Gastroenterology Research最新文献

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.

Background: Abnormal video capsule endoscopy (VCE) findings often require intervention with double balloon enteroscopy (DBE). Accurate VCE reporting is important for procedural planning. In 2017 the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) published a guideline that included recommended elements for VCE reporting. The aim of this study was to examine adherence to the AGA reporting guidelines for VCE.

Methods: The medical records of all patients who underwent DBE at a tertiary academic center between February 1, 2018, and July 1, 2019, were retrospectively reviewed to identify the VCE report that prompted DBE. Data were collected on the presence of each reporting element recommended by the AGA. Differences in reporting between academic and private practices were compared.

Results: A total of 129 VCE reports were reviewed (84 private practice and 45 academic practice). Reports consistently included indication, date, endoscopist, findings, diagnosis, and management recommendations. Timing of anatomic landmarks and abnormalities were included in only 87.6% of reports and preparation quality in only 26.2%. Reports from private practice groups were significantly more likely to include the type of capsule (P < 0.001). VCE reports from academic centers were more likely to include adverse outcomes (P < 0.001), pertinent negatives (P = 0.0015), extent of exam (P = 0.009), previous investigations (P = 0.045), medications (P < 0.001), and document communication to patient/referring physician (P = 0.001).

Conclusions: Most VCE reports in both private and academic settings included the important elements recommended by the AGA; however only 87% listed the times of landmarks and abnormal findings, which are crucial in determining the type and direction of approach for subsequent interventions. It is unclear whether the quality of VCE reporting influences the outcome of subsequent DBE.

Background: End-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients are highly susceptible to peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). We aimed to assess the influence of ESRD status on PUB hospitalizations in the United States (USA).

Methods: We analyzed the National Inpatient Sample to identify all adult PUB hospitalizations in the USA from 2007 to 2014, which were divided into two subgroups based on the presence or absence of ESRD. Hospitalization characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared. Furthermore, predictors of inpatient mortality for PUB hospitalizations with ESRD were identified.

Results: Between 2007 and 2014, there were 351,965 PUB hospitalizations with ESRD compared to 2,037,037 non-ESRD PUB hospitalizations. PUB ESRD hospitalizations had a higher mean age (71.6 vs. 63.6 years, P < 0.001), and proportion of ethnic minorities i.e., Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians compared to the non-ESRD cohort. We also noted higher all-cause inpatient mortality (5.4% vs. 2.6%, P < 0.001), rates of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) (20.7% vs. 19.1%, P < 0.001), and mean length of stay (LOS) (8.2 vs. 6 days, P < 0.001) for PUB ESRD hospitalizations compared to the non-ESRD cohort. After multivariate logistic regression analysis, Whites with ESRD had higher odds of mortality from PUB compared to Blacks. Furthermore, the odds of inpatient mortality from PUB decreased by 0.6% for every 1-year increase in age for hospitalizations with ESRD. Compared to the 2011 - 2014 study period, the 2007 - 2010 period had 43.7% higher odds (odds ratio (OR): 0.696, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.645 - 0.751) of inpatient mortality for PUB hospitalizations with ESRD.

Conclusions: PUB hospitalizations with ESRD had higher inpatient mortality, EGD utilization, and mean LOS compared to non-ESRD PUB hospitalizations.