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]

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