Single-use accessories and endoscopes in the era of sustainability and climate change-A balancing act.

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is among the highest waste generator in healthcare facilities. The major reasons include production of large-volume non-renewable waste, use of single-use devices, and reprocessing or decontamination processes. Single-use endoscopic accessories have gradually replaced reusable devices over last two decades contributing to the rising impact of GI endoscopy on ecosystem. Several reports of infection outbreaks with reusable duodenoscopes raised concerns regarding the efficacy and adherence to standard disinfection protocols. Even the enhanced reprocessing techniques like double high-level disinfection have not been found to be the perfect ways for decontamination of duodenoscopes and therefore, paved the way for the development of single-use duodenoscopes. However, the use of single-use endoscopes is likely to amplify the net waste generated and carbon footprint of any endoscopy unit. Moreover, single-use devices challenge one of the major pillars of sustainability, that is, "reuse." In the era of climate change, a balanced approach is required taking into consideration patient safety as well as financial and environmental implications. The possible solutions to provide optimum care while addressing the impact on climate include selective use of disposable duodenoscopes and careful selection of accessories during a case. Other options include use of disposable endcaps and development of effective high-level disinfection techniques. The collaboration between the healthcare professionals and the manufacturers is paramount for the development of environmental friendly devices with low carbon footprint.

Tenofovir versus entecavir for tertiary prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B infection after curative therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Entecavir (ETV) and Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are the first-line drugs for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV). However, the impact of these two antiviral agents on the outcome of HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after curative therapy remains to be explored. The purpose of the present study was to compare the effect of ETV and TDF on recurrence and mortality after curative treatment for HBV-related HCC. A comprehensive literature search of multiple electronic databases was conducted from 2000 to January 2022 for studies comparing ETV and TDF for HBV-related HCC patients after curative therapy. The adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) were pooled using a random-effects model. A total of nine studies with 5298 patients were included in the final meta-analysis. TDF was associated with a lower risk of HCC recurrence [aHR 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-0.81] compared to HCC. TDF reduced the risk of late recurrence compared to ETV (aHR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45-0.76) but not early recurrence (aHR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76-1.02). The mortality risk was also lower with TDF compared to ETV (aHR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50-0.77). TDF was associated with a lower risk of recurrence and mortality than ETV after resection or ablation of HBV-related HCC. Further prospective randomized controlled studies are warranted to validate these results.

Adverse events with EUS-guided biliary drainage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Multiple meta-analyses have evaluated the technical and clinical success of EUS-guided biliary drainage (BD), but meta-analyses concerning adverse events (AEs) are limited. The present meta-analysis analyzed AEs associated with various types of EUS-BD. METHODS: A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus was conducted from 2005 to September 2022 for studies analyzing the outcome of EUS-BD. The primary outcomes were incidence of overall AEs, major AEs, procedure-related mortality, and reintervention. The event rates were pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-five studies (7887 patients) were included in the final analysis. The pooled clinical success rates and incidence of AEs with EUS-BD were 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.1-95.9) and 13.7% (95% CI, 12.3-15.0), respectively. Among early AEs, bile leak was the most common followed by cholangitis with pooled incidences of 2.2% (95% CI, 1.8-2.7) and 1.0% (95% CI, .8-1.3), respectively. The pooled incidences of major AEs and procedure-related mortality with EUS-BD were .6% (95% CI, .3-.9) and .1% (95% CI, .0-.4), respectively. The pooled incidences of delayed migration and stent occlusion were 1.7% (95% CI, 1.1-2.3) and 11.0% (95% CI, 9.3-12.8), respectively. The pooled event rate for reintervention (for stent migration or occlusion) after EUS-BD was 16.2% (95% CI, 14.0-18.3; I2 = 77.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a high clinical success rate, EUS-BD may be associated with AEs in one-seventh of the cases. However, major AEs and mortality incidence remain less than 1%, which is reassuring.

Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography versus endoscopic ultrasound for diagnosis of choledocholithiasis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Both endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are used for the diagnosis of choledocholithiasis (CDL). Previous studies have shown conflicting results regarding the optimal diagnostic strategy for suspected CDL; hence, this meta-analysis was conducted. METHODS: A comprehensive search of literature from 1990 till April 2022 was done of three databases for studies comparing EUS and MRCP to diagnose CDL. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies were identified. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for EUS were 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-0.98], and 0.92 (95% CI 0.85-0.96), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for MRCP were 0.85 (95% CI 0.78-0.90) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.79-0.96), respectively. EUS had a higher relative sensitivity [Relative risk (RR) 1.12, 95% CI 1.05-1.19], a higher diagnostic accuracy (Odds ratio 1.98, 95% CI 1.35-2.90) but comparable specificity (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96-1.08) with MRCP. CONCLUSION: There is little difference concerning specificity, although EUS likely provides a higher sensitivity and accuracy for diagnosing CDL, compared to MRCP.

Risk of Bleeding with Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition in Patients on Antithrombotic Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The present guidelines stratify endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) as a high-bleeding risk procedure in patients on antithrombotics. However, the data regarding the same are conflicting. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to analyze the bleeding event rates associated with EUS-TA in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy. METHODS: A literature search from January 2000 to August 2022 was done for studies on EUS-guided TA in patients receiving antithrombotics. The primary outcome was incidence of overall and major bleeding. Pooled event rates across studies were expressed with summative statistics. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled risk of overall bleeding and major bleeding in patients on antithrombotics was 2.0% (0.6-3.4) and 0.8% (0.0-1.6), respectively. In patients taking thienopyridine or anticoagulants, the pooled risk of overall bleeding and major bleeding was 2.4% (0.9-3.9) and 1.7% (0.4-3.1), respectively. Patients on antithrombotics had a higher odd of overall bleeding (OR 2.12, 1.20-3.83) and major bleeding (OR 3.58, 1.11-11.52) compared to controls. The odds of overall bleeding (OR 0.95, 95%CI 0.38-2.42) and major bleeding (OR 1.57, 95%CI 0.45-5.54) were comparable between patients on antithrombotics who continued and those who discontinued it preprocedural. CONCLUSION: Despite an increase risk of bleeding with EUS-TA in patients on antithrombotics, the pooled incidence remains low. Compared to the previous guidelines stating thienopyridine use as high risk for bleeding, the present analysis showed a bleeding rate of less than 1%. Discontinuing antithrombotics prior to EUS-TA does not reduce the bleeding risk significantly, requiring strict monitoring.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Antegrade Stent Placement in Patients with Failed ERCP as a Modality of Preoperative and Palliative Biliary Drainage.

BACKGROUND: No large studies have addressed the role of endoscopic-ultrasound biliary drainage (EUS-BD) as preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) for malignant extrahepatic biliary obstruction (MEBO). We aimed to discuss the outcomes of EUS antegrade stent placement (EUS-AG) in the preoperative and palliative setting. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients who underwent EUS-AG for MEBO between December 2019 and December 2021 was done. Primary outcome measures were technical success and clinical success. Secondary outcome measures were number of days of hospitalization postprocedure, adverse events related to EUS-AG procedure, morbidity related to surgery, and 3-month mortality after surgery. RESULTS: 54 patients underwent attempt for EUS-AG (mean age 54.8 ± 12.1 years; female 44.4%). Most common primary cancer was pancreatic cancer in 42.1% (23/54) patients. Indication was palliative in 34 (62.9%) patients and PBD in 20 (37%) patients. Level of block was distal in 35 (64.8%) and proximal in 19 (35.1%) patients. Technical success of EUS-AG was 88.7% (47/53). Clinical success was seen in 95.7% (45/47) patients. Median number of days of hospitalization postprocedure was 1 day. No procedure-related severe adverse events were seen. Of 20 patients who underwent EUS-AG as PBD, 19 had technical success (95%) with clinical success in 94.5% (18/19). Surgery was performed in 11 patients, of whom 10 patients underwent successful PPPD (one intraoperative liver metastasis). Two patients had Clavein-Dindo III/IV complication post-PPPD, with one mortality within 30 days of surgery. CONCLUSION: EUS-AG is safe and effective after failed ERCP in both preoperative and palliative setting.

EUS-guided biliary drainage in patients with moderate-severe cholangitis is safe and effective: a multi-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Patients with moderate-severe cholangitis require urgent/early biliary drainage and failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) warrants use of percutaneous drainage. While endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has evolved as an effective salvage modality but its safety and efficacy data in moderate-severe cholangitis are limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All consecutive moderate-severe cholangitis patients, with failed/technically non-feasible ERCP requiring EUS-BD in two tertiary care centers were included. Baseline laboratory and demographic parameters were documented. Technical and clinical success were primary outcome measures. Additionally, effective biliary drainage, adverse events due to procedure, hospital stay, ICU stay, and mortality were noted. RESULTS: Of the 49 patients (23 male; 46.9%) presenting with moderate/severe cholangitis, 23 (46.9%) had severe cholangitis. The median Charleston comorbidity index was 7.0 (IQR 2.0). Majority had malignant disease (87.8%) and 25 (51.0%) had inaccessible papilla. Technical success was achieved in 48 cases (98.0%), while clinical success with improvement of cholangitis was noted in 44 of 48 cases (91.7%). Effective biliary drainage was noted in 85.4% (41/48) cases. Adverse events in the form of mostly bleeding and bile leak were noted in 5 cases (10.2%) but managed conservatively. Distal obstruction exhibited significantly better clinical success (100% vs. 78.9%; p = 0.02) than hilar obstruction. Severe cholangitis had significantly lower clinical success (81.8% vs. 100%; p = 0.04) than moderate cholangitis. CONCLUSION: EUS-BD can be a safe and effective alternative option for patients with moderate to severe cholangitis, even with significant pre-morbid conditions, with acceptable adverse events rate.

Post-hepatectomy biliary leaks: analysis of risk factors and development of a simplified predictive scoring system.

PURPOSE: Most studies identifying risk factors for post-hepatectomy biliary leaks (PHBLs) have relatively small proportions of major hepatectomies. A simplified predictive score to identify high risk patients is necessary in order to investigate the efficacy of mitigation strategies. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of liver resections from a high-volume cancer center was performed. Multivariate regression was utilized for identification of risk factors and development of the predictive score. RESULTS: A total of 862 patients underwent a curative hepatic resection over 10 years, of whom 146 (16.9%) developed a biliary leak; 85 (9.86%), 52 (6.03%), and 9 (1.04%) patients had a grade A, B, and C leak respectively. A biliary-enteric anastomosis [OR 5.1 (95% CI 2.45-10.58); p < 0.001], a central [OR 4.33 (95% CI 1.25-14.95); p = 0.021] or an extended hepatectomy [OR 4.29 (95% CI 1.52-12.12); p = 0.006], liver steatosis [OR 2.28 (95% CI 1.09-4.77); p = 0.027], and blood loss of ≥ 2000 mL [OR 2.219 (95% CI 1.15-4.27); p = 0.017] were identified as independent predictors of a clinically significant biliary leak and were assigned 1 point each to develop the biliary leak score. Clinically significant biliary leaks were seen in 11 (2.79%), 20 (6.38%), 19 (15.4%), 9 (56.3%), and 1 (100%) patients with scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A biliary-enteric anastomosis, a central or extended hepatectomy, liver steatosis, and blood loss ≥ 2L combined result in a simple predictive score for clinically significant biliary leaks.

Efficacy and safety of endosonography-guided transvascular needle aspiration of thoracic and abdominal lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of intrathoracic and abdominal masses is challenging when lesions are located behind major vessels. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided transvascular needle aspiration (TVNA) provides a potentially useful diagnostic tool for such lesions. Data with respect to the safety and outcome of E-TVNA are scarce. Hence, this meta-analysis was conducted to assess the critical role of E-TVNA for diagnosis of various lesions. METHODS AND MATERIAL: A meta-analysis was performed by pooling the data from studies obtained from comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, and Scopus from January 2000 to September 2022. The outcomes analyzed included sample adequacy, diagnostic accuracy and adverse events including bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies (n = 411) were included in the final analysis. The pooled rate of sample adequacy was 91.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 86.8-96.2], while the pooled rate of diagnostic accuracy was 85.0% (95% CI: 78.9-91.2). The pooled rate of bleeding with E-TVNA was 1.4% (95% CI 0.0-3.1%). All the episodes of bleeding were mild and resolved without any further intervention. There was no significant heterogeneity with respect to various outcomes and results were comparable on sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: E-TVNA offers a safe and accurate diagnostic modality for the diagnosis of mediastinal and abdominal lesions located on the other side of major vessels. Selection of potential candidates and close periprocedural observation are essential to improve the outcome.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for sessile colorectal polyps: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (uEMR) without submucosal injection for sessile colorectal polyps was introduced as a new replacement for conventional EMR (cEMR). However, the optimal resection strategy remains a topic of debate. Hence, this meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of uEMR and cEMR in patients with sessile colorectal polyps. METHODS: a comprehensive search of the literature from 2000 till January 2022 was performed from Medline, CENTRAL and Embase for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing cEMR vs uEMR for colorectal polyps. The evaluated outcomes included en bloc resection, R0 resection, procedure time, overall bleeding and recurrence. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence interval were calculated using a random effect model. RESULTS: six studies were included, out of which four were full-text articles and two were conference abstracts. En bloc resection (RR 1.26, 95 % CI: 1.00-1.60), R0 resection (RR 1.10, 95 % CI: 0.96-1.26), overall bleeding (RR 0.85, 95 % CI: 0.54-1.34) and recurrence rate (RR 0.75, 95 % CI: 0.45-1.27) were comparable between uEMR and cEMR. However, uEMR was associated with a shorter procedure time (mean difference [MD] -1.55 minutes, 95 % CI: -2.71 to -0.39). According to the subgroup analysis, uEMR led to a higher rate of en bloc resection (RR 1.41, 95 % CI: 1.07-1.86) and R0 resection (RR 1.19, 95 % CI: 1.01-1.41) for polyps ≥ 10 mm in size. CONCLUSION: both uEMR and cEMR have a comparable safety and efficacy. For polyps larger than 10 mm, uEMR may have an advantage over cEMR and should be the topic for future studies.

Liver Diseases in the Parturient.

Sundaram S, Giri S. Liver Diseases in the Parturient. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(Suppl 3):S248-S254.

A survey of clinical practices among oncologists regarding hepatitis B screening in patients with cancer.

Background & objectives: Screening for hepatitis B prior to the initiation of chemotherapy in patients with cancer is recommended by all major hepatology and oncology societies. This study was aimed to determine the screening practices for hepatitis B among oncologists from India and their experience with hepatitis B reactivation. Methods: A questionnaire-based survey was conducted among oncologists attending the Evidence-Based Medicine Conference at Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India. The questionnaire was developed in keeping with the recent guidelines for hepatitis B reactivation on chemotherapy, with questions regarding demographics, years in practice and hepatitis B screening practices and management. There was 78 per cent response rate to the questionnaire. Results: Most respondents were <35 yr of age (69%), with < five years of experience (39%), practicing in an academic institution (81%). Seventy four per cent respondents always screened their patients with cancer for hepatitis prior to chemotherapy, whereas 19 per cent in special settings and seven per cent never screened; 96 per cent respondents used hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) as a screening test, while 17 per cent also used antibody to hepatitis B core antigen. Sixty one per cent respondents used entecavir or tenofovir for prophylaxis; 70 per cent continued prophylaxis till 6-12 months after completion of chemotherapy, while 21 per cent continued only till the end of chemotherapy. Interpretation & conclusions: More than 25 per cent of the oncologists were not screening their patients with cancer for viral hepatitis prior to cancer-directed therapy, and only 17 per cent of the oncologists used the recommended tests for screening. Better training of oncologists regarding viral hepatitis screening and management is needed.