Citations

Summary Achalasia is a motility condition defined by failure of relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter and loss of peristalsis in the distal esophagus. Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is a technique to reduce lower esophageal sphincter pressure. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the association between POEM and the clinical outcomes. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis (CRD420251052240). Literature search was done on PubMed and Embase (up to 8 June 2025). Original studies involving achalasia patients who underwent esophageal POEM with impedance planimetry using 8-cm balloon at 30 or 40 mL filling volumes with 325 catheter only (not the 322-N catheter) were included. The outcomes of interest were the clinical response groups (responders’ Eckardt score [ES] < 3 and non-responders’ ES > 3), reflux esophagitis, cross-sectional area (CSA), distensibility index (DI), and diameter. Nineteen studies with 1215 patients were included. The responders (ES < 3) showed a statistically significantly greater increase in DI due to POEM (post-op minus pre-op) (mean difference [MD] = 1.92 mm2/mmHg [0.32, 3.53], P = 0.02) as well as a higher postoperative DI (MD = 1.87 mm2/mmHg [0.04, 3.70], P = 0.05) (40 mL). Reflux esophagitis group had statistically significantly higher CSA and diameter values (CSA MD = 15.68 mm2 [6.91, 24.24], P = 0.0005) (diameter MD = 0.96 mm [0.58, 1.33], P < 0.00001) but no statistically significant difference for DI as compared to the non-reflux esophagitis group (DI MD = 0.19 mm2/mmHg [−0.51, 0.89], P = 0.59). In achalasia patients undergoing esophageal POEM, a greater interval increase in the DI as well as a higher post-procedural DI absolute value predicts a favorable clinical response. Higher postoperative CSA and diameter were linked to reflux esophagitis.

Abstract Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) techniques for large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) have expanded with the introduction of ablation and cold EMR. This study assessed adverse events (AEs) for the newer EMR techniques, including cold EMR, compared with hot EMR. We conducted a secondary analysis of four prospective multicenter studies of consecutive patients with LNPCPs undergoing EMR from 2019 to 2024. The primary outcome was serious AEs (SAEs) with cold and hot EMR. Secondary outcomes included SAEs in the hot EMR subgroups (no ablation [hEMR], margin ablation [hEMR-m], margin and base ablation [hEMR-mb]). 1762 patients (mean age 65.8; 1890 LNPCPs) were included: 522 cold and 1368 hot EMRs (368 hEMR, 770 hEMR-m, 230 hEMR-mb). SAEs were higher with hot EMR (4.7%, 95%CI 3.6%–5.9%) vs. cold EMR (1.9%, 95%CI 0.9%–3.5%), also for the subgroups of hEMR (6.0%, 95%CI 3.8%–8.9%), hEMR-m (3.9%, 95%CI 2.6%–5.5%), and hEMR-mb (5.2%, 95%CI 2.7%–8.9%). Serious postendoscopic bleeding (PEB) was numerically higher with hot EMR (2.3%, 95%CI 1.6%–3.3%) vs. cold EMR (1.3%, 95%CI 0.5%–2.7%), also for the subgroups of hEMR (3.0%, 95%CI 1.5%–5.3%), hEMR-m (1.9%, 95%CI 1.1%–3.2%), and hEMR-mb (2.6%, 95%CI 1.0%–5.6%). Perforation, intraprocedural and post-procedural, was numerically higher with hot EMR (1.2%, 95%CI 0.7%–2.0%) vs. cold EMR (0.2%, 95%CI 0.0%–1.1%). hEMR-m and hEMR-mb with clipping had lower rates of serious and overall PEB than no clipping. Cold EMR demonstrated lower rates of SAEs, serious PEB, and perforation compared with hot EMR. Perforation and mortality occurred almost exclusively after hot EMR. Hot EMR with margin +/− base ablation did not increase SAEs compared with hot EMR without ablation.

Background Complications of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large colorectal polyps remain a concern. Objective We aimed to compare safety and efficacy of cold EMR (without electrocautery) to hot EMR (with electrocautery) of large colorectal polyps. Design In this multicentre randomised trial, patients with any large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colon polyp were assigned to cold or hot EMR (primary intervention), and to submucosal injection with a viscous or non-viscous solution (secondary intervention) following a 2×2 design. The primary outcome was the rate of severe adverse events (SAEs). The secondary outcome was polyp recurrence. In this study, we report results of the primary intervention. Results 660 patients were randomised and analysed. An SAE was observed in 2.1% of patients in the cold EMR group and in 4.3% in the hot EMR group (p=0.10) (per protocol analysis 1.4 vs 5.0%, p=0.017) with fewer perforations following cold EMR (0%) compared with hot EMR (1.6%, p=0.028). Postprocedure bleeding did not differ (1.5% vs 2.2%, p=0.57). The effect of cold resection was independent of the type of submucosal injection solution, polyp size or antithrombotic medications. Recurrence was detected in 27.6% and 13.6% in the cold and hot EMR groups, respectively (p<0.001). Recurrence was not significantly different for 20–29 mm polyps (18.6% vs 13.4%, p=0.24) and for sessile serrated polyps (14.1% vs 8.5%, p=0.33). Conclusion Universal application of cold EMR did not significantly lower SAEs (unless cold EMR could be completed) and doubled the recurrence rate compared with hot EMR. Trial registration details ClinicalTrials.gov, number: NCT03865537 .

INTRODUCTION: Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) is effective for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk cases, but the optimal technical approach to this intervention remains uncertain. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of 787 clinical trial patients who underwent successful stent placement, we studied the impact of (i) whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP or naturally during the conduct of the case, (ii) the amount of effort expended on PSP, (iii) stent length, (iv) stent diameter, and (v) guidewire caliber. We used logistic regression models to examine the adjusted association between each technical factor and post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). RESULTS: Ninety-one of the 787 patients experienced PEP. There was no clear association between PEP and whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP (vs occurring naturally; odds ratio [OR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–1.84), whether substantial effort expended on stent placement (vs nonsubstantial effort; OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.73–3.45), stent length (>5 vs ≤5 cm; OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.63–1.61), stent diameter (≥5 vs <5 Fr; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.65–1.96), or guidewire caliber (0.035 vs 0.025 in; 0.83, 95% CI 0.49–1.41). DISCUSSION: The 5 modifiable technical factors studied in this secondary analysis of large-scale randomized trial data did not appear to have a strong impact on the benefit of prophylactic PSP in preventing PEP after high-risk ERCP. Within the limitations of post hoc subgroup analysis, these findings may have important implications in procedural decision making and suggest that the benefit of PSP is robust to variations in technical approach.