Vaibhav Wadhwa

A meta-analysis on the role of rectal diclofenac and indomethacin in the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis.

Abstract Clinical trials evaluating the protective effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the prevention of post–endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) have yielded inconclusive results. Our objective was to conduct a meta-analysis of the data to date to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rectal NSAIDs for PEP prophylaxis. We did a systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect method because of the absence of significant heterogeneity in the included trials. Seven randomized, controlled trials involving 2133 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that rectal NSAIDs decreased the overall incidence of PEP (risk ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.34–0.57; P < 0.01). The number needed to treat was 11. The NSAID prophylaxis also decreased the incidence of moderate to severe PEP (risk ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.27–0.63; P < 0.01). The number needed to treat was 34. No differences of the adverse events attributable to NSAIDs were observed. In conclusion, prophylactic use of rectal NSAIDs reduces the incidence and severity of PEP. There is neither a difference in efficacy between rectal indomethacin and diclofenac nor a difference in efficacy between the timing of administration of rectal NSAIDs, that is, immediate pre-ERCP and post-ERCP.

Inpatient Burden of Constipation in the United States: An Analysis of National Trends in the United States from 1997 to 2010

OBJECTIVES:Constipation is one of the most common outpatient diagnoses in primary care and gastroenterology clinics; however, there is limited data on the inpatient burden of constipation in the United States. The aim of this study was to evaluate inpatient admission rates, length of stay, and associated costs related to constipation from 1997 to 2010.METHODS:We analyzed the National Inpatient Sample Database for all patients in which constipation (ICD-9 codes: 564.0–564.09) was the principal discharge diagnosis from 1997 to 2010. The statistical significance of the difference in the number of hospital discharges, length of stay, and hospital costs over the study period was determined by utilizing the Spearmans coefficient to describe various trends.RESULTS:Between 1997 and 2010, the number of hospitalizations for patients with a primary discharge diagnosis of constipation increased from 21,190 patients to 48,450 (P<0.001, GoF test), whereas the mean length of hospital stay increased only slightly from 3.0 days to 3.1 days (b=0.008 (0.003–0.014); P=0.004). The mean charges per hospital discharge for constipation increased from

Similar Risk of Cardiopulmonary Adverse Events Between Propofol and Traditional Anesthesia for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

8869 in 1997 (adjusted for long-term inflation) to

Propofol versus traditional sedative agents for advanced endoscopic procedures: A meta-analysis

17,518 in 2010 (b=745.4 (685.3–805.6); P<0.001)), whereas the total costs increased from

A meta-analysis on efficacy and safety: single-balloon vs. double-balloon enteroscopy.

188,109,249 (adjusted for inflation) in 1997 to

Nationwide trends of hospital admissions for acute cholecystitis in the United States

851,713,263 in 2010. Although the elderly (65–84 years) accounted for the largest percentage of constipation discharges, patients in the 1–17 years age group had the highest frequency of constipation per 10,000 discharges.CONCLUSIONS:The number of inpatient discharges for constipation and associated costs has significantly increased between 1997 and 2010.

Healthcare utilization and costs associated with gastroparesis

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Even though propofol use for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has increased over the past decade, there is a perception that it causes a higher rate of cardiopulmonary adverse events. The aim of this study was to compare the sedation‐related adverse events associated with use of propofol vs nonpropofol agents for endoscopic procedures. We also wanted to determine the influence of duration or complexity of the procedures and endoscopist‐directed (gastroenterologist) vs non–gastroenterologist‐directed sedation on the outcomes. METHODS: A search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane controlled trials registry. The following cardiopulmonary adverse events were assessed: hypoxia, hypotension, and arrhythmias. The procedures were divided into 2 groups based on the procedure length: a nonadvanced endoscopic procedure group consisting of esophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, and sigmoidoscopy, and an advanced endoscopic procedures group including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasonography, balloon enteroscopy, and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Pooled odds ratios for complications were calculated for all the procedures combined and then separately for the 2 groups. Random‐effects models were used for 2‐proportion comparisons. RESULTS: Of the 2117 citations identified, 27 original studies qualified for this meta‐analysis and included 2518 patients. Of these, 1324 received propofol, and 1194 received midazolam, meperidine, pethidine, remifentanil, and/or fentanyl. Most of the included studies were randomized trials of moderate quality and nonsignificant heterogeneity (Cochran Q, 26.07; P = .13). Compared with traditional sedative agents, the pooled odds ratio with the use of propofol for developing hypoxia for all the procedures combined was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63–1.07), and for developing hypotension was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.64–1.32). In the nonadvanced endoscopic procedure group, those who received propofol were 39% less likely to develop complications than those receiving traditional sedative agents (odds ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38–0.99). There was no difference in the complication rate for the advanced endoscopic procedure group (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.56–1.34). A subgroup analysis did not show any difference in adverse events when propofol was administered by gastroenterologists or nongastroenterologists. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol sedation has a similar risk of cardiopulmonary adverse events compared with traditional agents for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Propofol use in simple endoscopic procedures was associated with a decreased number of complications. When used for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures of a complex nature and longer duration, propofol was not associated with increased rates of hypoxemia, hypotension, or arrhythmias. Administration of propofol by gastroenterologists does not appear to increase the complication rates.

Changing Trends in Age, Gender, Racial Distribution and Inpatient Burden of Achalasia

The optimum method for sedation for advanced endoscopic procedures is not known. Propofol deep sedation has a faster recovery time than traditional sedative agents, but may be associated with increased complication rates. The aim of the present study was to pool data from all available studies to systematically compare the efficacy and safety of propofol with traditional sedative agents for advanced endoscopic procedures.

Early esophagogastroduodenoscopy is associated with better Outcomes in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a nationwide study

Background and aim: Double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) and single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) are new techniques capable of providing deep enteroscopy. Results of individual studies comparing these techniques have not been able to identify a superior strategy. Our aim was to systematically pool all available studies to compare the efficacy and safety of DBE with SBE for evaluation of the small bowel. Methods: Databases were searched, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The main outcome measures were complete small-bowel visualization, diagnostic yield, therapeutic yield, and complication rate. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan version 5.2). Meta-analysis was performed using fixed-effect or random-effect methods, depending on the absence or presence of significant heterogeneity. We used the χ2 and I2 test to assess heterogeneity between trials. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Four prospective, randomized, controlled trials with a total of 375 patients were identified. DBE was superior to SBE for visualization of the entire small bowel [pooled RR = 0.37 (95% CI: 0.19–0.73; P = 0.004)]. DBE and SBE were similar in ability to provide diagnosis [pooled RR = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.77–1.17; P = 0.62)]. There was no significant difference between DBE and SBE in therapeutic yield [pooled RR = 0.78 (95% CI: 0.59–1.04; P = 0.09)] and complication rate [pooled RR = 1.08 (95% CI: 0.28–4.22); P = 0.91]. Conclusions: DBE was superior to SBE with regard to complete small bowel visualization. DBE was similar to SBE with regard to diagnostic yield, ability to provide treatment and complication rate, but these results should be interpreted with caution as they is based on very few studies and the overall quality of the evidence was rated as low to moderate, due to the small sample size.

Inpatient Burden of Pancreatic Cancer in the United States: An Analysis of National Trends in the United States From 1997 to 2012.

Background and aims: Acute cholecystitis is a fairly common inpatient diagnosis among the gastrointestinal disorders. The aim of this study was to use a national database of US hospitals to evaluate the incidence and costs of hospital admissions associated with acute cholecystitis. Method: We analyzed the National Inpatient Sample Database (NIS) for all patients in which acute cholecystitis (ICD-9 codes: 574.00, 574.01, 574.30, 574.31, 574.60, 574.61 or 575.0) was the principal discharge diagnosis from 1997 to 2012. The NIS is the largest all-payer inpatient database in the United States and contains data from approximately 8 million hospital stays each year. The statistical significance of the difference in the number of hospital discharges, lengths of stay and associated hospital costs over the study period was determined by using the Chi-square test for trends. Results: In 1997, there were 149 661 hospital admissions with a principal discharge diagnosis of acute cholecystitis, which increased to 215 995 in 2012 ( P < 0.001). The mean length of stay for acute cholecystitis decreased by 17% between 1997 and 2012 (i.e. from 4.7 days to 3.9 days; (P < 0.05). During the same time period, however, mean hospital charges have increased by 195.4 % from US