Social determinants of health influencing the adherence to post-endoscopic mucosal resection surveillance.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a global health challenge, particularly in Alabama, where the incidence rates exceed national averages. This study investigated the factors influencing adherence to post-endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) colonoscopies, focusing on travel distance and socioeconomic status. This study aimed to provide evidence-based insights to improve patient care in CRC management. METHODS: This retrospective study in a tertiary care referral center analyzed 465 patients who underwent EMR. The data included demographics, clinical details, and travel-related variables. Descriptive statistics, logistic regression, and spatial analysis were used to assess the factors affecting adherence. RESULTS: Of 465 patients, 36.6 % had adequate follow-up, 21.8 % had inadequate follow-up, and 41.6 % were lost to follow-up. Noteworthy demographic variations were observed, with median ages differing across adherence groups. Traveled distances showcased compelling insights, indicating a median distance of 22.2 miles for adequate follow-up, 15.7 miles for inadequate follow-up, and 31.6 miles for the lost-to-follow-up group (p<0.001). Longer travel distances were associated with better adherence. Longer travel distances from the hospital were associated with significantly lower odds of inadequate follow-up: 10-25 miles OR:0.29, 25-85 miles OR:0.35, and >80 miles OR:0.24 compared to the first quartile (<10 miles). Socioeconomic factors, particularly educational attainment, significantly influenced the follow-up rates. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed suboptimal post-EMR follow-up rates and underscored the impact of travel distance and socioeconomic factors. Targeted interventions addressing distance-related barriers can enhance treatment adherence and ensure timely CRC surveillance after EMR. Further research is needed in diverse healthcare settings.

Long-term palliation of a malignant colonic anastomotic stricture using a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS).

Malignant recurrent colonic strictures at the anastomotic site are difficult to treat long term with traditional uncovered metal stents due to the location and risk for tumour ingrowth. We present a case with the use of a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) to successfully palliate a high-grade obstruction at an anastomotic site without recurrence of obstructive symptoms for 14 months.

Clinical approach to indeterminate biliary strictures: Clinical presentation, diagnosis, and workup.

Despite advances in cross-sectional imaging and endoscopic technology, bile duct strictures remain a challenging clinical entity. It is crucial to make an early determination of benign or malignant nature of biliary strictures. Early diagnosis not only helps with further management but also minimizes mortality and morbidity associated with delayed diagnosis. Conventional imaging and endoscopic techniques, particularly endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and tissue sampling techniques play a key in establishing a diagnosis. Indeterminate biliary strictures (IDBSs) have no definite mass on imaging or absolute histopathological diagnosis and often warrant utilization of multiple diagnostics to ascertain an etiology. In this review, we discuss possible etiologies, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management of IDBSs. Based on available data and expert opinion, we depict an evidence based diagnostic algorithm for management of IDBSs. Areas of focus include use of traditional tissue sampling techniques such as ERCP with brush cytology, intraductal biopsies, fluorescence in situ hybridization and flow cytometry. We also describe the role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration and biopsies, cholangioscopy, confocal laser endomicroscopy, and intraductal EUS in management of IDBSs.

Structured training program on confocal laser endomicroscopy for pancreatic cystic lesions: a multicenter prospective study among early-career endosonographers (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data on how to teach endosonographers needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE)-guided histologic diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are limited. Hence, we developed and tested a structured educational program to train early-career endosonographers in nCLE-guided diagnosis of PCLs. METHODS: Twenty-one early-career nCLE-naïve endosonographers watched a teaching module outlining nCLE criteria for diagnosing PCLs. Participants then reviewed 80 high-yield nCLE videos, recorded diagnoses, and received expert feedback (phase 1). Observers were then randomized to a refresher feedback session or self-learning at 4 weeks. Eight weeks after training, participants independently assessed the same 80 nCLE videos without feedback and provided histologic predictions (phase 2). Diagnostic performance of nCLE to differentiate mucinous versus nonmucinous PCLs and to diagnose specific subtypes were analyzed using histopathology as the criterion standard. Learning curves were determined using cumulative sum analysis. RESULTS: Accuracy and diagnostic confidence for differentiating mucinous versus nonmucinous PCLs improved as endosonographers progressed through nCLE videos in phase 1 (P < .001). Similar trends were observed with the diagnosis of PCL subtypes. Most participants achieved competency interpreting nCLE, requiring a median of 38 assessments (range, 9-67). During phase 2, participants independently differentiated PCLs with high accuracy (89%), high confidence (83%), and substantial interobserver agreement (κ = .63). Accuracy for nCLE-guided PCL subtype diagnoses ranged from 82% to 96%. The learned nCLE skills did not deteriorate at 8 weeks and were not impacted by a refresher session. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a practical, effective, and durable educational intervention to train early-career endosonographers in nCLE-guided diagnosis of PCLs.

Gastrointestinal symptoms and complications in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19, an international multicentre prospective cohort study (TIVURON project) / Síntomas y complicaciones gastrointestinales en pacientes hospitalizados por COVID-19, estudio internacional, multicéntrico, de cohorte, prospectivo (proyecto TIVURON)

Background: Retrospective studies suggest that coronavirus disease (COVID-19) commonly involves gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and complications. Our aim was to prospectively evaluate GI manifestations in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods: This international multicentre prospective cohort study recruited COVID-19 patients hospitalized at 31 centres in Spain, Mexico, Chile, and Poland, between May and September 2020. Patients were followed-up until 15 days post-discharge and completed comprehensive questionnaires assessing GI symptoms and complications. A descriptive analysis as well as a bivariate and multivariate analysis were performer using binary logistic regression. p<0.05 was considered significant. Results: Eight hundred twenty-nine patients were enrolled; 129 (15.6%) had severe COVID-19, 113 (13.7%) required ICU admission, and 43 (5.2%) died. Upon admission, the most prevalent GI symptoms were anorexia (n=413; 49.8%), diarrhoea (n=327; 39.4%), nausea/vomiting (n=227; 27.4%), and abdominal pain (n=172; 20.7%), which were mild/moderate throughout the disease and resolved during follow-up. One-third of patients exhibited liver injury. Non-severe COVID-19 was associated with ≥2 GI symptoms upon admission (OR 0.679; 95% CI 0.464–0.995; p=0.046) or diarrhoea during hospitalization (OR 0.531; 95% CI 0.328–0.860; p=0.009). Multivariate analysis revealed that worse hospital outcomes were not independently associated with liver injury or GI symptoms. Conclusion: GI symptoms were more common than previously documented, and were mild, rapidly resolved, and not independently associated with COVID-19 severity. Liver injury was a frequent complication in hospitalized patients not independently associated with COVID-19 severity.

Antecedentes: Estudios retrospectivos evidencian que la enfermedad por coronavirus (COVID-19) conlleva síntomas y complicaciones gastrointestinales (GI). Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar prospectivamente las manifestaciones GI de pacientes hospitalizados por COVID-19. Métodos: Estudio internacional, multicéntrico, de cohorte, prospectivo, que seleccionó a pacientes con COVID-19 en 31 centros de España, México, Chile y Polonia, entre mayo-septiembre de 2020. Los pacientes fueron seguidos hasta 15 días tras el alta y completaron cuestionarios que evaluaban los síntomas y complicaciones GI. Se realizó un análisis descriptivo, bivariante y multivariante de los resultados. Se consideró significativa p<0,05. Resultados: Se incluyeron 829 pacientes; 129 (15,6%) presentaron COVID-19 grave, 113 (13,7%) requirieron ingreso en UCI y 43 (5,2%) fallecieron. Al ingreso, los síntomas GI más prevalentes fueron anorexia (n=413; 49,8%), diarrea (n=327; 39,4%), náuseas/vómitos (n=227; 27,4%) y dolor abdominal (n=172; 20,7%), que resultaron de intensidad leve/moderada y se resolvieron durante el seguimiento. Un tercio de los pacientes presentaron daño hepático. La COVID-19 no grave se asoció con la presencia de ≥2 síntomas GI al ingreso (OR 0,679; IC 95%: 0,464-0,995; p=0,046) y/o diarrea durante la hospitalización (OR 0,531; IC 95%: 0,328-0,860; p=0,009). El análisis multivariante reveló que los peores resultados hospitalarios no se asociaron de forma independiente con el daño hepático o los síntomas GI. Conclusión: Los síntomas GI fueron más frecuentes de lo que se había documentado, resultaron leves, se resolvieron rápidamente y no se asociaron de forma independiente con COVID-19 grave. El daño hepático fue una complicación frecuente en los pacientes hospitalizados que no se asoció de forma independiente con COVID-19 grave.(AU)

Endoscopic Biliary Darinage (EBD) versus Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD) for biliary drainage in patients with Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Biliary drainage for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA) can be performed either by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD). To date there is no consensus about which method is preferred. Taking that into account, the aim of this study is to compare Endoscopic Biliary Drainage (EBD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma through a systematic review and metanalysis. A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed. Evaluated outcomes included technical success, clinical success, post drainage complications (cholangitis, pancreatitis, bleeding, and major complications), crossover, hospital length stay, and seeding metastases. Data extracted from the studies were used to calculate Mean Differences (MD). Seventeen studies were included, with a total of 2284 patients (EBD = 1239, PTBD = 1045). Considering resectable PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated lower rates of crossover (RD = 0.29; 95% CI 0.07‒0.51; p = 0.009 I² = 90%), post-drainage complications (RD = 0.20; 95% CI 0.06‒0.33; p < 0.0001; I² = 78%), and post-drainage pancreatitis (RD = 0.10; 95% CI 0.05‒0.16; p < 0.0001; I² = 64%). The EBD group presented reduced length of hospital stay (RD = -2.89; 95% CI -3.35 ‒ -2,43; p < 0.00001; I² = 42%). Considering palliative PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated a higher clinical success (RD = -0.19; 95% CI -0.27 ‒ -0.11; p < 0.00001; I² = 0%) and less post-drainage cholangitis (RD = 0.08; 95% CI 0.01‒0.15; p = 0.02; I² = 48%) when compared to the EBD group. There was no statistical difference between the groups regarding: technical success, post-drainage bleeding, major post-drainage complications, and seeding metastases.

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.

Gastrointestinal symptoms and complications in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19, an international multicentre prospective cohort study (TIVURON project).

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies suggest that coronavirus disease (COVID-19) commonly involves gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and complications. Our aim was to prospectively evaluate GI manifestations in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS: This international multicentre prospective cohort study recruited COVID-19 patients hospitalized at 31 centres in Spain, Mexico, Chile, and Poland, between May and September 2020. Patients were followed-up until 15 days post-discharge and completed comprehensive questionnaires assessing GI symptoms and complications. A descriptive analysis as well as a bivariate and multivariate analysis were performer using binary logistic regression. p<0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Eight hundred twenty-nine patients were enrolled; 129 (15.6%) had severe COVID-19, 113 (13.7%) required ICU admission, and 43 (5.2%) died. Upon admission, the most prevalent GI symptoms were anorexia (n=413; 49.8%), diarrhoea (n=327; 39.4%), nausea/vomiting (n=227; 27.4%), and abdominal pain (n=172; 20.7%), which were mild/moderate throughout the disease and resolved during follow-up. One-third of patients exhibited liver injury. Non-severe COVID-19 was associated with ≥2 GI symptoms upon admission (OR 0.679; 95% CI 0.464-0.995; p=0.046) or diarrhoea during hospitalization (OR 0.531; 95% CI 0.328-0.860; p=0.009). Multivariate analysis revealed that worse hospital outcomes were not independently associated with liver injury or GI symptoms. CONCLUSION: GI symptoms were more common than previously documented, and were mild, rapidly resolved, and not independently associated with COVID-19 severity. Liver injury was a frequent complication in hospitalized patients not independently associated with COVID-19 severity.

The Toronto Upper Gastrointestinal Cleaning Score: a prospective validation study.

BACKGROUND : Assessment of mucosal visualization during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) can be improved with a standardized scoring system. To address this need, we created the Toronto Upper Gastrointestinal Cleaning Score (TUGCS). METHODS : We developed the TUGCS using Delphi methodology, whereby an international group of endoscopy experts iteratively rated their agreement with proposed TUGCS items and anchors on a 5-point Likert scale. After each Delphi round, we analyzed responses and refined the TUGCS using an 80 % agreement threshold for consensus. We used the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to assess inter-rater and test-retest reliability. We assessed internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha and item-total and inter-item correlations with Pearson's correlation coefficient. We compared TUGCS ratings with an independent endoscopist's global rating of mucosal visualization using Spearman's ρ. RESULTS : We achieved consensus with 14 invited participants after three Delphi rounds. Inter-rater reliability was high at 0.79 (95 %CI 0.64-0.88). Test-retest reliability was excellent at 0.83 (95 %CI 0.77-0.87). Cronbach's α was 0.81, item-total correlation range was 0.52-0.70, and inter-item correlation range was 0.38-0.74. There was a positive correlation between TUGCS ratings and a global rating of visualization (r = 0.41, P = 0.002). TUGCS ratings for EGDs with global ratings of excellent were significantly higher than those for EGDs with global ratings of fair (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION : The TUGCS had strong evidence of validity in the clinical setting. The international group of assessors, broad variety of EGD indications, and minimal assessor training improves the potential for dissemination.

Endoscopic Biliary Darinage (EBD) versus Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD) for biliary drainage in patients with Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA): A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Biliary drainage for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA) can be performed either by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD). To date there is no consensus about which method is preferred. Taking that into account, the aim of this study is to compare Endoscopic Biliary Drainage (EBD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma through a systematic review and metanalysis. A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed. Evaluated outcomes included technical success, clinical success, post drainage complications (cholangitis, pancreatitis, bleeding, and major complications), crossover, hospital length stay, and seeding metastases. Data extracted from the studies were used to calculate Mean Differences (MD). Seventeen studies were included, with a total of 2284 patients (EBD = 1239, PTBD = 1045). Considering resectable PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated lower rates of crossover (RD = 0.29; 95% CI 0.07-0.51; p = 0.009 I2 = 90%), post-drainage complications (RD = 0.20; 95% CI 0.06-0.33; p < 0.0001; I2 = 78%), and post-drainage pancreatitis (RD = 0.10; 95% CI 0.05-0.16; p < 0.0001; I2 = 64%). The EBD group presented reduced length of hospital stay (RD = -2.89; 95% CI -3.35 - -2,43; p < 0.00001; I2 = 42%). Considering palliative PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated a higher clinical success (RD = -0.19; 95% CI -0.27 - -0.11; p < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) and less post-drainage cholangitis (RD = 0.08; 95% CI 0.01-0.15; p = 0.02; I2 = 48%) when compared to the EBD group. There was no statistical difference between the groups regarding: technical success, post-drainage bleeding, major post-drainage complications, and seeding metastases.

Gastroesophageal Reflux Waning Over Time in Endoscopic Versus Surgical Myotomy for the Treatment of Achalasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and Heller myotomy with fundoplication (HMF) effectively treat achalasia, an esophageal motor disease. Although a significant number of meta-analyses have compared POEM and HMF, these studies showed discrepant postoperative gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) conclusions. This review aimed to objectively compare GERD over time, as well as the efficiency, safety, and adverse events in POEM versus HMF for treating achalasia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Clinicaltrials.gov. The evaluated outcomes included early (within 12 months) and late (beyond 12 months) endoscopic assessment of GERD using the Lyon Consensus, clinical success, operative duration (OD), length of stay (LOS), and major adverse events (MAE). A total of 29 observational studies and two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with 13,914 patients were included. GERD was 28% higher among RCTs discussing POEM at early assessment (95%CI 0.02, 0.54) and was not different at late evaluation (95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.00, 0.22). No difference in reflux was observed among observational studies in both periods. The clinical success was 9% higher (95% CI = 0.05, 0.12), and the OD was 37.74 minutes shorter (95% CI = -55.44, -20.04) in POEM among observational studies, whereas it was not different among RCTs. The LOS and MAE were similar in the groups. Comparisons among studies yielded divergent results. RCTs revealed that POEM had a higher incidence of GERD in the early assessment, whereas observational studies showed higher clinical success and a shorter OD in POEM. Ultimately, the between-group difference waned over time in GERD in all comparisons, resulting in no difference among RCTs in the late evaluation. Our meta-analysis demonstrated a non-preferential treatment of achalasia between endoscopic or surgical cardiomyotomy, prioritizing an individualized approach in the long term.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Gastroenterostomy for the Palliation of Gastric Outlet Obstruction (GOO): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Different Techniques.

INTRODUCTION: Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is usually associated with a poor prognosis and a significant decrease in a patient's quality of life. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) has emerged as a safe and effective palliation procedure for GOO in patients that are unfit for surgery. Without an exclusive gold-standard technique for EUS-GE, we aimed to compare the currently available ones in this systematic review and meta-analysis, the first on this subspecialty. METHODS: A comprehensive search from multiple electronic databases was performed. The search had a particular emphasis on the techniques used in performing EUS-GE. We identified all the studies in which EUS-GE was performed as palliation for GOO from its inception to the current date. The outcomes analyzed were the following: technical and clinical success, total and severe adverse events (AEs), procedure duration, and length of hospital stay (LOHS). RESULTS: Twenty studies involving 863 patients were the basis of this statistical analysis. Patients underwent the following techniques: direct gastroenterostomy (DGE) (n=718), balloon-assisted gastroenterostomy (BAGE) (n=27), and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided double-balloon-occluded gastrojejunostomy bypass (n=118). In comparison to balloon-assisted techniques, DGE had a lower rate of AEs, -0.121 (95% CI -0.191 to -0.051 p=0.001); and LOHS for the DGE group, -2.684 (95% CI -1.031 to -4.337 p=0.001). The other analyzed outcomes presented no statistically significant differences. On a sub-analysis, BAGE showed a lower rate of AEs than EUS-guided double-balloon-occluded gastrojejunostomy bypass, -0.196 (95% CI -0.061 to -0.331 p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GE is a safe and effective procedure for palliating GOO. When correctly administered, any of the analyzed techniques may be used to palliate GOO with similar technical and clinical outcomes. DGE had significantly lower rates of AEs and LOHS, which can be inferred as a safer procedure. These results should be interpreted cautiously due to the limited few studies that are available and accessible. Therefore, further well-designed, randomized clinical studies on the topic are warranted to compare the different techniques from more sources.

Laparoscopic-Assisted Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Versus Endoscopic Ultrasound-Directed Transgastric ERCP in Patients With Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a therapeutic procedure for skilled endoscopists that can be even more challenging in some situations, including patients' post-Roux-en-y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) surgery. There is still no consensus on whether laparoscopic-assisted ERCP (LA-ERCP) or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) is the most appropriate, safe, and feasible approach in patients with this type of post-surgical anatomy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine both approaches' feasibility, efficacy, and safety in this situation. We searched for electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Lilacs, Google Scholar, and Central Cochrane) to identify studies comparing LA-ERCP versus EDGE. Outcomes measured included technical success, adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs, length of stay (LOS), and procedural time. Descriptive data related to the EDGE procedure was also extracted. The risk of bias and the quality of evidence of the enrolled studies were assessed. Five studies, totalizing 268 patients (176 LA-ERCP and 92 EDGE), were included. There was no statistical difference in technical success and AEs between groups; however, the LOS and procedural times were shorter for the EDGE group. High rates of fistula closure and no weight regain were observed in EDGE. Both methods are feasible and safe techniques to perform ERCP in patients with RYGB anatomy, with comparable technical success and adverse events rate. However, EDGE is associated with shorter LOS and procedural time.

Antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent complications in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The prophylactic use of antibiotics in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is still controversial. AIM: To assess whether antibiotic prophylaxis reduces the rates of complications in patients undergoing elective ERCP. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed. Only randomized controlled trials were included. The outcomes analyzed included bacteremia, cholangitis, sepsis, pancreatitis, and mortality. The risk of bias was assessed by the Cochrane revised Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized controlled trials. The quality of evidence was assessed by the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager 5.4 software. RESULTS: Ten randomized controlled trials with a total of 1757 patients that compared the use of antibiotic and non-antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing elective ERCP were included. There was no significant difference between groups regarding incidence of cholangitis after ERCP [risk difference (RD) = -0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.05, 0.02, P = 0.32], cholangitis in patients with suspected biliary obstruction (RD = 0.02, 95%CI: -0.08 to 0.13, P = 0.66), cholangitis on intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis (RD = -0.02, 95%CI: -0.05 to 0.01, P = 0.25), septicemia (RD = -0.02, 95%CI: -0.06 to 0.01, P = 0.25), pancreatitis (RD = -0.02, 95%CI: -0.06 to 0.01, P = 0.19), and all-cause mortality (RD = 0.00, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.01, P = 0.71]. However, the antibiotic prophylaxis group presented a 7% risk reduction in the incidence of bacteremia (RD= -0.07, 95%CI: -0.14 to -0.01, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The prophylactic use of antibiotics in patients undergoing elective ERCP reduces the risk of bacteremia but does not appear to have an impact on the rates of cholangitis, septicemia, pancreatitis, and mortality.

Anti-reflux versus conventional self-expanding metal stents in the palliation of esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are an effective palliative endoscopic therapy to reduce dysphagia in esophageal cancer. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a relatively common complaint after non-valved conventional SEMS placement. Therefore, valved self-expanding metal stents (SEMS-V) were designed to reduce the rate of GERD symptoms. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the two stents. Material and methods This was a systematic review and meta-analysis including only randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing the outcomes between SEMS-V and non-valved self-expanding metal stents (SEMS-NV) following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Data were analyzed with Review Manager Software. Quality of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines. Results Ten randomized clinical trials including a total of 467 patients, 234 in the SEMS-V group and 233 in the SEMS-NV group, were included. There were no statistically significant differences regarding GERD qualitative analysis (RD -0.17; 95 % CI -0.67, 0.33; P  = 0.5) and quantitative analysis (SMD -0.22; 95 % CI -0.53, 0.08; P  = 0.15) technical success (RD -0.03; 95 % CI -0.07, 0.01; P  = 0.16), dysphagia improvement (RD -0.07; 95 % CI -0.19, 0.06; P  = 0.30), and adverse events (RD 0.07; 95 % CI -0.07, 0.20; P  = 0.32). Conclusions Both SEMS-V and SEMS-NV are safe and effective in the palliation of esophageal cancer with similar rates of GERD, dysphagia relief, technical success, adverse events, stent migration, stent obstruction, bleeding, and improvement of the quality of life.

Correction: Adenocarcinoma Arising From a Cervical Esophageal Inlet Patch: The Malignant Potential of a Small Lesion.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.7759/cureus.9284.].

Peroral endoscopic myotomy vs laparoscopic myotomy and partial fundoplication for esophageal achalasia: A single-center randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Achalasia is a rare benign esophageal motor disorder characterized by incomplete relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES). The treatment of achalasia is not curative, but rather is aimed at reducing LES pressure. In patients who have failed noninvasive therapy, surgery should be considered. Myotomy with partial fundoplication has been considered the first-line treatment for non-advanced achalasia. Recently, peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), a technique that employs the principles of submucosal endoscopy to perform the equivalent of a surgical myotomy, has emerged as a promising minimally invasive technique for the management of this condition. AIM: To compare POEM and laparoscopic myotomy and partial fundoplication (LM-PF) regarding their efficacy and outcomes for the treatment of achalasia. METHODS: Forty treatment-naive adult patients who had been diagnosed with achalasia based on clinical and manometric criteria (dysphagia score ≥ II and Eckardt score > 3) were randomized to undergo either LM-PF or POEM. The outcome measures were anesthesia time, procedure time, symptom improvement, reflux esophagitis (as determined with the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Questionnaire), barium column height at 1 and 5 min (on a barium esophagogram), pressure at the LES, the occurrence of adverse events (AEs), length of stay (LOS), and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the LM-PF and POEM groups regarding symptom improvement at 1, 6, and 12 mo of follow-up (P = 0.192, P = 0.242, and P = 0.242, respectively). However, the rates of reflux esophagitis at 1, 6, and 12 mo of follow-up were significantly higher in the POEM group (P = 0.014, P < 0.001, and P = 0.002, respectively). There were also no statistical differences regarding the manometry values, the occurrence of AEs, or LOS. Anesthesia time and procedure time were significantly shorter in the POEM group than in the LM-PF group (185.00 ± 56.89 and 95.70 ± 30.47 min vs 296.75 ± 56.13 and 218.75 ± 50.88 min, respectively; P = 0.001 for both). In the POEM group, there were improvements in all domains of the QoL questionnaire, whereas there were improvements in only three domains in the LM-PF group. CONCLUSION: POEM and LM-PF appear to be equally effective in controlling the symptoms of achalasia, shortening LOS, and minimizing AEs. Nevertheless, POEM has the advantage of improving all domains of QoL, and shortening anesthesia and procedure times but with a significantly higher rate of gastroesophageal reflux.

Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy (EVT) for the Treatment of Post-Bariatric Surgery Leaks and Fistulas: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Bariatric surgery remains the most effective treatment for morbid obesity and its comorbidities. However, post-surgical leaks and fistulas can occur in about 1-5% of patients, with challenging treatment approaches. Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) has emerged as a promising tool due to its satisfactory results and accessibility. In this first systematic review and meta-analysis on the subject, EVT revealed rates of 87.2% clinical success, 6% moderate adverse events, and 12.5% system dislodgements, requiring 6.47 EVT system exchanges every 4.39 days, with a dwell time of 25.67 days and a total length of hospitalization of 44.43 days. Although our results show that EVT is a safe and effective therapy for post-surgical leaks and fistulas, they should be interpreted with caution due to the paucity of available data.