A novel technique in the management of refractory variceal bleeding

Endoscopic vacuum therapy versus endoscopic stenting for upper gastrointestinal transmural defects: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal fistulas, leaks, and perforations represent a high cost burden to health systems worldwide, with high morbidity and mortality rates for affected patients. Management of these transmural defects remains therapeutically challenging.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) versus endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) for treatment of upper gastrointestinal transmural defects.

METHODS

Searches were performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central Cochrane, Latin American and Caribbean Health (LILACS), and gray literature, as well as a manual search to identify studies comparing SEMS versus EVT to treat upper gastrointestinal transmural defects. Evaluated outcomes were: rates of successful closure, mortality, length of hospital stay, duration of treatment, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Five studies with a total of 274 patients were included. There was a 21% increase in successful fistula closure attributed to EVT compared with the SEMS group (RD 0.21, CI 0.10-0.32; P = 0.0003). EVT demonstrated a 12% reduction in mortality compared to stenting (RD 0.12, CI 0.03-0.21; P = 0.006) and an average reduction of 14.22 days in duration of treatment (CI 8.38-20.07; P < 0.00001). There was a 24% reduction in adverse events (RD 0.24, CI 0.13-0.35; P = 0.0001. There were no statistical differences between the studied therapies regarding the length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic vacuum therapy proves to be superior in successful defect closure, mortality, adverse events and duration of treatment.

Endoscopic Band Ligation Versus Argon Plasma Coagulation in the Treatment of Gastric Antral Vascular Ectasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Argon plasma coagulation (APC) is the most commonly used endoscopic treatment for gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE). Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) has emerged as an alternative therapy. Our goal was to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of APC and EBL for the treatment of GAVE. This is the first systematic review that included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on this topic.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed using electronic databases to identify RCTs comparing APC and EBL for the treatment of GAVE following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

Four RCTs were included, with a total of 204 patients. EBL was related to higher endoscopic eradication rates risk difference [RD], 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.14, 0.44]; I2=0%) and less bleeding recurrence than APC (RD, 0.29; 95% CI [0.15, 0.44]; I2=0%). Patients treated with EBL required fewer blood transfusions (mean difference [MD], 1.49; 95% CI [0.28, 2.71]; I2=96%) and hospitalizations (MD, 0.29; 95% CI [0.19, 0.39]; I2=0%). The number of sessions required for the obliteration of lesions was higher with APC. There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

EBL is superior to APC in the treatment of GAVE in terms of endoscopic eradication rates, recurrence of bleeding, and transfusion requirements.

Propofol vs midazolam sedation for elective endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Patients with cirrhosis frequently require sedation for elective endoscopic procedures. Several sedation protocols are available, but choosing an appropriate sedative in patients with cirrhosis is challenging.

AIM

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare propofol and midazolam for sedation in patients with cirrhosis during elective endoscopic procedures in an attempt to understand the best approach.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the PRISMA guidelines. Electronic searches were performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central Cochrane, LILACS databases. Only randomized control trials (RCTs) were included. The outcomes studied were procedure time, recovery time, discharge time, and adverse events (bradycardia, hypotension, and hypoxemia). The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2). Quality of evidence was evaluated by GRADEpro. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager.

RESULTS

The search yielded 3,576 records. Out of these, 8 RCTs with a total of 596 patients (302 in the propofol group and 294 in the midazolam group) were included for the final analysis. Procedure time was similar between midazolam and propofol groups (MD: 0.25, 95%CI: -0.64 to 1.13, P = 0.59). Recovery time (MD: -8.19, 95%CI: -10.59 to -5.79, P < 0.00001). and discharge time were significantly less in the propofol group (MD: -12.98, 95%CI: -18.46 to -7.50, P < 0.00001). Adverse events were similar in both groups (RD: 0.02, 95%CI: 0-0.04, P = 0.58). Moreover, no significant difference was found for bradycardia (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, P = 0.16), hypotension (RD: 0.03, 95%CI: -0.01 to 0.07, P = 0.17), and hypoxemia (RD: 0.00, 95%CI: -0.04 to 0.04, P = 0.93). Five studies had low risk of bias, two demonstrated some concerns, and one presented high risk. The quality of the evidence was very low for procedure time, recovery time, and adverse events; while low for discharge time.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis based on RCTs show that propofol has shorter recovery and patient discharge time as compared to midazolam with a similar rate of adverse events. These results suggest that propofol should be the preferred agent for sedation in patients with cirrhosis.