Prehabilitation in patients awaiting liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Frailty, malnutrition and sarcopenia lead to a significant increase in morbidity and mortality before and after liver transplantation (LT). Prehabilitation attempts to optimize physical fitness of individuals before major surgeries. To date, little is known about its impact on patients awaiting LT. AIMS: The aim of our scoping review was to describe whether prehabilitation in patients awaiting LT is feasible and safe, and whether it leads to a change in clinical parameters before or after transplantation. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature from 1946 to November 2023 to identify prospective studies and randomized controlled trials of adult LT candidates who participated in an exercise training program. RESULTS: Out of 3262 citations initially identified, six studies were included. Studies were heterogeneous in design, patient selection, intervention, duration, and outcomes assessed. All studies were self-described as pilot or feasibility studies and had a sample size ranging from 13 to 33. Two studies were randomized controlled trials. Two study restricted to patients with cirrhosis who were eligible for liver transplantation or on the transplant list. Exercise programs lasted between 6 and 12 weeks. In terms of feasibility, proportion of eligible patients that were recruited was between 54 and 100%. Program completion ranged between 38 and 90%. Interventions appeared safe with 9 (9.2%) adverse events noted. In the intervention group, improvements were generally noted in peak oxygen consumption and workload, 6-min walking distance, and muscle strength. One study suggested a decrease in post-transplant hospital length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, it appears that prehabilitation with exercise training is feasible, and safe in patients awaiting LT. Higher quality and larger studies are needed to confirm its impact on pre- and post-transplantation-related outcomes.

Primary and Specialty Care Trainees' Perceptions About Proton Pump Inhibitor Use.

OBJECTIVE: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely prescribed with proven efficacy in many indications, yet longstanding controversy about potential adverse events persists. We aimed to acquire knowledge about perceptions of outpatient PPI long-term prescribing (≥8 wk) among primary and specialty care trainees at 2 Canadian Universities. METHODS: Family medicine, internal medicine, and gastroenterology trainees completed a web-based survey that included 20 clinical scenarios assessing trainee knowledge about PPI efficacy. Contextual PPI prescribing decisions were also elicited, balancing possible PPI indications versus side effects. Management strategies were compared between junior and senior trainees, as well as across training programs. RESULTS: Over a 4-month period,163 trainees (age <26 y: 12%; age 26 to 45: 88%; 59% females) participated in the survey (family medicine: 51%, internal medicine: 44%, and gastroenterology: 5%); 83% were considered junior residents. Only 42% had received formal education on prescribing PPI long-term. Overall, 93% believed they would benefit from such teaching, with 98% stating they would follow related guidelines. No between-group differences were noted in knowledge of appropriate PPI indications nor possible side effects when comparing juniors to seniors, or among different specialties. Across different management scenarios, inappropriate PPI discontinuation was chosen by 14.3% to 67.2%, whereas inappropriate PPI continuation was reported in up to 57%. Trainee seniority and specialty did not differ in appropriate deprescribing rates. CONCLUSIONS: Training level and primary versus specialty care settings are associated with frequent inappropriate PPI prescribing and deprescribing. These findings highlight the need for and may inform future educational programs on PPI usage.

Aspirin exposure and its association with metal stent patency in malignant distal biliary obstruction: a large international multicenter propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Stent dysfunction is common after ERCP with self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) insertion for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). Chronic aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid; ASA) exposure has been previously shown to potentially decrease this risk. We aim to further ascertain the protective effect of ASA and to identify other predictors of stent dysfunction. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted at 9 sites in Canada and 1 in the United States. Patients with MDBO who underwent ERCP with SEMS placement between January 2014 and December 2019 were included and divided into 2 cohorts: ASA exposed (ASA-E) and ASA unexposed (ASA-U). Propensity-score matching (PSM) was performed to limit selection bias. Matched variables were age, sex, tumor stage, and type of metal stent. The primary outcome was the hazard rate of stent dysfunction. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independent predictors of stent dysfunction. RESULTS: Of 1396 patients assessed, after PSM 496 patients were analyzed (248 ASA-E and 248 ASA-U). ERCP with SEMS placement was associated with a high clinical success of 82.2% in ASA-E and 81.2% in ASA-U cohorts (P = .80). One hundred eighty-four patients had stent dysfunction with a mean stent patency time of 229.9 ± 306.2 days and 245.4 ± 241.4 days in ASA-E and ASA-U groups, respectively (P = .52). On multivariable analysis, ASA exposure did not protect against stent dysfunction (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], .96-1.63). An etiology of pancreatic cancer (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.15-1.61) predicted stent dysfunction, whereas cancer therapy was protective (HR, .73; 95% CI, .55-.96). Chronic ASA use was not associated with an increased risk for adverse events including bleeding, post-ERCP pancreatitis, and perforation. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, multicenter study using PSM, chronic exposure to ASA did not protect against stent dysfunction in MDBO. Instead, the analysis revealed that the etiology of pancreatic cancer was an independent predictor of stent dysfunction and cancer therapy was protective.

EUS-guided gastroenterostomy vs. surgical gastrojejunostomy and enteral stenting for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (MGOO) is traditionally treated with surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ), which is effective but associated with high rates of morbidity, or endoscopic stenting (ES), which is less invasive but associated with significant risk of stent dysfunction and need for reintervention. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) provides a robust bypass without the invasiveness of surgery. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing EUS-GE to SGJ and ES for MGOO. Electronic databases were searched from inception through February 2022. A meta-analysis was performed with results reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random effects models. Primary outcomes included clinical success without recurrent GOO and adverse events (AEs). Results Sixteen studies involving 1541 patients were included. EUS-GE was associated with higher clinical success without recurrent GOO compared to ES or SGJ [OR 2.60, 95% CI1.58-4.28] and compared to ES alone [OR 5.08, 95% CI 3.42-7.55], but yielded no significant difference compared to SGJ alone [OR 1.94, 95% CI 0.97-3.88]. AE rates were significantly lower for EUS-GE compared to ES or SGJ grouped together [OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.20-0.58], or SGJ alone [OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.10-0.30] but were not significant different versus ES alone [OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.29-1.14]. Conclusions EUS-GE is the most successful approach to treating MGOO, exhibiting a lower risk of recurrent obstruction compared to ES, and fewer AEs compared to SGJ.

The impact of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease on inflammatory bowel disease-related hospitalization outcomes: a systematic review.

Evidence suggests that patients with inflammatory bowel disease are at higher risk of developing nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). However, there is limited information currently available on how NAFLD may affect the clinical course of IBD. Thus, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate the impact of NAFLD on IBD-related hospitalization outcomes. All observational studies assessing IBD-related hospitalization outcomes in patients with NAFLD were included. Exclusion criteria were studies published in languages other than English or French, or those involving pediatric population. Outcomes included IBD-related hospitalization and readmission rates, need for surgery, length of stay, inpatient mortality, and costs. Overall, 3252 citations were retrieved and seven studies met the inclusion criteria (1 574 937 patients); all were observational, of high quality, and originated in the United States. Measurable outcomes reported in these studies were few and with insufficient similarity across studies to complete a quantitative assessment. Only one study reports NAFLD severity. Two studies suggested a higher rate of hospitalization for patients with both NAFLD and IBD compared to IBD alone (incidence rate ratio of 1.54; 95% confidence interval: 1.33-1.79). This is the first systematic review to date that evaluates any possible association of NAFLD with IBD-related hospitalization outcomes. Despite the paucity and low quality of available data, our findings indicate that NAFLD may be associated with worse outcomes amongst IBD patients (especially Crohn's disease). Further and higher certainty of evidence is needed for better characterization of such clinical impact.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage of First Intent With a Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent vs Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study (ELEMENT Trial).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy with a lumen-apposing metal stent (EUS-CDS) is a promising modality for management of malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) with potential for better stent patency. We compared its outcomes with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with metal stenting (ERCP-M). METHODS: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, we recruited patients with MDBO secondary to borderline resectable, locally advanced, or unresectable peri-ampullary cancers across 10 Canadian institutions and 1 French institution. This was a superiority trial with a noninferiority assessment of technical success. Patients were randomized to EUS-CDS or ERCP-M. The primary end point was the rate of stent dysfunction at 1 year, considering competing risks of death, clinical failure, and surgical resection. Analyses were performed according to intention-to-treat principles. RESULTS: From February 2019 to February 2022, 144 patients were recruited; 73 were randomized to EUS-CDS and 71 were randomized to ERCP-M. The mean (SD) procedure time was 14.0 (11.4) minutes for EUS-CDS and 23.1 (15.6) minutes for ERCP-M (P < .01); 40% of the former was performed without fluoroscopy. Technical success was achieved in 90.4% (95% CI, 81.5% to 95.3%) of EUS-CDS and 83.1% (95% CI, 72.7% to 90.1%) of ERCP-M with a risk difference of 7.3% (95% CI, -4.0% to 18.8%) indicating noninferiority. Stent dysfunction occurred in 9.6% vs 9.9% of EUS-CDS and ERCP-M cases, respectively (P = .96). No differences in adverse events, pancreaticoduodenectomy and oncologic outcomes, or quality of life were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Although not superior in stent function, EUS-CDS is an efficient and safe alternative to ERCP-M in patients with MDBO. These findings provide evidence for greater adoption of EUS-CDS in clinical practice as a complementary and exchangeable first-line modality to ERCP in patients with MDBO. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT03870386.

Pre-Endoscopic Scores Predicting Low-Risk Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several risk scores have attempted to risk stratify patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) who are at a lower risk of requiring hospital-based interventions or negative outcomes including death. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare predictive abilities of pre-endoscopic scores in prognosticating the absence of adverse events in patients with UGIB. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central, and ISI Web of knowledge from inception to February 2023. All fully published studies assessing a pre-endoscopic score in patients with UGIB were included. The primary outcome was a composite score for the need of a hospital-based intervention (endoscopic therapy, surgery, angiography, or blood transfusion). Secondary outcomes included: mortality, rebleeding, or the individual endpoints of the composite outcome. Both proportional and comparative analyses were performed. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies were included from 2153 citations, (n = 36,215 patients). Few patients with a low Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) cutoff (0, ≤1 and ≤2) required hospital-based interventions (0.02 (0.01, 0.05), 0.04 (0.02, 0.09) and 0.03 (0.02, 0.07), respectively). The proportions of patients with clinical Rockall (CRS = 0) and ABC (≤3) scores requiring hospital-based intervention were 0.19 (0.15, 0.24) and 0.69 (0.62, 0.75), respectively. GBS (cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2), CRS (cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2), AIMS65 (cutoffs 0 and ≤1) and ABC (cutoffs ≤1 and ≤3) scores all were associated with few patients (0.01-0.04) dying. The proportion of patients suffering other secondary outcomes varied between scoring systems but, in general, was lowest for the GBS. GBS (using cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2) showed excellent discriminative ability in predicting the need for hospital-based interventions (OR 0.02, (0.00, 0.16), 0.00 (0.00, 0.02) and 0.01 (0.00, 0.01), respectively). A CRS cutoff of 0 was less discriminative. For the other secondary outcomes, discriminative abilities varied between scores but, in general, the GBS (using cutoffs up to 2) was clinically useful for most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A GBS cut-off of one or less prognosticated low-risk patients the best. Expanding the GBS cut-off to 2 maintains prognostic accuracy while allowing more patients to be managed safely as outpatients. The evidence is limited by the number, homogeneity, quality, and generalizability of available data and subjectivity of deciding on clinical impact. Additional, comparative and, ideally, interventional studies are needed.

Strengths and limitations of risk stratification tools for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a narrative review.

INTRODUCTION: Despite advances in the management of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), associated morbidity and mortality remain significant. Most patients, however, will experience favorable outcomes without a need for hospital-based interventions. Risk assessment scores may assist in such early risk-stratification. These scales may optimize identification of low-risk patients, resulting in better resource utilization, including a reduced need for early endoscopy and fewer hospital admissions. The aim of this article is to provide an updated detailed review of risk assessment scores in UGIB. AREA COVERED: A literature review identified past and currently available pre-endoscopic risk assessment scores for UGIB, with a focus on low-risk prediction. Strengths and weaknesses of the different scales are discussed as well as their impact on clinical decision-making. EXPERT OPINION: The current evidence supports using the Glasgow Blatchford Score as it is the most accurate tool available when attempting to identify low-risk patients who can be safely managed on an outpatient basis. Currently, no risk assessment tool appears accurate enough in confidently classifying patients as high risk. Future research should utilize more standardized methodologies, while favoring interventional trial designs to better characterize the clinical impact attributable to the use of such risk stratification schemes.

A Simple Admission Order-set Improves Adherence to Canadian Guidelines for Hospitalized Patients With Severe Ulcerative Colitis.

Background: Individuals hospitalized with severe ulcerative colitis represent a complex group of patients. Variation exists in the quality of care of admitted patients with inflammatory bowel disease. We hypothesized that implementation of a standardized admission order set could result in improved adherence to current best practice guidelines (Toronto Consensus Statements) for the management of this patient population. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of patients admitted with severe ulcerative colitis to a Montreal tertiary center was conducted. Two cohorts were defined based on pre- and post-implementation of a standardized order set. Adherence to 11 quality indicators was assessed before and after implementation of the intervention. These included: Clostridioides difficile and stool cultures testing, ordering an abdominal X-ray and CRP, organizing a flexible sigmoidoscopy, documenting latent tuberculosis, initiating thromboprophylaxis, use of intravenous steroids, prescribing infliximab if refractory to steroids, limiting narcotics, and surgical consultation if refractory to medical therapy. Results: Adherence to 6 of the 11 quality indicators was improved in the post-intervention cohort. Significant increases were noted in adherence to C difficile testing (75.5% versus 91.9%, P < 0.05), CRP testing (71.4% versus 94.6%, P < 0.01), testing for latent tuberculosis (38.1% versus 84.6%, P < 0.01), thromboprophylaxis (28.6% versus 94.6%, P < 0.01), adequate corticosteroids prescription (72.9% versus 94.6%, P < 0.01), and limitation of narcotics prescribed (68.8% versus 38.9%, P < 0.01). Conclusions: Implementation of a standardized order set, focused on pre-defined quality indicators for hospitalized patients with severe UC, was associated with meaningful improvements to most quality indicators defined by the Toronto Consensus Statements.

Topical hemostatic agents in the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Novel topical hemostatic agents have shown promising results in treating patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). However, data are limited even in published meta-analyses as to their role, especially compared to conventional endoscopic approaches. The aim of this study was to perform a highly comprehensive systematic review assessing the effectiveness of topical hemostatic agents in UGIB in different clinical settings. Methods We performed a literature search of OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Knowledge databases through September 2021. Studies assessing the efficacy of topical hemostatic agents in UGIB were included. Main outcomes were immediate hemostasis and overall rebleeding. Results A total of 980 citations were identified and 59 studies with a total of 3,417 patients were included in the analysis. Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 93 % (91 %; 94 %), with similar results according to etiology (NVUGIB vs. variceal), topical agent used, or treatment strategy (primary vs. rescue). The overall rebleeding rate was 18 % (15%; 21 %) with the majority of rebleeds occurring in the first 7 days. Among comparative studies, topical agents achieved immediate hemostasis more often than standard endoscopic modalities (OR 3.94 [1.73; 8.96), with non-different overall rebleeding odds (OR 1.06 [0.65; 1.74]). Adverse events occurred in 2 % (1 %; 3 %). Study quality was overall low to very low. Conclusions Topical hemostatic agents are effective and safe in the management of UGIB with favorable outcomes when compared to conventional endoscopic modalities across a variety of bleeding etiologies. This is especially true in novel subgroup analyses that assessed immediate hemostasis and rebleeding among RCTs and in malignant bleeding. Due to methodological limitations of available data, additional studies are needed to ascertain their effectiveness more confidently in the management of patients with UGIB.

Comparative Evaluation of the ABC Score to Other Risk Stratification Scales in Managing High-risk Patients Presenting With Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

OBJECTIVE: The ABC risk score identifies patients at high risk of mortality in acute lower and upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). We aimed to externally validate the ABC score while comparing it to other prognostication scales when assessing UGIB patients at high risk of negative outcomes before endoscopy. METHODS: UGIB patients from a national Canadian registry (REASON) were studied, with mortality prediction as a primary outcome. Secondary endpoints included prognostication of rebleeding, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ICU and hospitalization lengths of stay (LOS), and a previously proposed composite outcome measure. Univariable and areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve analyses compared discriminatory abilities of the ABC score to the AIMS65, Glasgow Blatchford Scale (GBS), and clinical Rockall score. RESULTS: The REASON registry included 2020 patients [89.4% nonvariceal; mean age (±SD): 66.3±16.4 y; 38.4% female]. Overall mortality, rebleeding, ICU admission, transfusion and composite score rates were 9.9%, 11.4%, 21.1%, 69.0%, and 67.3%, respectively. ICU and hospitalization LOS were 5.4±9.3 and 9.1±11.5 days, respectively. The ABC score displayed superior 30-day mortality prediction [0.78 (0.73; 0.83)] compared with GBS [0.69 (0.63; 0.75)] or clinical Rockall [0.64 (0.58; 0.70)] but not AIMS65 [0.73 (0.67; 0.79)]. Although most scales significantly prognosticated secondary outcomes in the univariable analysis except for ICU LOS, discriminatory abilities on areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were poor. CONCLUSIONS: ABC and AIMS65 display similar good prediction of mortality. Clinical usefulness in prognosticating secondary outcomes was modest for all scales, limiting their adoptions when informing early management of high-risk UGIB patients.

Mandatory vs. optional split-dose bowel preparation for morning colonoscopies: a pragmatic noninferiority randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND : We compared the effectiveness of optional split-dose bowel preparation (SDBP) with mandatory SDBP for morning colonoscopies in usual clinical practice. METHODS : Adult patients undergoing outpatient early morning (8:00 AM-10:30 PM) and late morning (10:30 AM-12:00 PM) colonoscopies were included. Written bowel preparation instructions were provided based on randomization: one group were instructed to take their bowel preparation (4 L polyethylene glycol solution) as a split dose (mandatory), while the comparator group was allowed the choice of SDBP or single-dose bowel preparation administered entirely on the day before (optional). The primary end point, using noninferiority hypothesis testing with a 5 % margin, was adequate bowel cleanliness measured by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and defined by a BBPS score ≥ 6. RESULTS : Among 770 randomized patients with complete data, there were 267 mandatory SDBP and 265 optional SDBP patients for early morning colonoscopies, and 120 mandatory SDBP and 118 optional SDBP patients for late morning colonoscopies. Optional SDBP was inferior to mandatory SDBP, with a lower proportion of adequate BBPS cleanliness for early morning colonoscopies (78.9 % vs. 89.9 %; absolute risk difference [aRD] 11.0 %, 95 %CI 5.9 % to 16.1 %), but was not statistically different for late morning colonoscopies (76.3 % vs. 83.3 %; aRD 7.1 %, 95 %CI -1.5 % to 15.5 %). CONCLUSIONS : Optional SDBP is inferior to mandatory SDBP in providing adequate bowel preparation quality for early morning colonoscopies (8:00 AM-10:30 AM), and probably inferior for late morning colonoscopies (10:30 AM-12:00 PM).

EUS-guided biliary drainage in malignant distal biliary obstruction: An international survey to identify barriers of technology implementation.

Background and Objectives: EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a promising alternative to ERCP in malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). Despite accumulating data, however, its application in clinical practice has been impeded by undefined barriers. This study aims to evaluate the practice of EUS-BD and its barriers. Methods: An online survey was generated using Google Forms. Six gastroenterology/endoscopy associations were contacted between July 2019 and November 2019. Survey questions measured participant characteristics, EUS-BD in different clinical scenarios, and potential barriers. The primary outcome was the uptake of EUS-BD as a first-line modality, without previous ERCP attempts, in patients with MDBO. Results: Overall, 115 respondents completed the survey (2.9% response rate). Respondents were from North America (39.2%), Asia (28.6%), Europe (20%), and other jurisdictions (12.2%). Regarding the uptake of EUS-BD as first-line treatment for MDBO, only 10.5% of respondents would consider EUS-BD as a first-line modality regularly. The main concerns were the lack of high-quality data, fear of adverse events, and limited access to EUS-BD dedicated devices. On multivariable analysis, lack of access to EUS-BD expertise was an independent predictor against the use of EUS-BD, odds ratio 0.16 (95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.65). In salvage situations following failed ERCP, most favored EUS-BD (40.9%) over percutaneous drainage (21.7%) in unresectable cancer. In borderline resectable or locally advanced disease, however, most favored the percutaneous approach due to fear of EUS-BD complicating future surgery. Conclusions: EUS-BD has not reached widespread clinical adoption. Identified barriers include lack of high-quality data, fear of adverse events, and lack of access to EUS-BD dedicated devices. Fear of complicating future surgery was also identified as a barrier in potentially resectable disease.

Periprocedural Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Receiving a Direct Oral Anticoagulant Undergoing a Digestive Endoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: The periprocedural management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) using a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) undergoing elective gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedure remains uncertain. We investigated the safety of a standardized periprocedural DOAC management strategy. METHODS: The Periprocedural Anticoagulation Use for Surgery Evaluation cohort study enrolled adult patients receiving a DOAC (apixaban, rivaroxaban, or dabigatran) for AF scheduled for an elective procedure or surgery. This analysis addresses patients undergoing digestive endoscopy. Standardized periprocedural management consisted of DOAC interruption 1 day preendoscopy with resumption 1 day after procedure at low-moderate risk of bleeding or 2 days in case of a high bleeding risk. Thirty-day outcomes included GI bleeding, thromboembolic events, and mortality. RESULTS: Of 556 patients on a DOAC (mean [SD] age of 72.5 [8.6] years; 37.4% female; mean CHADS 2 score 1.7 [1.0]), 8.6% were also on American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) and 0.7% on clopidogrel. Most of the patients underwent colonoscopies (63.3%) or gastroscopies (14.0%), with 18.9% having both on the same procedural day. The mean total duration of DOAC interruption was 3.9 ± 1.6 days. Four patients experienced an arterial thromboembolic event (0.7%, 0.3%-1.8%) within 24.2 ± 5.9 days of DOAC interruption. GI bleeding events occurred in 2.5% (1.4%-4.2%) within 11.1 ± 8.1 days (range: 0.6; 25.5 days) of endoscopy, with major GI bleeding in 0.9% (0.4%-2.1%). Three patients died (0.5%; 0.2%-1.6%) 15.6-22.3 days after the endoscopy. DISCUSSION: After a contemporary standardized periprocedural management strategy, patients with AF undergoing DOAC therapy interruption for elective digestive endoscopy experienced low rates of arterial thromboembolism and major bleeding.

Role of the endoscopic Doppler probe in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of the Doppler endoscopic probe (DEP) remains unclear in nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). We thus performed a systematic review characterizing the effectiveness of DEP in patients with NVUGIB addressing this question. METHODS: A literature search was done until July 2021 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science. A series of meta-analyses were performed assessing outcomes among observational and interventional studies for DEP signal positive and negative lesions as well as DEP-assisted versus standard endoscopies. The primary outcome was "overall rebleeding"; secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, bleeding-related mortality, need for surgery, length of stay, intensive care unit stay, and angiography. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included from 1911 citations identified. Observational studies compared bleeding lesions with DEP-positive versus DEP-negative signals (11 studies, n = 800 prehemostasis; five studies, n = 148 with posthemostasis data). Three interventional studies (n = 308) compared DEP-assisted to standard endoscopy management. DEP signal positive versus negative lesions either prior to or following any possible hemostasis were at greater risk of overall rebleeding (odds ratio [OR] 6.54 [2.36, 18.11] and OR 25.96 [6.74, 100.0], respectively). The use of DEP during upper endoscopy significantly reduced overall rebleeding rates (OR 0.27 [0.14, 0.54]). When removing outcomes analysis for which only one study was available, all evaluable outcomes were improved with DEP characterization of management guidance except for all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: Although with low certainty evidence, DEP-related information improves on sole visual prediction of rebleeding in NVUGIB, with DEP-guided management yielding decreased overall rebleeding, bleeding-related mortality, and need for surgery.

Sleep Disturbances, Bowel Movement Kinetics, and Travel Interruption With Bowel Preparation: A Bowel CLEANsing National Initiative Substudy.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated sleep disturbances, bowel movement (BM) kinetics, and travel experience with different bowel preparation regimens in a substudy of patients enrolled in a randomized multicenter Canadian clinical trial. METHODS: Patients scheduled to have a colonoscopy between 7:30 am and 10:30 am (early morning) were randomized to (i) 4-L single-dose polyethylene glycol (PEG) given in the evening before, (ii) 2-L split-dose PEG (+bisacodyl 15 mg), or (iii) 4-L split-dose PEG. Patients scheduled to undergo a colonoscopy between 10:30 am and 4:30 pm (afternoon) were randomized to (iv) 2-L single-dose PEG (+bisacodyl 15 mg) in the morning, (v) 2-L split-dose PEG (+bisacodyl 15 mg), or (vi) 4-L split-dose PEG. Patients were asked to record information on BM kinetics, sleep, and travel to the endoscopy unit. Continuous and categorical variables were compared between groups using a Kruskal-Wallis test or χ 2 test, respectively. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed. RESULTS: Overall, 641 patients were included in this substudy. Patients undergoing early morning colonoscopies reported the most awakenings in the night when assigned to 4-L single-dose day-before PEG and the highest reduction in sleep hours when assigned to 4-L split-dose PEG. There were no significant between-group differences in urgent BMs, fecal incontinence episodes, or travel interruptions. Overall, 17% of those traveling for more than an hour had to stop for a BM during travel, with no significant difference between groups. DISCUSSION: Day-before and split-dose high-volume PEG regimens for colonoscopies scheduled before 10:30 am lead to the greatest sleep disturbance.

Review article: obesity and colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a growing global public health problem. More than half the European and North American population is overweight or obese. Colon and rectum cancers are still the second leading cause of cancer death worldwide, and epidemiological data support an association between obesity and colorectal cancers (CRCs). AIM: To review the literature on CRC epidemiology in obese subjects, assessing the effects of obesity, including childhood or maternal obesity, on CRC, diagnosis, management, and prognosis, and discussing targeted prophylactic measures. METHOD: We searched PubMed for obesity/overweight/metabolic syndrome and CRC. Other key words included 'staging', 'screening', 'treatment', 'weight loss', 'bariatric surgery' and 'chemotherapy'. RESULTS: In Europe, about 11% of CRCs are attributed to overweight and obesity. Epidemiological data suggest that obesity is associated with a 30%-70% increased risk of colon cancer in men, the association being less consistent in women. Visceral fat or abdominal obesity seems to be of greater concern than subcutaneous fat obesity, and any 1 kg/m2 increase in body mass index confers more risk (hazard ratio 1.03). Obesity might increase the likelihood of recurrence or mortality of the primary cancer and may affect initial management, including accurate staging. The risk maybe confounded by different factors, including lower adherence to organised CRC screening programmes. It is unclear whether bariatric surgery helps reduce rectal cancer risk. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a growing body of evidence linking obesity to CRC, many questions remain unanswered, including whether we should screen patients with obesity earlier or propose prophylactic bariatric surgery for certain patients with obesity.

Preoperative Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine Needle Aspiration Versus Upfront Surgery in Resectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical Outcomes Including Survival and Risk of Tumor Recurrence.

Background and Aim: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the standard of care in advanced pancreatic cancer. Its role in resectable disease, however, is controversial. This meta-analysis aims to ascertain the clinical outcomes of patients with resectable pancreatic cancer undergoing preoperative EUS-FNA compared to those going directly to surgery. Methods: A literature search was performed from 1996 to April 2019 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Knowledge for studies comparing preoperative EUS-FNA to EUS without FNA in resectable pancreatic cancer for clinical outcomes. The primary outcome is overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes include cancer-free survival, tumor recurrence and peritoneal carcinomatosis, and post-FNA-pancreatitis rate. Results: Six retrospective studies were included. Preoperative EUS-FNA had better OS than the non-FNA group (WMD, 4.40 months [0.02 to 8.78]). Cancer-free survival did not differ significantly between the two groups (WMD, 2.08 months [-2.22 to 6.38]). EUS with FNA was not associated with increased rates of tumor recurrence or peritoneal carcinomatosis. Conclusion: Preoperative EUS-FNA in resectable pancreatic cancer may be associated with significantly greater OS when compared to the non-FNA group, with no significant difference in the rates of tumor recurrence or peritoneal seeding. Important limitations of our meta-analysis include the lack of prospective controlled data, which are unlikely to emerge given feasible constraints.

A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Two Bowel Cleansing Regimens for Colonoscopy After Failed Bowel Preparation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Failed bowel preparation for colonoscopy occurs commonly, but the optimal regimen for the subsequent attempt is unknown. High-volume preparations often are used but are not well studied. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of 2 regimens for use after failed bowel preparation. METHODS: A multicenter, endoscopist-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted in patients who previously failed bowel preparation despite adequate compliance. Patients were randomized to 1 of 2 split polyethylene glycol (PEG) regimens, preceded by 15 mg bisacodyl: PEG 2 L the evening before and 2 L the day of colonoscopy (PEG 2+2L+bisacodyl), or 4 L and 2 L (PEG 4+2L+bisacodyl). All patients followed a low-fiber diet on both the third and second day before the procedure, followed by a clear fluid diet the day before and the morning of the colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation, defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale total score of 6 or higher, with all segment scores of 2 or higher. Secondary outcomes included adenoma detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, sessile serrated lesion detection, cecal intubation rate, tolerability, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 196 subjects were randomized at 4 academic centers in Canada (mean age, 60.7 y; SD, 11.4 y; 44.9% were women). There were no significant differences between the PEG 2+2L+bisacodyl and the PEG 4+2L+bisacodyl groups in achieving adequate bowel preparation (91.2% vs 87.6%; P = .44). There were no significant differences with regard to mean adenoma detection rate (37.4% vs 31.5%; P = .41), advanced adenoma detection rate (18.7% vs 11.2%; P = .16), sessile serrated lesion detection (8.8% vs 5.6%; P = .41), and cecal intubation rate (96.7% vs 92.1%; P = .19). The 2 regimens were similarly well tolerated, but PEG 2+2L+bisacodyl was associated with a higher willingness to repeat the bowel preparation (91.2% vs 66.2%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Split-dose 4 L-PEG with 15 mg bisacodyl, along with dietary restrictions, has similar efficacy as a higher-volume preparation, and should be considered for patients who previously failed bowel preparation (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02976805).