Propofol sedation has a similar risk of cardiopulmonary adverse events compared with traditional agents for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Propofol use in simple endoscopic procedures was associated with a decreased number of complications. When used for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures of a complex nature and longer duration, propofol was not associated with increased rates of hypoxemia, hypotension, or arrhythmias. Administration of propofol by gastroenterologists does not appear to increase the complication rates.

AIMTo use a national database of United States hospitals to evaluate the incidence and costs of hospital admissions associated with gastroparesis.METHODSWe analyzed the National Inpatient Sample Database (NIS) for all patients in whom gastroparesis (ICD-9 code: 536.3) was the principal discharge diagnosis during the period, 1997-2013. The NIS is the largest publicly available all-payer inpatient care database in the United States. It contains data from approximately eight million hospital stays each year. The statistical significance of the difference in the number of hospital discharges, length of stay and hospital costs over the study period was determined by regression analysis.RESULTSIn 1997, there were 3978 admissions with a principal discharge diagnosis of gastroparesis as compared to 16460 in 2013 (P < 0.01). The mean length of stay for gastroparesis decreased by 20 % between 1997 and 2013 from 6.4 d to 5.1 d (P < 0.001). However, during this period the mean hospital charges increased significantly by 159 % from $13350 (after inflation adjustment) per patient in 1997 to $34585 per patient in 2013 (P < 0.001). The aggregate charges (i.e., “national bill”) for gastroparesis increased exponentially by 1026 % from $50456642 ± 4662620 in 1997 to $568417666 ± 22374060 in 2013 (P < 0.001). The percentage of national bill for gastroparesis discharges (national bill for gastroparesis/total national bill) has also increased over the last 16 years (0.0013% in 1997 vs 0.004% in 2013). During the study period, women had a higher frequency of gastroparesis discharges when compared to men (1.39/10000 vs 0.9/10000 in 1997 and 5.8/10000 vs 3/10000 in 2013). There was a 6-fold increase in the discharge diagnosis of gastroparesis amongst type 1 DM and 3.7-fold increase amongst type 2 DM patients over the study period (P < 0.001).CONCLUSIONThe number of inpatient admissions for gastroparesis and associated costs have increased significantly over the last 16 years. Inpatient costs associated with gastroparesis contribute significantly to the national healthcare bill. Further research on cost-effective evaluation and management of gastroparesis is required.

Clinical trials evaluating the protective effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) have yielded inconclusive results. Our objective was to conduct a meta-analysis of the data to date to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rectal NSAIDs for PEP prophylaxis. We did a systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect method because of the absence of significant heterogeneity in the included trials. Seven randomized, controlled trials involving 2133 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that rectal NSAIDs decreased the overall incidence of PEP (risk ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.34-0.57; P < 0.01). The number needed to treat was 11. The NSAID prophylaxis also decreased the incidence of moderate to severe PEP (risk ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.63; P < 0.01). The number needed to treat was 34. No differences of the adverse events attributable to NSAIDs were observed. In conclusion, prophylactic use of rectal NSAIDs reduces the incidence and severity of PEP. There is neither a difference in efficacy between rectal indomethacin and diclofenac nor a difference in efficacy between the timing of administration of rectal NSAIDs, that is, immediate pre-ERCP and post-ERCP.

Background and aim: Double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) and single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) are new techniques capable of providing deep enteroscopy. Results of individual studies comparing these techniques have not been able to identify a superior strategy. Our aim was to systematically pool all available studies to compare the efficacy and safety of DBE with SBE for evaluation of the small bowel.Methods: Databases were searched, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The main outcome measures were complete small-bowel visualization, diagnostic yield, therapeutic yield, and complication rate. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan version 5.2). Meta-analysis was performed using fixed-effect or random-effect methods, depending on the absence or presence of significant heterogeneity. We used the χ2 and I2 test to assess heterogeneity between trials. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI).Results: Four prospective, randomized, controlled trials with a total of 375 patients were identified. DBE was superior to SBE for visualization of the entire small bowel [pooled RR = 0.37 (95% CI: 0.19–0.73; P = 0.004)]. DBE and SBE were similar in ability to provide diagnosis [pooled RR = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.77–1.17; P = 0.62)]. There was no significant difference between DBE and SBE in therapeutic yield [pooled RR = 0.78 (95% CI: 0.59–1.04; P = 0.09)] and complication rate [pooled RR = 1.08 (95% CI: 0.28–4.22); P = 0.91].Conclusions: DBE was superior to SBE with regard to complete small bowel visualization. DBE was similar to SBE with regard to diagnostic yield, ability to provide treatment and complication rate, but these results should be interpreted with caution as they is based on very few studies and the overall quality of the evidence was rated as low to moderate, due to the small sample size.