Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided cholecystostomy versus percutaneous cholecystostomy (PTC) in the management of acute cholecystitis in patients unfit for surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Surgical cholecystectomy is the gold standard strategy for the management of acute cholecystitis (AC). However, some patients are considered unfit for surgery due to certain comorbid conditions. As such, we aimed to compare less invasive treatment strategies such as endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) and percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) for the management of patients with AC who are suboptimal candidates for surgical cholecystectomy. METHODS: A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed to identify all the studies comparing EUS-GBD versus PT-GBD for patients with AC who were unfit for surgery. A subgroup analysis was also performed for comparison of the group undergoing drainage via cautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) versus PT-GBD. The outcomes included technical and clinical success, adverse events (AEs), recurrent cholecystitis, reintervention, and hospital readmission. RESULTS: Eleven studies including 1155 patients were included in the statistical analysis. There was no difference between PT-GBD and EUS-GBD in all the evaluated outcomes. On the subgroup analysis, the endoscopic approach with cautery-enhanced LAMS was associated with lower rates of adverse events (RD = - 0.33 (95% CI - 0.52 to - 0.14; p = 0.0006), recurrent cholecystitis (- 0.05 RD (95% CI - 0.09 to - 0.02; p = 0.02), and hospital readmission (- 0.36 RD (95% CI-0.70 to - 0.03; p = 0.03) when compared to PT-GBD. All other outcomes were similar in the subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GBD using cautery-enhanced LAMS is superior to PT-GBD in terms of safety profile, recurrent cholecystitis, and hospital readmission rates in the management of patients with acute cholecystitis who are suboptimal candidates for cholecystectomy. However, when cautery-enhanced LAMS are not used, the outcomes of EUS-GBD and PT-GBD are similar. Thus, EUS-GBD with cautery-enhanced LAMS should be considered the preferable approach for gallbladder drainage for this challenging population.

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 resection of esophageal and gastric submucosal tumors from the muscularis propria layer: submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection versus endoscopic submucosal excavation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) and endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE) are less-invasive therapeutic alternatives to surgical resection for the removal of esophageal or gastric submucosal tumors (SMTs). This study aimed to comparing STER versus ESE for the resection of esophageal and gastric SMTs from the muscularis propria. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines through December 2020. Pooled outcome measures included complete resection, en bloc resection, bleeding, perforation, adverse events, recurrence, procedure duration, and length of hospital stay. Risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) was calculated as well as Peto time-to-event analyses to determine recurrence rate. RESULTS: Five retrospective cohort studies (n = 269 STER versus n = 319 ESE) were included. There was no difference in rates of complete resection [RR: 1.01 (95% CI 0.94, 1.07)], en bloc resection [RR: 0.95 (95% CI 0.84, 1.08)], recurrence [OR: 1.18 (95% CI 0.33, 4.16)], and total adverse events [RR: 1.33 (95% CI 0.78, 2.27)]. Specific adverse events including rates of perforation [RR: 0.57 (95% CI 0.12, 2.74)] and bleeding [RR: 1.21 (95% CI 0.30, 4.88)] were not different between STER and ESE. There was a statistical difference when evaluating procedure time, with the STER group presenting significantly larger values [MD: 24.62 min (95% CI 20.04, 29.20)]. CONCLUSION: STER and ESE were associated with similar efficacy and safety; however, ESE was associated with a significantly decreased time to complete the procedure.

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.

Endoscopic vacuum therapy versus endoscopic stenting for upper gastrointestinal transmural defects: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Upper gastrointestinal fistulas, leaks, and perforations represent a high cost burden to health systems worldwide, with high morbidity and mortality rates for affected patients. Management of these transmural defects remains therapeutically challenging. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) versus endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) for treatment of upper gastrointestinal transmural defects. METHODS: Searches were performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central Cochrane, Latin American and Caribbean Health (LILACS), and gray literature, as well as a manual search to identify studies comparing SEMS versus EVT to treat upper gastrointestinal transmural defects. Evaluated outcomes were: rates of successful closure, mortality, length of hospital stay, duration of treatment, and adverse events. RESULTS: Five studies with a total of 274 patients were included. There was a 21% increase in successful fistula closure attributed to EVT compared with the SEMS group (RD 0.21, CI 0.10-0.32; P = 0.0003). EVT demonstrated a 12% reduction in mortality compared to stenting (RD 0.12, CI 0.03-0.21; P = 0.006) and an average reduction of 14.22 days in duration of treatment (CI 8.38-20.07; P < 0.00001). There was a 24% reduction in adverse events (RD 0.24, CI 0.13-0.35; P = 0.0001. There were no statistical differences between the studied therapies regarding the length of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic vacuum therapy proves to be superior in successful defect closure, mortality, adverse events and duration of treatment.

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.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus transanal endoscopic surgery for the treatment of early rectal tumor: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive treatment of early-stage rectal lesion has presented good results, with lower morbidity than surgical resection. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) are the main methods of transanal surgery. However, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been gaining ground because it allows en bloc resections with low recurrence rates. The aim of this study was to analyze ESD in comparison with transanal endoscopic surgery. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SciELO, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Lilacs/Bireme with no restrictions on the date or language of publication. The outcomes evaluated were recurrence rate, complete (R0) resection rate, en bloc resection rate, length of hospital stay, duration of the procedure, and complication rate. RESULTS: Six retrospective cohort studies involving a collective total of 326 patients-191 in the ESD group and 135 in the transanal endoscopic surgery group were conducted. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for any of the outcomes evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: For the minimally invasive treatment of early rectal tumor, ESD and surgical techniques do not differ in terms of local recurrence, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, duration of the procedure, length of hospital stay, or complication rate, however, evidence is very low.

Conventional Versus Traction-Assisted Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Esophageal, Gastric, and Colorectal Neoplasms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is increasingly being utilized for the resection of superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms. However, the long procedure time poses a technical challenge for conventional ESD (C-ESD). Traction-assisted ESD (T-ESD) was developed to facilitate the procedure by reducing its duration. This study compares the efficacy and safety of C-ESD versus T-ESD in the treatment of esophageal, gastric, and colorectal neoplasms. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were analyzed. Traction-assisted ESD exhibited shorter mean dissection times for the esophagus and colorectal regions and lower perforation rates in colorectal cases. No significant differences were observed in en bloc resection or bleeding rates. Traction-assisted ESD proves to be more efficient in mean procedure time for esophageal and colorectal cases and safer in perforation rates for colorectal cases, but similar rates are noted for en bloc resection or bleeding.