Citations

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.

SummaryBackgroundNeoplasia detection rate, the proportion of Barrett's oesophagus patients with high‐grade dysplasia or oesophageal adenocarcinoma detected at index surveillance endoscopy has been proposed as a quality metric. However, the correlation between neoplasia detection rate and a clinically relevant outcome like post‐endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia remains unknown. Post‐endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia refers to the rate of high‐grade dysplasia or oesophageal adenocarcinoma on repeat endoscopy within one year of an index screening examination revealing non‐dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus or low‐grade dysplasia.AimTo assess correlation between neoplasia detection rate and post‐endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia.MethodsWe performed a systematic search of multiple databases from date of inception to June 2021 to identify cohort studies reporting both neoplasia detection rate and post‐endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia. Data from each study were pooled using a random effects model, and their correlation assessed using meta‐regression. Heterogeneity was assessed and a priori planned subgroup analyses were conducted.ResultsTen studies with 27 894 patients with Barrett's oesophagus were included. The pooled neoplasia detection rate and post‐endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia were 5.0% (95% CI: 3.4%‐7.1%, I2 = 97%) and 19.6% (95% CI: 10.1%‐34.7%, I2 = 96%), respectively. Meta‐regression revealed a statistically significant inverse relationship between the two variables (coefficient −3.50, 95% CI: −4.63 to −2.37, P < 0.01). With every 1% increase of neoplasia detection rate, post‐endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia decreased by 3.50%. Heterogeneity was high despite adjusting for study quality and performing several subgroup analyses.ConclusionWe observed a statistically significant inverse correlation between neoplasia detection rate and post‐endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia. Additional studies are needed to further validate this correlation.

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.

Abstract Background and study aims With the advent of deep neural networks (DNN) learning, the field of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly evolving. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCT) have investigated the influence of integrating AI in colonoscopy and its impact on adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and polyp detection rates (PDRs). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to reliably assess if the impact is statistically significant enough to warrant the adoption of AI -assisted colonoscopy (AIAC) in clinical practice. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings to identify RCTs that compared outcomes between AIAC and conventional colonoscopy (CC). The primary outcome was ADR. The secondary outcomes were PDR and total withdrawal time (WT). Results Six RCTs (comparing AIAC vs CC) with 5058 individuals undergoing average-risk screening colonoscopy were included in the meta-analysis. ADR was significantly higher with AIAC compared to CC (33.7 % versus 22.9 %; odds ratio (OR) 1.76, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.55–2.00; I2 = 28 %). Similarly, PDR was significantly higher with AIAC (45.6 % versus 30.6 %; OR 1.90, 95 %CI, 1.68–2.15, I2 = 0 %). The overall WT was higher for AIAC compared to CC (mean difference [MD] 0.46 (0.00–0.92) minutes, I2 = 94 %). Conclusions There is an increase in adenoma and polyp detection with the utilization of AIAC.

AbstractBackground Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) anatomy is challenging. Overtube-assisted enteroscopy (OAE) is usually needed to perform ERCP in these patients. There is significant variation in the reported rates of success and adverse events across published studies. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to reliably estimate the pooled rates of success and adverse events.Methods We performed a systematic search of multiple electronic databases through February 2020 to identify studies reporting outcomes of OAE-ERCP in post-RYGB patients. The pooled rates of enteroscopy success, technical success, and adverse events were estimated for OAE-ERCP. The pooled rates of success and adverse events were also estimated for ERCP using double-balloon enteroscopes (DBE) alone.Results 10 studies reporting a total of 398 procedures were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled rates of enteroscopy and technical success of OAE-ERCP were 75.3 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 64.5 – 83.6) and 64.8 % (95 %CI 53.1 – 74.9) respectively. The pooled rate of adverse events was 8.0 % (95 %CI 5.2 – 12.2). The pooled rates of enteroscopy and technical success of DBE-ERCP (four studies) were 83.5 % (95 %CI 68.3 – 92.2) and 72.5 % (95 %CI 52.3 – 86.4), respectively. The pooled rate of adverse events with DBE-ERCP was 9.0 % (95 %CI 5.4 – 14.5). Substantial heterogeneity was noted.Conclusions OAE-ERCP appears to be effective and safe in post-RYGB patients. Among the currently available techniques, OAE-ERCP is the least invasive approach in this challenging group of patients. Future studies comparing the effectiveness and safety of alternative novel techniques, such as endosonography-directed transgastric ERCP, with OAE-ERCP are needed.

Goals: To develop an encounter decision aid [Barrett’s esophagus Choice (BE-Choice)] for patients and clinicians to engage in shared decision making (SDM) for management of BE with low-grade dysplasia (BE-LGD) and assess its impact on patient-important outcomes. Background: Currently, there are 2 strategies for management of BE-LGD—endoscopic surveillance and ablation. SDM can help patients decide on their preferred management option. Study: Phase-I: Patients and clinicians were engaged in a user-centered design approach to develop BE-Choice. Phase-I included review of evidence on BE-LGD management, observation of usual care (UC), creation, field-testing, and iterative development of BE-Choice in clinical settings. Phase-II: Impact of BE-Choice on patient-important outcomes (patient knowledge, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in decision making) was assessed using a controlled before-after study design (UC vs. BE-Choice). Results: Phase-I: Initial prototype was designed with observation of 8 clinical encounters. With field-testing, 3 successive iterations were made before finalizing BE-Choice. BE-Choice was paper based and fulfilled the qualifying criteria of International patient decision aid standards. Phase II: 29 patients were enrolled, 8 to UC and 21 to BE-Choice. Compared with UC, use of BE-Choice improved patient knowledge (90.4% vs. 70.5%; P =0.03), decisional comfort (89.6 vs. 71.9; P =0.01), and patient involvement (OPTION score: 27.1 vs. 19.2; P =0.01). Conclusions: BE-Choice is a feasible and effective decision aid to promote SDM in the management of BE-LGD. On pilot testing, BE-Choice had promising impact on patient-important outcomes. A larger multicenter trial is needed to confirm our results and promote widespread use of BE-Choice.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with acute cholecystitis who were deemed high risk for cholecystectomy, percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) was historically performed for decompression of the gallbladder. There are several limitations associated with PC. Endoscopic gallbladder drainage [Endoscopic trans-papillary gallbladder drainage (ET-GBD) via ERCP and EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD)] is an alternative to PC. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes between the two endoscopic techniques (EUS-GBD vs ET-GBD). METHODS: We performed a systematic search of multiple databases through May 2019 to identify studies that compared outcomes of EUS-GBD versus ET-GBD in management of acute cholecystitis in high risk surgical patients. Pooled odds ratios (OR) of technical success, clinical success and adverse events between EUS-GBD and ET-GBD groups were calculated. RESULTS: Five comparative studies with a total of 861 patients; were included in the analysis. The pooled OR for technical success of EUS-GBD in comparison to ET-GBD was 5.22 (95% CI: 2.03-13.44; P = 0.01; I 2 = 20%). The pooled OR for clinical success (EUS-GBD vs ET-GBD) in intention-to-treat analysis was 4.16 (95% CI: 2.00-8.66; P = 0.001; I 2 = 19%) and per-protocol analysis was 1.81 (95% CI: 0.80-4.09; P = 0.15; I 2 =0%). The pooled OR for overall acute adverse events (EUS-GBD vs ET-GBD) was 1.32 (95% CI: 0.78 -2.25; P = 0.31, I 2 = 0%). The pooled OR for perforation and pancreatitis (EUS-GBD vs ETGBD) were 1.98 (95% CI: 0.32-12.29) and 0.19 (95% CI: 0.03-0.99) respectively. The pooled OR for recurrent cholecystitis (EUS-GBD vs ETGBD) was 0.33 (95% CI: 0.13-0.82). There was minimal heterogeneity in the analysis. CONCLUSION: EUS-GBD is associated with higher rate of technical and clinical success compared to ET-GBD. While the rate of overall acute adverse events are statistically similar between the two techniques, EUS-GBD is associated with lower rate of recurrent cholecystitis. In centers with expertise in EUS, EUS-GBD could be considered as first-line treatment in carefully selected patients.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical gastroenterostomy has been the traditional approach to manage malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). With advances in Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) technology and availability of dedicated devices and stents for EUS scopes, EUS guided gastroenterostomy (GE) is emerging as an alternative to surgical gastroenterostomy. Recently studies have been published comparing the outcomes between these two approaches. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compare the outcomes between the two approaches (EUS-GE vs Surgical GE). METHODS: We performed a systematic search of multiple databases through May 2019 to identify studies that compared outcomes of EUS-GE vs surgical GE in management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Pooled odds ratios (OR) of technical success, clinical success and adverse events between EUS-GE and surgical GE groups were calculated. RESULTS: Three comparative studies with a total of 171 patients; were included in the analysis. The pooled OR for technical success of EUS-GE in comparison to surgical GE was 0.16 (95% CI: 0.03-0.86; P = 0.033; I 2 = 2%). The pooled OR for clinical success (EUS-GE vs surgical GE) was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.13-7.48; P = 0.984; I 2 = 25%) The pooled OR for overall adverse events (EUS-GE vs surgical GE) was 0.35 (95% CI: 0.15-0.81; P = 0.014, I 2 = 0%). There was minimal heterogeneity in the analysis. CONCLUSION: While EUS-GE is associated with similar rates of clinical success compared to surgical GE, the rate of overall adverse events is statistically lower. Hence in centers with expertise in EUS, EUS-GE could be considered as an effective alternate option.