Kassab, Lena L.

Abstract Background and Objectives Gastric varices (GVs) are associated with a higher risk of uncontrolled bleeding and death when compared with esophageal varices. While endoscopic glue injection therapy has been traditionally used for secondary prophylaxis in GV, data regarding primary prophylaxis continue to emerge. Recently, EUS–guided therapies have been used in GV bleeding. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of several major databases from inception to June 2022. Our primary goals were to estimate the pooled rates of treatment efficacy, GV obliteration, GV recurrence, and rebleeding with EUS-guided therapy in primary and secondary prophylaxis. Overall adverse events and technical failures were assessed. Random-effects model was used for our meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 % statistics. Results Eighteen studies with 604 patients were included. In primary prophylaxis, pooled rate of GV obliteration was 90.2% (confidence interval [CI], 81.1–95.2; I 2 = 0). With combination EUS–glue and coil therapy, the rate was 95.4% (CI, 86.7%–98.5%; I 2 = 0). Pooled rate of posttherapy GV bleeding was 4.9% (CI, 1.8%–12.4%; I 2 = 0). In secondary prophylaxis, pooled rate of treatment efficacy was 91.9% (CI, 86.8%–95.2%; I 2 = 12). With EUS-glue, EUS-coil, and combination EUS–glue and coil, the rates were 94.3% (CI, 88.9%–97.1%; I 2 = 0), 95.5% (CI, 80.3%–99.1%; I 2 = 0), and 88.7% (CI, 76%–95.1%; I 2 = 14), respectively. Pooled rate of GV obliteration was 83.6% (CI, 71.5%–91.2%; I 2 = 74). With EUS-glue, EUS-coil, and combination EUS–glue and coil, the rates were 84.6% (CI, 75.9%–90.6%; I 2 = 31), 92.3% (CI, 81.1%–97.1%; I 2 = 0), and 84.5% (CI, 50.8%–96.7%; I 2 = 75), respectively. Pooled rates of GV rebleeding and recurrence were 18.1% (CI, 13.1%–24.3%; I 2 = 16) and 20.6% (CI, 9.3%–39.5%; I 2 = 66), respectively. Conclusion Our analysis shows that EUS-guided therapy for GVs is technically feasible and clinically successful in both primary and secondary prophylaxis of GV.

Abstract Background Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) is the treatment of choice for medically refractory inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assess outcomes and safety of endoscopic balloon dilatation (EBD) for IPAA strictures. Methods A systematic search of numerous databases was performed through June 2023 to identify studies reporting on the outcomes of EBD in pouch-related strictures. Outcomes included technical success, clinical success at index dilation and in pouch retention, recurrence of symptoms post-EBD, and adverse events of EBD. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model, and results were expressed in terms of pooled rates along with relevant 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran Q statistical test with I2 statistics. Results Seven studies with 504 patients were included. The pooled rate of technical success and clinical success of index dilatation was 98.9% (95% CI, 94.8-99.8%; I20%) and 30.2% (95% CI, 7.1-71%; I20%), respectively. The pooled rate of clinical success in pouch retention without the need for additional surgery was 81.4% (95% CI, 69.6-89.3%; I272%). The pooled failure rate of EBD was 18.6% (95% CI, 10.7-30.4%, I272%). The pooled rate of recurrence of symptoms after index dilatation was 58.9% (95% CI, 33.3-80.5%; I213%). The pooled rate of serious adverse events was 1.8% (95% CI, 1-3.5%, I20%). No deaths related to EBD were reported. Conclusions Endoscopic balloon dilatation is safe and highly effective for management of IPAA strictures. Additional studies are needed to compare its efficacy with surgical interventions.

Abstract EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is one of the preferred methods in biliary drainage where ERCP fails or is contraindicated. The clinical outcomes of EUS-HGS are not well studied because of variability in procedure technique. We conducted a search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings from inception through January 2023. The clinical outcomes studied were pooled technical success, clinical success, and adverse events. Standard meta-analysis methods were used using the random-effects model, and heterogeneity was studied by I 2 statistics. We analyzed 44 studies, which included 19 prospective and 25 retrospective studies. The pooled technical success rate of EUS-HGS was 94.4% (confidence interval [CI], 92.4%–95.9%; I 2 = 0%), and the pooled clinical success rate was 88.6% (CI, 83.7%–92.2%; I 2 = 0%). The pooled adverse outcomes with EUS-HGS were 23.8% (CI, 19.6%–28.5%; I 2 = 0%). The mild adverse event rate associated with HGS was 5.8% (4.2%–8.1%; I 2 = 0%), moderate adverse event rate was 12.1% (9.1%–15.8%; I 2 = 16%), and severe adverse event rate was 4.2% (3.0%–5.7%; I 2 = 61%), whereas fatal adverse event rate was 3.2% (1.9%–5.4%; I 2 = 62%). On subgroup analysis, the pooled rate of adverse events of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy with antegrade stenting was 13.3% (95% CI, 8.2%–21.0%). The pooled technical success with EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy with antegrade stenting was 89.7% (95% CI, 82.6%–94.2%), and clinical success was 92.5% (95% CI, 77.9%–97.7%). On the basis of our analysis of EUS-HGS, the overall technical success was 94.4%, and the clinical success rate was 88.6%, and the overall adverse events were reported to be 23.8%. These data can also help improve the clinical benefits of EUS-HGS in the selected patients in whom it is performed.

Summary Stag Beetle Knife (SB Knife) is increasingly being utilized for Zenker’s Diverticulectomy (ZD). Our study assessed the effectiveness and safety of the SB Knife for the management of ZD. Ovid EBM reviews, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched to identify studies that utilized SB knife for ZD. Pooled proportions (PP) were calculated using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was evaluated using I2 statistics. A total of 7 studies with 268 patients were included in the final analysis. Dysphagia and regurgitation were the most common clinical symptoms. The mean size of the ZD was 2.8 ± 0.7 cm and 28 (of 148) patients had undergone previous treatments. The PP of technical success was 98% (95% CI: 92.3–99.5; I20) with a mean procedure duration of 26.2 ± 8.3 minutes. The PP of clinical response at first follow-up and relapse after index procedure was 87.9% (95% CI: 81.6–92.3; I219) and 13.5% (95% CI: 9.6–18.6; I22), respectively. At final follow-up, the PP of clinical remission was 96.2% (95% CI: 91–98.4; I230.6) while the PP of procedure failure was 3.6% (95% CI: 1.6–8.1; I20). No severe adverse events (AEs) were noted while using the SB Knife. However, the PP of intraprocedural and postprocedural AEs was 13.2% (95% CI: 9.6–17.8; I20) and 9.3% (95% CI: 5.7–14.9; I2 < 20.9), respectively. SB Knife is highly safe and effective for Zenker’s Diverticulectomy with a failure rate of only 3.6%.

Introduction: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis studying the efficacy and safety of cold versus hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for resection of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) ≥10 mm. Methods: Multiple databases were searched until January 2023 for studies reporting outcomes of cold versus hot EMR for SSPs ≥10 mm. The primary outcome was the residual SSP rate. Secondary outcomes included technical success rate, R0 resection rate, and adverse events. We used standard meta-analysis methods using the random-effects model, and I 2% was used to assess heterogeneity. Results: Thirteen studies were included in the final analysis. In all, 1896 SSPs were included with a mean polyp size of 23.7 mm (range, 15.9 to 33). A total of 1452 SSPs were followed up for a median follow-up duration of 15.3 months (range, 6 to 37). The pooled residual SSP rate for cold EMR was 4.5% (95% CI: 1.0-17.4), and 5.1% (95% CI: 2.4-10.4) for hot EMR (P=0.9). The pooled rates of technical success, R0 resection, immediate bleeding, and perforation were comparable. Hot EMR was significantly associated with lower piecemeal resection (59.2% vs. 99.3%, P<0.001), higher en-bloc resection (41.4% vs. 1.4%, P<0.001), and delayed bleeding rate (4% vs. 0.7%, P=0.05) compared to cold EMR. Conclusions: Cold EMR has similar efficacy compared to hot EMR for resection of SSP ≥ 10 mm, despite limitations in piecemeal R0 resection rate reporting. Although hot EMR was associated with a higher rate of en-bloc resection, it also showed an increased risk of delayed bleeding compared to cold EMR.