Is Endoscopic Therapy Effective for Angioectasia in Obscure Gastrointestinal Bleeding?: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

GOAL: We aimed to summarize pooled rebleeding rates of angioectasia after therapeutic endoscopy, and compare these to historical control (no intervention) rates. BACKGROUND: Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding continues to be challenging to diagnose and treat; in America, small bowel angioectasias are the most common cause. Technology advances led to higher diagnostic yield for these lesions; however, therapeutic impact of endoscopy remains unclear. STUDY: A PubMed search (June 1, 2006 to September 19, 2013) with 2 independent reviews sought articles reporting rebleeding rates of symptomatic angioectasia without therapy (natural history) and after endoscopic treatment. This study list was added to studies in the 2007 American Gastroenterological Association systematic review. Data on number of patients who underwent endoscopic therapy, type of therapy used, number of patients who experienced rebleeding, and follow-up time were extracted. Rebleeding data were pooled and weighted averages were reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Twenty-four articles (n=490 patients) with data on endoscopic therapy for angioectasia and 6 natural history cohorts (n=130) receiving no therapy for angioectasia were eligible. Of the endoscopic therapy patients, 121 at push enteroscopy and 427 at balloon-assisted enteroscopy; 209/490 (42.7%; 95% CI, 38%-47%) rebled. Of the control (no therapy) patients, 64/130 (49.2%; 95% CI, 40%-58%) rebled. Number needed to treat is estimated at 15 to 16. CONCLUSIONS: Rebleeding rate after endoscopic therapy for symptomatic small bowel angioectasia may be comparable to that expected without therapy. Endoscopic therapy may be ineffective; if effective, the needed to treat is estimated to be high. Controlled studies, with intervention-stratified and etiology-stratified outcomes are needed.

Impact of biliary stents on EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic mass lesions.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the impact of biliary stents on EUS-guided FNA. AIM: To compare diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA in patients with or without biliary stents. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Patients with obstructive jaundice secondary to solid pancreatic mass lesions who underwent EUS-FNA over 5 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary objective was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA in patients with or without biliary stents and between patients with plastic stents or self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs). Secondary objectives were to assess the technical difficulty of EUS-FNA by comparing the number of passes required to establish diagnosis and to identify predictors of a false-negative diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 214 patients who underwent EUS-FNA, 150 (70%) had biliary stents and 64 (30%) had no stents in place. Of 150 patients with biliary stents, 105 (70%) were plastic and 45 (30%) were SEMSs. At EUS-FNA, the diagnosis was pancreatic cancer in 155 (72%), chronic pancreatitis in 17 (8%), other cancer in 31 (14%), and indeterminate in 11 (5%). There was no difference in rates of diagnostic accuracy between patients with or without stents (93.7% vs 95.3%; P = .73) and between plastic or SEMSs (95.2% vs 95.5%, P = .99), respectively. Median number of passes to diagnosis was not significantly different between patients with or without stents (2 [interquartile ratio range (IQR) = 1-3] vs 2 [IQR = 1-4]; P = .066) and between plastic or SEMS (2.5 [IQR = 1-4] vs 2 [IQR = 1-4], P = .69), respectively. On univariate analysis, EUS-FNA results were false-negative in patients with large pancreatic masses (>3 cm vs <3 cm, 9.35% vs 0.93%, P = .005) that required more FNA passes (<2 vs >2 passes, 0% vs 11.8%, P < .0001). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study. CONCLUSIONS: The presence or absence of a biliary stent, whether plastic or metal, does not have an impact on the diagnostic yield or technical difficulty of EUS-FNA.