Endoscopic outcomes using a novel through-the-scope tack and suture system for gastrointestinal defect closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Closure of gastrointestinal defects can reduce postprocedural adverse events. Over-the-scope clips and an over-the-scope suturing system are widely available, yet their use may be limited by defect size, location, operator skill level, and need to reinsert the endoscope with the device attached. The introduction of a through-the-scope helix tack suture system (TTSS) allows for closure of large irregular defects using a gastroscope or colonoscope, without the need for endoscope withdrawal. Since its approval 3 years ago, only a handful of studies have explored outcomes using this novel device. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched for studies looking at TTSS closure from inception until August 2023. The primary outcomes were the success of TTSS alone and TTSS with clips for complete defect closure. Secondary outcomes included complete closure based on procedure type (endoscopic mucosal resection [EMR], endoscopic submucosal dissection [ESD]) and adverse events. RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria (449 patients, mean defect size 34.3 mm). Complete defect closure rates for TTSS alone and TTSS with adjunctive clips were 77.2% (95%CI 66.4-85.3; I2=79%) and 95.2% (95%CI 90.3-97.7; I2=42.5%), respectively. Complete defect closure rates for EMR and ESD were 99.2% (95%CI 94.3-99.9; I2 = 0%) and 92.1% (95%CI 85-96; I2=0%), respectively. The adverse event rate was 5.4% (95%CI 2.7-10.3; I2=55%). CONCLUSION: TTSS is a novel device for closure of postprocedural defects, with relatively high technical and clinical success rates. Comparative studies of closure devices are needed.

Adverse Events of Endoscopic Clip Placement: A MAUDE Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clips are endoscopic mechanical devices with tensile and closure strength that can approximate tissue and provide hemostasis through a tamponade effect. Clips are ubiquitously used in endoscopic practice, and numerous studies have validated the clinical efficacy of clips, with recent guidelines recommending them as a first-line intervention for recurrent and persistent nonvariceal gastrointestinal bleeding. However, the safety profile for these devices has yet to be delineated, thus, we aim to investigate this feature by examining the adverse events reported to the Food and Drug Administration. METHODS: Postmarketing surveillance data from the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer And User Facility Device Experience database were analyzed from January 2012 to January 2021. The Manufacturer And User Facility Device Experience database is a reporting software and does not independently verify the details of complications. RESULTS: Two thousand five hundred forty reports were issued, of which 287 were patient adverse events and 2766 were device problems. Activation, separation, and positioning issues were most common. No consequences or clinically significant impact on patients were seen in 1968 reports. Foreign bodies were seen in 97 cases, hemorrhage in 57 cases, tissue damage in 42 cases, embedded clips in tissues/plaques in 16 cases, perforation in 15 cases, lacerations in 6 cases, and infection in 3 cases. CONCLUSIONS: While the most commonly reported device problems involved activation, separation, and positioning, most patients were clinically unaffected. Moreover, perforation and infection were exceedingly rare, further highlighting the safety profile of endoscopic clips.

The impact of COVID-19 on hospitalizations that underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the United States.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 impacts technical success of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). In this study, we aimed to assess the influence of COVID-19 on hospitalizations that underwent ERCP. METHODS: We identified all adult COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 hospitalizations that underwent ERCP in the United States using the National Inpatient Sample for 2020. Hospitalization characteristics, clinical outcomes, and complications were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: In 2020, 2015 COVID-19 and 203,094 non-COVID-19 hospitalizations underwent ERCP. The COVID-19 cohort had a higher mean age (60.3 vs 55.6 years, p < 0.001) and a higher proportion of Blacks and Hispanics compared to the non-COVID-19 cohort. After adjusting for confounders, the COVID-19 cohort had higher all-cause inpatient mortality (4.77 vs 1.45%, aOR 4.09, 95% CI 2.50-6.69, p < 0.001), mean length of stay (LOS) [10.19 vs 5.94 days, mean difference: 3.88, 95% CI 2.68-5.07, p < 0.001] and mean total hospital charges (THC) [$152,933 vs $96,398, mean difference: 46,367, 95% CI 21,776-70,957, p < 0.001] compared to the non-COVID-19 cohort. Increasing age, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, and post-ERCP pancreatitis were identified to be independent predictors of inpatient mortality for COVID-19 hospitalizations that underwent ERCP. Furthermore, the COVID-19 cohort had higher odds of developing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) (11.55 vs 7.05%, aOR 1.64, 95% CI 1.19-2.25, p = 0.002) compared to the non-COVID-19 cohort, after adjusting for confounders. However, there was no statistical difference in the rates of bowel perforations and post-ERCP hemorrhage between the two groups. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 hospitalizations that underwent ERCP had higher inpatient mortality, mean LOS, mean THC, and odds of developing PEP compared to the non-COVID-19 cohort. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is not a part of a clinical trial.

Effectiveness and safety of stag beetle knife (SB knife) in management of Zenker's diverticulum: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Stag Beetle Knife (SB Knife) is increasingly being utilized for Zenker's Diverticulectomy (ZD). Our study assessed the effectiveness and safety of the SB Knife for the management of ZD. Ovid EBM reviews, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched to identify studies that utilized SB knife for ZD. Pooled proportions (PP) were calculated using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I2 statistics. A total of 7 studies with 268 patients were included in the final analysis. Dysphagia and regurgitation were the most common clinical symptoms. The mean size of the ZD was 2.8 ± 0.7 cm and 28 (of 148) patients had undergone previous treatments. The PP of technical success was 98% (95% CI: 92.3-99.5; I20) with a mean procedure duration of 26.2 ± 8.3 minutes. The PP of clinical response at first follow-up and relapse after index procedure was 87.9% (95% CI: 81.6-92.3; I219) and 13.5% (95% CI: 9.6-18.6; I22), respectively. At final follow-up, the PP of clinical remission was 96.2% (95% CI: 91-98.4; I230.6) while the PP of procedure failure was 3.6% (95% CI: 1.6-8.1; I20). No severe adverse events (AEs) were noted while using the SB Knife. However, the PP of intraprocedural and postprocedural AEs was 13.2% (95% CI: 9.6-17.8; I20) and 9.3% (95% CI: 5.7-14.9; I2 < 20.9), respectively. SB Knife is highly safe and effective for Zenker's Diverticulectomy with a failure rate of only 3.6%.

Efficacy of topical hemostatic agents in malignancy-related GI bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite advances in endoscopic therapies, malignancy-related GI bleeding remains difficult to manage with high rates of treatment failure and rebleeding. Topical hemostatic agents (THAs) are easier to apply to the wide bleeding surface of tumors. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of THAs in malignancy-related GI bleeding. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases to identify studies reporting on the use of THAs in malignancy-related GI bleeding. The primary outcome was the achievement of hemostasis; secondary outcomes were early rebleeding (≤3 days), delayed rebleeding (>3 days), aggregate rebleeding, all-cause mortality, and GI bleeding-related mortality. A meta-analysis of proportions was done for all outcomes. RESULTS: Out of 355 citations, 16 studies with 530 patients were included. Primary hemostasis was achieved in 94.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.5-96.0). Early rebleeding was seen in 13.9% (95% CI, 9.7-19.4) and delayed rebleeding in 11.4% (95% CI, 5.8-21.1). Aggregate rebleeding was seen in 24.2% (95% CI, 18.5-31.0). All-cause mortality was 33.1% (95% CI, 23.7-44.0), whereas GI bleeding-related mortality occurred in 5.9% (95% CI, 2.2%-14.8). CONCLUSIONS: THAs are highly effective for achieving primary hemostasis in malignancy-related GI bleeding. It should be considered as an alternative to traditional endotherapy methods in malignancy-related GI bleeding. Future studies should be designed to evaluate its efficacy and safety as a primary method of hemostasis as compared with traditional endotherapy measures.

Single-incision needle-knife biopsy for the diagnosis of GI subepithelial tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A histologic diagnosis of GI subepithelial tumors (SETs) is important because of the malignant potential of these lesions. The current modalities of choice, including EUS-guided FNA and biopsy (EUS-FNA/FNB) have demonstrated suboptimal diagnostic success. Single-incision with needle-knife (SINK) biopsy has emerged as an alternative diagnostic approach to increase tissue acquisition and diagnostic success. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the technical success, diagnostic success, and adverse events of SINK biopsy. METHODS: We searched multiple databases including PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from inception to July 2022. The primary outcomes assessed were the technical success and diagnostic success of SINK in GI SETs. The secondary outcomes assessed were adverse events and whether immunohistochemical analysis could be successfully performed on tissue samples obtained via SINK. RESULTS: Seven studies with a total of 219 SINK biopsy procedures were included in this meta-analysis. The technical success rate was 98.1% (95% CI, 94.9%-99.3%; P = .000; I2 = .0%), and the diagnostic success rate was 87.9% (95% CI, 82.6%-91.7%; P = .000; I2 = .0%). The immunohistochemical success rate was 88.3% (95% CI, 78.7%-93.9%; P = .000; I2 = 3.5%). The rate of adverse events was 7.5% (95% CI, 4.3%-12.7%; P = .00; I2 = 7.2%), and bleeding was the most common adverse event. CONCLUSION: SINK biopsy is a safe diagnostic procedure with a high technical and diagnostic success in patients with GI SET. Further randomized controlled trials and direct comparison studies are needed to validate these findings.

Early (<4 weeks) versus standard (≥4 weeks) endoscopic drainage of pancreatic walled-off fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Previous studies have demonstrated that the ideal time for drainage of walled-off pancreatic fluid collections is 4 to 6 weeks after their development. However, some pancreatic collections, notably infected pancreatic fluid collections, require earlier drainage. Nevertheless, the optimal timing of the first intervention is unclear, and consensus data are sparse. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections <4 weeks after development compared with ≥4 weeks after development. METHODS: Search strategies were developed for PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception. Outcomes of interest were technical success, defined as successful endoscopic placement of a lumen-apposing metal stent; clinical success, defined as a reduction in cystic collection size; and procedure-related adverse events. A random-effects model was used for analysis, and results are expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Six studies (630 patients) were included in our final analysis, in which 182 patients (28.9%) were enrolled in the early drainage cohort and 448 patients (71.1%) in the standard drainage cohort. The mean fluid collection size was 143.4 ± 18.8 mm for the early cohort versus 128 ± 19.7 mm for the standard cohort. Overall, technical success was equal in both cohorts. Clinical success did not favor either standard drainage or early drainage (OR, .39; 95% CI, .13-1.22; P = .11). No statistically significant differences were found in overall adverse events (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, .63-4.45; P = .31) or mortality (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, .29-4.48; P = .85). Hospital stay was longer for patients undergoing early drainage compared with standard drainage (23.7 vs 16.0 days, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Both early (<4 weeks) and standard (≥4 weeks) drainage of walled-off pancreatic fluid collections offer similar technical and clinical outcomes. Patients requiring endoscopic drainage should not be delayed for 4 weeks.

Role of Duodenal Bulb Biopsy in Diagnosing Suspected Celiac Disease in Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Current guidelines recommend multiple biopsies from the first (D1) and second (D2) part of duodenum to establish a diagnosis of celiac disease. In this meta-analysis we aimed to find whether D1 biopsy can increase the diagnostic yield of adult celiac disease. METHODS: Literature databases were searched until January 2023 for studies reporting diagnosis of celiac disease in the adult population using D1 biopsy. Meta-analysis was done using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2% and 95% prediction interval statistics. Measured outcomes were diagnostic yield with D1 and D2 biopsies and from 4 versus 2 biopsy samples. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies were included in the final analysis. The pooled diagnostic rate of celiac disease from D1 biopsy was 77.4% [95% CI (64.7-86.5, I2 94%)] and from D2 biopsy was 75.3% [60.8-85.7, I2 96%]. The pooled rate of increase in diagnostic yield with D1 biopsy was 6.9% I [4.6-10.2, I2 66%]. The pooled diagnosis rate with 2 biopsy samples were 77.3% [50-92, I2 93%] and 86.4% I [58.4-96.7, I2 87%] from D1 and D2 respectively, whereas that with 4 biopsy samples were 83.3% [49.8-96.2, I2 76%] and 70.5% I [51-84.6, I2 96%] from D1 and D2, respectively, the difference being non-significant. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that taking 4 biopsy samples does not incur any additional diagnostic value over taking 2 biopsy samples from each duodenum segment. Although biopsy from the D1 and D2 has similar diagnostic yield in the adult population, there was an overall increase in diagnostic yield with D1 biopsy, especially in those with a patchy disease distribution.

Cold Versus Hot Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Sessile Serrated Colorectal Polyps ≥10 mm: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis studying the efficacy and safety of cold versus hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for resection of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) ≥10 mm. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched until January 2023 for studies reporting outcomes of cold versus hot EMR for SSPs ≥10 mm. The primary outcome was the residual SSP rate. Secondary outcomes included technical success rate, R0 resection rate, and adverse events. We used standard meta-analysis methods using the random-effects model, and I2% was used to assess heterogeneity. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in the final analysis. In all, 1896 SSPs were included with a mean polyp size of 23.7 mm (range, 15.9 to 33). A total of 1452 SSPs were followed up for a median follow-up duration of 15.3 months (range, 6 to 37). The pooled residual SSP rate for cold EMR was 4.5% (95% CI: 1.0-17.4), and 5.1% (95% CI: 2.4-10.4) for hot EMR (P=0.9). The pooled rates of technical success, R0 resection, immediate bleeding, and perforation were comparable. Hot EMR was significantly associated with lower piecemeal resection (59.2% vs. 99.3%, P<0.001), higher en-bloc resection (41.4% vs. 1.4%, P<0.001), and delayed bleeding rate (4% vs. 0.7%, P=0.05) compared to cold EMR. CONCLUSIONS: Cold EMR has similar efficacy compared to hot EMR for resection of SSP ≥ 10 mm, despite limitations in piecemeal R0 resection rate reporting. Although hot EMR was associated with a higher rate of en-bloc resection, it also showed an increased risk of delayed bleeding compared to cold EMR.

Cold Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (c-EMR) of Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps ≥20 mm: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that cold endoscopic mucosal resection (c-EMR) can effectively treat large colorectal polyps. We aim to appraise the current literature and evaluate outcomes following c-EMR for nonpedunculated colonic polyps ≥20 mm. METHODS: Major databases were searched. Primary outcomes included recurrence rate and adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Nine articles were included in the final analysis, which included 817 patients and 1077 colorectal polyps. Average polyp size was 28.8 (±5.1) mm. The pooled recurrence rate of polyps of any histology at 4 to 6 months was 21.0% (95% CI: 9.0%-32.0%, P<0.001, I2=97.3, P<0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that recurrence was 10% for proximal lesions (95% CI: 0.0%-20.0%, P=0.054, I2=93.7%, P=0.054) and 9% for distal lesions (95% CI: 2.0%-21.0%, P=0.114, I2=95.8%, P=0.114). Furthermore, subgroup analysis showed that recurrence was 12% for adenoma (95% CI: 4.0%-19.0%, P=0.003, I2=98.0%, P=0.003), and 3% for sessile serrated polyps (95% CI: 1.0%-5.0%, P=0.002, I2=34.4%, P=0.002). Post-polypectomy bleeding occurred in 1% (n=8/817) of patients, whereas abdominal pain occurred in 0.2% (n=2/817) of patients. CONCLUSIONS: C-EMR for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm shows an excellent safety profile with a very low rate of delayed bleeding as well as significantly less recurrence for sessile serrated polyps than adenomas.

Efficacy & safety of EUS-directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (EDGE) in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass anatomy: a systematic review & meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) anatomy, laparoscopic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (LA-ERCP) and enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (E-ERCP) have been utilized to achieve pancreaticobiliary access. Endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (EDGE) has recently emerged as an alternate and efficient approach. As data regarding EDGE continues to evolve, concerns about safety and efficacy remain, limiting wide adoptability. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of EDGE and compare it to the current standard of care. METHODS: A comprehensive search of major databases (inception to Nov 2022) identified published studies on EDGE. A random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled rates and heterogeneity (I2). Risk ratio (RR) and standardized difference in means (SMD) were utilized for head-to-head comparison analysis between EDGE vs. LA-ERCP and EDGE vs. E-ERCP. Primary outcomes assessed pooled EDGE safety (adverse events) and efficacy (technical/clinical success). Secondary outcomes assessed efficacy and safety profiles via a comparative analysis of EDGE vs. LA-ERCP and EDGE vs. E-ERCP. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies (470 patients) were included. EDGE pooled technical success (TS) rate was 96% (95% CI 92-97.6, I2 = 0), and clinical success was 91% (85-95, I2 = 0). Pooled rate of all adverse events with EDGE was 17% (14-24.6, I2 = 32%). On sub-group analysis, these included failure of fistula closure 17% (10-25.5, I2 = 48%), stent migration 7% (4-12, I2 = 51%), bleeding 5% (3.2-7.9, I2 = 0), post-EDGE weight gain 4% (2-9, I2 = 0), perforation 4% (2.1-5.8, I2 = 0), and post-ERCP pancreatitis 2% (1-5, I2 = 0). EDGE TS was comparable to LA-ERCP (97% vs. 98%; RR, 1.00; CI, 0.85-1.17, p = 0.95) and E-ERCP (100% vs. 66%; RR, 1.26; CI, 0.99-1.6, p = 0.06). No statistical difference was noted in adverse events between EDGE and LA-ERCP (13% vs. 17.6%; RR, 0.61; CI, 0.28-1.35, p = 0.52) and E-ERCP (9.6% vs. 16%; RR, 0.61; CI, 0.28-1.35, p = 0.22). EDGE procedure time and hospital stay were shorter than LA-ERCP and E-ERCP (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our analysis shows that EDGE is safe and efficacious to the current standard of care. Further head-to-head comparative trials are needed to validate our findings.

New Alternative? Self-Assembling Peptide in Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) is a common and potentially fatal condition with all-cause mortality ranging from 3 to 10%. Endoscopic therapy traditionally involves mechanical, thermal, and injection therapies. Recently, self-assembling peptide (SAP) has become increasingly available in the United States. When applied to an affected area, this gel forms an extracellular matrix-type structure allowing for hemostasis. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of this modality in GIB. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search of major databases from inception to Nov 2022. The primary outcomes assessed were the success of hemostasis, rebleeding rates, and adverse events. The secondary outcomes assessed were successful hemostasis with monotherapy with SAP and combined therapy, which may include mechanical, injection, and thermal therapies. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models with a 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: The analysis included 7 studies with 427 patients. 34% of the patients were on anticoagulation or antiplatelet agents. SAP application was technically successful in all patients. The calculated pooled rate of successful hemostasis was 93.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 84.7-97.0, I2 = 73.6), and rebleeding rates were 8.9% (95% CI 5.3-14.4, I2 = 55.8). The pooled rates of hemostasis with SAP monotherapy and combined therapy were similar. No adverse events were noted related to SAP. CONCLUSION: SAP appears to be a safe and effective treatment modality for patients with GIB. This modality provides an added advantage of improved visualization over the novel spray-based modalities. Further, prospective, or randomized controlled trials are needed to validate our findings.

Postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) remain on the front line of the battle against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and are among the highest groups at risk of infection during this raging pandemic. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the incidence of postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection among vaccinated HCWs. We searched multiple databases from inception through August 2021 to identify studies that reported on the incidence of postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled proportions of COVID-19 infection in partially/fully vaccinated as well as unvaccinated individuals. Eighteen studies with 228 873 HCWs were included in the final analysis. The total number of partially vaccinated, fully vaccinated, and unvaccinated HCWs were 132 922, 155 673, and 17 505, respectively. Overall pooled proportion of COVID-19 infections among partially/fully vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs was 2.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-3.5). Among partially vaccinated, fully vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs, pooled proportion of COVID-19 infections was 2.3% (CI 1.2-4.4), 1.3% (95% CI 0.6-2.9), and 10.1% (95% CI 4.5-19.5), respectively. Our analysis shows the risk of COVID-19 infection in both partially and fully vaccinated HCWs remains exceedingly low when compared to unvaccinated individuals. There remains an urgent need for all frontline HCWs to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Safety and efficacy of over-the-scope clips versus standard therapy for high-risk nonvariceal upper GI bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Upper GI bleeding (UGIB) is a common condition associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic hemostasis remains the mainstay of therapy and is mainly aimed at effective hemostasis and prevention of rebleeding. Lesions with high-risk stigmata can have rebleeding rates of as high as 26.3%. Rebleeding is associated with increased mortality and reduced success rates of endoscopic retreatment. The over-the-scope-clip (OTSC) is a device with widespread endoscopic indications including hemostasis for nonvariceal UGIB (NVUGIB). The current study presents a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing OTSCs versus standard therapy (STD) for NVUGIB. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched through April 2022 for studies comparing OTSCs and STD for NVUGIBs. Primary outcomes were clinical success rates, rebleeding rates, and procedure times, and secondary outcomes were mortality rates and length of hospitalization. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled odds ratios to compare outcomes between the OTSC and STD groups. RESULTS: Ten studies, including 4 randomized controlled trials, with 914 patients were included in the final analysis. Of patients with NVUGIB, 431 were treated with OTSCs and 483 with STD. Patients treated with OTSCs had an overall lower risk of 7-day (risk ratio [RR], .41; 95% confidence interval [CI], .24-.68; I2 = 0%) and 30-day rebleeding (RR, .46; 95% CI, .31-.65; I2 = 0%). Clinical success rates were higher with OTSCs compared with STD (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.06-1.75). Mean procedure time was shorter in the OTSC group by 6.62 minutes (95% CI, 2.58-10.67) versus the STD group (I2 = 84%). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of mortality between the OTSC and STD groups (RR, .55; 95% CI, .24-1.24; I2 = 0%). Length of hospitalization was comparable between both groups, with a pooled mean difference for OTSCs versus STD of .87 days (95% CI, -1.62 to 3.36 days; I2 = 71%). CONCLUSIONS: Although our study was limited to high-risk NVUGIB, our analysis showed that hemostasis with OTSCs is associated with a lower 7-day and 30-day rebleeding rates, higher clinical success rates, and shorter procedure time with similar mortality rates and length of hospital stay as compared with STD.

Proton Pump Inhibitors Versus Histamine-2-Receptor Antagonists for Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients: A Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

GOALS AND BACKGROUND: Stress ulcer prophylaxis has been shown to lower gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) rates. Various agents have been studied, and the optimal strategy continues to be contested. This study evaluates the efficacy between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and histamine-2-receptor antagonists. Small sample sizes and methodology flaws limited prior studies. STUDY: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials reporting the use of PPI and histamine-2-receptor antagonist reporting rates of GIB and standardized intensive care outcomes. Risk ratios (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A trial sequential analysis was performed to guard against errors. RESULTS: A total of 14 randomized controlled trials of 28,526 patients with a mean age of 57.83±17.35 years and 30.82% females. In our pooled analysis, PPI outperformed its comparator (RR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.57-0.82) in clinically significant GIB. PPI re-demonstrated significant reduction in overt GIB (RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.39-0.97). No differences between groups was noted toward all-cause mortality (RR: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.00-1.10) or incidence of pneumonia (RR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.82-1.51). Duration of stay (SMD: 0.07; 95% CI: -0.04-0.17) and ventilator days (SMD: 0.01; 95% CI: -0.01-0.04) were indifferent between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill patients, PPI was associated with reduced clinically significant or overt GIB. No differences in pneumonia were seen with the use of either agent. Trial sequential analysis for clinically significant GIB ruled out the risk for false-positive results, and thereby it is unlikely that future trials will affect our conclusions.

Advanced Endoscopic Resection Techniques in Cirrhosis-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Outcomes.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: While safety and effectiveness of advanced endoscopic resection techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been well established in general population, data regarding their utility in patients with cirrhosis is limited. METHODS: We searched multiple databases from inception through July 2021 to identify studies that reported on outcomes of EMR and/or ESD in patients with cirrhosis. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled rates of immediate and delayed bleeding, perforation, death as well as rates of successful en bloc and R0 resection. Pooled relative risk (RR) was calculated for each outcome between patients with and without cirrhosis. RESULTS: Ten studies with a total of 3244 patients were included in the final analysis. Pooled rates of immediate & delayed bleeding, perforation, and death during EMR and/or ESD in patients with cirrhosis were 9.5% (CI 4.0-21.1), 6.6% (CI 4.2-10.3), 2.1% (CI 1.1-3.9) and 0.6% (CI 0.2-1.7), respectively. Pooled rates of successful en bloc and R0 resection were 93% (CI 85.9-96.7) and 90.8% (CI 86.5-93.8), respectively. While incidence of immediate bleeding was higher in patients with cirrhosis, there was no statistically significant difference in any of the other outcomes between the patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that performing EMR and ESD for gastrointestinal lesions in patients with cirrhosis is both safe and effective. The risks of procedural complications parallel those reported in general population.

Artificial intelligence (AI) real-time detection vs. routine colonoscopy for colorectal neoplasia: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

GOALS AND BACKGROUND: Studies analyzing artificial intelligence (AI) in colonoscopies have reported improvements in detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) lesions, however its utility in the realworld remains limited. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluate the efficacy of AI-assisted colonoscopies against routine colonoscopy (RC). STUDY: We performed an extensive search of major databases (through January 2021) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting adenoma and polyp detection rates. Odds ratio (OR) and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. Additionally, trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed to guard against errors. RESULTS: Six RCTs were included (4996 participants). The mean age (SD) was 51.99 (4.43) years, and 49% were females. Detection rates favored AI over RC for adenomas (OR 1.77; 95% CI: 1.570-2.08) and polyps (OR 1.91; 95% CI: 1.68-2.16). Secondary outcomes including mean number of adenomas (SMD 0.23; 95% CI: 0.18-0.29) and polyps (SMD 0.23; 95% CI: 0.17-0.29) detected per procedure favored AI. However, RC outperformed AI in detecting pedunculated polyps. Withdrawal times (WTs) favored AI when biopsies were included, while WTs without biopsies, cecal intubation times, and bowel preparation adequacy were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopies equipped with AI detection algorithms could significantly detect previously missed adenomas and polyps while retaining the ability to self-assess and improve periodically. More effective clearance of diminutive adenomas may allow lengthening in surveillance intervals, reducing the burden of surveillance colonoscopies, and increasing its accessibility to those at higher risk. TSA ruled out the risk for false-positive results and confirmed a sufficient sample size to detect the observed effect. Currently, these findings suggest that AI-assisted colonoscopy can serve as a useful proxy to address critical gaps in CRC identification.