Combination of Mucosa-Exposure Device and Computer-Aided Detection for Adenoma Detection During Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Both computer-aided detection (CADe)-assisted and Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy have been found to increase adenoma detection. We investigated the performance of the combination of the 2 tools compared with CADe-assisted colonoscopy alone to detect colorectal neoplasias during colonoscopy in a multicenter randomized trial. METHODS: Men and women undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening, polyp surveillance, or clincial indications at 6 centers in Italy and Switzerland were enrolled. Patients were assigned (1:1) to colonoscopy with the combinations of CADe (GI-Genius; Medtronic) and a mucosal exposure device (Endocuff Vision [ECV]; Olympus) or to CADe-assisted colonoscopy alone (control group). All detected lesions were removed and sent to histopathology for diagnosis. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (percentage of patients with at least 1 histologically proven adenoma or carcinoma). Secondary outcomes were adenomas detected per colonoscopy, advanced adenomas and serrated lesions detection rate, the rate of unnecessary polypectomies (polyp resection without histologically proven adenomas), and withdrawal time. RESULTS: From July 1, 2021 to May 31, 2022, there were 1316 subjects randomized and eligible for analysis; 660 to the ECV group, 656 to the control group). The adenoma detection rate was significantly higher in the ECV group (49.6%) than in the control group (44.0%) (relative risk, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.26; P = .04). Adenomas detected per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the ECV group (mean ± SD, 0.94 ± 0.54) than in the control group (0.74 ± 0.21) (incidence rate ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.54; P = .02). The 2 groups did not differ in term of detection of advanced adenomas and serrated lesions. There was no significant difference between groups in mean ± SD withdrawal time (9.01 ± 2.48 seconds for the ECV group vs 8.96 ± 2.24 seconds for controls; P = .69) or proportion of subjects undergoing unnecessary polypectomies (relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.14; P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of CADe and ECV during colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate and adenomas detected per colonoscopy without increasing withdrawal time compared with CADe alone. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT04676308.

Clinical value of alarm features for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common neoplasm in Western countries. Prioritizing access to colonoscopy appears of critical relevance. Alarm features are considered to increase the likelihood of CRC. Our aim was to assess the diagnostic performance of alarm features for CRC diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of alarm features (rectal bleeding, anemia, change in bowel habit, and weight loss) for CRC, published up to September 2021. Colonoscopy was required as the reference diagnostic test. Diagnostic accuracy measures were pooled by a bivariate mixed-effects regression model. The number needed to scope (NNS; i. e. the number of patients who need to undergo colonoscopy to diagnose one CRC) according to each alarm feature was calculated. RESULTS: 31 studies with 45 100 patients (mean age 31-88 years; men 36 %-63 %) were included. The prevalence of CRC ranged from 0.2 % to 22 %. Sensitivity was suboptimal, ranging from 12.4 % for weight loss to 49 % for rectal bleeding, whereas specificity ranged from 69.8 % for rectal bleeding to 91.9 % for weight loss. Taken individually, rectal bleeding and anemia would be the only practical alarm features mandating colonoscopy (NNS 5.3 and 6.7, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: When considered independently, alarm features have variable accuracy for CRC, given the high heterogeneity of study populations reflected by wide variability in CRC prevalence. Rectal bleeding and anemia are the most practical to select patients for colonoscopy. Integration of alarm features in a comprehensive evaluation of patients should be considered.

Artificial intelligence-assisted optical diagnosis for the resect-and-discard strategy in clinical practice: the Artificial intelligence BLI Characterization (ABC) study.

BACKGROUND: Optical diagnosis of colonic polyps is poorly reproducible outside of high volume referral centers. The present study aimed to assess whether real-time artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted optical diagnosis is accurate enough to implement the leave-in-situ strategy for diminutive (≤ 5 mm) rectosigmoid polyps (DRSPs). METHODS: Consecutive colonoscopy outpatients with ≥ 1 DRSP were included. DRSPs were categorized as adenomas or nonadenomas by the endoscopists, who had differing expertise in optical diagnosis, with the assistance of a real-time AI system (CAD-EYE). The primary end point was ≥ 90 % negative predictive value (NPV) for adenomatous histology in high confidence AI-assisted optical diagnosis of DRSPs (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable endoscopic Innovations [PIVI-1] threshold), with histopathology as the reference standard. The agreement between optical- and histology-based post-polypectomy surveillance intervals (≥ 90 %; PIVI-2 threshold) was also calculated according to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United States Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) guidelines. RESULTS: Overall 596 DRSPs were retrieved for histology in 389 patients; an AI-assisted high confidence optical diagnosis was made in 92.3 %. The NPV of AI-assisted optical diagnosis for DRSPs (PIVI-1) was 91.0 % (95 %CI 87.1 %-93.9 %). The PIVI-2 threshold was met with 97.4 % (95 %CI 95.7 %-98.9 %) and 92.6 % (95 %CI 90.0 %-95.2 %) of patients according to ESGE and USMSTF, respectively. AI-assisted optical diagnosis accuracy was significantly lower for nonexperts (82.3 %, 95 %CI 76.4 %-87.3 %) than for experts (91.9 %, 95 %CI 88.5 %-94.5 %); however, nonexperts quickly approached the performance levels of experts over time. CONCLUSION: AI-assisted optical diagnosis matches the required PIVI thresholds. This does not however offset the need for endoscopists' high level confidence and expertise. The AI system seems to be useful, especially for nonexperts.

Artificial intelligence and colonoscopy experience: lessons from two randomised trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Artificial intelligence has been shown to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR) as the main surrogate outcome parameter of colonoscopy quality. To which extent this effect may be related to physician experience is not known. We performed a randomised trial with colonoscopists in their qualification period (AID-2) and compared these data with a previously published randomised trial in expert endoscopists (AID-1). METHODS: In this prospective, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (AID-2), 10 non-expert endoscopists (<2000 colonoscopies) performed screening/surveillance/diagnostic colonoscopies in consecutive 40-80 year-old subjects using high-definition colonoscopy with or without a real-time deep-learning computer-aided detection (CADe) (GI Genius, Medtronic). The primary outcome was ADR in both groups with histology of resected lesions as reference. In a post-hoc analysis, data from this randomised controlled trial (RCT) were compared with data from the previous AID-1 RCT involving six experienced endoscopists in an otherwise similar setting. RESULTS: In 660 patients (62.3±10 years; men/women: 330/330) with equal distribution of study parameters, overall ADR was higher in the CADe than in the control group (53.3% vs 44.5%; relative risk (RR): 1.22; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.40; p<0.01 for non-inferiority and p=0.02 for superiority). Similar increases were seen in adenoma numbers per colonoscopy and in small and distal lesions. No differences were observed with regards to detection of non-neoplastic lesions. When pooling these data with those from the AID-1 study, use of CADe (RR 1.29; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.42) and colonoscopy indication, but not the level of examiner experience (RR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.16) were associated with ADR differences in a multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In less experienced examiners, CADe assistance during colonoscopy increased ADR and a number of related polyp parameters as compared with the control group. Experience appears to play a minor role as determining factor for ADR. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT:04260321.

Impact of colonoscopy on working productivity: a prospective multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients undergoing colonoscopy are often in the workforce. Therefore, colonoscopy may affect patients' work productivity in terms of missed working days and/or reduced working efficiency. We aimed to investigate the impact of colonoscopy on work productivity and factors influencing this impact. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational, multicenter study in 10 Italian hospitals between 2016 and 2017. We collected information on individual characteristics, work productivity, symptoms, and conditions before, during, and after the procedure from patients undergoing colonoscopy for several indications using validated tools. Outcomes were interference of preparation with work, absenteeism, and impaired work performance after the procedure. We fitted multivariate logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for potential predictors of the outcomes. RESULTS: Among 1137 subjects in the study, 30.5% reported at least 1 outcome. Impaired work performance was associated with bowel preparation regimen (full dose on the day of colonoscopy vs split dose: OR, 4.04; 95% CI, 1.43-11.5), symptoms during bowel preparation (high symptom score: OR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.15-8.95), and pain during the procedure (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.40-4.35). Increasing number of working hours and less comfortable jobs were associated with absenteeism (P for trend = .06) and impairment of working performance (P for trend = .01) and GI symptoms both before and after colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational and individual characteristics of patients should be considered when scheduling colonoscopy because this procedure may impair work productivity in up to one-third of patients. Split-dose bowel preparation, performing a painless colonoscopy, and preventing the occurrence of GI symptoms may minimize the impact of colonoscopy on work productivity.

Efficacy of a computer-aided detection system in a fecal immunochemical test-based organized colorectal cancer screening program: a randomized controlled trial (AIFIT study).

BACKGROUND: Computer-aided detection (CADe) increases adenoma detection in primary screening colonoscopy. The potential benefit of CADe in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program is unknown. This study assessed whether use of CADe increases the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in a FIT-based CRC screening program. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized trial, FIT-positive individuals aged 50-74 years undergoing colonoscopy, were randomized (1:1) to receive high definition white-light (HDWL) colonoscopy, with or without a real-time deep-learning CADe by endoscopists with baseline ADR > 25 %. The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) and advanced adenoma detection rate (advanced-ADR). Subgroup analysis according to baseline endoscopists' ADR (≤ 40 %, 41 %-45 %, ≥ 46 %) was also performed. RESULTS: 800 individuals (median age 61.0 years [interquartile range 55-67]; 409 men) were included: 405 underwent CADe-assisted colonoscopy and 395 underwent HDWL colonoscopy alone. ADR and APC were significantly higher in the CADe group than in the HDWL arm: ADR 53.6 % (95 %CI 48.6 %-58.5 %) vs. 45.3 % (95 %CI 40.3 %-50.45 %; RR 1.18; 95 %CI 1.03-1.36); APC 1.13 (SD 1.54) vs. 0.90 (SD 1.32; P  = 0.03). No significant difference in advanced-ADR was found (18.5 % [95 %CI 14.8 %-22.6 %] vs. 15.9 % [95 %CI 12.5 %-19.9 %], respectively). An increase in ADR was observed in all endoscopist groups regardless of baseline ADR. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating CADe significantly increased ADR and APC in the framework of a FIT-based CRC screening program. The impact of CADe appeared to be consistent regardless of endoscopist baseline ADR.

Adherence to international guidelines for the management of Helicobacter pylori infection among gastroenterologists and gastroenterology fellows in Italy: A Survey of the Italian Federation of Digestive Diseases - FISMAD.

BACKGROUND: Information on the management of Helicobacter (H.) pylori infection by gastroenterologists and gastroenterology fellows are scarce. We aimed to assess practice of gastroenterologists and gastroenterology fellows and their adherence to guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of H. pylori infection in Italy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All gastroenterologists and gastroenterology fellows attending the National Congress of Digestive Diseases - FISMAD were invited to fill-in an on-line questionnaire. The questionnaire included questions on the diagnosis and treatment of H. pylori infection. RESULTS: A total of 279 gastroenterologists and 61 gastroenterology fellows participated to the study. The 13 C-urea breath test was the most preferred method among gastroenterologists and fellows for the diagnosis of H. pylori infection (40.4% and 57.6%, respectively) and the confirmation of eradication (61.3% and 70%, respectively). Sequential therapy was the most preferred first-line treatment of H. pylori for both gastroenterologists and gastroenterology fellows (31.8% and 44%, respectively), followed by bismuth quadruple therapy (31% and 27.6%, respectively) and clarithromycin triple therapy (26.8% and 22.4%, respectively). Only 30% of gastroenterologists and 38.5% of fellows used the clarithromycin triple therapy for the recommended duration of 14 days. Bismuth quadruple therapy was the most preferred second-line therapy for both gastroenterologists and fellows. The majority of gastroenterologists and fellows would prefer an empirical therapy at third line (72.6% and 62.5%, respectively) and a susceptibility-guided therapy at fourth line (46.7% and 71.4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Practices of gastroenterologists and gastroenterology fellows are in line with guidelines' recommendations, apart for the first-line treatment of H. pylori infection. Targeted educational interventions to improve adherence to guidelines are needed.

Oral mannitol for bowel preparation: a dose-finding phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Successful bowel preparation (BP) for colonoscopy depends on the instructions, diet, the laxative product, and patient adherence, which all affect colonoscopy quality. Nevertheless, there are no laxatives which combine effectiveness, safety, easy self-administration, good patient acceptance, and low cost. However, mannitol, a sugar alcohol, could be an attractive candidate for use in clinical practice if it is shown to demonstrate adequate efficacy and safety. AIMS: The present phase II dose-finding study compared three doses of mannitol (50, 100, and 150 g) to identify the best dose to be used in a subsequent phase III study. METHODS: The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, caecal intubation rate, adherence, acceptability, and safety profile, including measurement of potentially dangerous colonic gas concentrations (CH4, H2, O2), were considered in all patients. A weighted algorithm was used to identify the best mannitol dose for use in the subsequent study. RESULTS: The per-protocol population included 60 patients in the 50 g group, 54 in the 100 g group, and 49 in the 150 g group. The 100 g dose was the best as it afforded optimal colon cleansing efficacy (94.4% of patients had adequate BP), adherence, acceptability, and safety, including negligible gas concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated that the colon cleansing efficacy and safety of mannitol were dose dependent. Conversely, gas concentrations were not dose dependent and negligible in all patients. Combined evaluation of efficacy, tolerability, and safety, using a weighted algorithm, determined that mannitol 100 g was the best dose for the phase III study.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update.

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

Factors That Affect Adequacy of Colon Cleansing for Colonoscopy in Hospitalized Patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hospitalization is associated with inadequate colon cleansing before colonoscopy. We aimed to identify factors associated to inadequate colon cleansing among inpatients, and to derive and validate a model to identify inpatients with inadequate cleansing. METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study at 12 hospitals in Italy. Consecutive adult inpatients scheduled for colonoscopy for any indication were enrolled from February through May 2019 (derivation cohort, n = 1016) and from June through August 2019 (validation cohort, n = 508). Inadequate cleansing was defined as Boston bowel preparation scale scores below 2 in any colon segment. We performed multivariate logistic regression to identify factors associated with inadequate cleansing. RESULTS: In the combined cohorts, 1032 patients (68%) had adequate colon cleansing. Physicians' meetings to optimize bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.65), written and oral instructions to patients (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36-0.65), admission to gastroenterology unit (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98), split-dose regimens (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.20-0.35), a 1-liter polyethylene glycol-based bowel purge (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.23-0.65), and 75% or more intake of bowel preparation (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.05-0.15) significantly reduced odds of inadequate colon cleansing. Alternatively, bedridden status (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.55-2.98), constipation (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.55-3.0), diabetes mellitus (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.18-2.20), use of anti-psychotic drugs (OR, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.62-6.56), and 7 or more days of hospitalization (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.04) increased risk of inadequate colon cleansing. We developed a model to identify patients with inadequate cleaning using data from patients in the derivation cohort and tested it in the validation cohort. Calibration values were P = .218 for the discrimination cohort and P = .232 for the validation cohort. Discrimination values were c-statistic, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.74-0.81) for the discrimination cohort and c-statistic, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.78) for the validation cohort. We developed app for use by clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective observational study, we identified setting-, patient- and preparation-related factors that affect colon cleansing among inpatients. We derived and validated a model to identify patients with inadequate preparation and developed an app for clinicians. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT03925506.

Efficacy of Real-Time Computer-Aided Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia in a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: One-fourth of colorectal neoplasias are missed during screening colonoscopies; these can develop into colorectal cancer (CRC). Deep learning systems allow for real-time computer-aided detection (CADe) of polyps with high accuracy. We performed a multicenter, randomized trial to assess the safety and efficacy of a CADe system in detection of colorectal neoplasias during real-time colonoscopy. METHODS: We analyzed data from 685 subjects (61.32 ± 10.2 years old; 337 men) undergoing screening colonoscopies for CRC, post-polypectomy surveillance, or workup due to positive results from a fecal immunochemical test or signs or symptoms of CRC, at 3 centers in Italy from September through November 2019. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to groups who underwent high-definition colonoscopies with the CADe system or without (controls). The CADe system included an artificial intelligence-based medical device (GI-Genius, Medtronic) trained to process colonoscopy images and superimpose them, in real time, on the endoscopy display a green box over suspected lesions. A minimum withdrawal time of 6 minutes was required. Lesions were collected and histopathology findings were used as the reference standard. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR, the percentage of patients with at least 1 histologically proven adenoma or carcinoma). Secondary outcomes were adenomas detected per colonoscopy, non-neoplastic resection rate, and withdrawal time. RESULTS: The ADR was significantly higher in the CADe group (54.8%) than in the control group (40.4%) (relative risk [RR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.45). Adenomas detected per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the CADe group (mean, 1.07 ±1.54) than in the control group (mean 0.71 ± 1.20) (incidence rate ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.15-1.86). Adenomas 5 mm or smaller were detected in a significantly higher proportion of subjects in the CADe group (33.7%) than in the control group (26.5%; RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.01-1.52), as were adenomas of 6 to 9 mm (detected in 10.6% of subjects in the CADe group vs 5.8% in the control group; RR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.09-2.86), regardless of morphology or location. There was no significant difference between groups in withdrawal time (417 ± 101 seconds for the CADe group vs 435 ± 149 for controls; P = .1) or proportion of subjects with resection of non-neoplastic lesions (26.0% in the CADe group vs 28.7% of controls; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.90-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: In a multicenter, randomized trial, we found that including CADe in real-time colonoscopy significantly increases ADR and adenomas detected per colonoscopy without increasing withdrawal time. ClinicalTrials.gov no: 04079478.

Risk of Covert Submucosal Cancer in Patients With Granular Mixed Laterally Spreading Tumors.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Granular mixed laterally spreading tumors (GM-LSTs) have an intermediate level of risk for submucosal invasive cancer (SMICs) without clear signs of invasion (covert); the optimal resection method is uncertain. We aimed to determine the risk of covert SMIC in GM-LSTs based on clinical and endoscopic factors. METHODS: We collected data from 693 patients (50.6% male; median age, 69 years) with colorectal GM-LSTs, without signs of invasion, who underwent endoscopic resection (74.2%) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (25.2%) at 7 centers in Italy from 2016 through 2019. We performed multivariate and univariate analyses to identify demographic and endoscopic factors associated with risk of SMIC. We developed a multivariate model to calculate the number needed to treat (NNT) to detect 1 SMIC. RESULTS: Based on pathology analysis, 66 patients (9.5%) had covert SMIC. In multivariate analyses, increased risk of covert SMIC were independently associated with increasing lesion size (odds ratio per mm increase, 1.02, 95% CI, 1.01-1.03; P = .003) and rectal location (odds ratio, 3.08; 95% CI, 1.62-5.83; P = .004). A logistic regression model based on lesion size (with a cutoff of 40 mm) and rectal location identified patients with covert SMIC with 47.0% sensitivity, 82.6% specificity, and an area under the curve of 0.69. The NNT to identify 1 patient with a nonrectal SMIC smaller than 4 cm was 20; the NNT to identify 1 patient with a rectal SMIC of 4 cm or more was 5. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of data from 693 patients, we found the risk of covert SMIC in patients with GM-LSTs to be approximately 10%. GM-LSTs of 4 cm or more and a rectal location are high risk and should be treated by en-bloc resection. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03836131.

Novel 1-L polyethylene glycol + ascorbate versus high-volume polyethylene glycol regimen for colonoscopy cleansing: a multicenter, randomized, phase IV study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adequate bowel cleansing is critical to ensure quality and safety of a colonoscopy. A novel 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (1L-PEG+ASC) regimen was previously validated against low-volume regimens but was never compared with high-volume regimens. METHODS: In a phase IV study, patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized 1:1 to receive split-dose 1L PEG+ASC or a split-dose 4-L PEG-based regimen (4L-PEG) in 5 Italian centers. Preparation was assessed with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) by local endoscopists and centralized reading, both blinded to the randomization arm. The primary endpoint was noninferiority of 1L-PEG+ASC in colon cleansing. Secondary endpoints were superiority of 1L-PEG+ASC, patient compliance, segmental colon cleansing, adenoma detection rate, tolerability, and safety. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-eight patients (median age, 59.8 years) were randomized between January 2019 and October 2019: 195 to 1L-PEG+ASC and 193 to 4L-PEG. Noninferiority of 1L-PEG+ASC was demonstrated for cleansing in both the entire colon (BBPS ≥ 6: 97.9% vs 93%; relative risk [RR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.001-1.04; P superiority = .027) and in the right-sided colon segment (98.4% vs 96.0%; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, .99-1.02; P noninferiority = .013). Compliance was higher with 1L-PEG+ASC than with 4L-PEG (178/192 [92.7%] vs 154/190 patients [81.1%]; RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.12), whereas no difference was found regarding safety (moderate/severe side effects: 20.8% vs 25.8%; P = .253). No difference in adenoma detection rate (38.8% vs 43.0%) was found. CONCLUSIONS: One-liter PEG+ASC showed noninferiority compared with 4L-PEG in achieving adequate colon cleansing and provided a higher patient compliance. No differences in tolerability and safety were detected. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03742232.).

Water-assisted colonoscopy: an international modified Delphi review on definitions and practice recommendations.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Since 2008, a plethora of research studies has compared the efficacy of water-assisted (aided) colonoscopy (WAC) and underwater resection (UWR) of colorectal lesions with standard colonoscopy. We reviewed and graded the research evidence with potential clinical application. We conducted a modified Delphi consensus among experienced colonoscopists on definitions and practice of water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), and UWR. METHODS: Major databases were searched to obtain research reports that could potentially shape clinical practice related to WAC and UWR. Pertinent references were graded (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Extracted data supporting evidence-based statements were tabulated and provided to respondents. We received responses from 55 (85% surveyed) experienced colonoscopists (37 experts and 18 nonexperts in WAC) from 16 countries in 3 rounds. Voting was conducted anonymously in the second and third round, with ≥80% agreement defined as consensus. We aimed to obtain consensus in all statements. RESULTS: In the first and the second modified Delphi rounds, 20 proposed statements were decreased to 14 and then 11 statements. After the third round, the combined responses from all respondents depicted the consensus in 11 statements (S): definitions of WI (S1) and WE (S2), procedural features (S3-S5), impact on bowel cleanliness (S6), adenoma detection (S7), pain score (S8), and UWR (S9-S11). CONCLUSIONS: The most important consensus statements are that WI and WE are not the same in implementation and outcomes. Because studies that could potentially shape clinical practice of WAC and UWR were chosen for review, this modified Delphi consensus supports recommendations for the use of WAC in clinical practice.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update.

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles, and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

Efficacy of lumen-apposing metal stents or self-expandable metal stents for endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage is becoming an option for palliation of malignant biliary obstruction. Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are replacing self-expandable metal stents (SEMS). The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LAMS and SEMS for EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS). METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed using PRISMA protocols. Electronic databases were searched for studies on EUS-CDS. The primary outcome was clinical success. Secondary outcomes were technical success, reintervention, and adverse events. We used the random effects model with the DerSimonian-Laird estimation, and the results were depicted using forest plots. Subgroup analyses were also performed with data stratified by selected variable. RESULTS: Overall, 31 studies (820 patients) were included. The pooled rates of clinical and technical success were 93.6 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 88.6 %-96.5 %) and 94.8 % (95 %CI 90.2 %-97.3 %) for LAMS, and 91.7 % (95 %CI 88.1 %-94.2 %) and 92.7 % (95 %CI 89.9 %-94.9 %) for SEMS, respectively. The pooled rates of adverse events were 17.1 % (95 %CI 12.5 %-22.8 %) for LAMS and 18.3 % (95 %CI 14.3 %-23.0 %) for SEMS. The pooled rates of reintervention were 10.9 % (95 %CI 7.7 %-15.3 %) for LAMS and 13.9 % (95 %CI 9.6 %-19.7 %) for SEMS. Subgroup analyses confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis showed that LAMS and SEMS are comparable in terms of efficacy for EUS-CDS. Clinical and technical success, post-procedure adverse events, and reintervention rates were similar between LAMS and SEMS use; however, adverse events require further investigation.

Diagnosis and management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE recommends that the initial assessment of patients presenting with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding should include: a history of co-morbidities and medications that promote bleeding; hemodynamic parameters; physical examination (including digital rectal examination); and laboratory markers. A risk score can be used to aid, but should not replace, clinician judgment.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 : ESGE recommends that, in patients presenting with a self-limited bleed and no adverse clinical features, an Oakland score of ≤ 8 points can be used to guide the clinician decision to discharge the patient for outpatient investigation.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 : ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 7 g/dL prompting red blood cell transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin concentration of 7-9 g/dL is desirable.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 : ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding and a history of acute or chronic cardiovascular disease, a more liberal red blood cell transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 8 g/dL prompting red blood cell transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin concentration of ≥ 10 g/dL is desirable.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that, in patients with major acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding, colonoscopy should be performed sometime during their hospital stay because there is no high quality evidence that early colonoscopy influences patient outcomes.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 6 : ESGE recommends that patients with hemodynamic instability and suspected ongoing bleeding undergo computed tomography angiography before endoscopic or radiologic treatment to locate the site of bleeding.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 : ESGE recommends withholding vitamin K antagonists in patients with major lower gastrointestinal bleeding and correcting their coagulopathy according to the severity of bleeding and their thrombotic risk. In patients with hemodynamic instability, we recommend administering intravenous vitamin K and four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC), or fresh frozen plasma if PCC is not available.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 : ESGE recommends temporarily withholding direct oral anticoagulants at presentation in patients with major lower gastrointestinal bleeding.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE does not recommend withholding aspirin in patients taking low dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prevention. If withheld, low dose aspirin should be resumed, preferably within 5 days or even earlier if hemostasis is achieved or there is no further evidence of bleeding.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 10: ESGE does not recommend routinely discontinuing dual antiplatelet therapy (low dose aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor antagonist) before cardiology consultation. Continuation of the aspirin is recommended, whereas the P2Y12 receptor antagonist can be continued or temporarily interrupted according to the severity of bleeding and the ischemic risk. If interrupted, the P2Y12 receptor antagonist should be restarted within 5 days, if still indicated.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2021.

1: ESGE recommends in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) the use of the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Patients with GBS ≤ 1 are at very low risk of rebleeding, mortality within 30 days, or needing hospital-based intervention and can be safely managed as outpatients with outpatient endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in patients with acute UGIH who are taking low-dose aspirin as monotherapy for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis, aspirin should not be interrupted. If for any reason it is interrupted, aspirin should be re-started as soon as possible, preferably within 3-5 days.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that following hemodynamic resuscitation, early (≤ 24 hours) upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy should be performed. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4: ESGE does not recommend urgent (≤ 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy since as compared to early endoscopy, patient outcomes are not improved. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends for patients with actively bleeding ulcers (FIa, FIb), combination therapy using epinephrine injection plus a second hemostasis modality (contact thermal or mechanical therapy). Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends for patients with an ulcer with a nonbleeding visible vessel (FIIa), contact or noncontact thermal therapy, mechanical therapy, or injection of a sclerosing agent, each as monotherapy or in combination with epinephrine injection. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE suggests that in patients with persistent bleeding refractory to standard hemostasis modalities, the use of a topical hemostatic spray/powder or cap-mounted clip should be considered. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that for patients with clinical evidence of recurrent peptic ulcer hemorrhage, use of a cap-mounted clip should be considered. In the case of failure of this second attempt at endoscopic hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) should be considered. Surgery is indicated when TAE is not locally available or after failed TAE. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with FIIb ulcer stigmata (adherent clot) not treated endoscopically. (A): PPI therapy should be administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (e. g., 80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy. (B): High dose PPI therapies given as intravenous bolus dosing (twice-daily) or in oral formulation (twice-daily) can be considered as alternative regimens.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10: ESGE recommends that in patients who require ongoing anticoagulation therapy following acute NVUGIH (e. g., peptic ulcer hemorrhage), anticoagulation should be resumed as soon as the bleeding has been controlled, preferably within or soon after 7 days of the bleeding event, based on thromboembolic risk. The rapid onset of action of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACS), as compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), must be considered in this context.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Infection Control Practices and Outcomes of Endoscopy Units in the Lombardy Region of Italy: A Survey From the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy During COVID-19 Spread.

GOALS: The present survey from the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED-Società Italiana di Endoscopia Digestiva) was aimed at reporting infection control practice and outcomes at Digestive Endoscopy Units in a high-incidence area. BACKGROUND: Lombardy was the Italian region with the highest coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) prevalence, at the end of March 2020 accounting for 20% of all worldwide deaths. Joint Gastro-Intestinal societies released recommendations for Endoscopy Units to reduce the risk of the contagion. However, there are few data from high-prevalence areas on adherence to these recommendations and on their efficacy. METHODS: A survey was designed by the Lombardy section of SIED to analyze (a) changes in activity and organization, (b) adherence to recommendations, (c) rate of health care professionals' (HCP) infection during the COVID-19 outbreak. RESULTS: In total, 35/61 invited centers (57.4%) participated; most modified activities were according to recommendations and had filtering face piece 2/filtering face piece 3 and water-repellent gowns available, but few had negative-pressure rooms or provided telephonic follow-up; 15% of HCPs called in sick and 6% had confirmed COVID-19. There was a trend (P=0.07) toward different confirmed COVID-19 rates among endoscopists (7.9%), nurses (6.6%), intermediate-care technicians (3.4%), and administrative personnel (2.2%). There was no correlation between the rate of sick HCPs and COVID-19 incidence in the provinces and personal protective equipment availability and use, whereas an inverse correlation with hospital volume was found. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to recommendations was rather good, though a minority were able to follow all recommendations. Confirmed COVID-19 seemed higher among endoscopists and nurses, suggesting that activities in the endoscopy rooms are at considerable viral spread risk.