Background Gastric variceal bleeding is a life-threating condition with challenging management. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided coil embolization and cyanoacrylate injection versus EUS-guided coil embolization alone in the management of gastric varices. Methods A single-center, parallel-randomized controlled trial involving 60 participants with gastric varices (GOV II and IGV I) who were randomly allocated to EUS-guided coil embolization and cyanoacrylate injection (n = 30) or EUS-guided coil embolization alone (n = 30). The primary end points were the technical and clinical success rates of both procedures. The secondary end points were the reappearance of gastric varices during follow-up, along with rebleeding, the need for reintervention, and complication and survival rates. Results The technical success rate was 100 % in both groups. Immediate disappearance of varices was observed in 86.7 % of patients treated with coils and cyanoacrylate, versus 13.3 % of patients treated with coils alone (P < 0.001). Median survival time was 16.4 months with coils and cyanoacrylate versus 14.2 months with coils alone (P = 0.90). Rebleeding occurred in 3.3 % of patients treated with combined treatment and 20 % of those treated with coils alone (P = 0.04). With combined treatment, 83.3 % of patients were free from reintervention versus 60 % with coils alone (hazard ratio 0.27; 95 % confidence interval 0.095 – 0.797; P = 0.01). Conclusions EUS-guided coil embolization with cyanoacrylate injection achieved excellent clinical success, with lower rates of rebleeding and reintervention than coil treatment alone. Multicenter studies are required to define the most appropriate technique for gastric variceal obliteration.

Background The aim of this study was to propose a novel, comprehensive, macroscopic classification for bile duct lesions. Methods A two-stage protocol was designed. In Stage I, a retrospective study (September 2013 to September 2015) of patients with bile duct lesions detected by peroral cholangioscopy (POCS) was performed. A total of 315 images with at least 6 months of follow-up were recorded, analyzed, and correlated to histology, and were classified as non-neoplastic (one of three types, 1 – 3) or neoplastic (one of four types, 1 – 4) based on morphological and vascular patterns. In Stage II, a prospective, nonrandomized, double-blind study was performed from December 2015 to December 2016 to validate the proposed classification. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively), and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR + and LR – , respectively) were calculated (gold standard: 6-month follow-up). Inter- and intraobserver agreement (kappa value, κ) among experts and non-experts were calculated. Results 171 patients were included (65 retrospective; 106 prospective). In Stage I, 28/65 cases were neoplastic and 37 /65 were non-neoplastic, according to the final diagnosis. In Stage II, 56/106 were neoplastic with a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, LR + , and LR – for neoplastic diagnosis of 96.3 %, 92.3 %, 92.9 %, 96 %, 12.52, and 0.04, respectively. The proposed classification presented high reproducibility among observers, for both neoplastic and subtypes categories. However, it was better for experts (κ > 80 %) than non-experts (κ 64.7 % – 81.9 %). Conclusion The novel classification system could help physicians to distinguish non-neoplastic from neoplastic bile duct lesions.

INTRODUCTION: Cholecystectomy (CCY) is the gold standard treatment of acute cholecystitis (AC). Nonsurgical management of AC includes percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD). This study aims to compare outcomes of patients who undergo CCY after having received EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD. METHODS: A multicenter international study was conducted in patients with AC who underwent EUS-GBD or PT-GBD, followed by an attempted CCY, between January 2018 and October 2021. Demographics, clinical characteristics, procedural details, postprocedure outcomes, and surgical details and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine patients were included: EUS-GBD in 46 patients (27% male, mean age 74 years) and PT-GBD in 93 patients (50% male, mean age 72 years). Surgical technical success was not significantly different between the 2 groups. In the EUS-GBD group, there was decreased operative time (84.2 vs 165.4 minutes, P < 0.00001), time to symptom resolution (4.2 vs 6.3 days, P = 0.005), and length of stay (5.4 vs 12.3 days, P = 0.001) compared with the PT-GBD group. There was no difference in the rate of conversion from laparoscopic to open CCY: 5 of 46 (11%) in the EUS-GBD arm and 18 of 93 (19%) in the PT-GBD group (P value 0.2324). DISCUSSION: Patients who received EUS-GBD had a significantly shorter interval between gallbladder drainage and CCY, shorter surgical procedure times, and shorter length of stay for the CCY compared with those who received PT-GBD. EUS-GBD should be considered an acceptable modality for gallbladder drainage and should not preclude patients from eventual CCY.

Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided coils plus cyanoacrylate injection compared to endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection in the management of gastric varices

Background and Aims: Achieving histological remission is a desirable emerging treatment target in ulcerative colitis (UC), yet its assessment is challenging due to high inter- and intraobserver variability, reliance on experts, and lack of standardization. Artificial intelligence (AI) holds promise in addressing these issues. This systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression evaluated the AI’s performance in assessing histological remission and compared it with that of pathologists. Methods: We searched Medline/PubMed and Scopus databases from inception to September 2024. We included studies on AI models assessing histological activity in UC, with or without comparison to pathologists. Pooled performance metrics were calculated: sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV), observed agreement, and F1 score. A pairwise meta-analysis compared AI and pathologists, while sub-meta-analysis and meta-regression evaluated heterogeneity and factors influencing AI performance. Results: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. AI models exhibited strong performance with a pooled sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80–0.88), specificity 0.87 (0.84–0.91), PPV 0.90 (0.87–0.92), NPV 0.80 (0.71–0.88), observed agreement 0.85 (0.82–0.89), and F1 score 0.85 (0.82–0.89). AI models demonstrated no significant differences with pathologists for specificity, observed agreement, and F1 score, while they were outperformed by pathologists for sensitivity and NPV. AI models for the adult population were linked to reduced heterogeneity and enhanced AI performance at meta-regression. Conclusions: AI shows significant potential for assessing histological remission in UC and performs comparably to pathologists. Future research should focus on standardized, large-scale studies to minimize heterogeneity and support widespread AI implementation in clinical practice.