ABSTRACT
Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural (TM) deployment of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) is considered relatively safe in non-cirrhotic patients and is cautiously offered to cirrhotic patients. Patients and methods This was a retrospective, multicenter, international matched case-control study to study the safety of EUS-guided TM deployment of LAMS in cirrhotic patients. Results Forty-three cirrhotic patients with model for end-stage liver disease score 12.5 ± 5, with 23 having ascites and 16 with varices underwent EUS-guided TM LAMS deployment, including 19 for pancreatic fluid collection (PFC) drainage, 13 gallbladder drainage, six for endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), three for EDGI, one for endoscopic ultrasound-directed transenteric ERCP, and one postsurgical collection drainage. Technical failure occurred in one LAMS for PFC drainage. Clinical failure was encountered in another PFC. Nine adverse events (AEs) occurred. The most common AE was LAMS migration (3), followed by non-bleeding mucosal erosion (2), delayed bleeding (2), sepsis (1), and anesthesia-related complication (pulseless electrical activity) (1). Most AEs were graded as mild (6), followed by severe (2), and moderate (1); the majority were managed conservatively. On univariable comparison, risk of AE was higher when using a 20 × 10 mm LAMS and the absence of through-the-LAMS plastic stent(s). Conditional logistic regression of matched case-control patients did not show any association between potential predicting factors and occurrence of AEs. Conclusions Our study demonstrated that mainly in patients with Child-Pugh scores A and B cirrhosis and despite the presence of mild-to-moderate ascites in over half of cases, the majority of AEs were mild and could be managed conservatively. Further studies are warranted to verify the safety of LAMS in cirrhotic patients.
ABSTRACT
Background and study aims Endoscopic resection of lesions involving the appendiceal orifice is technically challenging and is commonly referred for surgical resection. However, post-resection appendicitis is a concern. Many studies have varying rates of post-procedure appendicitis. We aim to report the rate of post-resection appendicitis by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods Studies that involved the use of a full-thickness resection device (FTRD) for management of appendiceal polyps were included. The primary outcome was appendicitis after FTRD and a subgroup analysis was performed on studies that only included FTRD performed at the appendiceal orifice. Results Appendicitis was encountered in 15% (95%CI: [11-21]) of the patients with 61% (95% CI: [44-76]) requiring surgical management. Pooled rates of technical success, histologic FTR, and histologic R0 resection in this sub-group (n=123) were 92% (95% CI: [85-96]), 98% (95% CI: [93-100]), and 72% (95% CI: [64-84%]), respectively. Post-resection histopathological evaluation revealed a mean resected specimen size of 16.8 ± 5.4 mm, with non-neoplastic pathology in 9 (7%), adenomas in 103 (84%), adenomas + high-grade dysplasia (HGD) in nine (7%), and adenocarcinoma in two (2%). The pooled rate for non-appendicitis-related surgical management (technical failure and/or high-risk lesions) was 11 % (CI: 7-17). Conclusions FTRD appears to be an effective method for managing appendiceal lesions. However, appendicitis post-resection occurs in a non-trivial number of patients and the R0 resection rate in appendiceal lesions is only 72%. Therefore, caution should be employed in the use of this technique, considering the relative risks of surgical intervention in each patient.
ABSTRACT
Background and study aims Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) is a common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Multiple drugs and techniques have been studied for the prevention of PEP. Topical epinephrine has shown mixed results and is still not widely accepted as an alternative for prevention of PEP. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of topical epinephrine in preventing PEP. Methods A comprehensive literature review was conducted by searching Cochrane library database, Embase and PubMed up to August 2019, to identify all studies that evaluated use of topical epinephrine alone or in conjunction with other agents for prevention of PEP. Outcomes included prevention of PEP with use of topical epinephrine and evaluation of whether addiing epinephrine provides any additional benefit in preventing PEP. All analysis was conducted using Revman 5.3. Results Eight studies, including six randomized controlled trials and two observational studies with 4123 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, there was no difference in incidence of PEP in patients who underwent ERCP and were treated with epinephrine spray versus those who were not, RRâ=â0.63 (CI 0.32-1.24) with heterogeneity (I2â=â72â%). However, on a subgroup analysis, topical epinephrine significantly decreases the risk of PEP when compared to placebo alone (means no intervention was done including no rectal indomethacin)., RRâ=â0.32 (0.18-0.57). In another subgroup analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in using topical epinephrine along with rectal indomethacin in preventing PEP compared to rectal indomethacin alone RRâ=â0.87 (0.46-1.64). Conclusion Topical epinephrine does not provide any additional benefit in preventing PEP when used in conjunction with rectal indomethacin. In subgroup analysis, topical epinephrine appeared to decrease risk of PEP in the absence of rectal indomethacin, and could be considered when rectal indomethacin is unavailable or if there is a contraindication to its use.
