ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT AND MATERIAL COMPOSITION COMPARISON OF SINGLE-USE AND REUSABLE DUODENOSCOPES.

BACKGROUND: Infection outbreaks associated with contaminated reusable duodenoscopes (RDs) have induced the development of novel single-use duodenoscopes (SDs). This study aims to analyse the material composition and life cycle assessment (LCA) of RDs and SDs to assess the sustainability of global and partial SD implementation. METHODS: A single-centre study evaluated material composition analysis and LCA of one RD and two SDs from different manufacturers (A, B). Material composition analysis was performed to evaluate the thermochemical properties of the duodenoscope components. Carbon footprint was calculated using environmental software. We compared the sustainability strategies of universal use of RDs, frequent use of RDs with occasional SDs, and universal use of SDs over the lifetime of one RD. RESULTS: RDs were substantially heavier (3489 g) than SD-A (943 g) and SD-B (715.5 g). RDs were mainly metallic alloys (95%), whereas SDs were mainly plastic polymers and resins (70-81%). The LCA demonstrated the sustainability of RDs, with a lifecycle carbon footprint 62-82 times lower compared to the universal use of SDs (151.7 vs. 10512-12640 kg CO2-eq) and 10 times lower compared to the occasional use of SDs (151.7 vs. 1417.3-1676.6 kg CO2-eq). Differences were observed between SD-A and SD-B (7.9 vs. 6.6 kg CO2-eq per endoscope). End-of-life incineration emissions for SDs were the most environmental contributors. CONCLUSIONS: Widespread adoption of SD has greater environmental challenges; it requires a balance between infection control and environmental responsibility. Carbon footprint labelling can help healthcare institutions make sustainable choices and promote environmentally responsible healthcare practices.

Perspectives and awareness of endoscopy healthcare professionals on sustainable practices in gastrointestinal endoscopy: results of the LEAFGREEN survey.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is one of healthcare's main contributors to climate change. We aimed to assess healthcare professionals' attitudes and the perceived barriers to implementation of sustainable GI endoscopy. METHODS: The LEAFGREEN web-based survey was a cross-sectional study conducted by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Green Endoscopy Working Group. The questionnaire comprised 39 questions divided into five sections (respondent demographics; climate change and sustainability beliefs; waste and resource management; single-use endoscopes and accessories; education and research). The survey was available via email to all active members of the ESGE and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) in March 2023. RESULTS: 407 respondents participated in the survey (11% response rate). Most participants (86%) agreed climate change is real and anthropogenic, but one-third did not consider GI endoscopy to be a significant contributor to climate change. Improvement in the appropriateness of endoscopic procedures (41%) and reduction in single-use accessories (34%) were considered the most important strategies to reduce the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. Respondents deemed lack of institutional support and knowledge from staff to be the main barriers to sustainable endoscopy. Strategies to reduce unnecessary GI endoscopic procedures and comparative studies of single-use versus reusable accessories were identified as research priorities. CONCLUSIONS: In this survey, ESGE and ESGENA members acknowledge climate change as a major threat to humanity. Further improvement in sustainability beliefs and professional attitudes, reduction in inappropriate GI endoscopy, and rational use of single-use accessories and endoscopes are critically required.

Life cycle assessment of routinely used endoscopic instruments and simple intervention to reduce our environmental impact.

OBJECTIVES: GI 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'. DESIGN: Material 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. RESULTS: Composition 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). CONCLUSION: Knowledge 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.

Preventing Postendoscopic Mucosal Resection Bleeding of Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Lesions.

The most common major adverse event of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB), with an incidence of 6%-7% in large lesions. Repeat colonoscopy, blood transfusions, or other interventions are often needed. The associated direct costs are much higher than those of an uncomplicated EMR. In this review, we discuss the aspects related to CSPEB of large nonpedunculated polyps, such as risk factors, predictive models, and prophylactic measures, and we highlight evidence for preventive treatment options and explore new methods for bleeding prophylaxis. We also provide recommendations for steps that can be taken before, during, and after EMR to minimize bleeding risk. Finally, this review proposes future directions to reduce CSPEB incidence.

Reducing the environmental footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement.

Climate change and the destruction of ecosystems by human activities are among the greatest challenges of the 21st century and require urgent action. Health care activities significantly contribute to the emission of greenhouse gases and waste production, with gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy being one of the largest contributors. This Position Statement aims to raise awareness of the ecological footprint of GI endoscopy and provides guidance to reduce its environmental impact. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) outline suggestions and recommendations for health care providers, patients, governments, and industry. MAIN STATEMENTS 1: GI endoscopy is a resource-intensive activity with a significant yet poorly assessed environmental impact. 2: ESGE-ESGENA recommend adopting immediate actions to reduce the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 3: ESGE-ESGENA recommend adherence to guidelines and implementation of audit strategies on the appropriateness of GI endoscopy to avoid the environmental impact of unnecessary procedures. 4: ESGE-ESGENA recommend the embedding of reduce, reuse, and recycle programs in the GI endoscopy unit. 5: ESGE-ESGENA suggest that there is an urgent need to reassess and reduce the environmental and economic impact of single-use GI endoscopic devices. 6: ESGE-ESGENA suggest against routine use of single-use GI endoscopes. However, their use could be considered in highly selected patients on a case-by-case basis. 7: ESGE-ESGENA recommend inclusion of sustainability in the training curricula of GI endoscopy and as a quality domain. 8: ESGE-ESGENA recommend conducting high quality research to quantify and minimize the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 9: ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy companies assess, disclose, and audit the environmental impact of their value chain. 10:  ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy should become a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions practice by 2050.

Development of knowledge-based clinical decision support system for patients included in colorectal screening program.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal (CRC) screening programs represent a large volume of procedures that need a follow-up endoscopy. A knowledge-based clinical decision support system (K-CDSS) is a technology which contains clinical rules and associations of compiled data that assist with clinical decision-making tasks. We develop a K-CDSS for management of patients included in CRC screening and surveillance of colorectal polyps. METHODS: We collected information on 48 variables from hospital colonoscopy records. Using DILEMMA Solutions Platform © (https://www.dilemasolution.com) we designed a prototype K-CDSS (PoliCare CDSS), to provide tailored recommendations by combining patients data and current guidelines recommendations. The accuracy of rules was verified using four scenarios (normal colonoscopy, lesions different than polyps, non-advanced adenomas and advanced adenomas). We studied the degree of agreement between the clinical assessments made by expert doctors and nurses equipped with PoliCare CDSS. Two experts confirmed a correlation between guidelines and PoliCare recommendations. RESULTS: 56 consecutive endoscopy cases from colorectal screening program were included (62.8 years; range 53-71). Colonoscopy results were: absence of colon lesions (n=7, 12.5%), lesions in the colon that are not polyps (n=3, 5.4%) and resected colonic polyps (n=46, 82.1%; 100% R0 resection). Patients with resected polyps presented non-advanced adenoma (n=21, 45.6%) or advanced lesions (n=25, 54.4%). There were no differences in erroneous orders with PoliCare CDSS (Kappa value 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: PoliCare CDSS can easily be integrated into the workflow for improving the overall efficiency and better adherence to evidence-based guidelines.

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.

Endoscopic management of gastrointestinal motility disorders - part 1: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

ESGE recommends the use of a graded pneumatic dilation protocol in achalasia, starting with a 30-mm dilation and followed by a 35-mm dilation at a planned interval of 2 - 4 weeks, with a subsequent 40-mm dilation when there is insufficient relief, over both a single balloon dilation procedure or the use of a larger balloon from the outset.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence, level of agreement 100 %.ESGE recommends being cautious in treating spastic motility disorders other than achalasia with peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM).Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence, level of agreement 87.5 %.ESGE recommends against the routine use of botulinum toxin injections to treat patients with non-achalasia hypercontractile esophageal motility disorders (Jackhammer esophagus, distal esophageal spasm). However, if, in individual patients, endoscopic injection of botulinum toxin is chosen, ESGE recommends performing injections into four quadrants of the lower esophageal sphincter and in the lower third of the esophagus.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence, level of agreement 78.6 %.ESGE recommends that endoscopic pylorus-directed therapy should be considered only in patients with symptoms suggestive of gastroparesis in combination with objective proof of delayed gastric emptying using a validated test, and only when medical therapy has failed.Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence, level of agreement 100 %.ESGE recommends against the use of botulinum toxin injection in the treatment of unselected patients with gastroparesis. Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence, level of agreement 92.9 %.ESGE recommends consideration of gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) in carefully selected patients only, because it is an emerging procedure with limited data on effectiveness, safety, and durability. G-POEM should be performed in expert centers only, preferably in the context of a clinical trial.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence, level of agreement 100 %.

Endoscopic management of gastrointestinal motility disorders - part 2: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

ESGE suggests flexible endoscopic treatment over open surgical treatment as first-line therapy for patients with a symptomatic Zenker's diverticulum of any size.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence, level of agreement 100 %.ESGE recommends that emerging treatments for Zenker's diverticulum, such as Zenker's peroral endoscopic myotomy (Z-POEM) and tunneling, be considered as experimental; these treatments should be offered in a research setting only.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence, level of agreement 100 %.ESGE recommends against the widespread clinical use of transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) as an alternative to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy or antireflux surgery in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), because of the lack of data on the long-term outcomes, the inferiority of TIF to fundoplication, and its modest efficacy in only highly selected patients. TIF may have a role for patients with mild GERD who are not willing to take PPIs or undergo antireflux surgery.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence, level of agreement 92.8 %.ESGE recommends against the use of the Medigus ultrasonic surgical endostapler (MUSE) in clinical practice because of insufficient data showing its effectiveness and safety in patients with GERD. MUSE should be used in clinical trials only.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %.ESGE recommends against the use of antireflux mucosectomy (ARMS) in routine clinical practice in the treatment of GERD because of the lack of data and its potential complications.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %.ESGE recommends endoscopic cecostomy only after conservative management with medical therapies or retrograde lavage has failed.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence, level of agreement 93.3 %.ESGE recommends fixing the cecum to the abdominal wall at three points (using T-anchors, a double-needle suturing device, or laparoscopic fixation) to prevent leaks and infectious adverse events, whatever percutaneous endoscopic cecostomy method is used.Strong recommendation, very low quality evidence, level of agreement 86.7 %.ESGE recommends considering endoscopic decompression of the colon in patients with Ogilvie's syndrome that is not improving with conservative treatment.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence, level of agreement 93.8 %.ESGE recommends prompt endoscopic decompression if the cecal diameter is > 12 cm and if the Ogilvie's syndrome exists for a duration of longer than 4 - 6 days.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence, level of agreement 87.5 %.

Comparative study of electrical and rheological properties of different solutions used in endoscopic mucosal resection.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The study of electrical and rheological properties of solutions to carry out endoscopic resection procedures could determinate the best candidate. An ex vivo study with porcine stomachs was conducted to analyze electrical resistivity (R) and rheological properties (temperature, viscosity, height and lasting of the cushion) of different substances used in these techniques. METHODS: Tested solutions were: 0.9% saline (S), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), Gliceol (GC), hyaluronic acid 2% (HA), Pluronic-F127 20% (PL), saline with 10% glucose (GS), Gelaspan (GP), Covergel-BiBio (TB) and PRP with TB (PRP+TB). Measurements of electrical and rheological properties were done at 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60 min after submucosal injection. RESULTS: Solutions showed a wide variability of transepithelial R after submucosal injection. Substances able to maintain the highest R 60 min postinjection were TB (7 × 104 Ω), HA (7 × 104 Ω) and PL (7 × 104 Ω). Protective solutions against deep thermal injury (Tª lower than 60°C) were PL (47.6°C), TB (55°C) and HA (56.63°C). Shortest time to carry out resections were observed with GC (17.66″), PRP (20.3″) and GS (23.45″). Solutions with less cushion decrease (<25%) after 60 min were TB (11.74%), PL (18.63%) and PRP (22.12%). CONCLUSIONS: Covergel-BiBio, PL and HA were the best solutions with long-term protective effects (transepithelial R, lower thermal injury and less cushion decrease). Solutions with quicker resection time were GC, PRP and GS.

Endoscopic shielding technique with a newly developed hydrogel to prevent thermal injury in two experimental models.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: A newly developed hydrogel, applied through the endoscope as an endoscopic shielding technique (EndoSTech), is aimed to prevent deep thermal injury and to accelerate the healing process of colonic induced ulcers after therapeutic endoscopy. METHODS: Lesions were performed in rats (n = 24) and pigs (n = 8). Rats were randomized to receive EndoSTech (eight rats each) with: saline (control), hyaluronic acid and product. In pigs, three ulcer sites were produced in each pig: endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR)-ulcer with prior saline injection (A; EMR-saline), EMR-saline plus EndoSTech with product (B; EMR-saline-P), and EMR with prior injection of product plus EndoSTech-P (C; EMR-P-P). At the end of the 14-day study, the same lesions were performed again in healthy mucosa to assess acute injury. Animals were sacrificed after 7 (rats) and 14 (pigs) days. Ulcers were macroscopically and histopathologically evaluated. Thermal injury (necrosis) was assessed with a 1-4 scale. RESULTS: In rats, treatment with product improved mucosal healing comparing with saline and hyaluronic acid (70% vs 30.3% and 47.2%; P = 0.003), avoiding mortality (0% vs 50% and 25%; P = 0.038), and perforation (0% vs 100% and 33.3%; P = 0.02); respectively. In pigs, submucosal injection of product induced a marked trend towards a less deep thermal injury (C = 2.25-0.46 vs A and B = 2.75-0.46; P = 0.127). Mucosal healing rate was higher with product (B = 90.2-3.9%, C = 91.3-5.5% vs A = 73.1-12.6%; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: This new hydrogel demonstrates strong healing properties in preclinical models. In addition, submucosal injection of this product is able to avoid high thermal load of the gastrointestinal wall.

Efficacy of a multifactorial strategy for bowel preparation in diabetic patients undergoing colonoscopy: a randomized trial.

Background and study aims: Previous studies have reported that diabetes mellitus is an independent risk factor for inadequate bowel preparation. Current guidelines do not recommend a specific preparation for this patient population. The aims of this study were to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of an adapted preparation protocol for colon cleansing in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patients and methods: This randomized, single-blind, parallel group, superiority trial compared a conventional bowel preparation protocol (CBP) with a diabetes-specific preparation protocol (DSP). The CBP included a low-fiber diet for 3 days followed by a clear liquid diet for 24 hours before colonoscopy. The DSP included a multifactorial strategy combining an educational intervention, a low-fiber diet, and adjustment of blood glucose-lowering agents. All patients received 4 L of a polyethylene glycol solution in a split-dose regimen. The endoscopists were blinded to the preparation protocol. The primary outcome measure was inadequate bowel preparation according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Secondary outcome measures included hypoglycemic events, tolerability, and acceptability. Results: A total of 150 patients were included in the study (74 CBP and 76 DSP). Both groups were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics. Inadequate bowel cleansing was more frequent following CBP than DSP (20 % vs. 7 %, P = 0.014; risk ratio 3.1, 95 % confidence interval 1.2 - 8). Only CBP and performance status were independently associated with inadequate bowel preparation. Both preparations were equally tolerated and accepted by patients, and side-effects were similar between the groups. Conclusions: A multifactorial strategy for bowel preparation in patients with diabetes undergoing colonoscopy showed a threefold reduction in the rate of inadequate bowel preparation, with no differences in safety and tolerability compared with conventional preparation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02300779).

Improving the quality of colonoscopy bowel preparation using a smart phone application: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Getting ready for a colonoscopy is difficult and involves many steps. Information given to patients is very important for adherence to treatment. We created a novel smart phone application (SPA) aimed to increase bowel preparation quality and patient satisfaction. METHODS: We carried out a prospective, endoscopist-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. We enrolled 260 outpatient (58% female, age range 21-75 years) owners of a smartphone. Patients were allocated to two different protocols: instructions provided by SPA (SPA group; n = 108) or written instructions with visual aids (control group; n = 152). All procedures were carried out in the afternoon and patients received the same purgative regimen (2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution plus ascorbic acid), in a full-dose same-day regimen. The study was designed to detect an improvement in quality of bowel preparation using the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS) scale. Effect of protocol on patient satisfaction was assessed with a specific questionnaire at the time of colonoscopy. RESULTS: Proportion of patients who obtained successful bowel preparation for colonoscopy (HCS A or B) was significantly higher in the SPA group than in the control group (100% vs 96.1%, respectively; P = 0.037). Mean global HCS scores were similar in both groups. Patient-reported tolerability and overall experience with the prescribed bowel preparation were significantly higher for the SPA group than for the control group. CONCLUSION: Successful cleansing and patient acceptability with the use of SPA were superior to written instructions in outpatients submitted for colonoscopy using 2 L PEG solution plus ascorbic acid.