RESUMO
Background and Objectives: Gastric varices (GVs) are associated with a higher risk of uncontrolled bleeding and death when compared with esophageal varices. While endoscopic glue injection therapy has been traditionally used for secondary prophylaxis in GV, data regarding primary prophylaxis continue to emerge. Recently, EUS-guided therapies have been used in GV bleeding. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of several major databases from inception to June 2022. Our primary goals were to estimate the pooled rates of treatment efficacy, GV obliteration, GV recurrence, and rebleeding with EUS-guided therapy in primary and secondary prophylaxis. Overall adverse events and technical failures were assessed. Random-effects model was used for our meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 % statistics. Results: Eighteen studies with 604 patients were included. In primary prophylaxis, pooled rate of GV obliteration was 90.2% (confidence interval [CI], 81.1-95.2; I2 = 0). With combination EUS-glue and coil therapy, the rate was 95.4% (CI, 86.7%-98.5%; I2 = 0). Pooled rate of posttherapy GV bleeding was 4.9% (CI, 1.8%-12.4%; I2 = 0). In secondary prophylaxis, pooled rate of treatment efficacy was 91.9% (CI, 86.8%-95.2%; I2 = 12). With EUS-glue, EUS-coil, and combination EUS-glue and coil, the rates were 94.3% (CI, 88.9%-97.1%; I2 = 0), 95.5% (CI, 80.3%-99.1%; I2 = 0), and 88.7% (CI, 76%-95.1%; I2 = 14), respectively. Pooled rate of GV obliteration was 83.6% (CI, 71.5%-91.2%; I2 = 74). With EUS-glue, EUS-coil, and combination EUS-glue and coil, the rates were 84.6% (CI, 75.9%-90.6%; I2 = 31), 92.3% (CI, 81.1%-97.1%; I2 = 0), and 84.5% (CI, 50.8%-96.7%; I2 = 75), respectively. Pooled rates of GV rebleeding and recurrence were 18.1% (CI, 13.1%-24.3%; I2 = 16) and 20.6% (CI, 9.3%-39.5%; I2 = 66), respectively. Conclusion: Our analysis shows that EUS-guided therapy for GVs is technically feasible and clinically successful in both primary and secondary prophylaxis of GV.
RESUMO
AIM: To examine the practice pattern in Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC), i.e., gastroenterology (GI)/surgery referrals and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), for pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs) after the region-wide dissemination of the PCN management algorithm. METHODS: Retrospective review was performed; patients with PCN diagnosis given between April 2012 and April 2015 (18 mo before and after the publication of the algorithm) in KPSC (integrated health system with 15 hospitals and 202 medical offices in Southern California) were identified. RESULTS: 2558 (1157 pre- and 1401 post-algorithm) received a new diagnosis of PCN in the study period. There was no difference in the mean cyst size (pre- 19.1 mm vs post- 18.5 mm, P = 0.119). A smaller percentage of PCNs resulted in EUS after the implementation of the algorithm (pre- 45.5% vs post- 34.8%, P < 0.001). A smaller proportion of patients were referred for GI (pre- 65.2% vs post- 53.3%, P < 0.001) and surgery consultations (pre- 24.8% vs post- 16%, P < 0.001) for PCN after the implementation. There was no significant change in operations for PCNs. Cost of diagnostic care was reduced after the implementation by 24%, 18%, and 36% for EUS, GI, and surgery consultations, respectively, with total cost saving of 24%. CONCLUSION: In the current healthcare climate, there is increased need to optimize resource utilization. Dissemination of an algorithm for PCN management in an integrated health system resulted in fewer EUS and GI/surgery referrals, likely by aiding the physicians ordering imaging studies in the decision making for the management of PCNs. This translated to cost saving of 24%, 18%, and 36% for EUS, GI, and surgical consultations, respectively, with total diagnostic cost saving of 24%.