Safety and Efficacy of Thrombin for Bleeding Gastric Varices: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal therapy for bleeding-related gastric varices is still a controversial topic. There is a paucity of literature that comprehensively summarizes the available literature regarding safety and efficacy of thrombin in bleeding gastric varices. METHODS: Four independent reviewers performed a comprehensive review of all original articles published from inception to October 2020, describing the use of thrombin for management of bleeding gastric varices. Primary outcomes were (1) pooled early and late rebleeding rate, (2) pooled gastric variceal related mortality rate, (3) pooled rescue therapy rate, and (4) pooled adverse event rate with the use of thrombin in bleeding gastric varices. The meta-analysis was performed and the statistics were two-tailed. Finally, probability of publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and with Egger's test. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included in the analysis after comprehensive search. This yielded a pooled early rebleeding rate of 9.3% (95% CI 4.9-17) and late rebleeding rate 13.8% (95% CI 9-20.4). Pooled rescue therapy rate after injecting thrombin in bleeding gastric varices was 10.1% (95% CI 6.1-16.3). The pooled 6-week gastric variceal-related mortality rate after injecting thrombin in bleeding gastric varices was 7.6% (95% CI 4.5-12.5). There were a total of four adverse events out of a total of 222 patients with pooled adverse event rate after injecting thrombin in bleeding gastric varices was 5.6% (95% CI 2.9-10.6). CONCLUSION: In summary, the systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of thrombin for bleeding gastric varices suggest low rates of rebleeding and minimal rates of adverse events. While, early and late rebleeding rate and rescue therapy rate are similar to cyanoacrylate-based therapy, the minimal rates of adverse events are perhaps the most important benefit of thrombin. Thus, the current data suggest that thrombin is a very promising therapeutic alternative with low risk of adverse events for bleeding gastric varices.

EUS guided pancreatic duct decompression in surgically altered anatomy or failed ERCP - A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression.

INTRODUCTION: EUS-PD (EUS guided pancreatic duct drainage) is classified into two types: EUS-guided rendezvous techniques and EUS-guided PD stenting. Prior studies showed significant variation in terms of technical success, clinical success and adverse events. METHODS: Three independent reviewers performed a comprehensive review of all original articles published from inception to June 2020, describing pancreatic duct drainage utilizing EUS. Primary outcomes were technical success, clinical success of EUS-PDD and safety of EUS-PD in terms of adverse events. All meta-analysis and meta-regression tests were 2-tailed. Finally, probability of publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and with Egger's test. RESULTS: A total of sixteen studies (503 patients) described the use of EUS-PD for pancreatic duct decompression yielded a pooled technical success rate was 81.4% (95% CI 72-88.1, I 2 = 74). Meta-regression revealed that proportion of altered anatomy and method of dilation of tract explain the variance. Overall pooled clinical success rate was 84.6% (95% CI 75.4-90.8, I 2 = 50.18). Meta-regression analysis revealed that the type of pancreatic duct decompression, proportion of altered anatomy and follow up time explained the variance. Overall pooled adverse event rate was 21.3% (95% CI 16.8-26.7, I 2 = 36.6). The most common post procedure adverse event was post procedure pain. Overall pooled adverse event rate of post EUS-PD pancreatitis was 5% (95% CI 3.2-7.8, I 2 = 0). CONCLUSION: The systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression provides answer to the questions of the overall technical success, clinical success and the adverse event rate of EUS-PD by summarizing the available literature.