Bomman, Shivanand

Introduction: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a promising technique that allows for a minimally invasive resection of mucosal and submucosal lesions in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. The data regarding the efficacy and safety of performing EFTR of upper GI lesions using a full-thickness resection device (FTRD) is limited. Hence, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies that evaluated this technique. Methods: We performed a comprehensive systematic search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings that reported outcomes of EFTR using the FTRD system. The weighted pooled rates of technical success, complete (R0) resection, adverse events (AE), and residual or recurrent lesions were analyzed with 95% CI using the random effects model. Results: Eight studies with a total of 139 patients who underwent EFTR of upper GI lesions were included in the study. The pooled, weighted rate of technical success was 88.2% (95% CI: 81.4-92.7%, I 2 : 0). The R0 resection rate was 70.7% (95% CI: 62.5-77.8%, I 2 : 0). Overall AE rates were 22.1% (95% CI: 15.8-30.1%, I 2 : 0), however, most of the AEs were minor. Of the patients who had follow-up endoscopies, the residual and/or recurrent lesion rate was 6.1% (95% CI: 2.4-14.4%, I 2 : 0). Heterogeneity in the analysis was low. Conclusions: EFTR using the FTRD seems to be effective and safe with acceptable R0 resection rates and low recurrence rates. Further prospective studies are required to validate our results and to compare various modalities of endoscopic resection with this single-step EFTR device.

Abstract Background and study aims Palliative treatment of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) has conventionally been with surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ). Advent of devices like lumen apposing metal stents has made endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) a potential alternative to SGJ for these patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared outcomes of EUS-GE versus SGJ. Methods We performed a comprehensive systematic search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings through January 2021 and identified six studies that compared outcomes of EUS-GE versus SGJ in the management of malignant GOO. The rates of technical success, clinical success, and AEs were analyzed, and pooled odds ratios were calculated using random effects model. Results Six studies were included in our analysis with a total of 484 patients, of which 291 underwent EUS-GE and 193 underwent SGJ. The technical success rate of SGJ was superior to EUS-GE (OR = 0.195; 95 %CI:0.054–0.702; P = 0.012; I2 = 0). The clinical success of EUS-GE was statistically similar to SGJ (OR = 1.566; 95 %CI:0.585–4.197; P = 0.372; I2 = 46.68 %). EUS-GE had significantly fewer AEs compared to SGJ (OR = 0.295; 95 %CI:0.172–0.506; P < 0.005; I2 = 0). Among studies which reported reintervention rates, EUS-GE was statistically similar to SGJ (OR = 0.587; 95 %CI:0.174–1.979; P = 0.390, I2 = 54.91). Minimal to moderate heterogeneity was noted in the analyses. Conclusions EUS-GE has equivalent clinical success and reintervention rates, but significantly lower adverse events compared to SGJ. When feasible, EUS-GE appears to be an effective and safe alternative to SGJ for palliative management of malignant GOO.

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 &lt;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.