Cold Snare Polypectomy With or Without Submucosal Injection for Endoscopic Resection of Colorectal Polyps: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The impact of submucosal injection during cold snare polypectomy (CSP) remains uncertain. We conducted an evidence-based comparison of conventional CSP (C-CSP) and CSP with submucosal injection (SI-CSP) for colorectal polyp resection. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing C-CSP with SI-CSP. Major outcomes included the rates of complete resection, en bloc resection, polyp retrieval, and adverse events, as well as the duration of polypectomy. Data were analyzed by using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of seven RCTs were included. Complete resection rates for all polyps (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.93-1.03), polyps ≤ 10 mm (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.96-1.02) and polyps > 10 mm (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.69-1.12) were not substantially different between C-CSP and SI-CSP groups. En bloc resection rate (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.79-1.09) and polyp retrieval rate (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.99-1.01) were also not significantly different between the two groups. The SI-CSP group required a prolonged polypectomy time than the C-CSP group (SMD - 0.89; 95% CI -1.29 to -0.49). Adverse events were rare in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: SI-CSP is not an optimal substitute for CSP in the resection of colorectal polyps, particularly diminutive and small polyps.

Prevalence and Characteristics of Covert/Minimal Hepatic Encephalopathy in Patients With Liver Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Covert/minimal hepatic encephalopathy (C/MHE) is the mildest form of hepatic encephalopathy (HE), but it is closely related to the quality of life and prognosis of patients with cirrhosis. Currently, the epidemiological data of C/MHE have not been well described. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant articles. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis of proportions to estimate the pooled prevalence of C/MHE in patients with cirrhosis. We also examined potential risk factors for C/MHE by comparing characteristics of patients with and without C/MHE. RESULTS: Finally, a total of 101 studies were included. The prevalence of C/MHE was 40.9% (95% confidence interval, 38.3%-43.5%) among patients with cirrhosis worldwide. The pooled C/MHE prevalence was 39.9% (95% confidence interval 36.7%-43.1%) based on studies using the psychometric HE score as a diagnostic tool. Meta-regression models showed that geographic region, sample size, mean age, sex ratio, and Child-Pugh classification were influencing factors for the heterogeneity of C/MHE prevalence. The presence of C/MHE was found to be associated with various factors including age, level of education, alcoholic etiology, Child-Pugh classification, MELD score, history of overt HE, presence of other complications, and laboratory tests related to impaired liver function. DISCUSSION: This study reports detailed data on the prevalence of C/MHE as well as clinical features associated with C/MHE, suggesting that C/MHE is one of the most common complications of liver cirrhosis.

Linked color imaging versus white light imaging in the diagnosis of colorectal lesions: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Miss rate of colorectal neoplasia is associated with lesion histology, size, morphology, or location. Objectives: We aim to compare the efficacy of Linked color imaging (LCI) versus white light imaging (WLI) for adenoma detection rate (ADR), the detection of sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), serrated lesions (SLs), advanced adenomas (AAs), diminutive lesions (DLs), and flat lesions (FLs) by using per-patient and per-lesion analysis based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources and methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched through May 1st, 2023. We calculated risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference for continuous outcomes, and performed sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses. Results: Overall, 17 RCTs (10,624 patients) were included. In per-patient analysis, ADR was higher in the LCI group versus the WLI group (p < 0.00001). This effect was consistent for SSL (p = 0.005), SLs (p = 0.01), AAs (p = 0.04), DLs (p < 0.00001), and FLs (p < 0.0001). In per-lesion analysis, LCI showed a significant superiority over WLI with regard to the mean number of adenomas per patient (p < 0.00001). This effect was in accordance with mean SSL (p = 0.001), mean SLs (p < 0.00001), and mean DLs (p < 0.0001) per patient. A subgroup analysis showed that the beneficial effect of the LCI group on the detection of AAs, SSL, and FLs was maintained only for studies when experts and trainees were included but not for experts only. Conclusions: Meta-analyses of RCTs data support the use of LCI in clinical practice, especially for trainees.

Proton Pump Inhibitors Increase the Risk of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug-Related Small-Bowel Injury: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Conflicting results exist on the association between proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID)-related small-bowel damage. The aim of this study was to determine whether PPIs increased the risk of NSAID-related small-bowel damage by meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic electronic search in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted from the time the database was created until March 31, 2022, for studies reporting associations between PPI use and outcomes, including the endoscopy-verified prevalence of small-bowel injury, mean number of small-bowel injuries per patient, change in hemoglobin level, and risk of small-bowel bleeding in subjects taking NSAIDs. Meta-analytical calculations for odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) were performed with the random-effects model and interpreted with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Fourteen studies comprising 1996 subjects were included. Pooled analysis demonstrated that concomitant use of PPIs significantly increased the prevalence and number of endoscopy-verified small-bowel injuries (prevalence: OR = 3.00; 95% CI: 1.74-5.16; number: MD = 2.30; 95% CI: 0.61-3.99) and decreased hemoglobin levels (MD = -0.50 g/dL; 95% CI: 0.88 to -0.12) in NSAID users but did not change the risk of small-bowel bleeding (OR = 1.24; 95% CI: 0.80-1.92). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that PPIs significantly increased the prevalence of small-bowel injury in subjects taking nonselective NSAIDs (OR = 7.05; 95% CI: 4.70-10.59, 4 studies, I 2 = 0) and COX-2 inhibitors (OR = 4.00; 95% CI: 1.18-13.60, 1 study, no calculated I 2 ) when compared with COX-2 inhibitors alone. DISCUSSION: PPIs increased the risk of NSAID-related small-bowel damage, and the clinical significance of higher prevalence of small-bowel injuries should be studied in the future.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors ≤20mm: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is an emerging technique for endoscopic resection of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). However, compared to conventional EMR, its efficacy and safety has not been widely explored. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search using the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies comparing the efficacy and safety of UEMR versus EMR for SNADETs. The main outcomes examined included en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, recurrence rate, procedure time, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 5 studies comprising 635 patients were included. All the literature included duodenal lesions smaller than 20 mm. The pooled analysis showed that UEMR could achieve a higher en bloc resection rate (OR 1.78, 95%CI: 1.17 to 2.71, P = 0.007) and shorter procedure time (MD -4.08, 95%CI: -6.44 to -1.73, P = 0.0007) than EMR. However, the pooled results did not support a superiority of UEMR over EMR for R0 resection rate (OR 1.27; 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.81, P = 0.18) or recurrence rate (OR 0.49; 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.67, P = 0.26). The occurrence of adverse events, including postoperative bleeding, intraoperative perforation, and delayed perforation, was very low in included studies. CONCLUSION: Compared to EMR, UEMR is an effective and safe technique for SNADETs ≤20 mm.

Retroflexed view for reexamination of the right colon after forward view examination: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effect of retroflexed view (RV) for the reexamination of the right colon after forward view (FV) examination has not been fully understood. METHODS: We searched multiple databases including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for prospective studies exploring the role of RV for reexamination of the right colon. A meta-analysis was performed on outcomes including lesion detection rates, lesion miss rates, and withdrawal time. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials aimed to compare the impact of the second withdrawal from the right colon in RV vs. FV following a standard colonoscopy. Both the additional adenoma detection rate (AADR) and additional polyp detection rate (APDR) of the right colon were lower in the RV group compared with the FV group (risk ratio [RR] 0.73 for AADR; RR 0.76 for APDR); similar results were noted in comparisons of the adenoma miss rate and polyp miss rate. Six prospective cohort studies aimed to describe the effect of the RV examination of the right colon after one or two rounds of FV examination. Both the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and polyp detection rate (PDR) of the right colon were slightly higher in combined examinations with RV examination than single FV examination (RR 1.11 for ADR; RR 1.16 for PDR) or two FV examinations (RR 1.21 for ADR; RR 1.22 for PDR). CONCLUSIONS: FV may detect more adenomas and polyps than RV during the second withdrawal from the right colon. RV may detect additional adenomas and polyps in the right colon after two FV examinations.