Safety of cold resection of non-ampullary duodenal polyps: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Endoscopic resection has traditionally involved electrosurgical cautery (hot snare) to resect premalignant polyps. Recent data have suggested superior safety of cold resection. We aimed to assess the safety of cold compared with traditional (hot) resection for non-ampullary duodenal polyps. Methods We performed a systematic review ending in September 2022. The primary outcome of interest was the adverse event (AE) rate for cold compared with hot polyp resection. We reported odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Secondary outcomes included rates of polyp recurrence and post-polypectomy syndrome. We assessed publication bias with the classic fail-safe test and used forest plots to report pooled effect estimates. We assessed heterogeneity using I 2 index. Results Our systematic review identified 1,215 unique citations. Eight of these met inclusion criteria, seven of which were published manuscripts and one of which was a recent meeting abstract. On random effect modeling, cold resection was associated with significantly lower odds of delayed bleeding compared with hot resection. The difference in the odds of perforation (odds ratio [OR] 0.31 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05-2.87], P =0.2, I 2 =0) and polyp recurrence (OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.15-3.73], P =0.72, I 2 =0) between hot and cold resection was not statistically significant. There were no cases of post-polypectomy syndrome reported with either hot or cold techniques. Conclusions Cold resection is associated with lower odds of delayed bleeding compared with hot resection for duodenal tumors. There was a trend toward higher odds of perforation and recurrence following hot resection, but this trend was not statistically significant.

Barrett's Esophagus in Obese Patient Post-Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: a Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a relative contraindication for sleeve gastrectomy, but not for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RNY). However, studies assessing the effect of RNY on BE are limited. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of obese patients who also had BE and underwent RNY. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of literature using multiple search engines from inception to January 2021. The primary outcome of interest was the rate of BE resolution post-RNY. This was reported as a proportion with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Publication bias was assessed by funnels plots and the classic fail test. Forest plots were used to report pooled effect estimates. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 and p-value. RESULTS: The final search included 4389 citations, 16 were reviewed in full text, and 9 were included in the final analysis, including 7 manuscripts and 2 recent meeting abstracts. In the 9 studies, 104 patients had BE and underwent RNY. On random effect modeling, the rate of complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) was 50% [95%CI: 40-61%], p = 0.937, I2 = 4.6%, Q = 8.4, p = 0.396. The pooled rate of BE improvement was 52% [95%CI: 37-66%], p = 0.8, I2 = 16.5%, Q = 4.8, p = 0.31. Complete remission of dysplasia (CRD) was also reported in 4 of 6 patients. CONCLUSION: Despite the limited data, a majority of patient with BE who underwent RNY for weight loss had remission or improvement in BE on follow-up endoscopy. However, a significant minority had no change to BE on follow-up.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of esophagogastric variceal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE recommends that patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD; due to viruses, alcohol, and/or nonobese [BMI < 30 kg/m2] nonalcoholic steatohepatitis) and clinically significant portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient [HVPG] > 10 mmHg and/or liver stiffness by transient elastography > 25 kPa) should receive, if no contraindications, nonselective beta blocker (NSBB) therapy (preferably carvedilol) to prevent the development of variceal bleeding.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in those patients unable to receive NSBB therapy with a screening upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy that demonstrates high risk esophageal varices, endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is the endoscopic prophylactic treatment of choice. EBL should be repeated every 2-4 weeks until variceal eradication is achieved. Thereafter, surveillance EGD should be performed every 3-6 months in the first year following eradication.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute upper GI hemorrhage (UGIH) and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 70 g/L prompting RBC transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin of 70-90 g/L is desired.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 : ESGE recommends that patients with ACLD presenting with suspected acute variceal bleeding be risk stratified according to the Child-Pugh score and MELD score, and by documentation of active/inactive bleeding at the time of upper GI endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5 : ESGE recommends the vasoactive agents terlipressin, octreotide, or somatostatin be initiated at the time of presentation in patients with suspected acute variceal bleeding and be continued for a duration of up to 5 days.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6 : ESGE recommends antibiotic prophylaxis using ceftriaxone 1 g/day for up to 7 days for all patients with ACLD presenting with acute variceal hemorrhage, or in accordance with local antibiotic resistance and patient allergies.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE recommends, in the absence of contraindications, intravenous erythromycin 250 mg be given 30-120 minutes prior to upper GI endoscopy in patients with suspected acute variceal hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8 : ESGE recommends that, in patients with suspected variceal hemorrhage, endoscopic evaluation should take place within 12 hours from the time of patient presentation provided the patient has been hemodynamically resuscitated.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9 : ESGE recommends EBL for the treatment of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH).Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10 : ESGE recommends that, in patients at high risk for recurrent esophageal variceal bleeding following successful endoscopic hemostasis (Child-Pugh C  ≤ 13 or Child-Pugh B > 7 with active EVH at the time of endoscopy despite vasoactive agents, or HVPG > 20 mmHg), pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) within 72 hours (preferably within 24 hours) must be considered.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 11 : ESGE recommends that, for persistent esophageal variceal bleeding despite vasoactive pharmacological and endoscopic hemostasis therapy, urgent rescue TIPS should be considered (where available).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 12 : ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for acute gastric (cardiofundal) variceal (GOV2, IGV1) hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 13: ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection or EBL in patients with GOV1-specific bleeding.Strong recommendations, moderate quality evidence. 14: ESGE suggests urgent rescue TIPS or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) for gastric variceal bleeding when there is a failure of endoscopic hemostasis or early recurrent bleeding.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 15: ESGE recommends that patients who have undergone EBL for acute EVH should be scheduled for follow-up EBLs at 1- to 4-weekly intervals to eradicate esophageal varices (secondary prophylaxis).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 16: ESGE recommends the use of NSBBs (propranolol or carvedilol) in combination with endoscopic therapy for secondary prophylaxis in EVH in patients with ACLD.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

Surveillance of Barrett's esophagus using wide-area transepithelial sampling: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Wide-area transepithelial sampling (WATS) is an emerging technique that may increase dysplasia detection in Barrett's esophagus (BE). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of patients who underwent surveillance for BE assessing the additional yield of WATS to forceps biopsy (FB). Methods We searched Pubmed, Embase, Web of science, and the Cochrane library, ending in January 2021. The primary outcomes of interest were the relative and absolute increase in dysplasia detection when adding WATS to FB. Heterogeneity was assessed using I 2 and Q statistic. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and classic fail-safe test. Results A total of seven studies were included totaling 2,816 patients. FB identified 158 dysplasia cases, whereas WATS resulted in an additional 114 cases. The pooled risk ratio (RR) of all dysplasia detection was 1.7 (1.43-2.03), P  < 0.001, I 2  = 0. For high-grade dysplasia (HGD), the pooled RR was 1.88 (1.28-2.77), P  = 0.001, I 2  = 33 %. The yield of WATS was dependent on the prevalence of dysplasia in the study population. Among studies with high rates of dysplasia, the absolute increase in dysplasia detection (risk difference, RD) was 13 % (8 %-18 %, P  < 0.0001, number needed to treat [NNT] = 8). The pooled RD in HGD was 9 % (2 %-16 %), P  < 0.001, NNT = 11. For studies with a low prevalence of dysplasia, RD for all dysplasia was 2 % (1 %-3 %), P  = 0.001, NNT = 50. For HGD, the RD was 0.6 % (0.2 %-1.3 %), P  = 0.019, NNT = 166. Conclusions In populations with a high prevalence of dysplasia, adding WATS to FB results in a significant increase in dysplasia detection.