Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided cholecystostomy versus percutaneous cholecystostomy (PTC) in the management of acute cholecystitis in patients unfit for surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Surgical cholecystectomy is the gold standard strategy for the management of acute cholecystitis (AC). However, some patients are considered unfit for surgery due to certain comorbid conditions. As such, we aimed to compare less invasive treatment strategies such as endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) and percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) for the management of patients with AC who are suboptimal candidates for surgical cholecystectomy. METHODS: A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed to identify all the studies comparing EUS-GBD versus PT-GBD for patients with AC who were unfit for surgery. A subgroup analysis was also performed for comparison of the group undergoing drainage via cautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) versus PT-GBD. The outcomes included technical and clinical success, adverse events (AEs), recurrent cholecystitis, reintervention, and hospital readmission. RESULTS: Eleven studies including 1155 patients were included in the statistical analysis. There was no difference between PT-GBD and EUS-GBD in all the evaluated outcomes. On the subgroup analysis, the endoscopic approach with cautery-enhanced LAMS was associated with lower rates of adverse events (RD = - 0.33 (95% CI - 0.52 to - 0.14; p = 0.0006), recurrent cholecystitis (- 0.05 RD (95% CI - 0.09 to - 0.02; p = 0.02), and hospital readmission (- 0.36 RD (95% CI-0.70 to - 0.03; p = 0.03) when compared to PT-GBD. All other outcomes were similar in the subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GBD using cautery-enhanced LAMS is superior to PT-GBD in terms of safety profile, recurrent cholecystitis, and hospital readmission rates in the management of patients with acute cholecystitis who are suboptimal candidates for cholecystectomy. However, when cautery-enhanced LAMS are not used, the outcomes of EUS-GBD and PT-GBD are similar. Thus, EUS-GBD with cautery-enhanced LAMS should be considered the preferable approach for gallbladder drainage for this challenging population.

The Effectiveness and Safety of the Duodenal-Jejunal Bypass Liner (DJBL) for the Management of Obesity and Glycaemic Control: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: The duodenal-jejunal bypass liner (DJBL) is a less-invasive treatment of obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis including randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing DJBL versus sham or pharmacotherapies aiming to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of DJBL. RESULTS: Ten RCTs (681 patients) were included. The DJBL group showed superior excess weight loss (+ 11.4% [+ 7.75 to + 15.03%], p < 0.00001) and higher decrease in HbA1c compared to the control group (- 2.73 ± 0.5 vs. - 1.73 ± 0.4, p = 0.0001). Severe adverse events (SAEs) occurred in 19.7%. CONCLUSION: The DJBL did not reach the ASGE/ASMBS thresholds for the treatment of obesity. However, it is important to state that many SAEs were not really severe. Therefore, we believe this therapy plays an important role in the management obesity and T2DM.

Self-Expandable Metal Stent (SEMS) Versus Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent (LAMS) for Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background and aim Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage is the gold standard approach for the treatment of encapsulated pancreatic collections (EPCs) including pseudocyst and walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON), and is associated with an equivalent clinical efficacy to surgical drainage with fewer complications and less morbidity. Drainage may be achieved via several types of stents including a fully covered self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) and lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS). However, to date there have been no randomized trials to compare these devices. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the SEMS versus LAMS for EUS-guided drainage of EPCs. Methods A phase IIB randomized trial was designed to compare the SEMS versus LAMS for the treatment of EPCs. Technical success, clinical success, adverse events (AEs), and procedure time were evaluated. A sample size of 42 patients was determined. Results There was no difference between the two groups in technical (LAMS 80.95% vs 100% SEMS, p=0.107), clinical (LAMS 85.71% vs 95.24% SEMS, p=0.606) or radiological success (LAMS 92.86% vs 83.33% SEMS, p=0.613). There was no difference in AEs including stent migration rate and mortality. The procedure time was longer in the LAMS group (mean time 43.81 min versus 24.43 min, p=0.001). There was also a difference in the number of intra-procedure complications (5 LAMS vs 0 SEMS, p=0.048). Conclusion SEMS and LAMS have similar technical, clinical, and radiological success as well as AEs. However, SEMS has a shorter procedure time and fewer intra-procedure complications compared to non-electrocautery-enhanced LAMS in this phase IIB randomized controlled trial (RCT). The choice of the type of stent used for EUS drainage of EPCs should consider device availability, costs, and personal and local experience.

Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy (EVT) for the Treatment of Post-Bariatric Surgery Leaks and Fistulas: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Bariatric surgery remains the most effective treatment for morbid obesity and its comorbidities. However, post-surgical leaks and fistulas can occur in about 1-5% of patients, with challenging treatment approaches. Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) has emerged as a promising tool due to its satisfactory results and accessibility. In this first systematic review and meta-analysis on the subject, EVT revealed rates of 87.2% clinical success, 6% moderate adverse events, and 12.5% system dislodgements, requiring 6.47 EVT system exchanges every 4.39 days, with a dwell time of 25.67 days and a total length of hospitalization of 44.43 days. Although our results show that EVT is a safe and effective therapy for post-surgical leaks and fistulas, they should be interpreted with caution due to the paucity of available data.

Endoscopic Resection Versus Surgery in the Treatment of Early Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background and Aim: Endoscopic resection (ER) is the preferred approach to treat early gastric cancer (EGC) in patients without suspected lymph node involvement and that meet the criteria for ER. Surgery is a more aggressive treatment, but it may be associated with less recurrence and the need for reintervention. Previous meta-analyses comparing ER with surgery for EGC did not incorporate the most recent studies, making accurate conclusions not possible. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine complete resection, length of hospital stay (LOHS), adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, recurrence, 5-year overall survival (OS), and 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS) in patients with EGC. Results: A total of 29 cohorts studies involving 20559 patients were included. The ER (n = 7709) group was associated with a lower incidence of AEs (RD = -0.07, 95%CI = -0.1, -0.04, p < 0.0001) and shorter LOHS (95% CI -5.89, -5.32; p < 0,00001) compared to surgery (n = 12850). However, ER was associated with lower complete resection rates (RD = -0.1, 95%CI = -0.15, -0.06; p < 0.00001) and higher rates of recurrence (RD = 0.07, 95%CI = 0.06; p < 0.00001). There were no significant differences between surgery and ER in 5-year OS (RD = -0.01, 95%CI = -0.04, 0.02; p = 0.38), 5-year CSS (RD = 0.01, 95%CI = 0.00, 0.02; p < 0.17), and incidence of serious AEs (RD = -0.03, 95%CI = -0.08, 0.01; p = 0.13). Conclusions: ER and surgery are safe and effective treatments for EGC. ER provides lower rates of AEs and shorter LOHS compared to surgery. Although ER is associated with lower complete resection rates and a higher risk of recurrence, the OS and CSS were similar between both approaches. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42021255328.

Antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent complications in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The prophylactic use of antibiotics in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is still controversial. AIM: To assess whether antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the rates of complications in patients undergoing elective ERCP. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed. Only randomized controlled trials were included. The outcomes analyzed included bacteremia, cholangitis, sepsis, pancreatitis, and mortality. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane revised Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized controlled trials. The quality of evidence was assessed by the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager 5.4 software. RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials with a total of 1757 patients that compared the use of antibiotic and non-antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing elective ERCP were included. There was no significant difference between groups regarding incidence of cholangitis after ERCP [risk difference (RD) = -0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.05, 0.02, P = 0.32], cholangitis in patients with suspected biliary obstruction (RD = 0.02, 95%CI: -0.08 to 0.13, P = 0.66), cholangitis on intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis (RD = -0.02, 95%CI: -0.05 to 0.01, P = 0.25), septicemia (RD = -0.02, 95%CI: -0.06 to 0.01, P = 0.25), pancreatitis (RD = -0.02, 95%CI: -0.06 to 0.01, P = 0.19), and all-cause mortality (RD = 0.00, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.01, P = 0.71]. However, the antibiotic prophylaxis group presented a 7% risk reduction in the incidence of bacteremia (RD= -0.07, 95%CI: -0.14 to -0.01, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The prophylactic use of antibiotics in patients undergoing elective ERCP reduces the risk of bacteremia but does not appear to have an impact on the rates of cholangitis, septicemia, pancreatitis, and mortality.

Anti-reflux versus conventional self-expanding metal stents in the palliation of esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are an effective palliative endoscopic therapy to reduce dysphagia in esophageal cancer. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a relatively common complaint after non-valved conventional SEMS placement. Therefore, valved self-expanding metal stents (SEMS-V) were designed to reduce the rate of GERD symptoms. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the two stents. Material and methods This was a systematic review and meta-analysis including only randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing the outcomes between SEMS-V and non-valved self-expanding metal stents (SEMS-NV) following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Data were analyzed with Review Manager Software. Quality of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines. Results Ten randomized clinical trials including a total of 467 patients, 234 in the SEMS-V group and 233 in the SEMS-NV group, were included. There were no statistically significant differences regarding GERD qualitative analysis (RD -0.17; 95 % CI -0.67, 0.33; P  = 0.5) and quantitative analysis (SMD -0.22; 95 % CI -0.53, 0.08; P  = 0.15) technical success (RD -0.03; 95 % CI -0.07, 0.01; P  = 0.16), dysphagia improvement (RD -0.07; 95 % CI -0.19, 0.06; P  = 0.30), and adverse events (RD 0.07; 95 % CI -0.07, 0.20; P  = 0.32). Conclusions Both SEMS-V and SEMS-NV are safe and effective in the palliation of esophageal cancer with similar rates of GERD, dysphagia relief, technical success, adverse events, stent migration, stent obstruction, bleeding, and improvement of the quality of life.

Gastroesophageal Reflux Waning Over Time in Endoscopic Versus Surgical Myotomy for the Treatment of Achalasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and Heller myotomy with fundoplication (HMF) effectively treat achalasia, an esophageal motor disease. Although a significant number of meta-analyses have compared POEM and HMF, these studies showed discrepant postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) conclusions. This review aimed to objectively compare GERD over time, as well as the efficiency, safety, and adverse events in POEM versus HMF for treating achalasia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Clinicaltrials.gov. The evaluated outcomes included early (within 12 months) and late (beyond 12 months) endoscopic assessment of GERD using the Lyon Consensus, clinical success, operative duration (OD), length of stay (LOS), and major adverse events (MAE). A total of 29 observational studies and two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with 13,914 patients were included. GERD was 28% higher among RCTs discussing POEM at early assessment (95%CI 0.02, 0.54) and was not different at late evaluation (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.00, 0.22). No difference in reflux was observed among observational studies in both periods. The clinical success was 9% higher (95% CI = 0.05, 0.12), and the OD was 37.74 minutes shorter (95% CI = -55.44, -20.04) in POEM among observational studies, whereas it was not different among RCTs. The LOS and MAE were similar in the groups. Comparisons among studies yielded divergent results. RCTs revealed that POEM had a higher incidence of GERD in the early assessment, whereas observational studies showed higher clinical success and a shorter OD in POEM. Ultimately, the between-group difference waned over time in GERD in all comparisons, resulting in no difference among RCTs in the late evaluation. Our meta-analysis demonstrated a non-preferential treatment of achalasia between endoscopic or surgical cardiomyotomy, prioritizing an individualized approach in the long term.

Pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A narrative review.

Acute post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is a feared and potentially fatal complication that can be as high as up to 30% in high-risk patients. Pre-examination measures, during the examination and after the examination are the key to technical and clinical success with a decrease in adverse events. Several studies have debated on the subject, however, numerous topics remain controversial, such as the effectiveness of prophylactic medications and the amylase dosage time. This review was designed to provide an update on the current scientific evidence regarding PEP available in the literature.

Role of pancreatography in the endoscopic management of encapsulated pancreatic collections - review and new proposed classification.

Pancreatic fluids collections are local complications related to acute or chronic pancreatitis and may require intervention when symptomatic and/or complicated. Within the last decade, endoscopic management of these collections via endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage has become the gold standard treatment for encapsulated pancreatic collections with high clinical success and lower morbidity compared to traditional surgery and percutaneous drainage. Proper understanding of anatomic landmarks, including assessment of the main pancreatic duct and any associated lesions - such as disruptions and strictures - are key to achieving clinical success, reducing the need for reintervention or recurrence, especially in cases with suspected disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome. Additionally, proper review of imaging and anatomic landmarks, including collection location, are pivotal to determine type and size of pancreatic stenting as well as approach using long-term transmural indwelling plastic stents. Pancreatography to adequately assess the main pancreatic duct may be performed by two methods: Either non-invasively using magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography or endoscopically via retrograde cholangiopan-creatography. Despite the critical need to understand anatomy via pancrea-tography and assess the main pancreatic duct, a standardized approach or uniform assessment strategy has not been described in the literature. Therefore, the aim of this review was to clarify the role of pancreatography in the endoscopic management of encapsulated pancreatic collections and to propose a new classification system to aid in proper assessment and endoscopic treatment.

Efficacy of Intragastric Balloons for Weight Loss in Overweight and Obese Adults: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Intragastric balloons (IGB) are the most widely used endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of IGB in comparison with sham or lifestyle interventions for weight loss in overweight and obese patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches were performed to identify randomized controlled trials, which compared IGB with sham or lifestyle intervention. Thirteen RCTs with 1523 patients were included. The difference in mean %EWL and %TWL at follow-up was 17.98%, and 4.40%, respectively, which was significantly higher in the IGB group. Similarly, the difference in mean AWL and BMIL was 6.12 kg, and 2.13 kg/m2, respectively. IGB therapy is more effective than lifestyle intervention alone for weight loss in overweight and obese adults.

Gastrointestinal Manifestations and Associated Health Outcomes of COVID-19: A Brazilian Experience From the Largest South American Public Hospital.

OBJECTIVES: Brazil has rapidly developed the second-highest number of COVID-19 cases in the world. As such, proper symptom identification, including gastrointestinal manifestations, and relationship to health outcomes remains key. We aimed to assess the prevalence and impact of gastrointestinal symptoms associated with COVID-19 in a large quaternary referral center in South America. METHODS: This was a single-center cohort study in a COVID-19 specific hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Consecutive adult patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 were included. Baseline patient history, presenting symptoms, laboratory results, and clinically relevant outcomes were recorded. Regression analyses were performed to determine significant predictors of the gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 and hospitalization outcomes. RESULTS: Four-hundred patients with COVID-19 were included. Of these, 33.25% of patients reported ≥1 gastrointestinal symptom. Diarrhea was the most common gastrointestinal symptom (17.25%). Patients with gastrointestinal symptoms had higher rates of concomitant constitutional symptoms, notably fatigue and myalgia (p<0.05). Gastrointestinal symptoms were also more prevalent among patients on chronic immunosuppressants, ACE/ARB medications, and patient with chronic kidney disease (p<0.05). Laboratory results, length of hospitalization, ICU admission, ICU length of stay, need for mechanical ventilation, vasopressor support, and in-hospital mortality did not differ based upon gastrointestinal symptoms (p>0.05). Regression analyses showed older age [OR 1.04 (95% CI, 1.02-1.06)], male gender [OR 1.94 (95% CI, 1.12-3.36)], and immunosuppression [OR 2.60 (95% CI, 1.20-5.63)], were associated with increased mortality. CONCLUSION: Based upon this Brazilian study, gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 are common but do not appear to impact clinically relevant hospitalization outcomes including the need for ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or mortality.

Gastrointestinal manifestations and associated health outcomes of COVID-19: a brazilian experience from the largest south american public hospital

OBJECTIVES: Brazil has rapidly developed the second-highest number of COVID-19 cases in the world. As such, proper symptom identification, including gastrointestinal manifestations, and relationship to health outcomes remains key. We aimed to assess the prevalence and impact of gastrointestinal symptoms associated with COVID-19 in a large quaternary referral center in South America. METHODS: This was a single-center cohort study in a COVID-19 specific hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Consecutive adult patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 were included. Baseline patient history, presenting symptoms, laboratory results, and clinically relevant outcomes were recorded. Regression analyses were performed to determine significant predictors of the gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 and hospitalization outcomes. RESULTS: Four-hundred patients with COVID-19 were included. Of these, 33.25% of patients reported ≥1 gastrointestinal symptom. Diarrhea was the most common gastrointestinal symptom (17.25%). Patients with gastrointestinal symptoms had higher rates of concomitant constitutional symptoms, notably fatigue and myalgia (p<0.05). Gastrointestinal symptoms were also more prevalent among patients on chronic immunosuppressants, ACE/ARB medications, and patient with chronic kidney disease (p<0.05). Laboratory results, length of hospitalization, ICU admission, ICU length of stay, need for mechanical ventilation, vasopressor support, and in-hospital mortality did not differ based upon gastrointestinal symptoms (p>0.05). Regression analyses showed older age [OR 1.04 (95% CI, 1.02-1.06)], male gender [OR 1.94 (95% CI, 1.12-3.36)], and immunosuppression [OR 2.60 (95% CI, 1.20-5.63)], were associated with increased mortality. CONCLUSION: Based upon this Brazilian study, gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 are common but do not appear to impact clinically relevant hospitalization outcomes including the need for ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or mortality.