RESUMO
Background/Aims@#Argon plasma coagulation (APC) is the most commonly used endoscopic treatment for gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE). Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) has emerged as an alternative therapy. Our goal was to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of APC and EBL for the treatment of GAVE. This is the first systematic review that included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on this topic. @*Methods@#A comprehensive search was performed using electronic databases to identify RCTs comparing APC and EBL for the treatment of GAVE following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. @*Results@#Four RCTs were included, with a total of 204 patients. EBL was related to higher endoscopic eradication rates risk difference [RD], 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.14, 0.44]; I2=0%) and less bleeding recurrence than APC (RD, 0.29; 95% CI [0.15, 0.44]; I2=0%). Patients treated with EBL required fewer blood transfusions (mean difference [MD], 1.49; 95% CI [0.28, 2.71]; I2=96%) and hospitalizations (MD, 0.29; 95% CI [0.19, 0.39]; I2=0%). The number of sessions required for the obliteration of lesions was higher with APC. There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events. @*Conclusions@#EBL is superior to APC in the treatment of GAVE in terms of endoscopic eradication rates, recurrence of bleeding, and transfusion requirements.
RESUMO
Background/Aims@#Carbon dioxide is increasingly used in insufflation during colonoscopy in adult patients; however, air insufflation remains the primary practice among pediatric gastroenterologists. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate insufflation using CO2 versus air in colonoscopies in pediatric patients. @*Methods@#Individualized search strategies were performed using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and LILACS databases following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and Cochrane working methodology. Randomized control trials (RCTs) were selected for the present meta-analysis. Pooled proportions were calculated for outcomes including procedure time and abdominal pain immediately and 24 hours post-procedure. @*Results@#The initial search yielded 644 records, of which five RCTs with a total of 358 patients (CO2: n=178 versus air: n=180) were included in the final analysis. The procedure time was not different between the CO2 and air insufflation groups (mean difference, 10.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.55 to 24.22; p=0.11). Abdominal pain immediately post-procedure was significantly lower in the CO2 group (risk difference, -0.15; 95% CI; -0.26 to -0.03; p=0.01) while abdominal pain at 24 hours post-procedure was similar (risk difference, -0.05; 95% CI; -0.11 to 0.01; p=0.11). @*Conclusions@#Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCT data, CO2 insufflation reduced abdominal pain immediately following the procedure, while pain was similar at 24 hours post-procedure. These results suggest that CO2 is a preferred insufflation technique when performing colonoscopy in pediatric patients.
RESUMO
Background/Aims@#Argon plasma coagulation (APC) is the most commonly used endoscopic treatment for gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE). Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) has emerged as an alternative therapy. Our goal was to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of APC and EBL for the treatment of GAVE. This is the first systematic review that included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on this topic. @*Methods@#A comprehensive search was performed using electronic databases to identify RCTs comparing APC and EBL for the treatment of GAVE following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. @*Results@#Four RCTs were included, with a total of 204 patients. EBL was related to higher endoscopic eradication rates risk difference [RD], 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.14, 0.44]; I2=0%) and less bleeding recurrence than APC (RD, 0.29; 95% CI [0.15, 0.44]; I2=0%). Patients treated with EBL required fewer blood transfusions (mean difference [MD], 1.49; 95% CI [0.28, 2.71]; I2=96%) and hospitalizations (MD, 0.29; 95% CI [0.19, 0.39]; I2=0%). The number of sessions required for the obliteration of lesions was higher with APC. There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events. @*Conclusions@#EBL is superior to APC in the treatment of GAVE in terms of endoscopic eradication rates, recurrence of bleeding, and transfusion requirements.
RESUMO
Background/Aims@#Carbon dioxide is increasingly used in insufflation during colonoscopy in adult patients; however, air insufflation remains the primary practice among pediatric gastroenterologists. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate insufflation using CO2 versus air in colonoscopies in pediatric patients. @*Methods@#Individualized search strategies were performed using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and LILACS databases following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and Cochrane working methodology. Randomized control trials (RCTs) were selected for the present meta-analysis. Pooled proportions were calculated for outcomes including procedure time and abdominal pain immediately and 24 hours post-procedure. @*Results@#The initial search yielded 644 records, of which five RCTs with a total of 358 patients (CO2: n=178 versus air: n=180) were included in the final analysis. The procedure time was not different between the CO2 and air insufflation groups (mean difference, 10.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.55 to 24.22; p=0.11). Abdominal pain immediately post-procedure was significantly lower in the CO2 group (risk difference, -0.15; 95% CI; -0.26 to -0.03; p=0.01) while abdominal pain at 24 hours post-procedure was similar (risk difference, -0.05; 95% CI; -0.11 to 0.01; p=0.11). @*Conclusions@#Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCT data, CO2 insufflation reduced abdominal pain immediately following the procedure, while pain was similar at 24 hours post-procedure. These results suggest that CO2 is a preferred insufflation technique when performing colonoscopy in pediatric patients.
RESUMO
Obesity, along with its comorbidities, has become a significant public health concern worldwide. Bariatric surgery is considered the most effective treatment modality; however, only 2% of patients with obesity undergo bariatric surgery. Endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs) are emerging alternatives to traditional bariatric surgery for patients who are not eligible for or do not prefer surgical treatment. EBMTs are generally categorized as space-occupying, gastric restrictive, aspiration, and small bowel therapies. We aimed to review various non-balloon and non-gastroplasty devices with available clinical data and discuss the possible mechanisms of action, efficacy, and safety profile of these EMBTs.
RESUMO
Background/Aims@#The endoscopic management of primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC)-associated dominant strictures remains challenging. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare balloon dilation and stent placement in the treatment of dominant strictures among PSC patients. @*Methods@#Literature searches on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and Lilacs/Bireme were performed for studies published until December 2020. Measured outcomes included clinical efficacy, stricture recurrence, cumulative recurrencefree rate, transplant rate, 5-year survival rate, and adverse events (i.e., pancreatitis, cholangitis, bleeding, perforation and death). @*Results@#A total of 5 studies (n=467) were included. Based on pooled analyses, there were no differences in clinical efficacy (risk difference [RD], -0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.58 to 0.33; I2=93%) or transplant rates (RD, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.01; I2=0%); however, the risk of occurrence of adverse events was lower with balloon dilatation than with stent placement (RD,-0.34; 95% CI, -0.45 to -0.23; I2=61%). Among the types of adverse events reported, only the rates of cholangitis/bacteremia were significantly lower in balloon dilation patients (RD, -0.19; 95% CI, -0.25 to -0.13; I2=51%). @*Conclusions@#Compared to balloon dilation, stent placement for dominant strictures in PSC appeared to have higher complication rates without significant differences in efficacy.
RESUMO
Background/Aims@#Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is preferred for sampling of lymph nodes (LNs) adjacent to the gastrointestinal wall; however, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) may provide improved diagnostic outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of FNA versus FNB for LN sampling. @*Methods@#This was a multicenter retrospective study of prospectively collected data to evaluate outcomes of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for LN sampling. Characteristics analyzed included sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, the number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), cell-block analysis, and adverse events. @*Results@#A total of 209 patients underwent EUS-guided LN sampling. The mean lesion size was 16.22±8.03 mm, with similar sensitivity and accuracy between FNA and FNB ([67.21% vs. 75.00%, respectively, p=0.216] and [78.80% vs. 83.17%, respectively, p=0.423]). The specificity of FNB was better than that of FNA (100.00% vs. 93.62%, p=0.01). The number of passes required for diagnosis was not different. Abdominal and peri-hepatic LN location demonstrated FNB to have a higher sensitivity (81.08% vs. 64.71%, p=0.031 and 80.95% vs. 58.33%, p=0.023) and accuracy (88.14% vs. 75.29%, p=0.053 and 88.89% vs. 70.49%, p=0.038), respectively. ROSE was a significant predictor for accuracy (odds ratio, 5.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.15–23.08; p=0.032). No adverse events were reported in either cohort. @*Conclusions@#Both EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB are safe for the diagnosis of LNs. EUS-FNB is preferred for abdominal LN sampling. EUSFNA+ ROSE was similar to EUS-FNB alone, showing better diagnosis for EUS-FNB than traditional FNA. While ROSE remained a significant predictor for accuracy, due to its poor availability in most centers, its use may be limited to cases with previous inconclusive diagnoses.
RESUMO
Treating gastrointestinal (GI) fistulas endoscopically is challenging owing to an established epithelial tract. The variety of endoscopic approaches is transforming endoscopy into a first-line therapy. However, many sessions are often required, with variable success rates. Owing to these limitations, the off-label use of cardiac septal occluders (CSOs) has been reported.We searched for articles related to CSOs in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and LILACS databases and gray literature. The primary outcomes included technical success, clinical success, and safety of CSOs in GI fistula management.A total of 25,574 records were identified, and 19 studies ultimately satisfied the inclusion criteria. Technical success was achieved in all cases. Of the 22 fistulas, 77.27% had successful closure, with a mean follow-up period of 32.02 weeks. The adverse event rate was 22.72%, with no associated mortality. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses showed no significant difference in the success of closure and adverse events in relation to several variables among the subgroups.The use of CSOs appeared to be technically feasible, effective, and safe in the treatment of GI fistulas. The satisfactory results derived from this sparse literature suggest that it can be an option in the management of GI fistulas.