No abstract

Background Gastric variceal bleeding carries significant mortality in the setting of portal hypertension. Among the endoscopic treatment options, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided glue and/or coil injection is a novel approach, but its role in the treatment of gastric varices is not established due to a lack of robust data. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases (inception to June 2019) to identify studies evaluating EUS in the treatment of gastric varices. Our primary goals were to estimate the pooled rates of treatment efficacy, obliteration and recurrence of gastric varices, early and late rebleeding, and adverse events with EUS-guided therapy in gastric varices. We also searched for studies that evaluated direct endoscopic glue (END-glue) injection for treatment of gastric varices, and used the pooled rates as comparators. Results 23 studies (851 patients) evaluating EUS-guided therapy were included. The pooled treatment efficacy was 93.7 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 89.5 – 96.3, I 2 = 53.7), gastric varices obliteration was 84.4 % (95 %CI 74.8 – 90.9, I 2 = 77), gastric varices recurrence was 9.1 % (95 %CI 5.2 – 15.7, I 2 = 32), early rebleeding was 7.0 % (95 %CI 4.6 – 10.7, I 2 = 0), and late rebleeding was 11.6 % (95 %CI 8.8 – 15.1, I 2 = 22). The rates were comparable to END-glue therapy (28 studies, 3467 patients) except for obliteration, which was significantly better with EUS-guided therapy. On subgroup analysis, EUS-coil/glue combination showed superior outcomes. Conclusions EUS-guided therapy demonstrated clinical efficacy for treatment of gastric varices in terms of obliteration, recurrence, and long-term rebleeding, and may be superior to END-glue.

Background: Recent prospective randomized controlled trials have evaluated deep convolutional neural network (CNN) based computer aided detection (CADe) of lesions in real-time colonoscopy. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the adenoma detection rate (ADR) of deep CNN based CADe assisted colonoscopy to standard colonoscopy (SC) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: Multiple databases were searched (from inception to May 2020) and parallel RCTs that compared deep CNN based CADe assisted colonoscopy to SC were included for this analysis. Using Mantel-Haenzel (M-H) random effects model, pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean difference (MD) were calculated. In between study heterogeneity was assessed by I 2 % values. Outcomes assessed included other per patient adenoma parameters. Findings: Six RCTs were included in our final analysis that utilized deep CNN based CADe system in real-time colonoscopy. Total numbers of patients assessed were 4962 (2480 in CADe and 2482 in SC group). CADe based colonoscopy demonstrated statistically higher pooled ADR, RR=1.5 (95% CI 1.3À1.72), p<0.0001, I 2 =56%; and pooled PDR, RR=1.42 (95% CI 1.33À1.51), p<0.00001, I 2 =9%; when compared to SC. Per patient adenoma detection parameters were significantly better with CADe colonoscopy when compared to SC, with increased scope withdrawal time (mean difference = 0.38, 95% CI 0.05À0.72, p = 0.02). Interpretation: Based on our meta-analysis, deep CNN based CADe colonoscopy achieved significantly higher ADR metrics, albeit with increased scope withdrawal time when compared to SC.

No abstract

Abtract Background and study aims Endoscopic and surgical techniques have been utilized for palliation of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Enteral stenting (ES) is an established technique with high clinical success and low morbidity rate. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel approach that aims to provide sustained palliation of GOO. We conducted a comprehensive review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness in terms of clinical and technical success, as well as the safety profile of EUS-GE and ES. Methods We searched multiple databases from inception through July 2020 to identify studies that reported on safety and effectiveness of EUS-GE in comparison to ES. Pooled rates of technical success, clinical success, and adverse events (AEs) were calculated. Study heterogeneity was assessed using I2% and 95 % confidence interval. Results Five studies including 659 patients were included in our final analysis. Pooled rate of technical and clinical success for EUS-GE was 95.2 % (CI 87.2-.98.3, I2 = 42) and 93.3 % (CI 84.4–97.3, I2 = 59) while for ES it was 96.9 % (CI 90.9–99, I2 = 64) and 85.6 % (CI 73–92.9, I2 = 85), respectively. Pooled rate of re-intervention was significantly lower with EUS-GE i. e. 4 % (CI 1.8–8.7, I2 = 35) compared to ES, where it was 23.6 % (CI 17.5–31, I2 = 35), p = 0.001. Pooled rates of overall and major AEs were comparable between the two techniques. Conclusion EUS-GE is comparable in terms of technical and clinical effectiveness and has a similar safety profile when compared to ES for palliation of GOO.

No abstract

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) is a minimal-invasive therapeutic option to surgery and in patients with failed endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP). The aim of this review was to quantitatively appraise the clinical outcomes of EUS-PDD by meta-analysis methods. Methods We searched multiple databases from inception through March 2020 to identify studies that reported on EUS-PDD. Pooled rates of technical success, successful drainage of pancreatic duct, clinical success, and adverse events were calculated. Study heterogeneity was assessed using I2% and 95 % prediction interval. Results A total of 22 studies (714 patients) were included. The pooled rate of technical success in EUS-PDD was 84.8 % (95 % CI 79.1–89.2). The pooled rate of successful PD drained by EUS-PDD was 77.5 % (95 % CI 63.1–87.4). The pooled rate of clinical success of EUS-PDD was 89.2 % (95 % CI 82.1–93.7). The pooled rate of all adverse events was 18.1 % (95 % CI 14.2–22.9). On sub-group analysis, the pooled technical success and clinical success of EUS-PDD from Japanese data were considerably superior (91.2 %, 83–95.6 & 92.5 %, 83.9–96.7, respectively). The pooled rate of post EUS-PDD acute pancreatitis was 6.6 % (95 % CI 4.5–9.4), bleeding was 4.1 % (95 % CI 2.7–6.2), perforation and/or pneumoperitoneum was 3.1 % (95 % CI 1.9–5), pancreatic leak and/or pancreatic fluid collection was 2.3 % (95 % CI 1.4–4), and infection was 2.8 % (95 % CI 1.7–4.6). Conclusion EUS-PDD demonstrates high technical success and clinical success rates with acceptable adverse events. Technical success was especially high for anastomotic strictures.

Background and Aims: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a well-known risk factor for colorectal cancer (CRC). Current guidelines propose complete endoscopic resection of dysplasia in IBD patients with close endoscopic follow-up. Current data on the risk of neoplasia after endoscopic resection of dysplasia in IBD patients are limited.Methods: Multiple databases were searched from inception through August 2019 to identify studies that reported on incidence and/or recurrence of neoplasia after resection of dysplasia in patients with IBD. Outcomes from the included studies were pooled to estimate the risk of neoplasia after dysplasia resection in IBD patients.Results: From 18 studies, 1037 IBD patients underwent endoscopic resection for a total of 1428 colonic lesions. After lesion resection, the pooled risk (rate per 1000 person-years of follow-up) of CRC was 2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0-3), the pooled risk of high-grade dysplasia was 2 (95% CI, 1-3), and the pooled risk of any lesion was 43 (95% CI, 30-57). Meta-regression analysis based on lesion location (right, left), lesion size (mean and/or median size in mm), lesion type (Paris type I, Paris type II), endoscopic resection technique (EMR, endoscopic submucosal dissection, or polypectomy), and lesion histology (low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia) did not influence the reported outcomes.Conclusions: Risk of CRC after dysplasia resection in IBD patients appears to be low, supporting the current strategy of resection and surveillance.