Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal dysplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background/Aims

In this meta-analysis, we studied the safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal dysplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Methods

Multiple databases were searched, and studies were retrieved based on pre-specified criteria until October 2022. The outcomes assessed were resection rates, procedural complications, local recurrence, metachronous tumors, and the need for surgery after ESD in IBD. Standard meta-analysis methods were followed using the random-effects model, and I2% was used to assess heterogeneity.

Results

Twelve studies comprising 291 dysplastic lesions in 274 patients were included with a median follow-up of 25 months. The pooled en-bloc resection, R0 resection, and curative resection rates were 92.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.9%-95.4%; I2=0%), 81.5% (95% CI, 72.5%-88%; I2=43%), and 48.9% (95% CI, 32.1%-65.9%; I2=87%), respectively. The local recurrence rate was 3.9% (95% CI, 2%-7.5%; I2=0%). The pooled rates of bleeding and perforation were 7.7% (95% CI, 4.5%-13%; I2=10%) and 5.3% (95% CI, 3.1%-8.9%; I2=0%), respectively. The rates of metachronous recurrence and additional surgery following ESD were 10% (95% CI, 5.2%-18.2%; I2=55%) and 13% (95% CI, 8.5%-19.3%; I2=54%), respectively.

Conclusions

ESD is safe and effective for the resection of dysplastic lesions in IBD with an excellent pooled rate of en-bloc and R0 resection.

Cold Versus Hot Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Sessile Serrated Colorectal Polyps ≥10 mm: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis studying the efficacy and safety of cold versus hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for resection of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) ≥10 mm.

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched until January 2023 for studies reporting outcomes of cold versus hot EMR for SSPs ≥10 mm. The primary outcome was the residual SSP rate. Secondary outcomes included technical success rate, R0 resection rate, and adverse events. We used standard meta-analysis methods using the random-effects model, and I2% was used to assess heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included in the final analysis. In all, 1896 SSPs were included with a mean polyp size of 23.7 mm (range, 15.9 to 33). A total of 1452 SSPs were followed up for a median follow-up duration of 15.3 months (range, 6 to 37). The pooled residual SSP rate for cold EMR was 4.5% (95% CI: 1.0-17.4), and 5.1% (95% CI: 2.4-10.4) for hot EMR (P=0.9). The pooled rates of technical success, R0 resection, immediate bleeding, and perforation were comparable. Hot EMR was significantly associated with lower piecemeal resection (59.2% vs. 99.3%, P<0.001), higher en-bloc resection (41.4% vs. 1.4%, P<0.001), and delayed bleeding rate (4% vs. 0.7%, P=0.05) compared to cold EMR.

CONCLUSIONS

Cold EMR has similar efficacy compared to hot EMR for resection of SSP ≥ 10 mm, despite limitations in piecemeal R0 resection rate reporting. Although hot EMR was associated with a higher rate of en-bloc resection, it also showed an increased risk of delayed bleeding compared to cold EMR.

Operator-specific outcomes in endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty: a propensity-matched analysis of the US population using a multicenter database

Background

Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) has emerged as an effective endoscopic bariatric procedure over the past decade. Data comparing short-term outcomes of ESG based on operator specialty is scarce. We aimed to assess the impact of operator specialization on patient outcomes using a large bariatric-specific database.

Methods

We identified a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent ESG by gastroenterologists using the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation Quality Improvement Program database (2020-2021). A matched comparison cohort of patients who underwent ESG by surgeons was identified and underwent 1:1 propensity score matching based on age, race, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, and preoperative body mass index.

Results

After matching, 154 patients were included in the final analysis. Of these, 77 patients underwent ESG by surgeons and 77 by gastroenterologists. In the matched cohort, the median operation time was lower in ESG by surgeons compared to gastroenterologists (P < 0.001). The median percent body mass index decrease was higher in the gastroenterologist cohort compared to the surgeon cohort (4.9% vs 3.8%, P = 0.04). The median percent weight loss after ESG was 4.8% in the surgeon cohort and 5.9% in the gastroenterologist cohort (P = 0.09). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative emergency department visits (P = 0.65), reoperations (P = 0.15), or reinterventions within 30 days (P = 0.87) between the cohorts. There was no difference in major adverse effects between the groups (0% each).

Conclusions

Operator choice does not affect ESG-related adverse events or 30-day outcomes in patients undergoing ESG.