Patient-Controlled Sedation Versus Clinician-Administered Sedation for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Systematic Review.

Patient-controlled sedation (PCS) has been explored as a sedation method in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), yet a comprehensive review article on this topic is lacking. We performed a systematic review to compare PCS against clinician-administered sedation. The primary objectives are to compare the sedative dosage used and the sedation depth, while secondary objectives are to compare sedation failure rates, clinician intervention rates, and patient satisfaction. A systematic literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library Database using the terms "ERCP," "Sedation," "Patient-controlled," and related terms. Randomized controlled trials comparing PCS against clinician-administered sedation in adults undergoing ERCP were included. Articles without English full texts were excluded. Studies were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used for quality assessment of individual included trials. This systematic review is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020198647). A total of 2619 articles were identified from the literature search. A total of 2615 articles were excluded based on the exclusion criteria. Four articles (comprised of 4 independent trials involving 425 patients) were included in analysis. When compared with clinician-administered sedation, PCS in ERCP may lead to lower propofol dosage used and lower sedation depth. The sedation failure rates appear to be higher in PCS, whereas lower rates of airway maneuvers are required. No significant difference was observable for patient satisfaction rates between PCS and clinician-administered sedation. The included studies demonstrated unclear to high risk of bias, particularly in randomization, incomplete outcome data, and outcome measurement. PCS appears to be a feasible option for sedation in ERCP. Nonetheless, large-scale, high-quality trials will be required before PCS can be regularly implemented in ERCP.

Comparing general anaesthesia versus sedation for endoscopic submucosal dissection: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an advanced endoscopic procedure for management of gastrointestinal tumours. ESD is usually performed under sedation. However, the use of general anaesthesia (GA) has been hypothesised to improve ESD outcomes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare GA against sedation in ESD. A systematic literature search was performed on Cochrane Library, EMBASE and MEDLINE using the terms "General Anaesthesia", "Sedation" and "Endoscopic submucosal dissection". Original articles comparing GA versus sedation in ESD were included. The risk of bias and level of evidence were assessed by validated methods. This review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021275813). 176 articles were found in the initial literature search, and 7 articles (comprising 518 patients receiving GA and 495 receiving sedation) were included. Compared with sedation, GA was associated with higher en-bloc resection rates in oesophageal ESD (RR 1.05; 95% CI: 1.00-1.10; I 2 = 65%; P = 0.05). GA patients also trended towards lower rates of gastrointestinal perforation in all ESD procedures (RR 0.62; 95% CI: 0.21-1.82; I 2 = 52%; P = 0.06). Rates of intra- procedural desaturation and post-procedural aspiration pneumonia were lower in GA patients than in patients under sedation. The included studies had a moderate to high risk of bias, and the overall level of evidence was low. GA appears safe and feasible for ESD, yet high-quality trials will be required before GA can be regularly implemented for ESD.

Incidence of Gastrointestinal Bleeding after Transesophageal Echocardiography in Patients with Gastroesophageal Varices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is useful for cardiac assessment and intraoperative monitoring. However, the safety of TEE in patients with cirrhosis and gastroesophageal varices has remained uncertain. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding after TEE in patients with varices. The secondary objectives were to compare bleeding risks between patients with and without varices and to determine the incidence of TEE-related esophageal perforation and mortality. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using the terms "transesophageal echocardiography," "varices," "bleeding," and related terms. Articles describing the incidence of post-TEE bleeding in patients with varices were included. Non-English-language articles were excluded. Risk of bias and level of evidence were assessed using validated scales. The pooled weighted incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding and the risk difference in bleeding were calculated using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Five hundred and sixty-nine articles were identified initially, and 10 articles (comprising of 908 patients) were included. The incidence of post-TEE bleeding in patients with varices was 0.84% (95% CI, 0.34% to 1.56%). When stratified by indication for TEE, the pooled incidence of bleeding was 0.68% (95% CI, 0.11% to 1.63%) for intraoperative TEE and 1.03% (95% CI, 0.23% to 2.29%) for diagnostic TEE. No cases of esophageal perforation or mortality were reported. Six studies included comparator groups of patients without varices, and the bleeding risk was comparable between patients with and those without varices (risk difference, 0.26%; 95% CI, -0.80% to 1.32%; I2 = 0%; P = .88). Eight studies had moderate or high risk for bias, and the overall level of evidence was low. CONCLUSIONS: TEE appears to be associated with low gastrointestinal bleeding incidence in patients with gastroesophageal varices. Nonetheless, results should be treated with caution because of bias and low level of evidence. Large-scale high-quality studies will be required to confirm the safety of TEE in patients with gastroesophageal varices.

Endoscopic and Histological Mucosal Healing in Ulcerative Colitis in the First Year of Diagnosis: Results from a Population-based Inception Cohort from Six Countries in Asia.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Mucosal healing is associated with improved long-term clinical outcomes in patients with ulcerative colitis. This population-based study assessed endoscopic and histological mucosal healing within the first year of diagnosis. METHODS: Consecutive patients diagnosed with ulcerative colitis from six countries in Asia were prospectively enrolled. Clinical demographics, blood markers and inflammatory activity were assessed at baseline. Mayo score and Nancy index were used to assess endoscopic and histological activities, respectively. Clinical, endoscopic and histological evaluations were repeated at 1 year. Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of mucosal healing. RESULTS: Of 433 ulcerative colitis patients, 202 [46.7%] underwent colonoscopy at 1 year. In total, 68 [38.2%] achieved endoscopic mucosal healing and 35 [23.1%] achieved histological mucosal healing. On multivariate analysis, an elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR] at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 0.332; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.133-0.830; p = 0.018) was a significant negative predictor of endoscopic mucosal healing at 1 year, while histological features of ulceration [OR, 0.156; 95% CI, 0.028-0.862; p = 0.033] and being an ex-smoker [OR, 0.067; 95% CI, 0.005-0.965; p = 0.047] were significant negative predictors of histological healing at 1 year. Both endoscopic and histological mucosal healing were associated with less steroid use [p < 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively] and hospitalization [p = 0.002 and p = 0.01, respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: Mucosal healing was achieved in fewer than half of patients with ulcerative colitis in the first year of diagnosis. An elevated ESR predicted less likelihood of endoscopic mucosal healing, while histological features of ulceration and being an ex-smoker at diagnosis predicted less likelihood of histological healing.