ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The incremental yield of I-Scan virtual chromoendoscopy compared to high-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) in detection of colorectal adenomas has not been thoroughly elucidated. METHODS: A systematic search from inception to April 2023 was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing I-Scan to HD-WLE for detection of adenomas. A random effects model was used to compute risk difference (RD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals in adenoma detection rate (ADR). Influence analysis was done to assess robustness of findings. The number needed to diagnose was computed. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic and explored further by subgroup analyses defined a priori. Certainty in effect estimates was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We identified four studies (I-Scan n = 730, HD-WLE n = 765). I-Scan increased adenoma detection by 9% (risk difference (RD), 0.09; 0.04, 0.14; I2 02%; certainty, low). Influence analysis revealed that the gain in yield remained statistically significant with exclusion of all but one study. The number needed to capture one additional adenomatous polyp with I-Scan use was 11.2. I-Scan 1 use was associated with a statistically significant gain in ADR, whereas no significant difference in ADR was noted with I-Scan use on subgroup analysis. DISCUSSION: In conclusion, I-Scan increases the yield of adenoma detection by 9% compared to HD-WLE, with low certainty in the estimate of this effect. Data on the gain in yield of detecting large polyps, sessile serrated lesions, and on the impact of formally training endoscopists and trainees in I-Scan use and similar technology on adenoma detection rate are needed.
Subject(s)
Adenoma , Colorectal Neoplasms , Polyps , Humans , Colonoscopy , Adenoma/diagnostic imaging , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , LightABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The relative utility of self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) insertion for malignant colon obstruction (MCO) due to extra-colonic malignancy (ECM) versus intra-colonic malignancy (ICM) is understudied. METHODS: A systematic search was done from inception-April 2021 to identify reports of safety and efficacy of SEMS insertion for the treatment of MCO-ECM versus MCO-ICM. A meta-analysis of proportions, comparative meta-analysis to compute relative risks (RR), and mean differences (MD) was performed. Subgroup analyses and influence analyses were conducted. The certainty in estimates of effect(s) was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Eight non-randomized studies were identified; 46% (39-53%) and 63% (59-67%) of patients in the ECM and ICM groups were male. Most obstructions were in the rectosigmoid colon in both ECM and ICM groups. SEMS insertion in MCO-ECM was associated with an increased risk of technical failure compared to MCO-ICM (RR 2.92; 1.13-7.54; Certainty: Very Low). Risk of clinical failure of SEMS was higher in MCO-ECM compared to MCO-ICM (RR 2.88; 1.58-2.52; Certainty: Very Low). The risk of clinical failure remained significant throughout the influence analysis, as well as on subgroup analysis. There was no significant difference in the risk of adverse events or luminal perforation with SEMS insertion among patients with MCO-ECM and MCO-ICM. On influence analysis, removal of one study unveiled a significant increase in the risk of luminal perforation in MCO-ECM (RR 3.22; 1.44-7.19; p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: SEMS for MCO-ECM may have a technical success rate comparable to or questionably worse than MCO-ICM, with low certainty in estimate of effects. SEMS deployment in MCO-ECM carries a higher risk of clinical failure, with a questionably higher risk of luminal perforation.
Subject(s)
Colonic Neoplasms , Intestinal Obstruction , Humans , Male , Female , Colonic Neoplasms/complications , Intestinal Obstruction/etiology , Intestinal Obstruction/surgery , Stents/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome , Retrospective Studies , Palliative CareABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Over the last few decades, advances have been made regarding gender equality starting from medical students to trainees, to leadership in academics. The female representation in specialty academic conferences not only reflects the existing gender disparities in that specialty but also can influence young female trainees to join that field. Digestive Disease Week (DDW) is the premier digestive disease event. We aimed to calculate the proportion of female representation among speakers and moderators at the DDW meetings held from 2018 to 2020. METHODS: The data for DDW 2018-2020 were collected via the online web-based planner. The gender of speakers of presentations and moderators of sessions were identified by a google search. We further categorized the data by each participating society (AGA, ASGE, AASLD, and SSAT), by presentation track, by session track, and total overall representation in each year. RESULTS: Despite the subject of the gender gap being in focus, the proportion of female moderators and speakers was low in DDW in the last 3 years. The female speakers constituted 31.6% in 2018, 33.8% in 2019 and 34.6% in 2020. There was slightly improved female representation in sessions of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Stomach, and Small Bowel Disorders, Microbiome in GI & Liver disease, and Basic Science over the last 3 years. CONCLUSION: Based on our study and those referenced in this article, we believe that strategies to promote the inclusivity of female moderators and speakers at DDW provide a huge opportunity to influence gender equity within GI.
Subject(s)
Congresses as Topic/trends , Gastroenterology/trends , Physicians, Women/trends , Digestive System Diseases , Humans , Societies, MedicalABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) 2010 guidelines for suspected choledocholithiasis were recently updated by proposing more specific criteria for selection of high-risk patients to undergo direct ERCP while advocating the use of additional imaging studies for intermediate- and low-risk individuals. We aim to compare the performance and diagnostic accuracy of 2019 versus 2010 ASGE criteria for suspected choledocholithiasis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of a prospectively maintained database (2013-2019) of over 10,000 ERCPs performed by 70 gastroenterologists in our 14-hospital system. We randomly selected 744 ERCPs in which the primary indication was suspected choledocholithiasis. Patients with a history of cholecystectomy or prior sphincterotomy were excluded. The same patient cohort was assigned as low, intermediate, or high risk according to the 2010 and 2019 guideline criteria. Overall accuracy of both guidelines was compared against the presence of stones and/or sludge on ERCP. RESULTS: Of 744 patients who underwent ERCP, 544 patients (73.1%) had definite stones during ERCP and 696 patients (93.5%) had stones and/or sludge during ERCP. When classified according to the 2019 guidelines, fewer patients were high risk (274/744, 36.8%) compared with 2010 guidelines (449/744, 60.4%; P < .001). Within the high-risk group per both guidelines, definitive stone was found during ERCP more frequently in the 2019 guideline cohort (226/274, 82.5%) compared with the 2010 guideline cohort (342/449, 76.2%; P < .001). In our patient cohort, overall specificity of the 2010 guideline was 46.5%, which improved to 76.0% as per 2019 guideline criteria (P < .001). However, no significant change was noted for either positive predictive value or negative predictive value between 2019 and 2010 guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The 2019 ASGE guidelines are more specific for detection of choledocholithiasis during ERCP when compared with the 2010 guidelines. However, a large number of patients are categorized as intermediate risk per 2019 guidelines and will require an additional confirmatory imaging study.
Subject(s)
Choledocholithiasis , Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde , Choledocholithiasis/diagnostic imaging , Delivery of Health Care , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal , Humans , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided liver biopsy is a novel technique to obtain adequate liver samples for diagnosis of liver parenchymal diseases. There are studies that have evaluated the feasibility and safety of EUS-guided parenchymal liver biopsy (EUS-LB), however, factors that can influence specimen quality are yet to be determined. Our aim was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-LB and evaluate factors associated with specimen quality. METHODS: We performed a detailed search of PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science™ databases to identify studies in which results of EUS-guided liver parenchymal biopsies were reported published up to July 2020. A random effects model was used to estimate pooled values (mean ± SE) for total specimen length (TSL) and complete portal tracts (CPT). Subgroup analyses were applied to find out the procedural factors associated with better specimen quality using Cochran's Q test. A total of 10 meta-analyses were done focusing on international studies. Total of 1326 patients who underwent EUS-LB. EUS-LBs performed for suspicion of parenchymal liver disease. Pooled mean values for TSL and CPT with subgroup analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies with a total of 1326 patients were included in our meta-analysis. Overall pooled mean TSL and CPT were 45.3 ± 4.6 mm and 15.8 ± 1.5, respectively. In subgroup analysis, core biopsy needles proved to better in terms of CPT than fine-needle aspiration needles (18.4 vs 10.99, p = 0.003). FNB with slow-pull or suction technique provided a similar TSL (44.3 vs 53.9 mm, p = 0.40), however, slow-pull technique was better in terms of CPT (30 vs 14.6, p < 0.001). Heterogeneity was present among the studies. Another limitation is the low number randomized control trials. CONCLUSION: EUS-guided parenchymal liver biopsy is a good alternative to other methods of liver sampling. Using FNB needles with a slow-pull technique can provide better results.
Subject(s)
Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration , Liver , Biopsy, Large-Core Needle , Humans , Image-Guided Biopsy , Liver/diagnostic imaging , Prospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Current society guidelines recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for 3 to 5 days after endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs). The overall quality of the evidence supporting this recommendation is low. In this study, we aimed to assess cyst infection and adverse event rates after EUS-FNA of PCLs among patients treated with or without postprocedural prophylactic antibiotics. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent EUS-FNA of PCLs between 2015 and 2019 at two large-volume academic medical centers with different practice patterns of postprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis. Data on patient demographics, cyst characteristics, fine-needle aspiration technique, periprocedural and postprocedural antibiotic prophylaxis, and adverse events were retrospectively extracted. RESULTS: A total of 470 EUS-FNA procedures were performed by experienced endosonographers for the evaluation of PCLs in 448 patients, 58.7% of whom were women. The mean age was 66.3±12.8 years. The mean cyst size was 25.7±16.9 mm. Postprocedural antibiotics were administered in 274 cases (POSTAB+ group, 58.3%) but not in 196 cases (POSTAB- group, 41.7%). None of the patients in either group developed systemic or localized infection within the 30-day follow-up period. Procedure-related adverse events included mild abdominal pain (8 patients), intra-abdominal hematoma (1 patient), mild pancreatitis (1 patient), and perforation (1 patient). One additional case of pancreatitis was recorded; however, the patient also underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. CONCLUSION: The incidence of infection after EUS-FNA of PCLs is negligible. Routine use of postprocedural antibiotics does not add a significant benefit.
ABSTRACT
Recurring, exudative, lymphocytic-predominant pleural effusions have not been previously reported in association with walled-off pancreatic necrosis. We present a case of chronic pancreatitis complicated by a large pancreatic fluid collection and recurrent pleural effusion. Endoscopic drainage of the walled-off pancreatic necrosis was the definitive treatment for both fluid collections.