Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Item Type
      Item Type
      Clear All
      Item Type
  • Subject
      Subject
      Clear All
      Subject
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
89 result(s) for "GASTROINTESINAL ENDOSCOPY"
Sort by:
British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy
Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective ‘well’ patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years’ time.
Machine learning in GI endoscopy: practical guidance in how to interpret a novel field
There has been a vast increase in GI literature focused on the use of machine learning in endoscopy. The relative novelty of this field poses a challenge for reviewers and readers of GI journals. To appreciate scientific quality and novelty of machine learning studies, understanding of the technical basis and commonly used techniques is required. Clinicians often lack this technical background, while machine learning experts may be unfamiliar with clinical relevance and implications for daily practice. Therefore, there is an increasing need for a multidisciplinary, international evaluation on how to perform high-quality machine learning research in endoscopy. This review aims to provide guidance for readers and reviewers of peer-reviewed GI journals to allow critical appraisal of the most relevant quality requirements of machine learning studies. The paper provides an overview of common trends and their potential pitfalls and proposes comprehensive quality requirements in six overarching themes: terminology, data, algorithm description, experimental setup, interpretation of results and machine learning in clinical practice.
Gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) for refractory gastroparesis: results from an international prospective trial
ObjectiveAlthough gastric per-oral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) is considered a promising technique for the management of refractory gastroparesis, high-quality evidence is limited. We prospectively investigated the efficacy and safety of G-POEM in unselected patients with refractory gastroparesis.DesignIn five tertiary centres, patients with symptomatic gastroparesis refractory to standard medical therapy and confirmed by impaired gastric emptying were included. The primary endpoint was clinical success, defined as at least one score decrease in Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI) with ≥25% decrease in two subscales, at 12 months. GCSI Score and subscales, adverse events (AEs) and 36-Item Short Form questionnaire of quality of life were evaluated at baseline and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after G-POEM. Gastric emptying study was performed before and 3 months after the procedure.ResultsOf 80 enrolled patients, 75 patients (94%) completed 12-month follow-up. Clinical success at 12 months was 56% (95% CI, 44.8 to 66.7). GCSI Score (including subscales) improved moderately after G-POEM (p<0.05). In a regression model, a baseline GCSI Score >2.6 (OR=3.23, p=0.04) and baseline gastric retention >20% at 4 hours (OR=3.65, p=0.03) were independent predictors of clinical success at 12 months, as was early response to G-POEM at 1 month after therapy (OR 8.75, p<0.001). Mild procedure-related AEs occurred in 5 (6%) patients.ConclusionG-POEM is a safe procedure, but showed only modest overall effectiveness in the treatment of refractory gastroparesis. Further studies are required to identify the best candidates for G-POEM; unselective use of this procedure should be discouraged.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Registry NCT02732821.
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on UK endoscopic activity and cancer detection: a National Endoscopy Database Analysis
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.
Timing of endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a territory-wide cohort study
ObjectiveWhile it is recommended that patients presenting with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) should receive endoscopic intervention within 24 hours, the optimal timing is still uncertain. We aimed to assess whether endoscopy timing postadmission would affect outcomes.DesignWe conducted a retrospective, territory-wide, cohort study with healthcare data from all public hospitals in Hong Kong. Adult patients (age ≥18) that presented with AUGIB between 2013 and 2019 and received therapeutic endoscopy within 48 hours (n=6474) were recruited. Patients were classified based on endoscopic timing postadmission: urgent (t≤6), early (6
Piecemeal cold snare polypectomy versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large sessile serrated lesions: a retrospective comparison across two successive periods
ObjectiveLarge (≥20 mm) sessile serrated lesions (L-SSL) are premalignant lesions that require endoscopic removal. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the existing standard of care but carries some risk of adverse events including clinically significant post-EMR bleeding and deep mural injury (DMI). The respective risk-effectiveness ratio of piecemeal cold snare polypectomy (p-CSP) in L-SSL management is not fully known.DesignConsecutive patients referred for L-SSL management were treated by p-CSP from April 2016 to January 2020 or by conventional EMR in the preceding period between July 2008 and March 2016 at four Australian tertiary centres. Surveillance colonoscopies were conducted at 6 months (SC1) and 18 months (SC2). Outcomes on technical success, adverse events and recurrence were documented prospectively and then compared retrospectively between the subsequent time periods.ResultsA total of 562 L-SSL in 474 patients were evaluated of which 156 L-SSL in 121 patients were treated by p-CSP and 406 L-SSL in 353 patients by EMR. Technical success was equal in both periods (100.0% (n=156) vs 99.0% (n=402)). No adverse events occurred in p-CSP, whereas delayed bleeding and DMI were encountered in 5.1% (n=18) and 3.4% (n=12) of L-SSL treated by EMR, respectively. Recurrence rates following p-CSP were similar to EMR at 4.3% (n=4) versus 4.6% (n=14) and 2.0% (n=1) versus 1.2% (n=3) for surveillance colonoscopy (SC)1 and SC2, respectively.ConclusionsIn a historical comparison on the endoscopic management of L-SSL, p-CSP is technically equally efficacious to EMR but virtually eliminates the risk of delayed bleeding and perforation. p-CSP should therefore be considered as the new standard of care for L-SSL treatment.
Smart capsules for sensing and sampling the gut: status, challenges and prospects
Smart capsules are developing at a tremendous pace with a promise to become effective clinical tools for the diagnosis and monitoring of gut health. This field emerged in the early 2000s with a successful translation of an endoscopic capsule from laboratory prototype to a commercially viable clinical device. Recently, this field has accelerated and expanded into various domains beyond imaging, including the measurement of gut physiological parameters such as temperature, pH, pressure and gas sensing, and the development of sampling devices for better insight into gut health. In this review, the status of smart capsules for sensing gut parameters is presented to provide a broad picture of these state-of-the-art devices while focusing on the technical and clinical challenges the devices need to overcome to realise their value in clinical settings. Smart capsules are developed to perform sensing operations throughout the length of the gut to better understand the body’s response under various conditions. Furthermore, the prospects of such sensing devices are discussed that might help readers, especially health practitioners, to adapt to this inevitable transformation in healthcare. As a compliment to gut sensing smart capsules, significant amount of effort has been put into the development of robotic capsules to collect tissue biopsy and gut microbiota samples to perform in-depth analysis after capsule retrieval which will be a game changer for gut health diagnosis, and this advancement is also covered in this review. The expansion of smart capsules to robotic capsules for gut microbiota collection has opened new avenues for research with a great promise to revolutionise human health diagnosis, monitoring and intervention.
Standalone performance of artificial intelligence for upper GI neoplasia: a meta-analysis
ObjectiveArtificial intelligence (AI) may reduce underdiagnosed or overlooked upper GI (UGI) neoplastic and preneoplastic conditions, due to subtle appearance and low disease prevalence. Only disease-specific AI performances have been reported, generating uncertainty on its clinical value.DesignWe searched PubMed, Embase and Scopus until July 2020, for studies on the diagnostic performance of AI in detection and characterisation of UGI lesions. Primary outcomes were pooled diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of AI. Secondary outcomes were pooled positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values. We calculated pooled proportion rates (%), designed summary receiving operating characteristic curves with respective area under the curves (AUCs) and performed metaregression and sensitivity analysis.ResultsOverall, 19 studies on detection of oesophageal squamous cell neoplasia (ESCN) or Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia (BERN) or gastric adenocarcinoma (GCA) were included with 218, 445, 453 patients and 7976, 2340, 13 562 images, respectively. AI-sensitivity/specificity/PPV/NPV/positive likelihood ratio/negative likelihood ratio for UGI neoplasia detection were 90% (CI 85% to 94%)/89% (CI 85% to 92%)/87% (CI 83% to 91%)/91% (CI 87% to 94%)/8.2 (CI 5.7 to 11.7)/0.111 (CI 0.071 to 0.175), respectively, with an overall AUC of 0.95 (CI 0.93 to 0.97). No difference in AI performance across ESCN, BERN and GCA was found, AUC being 0.94 (CI 0.52 to 0.99), 0.96 (CI 0.95 to 0.98), 0.93 (CI 0.83 to 0.99), respectively. Overall, study quality was low, with high risk of selection bias. No significant publication bias was found.ConclusionWe found a high overall AI accuracy for the diagnosis of any neoplastic lesion of the UGI tract that was independent of the underlying condition. This may be expected to substantially reduce the miss rate of precancerous lesions and early cancer when implemented in clinical practice.
Life cycle assessment of routinely used endoscopic instruments and simple intervention to reduce our environmental impact
ObjectivesGI endoscopy units represent the third largest producers of medical waste. We aimed to determine endoscopic instrument composition and life cycle assessment (LCA) and to assess a sustainability proposal based on a mark on the instruments that identifies parts can be safely recycled or ‘green mark’.DesignMaterial composition analysis and LCA of forceps, snares and clips from four different manufacturers (A–D) were performed with four different methods. Carbon footprint from production, transportation and end of life of these instruments was calculated. In 30 consecutive procedures, we marked the contact point with the working channel. 5 cm away from that point was considered as green mark. One-week prospective study was conducted with 184 procedures evaluating 143 instruments (75 forceps, 49 snares and 19 haemoclips) to assess the efficacy of this recyclable mark.ResultsComposition from different manufacturers varied widely. Most common materials were high global warming potential (GWP) waste (polyethylene, polypropylene and acrylonitrile) and low GWP waste (stainless steel). Significant differences were found for the forceps (0.31–0.47 kg of CO2 equivalent (CO2-eq)) and haemoclips (0.41–0.57 kg CO2-eq) between the manufacturers. Green mark was established 131.26 cm for gastroscope and 195.32 cm for colonoscope. One-week activity produced 67.74 kg CO2-eq. Applying our sustainability intervention, we could reduce up to 27.44% (18.26 kg CO2-eq). This allows the recycling of 61.7% of the instrument total weight (4.69 kg).ConclusionKnowledge of carbon footprint is crucial to select the most sustainable alternatives because there are large variations between brands. A mark to identify recyclable parts could reduce our environmental impact significantly.