Implementation of mandatory ERCP registration in The Netherlands and compliance with European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performance measures: a multicenter database study.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) published quality performance measures for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Since January 2016, all endoscopists in the Netherlands have been required to register all ERCP procedures in a nationwide quality registry. This study aimed to evaluate the procedural success rates of ERCP after the implementation of mandatory national registration and to compare these with the ESGE quality performance measures. METHODS: This study was conducted with data from a multicenter endoscopy database. Data from 2019 and 2020 were analyzed. The primary outcome was ERCP procedural outcome. ESGE performance measures that could be evaluated were the percentage of successful bile duct cannulations in patients with virgin papillary anatomy; successful stent placement for a biliary obstruction located below the liver hilum; and complete removal of bile duct stones (< 10 mm). RESULT: In total, 5295 ERCPs performed in 11 centers were included for analysis. The overall procedural success rate was 89.1 %. Successful biliary cannulation in patients with a virgin papilla was 90.3 % in nonacademic and 92.4 % in academic centers. The rates of successful stent placement in patients with a biliary obstruction located below the liver hilum were 97.0 % in nonacademic and 98.2 % in academic centers, and of successful bile duct stone extraction were 97.9 % in both nonacademic and academic centers. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of ERCPs performed met five of the six evaluated ESGE performance measures. The 95 % target for successful biliary cannulation in patients with virgin papillary anatomy in academic centers was not met. Mandatory registration provides valuable insight into ERCP performance rates.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gastrointestinal endoscopy in the Netherlands: analysis of a prospective endoscopy database.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has dramatically affected gastrointestinal endoscopy practice. We aimed to investigate its impact on procedure types, indications, and findings. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed endoscopies performed in 15 Dutch hospitals by comparing periods 15 March to 25 June of 2019 and 2020 using the prospective Trans.IT database. RESULTS: During lockdown in 2020, 9776 patients underwent endoscopy compared with 19 296 in 2019. Gastroscopies decreased by 57 % (from 7846 to 4467) and colonoscopies by 45 % (from 12219 to 5609), whereas endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography volumes remained comparable (from 578 to 522). Although endoscopy results indicative of cancer decreased (from 524 to 340), the likelihood of detecting cancer during endoscopy increased (2.7 % [95 % confidence interval (CI) 2.5 - 3.0] in 2019 versus 3.5 % [95 %CI 3.1 - 3.9] in 2020; P < 0.001). After lifting of lockdown, endoscopy volumes started to return to normal, except for colorectal cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Fewer endoscopies were performed during the COVID-19 lockdown, leading to a significant reduction in the absolute detection of cancer. Endoscopies increased rapidly after lockdown, except for colorectal cancer screening.

The yield of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients below 60 years and without alarm symptoms presenting with dyspepsia.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is frequently performed in patients with upper abdominal symptoms. Although guidelines recommend withholding an endoscopy in the absence of alarm symptoms, dyspeptic symptoms remain a predominant indication for endoscopy. We aimed to investigate the yield of upper GI endoscopy in patients with low-risk dyspeptic symptoms. METHODS: We conducted an analysis in a prospectively maintained endoscopy reporting database. We collected the results of all upper GI endoscopy procedures between 2015 and 2019 that was performed in adult patients aged <60 years with dyspeptic symptoms. Patients with documented alarm symptoms were excluded. We categorized endoscopic findings into major and minor endoscopic findings. RESULTS: We identified 26,440 patients with dyspeptic symptoms who underwent upper GI endoscopy. A total of 13,978 patients were considered low-risk and included for analysis (median age 46 years, interquartile range (IQR) [36-53], 62% female). In 11,353 patients (81.2%), no endoscopic abnormalities were detected. Major endoscopic findings were seen in 513 patients (3.7%) and minor endoscopic findings in 2178 patients (15.6%). Endoscopic findings indicative of upper GI cancer were reported in 47 patients (0.3%), including 16 (0.1%) oesophageal, 28 (0.2%) gastric and 5 (0.04%) duodenal lesions. Despite an initial unremarkable endoscopy result, 1015 of 11,353 patients (8.9%) underwent a follow-up endoscopy after a median of 428 days [IQR 158-819]. This did not lead to the additional identification of malignancy. CONCLUSIONS: The yield of upper GI endoscopy in low-risk (<60 years, no alarm symptoms) patients with dyspepsia is very limited. This study further supports a restrictive use of upper GI endoscopy in these patients.

Efficacy of different bowel preparation regimen volumes for colorectal cancer screening and compliance with European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performance measures.

BACKGROUND: Various volumes of bowel preparation are used in clinical practice. There is conflicting data on the effectiveness of individual regimens. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and compliance of currently used bowel preparations with the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) performance measures using data of the Dutch nationwide colorectal cancer screening (CRC) program. METHODS: In a prospective, multicenter endoscopy database, we identified all CRC screening colonoscopies performed in 15 Dutch endoscopy centers from 2016 to 2020. We excluded procedures without documented bowel preparation or the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score. Bowel preparation regimens were categorized into three groups, that is, 4-L (polyethylene glycol (PEG)), 2-L (2-L PEG with ascorbic acid) and ≤1-L volumes (sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate, 1L-PEG with sodium sulfate and ascorbic acid or oral sulfate solution). European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performance measures included adequate BBPS score (≥6) (>90%), cecal intubation rate (CIR, >90%), adenoma detection rate (ADR, >25%) and polyp detection rate (PDR, >40%). Logistic regression was performed to identify predictive factors for adequate BBPS and patient discomfort. RESULTS: A total of 39,042 CRC screening colonoscopies were included. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores, CIR, ADR and PDR for 4L, 2L and ≤1L regimens all met the minimum ESGE performance measures standards. However, an adequate BBPS score was more frequently seen with 2L regimens (98.0%) as compared to 4L (97.1%) and ≤1L regimens (97.0%) (p < 0.001), respectively. In addition, CIR was higher for ≤1L (98.4%) versus 4L (97.7%) and 2L (97.9%) regimens (p = 0.001), ADR higher for lower volume (≤1L (60.0%) and 2L (61.2)) versus higher volume (4L (58.6%)) regimens (p < 0.001), and PDR higher for ≤1L (70.0%) and 2L (70.8%) versus 4L (67.2%) regimens (p < 0.001). Boston Bowel Preparation Scale for ≤1L regimens was higher when combined with bisacodyl (97.3%) than without (95.6%) (p < 0.001). Overall, bisacodyl use was independently associated with higher patient discomfort (odds ratios = 1.47, confidence intervals = 1.26-1.72). CONCLUSIONS: Despite variations in bowel preparation volumes, all regimens meet the minimum ESGE performance measures for bowel preparation and other quality parameters. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale can be further improved if ultra low volume regimens are combined with bisacodyl. The choice for either bowel preparation volume can therefore be based on volume-tolerance and patient preference.