EUS-BD is an effective and safe option in patients with benign biliary obstruction and should be considered after a failed attempt at ERCP or when ERCP is not technically possible.