Fecal microbiota transplantation in patients with metabolic syndrome and obesity: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic syndrome is a multifactorial disease, and the gut microbiota may play a role in its pathogenesis. Obesity, especially abdominal obesity, is associated with insulin resistance, often increasing the risk of type two diabetes mellitus, vascular endothelial dysfunction, an abnormal lipid profile, hypertension, and vascular inflammation, all of which promote the development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. AIM: To evaluate the outcomes of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) in patients with metabolic syndrome. METHODS: This was a randomized, single-blind placebo-controlled trial comparing FMT and a sham procedure in patients with metabolic syndrome. We selected 32 female patients, who were divided into eight groups of four patients each. All of the patients were submitted to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. In each group, two patients were randomly allocated to undergo FMT, and the other two patients received saline infusion. The patients were followed for one year after the procedures, during which time anthropometric, bioimpedance, and biochemical data were collected. The patients also had periodic consultations with a nutritionist and an endocrinologist. The primary end point was a change in the gut microbiota. RESULTS: There was evidence of a postprocedural change in microbiota composition in the patients who underwent FMT in relation to that observed in those who underwent the sham procedure. However, we found no difference between the two groups in terms of the clinical parameters evaluated. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in biochemical or anthropometric parameters, between the two groups evaluated. Nevertheless, there were significant postprocedural differences in the microbiota composition between the placebo group. To date, clinical outcomes related to FMT remain uncertain.

Use of an electromagnetic-guided device to assist with post-pyloric placement of a nasoenteral feeding tube: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims While endoscopic-guided placement (EGP) of a post-pyloric nasoenteral feeding tube may improve caloric intake and reduce the risk of bronchoaspiration, an electromagnetic-guided placement (EMGP) method may obviate the need for endoscopic procedures. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing the efficacy and safety of EMGP versus EGP of a post-pyloric feeding tube. Methods Protocolized searches were performed from the inception through January 2021 following PRISMA guidelines. Only randomized controlled trials were included comparing EMGP versus EGP. Study outcomes included: technical success (defined as appropriate post-pyloric positioning), tube and patient associated adverse events (AEs), time to enteral nutrition, procedure-associated cost, and procedure time. Pooled risk difference (RD) and mean difference (MD) were calculated using a fixed-effects model and heterogeneity evaluated using Higgins test (I 2 ). Results Four randomized trials (n = 536) were included. A total of 287 patients were included in the EMGP group and 249 patients in the EGP group. There was no difference between EMGP versus EGP regarding technical success, tube-related AEs, patient-related AEs, procedure time, and time in the right position. Time to enteral nutrition favored EMGP (MD: -134.37 [-162.13, -106.61]; I 2  = 35 %); with significantly decreased associated cost (MD: -127.77 ($) [-135.8-119.73]; I 2  = 0 %). Conclusions Based on this study, EMGP and EGP were associated with similar levels of technical success and safety as well as time to complete the procedure. Despite this, EMGP was associated with reduced cost and time to initiation of nutrition.

Managing adverse events after endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of the biliary tract and pancreatic fluid collections: Narrative review (with video).

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided therapeutic procedures have become increasingly common in clinical practice. The development of EUS-guided fine needle aspiration cytology led to the concept of interventional EUS. However, it carries a considerable risk of adverse events (AEs), which occur in approximately 23% of the procedures performed for the drainage of pancreatic fluid collections and 2.5-37.0% of those performed for drainage of the biliary tract. Although the vast majority of AEs occurring after EUS-guided drainage are mild, a deep understanding of such events is necessary for their appropriate management. Because EUS-guided drainage is a novel procedure, there have been few studies of the topic. To our knowledge, this is the first narrative review that focuses on the management and resolution of AEs occurring after EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections or the biliary tract. We also include an explanatory video.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography drainage for palliation of malignant hilar biliary obstruction - stent-in-stent or side-by-side? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biliary drainage, either by the stent-in-stent (SIS) or side-by-side (SBS) technique, is often required when treating a malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO). Both methods differ from each other and have distinct advantages. AIM: To compare both techniques regarding their efficacy and safety in achieving drainage of MHBO. METHODS: A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, BIREME, Cochrane) was conducted and grey literature from their inception until December 2020 with no restrictions regarding the year of publication or language, since there was at least an abstract in English. The included studies compared SIS and SBS techniques through endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Outcomes analyzed included technical and clinical success, early and late adverse events (AEs), stent patency, reintervention, and procedure-related mortality. RESULTS: Four cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial evaluating a total of 250 patients (127 in the SIS group and 123 in the SBS group) were included in this study. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups concerning the evaluated outcomes, except for stent patency, which was higher in the SIS compared with the SBS technique [mean difference (d) = 33.31; 95% confidence interval: 9.73 to 56.90, I 2 = 45%, P = 0.006]. CONCLUSION: The SIS method showed superior stent patency when compared to SBS for achieving bilateral drainage in MHBO. Both techniques are equivalent in terms of technical success, clinical success, rates of both early and late AEs, reintervention, and procedure-related mortality.

EUS-guided gastroenterostomy versus duodenal stent placement and surgical gastrojejunostomy for the palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is associated with significant morbidity and decreased quality of life, thereby necessitating effective and safe palliative treatment. As such, we sought to compare endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) versus duodenal stent (DS) placement and surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ) for palliation of malignant GOO. METHODS: Searches of electronic databases were performed to identify studies comparing EUS-GE versus DS and/or SGJ for palliative treatment of GOO. Outcomes included technical and clinical success, severe adverse events (SAEs), rate of stent obstruction (including tumor ingrowth), length of hospital stay (LOS), reintervention, and 30-day all-cause mortality. Differences in dichotomous and continuous outcomes were reported as risk difference and mean difference, respectively. RESULTS: Seven studies (n = 513 patients) were included. When compared to DS placement, EUS-GE was associated with a higher clinical success, fewer SAEs, decreased stent obstruction, lower rate of tumor ingrowth, and decreased need for reintervention. Compared to SGJ, EUS-GE was associated with a lower technical success; however, LOS was significantly decreased. All other outcomes including clinical success, SAEs, reintervention rate, and 30-day mortality were not significantly different between an EUS-guided versus surgical approach. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GE was associated with significantly improved outcomes compared to DS placement for palliative treatment of malignant GOO. Despite SGJ possessing a higher technical success compared to EUS-GE, LOS was significantly longer with no difference in clinical success or rate of adverse events.

Endoscopic Band Ligation Versus Argon Plasma Coagulation in the Treatment of Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

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. CONCLUSION: EBL is superior to APC in the treatment of GAVE in terms of endoscopic eradication rates, recurrence of bleeding, and transfusion requirements.

Metabolic Effects of Endoscopic Duodenal Mucosal Resurfacing: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Duodenal mucosal resurfacing (DMR) is an innovative endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapy (EBMT) emerging in recent years. It uses the duodenum to achieve better glycemic and weight control. This study aimed to evaluate in a critical and systematic way the metabolic effects of this procedure. Electronic searches were performed evaluating the DMR procedure based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Changes in measured outcomes were evaluated using random-effects models by computing weighted mean differences (MD) and corresponding 95% CIs between pre-and post-procedure metabolic characteristics. Four studies were selected for qualitative and quantitative analysis. DMR demonstrated beneficial glycemic and hepatic metabolic effects among patients with non-insulin dependent type 2 diabetes (T2D) at 3 and 6 months post-procedure.