2.Comparison of peroral endoscopic myotomy, laparoscopic Heller myotomy, and pneumatic dilation for patients with achalasia: a United States national experience
Dushyant Singh DAHIYA ; Bhanu Siva Mohan PINNAM ; Saurabh CHANDAN ; Hassam ALI ; Manesh Kumar GANGWANI ; Amir Humza SOHAIL ; Dennis YANG ; Amit RASTOGI
Clinical Endoscopy 2025;58(1):153-157
3.Comparison of peroral endoscopic myotomy, laparoscopic Heller myotomy, and pneumatic dilation for patients with achalasia: a United States national experience
Dushyant Singh DAHIYA ; Bhanu Siva Mohan PINNAM ; Saurabh CHANDAN ; Hassam ALI ; Manesh Kumar GANGWANI ; Amir Humza SOHAIL ; Dennis YANG ; Amit RASTOGI
Clinical Endoscopy 2025;58(1):153-157
5.Comparison of peroral endoscopic myotomy, laparoscopic Heller myotomy, and pneumatic dilation for patients with achalasia: a United States national experience
Dushyant Singh DAHIYA ; Bhanu Siva Mohan PINNAM ; Saurabh CHANDAN ; Hassam ALI ; Manesh Kumar GANGWANI ; Amir Humza SOHAIL ; Dennis YANG ; Amit RASTOGI
Clinical Endoscopy 2025;58(1):153-157
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.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.
9.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.
10.Assessment of fluid responsiveness after tidal volume challenge in renal transplant recipients: a nonrandomized prospective interventional study
Ganesh Ramaji NIMJE ; Vipin Kumar GOYAL ; Pankaj SINGH ; Praveenkumar SHEKHRAJKA ; Akash MISHRA ; Saurabh MITTAL
Clinical Transplantation and Research 2024;38(3):188-196
Background:
When applying lung-protective ventilation, fluid responsiveness cannot be predicted by pulse pressure variation (PPV) or stroke volume variation (SVV). Functional hemodynamic testing may help address this limitation. This study examined whether changes in dynamic indices such as PPV and SVV, induced by tidal volume challenge (TVC), can reliably predict fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing renal transplantation who receive lung-protective ventilation.
Methods:
This nonrandomized interventional study included renal transplant recipients with end-stage renal disease. Patients received ventilation with a 6 mL/kg tidal volume (TV), and the FloTrac system was attached for continuous hemodynamic monitoring. Participants were classified as responders or nonresponders based on whether fluid challenge increased the stroke volume index by more than 10%.
Results:
The analysis included 36 patients, of whom 19 (52.8%) were responders and 17 (47.2%) were nonresponders. Among responders, the mean ∆PPV 6-8 (calculated as PPV at a TV of 8 mL/kg predicted body weight [PBW] minus that at 6 mL/kg PBW) was 3.32±0.75 and ∆SVV 6-8 was 2.58±0.77, compared to 0.82±0.53 and 0.70±0.92 for nonresponders, respectively. ∆PPV 6-8 exhibited an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.97 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93–1.00; P≤0.001), with an optimal cutoff value of 1.5, sensitivity of 94.7%, and specificity of 94.1%. ∆SVV 6-8 displayed an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.84–1.00; P≤0.001) at the same cutoff value of 1.5, with a sensitivity of 94.7% and a specificity of 76.5%.
Conclusions
TVC-induced changes in PPV and SVV are predictive of fluid responsiveness in renal transplant recipients who receive intraoperative lung-protective ventilation.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail