Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Different Stent Types for Pancreatic Fluid Collections: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) is required in select cases including infected or symptomatic collections. In this network meta-analysis, we have compared lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FCSEMS), and double-pigtail stents (DPS) to identify the most useful stent type in the management of PFCs. METHODS: We reviewed several databases to identify studies that compared DPS or FCSEMS with LAMS and the ones which compared DPS with FCSEMS for the treatment of PFCs. Our outcomes of interest were clinical success, adverse events, technical success, recurrence of PFCs, and procedure duration. Random effects model and frequentist approach were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: We included 28 studies with 2974 patients. Rate of clinical success was significantly lower with DPS compared to LAMS, OR (95% CI): 0.43 (0.32, 0.59). Rate of recurrence was higher with DPS compared to LAMS, OR (95% CI): 2.06 (1.19, 3.57). We found no significant difference in rate of adverse events between groups. Rate of technical success was higher for FCSEMS compared to LAMS. Procedure duration was significantly shorter for LAMS compared to DPS and FCSEMS. Based on frequentist approach, LAMS was found to be superior to DPS and FCSEMS in achieving higher clinical success, lower rate of adverse events and recurrence, and shorter procedure time. CONCLUSIONS: This network meta-analysis demonstrates the superiority of LAMS over DPS and FCSEMS in the management of PFCs in achieving a higher clinical success, shorter procedure time, and lower rate of recurrence. Some of the analyses are not adequately powered to make firm conclusions, and future large multicenter RCTs are required to further evaluate this issue.

Cold snare versus cold forceps polypectomy for endoscopic resection of diminutive polyps: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The practices for resection of diminutive colon polyps vary among endoscopists, and U.S. Multi-Society Task force guidelines recommend use of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for this purpose. In this meta-analysis, we compared CSP and cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) for resection of diminutive polyps. METHODS: Several databases were reviewed to identify randomized controlled trials that compared CSP and CFP for resection of diminutive polyps. The study outcomes of interest were complete resection of all diminutive polyps, complete resection of polyps ≤3 mm in size, failure of tissue retrieval, and polypectomy time. For categorical variables, pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated; for continuous variables, mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs were calculated. Data were analyzed by using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed by using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: We included 9 studies with 1037 patients. Rate of complete resection of all diminutive polyps was significantly higher in the CSP group (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.09-2.58). Subgroup analysis, including jumbo or large-capacity forceps, found no significant difference in complete resection between groups (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, .80-2.56). We found no significant between-groups in the rates of complete resection of polyps ≤3 mm in size (OR, .83; 95% CI, .30-2.31). Rate of failure of tissue retrieval was significantly higher in the CSP group (OR, 10.13; 95% CI, 2.29-44.74). No significant between-group difference was noted in polypectomy time. CONCLUSIONS: CFP using large-capacity or jumbo biopsy forceps is noninferior to CSP for complete resection of diminutive polyps.

Predictors of Fecal Microbiota Transplant Failure in Clostridioides difficile Infection : An Updated Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND AIM: Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is an effective treatment for recurrent/refractory Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) with a 10% to 20% risk of recurrence after a single FMT. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the predictors of FMT failure. METHODS: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases through July 2021 was performed. All studies that evaluated risk factors associated with FMT failure in a multivariate model were included. We calculated pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for risk factors reported in ≥3 studies using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Twenty studies involving 4327 patients (63.6% females) with recurrent/refractory CDI who underwent FMT were included. FMT failed in 705 patients (16.3%) with 2 to 3 months of follow-up in most studies. A total of 12 different risk factors were reported in a multivariate model in ≥3 studies. Meta-analysis showed that advanced age, severe CDI, inflammatory bowel disease, peri-FMT use of non-CDI antibiotics, prior CDI-related hospitalizations, inpatient status, and poor quality of bowel preparation were significant predictors of FMT failure. Charlson Comorbidity Index, female gender, immunosuppressed status, patient-directed donor, and number of CDI recurrences were not associated with FMT failure. CONCLUSIONS: Adequate bowel preparation at the time of FMT and optimizing antibiotic stewardship practices in the peri-FMT period can improve the success of FMT. Patients with nonmodifiable risk factors should be counseled about the risk of FMT failure. Our results may help develop a risk stratification model to predict FMT failure in CDI patients.

Over-the-Scope Clips Versus Standard Endoscopic Treatment for First Line Therapy of Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Over-The-Scope Clips (OTSC) use have shown promising results for first line treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). We conducted this meta-analysis to compare outcomes in patients treated with OTSC versus standard endoscopic intervention for first line endoscopic treatment of NVUGIB. METHODS: We reviewed several databases from inception to December 9, 2022 to identify studies comparing OTSC and standard treatments as the first line treatment for NVUGIB. The outcomes assessed included re-bleeding, initial hemostasis, need for vascular embolization, mortality, need for repeat endoscopy, 30 day readmission rate, and need for surgery. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 statistic. RESULTS: We included 11 studies with 1608 patients (494 patients in OTSC group and 1114 patients in control group). OTSC use was associated with significantly lower risk of re-bleeding (RR, 0.58; 95% CI 0.41-0.82). We found no significant difference in rates of initial hemostasis (RR, 1.05; 95% CI 0.99- 1.11), vascular embolization rates (RR, 0.93; 95% CI 0.40- 2.13), need for repeat endoscopy (RR, 0.78; 95% CI 0.40-1.49), 30 day readmission rate (RR, 0.59; 95% CI 0.17-2.01), need for surgery (RR, 0.81; 95% CI 0.29-2.28) and morality (RR, 0.69; 95% CI 0.38-1.23). CONCLUSIONS: OTSC are associated with significantly lower risk of re-bleeding compared to standard endoscopic treatments when used as first line endoscopic therapy for NVUGIB.

Early Colonoscopy Does Not Affect 30-Day Readmission After Lower GI Bleeding: Insights from a Nationwide Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is one of the most common indications for hospital admission. The current standard of care for patients admitted with LGIB includes colonoscopy. The aims of this study are to define the rate of readmission in patients with LGIB and to determine whether early colonoscopy within the first 24 h after admission impacts the rate of readmission in these patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study on data obtained from the Nationwide Readmission Database and identified patients admitted with lower GI bleed using ICD-10 codes. The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause readmission, and one of our secondary outcomes was the impact of early colonoscopy on 30-day readmission. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 35,790,513 patients who were admitted for LGIB in 2017. A total of 16.4% of these patients were readmitted within 30 days of discharge, with diverticular bleeding most common diagnosis for readmission. Overall, in-hospital mortality was 1.18% for index admission and 4.44% for readmission. Early colonoscopy did not impact the rate of readmission within 30 days of discharge. CONCLUSION: LGIB remains a commonly encountered in clinical practice with a high readmission rate. Mortality is significantly higher during readmission compared to index admission. Early colonoscopy did not impact the 30-day readmission rate.

Impact of Readmission for Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Nationwide Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (VUGIB) is a common and potentially lethal complication of cirrhosis. Population-based data regarding hospital readmission and other outcomes in VUGIB are limited. AIM: In a large United States database of patients with VUGIB, we evaluated readmission rates, mortality rates, healthcare resource consumption, and identified predictors of readmission. METHODS: The 2017 Nationwide Readmission Database using ICD-10 codes was used to identify all adult patients admitted for VUGIB. Primary outcomes were 30- and 90-day readmission rates. Secondary outcomes included mortality, healthcare resource consumption, and predictors of readmission. Multivariate regression analysis was used to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: In 2017, there were 26,498 patients with VUGIB discharged from their index hospitalization, and 24.7% were readmitted (all-cause) within 30-days and 41.5% within 90-days. Recurrent VUGIB accounted for 26.7% and 28.9% of 30- and 90-day readmissions, respectively. Compared to index admissions, 30-day readmissions were associated with higher mortality (4.3% vs. 6.4%, p < 0.01), increased mean hospital length of stay (5.6 days vs. 4.5 days, p < 0.01), and charges ($65,984 vs. $53,784, p < 0.01), with similar findings in 90-day readmissions. Factors associated with 30-day readmission included end-stage renal disease (HR 1.2, p < 0.05), chronic kidney disease (HR 1.31, p < 0.01), and acute kidney injury (HR 1.14, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Based on a nationwide cohort of hospitalized VUGIB patients, 25% were readmitted within 30-days and 42% within 90-days. Readmission was associated with increased mortality and healthcare consumption compared to the index admission. Additionally, acute and chronic renal injury were predictors of patients at high-risk for readmission.

Outcomes of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Treatment of Superficial Pharyngeal Cancers: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Studies evaluating the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of superficial pharyngeal cancers have reported promising results. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of ESD in the management of superficial pharyngeal cancers. METHODS: We reviewed several databases from inception to September 03, 2020, to identify studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of ESD in the management of superficial pharyngeal cancers. Our outcomes of interest were en bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, adverse events, and rates of local recurrence. Pooled rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all outcomes were calculated using random-effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 statistic. We assessed publication bias by using funnel plots and Egger's test. We conducted meta-regression analysis to explore heterogeneity in analyses. RESULTS: Ten studies were included in analyses. All studies were from Asia. Pooled rates (95% CI) for en bloc resection and complete resection were 94% (87%, 97%) and 72% (62%, 80%), respectively. The pooled rates (95% CI) for adverse events and local recurrence were 10% (5%, 17%) and 1.9% (0.9%, 4%), respectively. Most of the analyses were limited by substantial heterogeneity. On meta-regression analysis, the heterogeneity was explained by size of tumor and histology. Funnel plots and Egger's test showed no evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis including studies from Asian countries demonstrated that ESD is an efficacious and safe option in the management of superficial pharyngeal cancers. More studies and studies from Western countries are needed to further validate these findings.

Efficacy of tocilizumab in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The efficacy of tocilizumab (TOC), monoclonal antibody against interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor, in patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients has led to conflicting results. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of addition of TOC to standard of care (SOC) versus SOC in patients with COVID-19. We performed a comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, WHO COVID, LitCOVID, and Cochrane databases. Pooled outcomes (overall mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and secondary infections) were compared using DerSimonian-Laird/Random-effects approach. Risk difference (RD), confidence interval (CI), and p values were generated. A total of 23 studies with 6279 patients (1897 in TOC and 4382 in SOC group, respectively) were included. The overall mortality was lower in TOC group compared to SOC group (RD: -0.06; CI: -0.12 to -0.01; p = .03). Subgroup analysis including studies with only severe cases revealed lower mortality (RD: -0.12; CI: -0.18 to -0.06; p < .01) and need for mechanical ventilation (RD: -0.11; CI: -0.19 to -0.02; p = .01) in TOC group compared to SOC group. The addition of TOC to SOC has the potential to reduce mortality and need for mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19. Randomized controlled trials are needed to validate this.

Role of routine second-look endoscopy in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Studies evaluating the role of routine second-look endoscopy in patients with acute upper GI bleed because of peptic ulcer disease (PUD) have reported conflicting results. This meta-analysis evaluates the usefulness of routine second-look endoscopy in these patients. METHODS: We reviewed several databases from inception to September 15, 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared routine second-look endoscopy with no planned second-look endoscopy in patients with acute upper GI bleed because of PUD. Our outcomes of interest were recurrent bleeding, mortality, need for surgery, and mean number of units of blood transfused. For categorical variables, we calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); for continuous variables, we calculated standardized mean difference with 95% CIs. Data were analyzed using a random effects model. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to ascertain the quality of evidence. RESULTS: We included 9 RTCs comprising 1452 patients; 726 patients underwent planned/routine second-look endoscopy and 726 did not. We found no significant difference in recurrent bleeding (RR, .79; 95% CI, .51-1.23), need for surgery (RR, .58; 95% CI, .29-1.15), mortality (RR, .69; 95% CI, .33-1.45), or mean number of units of blood transfused (standardized mean difference, -.06; 95% CI, -.19 to .07). Quality of evidence ranged from low to moderate based on the GRADE framework. CONCLUSIONS: Single endoscopy with complete endoscopic hemostasis is not inferior to routine second-look endoscopy in reducing the risk of recurrent bleeding, mortality, or need for surgery in patients with acute upper GI bleed because of PUD.

Efficacy and safety of supplemental intravenous lidocaine for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Some studies have shown that intravenous (IV) lidocaine reduces the dose requirement of propofol in GI endoscopic procedures. We conducted this study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of IV lidocaine and propofol compared with propofol alone in GI endoscopic procedures. METHODS: We reviewed several databases from inception to October 13, 2020, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the role of IV propofol and lidocaine with IV propofol plus placebo for sedation in endoscopic procedures. Our outcomes of interest were the differences in total dose of propofol administered, procedure time, and intraoperative adverse events. For categorical variables, we calculated pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI); for continuous variables, we calculated standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI. Data were analyzed using a random effect model. We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework to ascertain the quality of evidence. RESULTS: We included 5 randomized controlled trials with 318 patients. We found that the total dose of propofol administered was significantly lower in the lidocaine group than the control group (SMD, -0.76; 95% CI, -1.09 to -0.42). We found no significant difference in procedure time (SMD, 0.16; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.57) or adverse events (risk ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.35-1.03) between the groups. There was moderate to substantial heterogeneity in the data. Quality of evidence based on the GRADE framework ranged from low to moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality of evidence suggests that IV lidocaine decreases the dose of propofol administered for GI endoscopic procedures.

Do Water-aided Techniques Improve Serrated Polyp Detection Rate During Colonoscopy?: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The utility of water-aided techniques (WT): water exchange (WE) and water immersion (WI) have been studied extensively in the literature for improving colonoscopy outcome metrics such as adenoma detection rate. Serrated polyps owing to their location and appearance have a high miss rate. The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing WT with the standard gas-assisted (GA) method to determine if there was any impact on serrated polyp detection rate (SPDR) and sessile serrated polyp detection rate. METHODS: The following databases were queried for this systematic review: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Sciences. The authors only included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was SPDR and secondary outcomes were sessile serrated polyp detection rate and cecal intubation rate. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for each outcome. A P-value <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 4 RCTs (5 arms) with 5306 patients (2571 in the GA group and 2735 in the WT group) were included. The SPDR was significantly increased for the WT group compared with GA (6.1% vs. 3.8%; RR, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.13; P<0.001; I2=22.7%). A subgroup analysis for WE technique also demonstrated improved SPDR compared with the GA method (4.9% vs. 3.2%; RR, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-2.14; P=0.004; I2=6.1%). CONCLUSIONS: WT, particularly, the WE method results in improved SPDR. This technique should be encouraged in a clinical setting to detect these polyps to prevent interval colorectal cancer.

Efficacy of empiric esophageal dilation in patients with non-obstructive dysphagia: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Empiric esophageal dilation is frequently performed for non-obstructive dysphagia. Studies evaluating its efficacy have reported conflicting results. In this meta-analysis, we have evaluated the efficacy of esophageal dilation in the management of non-obstructive dysphagia. METHODS: We reviewed several databases from inception to 26 May 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that evaluated the role of empiric esophageal dilation for non-obstructive dysphagia. Our outcomes of interest were clinical success (improvement in dysphagia after dilation) and difference in post-operative dysphagia score between groups. For categorical variables, we calculated pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI); for continuous variables, we calculated standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI. Data were analyzed using a random effects model. We used GRADE framework to ascertain the quality of evidence. RESULTS: We included 4 studies (3 RCTs and one observational) with 243 patients; there were 133 treated with empiric dilation and 110 controls. We found no significant difference in clinical success (OR (95% CI) 1.91 (0.89, 4.08)) or post-procedure dysphagia score between groups (SMD (95% CI) 0.38 (-0.37, 1.14)). Our findings remained consistent on subgroup analysis including RCTs only. Quality of evidence ranged from low to very low based on GRADE framework. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis does not support the use of empiric esophageal dilation in patients with non-obstructive dysphagia. More studies are required to confirm these findings.

Readmission, healthcare consumption, and mortality in Clostridioides difficile infection hospitalizations: a nationwide cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Despite being the most common healthcare-related infection in the US, nationwide data on readmission, healthcare consumption, and mortality in Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) remain limited. We examined these outcomes in a US-based cohort of patients with CDI. METHODS: We queried the 2017 Nationwide Readmission Database using ICD-10-CM codes to identify all adult patients admitted with a principal diagnosis of CDI. Primary outcomes were 30- and 90-day readmission rates. Secondary outcomes included mortality rates and healthcare consumption. RESULTS: Of the 83,865 patients discharged from an index hospitalization for CDI, 22.37% were readmitted within 30 days, and an additional 15.01% were readmitted within 90 days. Recurrent CDI was responsible for more than 30% of readmissions at both 30 and 90 days. Compared to the index hospitalization, readmissions were characterized by higher mortality (1.41% index vs. 4.86% 30-day vs. 4.40% 90-day) and increased hospital length of stay and charges. Medicaid insurance (HR 1.16), cirrhosis (HR 1.31), Type 1 diabetes mellitus (HR 1.38), and end-stage renal disease (HR 1.36) were independently associated with 30-day readmission (all p < 0.01), with similar findings in 90-day readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of patients hospitalized for CDI, we found that approximately 1 in 5 were readmitted within 30-days, and more than 1 in 3 within 90-days. Readmission was characterized by increased mortality and greater healthcare consumption. Additionally, we found independent associations for readmission that may help identify patients at high-risk. Prospective investigation is needed to identify means to reduce the healthcare consumption and mortality in CDI.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines Are Primarily Based on Low-Moderate-Quality Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Owning to colorectal cancer's (CRC) high mortality, multiple societies developed screening guidelines. AIMS: We aimed to assess the overall quality of CRC screening guidelines. METHODS: A systematic search was performed to review CRC screening guidelines for conflicts of interest (COI), recommendation quality and strength, external document review, use of patient representative, and recommendation age-as per Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards. In addition, recommendations were compared between guidelines/societies. Statistical analysis was conducted using R. RESULTS: Twelve manuscripts were included in final analysis. Not all guidelines reported on COI, provided a grading method, underwent external review, or included patient representation. 14.5%, 34.2%, and 51.3% of recommendations were based on high-, moderate-, and low-quality evidence, respectively. 27.8%, 54.6%, and 17.5% of recommendations were strong, weak/conditional, and did not provide a strength, respectively. The proportion of high-quality evidence and strong recommendations did not significantly differ across societies, nor were significant associations between publication year and evidence quality seen (P = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: While the majority of the CRC guidelines contain aspects of the standards set forth by the IOM, there is an overall lack of adherence. As over 85% of recommendations are based on low-moderate quality evidence, further studies on CRC screening are warranted to improve the overall quality of evidence.

Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy Is a Safe and Feasible Option in Management of Esophageal Diverticula: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Esophageal diverticula can cause significant symptoms and affect the quality of life. There has been recent interest in the use of peroral endoscopic myotomy in the management of esophageal diverticula (D-POEM). In this meta-analysis, we have evaluated the efficacy and safety of D-POEM in the management of esophageal diverticula. Several databases were reviewed from inception to 6/19/2020 to identify the studies evaluating the feasibility, efficacy and safety of D-POEM in the management of esophageal diverticula. Our outcomes of interest were technical success, adverse events and difference in mean pre- and post-procedure symptom score. We performed subgroup analysis including patients with Zenker's diverticulum who underwent POEM (Z-POEM). Pooled rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all outcomes were calculated using random effect model. We calculated standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI to compare mean pre- and post-procedure symptom score. We included 7 studies with 233 patients. For D-POEM, pooled rates (95% CI) for technical success and adverse events were 95% (91%, 97%) and 6% (3%, 10%) respectively. For Z-POEM, pooled rates (95% CI) for technical success and adverse events were 95% (90%, 97%) and 6% (3%, 10%) respectively. Mean post-procedure symptom score for all patients who underwent D-POEM was significantly lower compared to mean pre-procedure symptom score, SMD (95% CI) 2.17 (1.51, 2.83).  This meta-analysis demonstrated that D-POEM is a safe and feasible option for patients with symptomatic esophageal diverticula.

Role of Hospital Teaching Status on Outcomes of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Nationwide Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding hospitalization outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with respect to hospital teaching status are largely unknown. AIMS: We aimed to investigate the impact of hospital teaching status on IBD hospitalization outcomes. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, we queried the 2016 and 2017 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) databases using the International Classification of Diseases 10th revision (ICD-10) coding system. All adult patients with a principal diagnosis of IBD were included. We stratified the IBD group into ulcerative colitis (UC), Crohn's disease (CD), and complicated IBD. Our primary outcome was mortality. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA, version 16.0. RESULTS: Of the 189,950 adult patients with IBD, the majority were admitted to teaching hospitals (70.9%). There was no significant difference in mortality based upon hospital teaching status (aOR 1.18, p = 0.48); however, these patients had an increased mean length of stay (adjusted coefficient: 0.82, p < 0.01), charges (adjusted coefficient: $8732, p < 0.01), and costs ($2871, p < 0.01). On subgroup analysis, patients with UC admitted to teaching hospitals had a significantly increased in-hospital mortality (aOR 2.11, p < 0.05), while those admitted with CD did not (aOR 0.80, p = 0.4). Among patients with complicated IBD, 73.17% were admitted to teaching hospitals, and no significant difference in in-hospital mortality was seen (aOR 1.06, p = 0.8). CONCLUSION: While outcome differences are likely related to multiple unaccounted factors, greater efforts should be placed to cost-effectively manage patients with IBD at teaching institutions. Future studies are warranted to fully comprehend these variations.

Rectal indomethacin with topical epinephrine versus indomethacin alone for preventing Post-ERCP pancreatitis - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have compared the utility of rectal indomethacin with topical epinephrine (IE) sprayed on duodenal papilla and rectal indomethacin alone (IS) to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) with conflicting results. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the benefit of using the combination prophylaxis as oppose to rectal indomethacin alone. METHODS: The following database were searched for our systematic review: PubMed∖Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science. We included both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. Primary outcome was incidence of PEP and secondary outcomes were adverse events and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 3 studies (all RCTs) with 2244 patients (1132 in IS and 1112 in IE group) were included. The IE group did not demonstrate any significant benefit over IS group in preventing PEP (RR: 1.15, 95% CI 0.62-2.2), mortality (RR: 0.85, 95% CI 0.22-3.24) or overall adverse events (RR: 1.3, 95% CI 0.93-1.7). CONCLUSION: The combination of rectal indomethacin and topical epinephrine failed to demonstrate any benefit over indomethacin alone in preventing PEP, decreasing mortality and overall adverse events.

Efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating the role of tranexamic acid in acute upper GI bleeding (UGIB) have reported conflicting results. In this systematic review, we have evaluated the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in UGIB. METHODS: We searched several databases from inception to June 6, 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared tranexamic acid and placebo in UGIB. Our outcomes of interest were mortality, rebleeding, all thromboembolic events, venous thromboembolic events, need for transfusion, endoscopic intervention and surgery. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed effect model. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 12 RCTs comprising 14,100 patients. We found no significant difference in mortality, pooled RR (95% CI) 0.87 (0.74-1.01), rebleeding, pooled RR (95% CI) 0.90 (0.79-1.02), need for surgery, pooled RR (95% CI) 0.86 (0.73-1.02), need for transfusion, pooled RR (95% CI) 1.00 (0.99-1.01) or thromboembolic events, RR (95% CI) 1.16 (0.87-1.56) between treatments. We found an increased risk of venous thromboembolic events with tranexamic acid, pooled RR (95% CI) 1.94 (1.23-3.05). Certainty of evidence based on the GRADE framework for the different outcomes ranged from low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: Tranexamic acid does not improve outcomes in UGIB and may increase the risk of venous thromboembolic events.