No difference in outcomes with 15 mm vs. 20 mm lumen-apposing metal stents for endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy for gastric outlet obstruction: a meta-analysis

Background/Aims We compared outcomes between use of 15 vs. 20 mm lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) in endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) for gastric outlet obstruction. Methods Databases were queried for studies that used LAMS for EUS-GE to relieve gastric outlet obstruction, and a proportional meta-analysis was performed. Results Thirteen studies were included. The 15 mm and 20 mm LAMS had pooled technical success rates of 93.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.5%–95.2%) and 92.1% (95% CI, 68.4%–98.4%), clinical success rates of 88.6% (95% CI, 85.4%–91.1%) and 89.6% (95% CI, 79.0%–95.1%), adverse event rates of 11.4% (95% CI, 8.1%–15.9%) and 14.7% (95% CI, 4.4%–39.1%), and reintervention rates of 10.3% (95% CI, 6.7%–15.4%) and 3.5% (95% CI, 1.6%–7.6%), respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences in technical success, clinical success, or adverse event rates. An increased need for reintervention was noted in the 15 mm stent group (pooled odds ratio, 3.59; 95% CI, 1.40–9.18; p=0.008). Conclusions No differences were observed in the technical, clinical, or adverse event rates between 15 and 20 mm LAMS use in EUS-GE. An increased need for reintervention is possible when using a 15 mm stent compared to when using a 20 mm stent

Transjejunal drainage of an infected postsurgical fluid collection using a 6-mm lumen-apposing metal stent

[Display omitted

Association between country of birth and gastric intestinal metaplasia: a retrospective cohort studyResearch in context

Summary: Background: As a precursor to gastric cancer, gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) represents a target for surveillance. US-based guidelines recommend surveillance of racial/ethnic minorities and immigrants from high incidence gastric cancer regions, yet there is marked variability in prevalence amongst these subgroups and within groups from high incidence regions. There is a paucity of information regarding country of birth as a risk factor for GIM and we sought to determine the association between country of birth and GIM in an ethnically and racially diverse US population. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of persons who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with gastric biopsy at University of Miami Hospital between 2011 and 2021. A natural language processing (NLP) algorithm was developed and implemented to extract diagnoses of GIM and Helicobacter pylori (HP) infection from endoscopic pathology reports. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to evaluate risk factors for GIM, accounting for important covariates, including country of birth. Findings: A total of 21,108 persons from 130 varying countries of birth were included in the study. A total of 1699 cases of GIM were identified yielding a prevalence of 8.0% (95% CI: 7.7–8.4%). Multivariable analysis was restricted to countries with at least 100 persons in the cohort, yielding 15 countries with 1208 cases of GIM. Country of birth (p < 0.0001), race/ethnicity (p = 0.026), active HP infection (p < 0.0001), and increasing age (p < 0.0001) were significantly associated with increased odds of GIM. Highest odds for GIM were among persons born in Ecuador (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.56–3.50), Honduras (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.65–3.34), and Peru (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.58–2.99). Interpretation: We demonstrate that country of birth is a key risk factor for GIM. Not all countries that are thought to be in “high-risk” regions are associated with higher rates of GIM, underlining the importance of studying the under-investigated risk factor of country of birth. Guidelines should account for country of birth, in addition to other risk factors, to tailor screening/surveillance appropriately. Funding: Shida Haghighat, MD, MPH is supported by an NIH training grant T32 DK 11667805

Trends in the Incidence of Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers Show Changing Dynamics

Over the last 50 years, there have been shifts in the incidence of gastric and esophageal cancers in the United States, including a decline in noncardia gastric adenocarcinoma (NCGC), and increases in cardia gastric adenocarcinoma (CGC) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).1,2 Hypotheses for the changing incidences include eradication of Helicobacter pylori, the main causative agent of NCGC, and rising rates of reflux, obesity, and diet, which are risk factors associated with EAC and CGC.1,