Citations

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) and mucosal exposure devices like Endocuff have independently improved the adenoma detection rate (ADR) during colonoscopy. This meta-analysis evaluated the combined effect of Endocuff and AI versus AI alone on colorectal neoplasia detection rates. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the impact of Endocuff+AI versus AI alone on colorectal neoplasia detection. Primary outcome was ADR; secondary outcomes included advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR), cecal intubation time, and withdrawal time. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Three RCTs with 2404 subjects were included (n = 1198 Endocuff+AI vs. n = 1206 AI alone). ADR was significantly higher in the Endocuff+AI group than in the AI alone group (54% vs. 48%, respectively) (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.03–1.21, P = 0.01, I2 = 0%). There was a trend toward higher AADR (12.3% vs. 10%, RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.96–1.59, P = 0.10, I2 = 17%) and SSLDR (17.6% vs. 15.5%, RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.96–1.40, P = 0.13, I2 = 0%) in the Endocuff+AI group compared with the AI alone group, but it did not reach statistical significance. Both cecal intubation time (MD -0.61 minutes; 95% CI -1.54–0.33; P = 0.20; I2 = 87%) and withdrawal time (MD -0.42 minutes; 95% CI -1.01–0.17; P = 0.17, I2 = 60%) were similar between the two groups. Endocuff combined with AI was superior to AI alone in improving the adenoma detection rate without increasing intubation or withdrawal times.

Abstract Background and study aims Use of fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy is an essential aid in advanced endoscopic interventions. However, it also raises concerns about radiation exposure. This study aimed to develop consensus-based statements for safe and effective use of fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy, prioritizing the safety and well-being of healthcare workers and patients. Methods A modified Delphi approach was employed to achieve consensus over three rounds of surveys. Proposed statements were generated in Round 1. In the second round, panelists rated potential statements on a 5-point scale, with consensus defined as ≥80% agreement. Statements were subsequently prioritized in Round 3, using a 1 (lowest priority) to 10 (highest priority) scale. Results Forty-six experts participated, consisting of 34 therapeutic endoscopists and 12 endoscopy nurses from six continents, with an overall 45.6% female representation (n = 21). Forty-three item statements were generated in the first round. Of these, 31 statements achieved consensus after the second round. These statements were categorized into General Considerations (n = 6), Education (n = 10), Pregnancy (n = 4), Family Planning (n = 2), Patient Safety (n = 4), and Staff Safety (n = 5). In the third round, accepted statements received mean priority scores ranging from 7.28 to 9.36, with 87.2% of statements rated as very high priority (mean score ≥ 9). Conclusions This study presents consensus-based statements for safe and effective use of fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy, addressing the well-being of healthcare workers and patients. These consensus-based statements aim to mitigate risks associated with radiation exposure while maintaining benefits of fluoroscopy, ultimately promoting a culture of safety in healthcare settings.

AbstractEndoluminal radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a palliative treatment for patients suffering from malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). We aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of RFA on stent patency, patient survival, and adverse events.Major databases were searched through December 2023 for patients who had undergone stenting with or without RFA for extrahepatic MBO. A random-effects model was used for analysis, with results expressed as relative risk ratios (RRs) with 95%CIs.Nine RCTs involving 750 subjects with MBO (374 RFA plus stent vs. 376 stent only) were included. Meta-analysis revealed similar risks of stent patency at 3 months (RR 1.01, 95%CI 0.92–1.11; I 2 = 4%) for RFA plus stenting vs. stent only. Meta-analysis showed improved survival at 6 months (RR 0.84, 95%CI 0.73–0.96; I 2 = 21%; P = 0.01) for RFA plus stenting vs. stent only. Subgroup analysis comparing plastic vs. uncovered metal stents showed that stent patency was unaffected at 3 months (RR 1.06, 95%CI 0.91–1.23; I 2 = 17%). Subgroup analysis showed that patients with cholangiocarcinoma experienced an overall survival benefit with RFA plus stenting vs. stenting alone (P < 0.001); however, stent patency remained unaffected (P = 0.08). An increased incidence of cholecystitis was noted with RFA plus stenting vs. stenting alone (5.1% [95%CI 3.1%–7.8%] vs. 0.3% [95%CI 0.01%–1.5%], respectively).Combining endoluminal RFA and stenting may improve overall survival in patients with MBO. RFA did not significantly impact stent patency.

Background The long-term outcomes of esophageal peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) are still unknown. Methods We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus) for studies assessing outcomes after POEM for esophageal achalasia with a minimum median follow-up duration of 36 months. Pooled rates of clinical success and postoperative reflux were calculated and compared with the same values at 12/24/36 months when available. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the interstudy heterogeneity. Results From 1528 initial records, 11 studies (2017–2021) were included. A total of 2342 patients (age 48.1 [SD 6.8] years; 50.1 % males) with a median follow-up of 48 months (interquartile range 45–60) were analyzed. The pooled clinical success rate was 87.3 % (95 %CI 83.6 %–91.0 %; I2 = 73.1 %). The symptomatic reflux pooled rate was 22.0 % (95 %CI 14.4 %–29.5 %; I2 = 92.7 %). Three cases of peptic strictures and one Barrett’s esophagus were reported. The pooled rate of severe adverse events was 1.5 % (95 %CI 0.5 %–2.5 %; I2 = 52.8 %). Conclusions Long-term clinical efficacy of POEM persisted in 87 % of patients with achalasia. Post-POEM symptomatic reflux remained stable over time. The risk for Barrett’s esophagus and peptic strictures appeared minimal.

In the last decade, flexible endoscopic septotomy has been reported as a well-tolerated and effective treatment for Zenker’s diverticulum. More recently, novel endoscopic submucosal tunneling techniques, namely Zenker-PerOral Endoscopic Myotomy (Z-POEM) and PerOral Endoscopic Septotomy (POES) have been proposed to obtain complete muscular septum exposure and deeper myotomy. The aim of this study is to provide a systematic review with a meta-analysis of the first experiences of third space approaches for Zenker’s diverticulum. Electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, EMBASE) were searched up to October 2020. Studies including patients with symptomatic Zenker’s diverticulum who underwent endoscopic treatment by submucosal tunneling technique were eligible. Procedural, clinical and safety outcomes were assessed by pooling data with a random-effect model to obtain a proportion with a 95% confidence interval. Nine retrospective studies were eligible for inclusion (196 patients). Five studies were performed in the USA, two in Europe and two in Asia. Endoscopic treatment was feasible in 96.9% (I 2 = 0%) of patients. The mean procedure duration was 36.4 ± 14.3 minutes. Clinical success was achieved after 93.4% (I 2 = 0%) of procedures. The overall adverse events rate was 4.9% (I 2 = 0%). No differences between the two approaches (Z-POEM vs POES) have been shown in terms of both efficacy and safety. Submucosal tunneling techniques appear to be feasible for symptomatic Zenker’s diverticulum, with promising results in terms of efficacy and safety outcomes.

Background and aims Artificial intelligence has been shown to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR) as the main surrogate outcome parameter of colonoscopy quality. To which extent this effect may be related to physician experience is not known. We performed a randomised trial with colonoscopists in their qualification period (AID-2) and compared these data with a previously published randomised trial in expert endoscopists (AID-1). Methods In this prospective, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (AID-2), 10 non-expert endoscopists (<2000 colonoscopies) performed screening/surveillance/diagnostic colonoscopies in consecutive 40–80 year-old subjects using high-definition colonoscopy with or without a real-time deep-learning computer-aided detection (CADe) (GI Genius, Medtronic). The primary outcome was ADR in both groups with histology of resected lesions as reference. In a post-hoc analysis, data from this randomised controlled trial (RCT) were compared with data from the previous AID-1 RCT involving six experienced endoscopists in an otherwise similar setting. Results In 660 patients (62.3±10 years; men/women: 330/330) with equal distribution of study parameters, overall ADR was higher in the CADe than in the control group (53.3% vs 44.5%; relative risk (RR): 1.22; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.40; p<0.01 for non-inferiority and p=0.02 for superiority). Similar increases were seen in adenoma numbers per colonoscopy and in small and distal lesions. No differences were observed with regards to detection of non-neoplastic lesions. When pooling these data with those from the AID-1 study, use of CADe (RR 1.29; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.42) and colonoscopy indication, but not the level of examiner experience (RR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.16) were associated with ADR differences in a multivariate analysis. Conclusions In less experienced examiners, CADe assistance during colonoscopy increased ADR and a number of related polyp parameters as compared with the control group. Experience appears to play a minor role as determining factor for ADR. Trial registration number NCT:04260321.

AbstractBackgroundThe novel Coronavirus (SARS‐CoV‐2) has caused almost 2 million deaths worldwide. Both Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency have recently approved the first COVID‐19 vaccines, and a few more are going to be approved soon.MethodsSeveral different approaches have been used to stimulate the immune system in mounting a humoral response. As more traditional approaches are under investigation (inactivated virus vaccines, protein subunit vaccines, recombinant virus vaccines), more recent and innovative strategies have been tried (non‐replicating viral vector vaccines, RNA based vaccines, DNA based vaccines).ResultsSince vaccinations campaigns started in December 2020 in both the US and Europe, gastroenterologists will be one of the main sources of information regarding SARS‐CoV 2 vaccination for patients in their practice, including vulnerable patients such as those with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), patients with chronic liver disease, and GI cancer patients.ConclusionsThus, we must ourselves be well educated and updated in order to provide unambiguous counseling to these categories of vulnerable patients. In this commentary, we aim to provide a comprehensive review of both approved COVID‐19 vaccines and the ones still under development, and explore potential risks, benefits and prioritization of vaccination.