Peptic ulcers with adherent clots are associated with a high-risk of rebleeding and mortality. However, the optimal management of bleeding ulcers with adherent clots remains unclear. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare endoscopic therapy and conservative therapy to manage bleeding ulcers with adherent clots.
We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases through October 2022 to include all studies comparing the endoscopic and conservative therapeutic approaches for bleeding ulcers with adherent clots. Our primary outcome was rebleeding (overall and 30-day). The secondary outcomes were mortality (overall and 30-day), need for surgery, and length of hospital stay (LOS). The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with the corresponding confidence intervals (CI) for proportional and continuous variables, respectively.
Eleven studies (9 RCTs) with 833 patients (431 received endoscopic therapy vs. 402 received conservative therapy) were included. Overall, endoscopic therapy was associated with lower overall rebleeding (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22-0.79, P = 0.007), 30-day rebleeding (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.89, P = 0.002), overall mortality (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23-0.95, P = 0.04), 30-day mortality (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.21-0.89, P = 0.002), need for surgery (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21-0.95, P = 0.04), and LOS (MD - 3.17 days, 95% CI - 4.14, - 2.19, P < 0.00001). However, subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed no significant difference in overall mortality (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.24-2.52, P = 0.68) between the two strategies, with numerically lower but statistically non-significant rates of overall rebleeding (7.2% vs. 18.5%, respectively; OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.17-1.05, P = 0.06), statistically lower rate of need for surgery (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.08-0.96, P = 0.04) with endoscopic therapy compared to conservative therapy.
Our meta-analysis demonstrates that endoscopic therapy was overall associated with lower rates of rebleeding (overall and 30-day), mortality (overall and 30-day), need for surgery, and LOS, compared to conservative therapy for the management of bleeding ulcers with adherent clots. However, subgroup analysis of RCTs showed that endoscopic therapy was associated with numerically lower but statistically non-significant rates of overall rebleeding and a statistically lower rate of need for surgery compared to conservative therapy with similar overall mortality rates. Combined treatment with thermal therapy and injection therapy was the most effective treatment modality in reducing rebleeding risk. Further large-scale RCTs are needed to validate our findings.

BACKGROUND: Acute non-variceal bleeding accounts for approximately 20% of all-cause bleeding episodes in patients with liver cirrhosis. It is associated with high morbidity and mortality therefore prompt diagnosis and endoscopic management are crucial.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate available data on the efficacy of endoscopic treatment modalities used to control acute non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in cirrhotic patients as well as to assess treatment outcomes.
METHODS: Employing PRISMA methodology, the MEDLINE was searched through PubMed using appropriate MeSH terms. Data are reported in a summative manner and separately for each major non-variceal cause of bleeding.
RESULTS: Overall, 23 studies were identified with a total of 1288 cirrhotic patients of whom 958/1288 underwent endoscopic therapy for acute non-variceal GIB. Peptic ulcer bleeding was the most common cause of acute non-variceal bleeding, followed by portal hypertensive gastropathy, gastric antral vascular ectasia, Mallory-Weiss syndrome, Dieaulafoy lesions, portal hypertensive colopathy, and hemorrhoids. Failure to control bleeding from all-causes of non-variceal GIB accounted for less than 3.5% of cirrhotic patients. Rebleeding (range 2%-25%) and mortality (range 3%-40%) rates varied, presumably due to study heterogeneity. Rebleeding was usually managed endoscopically and salvage therapy using arterial embolisation or surgery was undertaken in very few cases. Mortality was usually associated with liver function deterioration and other organ failure or infections rather than uncontrolled bleeding. Endoscopic treatment-related complications were extremely rare. Lower acute non-variceal bleeding was examined in two studies (197/1288 patients) achieving initial hemostasis in all patients using argon plasma coagulation for portal hypertensive colopathy and endoscopic band ligation or sclerotherapy for bleeding hemorrhoids (rebleeding range 10%-13%). Data on the efficacy of endoscopic therapy of cirrhotic patients vs non-cirrhotic controls with acute GIB are very scarce.
CONCLUSIONS: Endotherapy seems to be efficient as a means to control non-variceal hemorrhage in cirrhosis, although published data are very limited, particularly those comparing cirrhotics with non-cirrhotics and those regarding acute bleeding from the lower gastrointestinal tract. Rebleeding and mortality rates appear to be relatively high, although firm conclusions may not be drawn due to study heterogeneity. Hopefully this review may stimulate further research on this subject and help clinicians administer optimal endoscopic therapy for cirrhotic patients.

Background and Aims: Viral hepatitis are one of the main causes of liver cirrhosis. The treatment of portal hypertension caused by liver cirrhosis is difficult and diverse, and the therapeutic effect is unknown. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of treatments for patients with portal hypertension and cirrhosis, including a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS), endoscopic therapy, surgical therapy and medications. Methods: Eligible articles were searched for in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases from their inception until June 2020. Using the \"gemtc-0.8.4\" package in R v.3.6.3 software and the Just Another Gibbs Sampler v.4.2.0 program, network meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model within a Bayesian framework. The odds ratios for all-cause rebleeding, bleeding-related mortality, overall survival (OS), treatment failure and hepatic encephalopathy were determined within the Bayesian framework. Results: Forty randomized controlled trials were identified, including 4,006 adult patients and nine treatment strategies. Our results showed that distal splenorenal shunt and TIPS provided the best control of hemorrhage. Endoscopic variceal ligation with medication resulted in the highest OS rate. Medication alone resulted in poor OS and treatment failure. Conclusions: We performed a systematic comparison of diverse treatments for cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension. Our meta-analysis indicated that a TIPS and distal splenorenal shunt resulted in lower rates of rebleeding than did other therapies. Furthermore, drugs are more suitable for combination therapy than monotherapy.

Rectal bleeding is a known complication of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. It is usually mild and resolves spontaneously. However, massive life-threatening hemorrhage can also rarely occur in this setting, potentially presenting a therapeutic conundrum. We hereby delineate the case of a patient who experienced severe intermittent lower gastrointestinal bleeding following a transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. Traditional tamponade methods failed to control the hemorrhage. Subsequently, an urgent flexible sigmoidoscopy revealed an anterior rectal wall prominence with biopsy punctures as the possible source of bleeding. Endoclip was successfully applied at the bleeding site, achieving permanent hemostasis. The patient had an uneventful recovery and was discharged from the hospital. While the use of endoclipping has been widely reported in gastrointestinal endoscopy, its application remains exceedingly rare in this group of patients. To our knowledge, this case represents only the third report of endoclipping alone to treat massive rectal bleeding follwing a prostate biopsy procedure. In addition, we systematically review published medical literature to evaluate endoscopic techniques aimed at managing this important complication. This article illustrates that endoscopic therapy may present an efficient, noninvasive method to deal with severe post-biopsy rectal hemorrhage. Therefore, prompt consultation with the gastroenterology service should be advocated.

Local recurrence after definitive chemoradiotherapy, if diagnosed early, can be cured by salvage endoscopic therapy, which allows organ preservation and contributes to maintaining patient quality of life. This study aimed to investigate early endoscopic findings of local recurrence in post-definitive chemoradiotherapy patients.
Between January 2008 and June 2012, 17 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients with no metastasis but local recurrence after definitive chemoradiotherapy were enrolled. We attempted to find endoscopic hallmarks suggestive of local recurrence by comparing pre- and post-local recurrence diagnostic images. The influence of follow-up schedule on chosen salvage therapy type was also investigated.
Endoscopic local recurrence findings included eight submucosal tumors, five ulcers, and four erosions. Upon review of prior images, findings suggestive of local recurrence were detected in seven patients, including six submucosal tumors and one erosion, all of which were smaller than 10 mm. These lesions had changed morphologically at local recurrence diagnosis: three submucosal tumors had become larger and three submucosal tumors and one erosion had changed to ulcers. Of 12 patients with cT1 at local recurrence, four (33%) underwent follow-up endoscopy within 1 month of local recurrence findings and 11 patients (92%) were treated with salvage endoscopic therapy.
Endoscopists should be aware that SMTs or erosions, even those smaller than 10 mm, can indicate local recurrence after complete response to definitive chemoradiotherapy. Follow-up endoscopy should be performed within 1-2 months if findings suggestive of local recurrence are observed on prior endoscopy, even when biopsy results are negative.

The purpose of this best practice advice article is to describe the role of Barrett\'s endoscopic therapy (BET) in patients with Barrett\'s esophagus (BE) with dysplasia and/or early cancer and appropriate follow-up of these patients.
The best practice advice provided in this document is based on evidence and relevant publications reviewed by the committee. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: In BE patients with confirmed low-grade dysplasia, a repeat examination with high-definition white-light endoscopy should be performed within 3-6 months to rule out the presence of a visible lesion, which should prompt endoscopic resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Both BET and continued surveillance are reasonable options for the management of BE patients with confirmed and persistent low-grade dysplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: BET is the preferred treatment for BE patients with high-grade dysplasia (HGD). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: BET should be preferred over esophagectomy for BE patients with intramucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma (T1a). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: BET is a reasonable alternative to esophagectomy in patients with submucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma (T1b) with low-risk features (<500-μm invasion in the submucosa [sm1], good to moderate differentiation, and no lymphatic invasion) especially in those who are poor surgical candidates. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: In all patients undergoing BET, mucosal ablation should be applied to 1) all visible esophageal columnar mucosa; 2) 5-10 mm proximal to the squamocolumnar junction and 3) 5-10 mm distal to the gastroesophageal junction, as demarcated by the top of the gastric folds (ie, gastric cardia) using focal ablation in a circumferential fashion. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Mucosal ablation therapy should only be performed in the presence of flat BE without signs of inflammation and in the absence of visible abnormalities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: BET should be performed by experts in high-volume centers that perform a minimum of 10 new cases annually. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: BET should be continued until there is an absence of columnar epithelium in the tubular esophagus on high-definition white-light endoscopy and preferably optical chromoendoscopy. In case of complete endoscopic eradication, the neosquamous mucosa and the gastric cardia are sampled by 4-quadrant biopsies. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: If random biopsies obtained from the neosquamous epithelium demonstrate intestinal metaplasia/dysplasia or subsquamous intestinal metaplasia, a repeat endoscopy should be performed and visible islands or tongues should undergo targeted focal ablation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Intestinal metaplasia of the gastric cardia (without residual columnar epithelium in the tubular esophagus) should not warrant additional ablation therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: When consenting patients for BET, the most common complication of therapy to be quoted is post-procedural stricture formation, occurring in about 6% of cases. Bleeding and perforation occur at rates <1%. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: After complete eradication (endoscopic and histologic) of intestinal metaplasia has been achieved with BET, surveillance endoscopy with biopsies should be performed at the following intervals: for baseline diagnosis of HGD/esophageal adenocarcinoma: at 3, 6, and 12 months and annually thereafter; and baseline diagnosis of low-grade dysplasia: at 1 and 3 years. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Endoscopic surveillance post therapy should be performed with high-definition white-light endoscopy, including careful inspection of the neosquamous mucosal and retroflexed inspection of the gastric cardia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: The approach to recurrent disease is similar to that of the initial therapy; visible recurrent nodular lesions require endoscopic resection, whereas flat areas of columnar mucosa in the tubular esophagus can be treated with mucosal ablation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 16: Patients should be counseled on cancer risk in the absence of BET, as well as after BET, to allow for informed decision-making between the patient and the physician.

Endoscopic bariatric therapies (EBTs) are promising alternatives to conventional surgery for obesity. The aim of this study is to compare efficacy and safety through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the endoscopic gastroplasty techniques versus conservative treatment. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Lilacs/Bireme. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling obese patients comparing endoscopic gastroplasty to sham or diet/exercise were considered eligible. Among 6014 records, three RCTs were selected for meta-analysis. The total sample was 459 patients (312 EBTs vs 147 control). Mean total body weight loss in the intervention group (IG) was 4.8% higher than the control group (CG) at 12 months (p = 0.01). The IG responder rate was 44.31% at 12 months. Therefore, the endoscopic gastroplasty is more effective than conservative therapies but do not achieve FDA thresholds.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic therapy is the cornerstone choice for the management of varices and variceal hemorrhage. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of acid suppression in patients treated with endoscopic therapy for gastroesophageal varices.
METHODS: All eligible studies were searched via the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. Incidence of bleeding, mortality, ulcers, chest pain, and dysphagia after endoscopic therapy and length of stay were analyzed. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the types and major indications of endoscopic treatments. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) were calculated.
RESULTS: Nine studies with 1470 patients were included. Acid suppression could significantly decrease the incidence of bleeding (OR = 0.39, 95%CI: 0.19-0.81, P = 0.01) and diminish the ulcer size (OR = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.38-1.57, P = 0.48) after endoscopic therapy. The subgroup analyses showed that acid suppression could significantly decrease the incidence of bleeding in patients undergoing prophylactic EVL, rather than in patients undergoing therapeutic EVL. There was no significant difference in the incidence of mortality, ulcers, chest pain, and dysphagia and length of stay between patients treated with and without acid suppression.
CONCLUSIONS: Acid suppression might be considered in patients undergoing prophylactic EVL for gastroesophageal varices.

Upper non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding is a condition that requires immediate medical intervention and has a high associated mortality rate (exceeding 10%). The vast majority of upper gastrointestinal bleeding cases are due to peptic ulcers. Helicobacter pylori infection, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and aspirin are the main risk factors for peptic ulcer disease. Endoscopic therapy has generally been recommended as the first-line treatment for upper gastrointestinal bleeding as it has been shown to reduce recurrent bleeding, the need for surgery and mortality. Early endoscopy (within 24 h of hospital admission) has a greater impact than delayed endoscopy on the length of hospital stay and requirement for blood transfusion. This paper aims to review and compare the efficacy of the types of endoscopic hemostasis most commonly used to control non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding by pooling data from the literature.

In the last decades many advances have been achieved in endoscopy, in the diagnosis and therapy of cholangiocarcinoma, however blood test, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography scan may fail to detect neoplastic disease at early stage, thus the diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma is achieved usually at unresectable stage. In the last decades the role of endoscopy has moved from a diagnostic role to an invaluable therapeutic tool for patients affected by malignant bile duct obstruction. One of the major issues for cholangiocarcinoma is bile ducts occlusion, leading to jaundice, cholangitis and hepatic failure. Currently, endoscopy has a key role in the work up of cholangiocarcinoma, both in patients amenable to surgical intervention as well as in those unfit for surgery or not amenable to immediate surgical curative resection owing to locally advanced or advanced disease, with palliative intention. Endoscopy allows successful biliary drainage and stenting in more than 90% of patients with malignant bile duct obstruction, and allows rapid reduction of jaundice decreasing the risk of biliary sepsis. When biliary drainage and stenting cannot be achieved with endoscopy alone, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage represents an effective alternative method affording successful biliary drainage in more than 80% of cases. The purpose of this review is to focus on the currently available endoscopic management options in patients with cholangiocarcinoma.