Bhandari, Pradeep

Summary Achalasia is a motility condition defined by failure of relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter and loss of peristalsis in the distal esophagus. Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a technique to reduce lower esophageal sphincter pressure. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between POEM and the clinical outcomes. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis (CRD420251052240). Literature search was done on PubMed and Embase (up to 8 June 2025). Original studies involving achalasia patients who underwent esophageal POEM with impedance planimetry using 8-cm balloon at 30 or 40 mL filling volumes with 325 catheter only (not the 322-N catheter) were included. The outcomes of interest were the clinical response groups (responders’ Eckardt score [ES] < 3 and non-responders’ ES > 3), reflux esophagitis, cross-sectional area (CSA), distensibility index (DI), and diameter. Nineteen studies with 1215 patients were included. The responders (ES < 3) showed a statistically significantly greater increase in DI due to POEM (post-op minus pre-op) (mean difference [MD] = 1.92 mm2/mmHg [0.32, 3.53], P = 0.02) as well as a higher postoperative DI (MD = 1.87 mm2/mmHg [0.04, 3.70], P = 0.05) (40 mL). Reflux esophagitis group had statistically significantly higher CSA and diameter values (CSA MD = 15.68 mm2 [6.91, 24.24], P = 0.0005) (diameter MD = 0.96 mm [0.58, 1.33], P < 0.00001) but no statistically significant difference for DI as compared to the non-reflux esophagitis group (DI MD = 0.19 mm2/mmHg [−0.51, 0.89], P = 0.59). In achalasia patients undergoing esophageal POEM, a greater interval increase in the DI as well as a higher post-procedural DI absolute value predicts a favorable clinical response. Higher postoperative CSA and diameter were linked to reflux esophagitis.

Abstract Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has evolved from a diagnostic tool into a therapeutic modality, leading to a higher incidence of bleeding complications during and after procedures. To address this issue, various hemostatic agents have been developed, including injectable, mechanical, thermal, and topical products. Topical hemostatic agents, available in powder or gel forms, can be used as standalone treatments or as adjuncts to traditional hemostatic therapies to control or prevent bleeding. This Technical and Technology Review examines the commercially available topical hemostatic agents used in endoscopy, specifically Purastat, TC-325 Hemospray, EndoClot PHS, Nexpowder, Ankaferd Blood Stopper, and CG GEL. A systematic literature review was conducted up to January 2025, focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses, and observational studies. Each product was assessed for its composition, mechanism of action, regulatory status, mode of use, efficacy, safety, and financial considerations. Purastat showed 94% efficacy in acute GI bleeding, reducing delayed bleeding to 4.3% in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection cases, with significantly lower thermal device usage. TC-325 Hemospray achieved 85%–98.5% primary hemostasis in upper and lower GI bleeding, with pooled hemostasis rates of 93.1% and rebleeding rates of 8.9%. It was also effective in malignancy-related bleeding, with hemostasis success up to 100%. EndoClot PHS demonstrated 76%–100% hemostasis efficacy, comparable with TC-325, with rebleeding rates of 24%–25%. It showed prophylactic potential post-ESD, with rebleeding rates of 7.3%–9.1%. Nexpowder achieved 94% hemostasis in refractory upper GI bleeds and reduced rebleeding in lower GI bleeds to 5.5% at 28 days. Ankaferd Blood Stopper demonstrated 73%–100% hemostasis across various GI bleeding sources, including peptic ulcers and malignancies, though further data on rebleeding are needed. Topical hemostatic agents offer effective options for managing GI bleeding. Products like Purastat, TC-325 Hemospray, EndoClot PHS, Nexpowder, Ankaferd Blood Stopper, and CG GEL have shown promising results in achieving hemostasis; however, further RCTs and cost-effectiveness analyses are needed to better establish their roles in endoscopic practice.

ObjectivesAchalasia is an esophageal motility disorder that impairs quality of life and is often missed (20–50%) on endoscopy. A newly developed computer‐aided detection (CAD) software has shown high accuracy for achalasia diagnosis in preclinical settings. However, its benefit in a clinical setting remains unclear.MethodsBetween February and August 2023, 83 endoscopists from 27 centers assessed 50 randomized endoscopic videos (25 achalasia, 25 nonachalasia) without and with CAD. Endoscopists assessed videos without CAD, then with CAD after 2 months. The primary end‐point was improvement in sensitivity for nonexperienced endoscopists (no endoscopic experience of achalasia). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy with and without CAD were compared using the McNemar test.ResultsSensitivity for diagnosing achalasia increased significantly with CAD, rising from 74.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 72.2–76.0%) to 91.2% (95% CI 89.9–92.4%) for all readers, showing a difference of 17.1% (95% CI 15.1–19.0%). Specifically, sensitivity improved from 66.9% (95% CI 63.6–70.0%) to 91.9% (95% CI 89.9–93.6%) among nonexperienced endoscopists, resulting in a difference of 25.0% (95% CI 21.7–28.4%), and from 79.5% (95% CI 77.1–81.8%) to 90.8% (95% CI 89.0–92.3%) among experienced endoscopists (endoscopic experience of at least one achalasia case), with a difference of 11.3% (95% CI 8.9–13.6%). Accuracy and specificity improved significantly with CAD assistance, regardless of reader's experience.ConclusionCAD improves achalasia detection by 17%, confirming preclinical results. The benefit was higher for nonexperienced endoscopists. CAD assistance may lead to prompt and effective treatment, minimizing the risk of false‐negative diagnosis in clinical practice.Trial registrationThis study was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry (https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/) number: UMIN000053047.

ObjectivesThere have been significant advances in the management of large (≥20 mm) laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) or nonpedunculated colorectal polyps; however, there is a lack of clear consensus on the management of these lesions with significant geographic variability especially between Eastern and Western paradigms. We aimed to provide an international consensus to better guide management and attempt to homogenize practices.MethodsTwo experts in interventional endoscopy spearheaded an evidence‐based Delphi study on behalf of the World Endoscopy Organization Colorectal Cancer Screening Committee. A steering committee comprising six members devised 51 statements, and 43 experts from 18 countries on six continents participated in a three‐round voting process. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations tool was used to assess evidence quality and recommendation strength. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement (strongly agree or agree) on a 5‐point Likert scale.ResultsForty‐two statements reached consensus after three rounds of voting. Recommendations included: three statements on training and competency; 10 statements on preresection evaluation, including optical diagnosis, classification, and staging of LSTs; 14 statements on endoscopic resection indications and technique, including statements on en bloc and piecemeal resection decision‐making; seven statements on postresection evaluation; and eight statements on postresection care.ConclusionsAn international expert consensus based on the current available evidence has been developed to guide the evaluation, resection, and follow‐up of LSTs. This may provide guiding principles for the global management of these lesions and standardize current practices.

AbstractBackgroundThe novel Coronavirus (SARS‐CoV‐2) has caused almost 2 million deaths worldwide. Both Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency have recently approved the first COVID‐19 vaccines, and a few more are going to be approved soon.MethodsSeveral different approaches have been used to stimulate the immune system in mounting a humoral response. As more traditional approaches are under investigation (inactivated virus vaccines, protein subunit vaccines, recombinant virus vaccines), more recent and innovative strategies have been tried (non‐replicating viral vector vaccines, RNA based vaccines, DNA based vaccines).ResultsSince vaccinations campaigns started in December 2020 in both the US and Europe, gastroenterologists will be one of the main sources of information regarding SARS‐CoV 2 vaccination for patients in their practice, including vulnerable patients such as those with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), patients with chronic liver disease, and GI cancer patients.ConclusionsThus, we must ourselves be well educated and updated in order to provide unambiguous counseling to these categories of vulnerable patients. In this commentary, we aim to provide a comprehensive review of both approved COVID‐19 vaccines and the ones still under development, and explore potential risks, benefits and prioritization of vaccination.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on provision of endoscopy services globally as staff and real estate were repurposed. As we begin to recover from the pandemic, a cohesive international approach is needed, and guidance on how to resume endoscopy services safely to avoid unintended harm from diagnostic delays. The aim of these guidelines is to provide consensus recommendations that clinicians can use to facilitate the swift and safe resumption of endoscopy services. An evidence-based literature review was carried out on the various strategies used globally to manage endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic and control infection. A modified Delphi process involving international endoscopy experts was used to agree on the consensus statements. A threshold of 80% agreement was used to establish consensus for each statement. 27 of 30 statements achieved consensus after two rounds of voting by 34 experts. The statements were categorised as pre-endoscopy, during endoscopy and postendoscopy addressing relevant areas of practice, such as screening, personal protective equipment, appropriate environments for endoscopy and infection control precautions, particularly in areas of high disease prevalence. Recommendations for testing of patients and for healthcare workers, appropriate locations of donning and doffing areas and social distancing measures before endoscopy are unique and not dealt with by any other guidelines. This international consensus using a modified Delphi method to produce a series of best practice recommendations to aid the safe resumption of endoscopy services globally in the era of COVID-19.