Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundIntragastric balloons have been used to bridge the obesity treatment gap with the benefits of being minimally invasive but still required endoscopy. The Elipse intragastric balloon (EIGB) is a swallowable balloon that is spontaneously excreted through a natural orifice at approximately 16 weeks. Several concerns exist, including the treatment efficacy and risk of bowel obstruction. Our meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EIGB.MethodsA literature search was performed from several databases from database inception to November 2019. Eligible studies must report percent total weight loss (%TWL) after completion of treatment and adverse events. The pooled means and proportions of our data were analyzed using random effects model, generic inverse variance method.ResultsSix studies involving 2013 unique patients met our eligibility criteria and were included. The mean baseline BMI ranged from 30.6 to 36.2. The pooled early removal rate was 2.3% (95% CI, 1.1–3.5%; I2 31%). The pooled %TWL after completion of treatment (4–6 months) was 12.8% (95% CI, 11.6–13.9%; I2 83%) and at 12 months was 10.9% (95% CI, 5.0–16.9%, I2 98%). For serious adverse events, three patients had small bowel obstruction, and one patient had gastric perforation requiring surgery. Early expulsion by emesis and early deflation were seen in 3 and 9 patients, respectively.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis demonstrates that EIGB is a safe device offering an effective weight loss that warrants further studies for its long-term weight loss outcomes. Severe adverse events are rare, and the rate of early removal is low.

Introduction Catheter placement and stability are well‐known challenges in atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. As a result, steerable sheaths (SS) were developed to improve catheter stabilization and maintain proper catheter–tissue contact. The purpose of this systematic review and meta‐analysis is to see if employing a SS influences procedure outcome. Method We performed a comprehensive literature search for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of SS compared to nonsteerable sheaths (NSS) in AF ablation. The primary outcome was the rate of atrial arrhythmia (AA) freedom by the time of the last follow‐up. The secondary outcomes were the procedure‐related complications and procedural characteristics. Risk ratio (RR) or the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random‐effects model. Results A total of 10 studies, including 967 AF patients (mean age: 59.2 ± 11.1 years, 516 patients managed with SS vs. 454 with NSS), were included. SS group showed a higher rate of freedom of AA compared to NSS (RR: 1.19; 95% CI 1.09–1.29; p < .001). Both techniques had similar rate for procedural‐related complication (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 0.50–2.39; p = .83). The SS strategy had a shorter procedure time (MD −10.6 [min], 95% CI −20.97, −0.20; p = .05) but comparable fluoroscopic and radiofrequency application times to the NSS group. Conclusions The SS for AF catheter ablation not only reduced the total procedure time but also significantly increased the rate of successful ablation while maintaining a similar safety profile when compared to the traditional NSS. This meta‐analysis reveals that the use of a steerable sheath for atrial fibrillation ablation resulted in a better success rate and a lower risk of late atrial arrhythmia recurrence. However, this should be weighed against the possibility of an increase in periprocedural complications and procedure costs.

INTRODUCTION:Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) before colonoscopy remains a common problem. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the risk factors associated with IBP.METHODS:We searched multiple databases for studies that assessed risk factors for IBP after adjustment and reported the data as adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model, and pooled adjusted odds ratios for risk factors reported in ≥ 3 studies were constructed.RESULTS:One hundred fifty-four studies with 358,257 participants were included. We analyzed 48 unique risk factors. Sociodemographic predictors of IBP were Medicaid insurance, obesity, current tobacco use, age ≥ 65 years, Black race, low education level, male sex, and unmarried status. Comorbidity-related predictors of IBP were any psychiatric disease, cirrhosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class ≥ 3, poor functional status, constipation, diabetes, previous abdominopelvic surgery, and hematochezia. Medication-related predictors of IBP were tricyclic antidepressants, antidepressants, opioids, nontricyclic antidepressants, and calcium channel blockers. Preparation/procedure-related predictors of IBP were brown liquid rectal effluent, any incomplete bowel preparation (BP) intake, lack of split-dose BP, increased BP-to-defecation interval, any nonadherence to dietary instructions, increased BP-to-colonoscopy interval, any BP intolerance, previous IBP, and inpatient status. Although afternoon colonoscopy was a predictor of IBP, subgroup analysis of prospective studies revealed no significant association.DISCUSSION:Our meta-analysis focused on adjusted risk factors to provide precise estimates of the most important risk factors for IBP. Our findings could help develop a validated prediction model to identify high-risk patients for IBP, improve colonoscopy outcomes, reduce the need for repeat colonoscopies, and reduce associated healthcare costs.

Purpose Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most performed bariatric procedure. Conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) for SG-related complications such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), insufficient weight loss (ISWL), and weight regain (WR) is increasing. Our aim was to investigate the safety, efficacy, and outcomes of conversion from SG to RYGB. Methods A literature search was performed from database inception to May 2020. Eligible studies must report indications for conversion, %total body weight loss (%TWL), and/or complications. The pooled mean or proportion were analyzed using a random-effects model. Results Seventeen unique studies (n = 556, 68.7% female, average age at time of conversion 42.6 ± 10.29 years) were included. The pooled conversion rate due to GERD was 30.4% (95% CI 23.5, 38.3%; I 2 = 63.9%), compared to 52.0% (95% CI 37.0, 66.6%; I 2 = 85.89%) due to ISWL/WR. The pooled baseline BMI at conversion was 38.5 kg/m 2 (95% CI 36.49, 40.6 kg/m 2 ; I 2 = 92.1%) and after 1 year was 32.1 kg/m 2 (95% CI 25.50, 38.7 kg/m 2 ; I 2 = 94.53%). The pooled %TWL after 1 year was 22.8% (95% CI 13.5, 32.1%; I 2 = 98.05%). Complication rate within 30 days was 16.4% (95% CI 11.1, 23.6%; I 2 = 57.17%), and after 30 days was 11.4% (95% CI 7.7, 16.7%; I 2 = 0%). Conclusion This meta-analysis showed that conversion from SG to RYGB is an option for conversion at a bariatric care center that produces sufficient weight loss outcomes, and potential resolution of symptoms of GERD. Further indication-based studies are required to obtain a clearer consensus on the surgical management of patients seeking RYGB following SG. Graphical abstract

INTRODUCTION:The impact of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) on colonoscopy bowel preparation is unclear.METHODS:We searched multiple databases for studies comparing bowel preparation quality between GLP-1RA users and the control group. Using a random-effects model, we calculated pooled odds ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) rate was the primary outcome, and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale mean score was the secondary outcome.RESULTS:Five studies with 10,833 patients (n = 5,434 GLP-1RAs vs n = 5,399 control) were included. The IBP rate was higher in the GLP-1RAs group compared with the control group (odds ratios 2.10, 95% CI 1.41-3.13, P = 0.0003). Furthermore, the mean Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score was lower in the GLP1-RAs group compared with the control group (mean differences −0.34; 95% CI −0.51, −0.17; P = 0.0001).DISCUSSION:Our findings suggest that using GLP-1RA increases the risk of IBP.