Impact of Telemedicine on No-Show Rates in an Ambulatory Gastroenterology Practice.

Background: Studies suggest that telemedicine worsens health care disparities in certain groups, partly owing to a lack of access to appropriate technology or poor technological literacy. Our aim was to use clinic no-show data to determine the impact of telemedicine on patient access to care in the ambulatory gastroenterology setting. Methods: Single-center retrospective study of ambulatory in-person and telemedicine clinic appointments comparing the 15-month prepandemic (PP) with the first 15 months during the pandemic (DTP) using an administrative database. Statistical analysis was performed using univariate and multivariable logistic regression. Results: About 9,746 and 12,808 patient-encounters were scheduled PP and DTP respectively. The no-show rate decreased from 9.8% to 6.9% DTP (p < 0.001). The no-show rate decreased for Black (p = 0.02) and non-Hispanic White patients (p = 0.018). The no-show rate increased for LatinX (p < 0.001) and Asian (p = 0.007) patients. In multivariate analysis, older patients and patients identifying as Black, Asian, or LatinX all had higher odds of no-show DTP (p < 0.05 for all). Patients from high-income counties were 43% less likely to no-show than those in the lowest income counties. Conclusions: The transition to telemedicine improves health care access by decreasing the overall no-show rate. Some groups have been negatively affected, including the older, lower income, LatinX, and Asian populations. Future studies should aim to identify the risk factors within these populations that can be modified to increase health care participation, including targeted application of in-person visits, and improved technology to drive engagement.

A Prospective Cohort Study Evaluating PAN-PROMISE, a Patient-reported Outcome Measure to Detect Post-ERCP Morbidity.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Cotton Consensus (CC) criteria for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) may not capture post-ERCP morbidity. PAN-PROMISE, a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), was developed to quantify acute pancreatitis-related morbidity. This study aims to determine the value of PAN-PROMISE in independently defining ERCP-related morbidity. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing ERCP at 2 academic centers from September 2021 to August 2022. We administered PAN-PROMISE and assessed quality of life and work productivity at baseline, 48 to 72 hours, 7 days, and 30 days following ERCP. PEP was defined by a 3-physician committee using the CC criteria. We defined high morbidity following ERCP (elevated PROM) by an increase of PAN-PROMISE score of >7 at 7 days post-procedure. The McNemar test assessed discordance between PEP and elevated-PROM. RESULTS: A total of 679 patients were enrolled. Choledocholithiasis (30%) and malignant biliary obstruction (29%) were the main indications for ERCP. Thirty-two patients (4.7%) developed PEP. One hundred forty-seven patients (21.6%) had an elevated PROM, whereas only 20 of them (13.4%) had PEP by the CC criteria (P < .001 for discordance). An elevated PROM strongly correlated with lower physical quality of life and increased direct and indirect health care costs ($80 and $25 per point increase in PAN-PROMISE, respectively). Patients with pancreatic cancer (odds ratio, 4.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-10.74) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (odds ratio, 1.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-2.45) had the highest odds of elevated PROM. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of patients experience significant morbidity after ERCP despite not developing PEP or other adverse events. Future studies are needed to characterize better the reasons behind this increase in symptoms and potential interventions to reduce the symptom burden post-ERCP. CLINICALTRIALS: gov number, NCT05310409.

Telecytology versus in-room cytopathologist for EUS-guided FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling of solid pancreatic lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Rapid on-site-evaluation (ROSE) with an in-room cytopathologist (ROSE-P) has been shown to improve the diagnostic yield of specimens obtained from patients undergoing EUS-guided FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling (EUS-FNAB) of pancreatic lesions. Recently, there has been an increased interest and use of ROSE using telecytology (ROSE-T) to optimize clinical workflows and to address social distancing mandates created during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The purpose of this study was to compare diagnostic outcomes of ROSE-P and ROSE-T. METHODS: A single-center cohort study of patients who underwent EUS-FNAB of solid pancreatic lesions with ROSE was conducted. The primary outcome was overall diagnostic yield of cancer. All patients who underwent EUS-FNAB were entered into a prospectively maintained database. Statistical analyses were performed using descriptive statistics and univariate analysis. RESULTS: There were 165 patients in each arm. There was no difference in diagnostic yield between ROSE-P and ROSE-T (96.4% vs 94.5%, P = .428). ROSE-T was associated with an increased use of 22-gauge needles (P = .006) and more needle passes (P < .001). No significant differences were found in age, gender, lesion size, needle type, procedure times, or adverse events between the 2 groups (P < .05 for all). More pancreatic tail lesions were sampled in the ROSE-P group (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: ROSE-T was not associated with any difference in final histologic diagnosis for EUS-FNAB of solid pancreatic masses. This has important implications for optimizing clinical workflows.

Over-the-Scope Clips Versus Standard Endoscopic Treatment for First Line Therapy of Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Over-The-Scope Clips (OTSC) use have shown promising results for first line treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). We conducted this meta-analysis to compare outcomes in patients treated with OTSC versus standard endoscopic intervention for first line endoscopic treatment of NVUGIB. METHODS: We reviewed several databases from inception to December 9, 2022 to identify studies comparing OTSC and standard treatments as the first line treatment for NVUGIB. The outcomes assessed included re-bleeding, initial hemostasis, need for vascular embolization, mortality, need for repeat endoscopy, 30 day readmission rate, and need for surgery. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 statistic. RESULTS: We included 11 studies with 1608 patients (494 patients in OTSC group and 1114 patients in control group). OTSC use was associated with significantly lower risk of re-bleeding (RR, 0.58; 95% CI 0.41-0.82). We found no significant difference in rates of initial hemostasis (RR, 1.05; 95% CI 0.99- 1.11), vascular embolization rates (RR, 0.93; 95% CI 0.40- 2.13), need for repeat endoscopy (RR, 0.78; 95% CI 0.40-1.49), 30 day readmission rate (RR, 0.59; 95% CI 0.17-2.01), need for surgery (RR, 0.81; 95% CI 0.29-2.28) and morality (RR, 0.69; 95% CI 0.38-1.23). CONCLUSIONS: OTSC are associated with significantly lower risk of re-bleeding compared to standard endoscopic treatments when used as first line endoscopic therapy for NVUGIB.

Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided biliary drainage for benign biliary obstruction - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and Objectives: ERCP is the first line of treatment for benign and malignant biliary obstruction and EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is usually used for patients who have failed ERCP. Recently, several studies have evaluated the role of EUS-BD in the management of benign biliary obstruction. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD in the management of benign biliary obstruction. Methods: We reviewed several databases from inception to July 8, 2022, to identify studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD in the management of benign biliary obstruction. Our outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, and adverse events. Pooled rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all outcomes were calculated using a random effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed including patients with normal anatomy versus surgically altered anatomy (SAA). Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 statistic. Results: We included 14 studies with 329 patients. The pooled rate (95% CI) of technical success was 88% (83%, 92%). The pooled rate (95% CI) of technical success for patients with SAA and normal anatomy was 92% (85%, 96%) and 83% (75%, 89%), respectively. The pooled rates (95% CI) of clinical success and adverse events were 89% (83%, 93%) and 19% (13%, 26%), respectively. We found low heterogeneity in most of the analyses. Conclusions: EUS-BD is an effective and safe option in patients with benign biliary obstruction and should be considered after a failed attempt at ERCP or when ERCP is not technically possible.

Early versus late endoscopic treatment of pancreatic necrotic collections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Recently studies have compared early (<4 weeks) vs. late or standard (>4 weeks) endoscopic treatment of pancreatic necrotic collections (PNC) and have reported favorable results for early treatment. In this meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy and safety of early vs. late endoscopic treatment of PNC. Patients and methods We reviewed several databases from inception to September 30, 2021 to identify studies that compared early with late endoscopic treatment of PNC. Our outcomes of interest were adverse events (AEs), resolution of PNC, performance of direct endoscopic necrosectomy, need for further interventions, and mean number of endoscopic necrosectomy sessions. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for categorical variables and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for continuous variables. Data were analyzed by random effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I 2 statistic. Results We included four studies with 427 patients. We found no significant difference in rates of AEs, RR (95% CI) 1.70 (range, 0.56-5.20), resolution of necrotic or fluid collections, RR (95% CI) 0.89 (range, 0.71-1.11), need for further interventions, RR (95% CI) 1.47 (range, 0.70-3.08), direct necrosectomy, RR (95% CI) 1.39 (range, 0.22-8.80), mortality, RR (95% CI) 2.37 (range, 0.26-21.72) and mean number of endoscopic necrosectomy sessions, MD (95% CI) 1.58 (range,-0.20-3.36) between groups. Conclusions Early endoscopic treatment of PNC can be considered for indications such as infected necrosis or sterile necrosis with symptoms or complications; however, future large multicenter studies are required to further evaluate its safety.

Premedication Use in Preventing Acute Infliximab Infusion Reactions in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Single Center Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Infliximab (IFX) is commonly used in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. One common side effect of IFX is an acute infusion reaction. Despite the lack of evidence supporting their use, clinicians use various premedications to prevent acute reactions. We evaluated the effectiveness of premedications in the prevention of acute IFX infusion reactions. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed identifying patients with a diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease who received IFX at our institution. Information about each IFX infusion was recorded, including the dose, infusion rate, use of premedications, and any reactions. Infusions were stratified into low and high risk. In the high- and low-risk groups, the relative risk was calculated for each premedication combination used in our institution. RESULTS: Seven hundred seventy-three patients were identified; 578 patients (7090 infusions) met inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. Nine hundred eighty-six high-risk infusions were isolated; 620 (62.8%) of these infusions were administered with premedications (diphenhydramine and/or hydrocortisone) and 53 (5.4%) reactions occurred. Six thousand one hundred four low-risk infusions were identified; 2253 (36.9%) of these infusions had premedications and 61 (1.0%) reactions occurred. In both groups, none of the premedications used resulted in a significantly lower reaction rate compared with no premedication use. CONCLUSIONS: In both the high- and low-risk cohorts in this study, premedication use was not effective in reducing the rate of acute IFX reactions. Given this, routine premedication use is not recommended without future randomized control trials to demonstrate efficacy.