Search

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]

Background Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and biopsy (EUS-FNA/FNB) has been traditionally used for making a tissue diagnosis. Several newer techniques are emerging as a viable alternative to EUS-FNA/FNB, including mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB), with a view to increasing the diagnostic yield for upper gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial tumors (SETs). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to describe the overall diagnostic yield of MIAB for upper GI SETs. Methods Multiple electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google Scholar) and conference abstracts were comprehensively searched. The primary outcome of our meta-analysis was the overall diagnostic yield of the MIAB. The secondary outcome was to study complications in terms of perforation and clinically significant bleeding. The meta-analysis was performed using a DerSimonian and Laird random-effect model. Results Seven studies were included in the final meta-analysis, reporting a total of 159 patients (male 86, female 73) with a mean age of 58 years. The overall pooled diagnostic yield of MIAB was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82.65-93.51, I2=0.00). Histologically, GI stromal tumor was the reported diagnosis in 38.62% (95%CI 22.29-56.24, I2=77.51%) of tumors, followed by leiomyoma 25% (95%CI 18.02-32.62, I2=4.42%). The overall rate of clinically significant bleeding following the procedure was 5.03% (95%CI 0.36-12.86, I2=57.43%) and no perforations were reported. Conclusions MIAB is a safe and effective technique for the diagnosis of upper GI SETs and can be considered as a viable alternative to EUS-FNA/FNB. MIAB can be performed during routine endoscopy and no advanced equipment is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Conventionally, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and biopsy (EUS-FNA)/EUS-FNB) has been used for tissue diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial tumors (SETs). However, deep biopsy (DB) via endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is emerging as an alternative technique, given the inadequate tissue sampling with EUS- FNA/EUS-FNB. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to report the overall diagnostic yield of DB via ESD for upper GI SETs. Methods PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were searched to identify studies (from commencement to Oct 2017) that reported the DB via ESD technique for diagnosis of upper GI SETs. The primary outcome of interest was the method's overall diagnostic yield and the secondary outcome was to the occurrence of complications. The meta-analysis was performed using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. Results A total of 7 studies, comprising 209 patients with a mean age of 57.3 years, were included in the final meta-analysis. The overall pooled diagnostic yield of DB via ESD for upper GI SETs was 95% (95% confidence interval [CI] 84.91-99.98, I2=78.2%). Overall, pooled outcomes of major bleeding and perforation in our meta-analysis was noted in 0.07% (95%CI 0.00-2.32, I2=0%) and 0% (95%CI 0.00-1.70, I2=0%) respectively. Data regarding major bleeding and perforation rates were not reported in 2 studies. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in our meta-analysis. Conclusion DB via ESD is an effective and safe procedure for diagnosing upper GI SETs. Further multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to validate these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: EUS-guided ethanol ablation has emerged as an alternative method for pancreatic lesions. Recently, paclitaxel was added to ethanol to assess ablative effects in pancreatic lesions. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on EUS-guided ethanol ablation (EUS E) versus EUS-guided ethanol with paclitaxel (EUS EP) ablation for the management of pancreatic lesions., Methods: Comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases (from inception to May 2020). The primary outcome evaluated complete ablation of the lesions radiologically and the secondary outcome evaluated adverse events (AEs)., Results: Fifteen studies on 524 patients were included in our analysis. The pooled complete ablation rate was 58.89% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 38.72-77.80, I 2 = 91.76%) and 55.99% (95% CI = 44.66-67.05, I 2 = 0) in the EUS E and EUS EP groups (P = 0.796), respectively. The pooled AE rates were 13.92% (95% CI = 4.71-26.01, I 2 = 83.43%) and 31.62% (95% CI = 3.36-68.95, I 2 = 87.9%) in the EUS E and EUS EP groups (P = 0.299), respectively. The most common AE was abdominal pain at 7.27% (95% CI = 1.97-14.6, I 2 = 68.2%) and 12.44% (95% CI = 0.00-39.24, I 2 = 81.1%) in the EUS E and EUS EP groups (P = 0.583), respectively. Correlation coefficient (r) was ‒0.719 (P = 0.008) between complete ablation and lesion size., Conclusion: Complete ablation rates were comparable among both groups. AE rates were higher in the EUS EP group. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to validate our findings., Competing Interests: None

Background and Objectives: Needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE) is a procedure in which an AQ-Flex nCLE mini-probe is passed through an EUS-FNA needle into a pancreatic lesion to enable subsurface in vivo tissue analysis. In this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of nCLE for the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions., Materials and Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases and conference proceedings, including PubMed, EMBASE, Google-Scholar, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases (earliest inception to March 2020). The primary outcomes assessed the pooled rate of diagnostic accuracy for nCLE and the secondary outcomes assessed the pooled rate of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and adverse events (AE) of nCLE to diagnose premalignant/malignant pancreatic lesions., Results: Eleven studies on 443 patients were included in our analysis. The pooled rate of diagnostic accuracy of EUS nCLE was 83% (95 confidence interval [CI] = 79-87; I 2 = 0). The pooled rate of sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of EUS nCLE was 85.29% (95% CI = 76.9-93.68; I 2 = 85%), 90.49% (95% CI = 82.24-98.74; I 2 = 64%), 94.15% (95% CI = 88.55-99.76; I 2 = 68%), and 73.44% (95% CI = 60.16-86.72; I 2 = 93%), respectively. The total AE rate was 5.41% (±5.92) with postprocedure pancreatitis being the most common AE at 2.28% (±3.73)., Conclusion: In summary, this study highlights the rate of diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and PPV for distinguishing premalignant/malignant lesions. Pancreatic lesions need to be further defined with more validation studies to characterize CLE diagnosis criteria and to evaluate its use as an adjunct to EUS-FNA., Competing Interests: None

Background and Objectives: EUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage (EUS-PAD) is a procedure that utilizes an echoendoscope to visualize an area of interest for needle insertion and placement of a stent, catheter, or both for drainage of the target abscess. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis for the safety and efficacy of EUS-PAD., Materials and Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases (earliest inception to February 2020). The primary outcomes for this study were the technical and clinical success of EUS-PAD. The secondary outcomes assessed for this study were adverse events of the procedure and subgroup analysis of individual adverse events., Results: Eight studies with a total of 135 patients combined were included in our analysis. The rate of technical success was 100% and the calculated pooled rate of clinical success was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87%, 98%; P = 0.31; I 2 = 15%). The calculated pooled rate of adverse events was 9.4% (±17.9%), with stent migration (5.5 ± 18.06%) being the most common adverse event., Conclusion: EUS-PAD offers a viable alternative that can minimize the need for surgical intervention in the drainage of pelvic abscesses. EUS-PAD has also demonstrated long-term clinical success with an acceptable rate of complications., Competing Interests: None

ERCP is the current procedure of choice for patients with jaundice caused by biliary obstruction. EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative to ERCP in patients requiring biliary drainage. The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to report the overall efficacy and safety of EUS-BD. We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and LILACS databases (earliest inception to June 2018) to identify studies that reported EUS-BD in patients. The primary outcome was to look at the technical and clinical success of the procedure. The secondary analysis focused on calculating the pooled rate of re-interventions and all adverse-events, along with the commonly reported adverse-event subtypes. Twenty-three studies reporting on 1437 patients were identified undergoing 1444 procedures. Majority of the patient population were male (53.86%), with an average age of 67.22 years. The pooled technical success rates and clinical success rates were 91.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87.7-94.2, I [2] = 76.5) and 87% (95% CI: 82.3-90.6, I [2] = 72.4), respectively. The total adverse event rates were 17.9% (95% CI: 14.3-22.2, I [2] = 69.1). Subgroup analysis of three major individual adverse events was bile leak: 4.1% (2.7-6.2, I [2] = 46.7), stent migration: 3.9% (2.5-6.2, I [2] = 43.5), and infection: 3.8% (2.8-5.1, I [2] = 0) Substantial heterogeneity was noted in the analysis. EUS-BD has high technical and clinical success rate and hence a very effective procedure. Concerns about publication bias exist. Careful consideration should be given to the adverse events and weighing the risks and benefits of the alternative nonsurgical/surgical approaches., Competing Interests: None