Endoscopic treatment of fistula after sleeve gastrectomy: results of a multicenter retrospective study.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Fistula is the main complication of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), for which healing is difficult to achieve. The aims of the study were to evaluate the efficacy of interventional endoscopy for post-LSG fistula treatment, to evaluate various endoscopic techniques used and identify their complications, and to identify predictive factors of healing following endoscopic treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective multicenter study included patients with post-LSG fistula. Therapeutic procedures were evaluated, taking into account complications and healing times. Endoscopic procedures were considered to have promoted healing if no other surgical procedure was performed. Predictive factors of healing were identified by univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 110 patients were included, of whom 6 (5.5 %) healed spontaneously, 81 (73.6 %) healed following endoscopic treatment, and 19 (17.3 %) healed following surgery. Healing rates following endoscopic treatment were 84.4 % in the first 6 months of treatment (65/77), 52.4 % for treatment lasting 6 - 12 months (11/21), and 41.7 % after 12 months of treatment (5/12). A drainage procedure (surgical, endoscopic, or percutaneous) was performed in 92 patients (83.6 %). A total of 177 esogastric stents were placed in 88 patients (80.0 %). Surgical debridement, clip placement, glue sealing, and plug placement were also performed. Multivariate analysis identified four predictive factors of healing following endoscopic treatment: interval < 21 days between fistula diagnosis and first endoscopy (P = 0.003), small fistula (P = 0.01), interval between LSG and fistula ≤ 3 days (P = 0.01), no history of gastric banding (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic treatment facilitated healing of post-LSG fistula in 74 % of patients. Early endoscopic treatment increased the likelihood of success, and was most effective during the first 6 months of management. After this point, surgical treatment should be considered.

Pegylated interferon-α2a and ribavirin versus pegylated interferon-α2b and ribavirin in chronic hepatitis C : a meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Results of trials and meta-analyses comparing pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN)-α2a and PEG-IFN-α2b for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C are conflicting. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine which PEG-IFN (α2a or α2b), in association with ribavirin, is the most effective for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C by performing an updated meta-analysis. METHOD: MEDLINE (1950-2012) and EMBASE (1974-2012) databases, as well as the Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, were searched. Reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned, and proceedings of major international conferences were manually searched for abstracts. Randomized clinical trials and non-randomized clinical studies comparing PEG-IFN-α2a with PEG-IFN-α2b in association with ribavirin in adult patients with chronic hepatitis C were included. Studies including HIV-positive patients or liver transplant recipients were excluded. The data extraction from each study was conducted independently by two authors, with disagreements resolved by consensus or by a third reviewer. The trial quality of randomized clinical trials was assessed by taking into account generation of allocation sequence, allocation concealment, efficacy of randomization, investigator blindness, description of withdrawals and dropouts and adherence to the intention-to-treat principle. Two meta-analyses were performed, the first including randomized clinical trials only, and the second including both randomized and non-randomized clinical studies. The primary outcome measure was frequency of sustained virological response (SVR). Heterogeneity and publication bias were systematically taken into account. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included 26 studies, 11 randomized and 15 non-randomized, with a total of 18,260 patients: 8,125 treated with PEG-IFN-α2a and 10,135 treated with PEG-IFN-α2b. In the meta-analysis that included randomized trials only, the SVR was significantly higher for patients treated with PEG-IFN-α2a than for those treated with PEG-IFN-α2b for genotypes 1 and 4 [odds ratio (OR) 1.45; 95 % CI 1.09-2.06; p = 0.013] and for all genotypes (OR 1.34; 95 % CI 1.05-1.72; p = 0.02). In the meta-analysis including both randomized and non-randomized studies, the SVR was significantly higher for PEG-IFN-α2a than for PEG-IFN-α2b for all genotypes (OR 1.24; 95 % CI 1.10-1.40; p < 0.001) and for genotypes 1 and 4 (OR 1.25; 95 % CI 1.14-1.36; p < 0.001); for genotypes 2 and 3, the SVR was greater for treatment with PEG-IFN-α2a than with PEG-IFN-α2b, with the difference tending towards significance (OR 1.15; 95 % CI 0.98-1.35; p = 0.08). A certain degree of heterogeneity was present amongst the various studies included in this meta-analysis. Publication bias was detected (particularly for analyses including only randomized controlled trials) and taken into account using appropriate statistical methods. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that PEG-IFN-α2a and ribavirin is associated with a higher SVR than PEG-IFN-α2b and ribavirin in patients mono-infected with hepatitis C, particularly for genotypes 1 and 4.