Performance and safety of percutaneous cholangioscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Percutaneous cholangioscopy (PerC) offers an alternative for patients with an inaccessible biliary tree. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of this technique. Methods: A search in Medline, Cochrane and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was performed for studies assessing PerC up to October 2022. The primary outcome was diagnostic success, defined as successful stone identification or stricture workup. Secondary outcomes included therapeutic success (stone extraction, stenting) and complication rate. A subgroup analysis compared previous-generation and modern cholangioscopes. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model and the results were reported as percentages with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Fourteen studies (682 patients) were eligible for analysis. The rate of diagnostic success was 98.7% (95%CI 97.6-99.8%; I2=31.19%) and therapeutic success was 88.6% (95%CI 82.8-94.3%; I2=74.92%). Adverse events were recorded in 17.1% (95%CI 10.7-23.5%; I2=77.56%), of which 15.9% (95%CI 9.8-21.9%; I2=75.98%) were minor and 0.6% (95%CI 0.1-1.2%; I2=0%) major. The Spyglass system showed null heterogeneity for all outcomes; compared with older-generation endoscopes it offered comparable diagnostic success, but yielded significantly superior therapeutic success (96.1%, 95%CI 90-100%; I2=0% vs. 86.4%, 95%CI 79.2-93.6%; I2=81.41%; P=0.02]. Conclusion: PerC, especially using currently available cholangioscopes, is associated with high diagnostic and therapeutic success.

Revealing Insights: A Comprehensive Overview of Gastric Outlet Obstruction Management, with Special Emphasis on EUS-Guided Gastroenterostomy.

Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) poses a common and challenging clinical scenario, characterized by mechanical blockage in the pylorus, distal stomach, or duodenum, resulting in symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and early satiety. Its diverse etiology encompasses both benign and malignant disorders. The spectrum of current treatment modalities extends from conservative approaches to more invasive interventions, incorporating procedures like surgical gastroenterostomy (SGE), self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) placement, and the advanced technique of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE). While surgery is favored for longer life expectancy, stents are preferred in malignant gastric outlet stenosis. The novel EUS-GE technique, employing a lumen-apposing self-expandable metal stent (LAMS), combines the immediate efficacy of stents with the enduring benefits of gastroenterostomy. Despite its promising outcomes, EUS-GE is a technically demanding procedure requiring specialized expertise and facilities.

Endoscopic Management of Difficult Biliary Stones: An Evergreen Issue.

Choledocholithiasis is one of the most common indications for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in daily practice. Although the majority of stones are small and can be easily removed in a single endoscopy session, approximately 10-15% of patients have complex biliary stones, requiring additional procedures for an optimum clinical outcome. A plethora of endoscopic methods is available for the removal of difficult biliary stones, including papillary large balloon dilation, mechanical lithotripsy, and electrohydraulic and laser lithotripsy. In-depth knowledge of these techniques and the emerging literature on them is required to yield the most optimal therapeutic effects. This narrative review aims to describe the definition of difficult bile duct stones based on certain characteristics and streamline their endoscopic retrieval using various modalities to achieve higher clearance rates.

Success rates of fixation techniques on prevention of esophageal stent migration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal stenting is an important intervention for managing malignant and benign dysphagia, with stent migration representing a common drawback. This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to assess the benefit of stent fixation over nonfixation. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases until January 2023 for comparative studies evaluating the migration rates of esophageal stents with versus without (control) fixation. The primary outcome was migration rate. Secondary outcomes included adverse event rate. A subgroup analysis stratified the results based on different fixation techniques: suturing, over-the-scope (OTS) clipping, and through-the-scope (TTS) clipping. Meta-analysis was based on a random effects model and the results were reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95 %CIs. RESULTS: 10 studies (1014 patients) were included. The rate of stent migration was significantly lower after fixation (OR 0.20, 95 %CI 0.11-0.37; I2  = 59 %, P = 0.01). The adverse event rate was similar between fixation and control groups (OR 0.65, 95 %CI 0.28-1.52; I2  = 55 %, P = 0.06). In the subgroup analysis, all fixation techniques remained superior to nonfixation of stents (suturing OR 0.23, 95 %CI 0.10-0.53; OTS clips OR 0.31, 95 %CI 0.17-0.58; TTS clips OR 0.10, 95 %CI 0.03-0.38); however, only the OTS and TTS clip groups achieved nonsignificant heterogeneity (I2  = 0 %, P = 0.67 and P = 0.73, respectively). No difference between techniques was recorded for migration rates. CONCLUSION: Esophageal stent fixation was associated with significantly lower migration rates compared with nonfixation of stents, regardless of fixation technique and stenting indication.

Models and scores to predict adequacy of bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

Adequate bowel preparation is of paramount importance for the effectiveness of preventive colonoscopy as it allows visualization of the mucosal surface and adenomas detection, the pre-malignant lesions leading to colon cancer. Still, a considerable portion of patients fail to achieve adequate bowel cleansing, with predictors of inadequate bowel preparation being at the focal point of several studies, so far. Incorporation of these factors within predictive models has been implemented in an effort to promptly identify patients at risk for inadequate bowel preparation and thus, timely adopt practices that have the potential to improve bowel cleansing. Ultimately, this could lead to improved procedural outcomes not only in terms of neoplastic detection rate but also interval repeat procedures, expenses, patient convenience and adverse events risk. Aim of this manuscript is to present an up to date overview of all predictive scores/models addressing bowel cleansing adequacy in everyday clinical practice.

Effect of add-on devices with projections on screening colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Add-on devices with projections, e.g., Endocuff, Endocuff Vision, EndoRings, and Wingcap, placed on the distal tip of the colonoscope promise to improve the detection of precancerous lesions. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of these devices exclusively among individuals undergoing colonoscopy for screening purpose. Methods: A computerized literature search was performed across MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials that compared standard colonoscopy (SC) to procedures using add-on devices. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR), while secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate (PDR), advanced ADR (AADR), and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR). The effect size on study outcomes was calculated using a random-effects model and presented as the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Seven studies enrolling a total of 5785 patients were included. The use of add-on-devices with projections was associated with a higher ADR compared to SC: 45.9% vs. 41.1%; RR 1.18, 95%CI 1.02-1.37; P=0.03; I2=79%. Although PDR was higher in screening colonoscopies assisted by add-on devices as compared to SC, the difference failed to reach significance: 55.1% vs. 50.8%; RR 1.10, 95%CI 0.96-1.26; P=0.17; I2=75%. No difference was found between procedures assisted by add-on devices with projections and SC colonoscopies in terms of AADR (18.5% vs. 17.6%; RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.79-1.27; P=0.98; I2=56%) or SSLDR (6.8% vs. 5.8%; RR 1.17, 95%CI 0.95-1.44; P=0.15; I2=0%). Conclusion: Colonoscopy assisted by add-on devices with projections achieves a better ADR compared to SC among individuals undergoing screening for bowel cancer.

Informed consent for endoscopic procedures: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

All endoscopic procedures are invasive and carry risk. Accordingly, all endoscopists should involve the patient in the decision-making process about the most appropriate endoscopic procedure for that individual, in keeping with a patient's right to self-determination and autonomy. Recognition of this has led to detailed guidelines on informed consent for endoscopy in some countries, but in many no such guidance exists; this may lead to variations in care and exposure to risk of litigation. In this document, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) sets out a series of statements that cover best practice in informed consent for endoscopy. These statements should be seen as a minimum standard of practice, but practitioners must be aware of and adhere to the law in their own country. 1: Patients should give informed consent for all gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures for which they have capacity to do so. 2: The healthcare professional seeking consent for an endoscopic procedure should ensure that the patient has the capacity to consent to that procedure. 3: For patients who lack capacity, healthcare personnel should at all times try to engage with people close to the patient, such as family, friends, or caregivers, to achieve consensus on the appropriateness of performing the procedure. 4: Where a patient lacks capacity to provide informed consent, the best interest decision should be clearly documented in the medical record. This should include information about the capacity assessment, reason(s) that the decision cannot be delayed for capacity recovery (or if recovery is not expected), who has been consulted, and where relevant the form of authority for the decision. 5: There should be a systematic and transparent disclosure of the expected benefits and harms that may reasonably affect patient choice on whether or not to undergo any diagnostic or interventional endoscopic procedure. Information about possible alternatives, as well as the consequences of doing nothing, should also be provided when relevant. 6: The information provided on the benefit and harms of an endoscopic procedure should be adapted to the procedure and patient-specific risk factors, and the preferences of the patient should be central to the consent process. 7: The consent discussion should be undertaken by an individual who is familiar with the procedure and its risks, and is able to discuss these in the context of the individual patient. 8: Patients should confirm consent to an endoscopic procedure in a private, unrushed, and non-coercive environment. 9: If a patient requests that an endoscopic procedure be discontinued, the procedure should be paused and the patient's capacity for decision making assessed. If a competent patient continues to object to the procedure, or if a conclusive determination of capacity is not feasible, the examination should be terminated as soon as it is safe to do so. 10: Informed consent should be sufficiently detailed to cover all findings that can be reasonably anticipated during an endoscopic examination. The scope of this consent should not be expanded, nor a patient's implicit consent for additional interventions assumed, unless failure to proceed with such interventions would result in immediate and predictable harm to the patient.

Real-Time Computer-Aided Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia During Colonoscopy : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection (CADe) of colorectal neoplasia during colonoscopy may increase adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and reduce adenoma miss rates, but it may increase overdiagnosis and overtreatment of nonneoplastic polyps. PURPOSE: To quantify the benefits and harms of CADe in randomized trials. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. (PROSPERO: CRD42022293181). DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases through February 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials comparing CADe-assisted with standard colonoscopy for polyp and cancer detection. DATA EXTRACTION: Adenoma detection rate (proportion of patients with ≥1 adenoma), number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy, advanced adenoma (≥10 mm with high-grade dysplasia and villous histology), number of serrated lesions per colonoscopy, and adenoma miss rate were extracted as benefit outcomes. Number of polypectomies for nonneoplastic lesions and withdrawal time were extracted as harm outcomes. For each outcome, studies were pooled using a random-effects model. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-one randomized trials on 18 232 patients were included. The ADR was higher in the CADe group than in the standard colonoscopy group (44.0% vs. 35.9%; relative risk, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.16 to 1.33]; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to a 55% (risk ratio, 0.45 [CI, 0.35 to 0.58]) relative reduction in miss rate (moderate-certainty evidence). More nonneoplastic polyps were removed in the CADe than the standard group (0.52 vs. 0.34 per colonoscopy; mean difference [MD], 0.18 polypectomy [CI, 0.11 to 0.26 polypectomy]; low-certainty evidence). Mean inspection time increased only marginally with CADe (MD, 0.47 minute [CI, 0.23 to 0.72 minute]; moderate-certainty evidence). LIMITATIONS: This review focused on surrogates of patient-important outcomes. Most patients, however, may consider cancer incidence and cancer-related mortality important outcomes. The effect of CADe on such patient-important outcomes remains unclear. CONCLUSION: The use of CADe for polyp detection during colonoscopy results in increased detection of adenomas but not advanced adenomas and in higher rates of unnecessary removal of nonneoplastic polyps. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: European Commission Horizon 2020 Marie Sklodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship.

EUS-Guided Diagnosis of Gastric Subepithelial Lesions, What Is New?

Gastric subepithelial lesions (SELs) are intramural lesions that arise underneath the gastric mucosa. SELs can be benign, but can also be malignant or have malignant potential. Therefore, correct diagnosis is crucial. Endosonography has been established as the diagnostic gold standard. Although the identification of some of these lesions can be carried out immediately, solely based on their echo characteristics, for certain lesions histological examination is necessary. Sometimes histology can be inconclusive, especially for smaller lesions. Therefore, new methods have been developed in recent years to assist decision making, such as contrast enhanced endosonography, EUS elastography, and artificial intelligence systems. In this narrative review we provide a complete overview of the gastric SELs and summarize the new data of the last ten years concerning the diagnostic advances of endosonography on this topic.

Prevalence of Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth Syndrome in Patients with Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease/Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis: A Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is a multifactorial, wide-spectrum liver disorder. Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) is characterized by an increase in the number and/or type of colonic bacteria in the upper gastrointestinal tract. SIBO, through energy salvage and induction of inflammation, may be a pathophysiological factor for NAFLD development and progression. AIM/METHODS: Consecutive patients with histological, biochemical, or radiological diagnosis of any stage of NAFLD (non-alcoholic fatty liver [NAFL], non-alcoholic steatohepatitis [NASH], cirrhosis) underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Duodenal fluid (2cc) was aspirated from the 3rd-4th part of duodenum into sterile containers. SIBO was defined as ≥103 aerobic colony-forming units (CFU)/mL of duodenal aspirate and/or the presence of colonic-type bacteria. Patients without any liver disease undergoing gastroscopy due to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) comprised the healthy control (HC) group. Concentrations (pg/mL) of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα), interleukin (IL)-1ß, and IL-6 were also measured in the duodenal fluid. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the prevalence of SIBO in NAFLD patients, while the comparison of SIBO prevalence among NAFLD patients and healthy controls was a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: We enrolled 125 patients (51 NAFL, 27 NASH, 17 cirrhosis, and 30 HC) aged 54 ± 11.9 years and with a weight of 88.3 ± 19.6 kg (NAFLD vs. HC 90.7 ± 19.1 vs. 80.8 ± 19.6 kg, p = 0.02). Overall, SIBO was diagnosed in 23/125 (18.4%) patients, with Gram-negative bacteria being the predominant species (19/23; 82.6%). SIBO prevalence was higher in the NAFLD cohort compared to HC (22/95; 23.2% vs. 1/30; 3.3%, p = 0.014). Patients with NASH had higher SIBO prevalence (6/27; 22.2%) compared to NAFL individuals (8/51; 15.7%), but this difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.11). Patients with NASH-associated cirrhosis had a higher SIBO prevalence compared to patients with NAFL (8/17; 47.1% vs. 8/51; 15.7%, p = 0.02), while SIBO prevalence between patients with NASH-associated cirrhosis and NASH was not statistically different (8/17; 47.1% vs. 6/27; 22.2%, p = 0.11). Mean concentration of TNF-α, IL-1ß, and IL-6 did not differ among the different groups. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of SIBO is significantly higher in a cohort of patients with NAFLD compared to healthy controls. Moreover, SIBO is more prevalent in patients with NASH-associated cirrhosis compared to patients with NAFL.

Probiotics in Functional Dyspepsia.

Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a common disorder in everyday clinical practice identified nowadays as a multi-factorial, difficult to treat condition with a significant burden on patients' quality of life (QoL) and healthcare systems worldwide. Despite its high prevalence in the general population, the precise etiology of the disorder remains elusive, with its pathophysiological spectrum evolving over time, including variable potential mechanisms, i.e., impaired gastric accommodation, gastric motor disorders, hypersensitivity to gastric distention, disorders of the brain-gut axis, as well as less evident ones, i.e., altered duodenal microbiota composition and genetic susceptibility. In light of these implications, a definitive, universal treatment that could be beneficial for all FD patients is not available yet. Recently, probiotics have been suggested to be an effective therapeutic option that could alleviate gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS), potentially due to anti-inflammatory properties or by modulating the complex bidirectional interactions between gastrointestinal microbiota and host crosstalk; however, their impact on the multiple aspects of FD remains ambiguous. In this review, we aim to summarize all currently available evidence for the efficacy of probiotics as a novel therapeutic approach for FD.

Performance and safety of motorized spiral enteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The introduction of motorized spiral enteroscopy (mSE) into clinical practice holds diagnostic and therapeutic potential for small-bowel investigations. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the performance of this modality in diagnosing and treating small-bowel lesions. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were performed through September 2022. The primary outcome was diagnostic success, defined as the identification of a lesion relative to the indication. Secondary outcomes were successful therapeutic manipulation, total enteroscopy rate (examination from the duodenojejunal flexion to the cecum), technical success (passage from the ligament of Treitz or ileocecal valve for anterograde and retrograde approach, respectively), and adverse event rates. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model, and the results are reported as percentages with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: From 2016 to 2022, 9 studies (959 patients; 42% women; mean age >45 years; 474 patients [49.4%] investigated for mid-GI bleeding/anemia) were considered eligible and included in analysis. The diagnostic success rate of mSE was 78% (95% CI, 72-84; I2 = 78.3%). Considering secondary outcomes, total enteroscopy was attempted in 460 cases and completed with a rate of 51% (95% CI, 30-72; I2 = 96.2%), whereas therapeutic interventions were successful in 98% of cases (95% CI, 96-100; I2 = 79.8%) where attempted. Technical success rates were 96% (95% CI, 94-97; I2 = 1.5%) for anterograde and 97% (95% CI, 94-100; I2 = 38.6%) for retrograde approaches, respectively. Finally, the incidence of adverse events was 17% (95% CI, 13-21; I2 = 65.1%), albeit most were minor adverse events (16%; 95% CI, 11-20; I2 = 67.2%) versus major adverse events (1%; 95% CI, 0-1; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: mSE provides high rates of diagnostic and therapeutic success with a low prevalence of severe adverse events.

Comparative performance and external validation of three different scores in predicting inadequate bowel preparation among Greek inpatients undergoing colonoscopy.

Background: Predictive scores aim to predict bowel preparation adequacy among hospitalized patients undergoing colonoscopy. We evaluated the comparative efficacy of these scores in predicting inadequate bowel cleansing in a cohort of Greek inpatients. Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis of data generated from a cohort of inpatients undergoing colonoscopy in 4 tertiary Greek centers to validate the 3 models currently available (models A, B and C). We used the Akaike information criterion to quantify the performance of each model, while Harrell's C-index, as the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC), verified the discriminative ability to predict inadequate bowel prep. Primary endpoint was the comparison of performance among models for predicting inadequate bowel cleansing. Results: Overall, 261 patients-121 (46.4%) female, 100 (38.3%) bedridden, mean age 70.7±15.4 years-were included in the analysis. Model B showed the highest performance (Harrell's C-index: AUC 77.2% vs. 72.6% and 57.5%, compared to models A and C, respectively). It also achieved higher performance for the subgroup of mobilized inpatients (Harrell's C-index: AUC 72.21% vs. 64.97% and 59.66%, compared to models A and C, respectively). Model B also performed better in predicting patients with incomplete colonoscopy due to inadequate bowel preparation (Harrell's C-index: AUC 74.23% vs. 69.07% and 52.76%, compared to models A and C, respectively). Conclusions: Predictive model B outperforms its comparators in the prediction of inpatients with inadequate bowel preparation. This model is particularly advantageous when used to evaluate mobilized inpatients.

Comparative efficacy and safety of resection techniques for treating 6 to 20mm, nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Various endoscopic resection techniques have been proposed for the treatment of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps sized 6-20 mm, however the optimal technique still remains unclear. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), investigating the efficacy of endoscopic treatments for the management of 6-20 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps. Primary outcomes were complete and en bloc resection rates and adverse event rate was the secondary. Effect size on outcomes is presented as risk ratio (RR; 95% confidence interval [CI]). RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs (5219 polypectomies) were included. Endoscopic mucosal resection(EMR) significantly outperformed cold snare polypectomy(CSP) in terms of complete [(RR 95%CI): 1.04(1.00-1.07)] and en bloc resection rate [RR:1.12(1.04-1.21)]. EMR was superior to hot snare polypectomy (HSP) [RR:1.04(1.00-1.08)] regarding complete resection, while underwater EMR (U-EMR) achieved significantly higher rate of en bloc resection compared to CSP [RR:1.15(1.01-1.30)]. EMR yielded the highest ranking for complete resection(SUCRA-score 0.81), followed by cold-snare EMR(CS-EMR,SUCRA-score 0.76). None of the modalities was different regarding adverse event rate compared to CSP, however EMR and CS-EMR resulted in fewer adverse events compared to HSP [RR:0.44(0.26-0.77) and 0.43(0.21-0.87),respectively]. CONCLUSION: EMR achieved the highest performance in resecting 6-20 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps, with this effect being consistent for polyps 6-9 and ≥10 mm; findings supported by very low quality of evidence.

Endoscopic Treatment of Large Bile Duct Stones: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Several endoscopic methods have been proposed for the treatment of large biliary stones. We assessed the comparative efficacy of these treatments through a network meta-analysis. METHODS: Nineteen randomized controlled trials (2752 patients) comparing different treatments for management of large bile stones (>10 mm) (endoscopic sphincterotomy, balloon sphincteroplasty, sphincterotomy followed by endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation [S+EPLBD], mechanical lithotripsy, single-operator cholangioscopy [SOC]) with each other were identified. Study outcomes were the success rate of stone removal and the incidence of adverse events. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis for all treatments, and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria to appraise the quality of evidence. RESULTS: All treatments except mechanical lithotripsy significantly outperformed sphincterotomy in terms of stone removal rate (risk ratio [RR], 1.03-1.29). SOC was superior to other adjunctive interventions (vs balloon sphincteroplasty [RR, 1.24; 95% CIs, 1.07-1.45], vs S+EPLBD [RR, 1.23; range, 1.06-1.42] and vs mechanical lithotripsy [RR, 1.34; range, 1.14-1.58]). Cholangioscopy ranked the highest in increasing the success rate of stone removal (surface under the cumulative ranking [SUCRA] score, 0.99) followed by S+EPLBD (SUCRA score, 0.68). SOC and S+EPLBD outperformed the other modalities when only studies reporting on stones greater than 15 mm were taken into consideration (SUCRA scores, 0.97 and 0.71, respectively). None of the assessed interventions was significantly different in terms of adverse event rate compared with endoscopic sphincterotomy or with other treatments. Post-ERCP pancreatitis and bleeding were the most frequent adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with large bile stones, cholangioscopy represents the most effective method, in particular in patients with larger (>15 mm) stones, whereas S+EPLBD could represent a less expensive and more widely available alternative.

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers on cardiovascular outcomes in dialysis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and/or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are recommended by guidelines as first-line antihypertensive therapies in the general population or in patients with earlier stages of kidney disease. However, the cardioprotective benefit of these agents among patients on dialysis remains uncertain. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane databases from inception through February 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of ACEIs/ARBs relative to placebo or no add-on treatment in patients receiving dialysis. RCTs were eligible if they assessed fatal or non-fatal cardiovascular events as a primary efficacy endpoint. RESULTS: We identified five RCTs involving 1582 dialysis patients. Compared with placebo or no add-on treatment, the use of ACEIs/ARBs was not associated with a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular events {risk ratio [RR] 0.79 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-1.11]}. Furthermore, there was no benefit in cardiovascular mortality [RR 0.82 (95% CI 0.59-1.14)] and all-cause mortality [RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.64-1.15)]. These results were consistent when the included RCTs were stratified by subgroups, including hypertension, ethnicity, sample size, duration of follow-up and quality. CONCLUSION: The present meta-analysis showed that among patients on dialysis, the use of ACEIs/ARBs is not associated with a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality as compared with placebo or no add-on treatment.

Comparison between EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy with or without rapid on-site evaluation for tissue sampling of solid pancreatic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The benefit of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) on the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in patients with pancreatic masses is still matter of debate. Aim of our meta-analysis is to compare the diagnostic outcomes of these two tissue acquisition strategies. Computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed through December 2021 and 8 studies were identified (2147 patients). The primary outcome was sample adequacy. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model by means of DerSimonian and Laird test and summary estimates were expressed in terms of odds ratio (OR) or mean difference and 95% confidence Interval (CI). There was no difference in terms of baseline variables between the two groups. Pooled sample adequacy was 95.5% (95% CI 93.2%-97.8%) and 88.9% (83.4%-94.5%) in the EUS-FNB + ROSE and EUS-FNB groups, respectively (OR = 2.05, 0.94-4.49; P = 0.07). Diagnostic accuracy resulted significantly superior in the EUS-FNB + ROSE group (OR = 2.49, 1.08-5.73; P = 0.03), particularly when the analysis was restricted to reverse bevel needle (OR = 3.24, 1.19-8.82, P = 0.02), whereas no statistical difference was observed when newer end-cutting needles were used (OR = 0.71, 0.29-3.61, P = 0.56). Diagnostic sensitivity was not significantly different between the two groups (OR = 1.94, 0.84-4.49; P = 0.12), whereas pooled specificity was 100% with both approaches. The number of needle passes needed to obtain diagnostic samples was not significantly different (mean difference 0.07,-0.22 to 0.37; P = 0.62). Our meta-analysis stands for a non-superiority of EUS-FNB + ROSE over EUS-FNB with newer end-cutting needles, whereas ROSE could have still a role when reverse bevel needles are used.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections: a retrospective multicenter European study.

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural drainage allows treatment of symptomatic peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), with lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) and double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) being the 2 most frequently used modalities. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing PFC drainage in 10 European centers were retrospectively retrieved. Technical success (successful deployment), clinical success (satisfactory drainage), rate and type of early adverse events, drainage duration and complications on stent removal were evaluated. Results: A total of 128 patients-92 men (71.9%), age 57.2±11.9 years-underwent drainage, with pancreatic pseudocyst (PC) and walled-off necrosis (WON) in 92 (71.9%) and 36 (28.1%) patients, respectively. LAMS were used in 80 (62.5%) patients and DPPS in 48 (37.5%). Technical success was achieved in 124 (96.9%) of the cases, with no difference regarding either the type of stent (P>0.99) or PFC type (P=0.07). Clinical success was achieved in 119 (93%); PC had a better response than WON (91/92 vs. 28/36, P<0.001), but the type of stent did not affect the clinical success rate (P=0.29). Twenty patients (15.6%) had at least one early complication, with bleeding being the most common (n=7/20, 35%). No difference was detected in complication rate per type of stent (P=0.61) or per PFC type (P=0.1). Drainage duration was significantly longer with DPPS compared to LAMS: 88 (70-112) vs. 35 (29-55.3) days, P<0.001. Conclusions: EUS-guided drainage of PFCs achieves high percentages of technical and clinical success. Drainage using LAMS is of shorter duration, but the complication rate is similar between the 2 modalities.

Comparison between Enteroscopy-, Laparoscopy- and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Assisted Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreatography in Patients with Surgically Altered Anatomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), in surgically altered anatomy (SAA), can be challenging and the optimal technique selection remains debatable. Most common foregut interventions resulting to this burden consist of Billroth II gastrectomy, Whipple surgery and Roux-en-Y anastomoses, including gastric by-pass. This systematic review, with meta-analysis, aimed to compare the rates of successful enteroscope-assisted (EA)-, endosonography-directed transgastric- (EDGE), and laparoscopy-assisted (LA)-ERCP. METHODS: A systematic research (Medline) was performed for relative studies, through January 2022. The primary outcome was technical success, defined as approaching the ampulla site. Secondary outcomes included the desired duct cannulation, successful therapeutic manipulations, and complication rates. We performed meta-analyses of pooled data, and subgroup analysis considering the EA-ERCP subtypes (spiral-, double and single balloon-enteroscope). Pooled rates are reported as percentages with 95% Confidence Intervals (95%CIs). RESULTS: Seventy-six studies were included (3569 procedures). Regarding primary outcome, EA-ERCP was the least effective [87.3% (95%CI: 85.3-89.4); I2: 91.0%], whereas EDGE and LA-ERCP succeeded in 97.9% (95%CI: 96.4-99.4; I2: 0%) and 99.1% (95%CI: 98.6-99.7; I2: 0%), respectively. Similarly, duct cannulation and therapeutic success rates were 74.7% (95%CI: 71.3-78.0; I2: 86.9%) and 69.1% (95%CI: 65.3-72.9; I2: 91.8%) after EA-ERCP, 98% (95%CI: 96.5-99.6; I2: 0%) and 97.9% (95%CI: 96.3-99.4) after EDGE, and 98.6% (95%CI: 97.9-99.2; I2: 0%) and 98.5% (95%CI: 97.8-99.2; I2: 0%) after LA-ERCP, respectively. The noticed high heterogeneity in EA-ERCP results probably reflects the larger number of included studies, the different enteroscopy modalities and the variety of surgical interventions. Comparisons revealed the superiority of LA-ERCP and EDGE over EA-ERCP (p ≤ 0.001) for all success-related outcomes, though LA-ERCP and EDGE were comparable (p ≥ 0.43). ERCP with spiral-enteroscope was inferior to balloon-enteroscope, while the type of the balloon-enteroscope did not affect the results. Most adverse events were recorded after LA-ERCP [15.1% (95%CI: 9.40-20.8); I2: 87.1%], and EDGE [13.1% (95%CI: 7.50-18.8); I2: 48.2%], significantly differing from EA-ERCP [5.7% (95%CI: 4.50-6.80); p ≤ 0.04; I2: 64.2%]. CONCLUSIONS: LA-ERCP and EDGE were associated with higher technical, cannulation, and therapeutic success compared to EA-ERCP, though accompanied with more adverse events.

Efficacy of pharmacologic treatment for treating gastrointestinal angiodysplasias-related bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the efficacy of pharmacologic treatments for patients with overt or occult bleeding due to gastrointestinal angiodysplasias (GIADs). METHODS: A systematic computer-aided literature search across Medline, Cochrane, Scopus and Embase databases was performed. Studies evaluating pharmacologic treatments for patients presenting with GIADs-related overt or occult bleeding were included. Post-treatment rebleeding was the primary outcome. Need for red blood cells (RBC) transfusion, post-treatment hemoglobin levels and adverse events rate comprised secondary outcomes. Results are presented as odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD) or pooled rates (%) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). RESULTS: Four types of pharmacologic treatment were identified (25 studies): somatostatin analogs, hormonal therapy, thalidomide and angiogenesis inhibitors. Pharmacologic treatment of any kind led to significantly reduced bleeding episodes [OR (95% CI), 0.08 (0.04-0.18)]. No pharmacologic treatment was superior to others ( P = 0.46). Overall, pooled rebleeding rate post-treatment was 34% (26-43%). Similarly, significantly fewer patients required RBC transfusion during the post-treatment period [0.03 (0.03-0.07)], with no differences among various treatments ( P = 0.83), yielding an overall pooled transfusion rate of 33% (19-46%). Administration of pharmacological treatment led to significant improvement in terms of hemoglobin levels [MD (95% CI), 3.21 g/dL (2.42-3.99)]. The pooled rate of adverse events was 32% (22-42%). CONCLUSION: In patients with GIADs administration of any pharmacologic treatment significantly decreases rebleeding episodes and transfusions leading to higher hemoglobin values. One-third of them experience at least one adverse event related to the treatment.