Background Although shorter lengths of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) have been associated with a lower risk of neoplastic progression, precise estimates have varied, especially for non-dysplastic BE (NDBE) only. Therefore, current US guidelines do not provide specific recommendations on surveillance intervals based on BE length. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature to examine neoplastic progression rates of NDBE based on BE length. Methods PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and Embase were comprehensively searched. Studies reporting progression rates in patients with NDBE and > 1 year of follow-up were included. The number of patients progressing to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and high grade dysplasia (HGD)/EAC in individual studies and the mean follow-up were recorded to derive person-years of follow-up. Pooled rates of progression to EAC and HGD/EAC based on BE length (< 3 cm vs. ≥ 3 cm) were calculated. Results Of the 486 initial studies identified, 10 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. These included a total of 4097 NDBE patients; 1979 with short-segment BE (SSBE; 10 773 person-years of follow-up) and 2118 with long-segment BE (LSBE; 12 868 person-years). The annual rates of progression to EAC were significantly lower for SSBE compared with LSBE: 0.06 % (95 % confidence interval 0.01 % – 0.10 %) vs. 0.31 % (0.21 % – 0.40 %), respectively; odds ratio (OR) 0.25 (0.11 – 0.56); P < 0.001, as were the rates for the combined endpoint (HGD/EAC): 0.24 % (0.09 % – 0.32 %) vs. 0.76 % (0.43 % – 0.89 %), respectively; OR 0.35 (0.21 – 0.58); P < 0.001. There was no significant heterogeneity among studies. Conclusion The results demonstrate significantly lower rates of neoplastic progression in NDBE patients with SSBE compared with LSBE. BE length can easily be used for risk stratification purposes for NDBE patients undergoing surveillance endoscopy and consideration should be given to tailoring surveillance intervals based on BE length in future US guidelines.

SUMMARY Background Both simple proportions and statistical tests are utilised for symptom-reflux association. We systematically compared three such tests in a clinical setting. Aim To compare the three commonly used symptom reflux association tests in a large cohort of patients undergoing ambulatory pH monitoring for the evaluation of oesophageal symptoms. Methods Ambulatory pH data from 772 symptomatic subjects (49.1 ± 0.5 years; 479 F) tested off therapy were assessed for acid exposure time (AET, elevated when pH <4 for ≥4%), symptom index (SI, ≥50% when positive), and symptom association probability (SAP) and Ghillebert probability estimate (GPE, P < 0.05 when positive). Test concordance and discordance were individually assessed; discordance between statistical tests was minor if one had P < 0.1 while the other was positive. Logistic regression determined independent predictors of test discordance. Results The SAP, GPE and SI were positive in 42.7%, 39.3% and 33.9% respectively. GPE performed extremely well compared to SAP (sensitivity 0.95, specificity 0.91), with major discordance in only 2.8%. Positive concordance was significantly higher when AET was abnormal. GPE underestimated symptom association compared to SAP, whereas SAP was subject to symptom over-counting in 33.3% of discordant cases. GPE-SAP discordance was associated with higher AET (7.5% vs. 5.1%) and more symptoms (19.3 vs. 10.7, P > 0.001 for each comparison with concordant tests); both remained significant on logistic regression analysis (P ≥ 0.003). SI was discordant with SAP when symptoms were extremely frequent (median 19, IQR 10–32) or limited (median 1, IQR 1–2), and concordant when median 6 symptoms (IQR 3–12) were recorded. Conclusions The GPE can be used interchangeably with SAP in symptom reflux association. SI has uncertain value with very high and very low symptom counts.

No abstract

No abstract

Background The over-the-scope clip (OTSC) has been increasingly utilized for the management of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Limited efficacy data are currently available from large-scale studies. Methods An electronic database search was conducted for eligible articles using OTSCs for hemostasis in GI bleeding. The primary outcome was the rate of definitive hemostasis after primary hemostasis and without rebleeding at follow-up. Secondary outcomes were: primary technical success, primary clinical success, rebleeding, and failure rates. Pooled rates were expressed as proportions of patients with events over total patients, 95 % confidence limits (CI) with heterogeneity, and P values of < 0.05 for significance. Results A total of 21 studies (n = 851) were analyzed (62.2 % males), with a median patient age of 69.7 years. The definitive hemostasis rate was 87.8 % (95 %CI 83.7 % – 92 %) after a median follow-up of 56 days. The OTSC was successfully deployed in 97.8 % of patients (95 %CI 96.7 % – 98.9 %) and the primary clinical success rate was 96.6 % (95 %CI 95.1 % – 98.2 %). Rebleeding was seen in 10.3 % of patients (95 %CI 6.5 % – 14.1 %). The failure rate of OTSCs was 9 % (95 %CI 5.2 % – 12.8 %) when used as first-line treatment and 26 % (95 %CI 16.1 % – 36.0 %) when used as second-line treatment. Conclusion This systematic review showed high rates of definitive hemostasis, technical success, and clinical success, along with low rebleeding rates when OTSCs were used for the treatment of GI bleeding. The lack of randomized controlled trials of OTSC vs. other therapies makes comparison with conventional treatment difficult.