Search

Background Endoscopic ultrasound-guided portal pressure gradient measurement (EUS-PPG) is a new modality where the portal pressure is measured by directly introducing a needle into the hepatic vein and portal vein. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-PPG. Methods A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify pertinent studies. The primary outcomes assessed were the technical and clinical success of EUS-PPG. Technical success was defined as successful introduction of the needle into the desired vessel, while clinical success was defined as the correlation of the stage of fibrosis on the liver biopsy to EUS-PPG, or concordance of HVPG and EUS-PPG. The secondary outcomes were pooled rates for total and individual adverse events related to EUS-PPG. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results Eight cohort studies with a total of 178 patients were included in our analysis. The calculated pooled rates of technical success and clinical success were 94.6% (95%CI 88.5-97.6%; P=<0.001; I² =0) and 85.4% (95%CI 51.5-97.0%; P=0.042; I² =70), respectively. The rate of total adverse events was 10.9% (95%CI 6.5-17.7%; P=<0.001; I² =4), and 93.7% of them were mild, as defined by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Abdominal pain (11%) was the most common adverse event, followed by bleeding (3.6%). There were no cases of perforation or death reported in our study. Conclusions EUS-PPG is a safe and effective modality for diagnosing portal hypertension. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to validate our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Monitored anesthesia care (MAC) and general anesthesia (GA) are the 2 most common methods of sedation used for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the overall safety between MAC vs. GA in ERCP. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases to identify studies reporting the use of MAC or GA as a choice of sedation for ERCP. The primary outcome was to compare the overall rate of sedation-related adverse events in MAC vs. GA groups. The secondary endpoint was to investigate the total duration of the procedure, recovery time, ERCP cannulation rates, and conversion rate of MAC to GA. The meta-analysis was performed using a Der Simonian and Laird random-effects model. Results A total of 21 studies reporting on 11,592 patients were included. The overall sedationrelated side-effects were similar in the GA (12.76%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.80-21.73; I2=95%) and MAC (12.08%, 95%CI 5.38-20.89; I2=99%) groups (P=0.956). Hypoxia, arrhythmias, hypotension, aspiration and other sedation-related side-effects were similar between the 2 groups. The mean duration of the procedure was longer in the MAC group, but the mean recovery time was shorter. Significant heterogeneity was noted in our meta-analysis. Conclusions In our meta-analysis, the overall sedation-related side-effects were similar between the MAC and GA groups. MAC could be used as a safer alternative to GA when performing ERCP. However, large multicenter randomized control trials are needed to further validate our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]