Gastroenterology Research最新文献

Background: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) represents the most common serious complication after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and pancreatic duct stenting (PDS) are the prophylactic interventions with more evidence and efficacy; however, PEP still represents a significant source of morbidity, mortality, and economic burden. Chronic statin use has been proposed as a prophylactic method that could be cheap and relatively safe. However, the evidence is conflicting. We aimed to evaluate the impact of endoscopic and pharmacological interventions including chronic statin and aspirin use, on the development of PEP.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study evaluated consecutive patients undergoing ERCP at John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County in Chicago from January 2015 to March 2018. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using logistic regression.

Results: A total of 681 ERCPs were included in the study. Twelve (1.76%) developed PEP. Univariate, multivariate, and subgroup analyses did not show any association between chronic statin or aspirin use and PEP. PDS and rectal indomethacin were protective in patients undergoing pancreatic duct injection. Pancreatic duct injection, female sex, and younger age were associated with a higher risk. History of papillotomy was associated with lower risk only in the univariate analysis (all P values < 0.05).

Conclusion: Chronic use of statins and aspirin appears to add no additional benefit to prevent ERCP pancreatitis. Rectal NSAIDs, and PDS after appropriate patient selection continue to be the main prophylactic measures. The lower incidence at our center compared with the reported data can be explained by the high rates of rectal indomethacin and PDS, the use of noninvasive diagnostic modalities for patient selection, and the expertise of the endoscopists.

[This retracts the article DOI: 10.14740/gr1490.].

Pyogenic liver abscesses (PLAs) are relatively rare but often fatal if left untreated. Antibiotic therapy combined with percutaneous procedures has replaced surgery as the cornerstone of treatment. However, open surgical drainage or liver resection may be a last resort. This study aimed to review our experience in treating PLA, with a focus on the conditions requiring partial liver resection as the last viable curative option. Medical records of patients with PLA admitted to Jordan Hospital between October 2014 through October 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Medical and demographic data of all 43 patients admitted to our facility with a diagnosis of PLA were extracted. We reviewed these patients and extracted the cases that required surgical intervention. Four (three males and one female) of the 43 patients with PLA required surgical intervention. The underlying causes of liver abscesses were as follows: one traumatic due to shrapnel injury from an explosion, one following chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma, and two patients with no apparent etiology. All patients were diagnosed with a computed tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen and pelvis with intravenous contrast. Two patients had negative cultures. All patients received broad-spectrum antibiotics, and all underwent CT- or ultrasound-guided percutaneous drainage or aspiration. All four patients required partial hepatic resection due to treatment failure or inaccessible percutaneous procedures with clinical improvement. Although antimicrobial and interventional therapy remains the primary treatment option in PLA, the surgical option with open surgical drainage or partial liver resection remains viable and curative in selected patients.

Background: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) are often used to drain pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). However, adverse events, such as stent obstruction, infection, or bleeding, have been reported. Concurrent double-pigtail plastic stent (DPPS) deployment has been suggested to prevent these adverse events. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of LAMS with DPPS vs. LAMS alone in the drainage of PFCs.

Methods: An extensive search was conducted in the literature to include all the eligible studies that compared LAMS with DPPS vs. LAMS alone for drainage of PFCs. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained within a random-effect model. The outcomes were technical and clinical success, and overall adverse events, including stent migration and occlusion, bleeding, infection, and perforation.

Results: Five studies involving 281 patients with PFCs (137 received LAMS plus DPPS vs. 144 received LAMS alone) were included. LAMS plus DPPS group was associated with comparable technical success (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.97 - 1.04, P = 0.70) and clinical success (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.88 - 1.17). Lower trends of overall adverse events (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.32 - 1.29), stent occlusion (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.27 - 1.49), infection (RR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.15 - 1.64), and perforation (RR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.06 - 2.78) were observed in LAMS with DPPS group compared to LAMS alone but without a statistical significance. Stent migration (RR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.50 - 3.34) and bleeding (RR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.25 - 1.72) were similar between the two groups.

Conclusions: Deployment of DPPS across LAMS for drainage of PFCs has no significant impact on efficacy or safety outcomes. Randomized, controlled trials are necessary to confirm our study results, especially in walled-off pancreatic necrosis.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.14740/gr1206.].

Background: The benefit of colorectal cancer screening in reducing cancer risk and related death is unclear. There are quality measure indicators and multiple factors that affect the performance of a successful colonoscopy. The main objective of our study was to identify if there is a difference in polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) according to colonoscopy indication and which factors might be associated.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all colonoscopies performed between January 2018 and January 2019, in a tertiary endoscopic center. All patients ≥ 50 years old scheduled for a nonurgent colonoscopy and screening colonoscopy were included. We stratified the total number of colonoscopies into two categories according to the indication: screening vs. non-screening, and then calculated PDR, ADR and serrated polyp detection rate (SDR). We also performed logistic regression model to identify factors associated with detecting polyps and adenomatous polyps.

Results: A total of 1,129 and 365 colonoscopies were performed in the non-screening and screening group, respectively. In comparison with the screening group, PDR and ADR were lower for the non-screening group (33% vs. 25%; P = 0.005 and 17% vs. 13%; P = 0.005). SDR was non-significantly lower in the non-screening group when compared with the screening group (11% vs. 9%; P = 0.53 and 22% vs. 13%; P = 0.007).

Conclusion: In conclusion, this observational study reported differences in PDR and ADR depending on screening and non-screening indication. These differences could be related to factors related to the endoscopist, time slot allotted for colonoscopy, population background, and external factors.

Background: The role of variceal embolization (VE) during transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation for preventing gastroesophageal variceal rebleeding remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the incidence of variceal rebleeding, shunt dysfunction, encephalopathy, and death between patients treated with TIPS alone and those treated with TIPS in combination with VE.

Methods: We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for all studies comparing the incidence of complications between TIPS alone and TIPS with VE. The primary outcome was variceal rebleeding. Secondary outcomes include shunt dysfunction, encephalopathy, and death. Subgroup analysis was performed based on the type of stent (covered vs. bare metal). The random-effects model was used to calculate the relative risk (RR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of outcome. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: Eleven studies with a total of 1,075 patients were included (597: TIPS alone and 478: TIPS plus VE). Compared to the TIPS alone, the TIPS with VE had a significantly lower incidence of variceal rebleeding (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.43 - 0.81, P = 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed similar results in covered stents (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.36 - 0.86, P = 0.008) but there was no significant difference between the two groups in the subgroup analysis of bare stents and combined stents. There was no significant difference in the risk of encephalopathy (RR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.66 - 1.06, P = 0.13), shunt dysfunction (RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.64 - 1.19, P = 0.40), and death (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.65 - 1.17, P = 0.34). There were similarly no differences in these secondary outcomes between groups when stratified according to type of stent.

Conclusions: Adding VE to TIPS reduced the incidence of variceal rebleeding in patients with cirrhosis. However, the benefit was observed with covered stents only. Further large-scale randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate our findings.

Ranibizumab is a monoclonal antibody fragment targeted against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) A isoform (VEGF-A). This study aimed to report a case of esophageal ulcer that developed soon after intravitreal ranibizumab injection in a patient with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). A 53-year-old male patient diagnosed with AMD received ranibizumab through intravitreal injection in the left eye. Mild dysphagia occurred 3 days after receiving intravitreal ranibizumab injection for the second time. The dysphagia exacerbated remarkably and was accompanied by hemoptysis 1 day after receiving ranibizumab for the third time. Severe dysphagia accompanied by intense retrosternal pain and pant emerged after injecting ranibizumab for the fourth time. An esophageal ulcer was observed through ultrasound gastroscopy, covered with fibrinous tissue, and surrounded by flushing and congestive mucosae. The patient received proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy combined with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) after discontinuation of ranibizumab. The dysphagia and retrosternal pain were gradually relieved after treatment. Afterwards, the esophageal ulcer has not relapsed since permanent discontinuation of ranibizumab. To our best knowledge, this was the first case of esophageal ulcer related to intravitreal ranibizumab injection. Our study indicated that VEGF-A played a potential role in the development of esophageal ulceration.

Background: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous radiological gastrostomy (PRG) are commonly utilized to establish access to enteral nutrition. However, data comparing the outcomes of PEG vs. PRG are conflicting. Therefore, we aimed to conduct an updated systemic review and meta-analysis comparing PRG and PEG outcomes.

Methods: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched until February 24, 2023. Primary outcomes included 30-day mortality, tube leakage, tube dislodgement, perforation, and peritonitis. Secondary outcomes included bleeding, infectious complications, and aspiration pneumonia. All analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software.

Results: The initial search revealed 872 studies. Of these, 43 of these studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in the final meta-analysis. Of 471,208 total patients, 194,399 received PRG and 276,809 received PEG. PRG was associated with higher odds of 30-day mortality when compared to PEG (odds ratio (OR): 1.205, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.015 - 1.430, I² = 55%). In addition, tube leakage and tube dislodgement were higher in the PRG group than in PEG (OR: 2.231, 95% CI: 1.184 - 4.2 and OR: 2.602, 95% CI: 1.911 - 3.541, respectively). Perforation, peritonitis, bleeding, and infectious complications were higher with PRG than PEG.

Conclusion: PEG is associated with lower 30-day mortality, tube leakage, and tube dislodgement rates than PRG.