An 86-year-old male patient with a history of arterial hypertension was admitted to the emergency room with acute diarrhea, cough, dyspnea, and fever that started 5 days before admission. Blood analysis revealed a hemoglobin level of 14.3

Background and study aims  Endoscopic removal of biliary stones has high success rates, ranging between 85 % to 95 %. Nevertheless, some stones may be challenging and different endoscopic methods have evolved. Papillary large balloon dilation after sphincterotomy is a widely used technique with success rates ranging from 68 to 90 % for stones larger than 15 mm. Cholangioscopy allows performing lithotripsy under direct biliary visualization, either by laser or electrohydraulic waves, which have similar success rate (80 % – 90 %). However, there is no study comparing these 2 techniques. Patients and methods  From April 2014 to June 2016, 100 patients were enrolled and randomized in 2 groups, using a non-inferiority hypothesis: cholangioscopy + electrohydraulic lithotripsy (group 1) and endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (group 2). The main outcome was complete stone removal. Adverse events were documented. Mechanical lithotripsy was not performed. Failure cases had a second session with crossover of the methods. Results  The mean age was 56 years. 74 (75.5 %) patients were female. The initial overall complete stone removal rate was 74.5 % (77.1 % in group 1 and 72 % in group 2, P  > 0.05). After second session the overall success rate achieved 90.1 %. Procedure time was significantly lower in group 2, – 25.2 min (CI95 % – 12.48 to – 37.91). There were no significant differences regarding technical success rate, radiologic exposure and adverse events. Conclusion  Single-operator cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy and papillary large balloon dilation are effective and safe approaches for removing complex biliary stones.

BACKGROUNDPropofol is commonly used for sedation during endoscopic procedures. Data suggests its superiority to traditional sedatives used in endoscopy including benzodiazepines and opioids with more rapid onset of action and improved post-procedure recovery times for patients. However, Propofol requires administration by trained healthcare providers, has a narrow therapeutic index, lacks an antidote and increases risks of cardio-pulmonary complications.AIMTo compare, through a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis, sedation with propofol to traditional sedatives with or without propofol during endoscopic procedures.METHODSA literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, LILACS, BVS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. The last search in the literature was performed on March, 2019 with no restriction regarding the idiom or the year of publication. Only randomized clinical trials with full texts published were included. We divided sedation therapies to the following groups: (1) Propofol versus benzodiazepines and/or opiate sedatives; (2) Propofol versus Propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids; and (3) Propofol with adjunctive benzodiazepine and opioid versus benzodiazepine and opioid. The following outcomes were addressed: Adverse events, patient satisfaction with type of sedation, endoscopists satisfaction with sedation administered, dose of propofol administered and time to recovery post procedure. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5 software version 5.39.RESULTSA total of 23 clinical trials were included (n = 3854) from the initial search of 6410 articles. For Group I (Propofol vs benzodiazepine and/or opioids): The incidence of bradycardia was not statistically different between both sedation arms (RD: -0.01, 95%CI: −0.03–+0.01, I2: 22%). In 10 studies, the incidence of hypotension was not statistically difference between sedation arms (RD: 0.01, 95%CI: −0.02–+0.04, I2: 0%). Oxygen desaturation was higher in the propofol group but not statistically different between groups (RD: −0.03, 95%CI: −0.06–+0.00, I2: 25%). Patients were more satisfied with their sedation in the benzodiazepine + opioid group compared to those with monotherapy propofol sedation (MD: +0.89, 95%CI: +0.62–+1.17, I2: 39%). The recovery time after the procedure showed high heterogeneity even after outlier withdrawal, there was no statistical difference between both arms (MD: -15.15, 95%CI: −31.85–+1.56, I2: 99%). For Group II (Propofol vs propofol with benzodiazepine and/or opioids): Bradycardia had a tendency to occur in the Propofol group with benzodiazepine and/or opioid-associated (RD: -0.08, 95%CI: −0.13–−0.02, I2: 59%). There was no statistical difference in the incidence of bradycardia (RD: -0.00, 95%CI: −0.08–+0.08, I2: 85%), desaturation (RD: −0.00, 95%CI: −0.03–+0.02, I2: 44%) or recovery time (MD: -2.04, 95%CI: −6.96–+2.88, I2: 97%) between sedation arms. The total dose of pr...

Our aim in this study was to compare the efficiency of 25G versus 22G needles in diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions by EUS-FNA. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Studies were identified in five databases using an extensive search strategy. Only randomized trials comparing 22G and 25G needles were included. The results were analyzed by fixed and random effects. A total of 504 studies were found in the search, among which 4 randomized studies were selected for inclusion in the analysis. A total of 462 patients were evaluated (233: 25G needle/229: 22G needle). The diagnostic sensitivity was 93% for the 25G needle and 91% for the 22G needle. The specificity of the 25G needle was 87%, and that of the 22G needle was 83%. The positive likelihood ratio was 4.57 for the 25G needle and 4.26 for the 22G needle. The area under the sROC curve for the 25G needle was 0.9705, and it was 0.9795 for the 22G needle, with no statistically significant difference between them (p=0.497). Based on randomized studies, this meta-analysis did not demonstrate a significant difference between the 22G and 25G needles used during EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUNDEndoscopic submucosal dissection is a new Japanese technique characterized by en-bloc resection of the entire lesion irrespective of size, with lower local recurrence when compared to endoscopic mucosal resection.OBJECTIVETo evaluate the feasibility, early results and complications of the endoscopic submucosal dissection technique for treating early gastric and esophageal cancer at the Endoscopic Unit of Clinics Hospital and Cancer Institute of the São Paulo University.MATERIALS AND METHODSTwenty patients underwent endoscopic resection using the endoscopic submucosal dissection technique for early gastric or esophageal cancer. The patients were evaluated prospectively as to the executability of the technique, the short-term results of the procedure and complications.RESULTSSixteen gastric adenocarcinoma lesions and six esophageal squamous carcinoma lesions were resected. In the stomach, the mean diameter of the lesions was 16.2 mm (0.6–3.5 mm). Eight lesions were type IIa + IIc, four were type IIa and four IIc, with thirteen being well differentiated and three undifferentiated. Regarding the degree of invasion, five were M2, seven were M3, two were Sm1 and one was Sm2. The mean duration of the procedures was 85 min (20–160 min). In the esophagus, all of the lesions were type IIb, with a mean diameter of 17.8 mm (6–30 mm). Regarding the degree of invasion, three were M1, one was M2, one was M3 and one was Sm1. All had free lateral and deep margins. The mean time of the procedure was 78 min (20–150 min)CONCLUSIONThe endoscopic submucosal dissection technique was feasible in our service with a high success rate.