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.

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.

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.

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.