Pain relief in chronic pancreatitis: endoscopic or surgical treatment? a systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pain is one of the consequences of chronic pancreatitis (CP) that has the greatest impact on the quality of life of patients. Endoscopic and surgical interventions, by producing a decrease in intraductal pancreatic pressure, can provide pain relief. This is the first systematic review that includes only randomized clinical trials (RTCs) comparing outcomes in the short-term (less than 2 years) and long-term (more than 2 years) between these two types of interventions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases to identify RTCs comparing short and long-term pain relief, procedural complications, and days of hospitalization between endoscopic and surgical interventions was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Three RCTs evaluating a total of 199 patients (99 in the endoscopy group and 100 in the surgery group) were included in this study. Surgical interventions provided complete pain relief, with statistical difference, in the long-term (16,4% vs 35.7%; RD 0.19; 95% CI 0.03-0.35; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%), without significant difference in short-term (17.5% vs 31.2%; RD 0.14; 95% CI -0.01-0.28; p = 0.07; I2 = 0%) when compared to endoscopy. There was no statistical difference in short-term (17.5% vs 28.1%; RD 0.11; 95% CI -0.04-0.25; p = 0.15; I2 = 0%) and long-term (34% vs 41.1%; RD 0.07; 95% CI -0.10-0.24; p = 0.42; I2 0%) in partial relief of pain between both interventions. In the short-term, both complications (34.9% vs 29.7%; RD 0.05; 95% CI -0.10-0.21; p = 0.50; I2 = 48%) and days of hospitalization (MD -1.02; 95% CI -2.61-0.58; p = 0.21; I2 = 0%) showed no significant differences. CONCLUSION: Surgical interventions showed superior results when compared to endoscopy in terms of complete long-term pain relief. The number of complications and length of hospitalization in both groups were similar.

Adverse Events and Complications with Intragastric Balloons: a Narrative Review (with Video).

Intragastric balloon (IGB) is a minimally invasive and reversible therapy for weight loss with a good efficacy and safety profile. Introduced in the 1980s, IGBs have significantly evolved in the last couple of decades. They mechanically act by decreasing the volume of the stomach and its reservoir capacity, delaying gastric emptying, and increasing satiety leading to a subsequent weight loss. Despite the low rates of complications and mortality associated with IGBs, adverse events and complications still occur and can range from mild to fatal. This review aims to provide an update on the current scientific evidence in regard to complications and adverse effects of the use of the IGB and its treatment. This is the first comprehensive narrative review in the literature dedicated to this subject.

Surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease: is chromoendoscopy the only way to go? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Background and study aims Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) have higher risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Guidelines recommend dysplasia surveillance with dye-spraying chromoendoscopy (DCE). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to review all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) available and compare the efficacy of different endoscopic methods of surveillance for dysplasia in patients with UC and CD. Methods Databases searched were Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and SCIELO/LILACS. It was estimated the risk difference (RD) for dichotomous outcomes (number of patients diagnosed with one or more dysplastic lesions, total number of dysplastic lesions diagnosed and number of dysplastic lesions detected by targeted biopsies) and mean difference for continuous outcomes (procedure time). Results This study included 17 RCTs totaling 2,457 patients. There was superiority of DCE when compared to standard-definiton white light endoscopy (SD-WLE). When compared with high-definition (HD) WLE, no difference was observed in all outcomes (number of patients with dysplasia (RD 0.06; 95 % CI [-0.01, 0.13])). Comparing other techniques, no difference was observed between DCE and virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE - including narrow-band imaging [NBI], i-SCAN and flexible spectral imaging color enhancement), in all outcomes except procedure time (mean difference, 6.33 min; 95 % CI, 1.29, 11.33). DCE required a significantly longer procedure time compared with WLE (mean difference, 7.81 min; 95 % CI, 2.76, 12.86). Conclusions We found that dye-spraying chromoendoscopy detected more patients and dysplastic lesions than SD-WLE. Although no difference was observed between DCE and HD-WLE or narrow-band imaging, the main outcomes favored numerically dye-spraying chromoendoscopy, except procedure time. Regarding i-SCAN, FICE and auto-fluorescence imaging, there is still not enough evidence to support or not their recommendation.

A rare non-oncological pancreatic mass: eosinophilic pancreatitis diagnosis through EUS-FNA.

Background and study aims Eosinophilic pancreatitis (EP) is a rare etiology of chronic pancreatitis, and few cases have been reported. It is characterized by eosinophilic infiltration of the pancreas and elevated IgE levels. EP is difficult to distinguish from pancreatic cancer based on clinical symptoms and auxiliary exams. We present a case of EP and debate the routine performance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for resectable pancreatic mass.

Carbon dioxide versus air insufflation enteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the insufflation of CO 2 and ambient air in enteroscopy. SEARCH SOURCES: The investigators researched the electronic databases MedLine, Cochrane Library, Central, LILACS, BVS, Scopus and Cinahl. The grey search was conducted in the base of theses of the University of São Paulo, books of digestive endoscopy and references of selected articles and in previous systematic revisions. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: The evaluation of eligibility was performed independently, in a non-blind manner, by two reviewers, firstly by title and abstract, followed by complete text. Disagreements between the reviewers were resolved by consensus. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHOD: Through the spreadsheet of data extraction, where one author extracted the data and a second author checked the extraction. Disagreements were resolved by debate between the two reviewers. The quality analysis of the studies was performed using the Jadad score. The software RevMan 5 version 5.3 was used for the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Four randomized clinical trials were identified, totaling 473 patients submitted to enteroscopy and comparing insufflation of CO 2 and ambient air. There was no statistical difference in the intubation depth between the two groups. When CO 2 insufflation was reduced, there was a significant difference in pain levels 1 hour after the procedure (95 % IC, -2.49 [-4.72, -0.26], P : 0.03, I 2 : 20%) and 3 hours after the procedure (95% IC, -3.05 [-5.92, -0.18], P : 0.04, I 2 : 0 %). There was a usage of lower propofol dosage in the CO 2 insufflation group, with significant difference (95 % IC, -67.68 [-115.53, -19.84], P : 0.006, I 2 : 0 %). There was no significant difference between the groups in relation to the use of pethidine and to the oxygen saturation. LIMITATIONS: Restricted number of randomized clinical trials and nonuniformity of data were limitations to the analysis of the outcomes. CONCLUSION: The use of CO 2 as insufflation gas in enteroscopy reduces the pain levels 1 hour and 3 hours after the procedure, in addition to the reduction of the sedation (propofol) dosage used.

Sodium picosulphate or polyethylene glycol before elective colonoscopy in outpatients? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To determine the best option for bowel preparation [sodium picosulphate or polyethylene glycol (PEG)] for elective colonoscopy in adult outpatients. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature following the PRISMA guidelines was performed using Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, Central, Cinahl and Lilacs. No restrictions were placed for country, year of publication or language. The last search in the literature was performed on November 20th, 2017. Only randomized clinical trials with full texts published were included. The subjects included were adult outpatients who underwent bowel cleansing for elective colonoscopy. The included studies compared sodium picosulphate with magnesium citrate (SPMC) and PEG for bowel preparation. Exclusion criteria were the inclusion of inpatients or groups with specific conditions, failure to mention patient status (outpatient or inpatient) or dietary restrictions, and permission to have unrestricted diet on the day prior to the exam. Primary outcomes were bowel cleaning success and/or tolerability of colon preparation. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, polyp and adenoma detection rates. Data on intention-to-treat were extracted by two independent authors and risk of bias assessed through the Jadad scale. Funnel plots, Egger's test, Higgins' test (I 2) and sensitivity analyses were used to assess reporting bias and heterogeneity. The meta-analysis was performed by computing risk difference (RD) using Mantel-Haenszel (MH) method with fixed-effects (FE) and random-effects (RE) models. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5) version 6.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration) was the software chosen to perform the meta-analysis. RESULTS: 662 records were identified but only 16 trials with 6200 subjects were included for the meta-analysis. High heterogeneity among studies was found and sensitivity analysis was needed and performed to interpret data. In the pooled analysis, SPMC was better for bowel cleaning [MH FE, RD 0.03, IC (0.01, 0.05), P = 0.003, I 2 = 33%, NNT 34], for tolerability [MH RE, RD 0.08, IC (0.03, 0.13), P = 0.002, I 2 = 88%, NNT 13] and for adverse events [MH RE, RD 0.13, IC (0.05, 0.22), P = 0.002, I 2 = 88%, NNT 7]. There was no difference in regard to polyp and adenoma detection rates. Additional analyses were made by subgroups (type of regimen, volume of PEG solution and dietary recommendations). SPMC demonstrated better tolerability levels when compared to PEG in the following subgroups: "day-before preparation" [MH FE, RD 0.17, IC (0.13, 0.21), P < 0.0001, I 2 = 0%, NNT 6], "preparation in accordance with time interval for colonoscopy" [MH RE, RD 0.08, IC (0.01, 0.15), P = 0.02, I 2 = 54%, NNT 13], when compared to "high-volume PEG solutions" [MH RE, RD 0.08, IC (0.01, 0.14), I 2 = 89%, P = 0.02, NNT 13] and in the subgroup "liquid diet on day before" [MH RE, RD 0.14, IC (0.06,0.22), P = 0.0006, I 2 = 81%, NNT 8]. SPMC was also found to cause fewer adverse events than PEG in the "high-volume PEG solutions" [MH RE, RD -0.18, IC (-0.30, -0.07), P = 0.002, I 2 = 79%, NNT 6] and PEG in the "low-residue diet" subgroup [MH RE, RD -0.17, IC (-0.27, 0.07), P = 0.0008, I 2 = 86%, NNT 6]. CONCLUSION: SPMC seems to be better than PEG for bowel preparation, with a similar bowel cleaning success rate, better tolerability and lower prevalence of adverse events.

Stents and surgical interventions in the palliation of gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review.

Background and study aims: Palliative treatment of gastric outlet obstruction can be done with surgical or endoscopic techniques. This systematic review aims to compare surgery and covered and uncovered stent treatments for gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Patients and methods: Randomized clinical trials were identified in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, LILACs, BVS, SCOPUS and CINAHL databases. Comparison of covered and uncovered stents included: technical success, clinical success, complications, obstruction, migration, bleeding, perforation, stent fracture and reintervention. The outcomes used to compare surgery and stents were technical success, complications, and reintervention. Patency rate could not be included because of lack of uniformity of the extracted data. Results: Eight studies were selected, 3 comparing surgery and stents and 5 comparing covered and uncovered stents.The meta-analysis of surgical and endoscopic stent treatment showed no difference in the technical success and overall number of complications. Stents had higher reintervention rates than surgery (RD: 0.26, 95 % CI [0.05, 0.47], NNH: 4). There is no significant difference in technical success, clinical success, complications, stent fractures, perforation, bleeding and the need for reintervention in the analyses of covered and uncovered stents. There is a higher migration rate in the covered stent therapy compared to uncovered self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) in the palliation of malignant GOO (RD: 0.09, 95 % CI [0.04, 0.14], NNH: 11). Nevertheless, covered stents had lower obstruction rates (RD: - 0.21, 95 % CI [-0.27, - 0.15], NNT: 5). Conclusions: In the palliation of malignant GOO, covered SEMS had higher migration and lower obstruction rates when compared with uncovered stents. Surgery is associated with lower reintervention rates than stents.