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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Effects of intragastric balloon placement in metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease corresponds to a clinical entity that affects liver function triggered by the accumulation of fat in the liver and is linked with metabolic dysregulation. AIM: To evaluate the effects of the intragastric balloon (IGB) in patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease through the assessment of liver enzymes, imaging and several metabolic markers. METHODS: A comprehensive search was done of multiple electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Cochrane and Google Scholar) and grey literature from their inception until February 2021. Inclusion criteria involved patients with a body mass index > 25 kg/m2 with evidence or previous diagnosis of hepatic steatosis. Outcomes analyzed before and after 6 mo of IGB removal were alanine aminotransferase (IU/L), gamma-glutamyltransferase (IU/L), glycated hemoglobin (%), triglycerides (mg/dL), systolic blood pressure (mmHg), homeostatic model assessment, abdominal circumference (cm), body mass index (kg/m2) and liver volume (cm3). RESULTS: Ten retrospective cohort studies evaluating a total of 508 patients were included. After 6 mo of IGB placement, this significantly reduced alanine aminotransferase [mean difference (MD): 10.2, 95% confidence interval (CI): 8.12-12.3], gamma-glutamyltransferase (MD: 9.41, 95%CI: 6.94-11.88), glycated hemoglobin (MD: 0.17%, 95%CI: 0.03-0.31), triglycerides (MD: 38.58, 95%CI: 26.65-50.51), systolic pressure (MD: 7.27, 95%CI: 4.79-9.76), homeostatic model assessment (MD: 2.23%, 95%CI: 1.41-3.04), abdominal circumference (MD: 12.12, 95%CI: 9.82-14.41) and body mass index (MD: 5.07, 95%CI: 4.21-5.94). CONCLUSION: IGB placement showed significant efficacy in improving alanine aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyltransferase levels in patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease as well as improving metabolic markers related to disease progression.

Gastrointestinal Manifestations and Associated Health Outcomes of COVID-19: A Brazilian Experience From the Largest South American Public Hospital.

OBJECTIVES: Brazil has rapidly developed the second-highest number of COVID-19 cases in the world. As such, proper symptom identification, including gastrointestinal manifestations, and relationship to health outcomes remains key. We aimed to assess the prevalence and impact of gastrointestinal symptoms associated with COVID-19 in a large quaternary referral center in South America. METHODS: This was a single-center cohort study in a COVID-19 specific hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Consecutive adult patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 were included. Baseline patient history, presenting symptoms, laboratory results, and clinically relevant outcomes were recorded. Regression analyses were performed to determine significant predictors of the gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 and hospitalization outcomes. RESULTS: Four-hundred patients with COVID-19 were included. Of these, 33.25% of patients reported ≥1 gastrointestinal symptom. Diarrhea was the most common gastrointestinal symptom (17.25%). Patients with gastrointestinal symptoms had higher rates of concomitant constitutional symptoms, notably fatigue and myalgia (p<0.05). Gastrointestinal symptoms were also more prevalent among patients on chronic immunosuppressants, ACE/ARB medications, and patient with chronic kidney disease (p<0.05). Laboratory results, length of hospitalization, ICU admission, ICU length of stay, need for mechanical ventilation, vasopressor support, and in-hospital mortality did not differ based upon gastrointestinal symptoms (p>0.05). Regression analyses showed older age [OR 1.04 (95% CI, 1.02-1.06)], male gender [OR 1.94 (95% CI, 1.12-3.36)], and immunosuppression [OR 2.60 (95% CI, 1.20-5.63)], were associated with increased mortality. CONCLUSION: Based upon this Brazilian study, gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 are common but do not appear to impact clinically relevant hospitalization outcomes including the need for ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or mortality.

Gastrointestinal manifestations and associated health outcomes of COVID-19: a brazilian experience from the largest south american public hospital

OBJECTIVES: Brazil has rapidly developed the second-highest number of COVID-19 cases in the world. As such, proper symptom identification, including gastrointestinal manifestations, and relationship to health outcomes remains key. We aimed to assess the prevalence and impact of gastrointestinal symptoms associated with COVID-19 in a large quaternary referral center in South America. METHODS: This was a single-center cohort study in a COVID-19 specific hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Consecutive adult patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 were included. Baseline patient history, presenting symptoms, laboratory results, and clinically relevant outcomes were recorded. Regression analyses were performed to determine significant predictors of the gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 and hospitalization outcomes. RESULTS: Four-hundred patients with COVID-19 were included. Of these, 33.25% of patients reported ≥1 gastrointestinal symptom. Diarrhea was the most common gastrointestinal symptom (17.25%). Patients with gastrointestinal symptoms had higher rates of concomitant constitutional symptoms, notably fatigue and myalgia (p<0.05). Gastrointestinal symptoms were also more prevalent among patients on chronic immunosuppressants, ACE/ARB medications, and patient with chronic kidney disease (p<0.05). Laboratory results, length of hospitalization, ICU admission, ICU length of stay, need for mechanical ventilation, vasopressor support, and in-hospital mortality did not differ based upon gastrointestinal symptoms (p>0.05). Regression analyses showed older age [OR 1.04 (95% CI, 1.02-1.06)], male gender [OR 1.94 (95% CI, 1.12-3.36)], and immunosuppression [OR 2.60 (95% CI, 1.20-5.63)], were associated with increased mortality. CONCLUSION: Based upon this Brazilian study, gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 are common but do not appear to impact clinically relevant hospitalization outcomes including the need for ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or mortality.