1.Efficacy and Safety of Lumen-Apposing Stents for Management of Pancreatic Fluid Collections in a Community Hospital Setting
Rajat GARG ; Abdelkader CHAAR ; Susan SZPUNAR ; Babu P. MOHAN ; Mohammed BARAWI
Clinical Endoscopy 2020;53(4):480-486
Background/Aims:
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage and necrosectomy employing lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) are used for treating pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) with excellent results from academic centers. Herein, we report the efficacy and safety of LAMS in the treatment of PFCs at a community hospital.
Methods:
We retrospectively reviewed the etiology of pancreatitis, type and size of PFCs, length of procedure, technical success, clinical success, adverse events, and stent removal. The primary outcome was the rate of clinical success, and secondary outcomes were technical success and adverse events.
Results:
Twenty-seven patients with a mean age of 54.1±6.5 years were included, 44% of which were men. The mean size of the PFCs was 9.7±5.0 cm (range, 3–21). The most common etiology of pancreatitis was alcohol (44%) followed by idiopathic causes (30%) and presence of gallstones (22%). The diagnosis was pseudocyst in 44.4% (12/27) and walled off necrosis in 55.6% (15/27) of patients. There was 100% technical success without any complications. Clinical success was achieved in 22 of 27 patients (81.5%) who underwent stent removal.
Conclusions
Our study is the first to report that endoscopic therapy of PFCs using LAMS is safe and effective even in a community hospital setting with limited resources and support compared to large academic centers.
2.Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for 10 mm or Larger Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Rajat GARG ; Amandeep SINGH ; Manik AGGARWAL ; Jaideep BHALLA ; Babu P. MOHAN ; Carol BURKE ; Tarun RUSTAGI ; Prabhleen CHAHAL
Clinical Endoscopy 2021;54(3):379-389
Background/Aims:
Recent studies have reported the favorable outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) for colorectal polyps. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy and safety of UEMR for nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 mm.
Methods:
We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (through May 2020) to identify studies reporting the outcomes of UEMR for ≥10 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps. The assessed outcomes were recurrence rate on the first follow-up, en bloc resection, incomplete resection, and adverse events after UEMR.
Results:
A total of 1276 polyps from 16 articles were included in our study. The recurrence rate was 7.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3–12) and 5.9% (95% CI, 3.6–9.4) for nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 and ≥20 mm, respectively. For nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 mm, the en bloc resection, R0 resection, and incomplete resection rates were 57.7% (95% CI, 42.4–71.6), 58.9% (95% CI, 42.4–73.6), and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8–2.6), respectively. The rates of pooled adverse events, intraprocedural bleeding, and delayed bleeding were 7.0%, 5.4%, and 2.9%, respectively. The rate of perforation and postpolypectomy syndrome was 0.8%.
Conclusions
Our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that UEMR for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥10 mm is safe and effective with a low rate of recurrence.
3.Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for 10 mm or Larger Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Rajat GARG ; Amandeep SINGH ; Manik AGGARWAL ; Jaideep BHALLA ; Babu P. MOHAN ; Carol BURKE ; Tarun RUSTAGI ; Prabhleen CHAHAL
Clinical Endoscopy 2021;54(3):379-389
Background/Aims:
Recent studies have reported the favorable outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) for colorectal polyps. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy and safety of UEMR for nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 mm.
Methods:
We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (through May 2020) to identify studies reporting the outcomes of UEMR for ≥10 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps. The assessed outcomes were recurrence rate on the first follow-up, en bloc resection, incomplete resection, and adverse events after UEMR.
Results:
A total of 1276 polyps from 16 articles were included in our study. The recurrence rate was 7.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3–12) and 5.9% (95% CI, 3.6–9.4) for nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 and ≥20 mm, respectively. For nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 mm, the en bloc resection, R0 resection, and incomplete resection rates were 57.7% (95% CI, 42.4–71.6), 58.9% (95% CI, 42.4–73.6), and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8–2.6), respectively. The rates of pooled adverse events, intraprocedural bleeding, and delayed bleeding were 7.0%, 5.4%, and 2.9%, respectively. The rate of perforation and postpolypectomy syndrome was 0.8%.
Conclusions
Our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that UEMR for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥10 mm is safe and effective with a low rate of recurrence.
4.Cold snare polypectomy versus cold endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Vishali MOOND ; Priyadarshini LOGANATHAN ; Sheza MALIK ; Dushyant Singh DAHIYA ; Babu P. MOHAN ; Daryl RAMAI ; Michele MCGINNIS ; Deepak MADHU ; Mohammad BILAL ; Aasma SHAUKAT ; Saurabh CHANDAN
Clinical Endoscopy 2024;57(6):747-758
Background/Aims:
Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is routinely performed for small colorectal polyps (≤10 mm). However, challenges include insufficient resection depth and immediate bleeding, hindering precise pathological evaluation. We aimed to compare the outcomes of cold endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) with that of CSP for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm, using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Methods:
Multiple databases were searched in December 2023 for RCTs reporting outcomes of CSP versus CEMR for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm in size. Our primary outcomes were rates of complete and en-bloc resections, while our secondary outcomes were total resection time (seconds) and adverse events, including immediate bleeding, delayed bleeding, and perforation.
Results:
The complete resection rates did not significantly differ (CSP, 91.8% vs. CEMR 94.6%), nor did the rates of en-bloc resection (CSP, 98.9% vs. CEMR, 98.3%) or incomplete resection (CSP, 6.7% vs. CEMR, 4.8%). Adverse event rates were similarly insignificant in variance. However, CEMR had a notably longer mean resection time (133.51 vs. 91.30 seconds).
Conclusions
Our meta-analysis of seven RCTs showed that while both CSP and CEMR are equally safe and effective for resecting small (≤10 mm) colorectal polyps, the latter is associated with a longer resection time.
5.Transforming outcomes: the pivotal role of self-expanding metal stents in right- and left-sided malignant colorectal obstructions-bridge to surgery: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis
Sheza MALIK ; Priyadarshini LOGANATHAN ; Hajra KHAN ; Abul Hasan SHADALI ; Pradeep YARRA ; Saurabh CHANDAN ; Babu P. MOHAN ; Douglas G. ADLER ; Shivangi KOTHARI
Clinical Endoscopy 2025;58(2):240-252
Background/Aims:
Self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) are an alternative to emergency surgery (ES) for malignant colorectal obstruction. This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes between SEMS as a bridge to surgery (BTS) and ES in patients with malignant colorectal obstruction.
Methods:
A comprehensive database search was conducted until October 2023 to compare outcomes between SEMS as a BTS and ES. A subgroup analysis of results by malignancy site was performed.
Results:
We analyzed 57 studies, including 7,223 patients over a mean duration of 35.4 months. SEMS as a BTS showed clinical and technical success rates of 88.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.1%–90.1%; I2=68%) and 91.6% (95% CI, 89.7%–93.7%; I2=66%), respectively. SEMS as a BTS revealed reduced postoperative adverse events (odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41–0.63; I2=70%; p<0.001) and 30-day mortality (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37–0.72; I2=10%; p<0.001) compared to ES. Subgroup analysis showed postoperative mortality of 5% and 1.5% for left- and right-sided malignancies, respectively. Adverse events were 15% and 33% for the right and left colon, respectively.
Conclusions
SEMS as a BTS demonstrated a higher success rate, fewer postoperative adverse events, and a reduced 30-day mortality rate than ES, supporting its use as the preferred initial intervention for right- and left-sided obstructions and indicating broader clinical adoption.
6.Prevalence of intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, and esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with irregular Z-line: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Vishali MOOND ; Pradeep YARRA ; Mannat BHATIA ; Sheza MALIK ; Vineel MALAVARAPPU ; Hassam ALI ; Saurabh CHANDAN ; Douglas G. ADLER ; Babu P. MOHAN
Clinical Endoscopy 2025;58(3):377-385
Background/Aims:
The irregular Z-line, defined as a segment of columnar mucosa less than 1 cm in the distal esophagus, is often biopsied despite guidelines advising against it due to a low risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, the clinical significance of an irregular Z-line remains unclear. This meta-analysis examines the prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus, dysplasia, and EAC in patients with an irregular Z-line.
Methods:
We searched Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases up to October 2023 for studies on the prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus, dysplasia, and EAC in these patients. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics.
Results:
Nine studies involving 17,637 patients were analyzed. Among those with an irregular Z-line, the prevalence of intestinal metaplasia was 29.4%. In patients with intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia was found in 6.2%, low-grade dysplasia in 5.9%, high-grade dysplasia in 1.6%, and EAC in 1.5%. These rates were higher compared to those without intestinal metaplasia.
Conclusions
Patients with an irregular Z-line and intestinal metaplasia may be at higher risk and could benefit from endoscopic surveillance. Further studies are needed to determine the necessity of biopsying irregular Z-lines.
7.Cold snare polypectomy versus cold endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Vishali MOOND ; Priyadarshini LOGANATHAN ; Sheza MALIK ; Dushyant Singh DAHIYA ; Babu P. MOHAN ; Daryl RAMAI ; Michele MCGINNIS ; Deepak MADHU ; Mohammad BILAL ; Aasma SHAUKAT ; Saurabh CHANDAN
Clinical Endoscopy 2024;57(6):747-758
Background/Aims:
Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is routinely performed for small colorectal polyps (≤10 mm). However, challenges include insufficient resection depth and immediate bleeding, hindering precise pathological evaluation. We aimed to compare the outcomes of cold endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) with that of CSP for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm, using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Methods:
Multiple databases were searched in December 2023 for RCTs reporting outcomes of CSP versus CEMR for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm in size. Our primary outcomes were rates of complete and en-bloc resections, while our secondary outcomes were total resection time (seconds) and adverse events, including immediate bleeding, delayed bleeding, and perforation.
Results:
The complete resection rates did not significantly differ (CSP, 91.8% vs. CEMR 94.6%), nor did the rates of en-bloc resection (CSP, 98.9% vs. CEMR, 98.3%) or incomplete resection (CSP, 6.7% vs. CEMR, 4.8%). Adverse event rates were similarly insignificant in variance. However, CEMR had a notably longer mean resection time (133.51 vs. 91.30 seconds).
Conclusions
Our meta-analysis of seven RCTs showed that while both CSP and CEMR are equally safe and effective for resecting small (≤10 mm) colorectal polyps, the latter is associated with a longer resection time.
8.Transforming outcomes: the pivotal role of self-expanding metal stents in right- and left-sided malignant colorectal obstructions-bridge to surgery: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis
Sheza MALIK ; Priyadarshini LOGANATHAN ; Hajra KHAN ; Abul Hasan SHADALI ; Pradeep YARRA ; Saurabh CHANDAN ; Babu P. MOHAN ; Douglas G. ADLER ; Shivangi KOTHARI
Clinical Endoscopy 2025;58(2):240-252
Background/Aims:
Self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) are an alternative to emergency surgery (ES) for malignant colorectal obstruction. This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes between SEMS as a bridge to surgery (BTS) and ES in patients with malignant colorectal obstruction.
Methods:
A comprehensive database search was conducted until October 2023 to compare outcomes between SEMS as a BTS and ES. A subgroup analysis of results by malignancy site was performed.
Results:
We analyzed 57 studies, including 7,223 patients over a mean duration of 35.4 months. SEMS as a BTS showed clinical and technical success rates of 88.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.1%–90.1%; I2=68%) and 91.6% (95% CI, 89.7%–93.7%; I2=66%), respectively. SEMS as a BTS revealed reduced postoperative adverse events (odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41–0.63; I2=70%; p<0.001) and 30-day mortality (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37–0.72; I2=10%; p<0.001) compared to ES. Subgroup analysis showed postoperative mortality of 5% and 1.5% for left- and right-sided malignancies, respectively. Adverse events were 15% and 33% for the right and left colon, respectively.
Conclusions
SEMS as a BTS demonstrated a higher success rate, fewer postoperative adverse events, and a reduced 30-day mortality rate than ES, supporting its use as the preferred initial intervention for right- and left-sided obstructions and indicating broader clinical adoption.
9.Prevalence of intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, and esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with irregular Z-line: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Vishali MOOND ; Pradeep YARRA ; Mannat BHATIA ; Sheza MALIK ; Vineel MALAVARAPPU ; Hassam ALI ; Saurabh CHANDAN ; Douglas G. ADLER ; Babu P. MOHAN
Clinical Endoscopy 2025;58(3):377-385
Background/Aims:
The irregular Z-line, defined as a segment of columnar mucosa less than 1 cm in the distal esophagus, is often biopsied despite guidelines advising against it due to a low risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, the clinical significance of an irregular Z-line remains unclear. This meta-analysis examines the prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus, dysplasia, and EAC in patients with an irregular Z-line.
Methods:
We searched Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases up to October 2023 for studies on the prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus, dysplasia, and EAC in these patients. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics.
Results:
Nine studies involving 17,637 patients were analyzed. Among those with an irregular Z-line, the prevalence of intestinal metaplasia was 29.4%. In patients with intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia was found in 6.2%, low-grade dysplasia in 5.9%, high-grade dysplasia in 1.6%, and EAC in 1.5%. These rates were higher compared to those without intestinal metaplasia.
Conclusions
Patients with an irregular Z-line and intestinal metaplasia may be at higher risk and could benefit from endoscopic surveillance. Further studies are needed to determine the necessity of biopsying irregular Z-lines.
10.Cold snare polypectomy versus cold endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Vishali MOOND ; Priyadarshini LOGANATHAN ; Sheza MALIK ; Dushyant Singh DAHIYA ; Babu P. MOHAN ; Daryl RAMAI ; Michele MCGINNIS ; Deepak MADHU ; Mohammad BILAL ; Aasma SHAUKAT ; Saurabh CHANDAN
Clinical Endoscopy 2024;57(6):747-758
Background/Aims:
Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is routinely performed for small colorectal polyps (≤10 mm). However, challenges include insufficient resection depth and immediate bleeding, hindering precise pathological evaluation. We aimed to compare the outcomes of cold endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) with that of CSP for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm, using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Methods:
Multiple databases were searched in December 2023 for RCTs reporting outcomes of CSP versus CEMR for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm in size. Our primary outcomes were rates of complete and en-bloc resections, while our secondary outcomes were total resection time (seconds) and adverse events, including immediate bleeding, delayed bleeding, and perforation.
Results:
The complete resection rates did not significantly differ (CSP, 91.8% vs. CEMR 94.6%), nor did the rates of en-bloc resection (CSP, 98.9% vs. CEMR, 98.3%) or incomplete resection (CSP, 6.7% vs. CEMR, 4.8%). Adverse event rates were similarly insignificant in variance. However, CEMR had a notably longer mean resection time (133.51 vs. 91.30 seconds).
Conclusions
Our meta-analysis of seven RCTs showed that while both CSP and CEMR are equally safe and effective for resecting small (≤10 mm) colorectal polyps, the latter is associated with a longer resection time.