Background: Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) refers to mechanical obstruction at the level of the gastric outlet and is associated with significantly impacted quality of life and mortality. Duodenal stenting (DS) offers a minimally invasive approach to managing GOO but is associated with a high risk of stent obstruction. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel intervention that uses lumen-apposing metal stents to open the restricted lumen. The current evidence comparing EUS-GE to DS is limited and inconsistent. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov to retrieve studies comparing EUS-GE to DS for GOO. Odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using the DerSimonian-Laird inverse variance random-effects model. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. Results: Ten studies with a total of 1275 GOO patients (585: EUS-GE and 690: DS) were included. EUS-GE was associated with statistically significant higher clinical success [OR: 2.52; 95% CI: 1.64, 3.86; P < .001], lower re-intervention rate [OR: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.22; P < .00001], longer procedural time [MD: 20.91; 95% CI: 15.48, 26.35; P < .00001], and lower risk of adverse events [OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.29, 0.82; P = .007] than DS. Technical success [OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.31, 1.25] and the length of hospital stay [MD: −2.12; 95% CI: −5.23, 0.98] were comparable between the 2 groups. Conclusion: EUS-GE is associated with higher clinical success, longer total procedural time, lower re-intervention rate, and lower risk of adverse events than DS. Technical success and the length of hospital stay were comparable between the 2 groups. EUS-GE appears to be a safe and effective procedure for managing GOO. Further large, multicentric randomized controlled trials are warranted to investigate the safety and outcomes of EUS-GE in patients with malignant GOO.

Hypertension has been traditionally known to be highlighted by mean blood pressure; however, emerging evidence exhibits that blood pressure variability (BPV), including short-term, day-to-day, and visit-to-visit fluctuations can have an implication across multiple body systems. Elevated BPV reflects repetitive hemodynamic stress, affecting the physiologic hemostasis contributing to vascular injury and end organ damage. This narrative review is a compilation of recent evidence on the prognostic value of BPV, explained by pathophysiology, various devices with its measurement approaches, and, essentially, the clinical implication of BPV and the use of such devices utilizing artificial intelligence. A comprehensive literature search across PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science were conducted, focusing on observational studies, cohorts, randomized trials, and meta-analyses. Higher BPV has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular mortality, stroke, coronary events, and heart failure, the progression of chronic kidney disease, cognitive decline, and preeclampsia, among other end organ damage, despite mean blood pressure. The various pathophysiologic mechanisms include autonomic dysregulation, arterial stiffness, endothelial dysfunction, circadian rhythm alteration, and systemic inflammation, which result in vascular remodeling and multisystem damage. Antihypertensive medications such as calcium channel blockers and renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors seem to reduce BPV; randomized trials have not specifically investigated their BPV-reducing effects. The aim of this review is to highlight that BPV is a dynamic marker of multisystem risk, and question how various AI-based devices can aid continuous BPV monitoring and patient specific risk stratification.