Abstract Biliary drainage for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA) can be performed either by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD). To date there is no consensus about which method is preferred. Taking that into account, the aim of this study is to compare Endoscopic Biliary Drainage (EBD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma through a systematic review and metanalysis. A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed. Evaluated outcomes included technical success, clinical success, post drainage complications (cholangitis, pancreatitis, bleeding, and major complications), crossover, hospital length stay, and seeding metastases. Data extracted from the studies were used to calculate Mean Differences (MD). Seventeen studies were included, with a total of 2284 patients (EBD = 1239, PTBD = 1045). Considering resectable PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated lower rates of crossover (RD = 0.29; 95% CI 0.07–0.51; p = 0.009 I2 = 90%), post-drainage complications (RD = 0.20; 95% CI 0.06–0.33; p < 0.0001; I2 = 78%), and post-drainage pancreatitis (RD = 0.10; 95% CI 0.05–0.16; p < 0.0001; I2 = 64%). The EBD group presented reduced length of hospital stay (RD = -2.89; 95% CI -3.35 - -2,43; p < 0.00001; I2 = 42%). Considering palliative PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated a higher clinical success (RD = -0.19; 95% CI -0.27 - -0.11; p < 0.00001; I2 = 0%) and less post-drainage cholangitis (RD = 0.08; 95% CI 0.01-0.15; p = 0.02; I2 = 48%) when compared to the EBD group. There was no statistical difference between the groups regarding: technical success, post-drainage bleeding, major post-drainage complications, and seeding metastases.

OBJECTIVES: Brazil has rapidly developed the second-highest number of COVID-19 cases in the world. As such, proper symptom identification, including gastrointestinal manifestations, and relationship to health outcomes remains key. We aimed to assess the prevalence and impact of gastrointestinal symptoms associated with COVID-19 in a large quaternary referral center in South America. METHODS: This was a single-center cohort study in a COVID-19 specific hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Consecutive adult patients with laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 were included. Baseline patient history, presenting symptoms, laboratory results, and clinically relevant outcomes were recorded. Regression analyses were performed to determine significant predictors of the gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 and hospitalization outcomes. RESULTS: Four-hundred patients with COVID-19 were included. Of these, 33.25% of patients reported ≥1 gastrointestinal symptom. Diarrhea was the most common gastrointestinal symptom (17.25%). Patients with gastrointestinal symptoms had higher rates of concomitant constitutional symptoms, notably fatigue and myalgia (p<0.05). Gastrointestinal symptoms were also more prevalent among patients on chronic immunosuppressants, ACE/ARB medications, and patient with chronic kidney disease (p<0.05). Laboratory results, length of hospitalization, ICU admission, ICU length of stay, need for mechanical ventilation, vasopressor support, and in-hospital mortality did not differ based upon gastrointestinal symptoms (p>0.05). Regression analyses showed older age [OR 1.04 (95% CI, 1.02-1.06)], male gender [OR 1.94 (95% CI, 1.12-3.36)], and immunosuppression [OR 2.60 (95% CI, 1.20-5.63)], were associated with increased mortality. CONCLUSION: Based upon this Brazilian study, gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 are common but do not appear to impact clinically relevant hospitalization outcomes including the need for ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or mortality.

RESUMO Introdução: A remoção endoscópica das litíases do ducto biliar comum tem alta taxa de sucesso variando de 85% a 95%. Litíases do ducto biliar >15 mm são difíceis e frequentemente requerem litotripsia. A colangioscopia peroral permite litotripsia com taxas de sucesso semelhantes. Objetivo: Determinar a eficácia e segurança da litotripsia guiada por colangioscopia no tratamento de litíases biliares difíceis em comparação à terapias convencionais guiadas por colangiopancreatografia retrógrada endoscópica. Método: Pesquisa na Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, Lilacs/Bireme de estudos avaliando a eficácia da colangioscopia na remoção de cálculos biliares difíceis. Duas análises foram realizadas separadamente, uma incluiu ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECR) e outros estudos observacionais. Resultados: Quarenta e seis estudos foram selecionados (3 ECR e 43 observacionais). Na análise, não houve diferença estatisticamente significativa na taxa de extração litiásica total (RD=-0,02 IC: -0,17,0,12/I²=0%), tempo médio de fluoroscopia (MD=-0,14 CI -1,60, 1,32/I²=21%) e na taxa de eventos adversos (RD=-0,06 IC: -0,14, 0,02/I²=0%).Por outro lado, o tempo médio do procedimento favoreceu terapêuticas convencionais guiadas por CPRE com significância estatística (MD=27,89 IC: 16,68, 39,10/I²=0%). Nos estudos observacionais, a taxa do tratamento completo por endoscopia foi de 88,29% (IC95: 86,9% a 90,7%), a taxa de sucesso na primeira sessão foi de 72,7% (IC95: 69,9% a 75,3%), o tempo médio do procedimento foi de 47,50±6 min por sessão e o número de procedimentos necessários para remoção total da litíase foi de 1,5±0,18. A taxa de eventos adversos foi de 8,7% (IC95: 7% a 10,9%), com 0,5% considerado como severo. Conclusão: Para litíases biliares difíceis, a litotripsia guiada por colangioscopia tem taxa de sucesso semelhante às terapêuticas convencionais guiadas CPRE em termos de sucesso terapêutico, taxa de eventos adversos e tempo de fluoroscopia. As terapêuticas convencionais guiadas por CPRE têm tempo médio de procedimento menor.

ABSTRACT Introduction: Endoscopic removal of common bile duct stones has a high success rate ranging from 85% to 95%. Bile duct stones >15 mm are difficult and frequently require lithotripsy. Peroral cholangioscopy (POC) allows lithotripsy with similar success rates. Aim: To determine the efficacy and safety of cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy used in the treatment of difficult to remove bile duct stones vs. conventional therapy. Methods: Search was based in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, Lilacs/Bireme. Studies enrolling patients referred for the removal of difficult bile duct stones via POC were considered eligible. Two analyses were carried out separately, one included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and another observational studies. Results: Forty-six studies were selected (3 RTC and 43 observational). In the analysis there was no statistical significant difference between successful endoscopic clearance (RD=-0.02 CI: -0.17, 0.12/I²=0%), mean fluoroscopy time (MD=-0.14 CI -1.60, 1.32/I²=21%) and adverse events rates (RD=-0.06 CI: -0.14, 0.02/I²=0%), by contrast, the mean procedure time favored conventional therapy with statistical significance (MD=27.89 CI: 16.68, 39.10/I²=0%). In observational studies, the successful endoscopic clearance rate was 88.29% (CI95: 86.9%-90.7%), the first session successful endoscopic clearance rate was 72.7 % (CI95: 69.9%-75.3%), the mean procedure time was 47.50±6 min for session and the number of sessions to clear bile duct was 1.5±0.18. The adverse event rate was 8.7% (CI95: 7%-10.9%). Conclusions: For complex common bile duct stones, cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy has a success rate that is similar to traditional ERCP techniques in terms of therapeutic success, adverse event rate and means fluoroscopy time. Conventional ERCP methods have a shorter mean procedure time.

OBJECTIVES: The present coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has ushered in an unprecedented era of quality control that has necessitated advanced safety precautions and the need to ensure the adequate protection of healthcare professionals (HCPs). Endoscopy units, endoscopists, and other HCP may be at a significant risk for transmission of the virus. Given the immense burden on the healthcare system and surge in the number of patients with COVID-19, well-designed protocols and recommendations are needed. We aimed to systematically characterize our approach to endoscopic procedures in a quaternary university hospital setting and provide summary protocol recommendations. METHOD: This descriptive study details a COVID-19-specific protocol designed to minimize infection risks to patients and healthcare workers in the endoscopy unit. RESULTS: Our institution, located in São Paulo, Brazil, includes a 900-bed hospital, with a 200-bed-specific intensive care unit exclusively designed for patients with moderate and severe COVID-19. We highlighted recommendations for infection prevention and control during endoscopic procedures, including appropriate triage and screening, outpatient management and procedural recommendations, role and usage of personal protective equipment (PPE), and role and procedural logistics involving COVID-19-positive patients. We also detailed hospital protocols for reprocessing endoscopes and cleaning rooms and also provided recommendations to minimize severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 transmission. CONCLUSION: This COVID-19-specific administrative and clinical protocol can be replicated or adapted in multiple institutions and endoscopy units worldwide. Furthermore, the recommendations and summary protocol may improve patient and HCP safety in these trying times.

Serologic testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) promises to assist in assessing exposure to and confirming the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and to provide a roadmap for reopening countries worldwide. Considering this, a proper understanding of serologic-based diagnostic testing characteristics is critical. The aim of this study was to perform a structured systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic characteristics of serological-based COVID-19 testing. Electronic searches were performed using Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Full-text observational studies that reported IgG or IgM diagnostic yield and used nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) of respiratory tract specimens, as a the reference standard in English language were included. A bivariate model was used to compute pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative likelihood ratio (LR), diagnostic odds ratio (OR), and summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five studies (n=1,166 individual tests) met inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for IgG was 81% [(95% CI, 61-92);I2=95.28], 97% [(95% CI, 78-100);I2=97.80], and 93% (95% CI, 91-95), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for IgM antibodies was 80% [(95% CI, 57-92);I2=94.63], 96% [(95% CI, 81-99);I2=92.96] and 95% (95% CI, 92-96). This meta-analysis demonstrates suboptimal sensitivity and specificity of serologic-based diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2 and suggests that antibody testing alone, in its current form, is unlikely to be an adequate solution to the difficulties posed by COVID-19 and in guiding future policy decisions regarding social distancing and reopening of the economy worldwide.

RESUMO CONTEXTO: Os tratamentos endoscópicos para a doença do refluxo gastroesofágico (DRGE) ainda estão em evolução e a maioria dos estudos publicados abordam o alívio dos sintomas em curto prazo. OBJETIVO: Pretendemos realizar uma revisão sistemática e meta-análise focada na avaliação da eficácia dos diferentes procedimentos endoscópicos. MÉTODOS: A pesquisa foi restrita a ensaios clínicos randomizados em MedLine, Cochrane, SciELO e EMBASE para pacientes com DRGE crônica (>6 meses), com mais de 18 anos e acompanhamento disponível por pelo menos 3 meses. O principal desfecho foi avaliar a eficácia dos diferentes tratamentos endoscópicos em comparação com o tratamento sham, farmacológico ou cirúrgico. A eficácia foi medida por diferentes resultados subjetivos e objetivos. RESULTADOS: Analisamos dados de 16 ensaios clínicos randomizados, totalizando 1085 pacientes. A eficácia dos tratamentos endoscópicos em comparação com o tratamento com sham e inibidores da bomba de prótons mostrou uma diferença significativa até 6 meses a favor da endoscopia sem heterogeneidade (P<0,00001) (I2: 0%). A análise do subgrupo mostrou diferença estatisticamente significativa até 6 meses a favor da endoscopia: endoscopia vs inibidores da bomba de prótons (P<0,00001) (I2: 39%). Endoscopia vs sham (P<0,00001) (I2: 0%). A maioria dos resultados subjetivos e objetivos foram estatisticamente significativos em favor da endoscopia até 6 e 12 meses de acompanhamento. CONCLUSÃO: Esta revisão sistemática e meta-análise mostrou uma boa eficácia a curto prazo em favor dos procedimentos endoscópicos ao compará-los a tratamento sham, farmacológico ou cirúrgico. Não existem dados sobre o acompanhamento a longo prazo e isso deve ser explorado em estudos futuros.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Endoscopic antireflux treatments for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are still evolving, and most of the published studies address symptom relief in the short-term. Objective - We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis focused on evaluating the efficacy of the different endoscopic procedures. METHODS: Search was restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MedLine, Cochrane, SciELO, and EMBASE for patients with chronic GERD (>6 months), over 18 years old and available follow up of at least 3 months. The main outcome was to evaluate the efficacy of the different endoscopic treatments compared to sham, pharmacological or surgical treatment. Efficacy was measured by different subjective and objective outcomes. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 16 RCT, totaling 1085 patients. The efficacy of endoscopic treatments compared to sham and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) treatment showed a significant difference up to 6 months in favor of endoscopy with no heterogeneity (P<0.00001) (I2: 0%). The subgroup analysis showed a statistically significant difference up to 6 months in favor of endoscopy: endoscopy vs PPI (P<0.00001) (I2: 39%). Endoscopy vs sham (P<0.00001) (I2: 0%). Most subjective and objective outcomes were statistically significant in favor of endoscopy up to 6 and 12 months follow up. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis shows a good short-term efficacy in favor of endoscopic procedures when comparing them to a sham and pharmacological or surgical treatment. Data on long-term follow up is lacking and this should be explored in future studies.

Our aim in this study was to compare the efficiency of 25G versus 22G needles in diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions by EUS-FNA. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Studies were identified in five databases using an extensive search strategy. Only randomized trials comparing 22G and 25G needles were included. The results were analyzed by fixed and random effects. A total of 504 studies were found in the search, among which 4 randomized studies were selected for inclusion in the analysis. A total of 462 patients were evaluated (233: 25G needle/229: 22G needle). The diagnostic sensitivity was 93% for the 25G needle and 91% for the 22G needle. The specificity of the 25G needle was 87%, and that of the 22G needle was 83%. The positive likelihood ratio was 4.57 for the 25G needle and 4.26 for the 22G needle. The area under the sROC curve for the 25G needle was 0.9705, and it was 0.9795 for the 22G needle, with no statistically significant difference between them (p=0.497). Based on randomized studies, this meta-analysis did not demonstrate a significant difference between the 22G and 25G needles used during EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions.

RESUMO CONTEXTO A suspeita do câncer de esôfago na lesão cáustica ocorre quando os pacientes com estenoses previamente estáveis, após um período latente sem sintomas, apresentam disfagia, baixa resposta as dilatações ou sintomas respiratórios. A cromoscopia com luz de banda estreita detecta o câncer superficial de esôfago mais frequentemente que a luz branca, com alta sensibilidade e acurácia. OBJETIVO Determinar a aplicabilidade clínica da luz de banda estreita versus a cromoscopia vital com Lugol na detecção do câncer precoce de esôfago em pacientes com lesões cáusticas. MÉTODOS Um total de 38 pacientes, entre 28 e 84 anos, foram alocados seguidamente e submetidos à cromoscopia com luz de banda estreita e com Lugol. Um gastroscópio de 4,9 mm de diâmetro foi usado para facilitar o exame da área estenosada, sem necessidade de dilatação. A cromoscopia com luz de banda estreita era realizada primeiro e as áreas suspeitas anotadas. Depois, a cromoscopia com Lugol era realizada e as áreas suspeitas biopsiadas. RESULTADOS Detectamos nove lesões suspeitas com a luz de banda estreita e 14 com o Lugol. A sensibilidade e especificidade da cromoscopia com luz de banda estreita foi de 100% e 80,6%, e a do Lugol foi de 100% e 66,67% respectivamente. Cinco (13%) lesões suspeitas foram detectadas coincidentemente pelos dois métodos, sendo duas (40%) com diagnóstico anatomopatológico de câncer de esôfago. CONCLUSÃO A cromoscopia com luz de banda estreita é opção concreta para o diagnóstico de câncer em pacientes com estenoses esofágicas por corrosões cáusticas, comparado a cromoscopia com Lugol.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND The diagnosis of corrosion cancer should be suspected in patients with corrosive ingestion if after a latent period of negligible symptoms there is development of dysphagia, or poor response to dilatation, or if respiratory symptoms develop in an otherwise stable patient of esophageal stenosis. Narrow Band Imaging detects superficial squamous cell carcinoma more frequently than white-light imaging, and has significantly higher sensitivity and accuracy compared with white-light. OBJECTIVE To determinate the clinical applicability of Narrow Band Imaging versus Lugol´s solution chromendoscopy for detection of early esophageal cancer in patients with caustic/corrosive agent stenosis. METHODS Thirty-eight patients, aged between 28-84 were enrolled and examined by both Narrow Band Imaging and Lugol´s solution chromendoscopy. A 4.9mm diameter endoscope was used facilitating examination of a stenotic area without dilation. Narrow Band Imaging was performed and any lesion detected was marked for later biopsy. Then, Lugol´s solution chromoendoscopy was performed and biopsies were taken at suspicious areas. Patients who had abnormal findings at the routine, Narrow Band Imaging or Lugol´s solution chromoscopy exam had their stenotic ring biopsied. RESULTS We detected nine suspicious lesions with Narrow Band Imaging and 14 with Lugol´s solution chromendoscopy. The sensitivity and specificity of the Narrow Band Imaging was 100% and 80.6%, and with Lugol´s chromoscopy 100% and 66.67%, respectively. Five (13%) suspicious lesions were detected both with Narrow Band Imaging and Lugol’s chromoscopy, two (40%) of these lesions were confirmed carcinoma on histopathological examination. CONCLUSION Narrow Band Imaging is an applicable option to detect and evaluate cancer in patients with caustic /corrosive stenosis compared to the Lugol´s solution chromoscopy.

To compare the complications and mortality related to gastrostomy procedures performed using surgical and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy techniques, this review covered seven studies. Five of these were retrospective and two were randomized prospective studies. In total, 406 patients were involved, 232 of whom had undergone percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and 174 of whom had undergone surgical gastrostomy. The analysis was performed using Review Manager. Risk differences were computed using a fixed-effects model and forest and funnel plots. Data on risk differences and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using the Mantel-Haenszel test. There was no difference in major complications in retrospective (95% CI (-0.11 to 0.10)) or randomized (95% CI (-0.07 to 0.05)) studies. Regarding minor complications, no difference was found in retrospective studies (95% CI (-00.17 to 0.09)), whereas a difference was observed in randomized studies (95% CI (-0.25 to -0.02)). Separate analyses of retrospective and randomized studies revealed no differences between the methods in relation to mortality and major complications. Moreover, low levels of minor complications were observed among endoscopic procedures in randomized studies, with no difference observed compared with retrospective studies.

ContextoA ecoendoscopia é considerada o melhor método de imagem para diagnosticar e avaliar as lesões subepiteliais do trato digestivo.ObjetivoO presente estudo tem como objetivo fazer uma análise dos casos submetidos a ecoendoscopia para avaliação de lesões subepiteliais do trato digestivo alto.MétodosForam analisados de forma retrospectiva 342 pacientes submetidos a ecoendoscopia para avaliação de lesões subepiteliais.ResultadosLesões da quarta camada foram mais comuns no estômago (63,72%) do que no esôfago (44,68%) e no duodeno (29,03%). No estômago, 81,1% das lesões >2 cm, e 96,5% >3 cm, eram da quarta camada. Sinais endossonográficos que poderiam ser relacionados com o comportamento maligno, como bordas irregulares, focos ecogênicos, espaços císticos e/ou tamanho maior que 3 cm foram identificados em 34 lesões (15,81%) na primeira avaliação com ecoendoscopia. Aspiração por agulha fina guiada por ultrassom endoscópico fez o diagnóstico em 21 (61,76%) dos pacientes que foram submetidos a punção ecoguiada. Três (12,0%) lesões das 25, que foram submetidas a vigilância pela ecoendoscopia, aumentaram de tamanho.ConclusãoO estômago é o órgão mais afetado pelas lesões subepitelias do trato gastrointestinal alto, sendo a camada muscular própria a camada de origem mais comum. Mais de 80% das lesões gástricas subepiteliais da quarta camada são >2 cm. A avaliação ecoendoscópica das lesões subepiteliais tem sido muito importante para a estratificação em grupos de risco e para determinar a melhor conduta.

BackgroundEndoscopic ultrasound is considered the best imaging test for the diagnosis and evaluation of subepithelial lesions of the gastrointestinal tract.ObjectiveThe present study aims to describe the endosonographic characteristics of upper gastric subepithelial lesions and our experience using endoscopic ultrasound for evaluation of such lesions.MethodsRetrospective data study of 342 patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound evaluation of subepithelial lesions.ResultsLesions of the fourth layer were more common in the stomach (63.72%) than in the esophagus (44.68%) and duodenum (29.03%). In stomach, 81.1% of the lesions ≥2 cm, and 96.5% ≥3 cm, were from the fourth layer. Endosonographic signs that could be related to malignant behavior, such as irregular borders, echogenic foci, cystic spaces and/or size greater than 3 cm were identified in 34 (15.81%) lesions at the first endoscopic ultrasound evaluation. Endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration did the diagnosis in 21 (61.76%) patients who were submitted a puncture. Three (12.0%) lesions of 25 who were submitted to regular endoscopic ultrasound surveillance increased the size.ConclusionStomach is the organ most affected with subepithelial lesions of the gastrointestinal tract and the fourth layer was the most common layer of origin. More than 80% of gastric subepithelial lesions from the fourth layer are ≥2 cm. Endoscopic ultrasound evaluation of subepithelial lesions has been very important for stratification into risk groups and to determine the best management.