OBJECTIVES Current guidelines recommend early repeat colonoscopy when bowel preparation quality is inadequate, defined as inability to detect polyps > 5 mm, but no data link specific bowel preparation categories or scores to this definition. Nevertheless, most physicians use a shortened screening/surveillance interval in patients with intermediate-quality preparation. We determined whether different levels of bowel preparation quality are associated with differences in adenoma detection rates (ADRs: proportion of colonoscopies with ≥1 adenoma) to help guide decisions regarding early repeat colonoscopy—with primary focus on intermediate-quality preparation. METHODS MEDLINE and Embase were searched for studies with adenoma or polyp detection rate stratified by bowel preparation quality. Preparation quality definitions were standardized on the basis of Aronchick definitions (excellent/good/fair/poor/insufficient), and primary analyses of ADR trichotomized bowel preparation quality: high quality (excellent/good), intermediate quality (fair), and low quality (poor/insufficient). Dichotomized analyses of adequate (excellent/good/fair) vs. inadequate (poor/insufficient) were also performed. RESULTS Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. The primary analysis, ADR with intermediate- vs. high-quality preparation, showed an odds ratio (OR) of 0.94 (0.80–1.10) and absolute risk difference of −1% (−3%, 2%). ADRs were significantly higher with both intermediate-quality and high-quality preparation vs. low-quality preparation: OR = 1.39 (1.08–1.79) and 1.41 (1.21–1.64), with absolute risk increases of 5% for both. ADR and advanced ADR were significantly higher with adequate vs. inadequate preparation: OR = 1.30 (1.19–1.42) and 1.30 (1.02–1.67). Studies did not report other relevant outcomes such as total adenomas per colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS ADR is not significantly different with intermediate-quality vs. high-quality bowel preparation. Our results confirm the need for early repeat colonoscopy with low-quality bowel preparation, but suggest that patients with intermediate/fair preparation quality may be followed up at standard guideline-recommended surveillance intervals without significantly affecting quality as measured by ADR.

Hypertriglyceridemia is an uncommon but a well-established etiology of acute pancreatitis leading to significant morbidity and mortality. The risk and severity of acute pancreatitis increase with increasing levels of serum triglycerides. It is crucial to identify hypertriglyceridemia as the cause of pancreatitis and initiate appropriate treatment plan. Initial supportive treatment is similar to management of other causes of acute pancreatitis with additional specific therapies tailored to lower serum triglycerides levels. This includes plasmapheresis, insulin, heparin infusion, and hemofiltration. After the acute episode, diet and lifestyle modifications along with hypolipidemic drugs should be initiated to prevent further episodes. Currently, there is paucity of studies directly comparing different modalities. This article provides a comprehensive review of management of hypertriglyceridemia induced acute pancreatitis. We conclude by summarizing our treatment approach to manage hypertriglyceridemia induced acute pancreatitis.

Our data suggest that smoking at least 20 pack-years is strongly associated with any and large SSAs. In addition, diabetes mellitus and obesity seem to be associated with SSAs as well. Our data has implications for CRC screening.

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel endoscopic procedure designed to facilitate sustained luminal patency in patients with gastric outlet obstruction. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-GE for treatment of gastric outlet obstruction. Methods Searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were performed through April 2019. Patients with benign and malignant gastric outlet obstruction were included. Measured outcomes included: immediate technical and clinical success as well as rate of serious adverse events (AEs). Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran Q test and I 2 statistics. Publication bias was ascertained by funnel plot and Egger regression testing. Results A total of five studies (n = 199 patients; 45.73 % male) were included in this study. Four retrospective studies and one prospective study were analyzed. Mean age of patients that underwent the EUS-GE procedure was 64.52 ± 1.37 years with a pooled mean follow-up period of 4.32 ± 1.65 months. In 21 % of patients (n = 43), gastric outlet obstruction was due to benign causes. Immediate technical success was 92.90 % (95 % CI; 88.26 – 95.79; I2 = 0.00 %) and reported in all studies. The clinical success rate of EUS-GE was 90.11 % (95 % CI; 84.64 – 93.44; I2 = 0.00 %). Serious AEs occurred in 5.61 % (95 % CI; 2.87 – 10.67; I2 = 1.67 %) of cases and were related to peritonitis, perforation, bleeding, and abdominal pain. Re-intervention rate was 11.43 % (95 % CI; 7.29 – 17.46; I2 = 17.38 %). Conclusions EUS-GE appears to provide an effective and safe minimally invasive alternative for treatment of benign and malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

No abstract