Search

Background Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) are invasive interventions used for enteral access. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with assessment of certainty of evidence to compare the risk of adverse outcomes and technical failure between PEG and PRG. Methods We queried PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane from inception through January 2022 to identify studies comparing outcomes of PEG and PRG. The primary outcome was 30-day allcause mortality; secondary outcomes included the risk of colon perforation, peritonitis, bleeding, technical failure, peristomal infections, and tube-related complications. We performed GRADE assessment to assess the certainty of evidence and leave-one-out analysis for sensitivity analysis. Results In the final analysis, 33 studies, including 26 high-quality studies, provided data on 275,117 patients undergoing PEG and 192,691 patients undergoing PRG. Data from high quality studies demonstrated that, compared to PRG, PEG had significantly lower odds of selected outcomes, including 30-day all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.95; P=0.02), colon perforation (OR 0.61, 95%CI 0.49-0.75; P<0.001), and peritonitis (OR 0.71, 95%CI 0.63-0.81; P<0.001). There was no significant difference between PEG and PRG in terms of technical failure, bleeding, peristomal infections or mechanical complications. The certainty of the evidence was rated moderate for colon perforation and low for all other outcomes. Conclusions PEG is associated with a significantly lower risk of 30-day all-cause mortality, colon perforation, and peritonitis compared to PRG, while having a comparable technical failure rate. PEG should be considered as the first-line technique for enteral access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coronary artery calcification (CAC) is one of the paramount hurdles for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) since it impedes stent delivery and complete expansion. This study intended to evaluate the short-term clinical and procedural outcomes comparing rotational atherectomy (RA) and orbital atherectomy (OA) in patients with heavily calcified coronary lesions undergoing PCI. Design: This systematic review and meta-analysis included all head-to-head published comparisons of coronary RA versus OA. Procedural endpoints and post-procedural clinical outcomes (30 days/in-hospital), were compared. RevMan 5.3 software was used for data analysis. Results: Seven retrospective observational investigations with a total of 4623 patients, including 3203 patients in the RA group and 1420 patients in the OA group, were incorporated. Compared with OA, the RA group was associated with a higher incidence of myocardial infarction at short-term follow-up (OR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.07–2.29, p =.02, I2 = 0%). No difference was noted among other short-term post-procedural clinical outcomes including all-cause mortality, target vessel revascularization, or major adverse cardiac events. Among procedural complications, RA was associated with reduced coronary artery dissection and arterial perforation. Increased fluoroscopy time was observed in the RA cohort as compared with OA (MD: 4.78, 95% CI: 2.25–7.30, p =.0002, I2 = 80%). Conclusion: RA was associated with fewer vascular complications, but at a cost of higher incidence of myocardial infarction and higher fluoroscopy time compared with OA, at short term follow-up. OA is a safe and effective alternative for the management of CAC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The role of anticoagulation in octogenarians and nonagenarians with atrial fibrillation (AF) is controversial due to the lack of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), owing to the under representation of these patients in clinical trials. Aim: In the present meta-analysis we aim at comparing the clinical benefits and risk of anticoagulation (AC) with no AC in octogenarians and nonagenarians. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE/Ovid, and Web of Science databases from the inception to October, 2020. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: studies comparing AC with no AC in patients aged 80 or more for AF and reported thromboembolic events (TE) and bleeding outcomes. We used Mantel-Haenszel method with a Paule-Mandel estimator of Tau2 with Hartung Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment to estimate risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Outlier analysis was used to adjust for statistical heterogeneity. Results: A total of 10 observation studies and 1 RCT were included in the final analysis. There was no difference in the risk of TE with AC in octogenarians and nonagenarians compared with no AC, before [RR: 0.87, 95% CI 0.62–1.23, I2: 71%, GRADE confidence "very low"] and after [RR: 0.83, 95% CI 0.66–1.04, I2: 55.5%] adjusting for statistical heterogeneity among studies. In the unadjusted analysis, no difference in the risk of bleeding events was observed between both groups [RR: 1.05, 95% CI 0.62–1.77, I2: 86%, GRADE confidence "very low"]. After adjusting for heterogeneity, AC was associated with an increased risk of bleeding compared with those not receiving AC [RR: 1.57, 95% CI 1.44–1.71, I2: 0%]. AC in octogenarians was not associated with a net clinical benefit compared with no AC. Conclusions: This meta-analysis did not demonstrate any difference in the risk TE in octogenarians and nonagenarians with AF on AC vs. no AC, in both the adjusted and unadjusted analyses. Also, the risk of bleeding events in the unadjusted analysis was similar between both groups. The adjusted analysis showed an increased risk of bleeding in the AC group compared with no AC group. More data is needed to establish safety and efficacy of AC in this vulnerable patient population. The results of this analysis should be interpreted with caution due to the observational nature of most studies included, and the only RCT reported lower rates of TE and similar risk of bleeding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Treatment options for severe acute respiratory syndrome‐related coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) are limited with no clarity on efficacy and safety profiles. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies on patients ≥18 years reporting data on therapeutic interventions in SARS‐CoV‐2. Primary outcome was all‐cause mortality and secondary outcomes were rates of mechanical ventilation, viral clearance, adverse events, discharge, and progression to severe disease. Pooled rates and odds ratios (OR) were calculated. Twenty‐nine studies with 5207 patients were included. Pooled all‐cause mortality in intervention arm was 12.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.1%‐17.4%). Mortality was significantly higher for studies using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for intervention (OR: 1.36; 95% CI: 0.97‐1.89). Adverse events were also higher in HCQ subgroup (OR: 3.88; 95% CI: 1.60‐9.45). There was no difference in other secondary outcomes. There is a need for well‐designed randomized clinical trials for further investigation of every therapeutic intervention for further insight into different therapeutic options. Highlights: Our meta‐analysis of 5207 patients showed that the use of hydroxychloroquine was associated with increased mortality and adverse event rates in Severe acute respiratory syndrome‐related coronavirus‐2 infection and other therapeutic interventions did not show any difference in outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Post-esophagectomy anastomotic strictures are difficult to treat. The impact of adding local steroid injection to endoscopic dilation for the treatment of post-esophagectomy anastomotic strictures is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of performing steroid injection in addition to dilation.Methods: A search was conducted in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science from inception to January 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of endoscopic dilation plus either local steroid injection (steroid group) or saline injection (placebo group) were included in the analysis.Results: Three RCTs were eligible for the final analysis: 72 patients (mean age 61.3 years, 74 % male) in the steroid group and 72 patients (mean age 59.6 years, 71 % male) in the placebo group. The mean number of dilations required to resolve the stricture was significantly lower in the steroid group compared with the placebo group, with a mean weighted difference of -1.62 (95 % confidence interval [CI] -2.73 to -0.50; P = 0.004). After 6 months of follow-up, there was a trend toward more patients in the steroid group remaining dysphagia free compared with the placebo group, with a pooled odds ratio of 2.36 (95 %CI 0.94 to 5.91; P = 0.07, I2  = 24 %).Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed that the addition of local steroid injection at the time of dilation for benign anastomotic strictures led to a significant decrease in the number of procedures required to resolve the stricture and may well reduce dysphagia symptoms during follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]