The First Study Evaluating Effectiveness and Safety of the Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty in HIV Patients.

The authors evaluated, retrospectively, the endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty impact in seven HIV patients, regarding effectiveness and safety outcomes. The mean baseline body mass index (BMI) was 33.76 kg/m2. The mean baseline CD4+ cell count was 690.43 cells/mm3, and the baseline viral load was undetectable. After 6 months, absolute weight loss, percentage of excess weight loss, percentage total weight loss, and BMI reduction were 20.2 ± 2.6 kg, 85.5 ± 11.1%, 21.3 ± 2.4%, and 7.1 ± 0.8 kg/m2, respectively. No patients presented severe adverse events. After 6 months, the viral load remained undetectable and the mean CD4+ cell count was 710.57 cells/mm3. The endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty is an effective and safe procedure to perform in obese HIV patients.

Gastrointestinal ischemia: endoscopic findings in the context of vascular insufficiency

Gastrointestinal ischemia may result from different causes: hemodynamic shock, thromboembolism, endoscopic or surgical complications, among other causes. Its symptoms are pain, vomiting, bleeding and bloating. Endoscopic findings are pale or blackened mucosa, and exudative and confluent ulcerative lesions. This paper aims to report a case of gastroduodenal ischemia associated with hemodynamic shock and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). This is a case of a 56-yearsold male with multiple comorbidities, presenting with refractory septic shock and DIC. He underwent an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) for investigation of melena, which revealed an extensive deep and exudative gastric ulcer, associated with edematous purplish duodenal mucosa. Due to the severity of the underlying condition, the patient evolved to death, evidencing septic shock as cause of death. Gastroduodenal ischemia is associated with a poor prognosis, in which early diagnosis by UGE is fundamental to guide potential interventions.

La isquemia gastroduodenal puede resultar por diferentes causas: shock hemodinámico, tromboembolismo, complicaciones post-procedimientos endoscópicos o quirúrgicos, entre otras. Sus síntomas son dolor, vómito, hemorragia y distensión abdominal. Los hallazgos endoscópicos son mucosa pálida o ennegrecida, lesiones ulcerativas exudativas y confluentes. Este trabajo relata un caso de isquemia gastrointestinal, asociada a choque hemodinámico y coagulación intravascular diseminada (CID). Este es un caso de un hombre de 56 años de edad, con múltiples comorbilidades, que presenta con shock séptico refractario a tratamiento y CID. El paciente se sometió a una endoscopia digestiva alta (EDA) para la investigación de melena, que reveló una extensa úlcera gástrica exudativa y profunda, asociada con mucosa duodenal violácea e inflamada. Debido a la gravedad de la enfermedad de base, el paciente evolucionó a la muerte, siendo el shock séptico como causa principal. La isquemia gastrointestinal es asociada a un mal pronóstico, en el que el diagnóstico precoz por EDA es fundamental para orientar las posibles intervenciones.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided vs endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography biliary drainage for obstructed distal malignant biliary strictures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: For palliation of malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), the gold-standard method of biliary drainage is endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with the placement of metallic stents. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage is an alternative that is typically reserved for cases of ERCP failure. Recently, however, there have been robust randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing EUS-guided drainage and ERCP as primary approaches to MBO. AIM: To compare EUS guidance and ERCP in terms of their effectiveness and safety in palliative biliary drainage for MBO. METHODS: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis, in which we searched the MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Only RCTs comparing EUS and ERCP for primary drainage of MBO were eligible. All of the studies selected provided data regarding the rates of technical and clinical success, as well as the duration of the procedure, adverse events, and stent patency. We assessed the risk of biases using the Jadad score and the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. RESULTS: The database searches yielded 5920 records, from which we selected 3 RCTs involving a total of 222 patients (112 submitted to EUS and 110 submitted to ERCP). In the EUS and ERCP groups, the rate of technical success was 91.96% and 91.81%, respectively, with a risk difference (RD) of 0.00% (95%CI: -0.07, 0.07; P = 0.97; I 2 = 0%). The clinical success was 84.81% and 85.53% in the EUS and ERCP groups, respectively, with an RD of -0.01% (95%CI: -0.12, 0.10; P = 0.90; I 2 = 0%). The mean difference (MD) for the duration of the procedure was -0.12% (95%CI: -8.20, 7.97; P = 0.98; I 2 = 84%). In the EUS and ERCP groups, there were 14 and 25 adverse events, respectively, with an RD of -0.06% (95%CI: -0.23, 0.12; P = 0.54; I 2 = 77%). The MD for stent patency was 9.32% (95%CI: -4.53, 23.18; P = 0.19; I 2 = 44%). The stent dysfunction rate was significantly lower in the EUS group (MD = -0.22%; 95CI:-0.35, -0.08; P = 0.001; I 2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: EUS represents an interesting alternative to ERCP for MBO drainage, demonstrating lower stent dysfunction rates compared with ERCP. Technical and clinical success, duration, adverse events and patency rates were similar.

Endoscopic Dilation with Bougies versus Balloon Dilation in Esophageal Benign Strictures: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of bougies and balloons to dilate benign esophageal strictures (BES) is a consolidated procedure. However, the amount of evidence available in scientific literature supporting which is the best technique is very low, despite the great prevalence and importance of such pathology. This systematic review with meta-analysis aims at comparing both techniques, providing good quality of evidence. METHODS: We searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published from insertion to November 2017, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, and grey literature. After the data extraction, a meta-analysis was performed. The main outcomes were symptomatic relief and recurrence rate. The secondary outcomes were bleeding, perforation, and postprocedure pain. RESULTS: We included 5 randomized clinical trials (RCTs), totalizing 461 patients. Among them, 151 were treated with bougie dilation and 225 underwent balloon dilation. Regarding symptomatic relief, recurrence, bleeding, and perforation rates, there were no differences between the methods. Concerning postprocedure pain, patients submitted to balloon dilation had less intense pain (RD 0.27, 95% IC -0.42 to -0.07, P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: We conclude that there is no difference between bougie and balloon dilation of BESs regarding symptomatic relief, recurrence rate at 12 months, bleeding, and perforation. Patients undergoing balloon dilation present less severe postprocedure pain.