Mohamed, Mouhand

INTRODUCTION: Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) before colonoscopy remains a common problem. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the risk factors associated with IBP. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies that assessed risk factors for IBP after adjustment and reported the data as adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model, and pooled adjusted odds ratios for risk factors reported in ≥ 3 studies were constructed. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four studies with 358,257 participants were included. We analyzed 48 unique risk factors. Sociodemographic predictors of IBP were Medicaid insurance, obesity, current tobacco use, age ≥ 65 years, Black race, low education level, male sex, and unmarried status. Comorbidity-related predictors of IBP were any psychiatric disease, cirrhosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class ≥ 3, poor functional status, constipation, diabetes, previous abdominopelvic surgery, and hematochezia. Medication-related predictors of IBP were tricyclic antidepressants, antidepressants, opioids, nontricyclic antidepressants, and calcium channel blockers. Preparation/procedure-related predictors of IBP were brown liquid rectal effluent, any incomplete bowel preparation (BP) intake, lack of split-dose BP, increased BP-to-defecation interval, any nonadherence to dietary instructions, increased BP-to-colonoscopy interval, any BP intolerance, previous IBP, and inpatient status. Although afternoon colonoscopy was a predictor of IBP, subgroup analysis of prospective studies revealed no significant association. DISCUSSION: Our meta-analysis focused on adjusted risk factors to provide precise estimates of the most important risk factors for IBP. Our findings could help develop a validated prediction model to identify high-risk patients for IBP, improve colonoscopy outcomes, reduce the need for repeat colonoscopies, and reduce associated healthcare costs.

INTRODUCTION: Whether dye spray chromoendoscopy (DCE) adds value in surveillance colonoscopy with high-definition (HD) scopes remains controversial. This updated meta-analysis compares dysplasia detection using DCE and high-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) undergoing surveillance colonoscopy. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing HD-WLE and DCE in patients with IBD. The primary outcome was to compare the proportion of patients with at least 1 dysplastic lesion detected by DCE vs HD-WLE. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using the random-effects model, with I 2 > 60% indicating substantial heterogeneity. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence (CoE). RESULTS: Six RCT involving 978 patients were analyzed (DCE = 479 vs HD-WLE = 499 patients). DCE detected significantly more patients with dysplasia than HD-WLE (18.8% vs 9.4%), OR 1.94 (95% CI 1.21–3.11, I 2 = 28%, P = 0.006, high CoE). This remained significant after excluding 2 RCT published as abstracts. A sensitivity analysis excluding a noninferiority RCT with a single experienced operator eliminated the results' heterogeneity, OR 2.46 (95% CI 1.56–3.90, I 2 = 0%). Although high-grade dysplasia detection was numerically higher in the DCE group (2.8% vs 1.1%), the difference was statistically insignificant, OR 2.21 (95% CI 0.64–7.62, I 2 = 0%, low CoE). DISCUSSION: Our updated meta-analysis supports DCE as a superior strategy in overall dysplasia detection in IBD, even with HD scopes. When expertise is available, DCE should be considered for surveillance colonoscopy in patients with high-risk IBD, with the acknowledgment that virtual chromoendoscopy shows equivalence in recent studies. Further multicenter trials with multiple endoscopists with varying expertise levels and longer-term outcome data showing a reduction in cancer or cancer-related death are needed.

Introduction: There is an increasing interest in cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR), and studies have shown its safety and efficacy for colonic polyps. This meta-analysis aims to assess the safety and efficacy of CS-EMR for the removal of duodenal adenomas. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search of several databases, from inception through February 2023, for studies that addressed outcomes of CS-EMR for nonampullary duodenal adenomas. We used the random-effects model for the statistical analysis. The weighted pooled rates were used to summarize the technical success, polyp recurrence, bleeding, and perforation events. Cochran Q test and I 2 statistics adjudicated heterogeneity. Results: Six studies were included in the analysis. In all, 178 duodenal polyps were resected using CS-EMR. The pooled rates were 95.8% (95% CI 89.1–98.5%, I 2=21.5%) for technical success and 21.2% (95% CI 8.5–43.6%, I 2=78%) for polyp recurrence. With regards to CS-EMR safety, the pooled rates were 4.2% (95% CI 1.6–10.5%, I 2=12%) for immediate bleeding, 3.4% (95% CI 1.5–7.6%, I 2=0%) for delayed bleeding, 2.8% (95% CI 1.1–6.7%, I 2=0%) for perforation, and 2% (95% CL 0.5–7.5%, I 2=0%) for post-polypectomy syndrome. Rates were not significantly different for large adenomas. Three studies reported data on CS-EMR and conventional EMR. Compared with conventional EMR, CS-EMR had lower odds of delayed bleeding, OR 0.11 (CI 0.02–0.62, P value 0.012, I 2=0%). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that CS-EMR is a safe and effective strategy for the resection of nonampullary duodenal adenomas, with an acceptable recurrence rate. Data from larger randomized controlled studies are needed to validate our findings.

Plasma exchange (PE) is a promising therapeutic option in patients with acute liver failure (ALF) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). However, the impact of PE on patient survival in these syndromes is unclear. We aimed to systematically investigate the use of PE in patients with ALF and ACLF compared with standard medical therapy (SMT). We searched PubMed/Embase/Cochrane databases to include all studies comparing PE versus SMT for patients ≥ 18 years of age with ALF and ACLF. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with corresponding 95% CIs were calculated by the Mantel-Haenszel method within a random-effect model. The primary outcome was 30-day survival for ACLF and ALF. Secondary outcomes were overall and 90-day survival for ALF and ACLF, respectively. Five studies, including 343 ALF patients (n = 174 PE vs. n = 169 SMT), and 20 studies, including 5,705 ACLF patients (n = 2,856 PE vs. n = 2,849 SMT), were analyzed. Compared with SMT, PE was significantly associated with higher 30-day (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.06–1.87, p = 0.02) and overall (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.12–1.63, p = 0.002) survival in ALF patients. In ACLF, PE was also significantly associated with higher 30-day (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.22–1.52, p < 0.001) and 90-day (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.10–1.34, p < 0.001) survival. On subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials, results remained unchanged in ALF, but no differences in survival were found between PE and SMT in ACLF. In conclusion, PE is associated with improved survival in ALF and could improve survival in ACLF. PE may be considered in managing ALF and ACLF patients who are not liver transplant (LT) candidates or as a bridge to LT in otherwise eligible patients. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the survival benefit of PE in ACLF.

Background Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) can reduce the risks associated with electrocautery during colon polyp resection. Data on efficacy are variable. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the pooled efficacy and safety rates of CS-EMR. Methods We conducted a comprehensive literature search of multiple databases, from inception to March 2023, for studies addressing outcomes of CS-EMR for colon polyps. The weighted pooled estimates with 95 %CIs were calculated using the random effects model. I2 statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity. Results 4137 articles were reviewed, and 16 studies, including 2592 polyps in 1922 patients (51.4 % female), were included. Overall, 54.4 % of polyps were adenomas, 45 % were sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), and 0.6 % were invasive carcinomas. Polyp recurrence after CS-EMR was 6.7 % (95 %CI 2.4 %–17.4 %, I2 = 94 %). The recurrence rate was 12.3 % (95 %CI 3.4 %–35.7 %, I2 = 94 %) for polyps ≥ 20 mm, 17.1 % (95 %CI 4.6 %–46.7 %, I2 = 93 %) for adenomas, and 5.7 % (95 %CI 3.2 %–9.9 %, I2 = 50 %) for SSLs. The pooled intraprocedural bleeding rate was 2.6 % (95 %CI 1.5 %–4.5 %, I2 = 51 %), the delayed bleeding rate was 1.5 % (95 %CI 0.8 %–2.7 %, I2 = 18 %), and no perforations or post-polypectomy syndromes were reported, with estimated rates of 0.6 % (95 %CI 0.3 %–1.3 %, I2 = 0 %) and 0.6 % (95 %CI 0.3 %–1.4 %, I2 = 0 %), respectively. Conclusion CS-EMR demonstrated an excellent safety profile for colon polyps, with variable recurrence rates based on polyp size and histology. Large prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.