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.

Efficacy of digital single-operator cholangioscopy in the visual interpretation of indeterminate biliary strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Indeterminate biliary strictures remain a significant diagnostic challenge. Digital single-operator cholangioscopy (D-SOC) incorporates digital imaging which enables higher resolution for better visualization and diagnosis of biliary pathology. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of available literature in an attempt to determine the efficacy of D-SOC in the visual interpretation of indeterminate biliary strictures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic searches were performed using Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. All D-SOC studies that reported the diagnostic performance in visual interpretation of indeterminate biliary strictures and biliary malignancies were included. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. All data were extracted and pooled to construct a 2 × 2 table. The visual interpretation of D-SOC was compared to resected surgical specimens or clinical follow-up in the included patients. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, prevalence, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (-LR), and diagnostic odds ratio (OR) were calculated. The summarized receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve corresponding with the area under the curve (AUC) was also analyzed. RESULTS: The search yielded 465 citations. Of these, only six studies with a total of 283 procedures met inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of D-SOC in the visual interpretation of biliary malignancies was 94% (95% CI 89-97) and 95% (95%CI 90-98), respectively, while +LR, -LR, diagnostic OR, and AUC were 15.20 (95%CI 5.21-44.33), 0.08 (95%CI 0.04-0.14), 308.83 (95%CI 106.46-872.82), and 0.983, respectively. The heterogeneity among 6 included studies was moderate for specificity (I2 = 0.51) and low for sensitivity (I2 = 0.17) and diagnostic OR (I2 = 0.00). CONCLUSION: D-SOC is associated with high sensitivity and specificity in the visual interpretation of indeterminate biliary strictures and malignancies. D-SOC should be considered routinely in the diagnostic workup of indeterminate biliary lesions.

Role of EUS evaluation after endoscopic eradication of esophageal varices with band ligation.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Variceal recurrence after endoscopic band ligation (EBL) for secondary prophylaxis is a frequent event. Some studies have reported a correlation between variceal recurrence and variceal rebleeding with the EUS features of paraesophageal vessels. A prospective observational study was conducted to correlate EUS evaluation of paraesophageal varices, azygos vein, and thoracic duct with variceal recurrence after EBL variceal eradication in patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: EUS was performed before and 1 month after EBL variceal eradication. Paraesophageal varices, azygos vein, and thoracic duct maximum diameters were evaluated in predetermined anatomic stations. After EBL variceal eradication, patients were submitted to endoscopic examinations every 3 months for 1 year. We looked for EUS features that could predict variceal recurrence. RESULTS: Thirty patients completed a 1-year endoscopic follow-up. Seventeen patients (57%) presented variceal recurrence. There was no correlation between azygos vein and thoracic duct diameter with variceal recurrence. Larger paraesophageal varices predicted variceal recurrence in both evaluation periods. Paraesophageal varices diameters that best correlated with variceal recurrence were 6.3 mm before EBL (52.9% sensitivity, 92.3% specificity, and .749 area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC]) and 4 mm after EBL (70.6% sensitivity, 84.6% specificity, and .801 AUROC). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that paraesophageal varices diameter measured by EUS predicts variceal recurrence within 1 year after EBL variceal eradication. Paraesophageal diameter after variceal eradication is a better recurrence predictor, because it has a lower cut-off parameter, higher sensitivity, and higher AUROC.

Biliary drainage in inoperable malignant biliary distal obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic drainage remains the treatment of choice for unresectable or inoperable malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). AIM: To compare the safety and efficacy of plastic stent (PS) vs self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) placement for treatment of MDBO. METHODS: This meta-analysis was developed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and grey literature to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing clinical success, adverse events, stent dysfunction rate, reintervention rate, duration of stent patency, and mean survival. Risk difference (RD) and mean difference (MD) were calculated and heterogeneity was assessed with I 2 statistic. Subgroup analyses were performed by SEMS type. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs were included in this study, totaling 1005 patients. There was no difference in clinical success (RD = -0.03, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.01, 0.07; I 2 = 0%), rate of adverse events (RD = -0.03, 95%CI: -0.10, 0.03; I 2 = 57%), and mean patient survival (MD = -0.63, 95%CI: -18.07, 19.33; I 2 = 54%) between SEMS vs PS placement. However, SEMS placement was associated with a lower rate of reintervention (RD = -0.34, 95%CI: -0.46, -0.22; I 2 = 57%) and longer duration of stent patency (MD = 125.77 d, 95%CI: 77.5, 174.01). Subgroup analyses revealed both covered and uncovered SEMS improved stent patency compared to PS (RD = 152.25, 95%CI: 37.42, 267.07; I 2 = 98% and RD = 101.5, 95%CI: 38.91, 164.09; I 2 = 98%; respectively). Stent dysfunction was higher in the covered SEMS group (RD = -0.21, 95%CI: -0.32, -0.1; I² = 205%), with no difference in the uncovered SEMS group (RD = -0.08, 95%CI: -0.56, 0.39; I² = 87%). CONCLUSION: While both stent types possessed a similar clinical success rate, complication rate, and patient-associated mean survival for treatment of MDBO, SEMS were associated with a longer duration of stent patency compared to PS.

Pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A narrative review.

Acute post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is a feared and potentially fatal complication that can be as high as up to 30% in high-risk patients. Pre-examination measures, during the examination and after the examination are the key to technical and clinical success with a decrease in adverse events. Several studies have debated on the subject, however, numerous topics remain controversial, such as the effectiveness of prophylactic medications and the amylase dosage time. This review was designed to provide an update on the current scientific evidence regarding PEP available in the literature.

Role of pancreatography in the endoscopic management of encapsulated pancreatic collections - review and new proposed classification.

Pancreatic fluids collections are local complications related to acute or chronic pancreatitis and may require intervention when symptomatic and/or complicated. Within the last decade, endoscopic management of these collections via endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage has become the gold standard treatment for encapsulated pancreatic collections with high clinical success and lower morbidity compared to traditional surgery and percutaneous drainage. Proper understanding of anatomic landmarks, including assessment of the main pancreatic duct and any associated lesions - such as disruptions and strictures - are key to achieving clinical success, reducing the need for reintervention or recurrence, especially in cases with suspected disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome. Additionally, proper review of imaging and anatomic landmarks, including collection location, are pivotal to determine type and size of pancreatic stenting as well as approach using long-term transmural indwelling plastic stents. Pancreatography to adequately assess the main pancreatic duct may be performed by two methods: Either non-invasively using magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography or endoscopically via retrograde cholangiopan-creatography. Despite the critical need to understand anatomy via pancrea-tography and assess the main pancreatic duct, a standardized approach or uniform assessment strategy has not been described in the literature. Therefore, the aim of this review was to clarify the role of pancreatography in the endoscopic management of encapsulated pancreatic collections and to propose a new classification system to aid in proper assessment and endoscopic treatment.

Propofol vs traditional sedatives for sedation in endoscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Propofol is commonly used for sedation during endoscopic procedures. Data suggests its superiority to traditional sedatives used in endoscopy including benzodiazepines and opioids with more rapid onset of action and improved post-procedure recovery times for patients. However, Propofol requires administration by trained healthcare providers, has a narrow therapeutic index, lacks an antidote and increases risks of cardio-pulmonary complications. AIM: To compare, through a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis, sedation with propofol to traditional sedatives with or without propofol during endoscopic procedures. METHODS: A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, LILACS, BVS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. The last search in the literature was performed on March, 2019 with no restriction regarding the idiom or the year of publication. Only randomized clinical trials with full texts published were included. We divided sedation therapies to the following groups: (1) Propofol versus benzodiazepines and/or opiate sedatives; (2) Propofol versus Propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids; and (3) Propofol with adjunctive benzodiazepine and opioid versus benzodiazepine and opioid. The following outcomes were addressed: Adverse events, patient satisfaction with type of sedation, endoscopists satisfaction with sedation administered, dose of propofol administered and time to recovery post procedure. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5 software version 5.39. RESULTS: A total of 23 clinical trials were included (n = 3854) from the initial search of 6410 articles. For Group I (Propofol vs benzodiazepine and/or opioids): The incidence of bradycardia was not statistically different between both sedation arms (RD: -0.01, 95%CI: -0.03-+0.01, I 2: 22%). In 10 studies, the incidence of hypotension was not statistically difference between sedation arms (RD: 0.01, 95%CI: -0.02-+0.04, I 2: 0%). Oxygen desaturation was higher in the propofol group but not statistically different between groups (RD: -0.03, 95%CI: -0.06-+0.00, I 2: 25%). Patients were more satisfied with their sedation in the benzodiazepine + opioid group compared to those with monotherapy propofol sedation (MD: +0.89, 95%CI: +0.62-+1.17, I 2: 39%). The recovery time after the procedure showed high heterogeneity even after outlier withdrawal, there was no statistical difference between both arms (MD: -15.15, 95%CI: -31.85-+1.56, I 2: 99%). For Group II (Propofol vs propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids): Bradycardia had a tendency to occur in the Propofol group with benzodiazepine and/or opioid-associated (RD: -0.08, 95%CI: -0.13--0.02, I 2: 59%). There was no statistical difference in the incidence of bradycardia (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: -0.08-+0.08, I 2: 85%), desaturation (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: -0.03-+0.02, I 2: 44%) or recovery time (MD: -2.04, 95%CI: -6.96-+2.88, I 2: 97%) between sedation arms. The total dose of propofol was higher in the propofol group with benzodiazepine and/or opiates but with high heterogeneity. (MD: 70.36, 95%CI: +53.11-+87.60, I 2: 61%). For Group III (Propofol with benzodiazepine and opioid vs benzodiazepine and opioid): Bradycardia and hypotension was not statistically significant between groups (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: -0.002-+0.02, I 2: 3%; RD: 0.04, 95%CI: -0.05-+0.13, I 2: 77%). Desaturation was evaluated in two articles and was higher in the propofol + benzodiazepine + opioid group, but with high heterogeneity (RD: 0.15, 95%CI: 0.08-+0.22, I 2: 95%). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that the use of propofol alone or in combination with traditional adjunctive sedatives is safe and does not result in an increase in negative outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.

Comparison between endoscopic sphincterotomy vs endoscopic sphincterotomy associated with balloon dilation for removal of bile duct stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.

AIM: To compare gallstones removal rate and incidence of bleeding, pancreatitis, use of mechanical lithotripsy, cholangitis and perforation between isolated sphincterotomy vs sphincterotomy associated with balloon dilation of papilla in choledocholithiasis through the meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines. Literature search was restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MedLine, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and EMBASE database platforms in July 2017. The manual search included references of retrieved articles. We extracted data focusing on outcomes: The primary endpoint was the stones removal rate; Secondary endpoints were rates of pancreatitis, bleeding, use of mechanical lithotripsy (ML), perforation and cholangitis. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs with 1824 patients were included. EST was associated with more post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) bleeding [FE RD-0.02, CI (-0.03, -0.00), I2 = 33%, P = 0.05] and more need of mechanical lithotripsy in general [RE RD-0.16, CI (-0.25, -0.06), I2 = 90%, P = 0.002] and in subgroup analysis of stones greater than 15 mm [RE RD-0.20, CI (-0.38, -0.02), I2 = 82%, P = 0.003]. Incidence of pancreatitis [FE RD-0.01, CI (-0.03, 0.01), I2 = 0, P = 0.36], cholangitis [FE RD-0.00, CI (-0.01, 0.01), I2 =0, P = 0.97] and perforation [FE RD-0.01, CI (-0.01, 0.00), I2 = 0, P = 0.23] was similar between the groups as well as similar stone removal rates in general [FE RD-0.01, CI (-0.01, 0.04), I2 = 0, P = 0.23] and pooled analysis of stones greater than 15 mm [FE RD-0.02, CI (-0.02, 0.07), I2 = 11%, P = 0.31]. CONCLUSION: Through meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials we found that isolated sphincterotomy was associated with more post-ERCP bleeding and more need for mechanical lithotripsy. However, there was no statistical difference in the stone removal rate between isolated sphincterotomy and sphincterotomy associated with balloon dilation in the approach to remove gallstones.

Complex biliary stones management: cholangioscopy versus papillary large balloon dilation - a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopic removal of biliary stones has high success rates, ranging between 85 % to 95 %. Nevertheless, some stones may be challenging and different endoscopic methods have evolved. Papillary large balloon dilation after sphincterotomy is a widely used technique with success rates ranging from 68 to 90 % for stones larger than 15 mm. Cholangioscopy allows performing lithotripsy under direct biliary visualization, either by laser or electrohydraulic waves, which have similar success rate (80 % - 90 %). However, there is no study comparing these 2 techniques. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From April 2014 to June 2016, 100 patients were enrolled and randomized in 2 groups, using a non-inferiority hypothesis: cholangioscopy + electrohydraulic lithotripsy (group 1) and endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (group 2). The main outcome was complete stone removal. Adverse events were documented. Mechanical lithotripsy was not performed. Failure cases had a second session with crossover of the methods. RESULTS: The mean age was 56 years. 74 (75.5 %) patients were female. The initial overall complete stone removal rate was 74.5 % (77.1 % in group 1 and 72 % in group 2, P  > 0.05). After second session the overall success rate achieved 90.1 %. Procedure time was significantly lower in group 2, - 25.2 min (CI95 % - 12.48 to - 37.91). There were no significant differences regarding technical success rate, radiologic exposure and adverse events. CONCLUSION: Single-operator cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy and papillary large balloon dilation are effective and safe approaches for removing complex biliary stones.

Modified technique for percutaneous endoscopic gastrojejunostomy placement. / Técnica modificada para realização da gastro-jejunostomia endoscópica percutânea.

The placement of percutaneous endoscopic gastrojejunostomy (PEG-J) provides diet delivery beyond the angle of Treitz, and it is associated with decrease of complications related to gastroparesis, such as aspiration pneumonia. There are many different techniques to perform a PEG-J described in the literature, with variable degrees of technical success. In this article, we suggest modifications to the technique of PEG-J placement in order to reduce time of procedure and minimize the risk of technical failure.

A realização da gastro-jejunostomia endoscópica percutânea (PEG-J) proporciona nutrição além do ângulo de Treitz, e está associada à diminuição das complicações relacionadas à gastroparesia, como a pneumonia por aspiração. Existem diversas técnicas para realização da PEG-J descritas na literatura, com graus variáveis de sucesso técnico. Neste artigo propomos modificações na técnica de realização da PEG-J, a fim de reduzir o tempo do procedimento e minimizar o risco de insucesso.

Técnica modificada para realização da gastro-jejunostomia endoscópica percutânea / Modified technique for percutaneous endoscopic gastrojejunostomy placement

RESUMO A realização da gastro-jejunostomia endoscópica percutânea (PEG-J) proporciona nutrição além do ângulo de Treitz, e está associada à diminuição das complicações relacionadas à gastroparesia, como a pneumonia por aspiração. Existem diversas técnicas para realização da PEG-J descritas na literatura, com graus variáveis de sucesso técnico. Neste artigo propomos modificações na técnica de realização da PEG-J, a fim de reduzir o tempo do procedimento e minimizar o risco de insucesso.

ABSTRACT The placement of percutaneous endoscopic gastrojejunostomy (PEG-J) provides diet delivery beyond the angle of Treitz, and it is associated with decrease of complications related to gastroparesis, such as aspiration pneumonia. There are many different techniques to perform a PEG-J described in the literature, with variable degrees of technical success. In this article, we suggest modifications to the technique of PEG-J placement in order to reduce time of procedure and minimize the risk of technical failure.