Pooled Clinical Success Rate Research Articles

Efficacy of endoscopic vacuum therapy in esophageal luminal defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure (EVAC) is a novel technique used to repair esophageal perforation and leaks. Varying data have been reported on the overall success rate of EVAC. We aimed to conduct a metanalysis of the available data on the clinical success rate of EVAC. Electronic databases were searched for publications addressing the efficacy of EVAC in esophageal luminal defects. Pooling was conducted using both fixed and random-effects models. The overall clinical success of EVAC therapy was considered the primary outcome, whereas, overall complication rates, need for adjunct therapy, and mortality were considered secondary outcomes. In total, 366 patients were included in the study. On pooled analysis, the mean age was 66 years with 68.32% of patients being men. Overall pooled clinical success rate of EVAC therapy was 87.95%. Upon subgroup analysis, the pooled clinical success rate of postsurgical anastomotic leak and transmural esophageal perforation were found to be 86.57% and 88.89%, respectively. The all-cause hospital mortality was 14% and 4.2% in patients with esophageal perforation and EVAC, respectively. This study demonstrates that EVAC therapy has a high overall clinical success rate, with low mortality. EVAC therapy seems to be a promising procedure with excellent outcomes in patients with luminal esophageal defects.

Efficacy and safety of per-oral endoscopic myotomy in non-achalasia esophageal motility disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Per‑oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is the preferred endoscopic modality for managing achalasia cardia. However, there are no recommendations on the role of POEM in non‑achalasia esophageal dysmotility disorders (NAEMD), including esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO), distal esophageal spasm (DES), and hypercontractile esophagus (HE). The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of POEM in the treatment of NAEMD. MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were searched from inception to August 2023 for studies analyzing the outcome of POEM in NAEMD. Clinical success and adverse events were the main outcomes assessed. The event rates and their 95% confidence interval were calculated using a random effects model. A total of 11 studies with 271 patients were included in the final analysis. The pooled clinical success rate with POEM in NAEMD was 86.9% (82.9-90.9). On subgroup analysis, the pooled clinical success rates of POEM in DES and EGJOO were 97.8% (90.9-100.0) and 92.7% (86.3-95.1), which were significantly higher thanin HE 81.2% (73.5-88.8). Data from limited studies showed that the pooled rate of improvement in dysphagia and chest pain was 88.5% (83.0-93.9) and 87.4% (80.5-94.4). The pooled incidence of overall AEs and serious AEs was 12.6% (5.7-19.5) and 0.3% (0.0-1.9), respectively. On follow-up, the pooled incidence of new-onset heartburn was 18.7% (11.1-26.2). POEM is a safe and efficacious treatment modality for the management of NAEMD with a lower clinical success in patients with HE. Further large-scale studies are required to validate the findings of the present analysis.

Safety and efficacy of biliary suprapapillary metal and plastic stents in malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Biliary drainage is vital in managing malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). Suprapapillary stenting has emerged as a viable alternative to transpapillary stenting and is performed using inside plastic (iPS) or metal stents (iMS). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the outcomes of suprapapillary stent placement for MBO. The Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched to include all studies published before September 31, 2023, that reported on the outcomes of suprapapillary stents placed for MBO. Using the random-effect model, the pooled, weight-adjusted event rate estimate for the clinical outcomes was calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Twenty-eight studies were included, with a total of 1401 patients. The pooled clinical success rate was 98.9%. A subgroup analysis yielded non-significant differences between the iPS and iMS groups (99.3% vs. 98.6%, respectively; P = 0.44). The pooled incidence rate of adverse events (AE) with suprapapillary stents was 9.5%. In a subgroup analysis, the incidence of AEs with iPS was 10.7% compared to 9% in the iMS group without a statistical difference (P = 0.32). The most common adverse event was cholangitis (2.2%), followed by pancreatitis (1.1%), cholecystitis (0.5%), and bleeding (0.12%). When technically feasible, suprapapillary stenting for MBO is a viable endoscopic option with a high clinical success rate and acceptable adverse event rates. Both iPS and iMS exhibit similar efficacy.

Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided hepatogastrostomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is one of the preferred methods in biliary drainage where ERCP fails or is contraindicated. The clinical outcomes of EUS-HGS are not well studied because of variability in procedure technique. We conducted a search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings from inception through January 2023. The clinical outcomes studied were pooled technical success, clinical success, and adverse events. Standard meta-analysis methods were used using the random-effects model, and heterogeneity was studied by I 2 statistics. We analyzed 44 studies, which included 19 prospective and 25 retrospective studies. The pooled technical success rate of EUS-HGS was 94.4% (confidence interval [CI], 92.4%-95.9%; I 2 = 0%), and the pooled clinical success rate was 88.6% (CI, 83.7%-92.2%; I 2 = 0%). The pooled adverse outcomes with EUS-HGS were 23.8% (CI, 19.6%-28.5%; I 2 = 0%). The mild adverse event rate associated with HGS was 5.8% (4.2%-8.1%; I 2 = 0%), moderate adverse event rate was 12.1% (9.1%-15.8%; I 2 = 16%), and severe adverse event rate was 4.2% (3.0%-5.7%; I 2 = 61%), whereas fatal adverse event rate was 3.2% (1.9%-5.4%; I 2 = 62%). On subgroup analysis, the pooled rate of adverse events of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy with antegrade stenting was 13.3% (95% CI, 8.2%-21.0%). The pooled technical success with EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy with antegrade stenting was 89.7% (95% CI, 82.6%-94.2%), and clinical success was 92.5% (95% CI, 77.9%-97.7%). On the basis of our analysis of EUS-HGS, the overall technical success was 94.4%, and the clinical success rate was 88.6%, and the overall adverse events were reported to be 23.8%. These data can also help improve the clinical benefits of EUS-HGS in the selected patients in whom it is performed.

Adverse events with endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy for gastric outlet obstruction-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The technical and clinical effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided gastroenterostomy (GE) has been reported by several meta-analyses, but few of them have addressed the adverse events (AE). The goal of the current meta-analysis was to analyze the AEs associated with various types of EUS-GE. All relevant studies reporting the AEs with EUS-GE were searched from 2000 to 31st March 2023 in MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus. The event rates were pooled using a random effects model. A total of 36 studies (n=1846) were included in the meta-analysis. The present meta-analysis reports a pooled technical success rate of 96.9% (95.9-98.0; I2=29.3%) with a pooled clinical success rate of 90.6% (88.5-92.7; I2=60.9%). The pooled incidence of overall AEs with EUS-GE was 13.0% (10.3-15.7; I2=69.7%), with the commonest being maldeployment of the stent, seen in 4.6% (3.2-6.0; I2=50.6%). The pooled incidences of serious AE and procedure-related mortality were 1.2% (0.7-1.8; I2=1.9%) and 0.3% (0.0-0.7; I2=0.0%), respectively. Subgroup analysis of studies using only the free-hand technique showed a significantly lower overall AE and maldeployment but not serious AE and other individual AEs. The pooled incidences of delayed stent migration and stent occlusion were 0.5% (0.0-1.1; I2=0.0%) and 0.8% (0.2-1.3; I2=0.0%), respectively. Despite a technical and clinical success rate of >90%, AEs are seen in around one-seventh of the cases of EUS-GE, maldeployment being the commonest. However, the pooled incidence of serious AE and mortality remains low, which is reassuring.

Comparing clinical outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia between Eastern and Western countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has revolutionized the therapeutic strategy for achalasia with promising results. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes between Eastern and Western countries. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases to query for studies that assessed the efficacy of POEM for achalasia. All articles published from inception to December 31, 2021 were included. The primary outcome was the pooled clinical success rate. The secondary outcomes included the pooled technical success rate, incidence of adverse events, procedure time and hospital stay. Eighteen Eastern studies involving 5962 patients and 11 Western studies involving 1651 patients were included. The pooled clinical success rate and technical success rate for POEM was equal in the Eastern studies compared to Western studies. The pooled incidence of procedure adverse events for POEM was a little lower in the Eastern studies compared to Western studies (6.6% vs. 8.7%). Similarly, the incidence of reflux-related adverse events was lower in Eastern studies than that in Western studies. The pooled procedure time of POEM was shorter in Eastern studies compared to Western studies (61minutes vs. 80minutes), while the length of hospital stay was longer in Eastern studies compared to Western studies (5.8days vs. 2.4days). Overall, Eastern countries have the similar POEM outcomes compared to Western countries. However, Eastern countries still need to do more to reduce the length of hospital stay.

Efficacy of endoscopic over-the-scope clip fixation for preventing migration of self-expandable metal stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Over-the-scope clips (OTSC), both conventional and Stentfix, are believed to anchor the self-expanding metal (SEMS) and prevent migration. We aimed to systematically study the efficacy of endoscopic OTSC fixation of SEMS in prevention of migration. We searched electronic databases from inception to November 11, 2022 to identify studies reporting outcomes of OTSC fixation of metal stents. The primary outcome was to calculate the pooled migration rates following OTSC anchorage of SEMS and to compare it with controls (SEMS without any fixation). The secondary outcomes include technical and clinical success of OTSC anchorage of SEMS. Random effect models were used to determine pooled rates of migration and technical as well as clinical success rates of OTSC anchorage of metal stents. A total of 9 studies were included. The pooled rate of migration following OTSC anchorage of SEMS was 0.10 (95%CI, 0.04-0.20, I2 = 43%). The pooled rate of migration following OTSC anchorage of esophageal SEMS was 0.08 (95%CI, 0.04-0.15, I2 = 0%). The pooled risk ratio of SEMS migration following OTSC Stentfix was lower as compared to no fixation of SEMS [RR = 0.24 (95%CI,0.13- 0.43, I2 = 0)]. The pooled technical success rate of OTSC fixation following SEMS was 0.98 (95%CI, 0.81-1.00, I2 = 0%). The pooled clinical success rate of OTSC fixation following SEMS was 0.79 (95%CI, 0.64-0.88, I2 = 56%). All studies had valid and reliable methods to diagnose migration, technical and clinical success. The use of OTSC clips (conventional or Stentfix) for anchorage had a lower risk of migration of metal stents than no fixation. Future studies should look into prospective multicenter studies on their use to prevent the migration of SEMS.

Mid-Term and Long-Term Outcomes of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for the Treatment of Achalasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) achieves a satisfactory short-term clinical response in patients with achalasia. However, data on mid- and long-term clinical outcomes are limited. We aimed to assess the mid- and long-term efficacy and safety of POEM in achalasia patients. Using the pre-designed search strategy, we identified relevant studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of POEM with a minimum of 2-year follow-up in the Embase, Cochrane, and PubMed databases from inception to January 2021. Primary outcome was pooled mid- and long-term clinical success rate based on the Eckardt score. Secondary outcome was pooled long-term reflux-related adverse events. A total of 21 studies involving 2,698 patients were included. Overall, the pooled clinical success rates with 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year follow-ups were 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 88.4-93.6%), 90.4% (95% CI 88.1-92.2%), 89.8% (95% CI 83.6-93.9%), and 82.2% (95% CI 76.6-86.7%), respectively. Besides, the pooled long-term clinical success rates for type I, II, and III achalasia were 86.1% (95% CI 80.9-90.1%; I2 = 0%), 87.9% (95% CI 84.2-90.8%; I2 = 48.354%), and 83.9% (95% CI 72.5-91.2%; I2 = 0%), respectively. Moreover, the pooled incidence of symptomatic reflux and reflux esophagitis was 23.9% (95% CI 18.7-29.9%) and 16.7% (95% CI 11.9-23.1%), respectively. POEM is associated with a long-term clinical success of 82.2% after 5years of follow-up. Randomized control trials comparing POEM with laparoscopic Heller myotomy or pneumatic dilation with longer follow-up periods are needed to further demonstrate the long-term safety and efficacy of POEM.

Long-term outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy for achalasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The long-term outcomes of esophageal peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) are still unknown. We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus) for studies assessing outcomes after POEM for esophageal achalasia with a minimum median follow-up duration of 36 months. Pooled rates of clinical success and postoperative reflux were calculated and compared with the same values at 12/24/36 months when available. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the interstudy heterogeneity. From 1528 initial records, 11 studies (2017-2021) were included. A total of 2342 patients (age 48.1 [SD 6.8] years; 50.1 % males) with a median follow-up of 48 months (interquartile range 45-60) were analyzed. The pooled clinical success rate was 87.3 % (95 %CI 83.6 %-91.0 %; I2 = 73.1 %). The symptomatic reflux pooled rate was 22.0 % (95 %CI 14.4 %-29.5 %; I2 = 92.7 %). Three cases of peptic strictures and one Barrett's esophagus were reported. The pooled rate of severe adverse events was 1.5 % (95 %CI 0.5 %-2.5 %; I2 = 52.8 %). Long-term clinical efficacy of POEM persisted in 87 % of patients with achalasia. Post-POEM symptomatic reflux remained stable over time. The risk for Barrett's esophagus and peptic strictures appeared minimal.

Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy for acute appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract Background and study aims Endoscopic retrograde appendicitis therapy (ERAT) is an endoscopic procedure for management of patients with acute appendicitis (AA). In addition to being minimally invasive, it has the added advantages of preservation of appendix and simultaneous inspection of colon. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on ERAT in patients with AA. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases (from inception through January 2022) to identify studies reporting ERAT in AA. The primary outcome was to evaluate the overall clinical and technical success of ERAT. The secondary outcome was to study the total and individual adverse events (AEs). The meta-analysis was performed using Der Simonian and Laird random effect model. Results Seven studies reporting on 298 patients were included. The majority of the patient population was male (55.3 %), with mean age of 31 ± 12.39 years. The pooled technical success rate was 99.36 % (95 % CI 97.61–100, I2 = 0) and the pooled clinical success rate was 99.29 % (95 % CI 97.48–100, I2 = 0). The pooled AE rate was 0.19 % (95 % CI 0–1.55, I2 = 0). The most common AE was perforation with 0.19 % (95 % CI 0–1.55, I2 = 0). The recurrence rate was 6.01 % (95 % CI 2.9–9.93, I2 = 20.10). Average length of procedure was 41.1 ± 7.16 min. Low heterogeneity was noted in in our meta-analysis. Conclusions ERAT is a safe procedure with high rates of clinical and technical success in patients with AA. Further randomized controlled trials should be performed to assess the utility of ERAT in AA as compared to laparoscopic appendectomy.

The role of peroral endoscopic myotomy for Zenker's diverticulum: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zenker's peroral endoscopic myotomy (Z-POEM) has revolutionized the therapeutic strategyfor Zenker's diverticulum (ZD) with promising results. We conducted this meta-analysis to estimate the safety and efficacy of Z-POEM for ZD and compare the feasibility and effectiveness of Z-POEM with that of flexible endoscopic septotomy (FES). A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to query for studies that assessed the safety and efficacy of Z-POEM for ZD. All articles published from inception to July 31, 2021 were included. The primary outcomes were the overall technical success rate, clinical success rate, incidence of adverse events, and clinical recurrence rate. Eleven studies involving 357 patients undergone Z-POEM were included. Overall, the quality of included studies was above average, with five studies rated as high quality and six ranked as moderate quality. The overall pooled technical success rate for Z-POEM was 96.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 93.6-97.9%; I2 = 0%). The total pooled clinical success rate for Z-POEM was 93.0% (95% CI 89.4-95.4%; I2 = 0%). The pooled incidence of adverse events for Z-POEM was 12.4% (95% CI 9.1-16.7%; I2 = 0%). The pooled clinical recurrence rate for Z-POEM was 11.2% (95% CI 7.6-16.2%; I2 = 0%). The clinical success for Z-POEM was significantly better than that of FES (relative risk [RR]: 1.11; CI 95% 1.03-1.18; p = 0.004, I2 = 0%), while there were no significant differences in technical success, adverse events, and clinical recurrence between Z-POEM and FES. Z-POEM could be an effective and safe therapeutic modality for ZD, and even has a slightly higher clinical success rate than FES. However, comparative studies with long-term follow-up will be needed to further confirm our finding.

Antireflux mucosal intervention (ARMI) procedures for refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background:Endoscopic treatments are increasingly being offered for refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Three procedures have similar concepts and techniques: antireflux mucosectomy (ARMS), antireflux mucosal ablation (ARMA), and antireflux band ligation (ARBL); we have collectively termed them antireflux mucosal intervention (ARMI). Here, we systematically reviewed the clinical outcomes and technical aspects.Methods:The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to October 2021. The primary outcome was the clinical success rate. The secondary outcomes were acid exposure time, DeMeester score, need for proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), endoscopic findings, and adverse events.Results:Fifteen studies were included. The pooled clinical success rate was 73.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 69%–78%) overall, 68.6% (95% CI = 62.2%–74.4%) with ARMS, 86.7% (95% CI = 78.7%–91.9%) with ARMA, and 76.5% (95% CI = 65%–85.1%) with ARBL. ARMI resulted in significantly improved acid exposure time, DeMeester score, and degree of hiatal hernia. Furthermore, 10% of patients had dysphagia requiring endoscopic dilatation after ARMS or ARMA, and ARMS was associated with a 2.2% perforation rate. By contrast, no bleeding, perforation, or severe dysphagia was noted with ARBL. Severe hiatal hernia (Hill grade III) may predict treatment failure with ARMA.Conclusions:The three ARMI procedures were efficacious and safe for PPI-refractory GERD. ARMA and ARBL may be preferred over ARMS because of fewer adverse events and similar efficacy. Further studies are necessary to determine the optimal technique and patient selection.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage to abdominal abscess: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ultrasound (US)- or computed tomography-guided drainage for abdominal abscess is currently the first-line options for drainage, but both options have disadvantages. Patients without adequate windows for drainage mostly undergo surgical drainage. However, surgical drainage is invasive and expensive. Endoscopic US (EUS)-guided drainage is a minimally invasive alternative for abdominal abscess, but there is less consensus on its efficacy, safety and complications. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate EUS-guided drainage for abdominal abscess. We retrieved relevant papers on EUS-guided drainage for abdominal abscess from the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and EMBASE databases. Each paper was reviewed, and data were extracted. We used R software version 3.6.3 to perform the meta-analysis. Fixed effects models were used for merging data. A total of 11 papers met the inclusion criteria, with a total sample population of 264 patients. The meta-analysis showed that the pooled clinical success rate was 90% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.95), the technical success rate was 99% (95% CI, 0.97-1.00) and the recurrence rate was 1% (95% CI, 0.00-0.03). Three studies reported the complications, including perforation, bleeding and stent migration; none of the other eight studies reported complications. There were no significant differences between subgroups. There was no publication bias in either the clinical or the technical success rates. This meta-analysis showed that EUS-guided drainage for abdominal abscess was effective and safe, with an excellent technical success rate. In addition, EUS-guided drainage could be used for abscesses with complex anatomy. Nevertheless, complications and stent type should be considered.

Per-oral pancreatoscopy-guided lithotripsy for the endoscopic management of pancreatolithiasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pancreatic stones result from chronic pancreatitis and can occur in the main pancreatic duct, pancreatic branches or parenchyma. Although extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is considered the first-line treatment, per-oral pancreatoscopy (POP) has emerged as a useful method for treating pancreatic stones. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy and safety of POP-guided lithotripsy, electrohydraulic lithotripsy (EHL) and laser lithotripsy (LL), in patients with pancreatolithiasis. Literature review was conducted in PubMed, OVID, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases for studies published up to August 2020. Altogether 15 studies were analyzed, of which 11 were retrospective and four were prospective. The studies comprised 370 patients, of whom 66.4% were male. The patients underwent 218 EHL and 155 LL. The pooled technical and clinical success rate of the overall POP was 88.1% and 87.1%. For EHL-POP, the pooled technical success rate was 90.9% (95% CI 87.2%-95.2%) and the pooled clinical success rate was 89.8% (95% CI 87.2%-95.2%). While for LL-POP, the pooled technical and clinical success rate was 88.4% (95% CI 85.9%-95.1%) and 85.8% (95% CI 80.6%-91.6%). In total 43 adverse events occurred (12.1%; 95% CI 8.7%-15.5%). POP-guided lithotripsy has a high rate of technical and clinical success for managing pancreatolithiasis with a low complication rate. Both EHL-POP and LL-POP achieve similar efficacy in the endoscopic therapy of pancreatolithiasis. Further large randomized controlled trials are needed to compare EHL-POP and LL-POP with ESWL and evaluate whether POP may replace ESWL as the first-line management of pancreatolithiasis.

Clinical outcomes and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound guided ablation of pancreatic cancer a systematic review and a meta-analysis.

e16261 Background: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided ablation therapy (EUS-A) is a minimally invasive technique increasingly used for the management of surgically unresectable pancreatic cancer. The data on the efficacy and clinical outcome of EUS-A for unresectable pancreatic cancer is lacking. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety, technical and clinical success of EUS-A therapies specifically for unresectable pancreatic cancer. Methods: Studies were identified with a comprehensive search for EUS-A and pancreatic cancer on PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science and Embase data search as of October 2020. The technical and clinical success rates of EUS-A were primary outcomes while adverse events (AEs) rate was secondary outcome. We defined technical success as successful placement of probe within tumor and able to perform ablation regardless of tumor outcome. Clinical success was defined as symptomatic improvement and/or any reduction in tumor size or evidence of necrosis on radiological imaging after EUS-A. A compute pooled analysis was performed using the ‘meta’ package by Schwarzer et al. in the R programming language (version 4.0.2) using random effect model. Results: Nineteen studies including 192 patients (54% females) were included. Common pancreatic tumors were nonfunctional neuroendocrine tumor (NNET) 43.5% (97), followed by locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (LAPDAC) 27.3% (61), insulinoma 17.9% (40), cystic neoplastic lesions 8.5% (19). The pancreatic head was the most common site of tumor 49.8% (111), followed by body, neck and tail 44.8% (100). EUS-RFA was the most commonly used ablative therapy 63% (12/19 studies), followed by EUS-EA (ethanol ablation) 26% (5/19 studies) while EUS-A using laser and lauromacrogol injection was used in one study each. The mean number of ablation sessions per patient was 1.4 based on the total 243 sessions in 176 patients. The pooled technical success rate of EUS-A was 99.5% [95% CI = 0.90-0.97, I2 = 0%]. The pooled clinical success rate calculated out of total number of pancreatic lesions was 91.1% [95% CI = 0.79-0.92, I2 = 16%]. Clinical improvement in symptoms was reported in 11 studies and a complete resolution or decrease in tumor size was reported in 16 studies. The pooled AEs rate was 22.9% [95% CI = 0.17-0.37, I2 = 43%]. Common AEs were abdominal pain 7.8% (15), pancreatitis 5.2% (10) and pancreatic pseudocyst 2.1% (4). The median follow-up was 9.5 months. Conclusions: EUS-A is a safe and promising modality in the management of unresectable pancreatic cancer with a high technical and clinical success rate. Large prospective studies and clinical trials are required for comparison of clinical outcome of different EUS-A therapies and its widespread application for unresectable pancreatic cancer.

Evidence-based Treatment of Failed Primary Osteochondral Lesions of the Talus: A Systematic Review on Clinical Outcomes of Bone Marrow Stimulation.

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature and to evaluate the outcomes following bone marrow stimulation (BMS) for nonprimary osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLT).DesignA literature search was performed to identify studies published using PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, CDSR, DARE, and CENTRAL. The review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Two authors separately and independently screened the search results and conducted the quality assessment using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). Studies were pooled on clinical, sports, work, and imaging outcomes, as well as revision rates and complications. The primary outcome was clinical success rate.ResultsFive studies with 70 patients were included in whom nonprimary OLTs were treated with secondary BMS. The pooled clinical success rate was 61% (95% confidence interval [CI], 50-72). The rate of return to any level of sport was 83% (95% CI, 70-91), while the return to pre-injury level of sport was 55% (95% CI, 34-74). The rate of return to work was 92% (95% CI, 78-97), and the complication rate was assessed to be 10% (95% CI, 4-22). Imaging outcomes were heterogeneous in outcome assessment, though a depressed subchondral bone plate was observed in 91% of the patients. The revision rate was 27% (95% CI, 18-40).ConclusionsThe overall success rate of arthroscopic BMS for nonprimary osteochondral lesions of the talus was 61%, including a revision rate of 27%. Return to sports, work, and complication outcomes yielded fair to good results.

The Effect of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy in Achalasia Patients with Prior Endoscopic Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) has been reported to be effective in achalasia patients with prior failed endoscopic intervention (PFI). We performed this meta-analysis to compare and summarize the clinical outcome of POEM in patients with or without prior endoscopic intervention. Method: We searched relevant studies published up to March 2020. Meta-analysis for technical success, clinical success, Eckardt score, lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure, clinical reflux, and adverse event were conducted based on a random-effects model. Results: Eight studies enrolling 1,797 patients who underwent POEM were enrolled, including 1,128 naïve achalasia patients and 669 patients with PFI. In the PFI group, the pooled estimated rate of technical success was 97.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95.8–98.8%), the pooled clinical success rate was 91.0% (95% CI, 88.0–93.4%), and the pooled adverse events rate was 23.5% (95% CI, 10.6–44.1%). The Eckardt score significantly decreased by 5.95 points (95% CI, 5.50–6.40, p < 0.00001) and the LES pressure significantly reduced by 19.74 mm Hg (95% CI, 14.10–25.39, p < 0.00001) in the PFI group. There were no difference in the technical success, clinical success, and adverse events rate between the treatment-naïve group and PFI group, with a risk ratio of 1.0 (95% CI, 0.99–1.01, p = 0.89), 1.02 (95% CI, 0.98–1.06, p = 0.36), and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.67–1.16, p = 0.38), respectively. Conclusions: POEM is an effective and safe treatment for achalasia patients with prior endoscopic intervention. Randomized clinical trials are needed to further verify the efficiency and safety of the POEM in those patients.

Meta-analysis of Clinical Outcomes Using Ceftazidime/Avibactam, Ceftolozane/Tazobactam, and Meropenem/Vaborbactam for the Treatment of Multidrug-Resistant Gram-Negative Infections.

Ceftolozane-tazobactam (C/T), ceftazidime-avibactam (C/A), and meropenem/vaborbactam (M/V) are new beta-lactam/beta-lactamase combination antibiotics commonly used to treat multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (MDRPA) and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections. This review reports the clinical success rates for C/T, C/A, and M/V. PubMed and EMBASE were searched from January 1, 2012, through September 2, 2020, for publications detailing the use of C/T, C/A, and M/V. A meta-analysis determined the pooled effectiveness of C/T, C/A, and M/V. The literature search returned 1950 publications; 29 publications representing 1620 patients were retained. Pneumonia was the predominant infection type (49.8%). MDRPA was the major pathogen treated (65.3%). The pooled clinical success rate was 73.3% (95% CI, 68.9%-77.5%). C/T, C/A, or M/V resistance was reported in 8.9% of the population. These antibiotics had a high clinical success rate in patients with complicated infections and limited treatment options. Larger studies comparing C/T, C/A, and M/V against other antibiotic regimens are needed.

Meta-analysis of Outcomes Using Ceftolozane-Tazobactam and Ceftazidime-Avibactam for Multidrug-Resistant Organism Infections

Background: Ceftolozane-tazobactam (C/T) and ceftazidime-avibactam (C/A) are new β-lactam/β-lactamase combination antibiotics that were approved by the FDA in 2014 and 2015, respectively, to treat complicated intra-abdominal and urinary tract infections. They are commonly used to treat multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (MDRPA) and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections at any site. Both medications are also often used as salvage therapy when empiric therapy has failed or when the infectious organism tests resistant to all other available antibiotics. The purpose of this review is to present the clinical experience and reported clinical success rates of C/T and C/A. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched from January 1, 2013, through October 1, 2019, for publications detailing clinical experience with C/T and C/A in patients with CRE and MDRPA infections. Included study designs were extended cases series and clinical observational studies. Information on infection type, bacterial agent, salvage therapy uses, clinical success, and resistance development during treatment were abstracted. Meta-regression analysis was used to determine the pooled effectiveness of C/T and C/A among included studies. Results: The literature search returned 1,645 publications. After exclusion criteria were applied, 16 publications representing 769 patients were retained. The study population was mostly male (pooled average, 62%). The major comorbidities represented in the pooled population were solid organ transplantation (20.0%), kidney disease (19.5%), cardiovascular disease (15.3%), and diabetes (15.3%). Pneumonia was the predominant infection type (41.4%) and MDRPA was the pathogen most frequently evaluated (57.7%). The pooled clinical success rate was 70.2% (95% CI, 64.5%–75.3%). Also, 10 studies explicitly evaluated C/A or C/T as salvage therapy. The pooled clinical success rate for salvage therapy studies was 75.2% (95% CI, 69.7%–80.0%). Development of resistance to C/T or C/A during or after treatment was reported for 2.0% of the population. Conclusion: Overall, these medications have a high clinical success rate in patients with severe and complicated infections and limited treatment options. Pooled clinical success rates were high (70.2%) and the medications were particularly effective as salvage therapy. Resistance rates were low, although this could have been biased by the small percentage of studies that reported on this outcome. More longitudinal studies comparing the effectiveness of C/T and C/A against other antibiotic regimens are needed.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Efficacy of EUS-RFA in pancreatic tumors: Is it ready for prime time? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) can be used in patients with unresectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of EUS-RFA in treatment of locally advanced unresectable PDAC and other pancreatic tumors. Patients and methods A comprehensive search was done of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science databases, Google Scholar and manual search of references (from inception through May 2019) to identify the studies reporting use of EUS-RFA for pancreatic lesions. The primary outcome was to evaluate technical and clinical success of the procedure. The secondary outcome was to study overall adverse events (AEs). Results Thirteen studies reporting 165 EUS-RFA procedures on 134 patients were included. Of 134 patients, 27.94 % (38) had unresectable locally advanced PDAC, 40 % (53) had PNETs, 3 % (4) had metastasis to the pancreas and 30 % (41) had other lesions. The pooled technical success rate calculated out of the total number of procedures was 100 % (95 % CI [99.18 – 100], I2 = 0 %). The pooled clinical success rate calculated out of the total number of patients was 91.58 % (95 % CI [82.5 – 98.08], I2 = 21.5 %). The pooled overall AE rates were 14.67 % (95 % CI [4.77 – 27.46], I2 = 56.19 %) out of which abdominal pain was the most common with 9.82 % (95 % CI [3.34 – 18.24], I2 = 23.76 %). Low to moderate heterogeneity was noted. Conclusion EUS-RFA has high technical (100 %) and clinical success (91.5 %) rates. Further multicenter trials are needed to further validate our findings.