Umar, Shifa

Acute cholecystitis affects ∼200,000 individuals annually in the United States, with laparoscopic cholecystectomy as the gold standard treatment. However, in high-risk surgical candidates, alternative drainage methods are necessary. Percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) has traditionally served as the primary alternative intervention, offering rapid decompression, but is limited by a negative impact on the patient’s quality of life, the risk of long-term or even permanent tube placement, adverse events, and high recurrence rates. Endoscopic approaches, such as endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ET-GBD) and, more recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD), have emerged as viable alternatives to PT-GBD. EUS-GBD, first introduced in 2007, offers technical and clinical outcomes comparable to PT-GBD with fewer adverse events, shorter hospital stays, and lower rates of recurrence. The introduction of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) has revolutionized EUS-GBD, simplifying deployment and enabling subsequent internal gallbladder access, which allows additional interventions such as cholecystoscopy and stone removal. EUS-GBD is now supported by international guidelines, and 1 device has achieved FDA approval for the management of acute cholecystitis in nonsurgical candidates. Proper patient selection is essential, guided by multidisciplinary evaluation, with EUS-GBD contraindicated in specific scenarios such as gallbladder perforation, coagulopathy, and large-volume ascites. Technical considerations include choice of access site (transgastric versus transduodenal), stent type, and procedural route [direct (freehand) or wire-guided]. Postprocedural care and stent management remain variable and nonstandardized. Emerging data suggest that interval cholecystectomy can still be performed safely after EUS-GBD. As adoption of EUS-GBD with LAMS expands, structured training and standardization of practice are crucial to optimizing outcomes.

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.

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.