III BRAZILIAN CONSENSUS STATEMENT ON ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND.

BACKGROUND: •Since its inception in the 1980s, endoscopic ultrasound has increased relevance and usefulness in clinical practice. BACKGROUND: •Endoscopic ultrasound has evolved from solely diagnostic imaging to a valuable method for tissue sampling and therapeutic procedures, such as drainage of pancreatic fluid collections and creating gastrointestinal anastomoses under EUS guidance. BACKGROUND: •Given the rapid advancements in EUS and new devices, an update to the last Consensus must include recent developments. BACKGROUND: •Experts evaluated and discussed the best evidence on EUS-guided procedures and devices for tissue sampling, pancreatic and liver disease management, and biliary drainage. BACKGROUND: In the past decades, endoscopic ultrasound has developed from a diagnostic tool to a platform for many therapeutic interventions. Various technological advancements have emerged since the last Brazilian Consensus, demanding a review and update of the recommendations based on the best scientific evidence. METHODS: A group of 32 renowned echoendoscopists selected eight relevant topics to be discussed to generate clinical questions. After that, a literature review was conducted to answer these questions based on the most updated evidence. RESULTS: Thirty-three statements were formulated and voted on by the experts to reach a consensus. The Oxford System was used to grade the level of evidence. CONCLUSION: There is mo-derate evidence to support that the needle shape, gauge, or aspiration technique does not influence the yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling of pancreatic solid lesions. There is moderate evidence to support using EUS-TTNB of the cyst wall to differentiate between mucinous and non-mucinous cystic neoplasms. There is little evidence to support the EUS-guided treatment of gastric varices. There is a high level of evidence to support that EUS-guided biliary drainage and ERCP present similar outcomes in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction. There is a high level of evidence for using EUS to diagnose neoplastic pancreatic cysts and detect necrosis before indicating drainage. There is moderate evidence to support EUS-GE over duodenal stent for malignant gastric outlet obstruction in patients with a life expectancy higher than 2 months. There is a high level of evidence to support the use of RFA in treating both functioning and non-functioning types of NET.

EVALUATION OF QUALITY INDICATORS OF SCREENING COLONOSCOPY PERFORMED IN A PRIVATE QUARTERNARY HOSPITAL IN BRAZIL.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most common type of cancer in Brazil, despite the availability of screening methods that reduce its risk. Colonoscopy is the only screening method that also allows therapeutic procedures. The proper screening through colonoscopy is linked to the quality of the exam, which can be evaluated according to quality criteria recommended by various institutions. Among the factors, the most used is the Adenoma Detection Rate, which should be at least 25% for general population. AIMS: To evaluate the quality of the screening colonoscopies performed in a quarternary private Brazilian hospital. METHODS: This is a retrospective study evaluating the quality indicators of colonoscopies performed at a private center since its inauguration. Only asymptomatic patients aged over 45 years who underwent screening colonoscopy were included. The primary outcome was the Adenoma Detection Rate, and secondary outcomes included polyps detection rate and safety profile. Subanalyses evaluated the correlation of endoscopic findings with gender and age and the evolution of detection rates over the years. RESULTS: A total of 2,144 patients were include with a mean age of 60.54 years-old. Polyps were diagnosed in 68.6% of the procedures. Adenoma detection rate was 46.8%, with an increasing rate over the years, mainly in males. A low rate of adverse events was reported in 0.23% of the cases, with no need for surgical intervention and no deaths. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that high quality screening colonoscopy is possible when performed by experienced endoscopists and trained nurses, under an adequate infrastructure.

HOT VERSUS COLD SNARE FOR COLORECTAL POLYPECTOMIES SIZED UP TO 10MM: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer, and prevention relies on screening programs with resection complete resection of neoplastic lesions. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the best snare polypectomy technique for colorectal lesions up to 10 mm, focusing on complete resection rate, and adverse events. METHODS: A comprehensive search using electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials comparing hot versus cold snare resection for polyps sized up to 10 mm, and following PRISMA guidelines, a meta-analysis was performed. Outcomes included complete resection rate, en bloc resection rate, polypectomy, procedure times, immediate, delayed bleeding, and perforation. RESULTS: Nineteen RCTs involving 8720 patients and 17588 polyps were included. Hot snare polypectomy showed a higher complete resection rate (RD, 0.02; 95%CI [+0.00,0.04]; P=0.03; I 2=63%), but also a higher rate of delayed bleeding (RD 0.00; 95%CI [0.00, 0.01]; P=0.01; I 2=0%), and severe delayed bleeding (RD 0.00; 95%CI [0.00, 0.00]; P=0.04; I 2=0%). Cold Snare was associated with shorter polypectomy time (MD -46.89 seconds; 95%CI [-62.99, -30.79]; P<0.00001; I 2=90%) and shorter total colonoscopy time (MD -7.17 minutes; 95%CI [-9.10, -5.25]; P<0.00001; I 2=41%). No significant differences were observed in en bloc resection rate or immediate bleeding. CONCLUSION: Hot snare polypectomy presents a slightly higher complete resection rate, but, as it is associated with a longer procedure time and a higher rate of delayed bleeding compared to Cold Snare, it cannot be recommended as the gold standard approach. Individual analysis and personal experience should be considered when selecting the best approach.

Alça quente versus alça fria para polipectomias colorretais de até 10 mm: uma revisão sistemática e meta-análise de ensaios clínicos randomizados / Hot versus cold snare for colorectal polypectomies sized up to 10mm: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

ABSTRACT Background: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer, and prevention relies on screening programs with resection complete resection of neoplastic lesions. Objective: We aimed to evaluate the best snare polypectomy technique for colorectal lesions up to 10 mm, focusing on complete resection rate, and adverse events. Methods: A comprehensive search using electronic databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials comparing hot versus cold snare resection for polyps sized up to 10 mm, and following PRISMA guidelines, a meta-analysis was performed. Outcomes included complete resection rate, en bloc resection rate, polypectomy, procedure times, immediate, delayed bleeding, and perforation. Results: Nineteen RCTs involving 8720 patients and 17588 polyps were included. Hot snare polypectomy showed a higher complete resection rate (RD, 0.02; 95%CI [+0.00,0.04]; P=0.03; I 2=63%), but also a higher rate of delayed bleeding (RD 0.00; 95%CI [0.00, 0.01]; P=0.01; I 2=0%), and severe delayed bleeding (RD 0.00; 95%CI [0.00, 0.00]; P=0.04; I 2=0%). Cold Snare was associated with shorter polypectomy time (MD -46.89 seconds; 95%CI [-62.99, -30.79]; P<0.00001; I 2=90%) and shorter total colonoscopy time (MD -7.17 minutes; 95%CI [-9.10, -5.25]; P<0.00001; I 2=41%). No significant differences were observed in en bloc resection rate or immediate bleeding. Conclusion: Hot snare polypectomy presents a slightly higher complete resection rate, but, as it is associated with a longer procedure time and a higher rate of delayed bleeding compared to Cold Snare, it cannot be recommended as the gold standard approach. Individual analysis and personal experience should be considered when selecting the best approach.

RESUMO Contexto: O câncer colorretal é o terceiro câncer mais comum na população, e a prevenção é principalmente baseada em programas de screening, com a ressecção completa de lesões neoplásicas. Múltiplas técnicas de ressecção estão disponíveis, mas ainda há controvérsias sobre a melhor abordagem, especialmente em relação à taxa de ressecção completa e à taxa de sangramento tardio. Objetivo: Nosso objetivo foi avaliar a melhor técnica de polipectomia com alça para lesões colorretais de até 10 mm. Métodos: Foi realizada uma busca abrangente em bancos de dados eletrônicos (MEDLINE e EMBASE) para identificar ensaios clínicos randomizados que comparassem a ressecção com alça quente versus alça fria para pólipos de até 10 mm, seguindo as diretrizes PRISMA. Os desfechos incluíram taxa de ressecção completa, taxa de ressecção em bloco, tempo de polipectomia, tempo total do procedimento, sangramento imediato, sangramento tardio e perfuração. Resultados: Dezenove ensaios clínicos randomizados foram incluídos, totalizando 8.720 pacientes e 17.588 pólipos. A polipectomia com alça quente foi associada a uma maior taxa de ressecção completa (RD, 0,02; IC95% [+0,00, 0,04]; P=0,03; I 2=63%), embora também tenha sido associada a uma taxa mais alta de sangramento tardio (RD 0,00; IC95% [0,00, 0,01]; P=0,01; I 2=0%) e de sangramento tardio grave (RD 0,00; IC95% [0,00, 0,00]; P=0,04; I 2=0%). A polipectomia com alça fria foi associada a um menor tempo de polipectomia (MD -46,89 segundos; IC95% [-62,99, -30,79]; P<0,00001 I 2=90%) e a um menor tempo total de colonoscopia (DM -7,17 minutos; IC95% [-9,10, -5,25]; P<0,00001 I 2=41%). Não houve diferença significativa na taxa de ressecção em bloco (RD, 0,00; IC95% [-0,01, 0,01]; P=0,20; I 2=30%) ou na taxa de sangramento imediato (RD -0,00; IC95% [-0,01, 0,00]; P=0,34; I 2=11%). Não foram relatados casos de perfuração em nenhum dos grupos. Conclusão: A polipectomia com alça quente apresenta uma taxa ligeiramente mais alta de ressecção completa, mas, como está associada a um tempo de procedimento mais longo e a uma taxa mais alta de sangramento tardio em comparação com a polipectomia com alça fria, não pode ser recomendada como a abordagem padrão. A análise individualizada e a experiência pessoal devem ser consideradas ao escolher a melhor abordagem.

Endoscopic Biliary Darinage (EBD) versus Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD) for biliary drainage in patients with Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA): A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Biliary drainage for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA) can be performed either by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD). To date there is no consensus about which method is preferred. Taking that into account, the aim of this study is to compare Endoscopic Biliary Drainage (EBD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma through a systematic review and metanalysis. A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed. Evaluated outcomes included technical success, clinical success, post drainage complications (cholangitis, pancreatitis, bleeding, and major complications), crossover, hospital length stay, and seeding metastases. Data extracted from the studies were used to calculate Mean Differences (MD). Seventeen studies were included, with a total of 2284 patients (EBD = 1239, PTBD = 1045). Considering resectable PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated lower rates of crossover (RD = 0.29; 95% CI 0.07-0.51; p = 0.009 I2 = 90%), post-drainage complications (RD = 0.20; 95% CI 0.06-0.33; p < 0.0001; I2 = 78%), and post-drainage pancreatitis (RD = 0.10; 95% CI 0.05-0.16; p < 0.0001; I2 = 64%). The EBD group presented reduced length of hospital stay (RD = -2.89; 95% CI -3.35 - -2,43; p < 0.00001; I2 = 42%). Considering palliative PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated a higher clinical success (RD = -0.19; 95% CI -0.27 - -0.11; p < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) and less post-drainage cholangitis (RD = 0.08; 95% CI 0.01-0.15; p = 0.02; I2 = 48%) when compared to the EBD group. There was no statistical difference between the groups regarding: technical success, post-drainage bleeding, major post-drainage complications, and seeding metastases.

Insufflation of Carbon Dioxide versus Air During Colonoscopy Among Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Carbon dioxide is increasingly used in insufflation during colonoscopy in adult patients; however, air insufflation remains the primary practice among pediatric gastroenterologists. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate insufflation using CO2 versus air in colonoscopies in pediatric patients. METHODS: Individualized search strategies were performed using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and LILACS databases following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and Cochrane working methodology. Randomized control trials (RCTs) were selected for the present meta-analysis. Pooled proportions were calculated for outcomes including procedure time and abdominal pain immediately and 24 hours post-procedure. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 644 records, of which five RCTs with a total of 358 patients (CO2: n=178 versus air: n=180) were included in the final analysis. The procedure time was not different between the CO2 and air insufflation groups (mean difference, 10.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.55 to 24.22; p=0.11). Abdominal pain immediately post-procedure was significantly lower in the CO2 group (risk difference [RD], -0.15; 95% CI; -0.26 to -0.03; p=0.01) while abdominal pain at 24 hours post-procedure was similar (RD, -0.05; 95% CI; -0.11 to 0.01; p=0.11). CONCLUSION: Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCT data, CO2 insufflation reduced abdominal pain immediately following the procedure, while pain was similar at 24 hours post-procedure. These results suggest that CO2 is a preferred insufflation technique when performing colonoscopy in pediatric patients.

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.

Diagnostic Characteristics of Serological-Based COVID-19 Testing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Serologic testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) promises to assist in assessing exposure to and confirming the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and to provide a roadmap for reopening countries worldwide. Considering this, a proper understanding of serologic-based diagnostic testing characteristics is critical. The aim of this study was to perform a structured systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic characteristics of serological-based COVID-19 testing. Electronic searches were performed using Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Full-text observational studies that reported IgG or IgM diagnostic yield and used nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) of respiratory tract specimens, as a the reference standard in English language were included. A bivariate model was used to compute pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratio (LR), diagnostic odds ratio (OR), and summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five studies (n=1,166 individual tests) met inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for IgG was 81% [(95% CI, 61-92);I2=95.28], 97% [(95% CI, 78-100);I2=97.80], and 93% (95% CI, 91-95), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for IgM antibodies was 80% [(95% CI, 57-92);I2=94.63], 96% [(95% CI, 81-99);I2=92.96] and 95% (95% CI, 92-96). This meta-analysis demonstrates suboptimal sensitivity and specificity of serologic-based diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 and suggests that antibody testing alone, in its current form, is unlikely to be an adequate solution to the difficulties posed by COVID-19 and in guiding future policy decisions regarding social distancing and reopening of the economy worldwide.

Cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy vs. conventional therapy for complex bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic removal of common bile duct stones has a high success rate ranging from 85% to 95%. Bile duct stones >15 mm are difficult and frequently require lithotripsy. Peroral cholangioscopy (POC) allows lithotripsy with similar success rates. AIM: To determine the efficacy and safety of cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy used in the treatment of difficult to remove bile duct stones vs. conventional therapy. METHODS: Search was based in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, Lilacs/Bireme. Studies enrolling patients referred for the removal of difficult bile duct stones via POC were considered eligible. Two analyses were carried out separately, one included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and another observational studies. RESULTS: Forty-six studies were selected (3 RTC and 43 observational). In the analysis there was no statistical significant difference between successful endoscopic clearance (RD=-0.02 CI: -0.17, 0.12/I²=0%), mean fluoroscopy time (MD=-0.14 CI -1.60, 1.32/I²=21%) and adverse events rates (RD=-0.06 CI: -0.14, 0.02/I²=0%), by contrast, the mean procedure time favored conventional therapy with statistical significance (MD=27.89 CI: 16.68, 39.10/I²=0%). In observational studies, the successful endoscopic clearance rate was 88.29% (CI95: 86.9%-90.7%), the first session successful endoscopic clearance rate was 72.7 % (CI95: 69.9%-75.3%), the mean procedure time was 47.50±6 min for session and the number of sessions to clear bile duct was 1.5±0.18. The adverse event rate was 8.7% (CI95: 7%-10.9%). CONCLUSIONS: For complex common bile duct stones, cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy has a success rate that is similar to traditional ERCP techniques in terms of therapeutic success, adverse event rate and means fluoroscopy time. Conventional ERCP methods have a shorter mean procedure time.

Approach to Endoscopic Procedures: A Routine Protocol from a Quaternary University Referral Center Exclusively for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients.

OBJECTIVES: The present coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has ushered in an unprecedented era of quality control that has necessitated advanced safety precautions and the need to ensure the adequate protection of healthcare professionals (HCPs). Endoscopy units, endoscopists, and other HCP may be at a significant risk for transmission of the virus. Given the immense burden on the healthcare system and surge in the number of patients with COVID-19, well-designed protocols and recommendations are needed. We aimed to systematically characterize our approach to endoscopic procedures in a quaternary university hospital setting and provide summary protocol recommendations. METHOD: This descriptive study details a COVID-19-specific protocol designed to minimize infection risks to patients and healthcare workers in the endoscopy unit. RESULTS: Our institution, located in São Paulo, Brazil, includes a 900-bed hospital, with a 200-bed-specific intensive care unit exclusively designed for patients with moderate and severe COVID-19. We highlighted recommendations for infection prevention and control during endoscopic procedures, including appropriate triage and screening, outpatient management and procedural recommendations, role and usage of personal protective equipment (PPE), and role and procedural logistics involving COVID-19-positive patients. We also detailed hospital protocols for reprocessing endoscopes and cleaning rooms and also provided recommendations to minimize severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmission. CONCLUSION: This COVID-19-specific administrative and clinical protocol can be replicated or adapted in multiple institutions and endoscopy units worldwide. Furthermore, the recommendations and summary protocol may improve patient and HCP safety in these trying times.

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.

Diagnostic characteristics of serological-based COVID-19 testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Serologic testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) promises to assist in assessing exposure to and confirming the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and to provide a roadmap for reopening countries worldwide. Considering this, a proper understanding of serologic-based diagnostic testing characteristics is critical. The aim of this study was to perform a structured systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic characteristics of serological-based COVID-19 testing. Electronic searches were performed using Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Full-text observational studies that reported IgG or IgM diagnostic yield and used nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) of respiratory tract specimens, as a the reference standard in English language were included. A bivariate model was used to compute pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratio (LR), diagnostic odds ratio (OR), and summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five studies (n=1,166 individual tests) met inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for IgG was 81% [(95% CI, 61-92);I2=95.28], 97% [(95% CI, 78-100);I2=97.80], and 93% (95% CI, 91-95), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for IgM antibodies was 80% [(95% CI, 57-92);I2=94.63], 96% [(95% CI, 81-99);I2=92.96] and 95% (95% CI, 92-96). This meta-analysis demonstrates suboptimal sensitivity and specificity of serologic-based diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 and suggests that antibody testing alone, in its current form, is unlikely to be an adequate solution to the difficulties posed by COVID-19 and in guiding future policy decisions regarding social distancing and reopening of the economy worldwide.

Approach to endoscopic procedures: a routine protocol from a quaternary university referral center exclusively for coronavirus disease 2019 patients

OBJECTIVES: The present coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has ushered in an unprecedented era of quality control that has necessitated advanced safety precautions and the need to ensure the adequate protection of healthcare professionals (HCPs). Endoscopy units, endoscopists, and other HCP may be at a significant risk for transmission of the virus. Given the immense burden on the healthcare system and surge in the number of patients with COVID-19, well-designed protocols and recommendations are needed. We aimed to systematically characterize our approach to endoscopic procedures in a quaternary university hospital setting and provide summary protocol recommendations. METHOD: This descriptive study details a COVID-19-specific protocol designed to minimize infection risks to patients and healthcare workers in the endoscopy unit. RESULTS: Our institution, located in São Paulo, Brazil, includes a 900-bed hospital, with a 200-bed-specific intensive care unit exclusively designed for patients with moderate and severe COVID-19. We highlighted recommendations for infection prevention and control during endoscopic procedures, including appropriate triage and screening, outpatient management and procedural recommendations, role and usage of personal protective equipment (PPE), and role and procedural logistics involving COVID-19-positive patients. We also detailed hospital protocols for reprocessing endoscopes and cleaning rooms and also provided recommendations to minimize severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmission. CONCLUSION: This COVID-19-specific administrative and clinical protocol can be replicated or adapted in multiple institutions and endoscopy units worldwide. Furthermore, the recommendations and summary protocol may improve patient and HCP safety in these trying times.

Cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy vs. conventional therapy for complex bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis / Litotripsia guiada por colangioscopia vs. terapias convencionais no tratamento da litíase biliar complexa: revisão sistemática e metanálise

ABSTRACT Introduction: Endoscopic removal of common bile duct stones has a high success rate ranging from 85% to 95%. Bile duct stones >15 mm are difficult and frequently require lithotripsy. Peroral cholangioscopy (POC) allows lithotripsy with similar success rates. Aim: To determine the efficacy and safety of cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy used in the treatment of difficult to remove bile duct stones vs. conventional therapy. Methods: Search was based in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, Lilacs/Bireme. Studies enrolling patients referred for the removal of difficult bile duct stones via POC were considered eligible. Two analyses were carried out separately, one included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and another observational studies. Results: Forty-six studies were selected (3 RTC and 43 observational). In the analysis there was no statistical significant difference between successful endoscopic clearance (RD=-0.02 CI: -0.17, 0.12/I²=0%), mean fluoroscopy time (MD=-0.14 CI -1.60, 1.32/I²=21%) and adverse events rates (RD=-0.06 CI: -0.14, 0.02/I²=0%), by contrast, the mean procedure time favored conventional therapy with statistical significance (MD=27.89 CI: 16.68, 39.10/I²=0%). In observational studies, the successful endoscopic clearance rate was 88.29% (CI95: 86.9%-90.7%), the first session successful endoscopic clearance rate was 72.7 % (CI95: 69.9%-75.3%), the mean procedure time was 47.50±6 min for session and the number of sessions to clear bile duct was 1.5±0.18. The adverse event rate was 8.7% (CI95: 7%-10.9%). Conclusions: For complex common bile duct stones, cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy has a success rate that is similar to traditional ERCP techniques in terms of therapeutic success, adverse event rate and means fluoroscopy time. Conventional ERCP methods have a shorter mean procedure time.

RESUMO Introdução: A remoção endoscópica das litíases do ducto biliar comum tem alta taxa de sucesso variando de 85% a 95%. Litíases do ducto biliar >15 mm são difíceis e frequentemente requerem litotripsia. A colangioscopia peroral permite litotripsia com taxas de sucesso semelhantes. Objetivo: Determinar a eficácia e segurança da litotripsia guiada por colangioscopia no tratamento de litíases biliares difíceis em comparação à terapias convencionais guiadas por colangiopancreatografia retrógrada endoscópica. Método: Pesquisa na Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, Lilacs/Bireme de estudos avaliando a eficácia da colangioscopia na remoção de cálculos biliares difíceis. Duas análises foram realizadas separadamente, uma incluiu ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECR) e outros estudos observacionais. Resultados: Quarenta e seis estudos foram selecionados (3 ECR e 43 observacionais). Na análise, não houve diferença estatisticamente significativa na taxa de extração litiásica total (RD=-0,02 IC: -0,17,0,12/I²=0%), tempo médio de fluoroscopia (MD=-0,14 CI -1,60, 1,32/I²=21%) e na taxa de eventos adversos (RD=-0,06 IC: -0,14, 0,02/I²=0%).Por outro lado, o tempo médio do procedimento favoreceu terapêuticas convencionais guiadas por CPRE com significância estatística (MD=27,89 IC: 16,68, 39,10/I²=0%). Nos estudos observacionais, a taxa do tratamento completo por endoscopia foi de 88,29% (IC95: 86,9% a 90,7%), a taxa de sucesso na primeira sessão foi de 72,7% (IC95: 69,9% a 75,3%), o tempo médio do procedimento foi de 47,50±6 min por sessão e o número de procedimentos necessários para remoção total da litíase foi de 1,5±0,18. A taxa de eventos adversos foi de 8,7% (IC95: 7% a 10,9%), com 0,5% considerado como severo. Conclusão: Para litíases biliares difíceis, a litotripsia guiada por colangioscopia tem taxa de sucesso semelhante às terapêuticas convencionais guiadas CPRE em termos de sucesso terapêutico, taxa de eventos adversos e tempo de fluoroscopia. As terapêuticas convencionais guiadas por CPRE têm tempo médio de procedimento menor.

THE EFFICACY OF THE DIFFERENT ENDOSCOPIC TREATMENTS VERSUS SHAM, PHARMACOLOGIC OR SURGICAL METHODS FOR CHRONIC GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic antireflux treatments for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are still evolving, and most of the published studies address symptom relief in the short-term. Objective - We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis focused on evaluating the efficacy of the different endoscopic procedures. METHODS: Search was restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MedLine, Cochrane, SciELO, and EMBASE for patients with chronic GERD (>6 months), over 18 years old and available follow up of at least 3 months. The main outcome was to evaluate the efficacy of the different endoscopic treatments compared to sham, pharmacological or surgical treatment. Efficacy was measured by different subjective and objective outcomes. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 16 RCT, totaling 1085 patients. The efficacy of endoscopic treatments compared to sham and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) treatment showed a significant difference up to 6 months in favor of endoscopy with no heterogeneity (P<0.00001) (I2: 0%). The subgroup analysis showed a statistically significant difference up to 6 months in favor of endoscopy: endoscopy vs PPI (P<0.00001) (I2: 39%). Endoscopy vs sham (P<0.00001) (I2: 0%). Most subjective and objective outcomes were statistically significant in favor of endoscopy up to 6 and 12 months follow up. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows a good short-term efficacy in favor of endoscopic procedures when comparing them to a sham and pharmacological or surgical treatment. Data on long-term follow up is lacking and this should be explored in future studies.

A eficácia dos diferentes tratamentos endoscópicos versus métodos sham, farmacológicos ou cirúrgicos para o refluxo gastroesofágico crônico: uma revisão sistemática e meta-análise / The efficacy of the different endoscopic treatments versus sham, pharmacologic or surgical methods for chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Endoscopic antireflux treatments for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are still evolving, and most of the published studies address symptom relief in the short-term. Objective - We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis focused on evaluating the efficacy of the different endoscopic procedures. METHODS: Search was restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MedLine, Cochrane, SciELO, and EMBASE for patients with chronic GERD (>6 months), over 18 years old and available follow up of at least 3 months. The main outcome was to evaluate the efficacy of the different endoscopic treatments compared to sham, pharmacological or surgical treatment. Efficacy was measured by different subjective and objective outcomes. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 16 RCT, totaling 1085 patients. The efficacy of endoscopic treatments compared to sham and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) treatment showed a significant difference up to 6 months in favor of endoscopy with no heterogeneity (P<0.00001) (I2: 0%). The subgroup analysis showed a statistically significant difference up to 6 months in favor of endoscopy: endoscopy vs PPI (P<0.00001) (I2: 39%). Endoscopy vs sham (P<0.00001) (I2: 0%). Most subjective and objective outcomes were statistically significant in favor of endoscopy up to 6 and 12 months follow up. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows a good short-term efficacy in favor of endoscopic procedures when comparing them to a sham and pharmacological or surgical treatment. Data on long-term follow up is lacking and this should be explored in future studies.

RESUMO CONTEXTO: Os tratamentos endoscópicos para a doença do refluxo gastroesofágico (DRGE) ainda estão em evolução e a maioria dos estudos publicados abordam o alívio dos sintomas em curto prazo. OBJETIVO: Pretendemos realizar uma revisão sistemática e meta-análise focada na avaliação da eficácia dos diferentes procedimentos endoscópicos. MÉTODOS: A pesquisa foi restrita a ensaios clínicos randomizados em MedLine, Cochrane, SciELO e EMBASE para pacientes com DRGE crônica (>6 meses), com mais de 18 anos e acompanhamento disponível por pelo menos 3 meses. O principal desfecho foi avaliar a eficácia dos diferentes tratamentos endoscópicos em comparação com o tratamento sham, farmacológico ou cirúrgico. A eficácia foi medida por diferentes resultados subjetivos e objetivos. RESULTADOS: Analisamos dados de 16 ensaios clínicos randomizados, totalizando 1085 pacientes. A eficácia dos tratamentos endoscópicos em comparação com o tratamento com sham e inibidores da bomba de prótons mostrou uma diferença significativa até 6 meses a favor da endoscopia sem heterogeneidade (P<0,00001) (I2: 0%). A análise do subgrupo mostrou diferença estatisticamente significativa até 6 meses a favor da endoscopia: endoscopia vs inibidores da bomba de prótons (P<0,00001) (I2: 39%). Endoscopia vs sham (P<0,00001) (I2: 0%). A maioria dos resultados subjetivos e objetivos foram estatisticamente significativos em favor da endoscopia até 6 e 12 meses de acompanhamento. CONCLUSÃO: Esta revisão sistemática e meta-análise mostrou uma boa eficácia a curto prazo em favor dos procedimentos endoscópicos ao compará-los a tratamento sham, farmacológico ou cirúrgico. Não existem dados sobre o acompanhamento a longo prazo e isso deve ser explorado em estudos futuros.

A comparison of the efficiency of 22G versus 25G needles in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic mass assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Our aim in this study was to compare the efficiency of 25G versus 22G needles in diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions by EUS-FNA. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Studies were identified in five databases using an extensive search strategy. Only randomized trials comparing 22G and 25G needles were included. The results were analyzed by fixed and random effects. A total of 504 studies were found in the search, among which 4 randomized studies were selected for inclusion in the analysis. A total of 462 patients were evaluated (233: 25G needle/229: 22G needle). The diagnostic sensitivity was 93% for the 25G needle and 91% for the 22G needle. The specificity of the 25G needle was 87%, and that of the 22G needle was 83%. The positive likelihood ratio was 4.57 for the 25G needle and 4.26 for the 22G needle. The area under the sROC curve for the 25G needle was 0.9705, and it was 0.9795 for the 22G needle, with no statistically significant difference between them (p=0.497). Based on randomized studies, this meta-analysis did not demonstrate a significant difference between the 22G and 25G needles used during EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions.

A comparison of the efficiency of 22G versus 25G needles in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic mass assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Our aim in this study was to compare the efficiency of 25G versus 22G needles in diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions by EUS-FNA. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Studies were identified in five databases using an extensive search strategy. Only randomized trials comparing 22G and 25G needles were included. The results were analyzed by fixed and random effects. A total of 504 studies were found in the search, among which 4 randomized studies were selected for inclusion in the analysis. A total of 462 patients were evaluated (233: 25G needle/229: 22G needle). The diagnostic sensitivity was 93% for the 25G needle and 91% for the 22G needle. The specificity of the 25G needle was 87%, and that of the 22G needle was 83%. The positive likelihood ratio was 4.57 for the 25G needle and 4.26 for the 22G needle. The area under the sROC curve for the 25G needle was 0.9705, and it was 0.9795 for the 22G needle, with no statistically significant difference between them (p=0.497). Based on randomized studies, this meta-analysis did not demonstrate a significant difference between the 22G and 25G needles used during EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions.

Cromoscopia vital com Lugol versus cromoscopia óptica na detecção de câncer de esôfago em pacientes com estenoses cáusticas esofagianas / Lugol's iodine chromoendoscopy versus narrow band image enhanced endoscopy for the detection of esophageal cancer in patients with stenosis secondary to caustic/corrosive agent ingestion

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND The diagnosis of corrosion cancer should be suspected in patients with corrosive ingestion if after a latent period of negligible symptoms there is development of dysphagia, or poor response to dilatation, or if respiratory symptoms develop in an otherwise stable patient of esophageal stenosis. Narrow Band Imaging detects superficial squamous cell carcinoma more frequently than white-light imaging, and has significantly higher sensitivity and accuracy compared with white-light. OBJECTIVE To determinate the clinical applicability of Narrow Band Imaging versus Lugol´s solution chromendoscopy for detection of early esophageal cancer in patients with caustic/corrosive agent stenosis. METHODS Thirty-eight patients, aged between 28-84 were enrolled and examined by both Narrow Band Imaging and Lugol´s solution chromendoscopy. A 4.9mm diameter endoscope was used facilitating examination of a stenotic area without dilation. Narrow Band Imaging was performed and any lesion detected was marked for later biopsy. Then, Lugol´s solution chromoendoscopy was performed and biopsies were taken at suspicious areas. Patients who had abnormal findings at the routine, Narrow Band Imaging or Lugol´s solution chromoscopy exam had their stenotic ring biopsied. RESULTS We detected nine suspicious lesions with Narrow Band Imaging and 14 with Lugol´s solution chromendoscopy. The sensitivity and specificity of the Narrow Band Imaging was 100% and 80.6%, and with Lugol´s chromoscopy 100% and 66.67%, respectively. Five (13%) suspicious lesions were detected both with Narrow Band Imaging and Lugol's chromoscopy, two (40%) of these lesions were confirmed carcinoma on histopathological examination. CONCLUSION Narrow Band Imaging is an applicable option to detect and evaluate cancer in patients with caustic /corrosive stenosis compared to the Lugol´s solution chromoscopy.

RESUMO CONTEXTO A suspeita do câncer de esôfago na lesão cáustica ocorre quando os pacientes com estenoses previamente estáveis, após um período latente sem sintomas, apresentam disfagia, baixa resposta as dilatações ou sintomas respiratórios. A cromoscopia com luz de banda estreita detecta o câncer superficial de esôfago mais frequentemente que a luz branca, com alta sensibilidade e acurácia. OBJETIVO Determinar a aplicabilidade clínica da luz de banda estreita versus a cromoscopia vital com Lugol na detecção do câncer precoce de esôfago em pacientes com lesões cáusticas. MÉTODOS Um total de 38 pacientes, entre 28 e 84 anos, foram alocados seguidamente e submetidos à cromoscopia com luz de banda estreita e com Lugol. Um gastroscópio de 4,9 mm de diâmetro foi usado para facilitar o exame da área estenosada, sem necessidade de dilatação. A cromoscopia com luz de banda estreita era realizada primeiro e as áreas suspeitas anotadas. Depois, a cromoscopia com Lugol era realizada e as áreas suspeitas biopsiadas. RESULTADOS Detectamos nove lesões suspeitas com a luz de banda estreita e 14 com o Lugol. A sensibilidade e especificidade da cromoscopia com luz de banda estreita foi de 100% e 80,6%, e a do Lugol foi de 100% e 66,67% respectivamente. Cinco (13%) lesões suspeitas foram detectadas coincidentemente pelos dois métodos, sendo duas (40%) com diagnóstico anatomopatológico de câncer de esôfago. CONCLUSÃO A cromoscopia com luz de banda estreita é opção concreta para o diagnóstico de câncer em pacientes com estenoses esofágicas por corrosões cáusticas, comparado a cromoscopia com Lugol.