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.

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.