Ashat, Munish

Summary Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) in patients with achalasia who are status post bariatric surgery may be technically challenging due to postsurgical scarring and altered anatomy. The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of POEM for achalasia in patients with prior bariatric surgery. A review of prospectively maintained databases at three tertiary referral centers from January 2015 to January 2021 was performed. The primary outcome of interest was clinical success, defined as a post-treatment Eckardt score ≤ 3 or improvement in Eckardt score by ≥ 1 when the baseline score was <3, and improvement of symptoms. Secondary outcomes were adverse event rates and symptom recurrence. Sixteen patients status post Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 14) and sleeve gastrectomy (n = 2) met inclusion criteria. Indications for POEM were achalasia type I (n = 2), type II (n = 9), and type III (n = 5). POEM was performed either by anterior or posterior approach. The pre-POEM mean integrated relaxation pressure was 26.2 ± 7.6 mm Hg. The mean total myotomy length was 10.2 ± 2.7 cm. The mean length of hospitalization was 1.4 ± 0.7 days. Pre- and postprocedure Eckardt scores were 6.1 ± 2.1 and 1.7 ± 1.8, respectively. The overall clinical success rate was 93.8% (15/16) with mean follow-up duration of 15.5 months. One patient had esophageal leak on postprocedure esophagram and managed endoscopically. Dysphagia recurred in two patients, which was successfully managed with pneumatic dilation with or without botulinum toxin injection. POEM appears to be safe and effective in the management of patients with achalasia who have undergone prior bariatric surgery.

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound–guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an alternative to interventional radiology–guided rendezvous ERCP in patients who failed biliary cannulation with conventional ERCP. However, there is significant variation in reported rates of success and adverse events associated with EUS-RV-assisted ERCP. We performed a systematic review and a proportion meta-analysis to reliably assess the effectiveness and safety of the EUS-RV-assisted ERCP. Materials and Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings (from inception through August 2020) to identify studies reporting EUS-RV-assisted ERCP in patients who failed biliary cannulation with conventional ERCP techniques. Using the random-effects model described by DerSimonian and Laird, we calculated the pooled rates of technical success, clinical success, and adverse events of EUS-RV-assisted ERCP. Results: Twelve studies reporting a total of 342 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled rate of technical success (12 studies reporting a total of 342 patients) was 86.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 78.4-91.3]. The pooled rate of clinical success (4 studies reporting a total of 94 patients) was 80.8% (95% CI: 64.1-90.8). The pooled rate of overall adverse events (12 studies; 42 events in 342 patients) was 14% (95% CI: 10.5-18.4). Low to moderate heterogeneity was noted in the analyses. Conclusions: EUS-RV-assisted ERCP appears to be effective and safe in patients who failed biliary cannulation with conventional ERCP. Given the risk of adverse events, it should be performed in centers with expertise in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound.

Abstract Background and study aims With the advent of deep neural networks (DNN) learning, the field of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly evolving. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCT) have investigated the influence of integrating AI in colonoscopy and its impact on adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and polyp detection rates (PDRs). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to reliably assess if the impact is statistically significant enough to warrant the adoption of AI -assisted colonoscopy (AIAC) in clinical practice. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings to identify RCTs that compared outcomes between AIAC and conventional colonoscopy (CC). The primary outcome was ADR. The secondary outcomes were PDR and total withdrawal time (WT). Results Six RCTs (comparing AIAC vs CC) with 5058 individuals undergoing average-risk screening colonoscopy were included in the meta-analysis. ADR was significantly higher with AIAC compared to CC (33.7 % versus 22.9 %; odds ratio (OR) 1.76, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.55–2.00; I2 = 28 %). Similarly, PDR was significantly higher with AIAC (45.6 % versus 30.6 %; OR 1.90, 95 %CI, 1.68–2.15, I2 = 0 %). The overall WT was higher for AIAC compared to CC (mean difference [MD] 0.46 (0.00–0.92) minutes, I2 = 94 %). Conclusions There is an increase in adenoma and polyp detection with the utilization of AIAC.