Buprenorphine Versus Diclofenac for Pain Relief in Acute Pancreatitis: A Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although both nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids are used for analgesia in acute pancreatitis (AP), the analgesic of choice is not known. We compared buprenorphine, an opioid, and diclofenac, an NSAID, for analgesia in AP. METHODS: In a double-blind randomized controlled trial, AP patients were randomized to receive intravenous diclofenac or intravenous buprenorphine. Fentanyl was used as rescue analgesia, delivered through a patient-controlled analgesia pump. Primary outcome was the difference in the dose of rescue fentanyl required. Secondary outcomes were the number of effective and ineffective demands of rescue fentanyl, pain-free interval, reduction in visual analogue scale (VAS) score, adverse events, and organ failure development. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were randomized to diclofenac and 24 to buprenorphine. The 2 groups were matched at baseline. The total amount of rescue fentanyl required was significantly lower in the buprenorphine group:130 µg, interquartile range (IQR), 80-255 vs 520 µg, IQR, 380-1065 (P < .001). The number of total demands was 32 (IQR, 21-69) in the diclofenac arm vs 8 (IQR, 4-15) in the buprenorphine arm (P < .001). The buprenorphine group had more prolonged pain-free interval (20 vs 4 hours; P < .001), with greater reduction in the VAS score at 24, 48, and 72 hours compared with the diclofenac group. These findings were confirmed in the subgroup of moderately severe/severe pancreatitis. Adverse events profile was similar in the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with diclofenac, buprenorphine appears to be more effective and equally safe for pain management in AP patients, even in the subcohort of moderately severe or severe pancreatitis (Trial Registration number: CTRI/2020/07/026914).

Dedicated cautery-enhanced tubular self-expandable metal stent for endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy: feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is an alternative for biliary drainage in patients with obstructive pancreaticobiliary pathology when endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is not feasible. Despite its effectiveness, EUS-HGS is associated with a significant risk of adverse events. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a newly designed dedicated cautery-enhanced tubular self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) for EUS-HGS. METHODS: This multicenter prospective study included patients with malignant biliary obstruction in whom ERCP had failed because of tumor infiltration, inability to drain the intrahepatic ducts, or surgically altered anatomy. A dedicated cautery-enhanced tubular SEMS was used for EUS-HGS. Technical and clinical success rates, procedure times, and adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS: 20 patients underwent EUS-HGS with the dedicated stent. Technical and clinical success rates of 100% were achieved, with no reported severe adverse events or mortality. The median procedure time was 16 minutes. Recurrent biliary obstruction was observed in 1 patient. CONCLUSIONS: The dedicated cautery-enhanced tubular SEMS for EUS-HGS can simplify the procedure and enhance its safety and efficacy. This innovation shows promise for improving patient outcomes, although further studies are needed to validate these findings in a broader patient population.

Lumen-apposing metal stents for the treatment of pancreatic and peripancreatic fluid collections and bleeding risk: a propensity matched study.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) using the Hot-Axios device has recently been associated with a significant risk of bleeding. This adverse event (AE) seems to occur less frequently with the use of a different device, the Spaxus stent. The aim of the current study was to compare the rates of bleeding between the two stents. METHODS: Patients admitted for treatment of PFCs by EUS plus lumen-apposing metal stent in 18 endoscopy referral centers between 10 July 2019 and 28 February 2022 were identified and their outcomes compared using a propensity-matching analysis. RESULTS: 363 patients were evaluated. After a 1-to-1 propensity score match, 264 patients were selected (132 per group). The technical and clinical success rates were comparable between the two groups. Significantly more bleeding requiring transfusion and/or intervention occurred in the Hot-Axios group than in the Spaxus group (6.8% vs. 1.5%; P = 0.03); stent type was a significant predictor of bleeding in both univariate and multivariate regression analyses (P = 0.03 and 0.04, respectively). Bleeding necessitating arterial embolization did not however differ significantly between the two groups (3.0% vs. 0%; P = 0.12). In addition, the Hot-Axios was associated with a significantly higher rate of overall AEs compared with the Spaxus stent (9.8% vs. 3.0%; P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that, in patients with PFCs, bleeding requiring transfusion and/or intervention occurred significantly more frequently with use of the Hot-Axios stent than with the Spaxus stent, although this was not the case for bleeding requiring embolization.

Role of Novel Motorized Enteroscopy in the Evaluation of Small Bowel Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Motorized spiral enteroscopy (MSE) has recently been introduced for small bowel evaluation. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to evaluate the safety and efficacy of MSE for evaluation of small bowel diseases. METHODS: A literature search was performed in Embase, PubMed, Medline databases for studies evaluating MSE between January -2010 and October-2022. The primary outcome of the study was diagnostic yield with MSE. Secondary outcomes included technical success, procedure duration, depth of maximum insertion (DMI), rate of pan-enteroscopy and adverse events. RESULTS: 10 studies with 961 patients [581 (60.5%) males] were included in the analysis. 1068 MSE procedures were performed by antegrade route in 698, retrograde route in 215 and bidirectional in 155 patients. Technical success was achieved in 94.9% (95% CI 92.9% to 96.4%) procedures. The pooled diagnostic yield of MSE was 73.7% (95% CI 70.7% to 76.4%). Pooled rate of pan-enteroscopy by antegrade route was 21.9% (95% CI 18.1% to 26.1%), retrograde route was 6.9% (95% CI 2.4% to 18.3%) and combined route was 61.2% (95% CI 52.4% to 69.3%). Pooled rate of major adverse events was 1.9% (95% CI 1.2% to 3.2%). CONCLUSIONS: MSE is a safe and effective tool for evaluating small bowel disorders. High diagnostic yield and low rate of adverse events make it a potential alternative to balloon enteroscopy. However, comparative trials are required in the future.

Venous Thrombosis in Acute Pancreatitis: What to and Not to Do?

Acute pancreatitis is an acute inflammatory condition of the pancreas that has not only local but systemic effects as well. Venous thrombosis is one such complication which can give rise to thrombosis of the peripheral vasculature in the form of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and splanchnic vein thrombosis. The prevalence of these complications increases with the severity of the disease and adds to the adverse outcomes profile. With better imaging and awareness, more cases are being detected, although many at times it can be an incidental finding. However, it remains understudied and strangely, most of the guidelines on the management of acute pancreatitis are silent on this aspect. This review offers an overview of the incidence, pathophysiology, symptomatology, diagnostic work-up, and management of venous thrombosis that develops in AP.

Device-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection in colorectum: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is emerging as an effective modality for mucosal and submucosal lesions in the colorectum. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to analyze the success and safety of device-assisted EFTR in the colon and rectum. METHODS: A literature search was performed in the Embase, PubMed, and Medline databases for studies evaluating device-assisted EFTR between inception to October 2022. The primary outcome of the study was clinical success (R0 resection) with EFTR. Secondary outcomes included technical success, procedure duration, and adverse events. RESULTS: In all, 29 studies with 3467 patients (59% male patients, 3492 lesions) were included in the analysis. The lesions were located in right colon (47.5%), left colon (28.6%), and rectum (24.3%). EFTR was performed for subepithelial lesions in 7.2% patients. The pooled mean size of the lesions was 16.6 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.9-18.2, I2 98%). Technical success was achieved in 87.1% (95% CI 85.1-88.9%, I2 39%) procedures. The pooled rate of en bloc resection was 88.1% (95% CI 86-90%, I2 47%) and R0 resection was 81.8% (95% CI 79-84.3%, I2 56%). In subepithelial lesions, the pooled rate of R0 resection was 94.3% (95% CI 89.7-96.9%, I2 0%). The pooled rate of adverse events was 11.9% (95% CI 10.2-13.9%, I2 43%) and major adverse events requiring surgery was 2.5% (95% CI 2.0-3.1%, I2 0%). CONCLUSION: Device-assisted EFTR is a safe and effective treatment modality in cases with adenomatous and subepithelial colorectal lesions. Comparative studies are required with conventional resection techniques, including endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection.

Same-session double EUS-guided bypass versus surgical gastroenterostomy and hepaticojejunostomy: an international multicenter comparison.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Gastric outlet and biliary obstruction are common manifestations of GI malignancies and some benign diseases for which standard treatment would be surgical gastroenterostomy and hepaticojejunostomy (ie, "double bypass"). Therapeutic EUS has allowed for the creation of an EUS-guided double bypass. However, same-session double EUS-guided bypass has only been described in small proof-of-concept series and lacks a comparison with surgical double bypass. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter analysis was performed of all consecutive same-session double EUS-guided bypass procedures performed in 5 academic centers. Surgical comparators were extracted from these centers' databases from the same time interval. Efficacy, safety, hospital stay, nutrition and chemotherapy resumption, long-term patency, and survival were compared. RESULTS: Of 154 identified patients, 53 (34.4%) received treatment with EUS and 101 (65.6%) with surgery. At baseline, patients undergoing EUS exhibited higher American Society of Anesthesiologists scores and a higher median Charlson Comorbidity Index (9.0 [interquartile range {IQR}, 7.0-10.0] vs 7.0 [IQR, 5.0-9.0], P < .001). Technical success (96.2% vs 100%, P = .117) and clinical success rates (90.6% vs 82.2%, P = .234) were similar when comparing EUS and surgery. Overall (11.3% vs 34.7%, P = .002) and severe adverse events (3.8% vs 19.8%, P = .007) occurred more frequently in the surgical group. In the EUS group, median time to oral intake (0 days [IQR, 0-1] vs 6 days [IQR, 3-7], P < .001) and hospital stay (4.0 days [IQR, 3-9] vs 13 days [IQR, 9-22], P < .001) were significantly shorter. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being used in a patient population with more comorbidities, same-session double EUS-guided bypass achieved similar technical and clinical success and was associated with fewer overall and severe adverse events when compared with surgical gastroenterostomy and hepaticojejunostomy.

EUS-guided coil and glue injection versus endoscopic glue injection for gastric varices: International multicentre propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gastric varices (GVs) are conventionally managed with endoscopic cyanoacrylate (E-CYA) glue injection. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided therapy using combination of coils and CYA glue (EUS-CG) is a relatively recent modality. There is limited data comparing the two techniques. METHODOLOGY: This international multicentre study included patients with GV undergoing endotherapy from two Indian and two Italian tertiary care centres. Patients undergoing EUS-CG were compared with propensity-matched E-CYA cases from a cohort of 218 patients. Procedural details such as amount of glue, number of coils used, number of sessions required for obliteration, bleeding after index procedure rates and need for re-intervention were noted. RESULTS: Of 276 patients, 58 (male 42, 72.4%; mean age-44.3 ± 12.1 years) underwent EUS-CG and were compared with 118 propensity-matched cases of E-CYA. In the EUS-CG arm, complete obliteration at 4 weeks was noted in 54 (93.1%) cases. Compared to the E-CYA cohort, EUS-CG arm showed significantly lower number of session (1.0 vs. 1.5; p < 0.0001) requirement, lower subsequent-bleeding episodes (13.8% vs. 39.1%; p < 0.0001) and lower re-intervention (12.1% vs. 50.4%; p < 0.001) rates. On multivariable regression analysis, size of the varix (aOR-1.17; CI 1.08-1.26) and technique of therapy (aOR-14.71; CI 4.32-50.0) were significant predictors of re-bleeding. A maximum GV size >17.5 mm had a 69% predictive accuracy for need for re-intervention. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapy of GV using coil and CYA glue is a safe technique with better efficacy and lower re-bleeding rates on follow-up compared to the conventional endoscopic CYA therapy.

Dynamics of Serum Procalcitonin Can Predict Outcome in Patients of Infected Pancreatic Necrosis: A Prospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Timely intervention can alter outcome in patients of infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) but lacks adequate biomarker. Role of serum procalcitonin (PCT) in the management of IPN is understudied, and hence, this study was planned. METHODOLOGY: All patients of acute pancreatitis with IPN without prior intervention were included. Baseline demographic, radiological and laboratory parameters were documented. PCT was measured at baseline, prior to intervention, and thereafter every 72 h. Patients were grouped into those having baseline PCT < 1.0 ng/mL and those with PCT ≥ 1.0 ng/mL and various outcome measures were compared. RESULTS: Of the 242 patients screened, 103 cases (66 males; 64.1%) with IPN were grouped into 2: PCT < 1.0 ng/mL (n = 29) and PCT ≥ 1.0 ng/mL (n = 74). Patients with baseline PCT ≥ 1.0 ng/mL had significantly more severe disease scores. 16 out of 19 patients with rise in PCT on day-7 post-intervention expired. PCT ≥ 1.0 ng/mL group had higher need for ICU (p = 0.001) and mortality (p = 0.044). PCT > 2.25 ng/mL (aOR 22.56; p = 0.013) at baseline and failure in reduction of PCT levels to < 60% of baseline at day-7 post-intervention (aOR 53.76; p = 0.001) were significant mortality predictors. CONCLUSION: Baseline PCT > 1.0 ng/mL is associated with poor outcome. PCT > 2.25 ng/mL and failure in reduction of PCT levels to < 60% of its baseline at day-7 post-intervention can identify high-mortality risk patients.

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.

Acute pancreatitis in pregnancy and its impact on the maternal and foetal outcomes: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of AP in pregnancy (APIP) is uncertain with varying reports of its impact on maternal and foetal outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This study was aimed to find the prevalence of APIP and its effect on the maternal and foetal outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases were searched upto 31.05.2020 for the appropriate studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Prospective, retrospective observational studies or case series evaluating APIP in terms of maternal and foetal outcomes were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data on the prevalence of APIP, etiology, maternal mortality rates and foetal outcomes were collated. Due to high heterogeneity among the studies, the data has been represented as a systematic review. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies with 8466 pregnant patients were included in the systematic review. The overall prevalence of APIP ranged from 0.225/1000 pregnancies to 2.237/1000 pregnancies. Gallstone disease was the most common cause ranging from 14.29 to 96.3%, with eastern studies reporting more cases of hypertriglyceridemia as etiology. Mild pancreatitis was noted in 33.33-100% of cases with milder disease among western studies. APIP incidence was higher during 3rd trimester (27.27%-95.24%). Maternal mortality ranged from 0 to 12.12/100 pregnancies. Foetal loss ranged from 0 to 23.08%, with adverse foetal outcomes ranging from 0 to 57.41%. Neonatal mortality ranged from 0 to 75.5/1000 neonatal live birth. CONCLUSION: APIP is usually mild, but its incidence increases with gestational age. Maternal outcome is usually good but adverse foetal outcome is high in APIP (PROSPERO No.: CRD42020194313).

Virus related acute pancreatitis and virus superinfection in the 'Dual disease' model of acute pancreatitis and SARS-Co-V2 infection: A multicentre prospective study.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 can cause acute pancreatitis (AP) and SARS-CoV-2 superinfection can occur in patients with AP during prolonged hospitalisation. Our objective was to characterize SARS-CoV-2 related AP and study the impact of SARS-CoV-2 superinfection on outcomes in AP. METHODS: In this multicentre prospective study, all patients with AP and SARS-CoV-2 infection between August 2020 and February 2021 were divided into two groups: SARS-CoV-2-related AP and superadded SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with AP. The two groups were compared with each other and the whole cohort was compared with a non-COVID AP cohort. RESULTS: A total of 85 patients with SARS-CoV-2 and AP (SARS-CoV-2-related AP; n = 18 and AP with SARS-CoV-2 superadded infection; n = 67) were included during the study period. They had a higher mortality [28 (32.9%) vs. 44 (19.1%), aOR 2.8 (95% CI, 1.5-5.3)] than 230 propensity matched non-COVID AP patients. Mortality in SARS-CoV-2 and AP patients was due to critical COVID. SARS-CoV-2-related- AP (n = 18) had a higher but statistically insignificant mortality than SARS-CoV-2 superinfection in AP [8/18 (44.4%) vs 20/67 (29.8%), p = 0.24]. On multivariable analysis, infection with SARS-CoV-2 (aHR 2.3; 95% CI, 1.43.7) was a predictor of in-hospital mortality in addition to organ failure (OF) in patients with AP. CONCLUSION: Patients with AP and SARS-CoV-2 infection had a higher mortality than matched non-COVID AP patients which was largely attributable to the severity of COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 related AP had higher OF and in-hospital mortality.