Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity (CDEIS) and the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD) are commonly used to assess Crohn's disease (CD) activity; however neither instrument is fully validated. We evaluated the responsiveness to change of the SES-CD and CDEIS using data from a trial of adalimumab, a drug therapy of known efficacy. Paired video recordings (N=112) of colonoscopies (baseline and week 8-12) obtained from patients with CD who participated in a trial of adalimumab therapy were reviewed in random order, in duplicate, by four central readers (56 pairs of videos by 2 groups of readers). Responsiveness of the SES-CD and the CDEIS was evaluated by comparing correlations between the observed and pre-specified predictions of change scores for these endoscopic indices with a global endoscopic evaluation of severity (GELS), a patient reported outcome (PRO2), and the Crohn's disease activity index (CDAI), and by calculation of the standardized effect size, and Guyatt's Responsiveness statistic (GRS) using 2 definitions of change; (1) treatment assignment and (2) an absolute change in total PRO2 of 50. The potential application of effect size estimates was demonstrated by calculating hypothetical sample sizes for comparing two independent groups. The impact of removing stenosis as an index item and adjusting for the number of segments observed was also assessed. Changes in both endoscopic instruments and the GELS were highly correlated. The SES-CD displayed numerically higher effect sizes for both definitions of change. The standardized effect size and GRS estimates (95% confidence interval) for the SES-CD based on treatment assignment were 0.84 (0.53, 1.15) and 0.79 (0.48, 1.09). Corresponding values for the CDEIS were 0.72 (0.42, 1.02) and 0.75 (0.45, 1.06). The standardized effect size and GRS estimates for the SES-CD based on an absolute change in total PRO2 of 50 points or greater were 0.76 (0.49, 1.02) and 0.93 (0.64, 1.21). Corresponding values for CDEIS were 0.70 (0.44, 0.97), 0.83 (0.55, 1.10). Removal of stenosis as an index item and adjusting for observed segments did not improve responsiveness estimates. Although both the SES-CD and CDEIS are valid measures of endoscopic disease activity that are moderately responsive to changes in endoscopic disease activity, the SES-CD displayed numerically greater responsiveness in this data set.

Purpose of Study To identify the remediable factors in the quality of care provided to patients with severe gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Method All hospital admissions in the first four months of 2013 with ICD10 coding for GI bleeding who received a transfusion of 4 units or more of blood. Up to five cases/hospital randomly selected for structured case note peer review. National availability of GI bleeding services data derived from organisational questionnaire completed by all hospitals. Results 4563/29,796 (15.3%) of GI bleeds received 4 or more units of blood with a mortality rate of 20.2% compared to 7.3% without blood transfusion. 30.8% of GI bleeds received a blood transfusion. 32% (60/185) of hospitals admitting acute GI bleeds lacked 24/7 endoscopy. 26% (48/185) had on-site embolisation 24/7 with a further 34% (64/185) accessing embolisation by transfer within a validated formal network. Blood product use was inappropriate in 20% (84/426). Improved management, principally earlier senior gastroenterologist review and/or endoscopy, would have reduced blood product use in 25% (113/457). 14.5% (90/618) had a CT scan which identified the site of bleeding in 32% (29/90). 7.8% (36/459) underwent an Interventional Radiology (IR) procedure but a further 6.3% (21/33) should have had IR. 6% (36/586) underwent surgery with 21/36 for uncontrolled bleeding. In 20/35 IR was not considered despite the majority being suitable for IR. Overall 44% (210/476) received an acceptable standard of care according to peer review. Conclusions 26 recommendations were made to improve the quality of care in GI bleeding, with six principle recommendations.

ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a major global impact on endoscopic services. This reduced capacity, along with public reluctance to undergo endoscopy during the pandemic, might result in excess mortality from delayed cancer diagnosis. Using the UK’s National Endoscopy Database (NED), we performed the first national analysis of the impact of the pandemic on endoscopy services and endoscopic cancer diagnosis.DesignWe developed a NED COVID-19 module incorporating procedure-level data on all endoscopic procedures. Three periods were designated: pre-COVID (6 January 2020 to 15 March), transition (16–22 March) and COVID-impacted (23 March–31 May). National, regional and procedure-specific analyses were performed. The average weekly number of cancers, proportion of missing cancers and cancer detection rates were calculated.ResultsA weekly average of 35 478 endoscopy procedures were performed in the pre-COVID period. Activity in the COVID-impacted period reduced to 12% of pre-COVID levels; at its low point, activity was only 5%, recovering to 20% of pre-COVID activity by study end. Although more selective vetting significantly increased the per-procedure cancer detection rate (pre-COVID 1.91%; COVID-impacted 6.61%; p<0.001), the weekly number of cancers detected decreased by 58%. The proportion of missing cancers ranged from 19% (pancreatobiliary) to 72% (colorectal).ConclusionThis national analysis demonstrates the remarkable impact that the pandemic has had on endoscopic services, which has resulted in a substantial and concerning reduction in cancer detection. Major, urgent efforts are required to restore endoscopy capacity to prevent an impending cancer healthcare crisis.

Background and aim Several bariatric surgery worldwide surveys have been previously published to illustrate the evolution of bariatric surgery in the last decades. The aim of this survey is to report an updated overview of all bariatric procedures performed in 2014.For the first time, a special section on endoluminal techniques was added. Methods The 2014 International Federation for the Surgery of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders (IFSO) survey form evaluating the number and the type of surgical and endoluminal bariatric procedures was emailed to all IFSO societies. Trend analyses from 2011 to 2014 were also performed. Results There were 56/60 (93.3%) responders. The total number of bariatric/metabolic procedures performed in 2014 consisted of 579,517 (97.6%) surgical operations and 14,725 (2.4%) endoluminal procedures. The most commonly performed procedure in the world was sleeve gastrectomy (SG) that reached 45.9%, followed by Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (39.6%), and adjustable gastric banding (AGB) (7.4%). The annual percentage changes from 2013 revealed the increase of SG and decrease of RYGB in all the IFSO regions (USA/Canada, Europe, and Asia/Pacific) with the exception of Latin/South America, where SG decreased and RYGB represented the most frequent procedure. Conclusions There was a further increase in the total number of bariatric/metabolic procedures in 2014 and SG is currently the most frequent surgical procedure in the world. This is the first survey that describes the endoluminal procedures, but the accuracy of provided data should be hopefully improved in the next future. We encourage the creation of further national registries and their continuous updates taking into account all new bariatric procedures including the endoscopic procedures that will obtain increasing importance in the near future.

ObjectiveTo compare the risks of postendoscopy outcomes associated with warfarin with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), taking into account heparin bridging and various types of endoscopic procedures.DesignUsing the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database, we identified 16 977 patients who underwent 13 types of high-risk endoscopic procedures and took preoperative warfarin or DOACs from 2014 to 2015. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to compare postendoscopy GI bleeding and thromboembolism between the warfarin and DOAC groups.ResultsIn the propensity score-matched analysis involving 5046 pairs, the warfarin group had a significantly higher proportion of GI bleeding than the DOAC group (12.0% vs 9.9%; p=0.002). No significant difference was observed in thromboembolism (5.4% vs 4.7%) or in-hospital mortality (5.4% vs 4.7%). The risks of GI bleeding and thromboembolism were greater in patients treated with warfarin plus heparin bridging or DOACs plus bridging than in patients treated with DOACs alone. Compared with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, patients who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection, endoscopic mucosal resection and haemostatic procedures including endoscopic variceal ligation or endoscopic injection sclerotherapy were at the highest risk of GI bleeding among the 13 types of endoscopic procedures, whereas those who underwent lower polypectomy endoscopic sphincterotomy or endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration were at moderate risk.ConclusionThe risk of postendoscopy GI bleeding was higher in warfarin than DOAC users. Heparin bridging was associated with an increased risk of bleeding and did not prevent thromboembolism. The bleeding risk varied by the type of endoscopic procedure.

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is an integrated part of the pretherapeutic evaluation program for patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract cancer. Whether the clinical impact of EUS differs between surgeons from different countries is unknown. The same applies to the potential clinical influence of EUS misinterpretations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the interobserver agreement on predefined treatment strategies between surgeons from four different countries, with and without EUS, and to evaluate the clinical consequences of EUS misinterpretations. One hundred patients with upper GI tract cancer were randomly selected from all upper GI tract cancer patients treated at Odense University Hospital between 1997 and 2000. Based on patient records and EUS database results, a case story was created with and without the EUS result for each patient. Four surgeons were asked to select the relevant treatment strategy in each case, at first without knowledge of the EUS and thereafter with the EUS result available. Interobserver agreement and impact of EUS misinterpretations were evaluated using the actual final treatment of each patient as reference. Three of four or all four surgeons agreed on the same treatment strategy for nearly 60% of the patients with and without the EUS results. Treatment decisions were changed in 34% based on the EUS results, and the majority of these changes were toward nonsurgical and palliative treatments (85%). Interobserver agreement was relatively low, but overall EUS increased kappa values from 0.16 (\"poor\") to 0.33 (\"fair\"), thus indicating increased overall agreement after the EUS results were available. EUS conclusion regarding stage or resectability was wrong in 17% of the cases, but only one serious event would have been the clinical result of EUS misinterpretations. Despite being used in different ways by different surgeons, EUS did change patient management in one third of the cases. The impact of EUS misinterpretations seemed very low, and this study confirmed one of the strongest clinical possibilities of EUS, i.e., the ability to detect nonresectable cases. EUS is an important imaging modality for oncosurgeons from different countries.

IntroductionEndoscopy is an essential skill for all surgeons. However, endoscopic competency, training, and practice may vary widely among them. The EAES Flexible Endoscopy Subcommittee is working towards a standardized set of fundamental endoscopic knowledge and skills. To best advise on current practice patterns of flexible endoscopy among surgeons worldwide, a snapshot audit was conducted on the training, use, and limitations of flexible endoscopy in practice.MethodsAn online survey was distributed via email distribution and social media platforms for EAES, SAGES, and WebSurg members. Respondent demographics, training, and practice patterns were assessed. The main outcome measure was the annual endoscopic volume. Multivariate regression and machine learning models analyzed relationships between outcomes and independent variables of age, geographic region, laparoscopic surgery practice, and surgical specialization.ResultsA total of 1486 surgeons from 195 countries completed the survey. Respondents were mainly general (n = 894/1486, 60.2%), colorectal (n = 189/1486, 12.7%), bariatric (n = 117/1486, 7.9%), upper gastrointestinal (GI)/foregut (n = 108, 7.3%), hepatobiliopancreatic/HPB (n = 59/1486, 4%), and endocrine surgeons (n = 11/1486, 0.7%) in active practice. Eighty-two percent (n = 1,204) mentioned having used endoscopy in their practice, and 64.7% (n = 961/1486) received formal flexible endoscopy training. Of those performing endoscopy annually, 64.2% (n = 660/1486) performed between 0 and 20 endoscopies, 15.2% (n = 156/1486) performed between 20 and 50 endoscopies, 10.1% (n = 104/1486) performed between 50 and 100 endoscopies, and 10.5% (n = 108/1486) performed over 100 endoscopies. From the regression analysis, there was no statistical correlation between the annual endoscopy volume and age, geographic region, laparoscopic surgery practice, or surgical specialization. Performing advanced endoscopy was directly related to the bariatric subspecialty and to performing over 50% of cases in a minimally invasive fashion.ConclusionsThis international snapshot audit revealed significant heterogeneity in endoscopic practices among surgeons worldwide. There was a nonindependent relationship between endoscopy volumes and other variables tested. Barriers to practicing and receiving endoscopy training were common among respondents. The EAES Flexible Endoscopy Subcommittee will consider such results when developing an equitable and effective standardized flexible endoscopy curriculum.

Background Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables en bloc resection of early gastrointestinal neoplasms; however, most ESD articles report small series, with short-term outcomes performed by multiple operators on single organ. We assessed short- and long-term treatment outcomes following ESD for early neoplasms throughout the gastrointestinal tract. Methods We performed a longitudinal cohort study in single tertiary care referral center. A total of 1,635 early gastrointestinal neoplasms (stomach 1,136; esophagus 138; colorectum 361) were treated by ESD by single operator. Outcomes were complication rates, en bloc R0 resection rates, and long-term overall and disease-specific survival rates at 3 and 5 years for both guideline and expanded criteria for ESD. Results En bloc R0 resection rates were: stomach: 97.1 %; esophagus: 95.7 %; colorectum: 98.3 %. Postoperative bleeding and perforation rates respectively were: stomach: 3.6 and 1.8 %; esophagus: 0 and 0 %; colorectum: 1.7 and 1.9 %. Intra criteria resection rates were: stomach: 84.9 %; esophagus: 81.2 %; colorectum: 88.6 %. Three-year survival rates for lesions meeting Japanese ESD guideline/expanded criteria were for all organ-combined: 93.4/92.7 %. Five-year rates were: stomach: 88.1/84.6 %; esophagus: 81.6/57.3 %; colorectum: 94.3/100 %. Median follow-up period was 53.4 (range, 0.07–98.6) months. Follow-up rate was 94 % (1,020/1,085). There was no recurrence or disease-related death. Conclusions In this large series by single operator, ESD was associated with high curative resection rates and low complication rates across the gastrointestinal tract. Disease-specific and overall long-term prognosis for patients with lesions within intra criteria after curative resection appeared to be excellent.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the number of OGDs (oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopies) trainees need to perform to acquire competency in terms of successful unassisted completion to the second part of the duodenum 95% of the time.DesignOGD data were retrieved from the trainee e-portfolio developed by the Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy (JAG) in the UK. All trainees were included unless they were known to have a baseline experience of >20 procedures or had submitted data for <20 procedures. The primary outcome measure was OGD completion, defined as passage of the endoscope to the second part of the duodenum without physical assistance. The number of OGDs required to achieve a 95% completion rate was calculated by the moving average method and learning curve cumulative summation (LC-Cusum) analysis. To determine which factors were independently associated with OGD completion, a mixed effects logistic regression model was constructed with OGD completion as the outcome variable.ResultsData were analysed for 1255 trainees over 288 centres, representing 243 555 OGDs. By moving average method, trainees attained a 95% completion rate at 187 procedures. By LC-Cusum analysis, after 200 procedures, >90% trainees had attained a 95% completion rate. Total number of OGDs performed, trainee age and experience in lower GI endoscopy were factors independently associated with OGD completion.ConclusionsThere are limited published data on the OGD learning curve. This is the largest study to date analysing the learning curve for competency acquisition. The JAG competency requirement for 200 procedures appears appropriate.