Opioid Exposure Differentially Impacts Esophageal Body Contraction Over the Lower Esophageal Sphincter.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Studies with limited sample sizes have investigated association of chronic opioid use with motility disorders of esophagogastric junction and esophageal body peristalsis. Our aims were to use a large cohort of patients to assess (1) the impact of opioid exposure on clinical and manometric characteristics, and (2) the association of opioid exposure with higher long-term symptom burden. METHODS: Patients recruited from a tertiary medical center who underwent high-resolution manometry (HRM) between 2007 and 2018 were included. Demographics, opiate exposure, clinical symptoms, and HRM parameters were compared. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Gastrointestinal swallowing domain (PROMIS-GI swallowing domain) and Eckardt score were administered via phone interviews in patients with hypercontractile esophagus (HE) or distal esophageal spasm (DES) to determine long-term symptom burden between opioid and nonopioid users. RESULTS: Our cohort included 4075 patients (869 with opiate exposure with median morphine milligram equivalent [interquartile range] of 30 [10-45]). Patients in the opioid group were significantly more likely to have dysphagia (65% vs 51%, P < .01) and diagnosis of DES (11% vs 5%, P < .01) and HE (9% vs 3%, P < .01). Partial opioid agonists were not associated with motility abnormalities. Patients on opioids had significantly higher symptom burden on median (interquartile range) follow-up of 8.9 years (5.8-10.4) post manometric diagnosis with median PROMIS-GI swallowing domain score of 21.5 (17-25) compared with the nonopioid group at 15 (9.8-21, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 2 of 3 patients with opioid exposure undergoing HRM have dysphagia and more than 25% of them with dysphagia as the primary symptom have a diagnosis of either DES or HE. Opioid users with spastic disorders have higher symptom burden long-term compared with nonopioid users.

Endoscopic transmission of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: implications for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval and postmarket surveillance of endoscopic devices.

Since the first widely reported case cluster of duodenoscope-associated transmission of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) in 2013 that affected 38 patients, similar outbreaks have occurred throughout the world. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, professional gastroenterology societies, and endoscope manufacturers have taken multiple steps to address this issue. Unlike prior outbreaks attributed to lapses in cleaning and reprocessing, transmission and outbreaks have continued to occur despite compliance with current reprocessing guidelines. A definitive method of duodenoscope reprocessing remains elusive, and the FDA recently recommended transition to new designs with disposable components that do not require reprocessing. The first fully disposable duodenoscope received FDA clearance as a "breakthrough" device in December 2019. Although the human, microbiologic, and endoscopic design factors responsible for infectious transmissions and disinfecting techniques to avoid them have been examined, discussion has not included the critical role of FDA regulation of duodenoscopes through the 510(k) clearance pathway and the mechanisms of postmarket surveillance, including adverse event reporting. We present an overview of the FDA approval of duodenoscopes by analyzing the FDA's 510(k) premarket notification database for data supporting clearance of duodenoscope models implicated in CRE-related outbreaks as well as subsequently required postmarket studies. We address the policy implications of CRE outbreaks on postmarketing surveillance and the need for increased gastroenterologist involvement in the life cycle of duodenoscopes and other medical devices. This includes reporting thorough adverse event data to the FDA and device manufacturers, supporting active surveillance studies to ensure safety and effectiveness, and evaluating implementation of recommendations to reduce adverse events.

Role of routine second-look endoscopy in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Studies evaluating the role of routine second-look endoscopy in patients with acute upper GI bleed because of peptic ulcer disease (PUD) have reported conflicting results. This meta-analysis evaluates the usefulness of routine second-look endoscopy in these patients. METHODS: We reviewed several databases from inception to September 15, 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared routine second-look endoscopy with no planned second-look endoscopy in patients with acute upper GI bleed because of PUD. Our outcomes of interest were recurrent bleeding, mortality, need for surgery, and mean number of units of blood transfused. For categorical variables, we calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); for continuous variables, we calculated standardized mean difference with 95% CIs. Data were analyzed using a random effects model. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to ascertain the quality of evidence. RESULTS: We included 9 RTCs comprising 1452 patients; 726 patients underwent planned/routine second-look endoscopy and 726 did not. We found no significant difference in recurrent bleeding (RR, .79; 95% CI, .51-1.23), need for surgery (RR, .58; 95% CI, .29-1.15), mortality (RR, .69; 95% CI, .33-1.45), or mean number of units of blood transfused (standardized mean difference, -.06; 95% CI, -.19 to .07). Quality of evidence ranged from low to moderate based on the GRADE framework. CONCLUSIONS: Single endoscopy with complete endoscopic hemostasis is not inferior to routine second-look endoscopy in reducing the risk of recurrent bleeding, mortality, or need for surgery in patients with acute upper GI bleed because of PUD.

Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy Is a Safe and Feasible Option in Management of Esophageal Diverticula: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Esophageal diverticula can cause significant symptoms and affect the quality of life. There has been recent interest in the use of peroral endoscopic myotomy in the management of esophageal diverticula (D-POEM). In this meta-analysis, we have evaluated the efficacy and safety of D-POEM in the management of esophageal diverticula. Several databases were reviewed from inception to 6/19/2020 to identify the studies evaluating the feasibility, efficacy and safety of D-POEM in the management of esophageal diverticula. Our outcomes of interest were technical success, adverse events and difference in mean pre- and post-procedure symptom score. We performed subgroup analysis including patients with Zenker's diverticulum who underwent POEM (Z-POEM). Pooled rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all outcomes were calculated using random effect model. We calculated standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI to compare mean pre- and post-procedure symptom score. We included 7 studies with 233 patients. For D-POEM, pooled rates (95% CI) for technical success and adverse events were 95% (91%, 97%) and 6% (3%, 10%) respectively. For Z-POEM, pooled rates (95% CI) for technical success and adverse events were 95% (90%, 97%) and 6% (3%, 10%) respectively. Mean post-procedure symptom score for all patients who underwent D-POEM was significantly lower compared to mean pre-procedure symptom score, SMD (95% CI) 2.17 (1.51, 2.83).  This meta-analysis demonstrated that D-POEM is a safe and feasible option for patients with symptomatic esophageal diverticula.

Efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating the role of tranexamic acid in acute upper GI bleeding (UGIB) have reported conflicting results. In this systematic review, we have evaluated the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in UGIB. METHODS: We searched several databases from inception to June 6, 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared tranexamic acid and placebo in UGIB. Our outcomes of interest were mortality, rebleeding, all thromboembolic events, venous thromboembolic events, need for transfusion, endoscopic intervention and surgery. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed effect model. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 12 RCTs comprising 14,100 patients. We found no significant difference in mortality, pooled RR (95% CI) 0.87 (0.74-1.01), rebleeding, pooled RR (95% CI) 0.90 (0.79-1.02), need for surgery, pooled RR (95% CI) 0.86 (0.73-1.02), need for transfusion, pooled RR (95% CI) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) or thromboembolic events, RR (95% CI) 1.16 (0.87-1.56) between treatments. We found an increased risk of venous thromboembolic events with tranexamic acid, pooled RR (95% CI) 1.94 (1.23-3.05). Certainty of evidence based on the GRADE framework for the different outcomes ranged from low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: Tranexamic acid does not improve outcomes in UGIB and may increase the risk of venous thromboembolic events.

Time for a Changing of Guard: From Minimally Invasive Surgery to Endoscopic Drainage for Management of Pancreatic Walled-off Necrosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic drainage (ED) with or without necrosectomy, and minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy (MISN) have been increasingly utilized for treatment of symptomatic sterile and infected pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON). We conducted this systematic review to compare the safety of ED with MISN for management of WON. METHODS: We searched several databases from inception through November 9, 2017 to identify comparative studies evaluating the safety of ED versus MISN for management of WON. MISN could be performed using video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement or laparoscopy. We evaluated difference in mortality, major organ failure, adverse events, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Six studies (2 randomized controlled trials and 4 observational studies) with 641 patients (326 ED and 315 MISN) were included in this meta-analysis. Rates of mortality for ED and MISN were 8.5% and 14.2%, respectively. Pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval was 0.59 (0.35-0.98), I=0% in favor of ED. On subgroup analysis: no difference in mortality was seen based on randomized controlled trials [OR, 0.65 (0.08-5.11)], while ED had improved survival in observational studies [OR, 0.49 (0.27-0.89)]. Development of new major organ failure rates after interventions were 12% and 54% for ED and MISN, respectively. Pooled OR was 0.12 (0.06-0.31), I=25% in favor of ED. For adverse events, pooled OR was 0.25 (0.10-0.67), I=70% in favor of ED. There was no difference in risk of bleeding [OR, 0.68 (0.44-1.05)], while ED was associated with a significantly lower rate of pancreatic fistula formation [OR, 0.20 (0.11-0.37)], I=0%. Length of stay was also lower with ED, pooled mean difference was -21.07 (-36.97 to -5.18) days. CONCLUSIONS: When expertise is available, ED is the preferred invasive management strategy over MISN for management of WON as it is associated with lower mortality, risk of major organ failure, adverse events, and length of hospital stay.

Role of Cholecystectomy After Endoscopic Sphincterotomy in the Management of Choledocholithiasis in High-risk Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography and endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) with subsequent cholecystectomy is the standard of care for the management of patients with choledocholithiasis. There is conflicting evidence in terms of mortality reduction, prevention of complications specifically biliary pancreatitis and cholangitis with the use of early cholecystectomy particularly in high-risk surgical and elderly patients. AIMS: We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the early cholecystectomy versus wait and watch strategy after ES. METHODS: We searched Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane database for randomized controlled trials comparing the 2 strategies in the management of choledocholithiasis after ES. Our primary outcome of interest was difference in mortality. We evaluated several secondary outcomes including difference in development of acute pancreatitis, biliary colic and cholecystitis, cholangitis and recurrent jaundice, nonbiliary adverse events, and length of hospital stay. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for categorical variables and difference in means was calculated for continuous variables. These were pooled using random effects model. RESULTS: Seven studies with 916 patients (455 cholecystectomy group and 461 wait and watch group) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled RR with 95% confidence interval for mortality was 1.43 (0.93-2.18), I=9%. In the high-risk patient group, pooled RR was 1.39 (0.64-3.03) and in low-risk population pooled RR was 1.53 (0.79-2.96). Pooled RR for acute pancreatitis was 1.64 (0.46-5.81) with no heterogeneity. There was no difference in the rate of acute pancreatitis patients based on high-risk versus low-risk patients. Pooled RR for occurrence of biliary colic and cholecystitis during follow-up was 9.82 (4.27-22.59), I=0%. Pooled RR for cholangitis and recurrent jaundice was 2.16 (1.14-4.07), I=0%. However, there was no difference in the rate of cholangitis between the 2 groups in low-risk patients. Length of stay was shorter in the wait and watch group with a pooled mean difference was -2.70 (-4.71, -0.70) with substantial heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Although we found no difference in mortality between the 2 strategies after ES, laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be recommended as it is associated with lower rates of subsequent recurrent cholecystitis, cholangitis, and biliary colic down the road even in high-risk surgical patients.

Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided biliary drainage in comparison with percutaneous biliary drainage when ERCP fails: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is increasingly used as an alternate therapeutic modality to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) for biliary obstruction in patients who fail ERCP. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of these 2 procedures. METHODS: We searched several databases from inception to September 4, 2016 to identify comparative studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD and PTBD. Primary outcomes of interest were the differences in technical success and postprocedure adverse events. Secondary outcomes of interest included clinical success, rate of reintervention, length of hospital stay, and cost comparison for these 2 procedures. Odds ratios (ORs) and standard mean difference were calculated for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. These were analyzed using random effects model of meta-analysis. RESULTS: Nine studies with 483 patients were included in the final analysis. There was no difference in technical success between 2 procedures (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, .69-4.59; I2 = 22%) but EUS-BD was associated with better clinical success (OR, .45; 95% CI, .23-.89; I2 = 0%), fewer postprocedure adverse events (OR, .23; 95% CI, .12-.47; I2 = 57%), and lower rate of reintervention (OR, .13; 95% CI, .07-.24; I2 = 0%). There was no difference in length of hospital stay after the procedures, with a pooled standard mean difference of -.48 (95% CI, -1.13 to .16), but EUS-BD was more cost-effective, with a pooled standard mean difference of -.63 (95% CI, -1.06 to -.20). However, the latter 2 analyses were limited by considerable heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: When ERCP fails to achieve biliary drainage, EUS-guided interventions may be preferred over PTBD if adequate advanced endoscopy expertise and logistics are available. EUS-BD is associated with significantly better clinical success, lower rate of postprocedure adverse events, and fewer reinterventions.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic gallbladder drainage in acute cholecystitis: Is it better than percutaneous gallbladder drainage?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The efficacy and safety of endoscopic gallbladder drainage (EGBD) performed via endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC)-based transpapillary stenting or EUS-based transmural stenting are unknown. We aimed to conduct a proportion meta-analysis to evaluate the cumulative efficacy and safety of these procedures and to compare them with percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PGBD). METHODS: We searched several databases from inception through December 10, 2015 to identify studies (with 10 or more patients) reporting technical success and postprocedure adverse events of EGBD. Weighted pooled rates (WPRs) for technical and clinical success, postprocedure adverse events, and recurrent cholecystitis were calculated for both methods of EGBD. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were also calculated to compare the technical success and postprocedure adverse events in patients undergoing EGBD versus PGBD. RESULTS: The WPRs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of technical success, clinical success, postprocedure adverse events, and recurrent cholecystitis for ERC-based transpapillary drainage were 83% (95% CI, 78%-87%; I2 = 38%), 93% (95% CI, 89%-96%; I2 = 39%), 10% (95% CI, 7%-13%; I2 = 27%), and 3% (95% CI, 1%-5%; I2 = 0%), respectively. The WPRs for EUS-based drainage for technical success, clinical success, postprocedure adverse events, and recurrent cholecystitis were 93% (95% CI, 87%-96%; I2 = 0%), 97% (95% CI, 93%-99%; I2 = 0%), 13% (95% CI, 8%-19%; I2 = 0%), and 4% (95% CI, 2%-9%; I2 = 0%), respectively. On proportionate difference, EUS-based drainage had better technical (10%) and clinical success (4%) in comparison with ERC-based drainage. The pooled OR for technical success of EGBD versus PGBD was .51 (95% CI, .09-2.88; I2 = 23%) and for postprocedure adverse events was .33 (95% CI, .14-.80; I2 = 16%) in favor of EGBD. CONCLUSIONS: EGBD is an efficacious and safe therapeutic modality for treatment of patients with acute cholecystitis who cannot undergo surgery. EGBD shows a similar technical success as PGBD but appears to be safer than PGBD.

Efficacy of self-expandable metal stents in management of benign biliary strictures and comparison with multiple plastic stents: a meta-analysis.

Background and study aims There is burgeoning interest in the utilization of covered self-expandable metal stents (CSEMSs) for managing benign biliary stricture (BBS). This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated cumulative stricture resolution and recurrence rates using CSEMSs and compared performance of CSEMSs and multiple plastic stents (MPS) in BBS management. Method Searches in several databases identified studies including ≥ 10 patients that utilized CSEMSs for BBS treatment. Weighted pooled rates were calculated for stricture resolution and recurrence. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) comparing CSEMSs with MPS were calculated for stricture resolution, stricture recurrence, and adverse events. Pooled difference in means was calculated to compare number of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies (ERCPs) in each group.  Results The meta-analysis included 22 studies with 1298 patients. Weighted pooled rate for BBS resolution with CSEMS was 83 % (95 % confidence limits [95 %CLs] 78 %, 87 %; I2 = 72 %). On meta-regression analysis, resolution in chronic pancreatitis patients and post-orthotopic liver transplant patients were significant predictors of heterogeneity. Weighted pooled rate for stricture recurrence with CSEMSs was 16 % (11 %, 22 %). Overall rate of adverse events requiring intervention and/or hospitalization was 15 %. Four randomized controlled trials with 213 patients compared CSEMSs with MPS: the pooled RRs for stricture resolution, recurrence, and adverse events were 1.07 (0.97, 1.18), 0.88 (0.48, 1.63), and 1.16 (0.71, 1.88), respectively with no heterogeneity. Pooled difference in means for number of ERCPs was - 1.71 ( - 2.33, - 1.09) in favor of CSEMS. Conclusions CSEMSs appear to have excellent efficacy in BBS management. They are as effective as MPS but require fewer ERCPs to achieve clinical success.

The role of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the prevention of post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis.

Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common major complication associated with ERCP. Beginning with an overview of the risk factors for the development of PEP, this review introduces the mechanism of injury in PEP and the role of pharmacological prevention. NSAIDs are increasingly found to offer prevention against the development of PEP, and their mechanism and supportive data are summarized, especially in relationship to the practice of prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting.

A Case of a Rectal Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: An Unexpected Cause of Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding in an Immunocompromised Man.

GISTs are rare, with only around 5,000 cases diagnosed annually in the United States. However, these tumors are the most common mesenchymal neoplasm in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. 5%-15% of GISTS arise in the colon and rectum. Most GISTs are diagnosed incidentally on imaging, endoscopy, or during a surgical procedure.

Idiopathic Myointimal Hyperplasia of the Mesenteric Veins: A Rare Imitator of Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Idiopathic myointimal hyperplasia of the mesenteric veins (IMHMV) is a rare cause of chronic colonic ischemia characterized by intimal smooth muscle proliferation and luminal narrowing of the small to medium sized mesenteric veins. It predominantly affects the rectosigmoid colon in otherwise healthy, middle-aged males. Definitive diagnosis and treatment are surgical; however, patients are frequently misdiagnosed, which often results in a protracted clinical course. We describe a case of IMHMV presenting as left hemicolitis in a 53-year-old male, as well as the endoscopic, histopathologic, and radiographic findings that established the diagnosis.

Rate of and Factors Associated with Palliative Care Referral among Patients Declined for Liver Transplantation.

Background: End-stage liver disease (ESLD) is associated with high morbidity and mortality, with liver transplantation as the only existing cure. Despite reduced quality of life and limited life expectancy, referral to palliative care (PC) rarely occurs. Moreover, there is scarcity of data on the appropriate timing and type of PC intervention needed. Aim: To evaluate PC utilization and documentation in ESLD patients declined or delisted for transplant at a tertiary care medical center with a large liver transplantation program. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients discussed in Liver Transplant Committee (LTC) at our academic medical center between August 2018 and May 2020 in the United States. Patients declined or delisted for liver transplantation were included. Baseline demographics, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, decompensation events, and reason for transplant ineligibility were recorded. The primary outcome was PC referral. Secondary outcomes included survival from LTC decision, time from LTC decision to PC referral, and code status in relation to PC referral. Results: Of 769 patients discussed at LTC, 135 were declined for transplantation. Thirty-seven (27%) received referral to PC. When adjusting for body mass index and age, MELD score of 21-30 had odds ratio (OR) of 4.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.7-12.3) and MELD score >30 had OR of 12.8 (95% CI: 3.9-47.7) for PC referral when compared with MELD score <20. When adjusting for MELD score, presence of ascites had OR of 4.6 (95% CI: 1.1-19.1) and presence of multiple complications had OR of 2.2 (95% CI: 2.2-3.8). Conclusions: Only 37 (27%) patients delisted or declined for liver transplantation were referred to PC. MELD score and degree of decompensation were important factors associated with referral. Continued exploration of these data could help guide future studies and help determine timing and criteria for PC referral.

Impact of Moderate versus Deep Sedation and Trainee Participation on Adenoma Detection Rate-Analysis of a Veteran Population.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is used as a quality indicator for screening and surveillance colonoscopy. The study aimed to determine if moderate versus deep sedation affects the outcomes of the ADR and other quality metrics in the veteran population. METHODS: A retrospective review of colonoscopies performed at Memphis Veterans Affairs Medical Center over a one-year period was conducted. A total of 900 colonoscopy reports were reviewed. After exclusion criteria, a total of 229 index, average-risk screening colonoscopies were identified. Data were collected to determine the impact of moderate (benzodiazepine plus opioids) versus deep (propofol) sedation on the ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), and withdrawal time. RESULTS: Among 229 screening colonoscopies, 103 (44.9%) used moderate sedation while 126 (55%) were done under deep sedation. The ADR and PDR were not significantly different between moderate versus deep sedation at 35.9% vs. 37.3% (p=0.82) and 58.2% vs. 48.4% (p=0.13), respectively. Similarly, there was no significant difference in withdrawal time between moderate and deep sedation (13.4 min vs. 14 min, p=0.56) during screening colonoscopies. CONCLUSION: In veterans undergoing index, average-risk screening colonoscopies, the quality metrics of the ADR, PDR, and withdrawal time are not influenced by deep sedation compared with moderate sedation.

Efficacy and safety of peroral endoscopic myotomy in the management of recurrent achalasia after failed Heller myotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Heller myotomy (HM) is an established treatment for achalasia but can fail in up to 10-20% of patients. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) may be an appropriate treatment for patients with failed HM. METHODS: We searched several databases to identify non-comparative studies evaluating the efficacy and/or safety of POEM after failed HM and comparative studies comparing the efficacy and/or safety of POEM in patients with and without prior HM. Outcomes assessed included clinical success, technical success, adverse events, post-treatment gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and presence of esophagitis on endoscopy. We calculated weighted pooled rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all outcomes in patients undergoing POEM with prior HM. We calculated pooled odds ratios with 95%CI to compare the outcomes between patients with and without previous HM who underwent POEM. RESULTS: We included 11 observational studies with 1205 patients. Weighted pooled rates (95%CI) for overall clinical success and technical success in patients with failed HM were 87% (81-91%) and 97% (94-99%), respectively. Weighted pooled rates (95%CI) for major adverse events, new-onset GERD and presence of esophagitis on endoscopy were 5% (2-10%), 33% (26-41%), and 38% (22-58%), respectively. There were no differences in clinical success, adverse events, post-treatment GERD and esophagitis between patients with and without previous HM. CONCLUSIONS: POEM is safe and effective in patients with failed HM and should be considered in patients with recurrent achalasia after HM. Outcomes of POEM are comparable in patients with and without prior HM.

Colonic diaphragm disease secondary to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use.

Diaphragm disease is a rare condition associated with the long-term use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and can lead to severe complications. Most strictures occur in the small bowel, and occurrence in the colon is rare. We report a case of an asymptomatic patient with colonic diaphragm disease secondary to NSAID use.

Systematic review and meta-analysis: monopolar hemostatic forceps with soft coagulation in the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding.

Monopolar hemostatic forceps with soft coagulation (MHFSC) have been compared with hemoclips, heater probe, and argon plasma coagulation (APC) for the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we compared MHFSC with other modalities in the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding. We reviewed MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to 7 January 2019 to identify studies comparing MHFSC with other modalities for peptic ulcer bleeding. The primary outcome of interest was achievement of initial hemostasis. Secondary outcomes were rebleeding, adverse events, procedure time, and length of hospital stay. Data were analyzed using a random effects model and summarized as pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed by I statistic. We included five randomized controlled trials and one observational study comprising 693 patients with endoscopically confirmed actively bleeding ulcers (spurting or oozing) or nonbleeding visible vessel. MHFSC was superior to other modalities in achieving initial hemostasis (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.08-0.81; I = 67%) and prevention of rebleeding (OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.09-0.86; I = 46%). Rates of adverse events were similar between MHFSC and other modalities. Procedure times were shorter with MHFSC (mean difference -4.15 min; 95% CI -4.83 to -3.47; I= 59%). Length of hospital stay was also shorter with MHFSC. MHFSC appears to be more effective than other modalities for achievement of initial hemostasis and reduction of rebleeding among patients with peptic ulcer bleeding.

Underwater vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection in the management of colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background Recently, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has shown promising results in the management of colorectal polyps. Some studies have shown better outcomes compared to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare UEMR and EMR in the management of colorectal polyps. Methods We searched several databases from inception to November 2019 to identify studies comparing UEMR and EMR. Outcomes assessed included rates of en bloc resection, complete macroscopic resection, recurrent/residual polyps on follow-up colonoscopy, complete resection confirmed by histology and adverse events. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence interval were calculated using a fixed effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I 2 statistic. Funnel plots and Egger's test were used to assess publication bias. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessment of quality of observational studies, and the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias for RCTs Results Seven studies with 1291 patients were included; two were randomized controlled trials and five were observational. UEMR demonstrated statistically significantly better efficacy in rates of en bloc resection, pooled RR 1.16 (1.08, 1.26), complete macroscopic resection, pooled RR 1.28 (1.18, 1.39), recurrent/residual polyps; pooled RR 0.26 (0.12, 0.56) and complete resection confirmed by histology; pooled RR 0.75 (0.57, 0.98). There was no significant difference in adverse events (AEs); pooled RR 0.68 (0.44, 1.05). Conclusions This meta-analysis found statistically significantly better rates of en bloc resection, complete macroscopic resection, and lower risk of recurrent/residual polyps with UEMR compared to EMR. We found no significant difference in AEs between the two techniques.