Efficacy of routine second-look endoscopy after endoscopic hemostasis in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of scheduled second-look endoscopy in patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically search in four databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the usefulness of scheduled second-look endoscopy vs. single endoscopy in patients with PUB. Our primary outcome was rebleeding. Secondary outcomes were surgery, mortality, and the number of units of blood transfused (NUBT). All meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool, and the quality of evidence (QoE) was rated with the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Eight full-text RCTs and two RCT abstracts were included (n=1513). We did not find differences in rebleeding (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-1.14, moderate QoE), surgery (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.29-1.15, moderate QoE), mortality (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.46-1.71, moderate QoE) or NUBT (MD, -0.01 units; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.28, low QoE) between second-look and single endoscopy. Sensitivity analyses had similar results to the main analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Routine second-look endoscopy was not more efficacious than single endoscopy in patients with PUB.

AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Endoscopic Eradication Therapy of Barrett's Esophagus and Related Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) can be effective in eradicating BE and related neoplasia and has greater risk of harms and resource use than surveillance endoscopy. This clinical practice guideline aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the use of EET in BE and related neoplasia. METHODS: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients, conducted an evidence review, and used the Evidence-to-Decision Framework to develop recommendations regarding the use of EET in patients with BE under the following scenarios: presence of (1) high-grade dysplasia, (2) low-grade dysplasia, (3) no dysplasia, and (4) choice of stepwise endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or focal EMR plus ablation, and (5) endoscopic submucosal dissection vs EMR. Clinical recommendations were based on the balance between desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 5 recommendations for the use of EET in BE and related neoplasia. Based on the available evidence, the panel made a strong recommendation in favor of EET in patients with BE high-grade dysplasia and conditional recommendation against EET in BE without dysplasia. The panel made a conditional recommendation in favor of EET in BE low-grade dysplasia; patients with BE low-grade dysplasia who place a higher value on the potential harms and lower value on the benefits (which are uncertain) regarding reduction of esophageal cancer mortality could reasonably select surveillance endoscopy. In patients with visible lesions, a conditional recommendation was made in favor of focal EMR plus ablation over stepwise EMR. In patients with visible neoplastic lesions undergoing resection, the use of either endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection was suggested based on lesion characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This document provides a comprehensive outline of the indications for EET in the management of BE and related neoplasia. Guidance is also provided regarding the considerations surrounding implementation of EET. Providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient preferences. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted to guide future research opportunities.

Short-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of superficial gastric neoplasms in non-Asian countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is now considered the standard treatment for early gastric cancer (EGC). However, the widespread adoption of ESD in western countries has been slow. We performed a systematic review to evaluate short-term outcomes of ESD for EGC in non-Asian countries. Methods: We searched 3 electronic databases from inception until October 26, 2022. Primary outcomes were en bloc, R0 and curative resections rate by region. Secondary outcomes were overall complications, bleeding, and perforation rate by region. The proportion of each outcome, with the 95% confidence interval (CI), was pooled using a random-effects model with the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. Results: Twenty-seven studies from Europe (n=14), South America (n=11) and North America (n=2) were included, involving 1875 gastric lesions. Overall, en bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were achieved in 96% (95%CI 94-98%), 85% (95%CI 81-89%), and 77% (95%CI 73-81%) of cases, respectively. Considering only information from lesions with adenocarcinoma, the overall curative resection was 75% (95CI 70-80%). Bleeding and perforation were observed in 5% (95%CI 4-7%) and 2% (95%CI 1-4%) of cases, respectively. Conclusion: Our results suggest that short-term outcomes of ESD for the treatment of EGC are acceptable in non-Asian countries.

Helicobacter pylori World Gastroenterology Organization Global Guideline.

Helicobacter pylori remains a major health problem worldwide, causing considerable morbidity and mortality due to peptic ulcer disease and gastric cancer. The burden of disease falls disproportionally on less well-resourced populations. As with most infectious diseases, the largest impact on reducing this burden comes from improvement in socioeconomic status, which interrupts transmission. This has been observed in many regions of the world, but the prevalence of infection remains high in many regions where improvements in living standards are slow to occur. Meanwhile, the optimal clinical management and treatment pathways remain unsettled and are evolving with changing antimicrobial resistance patterns. Despite decades of research and clinical practice, major challenges remain. The quest for the most effective, safe, and simple therapy remains the major issue for clinicians. The search for an effective vaccine appears to be elusive still. Clinical guidelines do not infrequently proffer discordant advice. A major challenge for guidelines is for relevance across a variety of populations with a varying spectrum of disease, antimicrobial resistance rates, and vastly different resources. As local factors are central to determining the impact and management strategies for H. pylori infection, it is important that pathways are based on the best available local knowledge rather than solely extrapolating from guidelines formulated in other regions, which may be less applicable. To this end, this revision of the World Gastroenterology Organisation (WGO) H. pylori guideline uses a "Cascades" approach that seeks to summarize the principles of management and offer advice for pragmatic, relevant and achievable diagnostic and treatment pathways based on established key treatment principles and using local knowledge and available resources to guide regional practice.

Utility of YouTube online learning for junior gastrointestinal endoscopists: A rewarding or deterring practice?

Endoscopy is a competitive field in clinical practice, in which skilled endoscopists are in high demand. The learning process for Junior Gastrointestinal Endoscopists (JGEs) is difficult, quite long, and technically demanding. This directs JGEs to seek additive learning sources, including online sources. The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency, context, attitudes, perceived benefits, drawbacks, and recommendations for using YouTube videos as an educational platform among JGEs from the uses'prespective. We disseminated a cross-sectional online questionnaire from January 15th to March 17th, 2022, and recruited 166 JGE from 39 different countries. The majority of surveyed JGEs (138, 85.2%) were already using YouTube as a learning tool. The majority of JGEs (97, 59.8%) reported gaining knowledge and applying it in their clinical practice, but 56 (34.6 %) reported gaining knowledge without application in real practice. Most participants (124, 76.5 %) reported missing procedure details in YouTube endoscopy videos. The majority of JGEs (110, 80.9%) reported that YouTube videos are provided by endoscopy specialists. Only one participant, 0.6% out of the 166 JGEs surveyed, disliked video records, including YouTube as a source of learning. Based on their experience, 106 (65.4%) of participants recommended YouTube as an educational tool for the coming generation of JGEs. We consider that YouTube represents a potentially useful tool for JGEs, supplying them with both knowledge and clinical practice tricks. However, many drawbacks could make the experience misleading and time-consuming. Consequently, we encourage educational providers on YouTube and other platforms to upload well-constructed, peer-reviewed, interactive educational endoscopy videos.

Antecedentes : La endoscopia es un campo competitivo en la práctica clínica en el que los endoscopistas calificados tienen una gran demanda. El proceso de aprendizaje para los endoscopistas gastrointestinales junior (JE) es difícil, bastante largo y técnicamente exigente. Esto dirige a los JE a buscar fuentes de aprendizaje adicionales, incluidas las fuentes en línea. El propósito de este estudio fue determinar la frecuencia, el contexto, las actitudes, los beneficios percibidos, los inconvenientes y las recomendaciones para el uso de videos de YouTube como una plataforma educativa entre los JE desde la perspectiva de los usuarios. Métodos: Se aplicó un cuestionario transversal en línea difundido del 15 de enero al 17 de marzo de 2022 reclutó a 166 endoscopistas gastrointestinales junior de 39 países diferentes. Resultados : La mayoría de los JE encuestados (138, 85,2%) ya utilizaban YouTube como herramienta de aprendizaje. La mayoría de los JE (97, 59,8 %) refirieron adquirir conocimientos y aplicarlos en su práctica clínica, pero 56 (34,6 %) informaron adquirir conocimientos sin aplicación en la práctica real. La mayoría de los participantes (124, 76,5 %) informó que faltaban detalles del procedimiento en los videos de endoscopia de YouTube. La mayoría de los JE (110, 80,9%) informaron que los videos de YouTube son proporcionados por especialistas en endoscopia. Solo a un participante, el 0,6% de los 166 JE encuestados, le disgustaron los registros de video, incluyendo a YouTube como fuente de aprendizaje. Según su experiencia, 106 (65,4 %) de los participantes recomendaron YouTube como una herramienta educativa para la próxima generación de JE. Conclusión: YouTube representa una herramienta potencialmente útil para los EJ, brindándoles tanto conocimientos como trucos para la práctica clínica. Sin embargo, muchos inconvenientes podrían hacer que la experiencia sea engañosa y consuma mucho tiempo. En consecuencia, alentamos a los proveedores de educación en YouTube y otras plataformas a subir videos de endoscopia educativos interactivos, bien construidos y revisados por pares.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus surgery for patients with undifferentiated early gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the standard treatment for differentiated early gastric cancer (EGC). However, its expanded indication for undifferentiated EGC is controversial. In this study, the efficacy and safety of ESD versus surgery in patients with undifferentiated EGC were compared. METHODS: four databases were searched until February 24, 2022, for studies assessing patients with undifferentiated EGC that met an expanded indication for endoscopic resection and who were treated with ESD or surgery. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and any recurrence. Secondary outcomes were complete histological resection, local recurrence, metachronous recurrence, synchronous recurrence, distant metastasis, overall complication, and bleeding. All meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects models. Unadjusted (risk ratio [RR]) and adjusted (aRR and hazard ratio [aHR]) estimates with 95 % confidence interval (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: seven cohort studies were included (n = 2637). The use of ESD was significantly associated with higher all-cause mortality compared to surgery (RR, 2.17; 95 % CI, 1.24-3.81); adjusted all-cause mortality effects were not significant (aRR, 2.28; 95 % CI, 0.95-5.47 and aHR, 1.97; 95 % CI, 0.85-4.53). ESD was associated with a higher risk of any recurrence using unadjusted (RR, 5.24; 95 % CI, 1.49-18.46) and adjusted (aRR, 7.89; 95 % CI, 1.52-40.95 and aHR, 3.73; 95 % CI, 1.17-11.90) estimates. The risk of local recurrence, synchronous recurrence and bleeding were significantly higher for ESD versus surgery. No significant differences were found for other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: although ESD is associated with a higher risk of any recurrence, adjusted all-cause mortality is similar during follow-up. Overall complications were similar between ESD and surgery.

Effect of COVID-19 on gastrointestinal endoscopy practice: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Since the emergence of the novel corona virus (SARS-Cov-2) in the late 2019 and not only the endoscopy practice and training but also the health care systems around the globe suffers. This systematic review focused the impact of Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19) on the endoscopy practice. METHODS: A web search of different databases combining different search terms describing the endoscopy practice and the COVID-19 pandemic was done. Articles were screened for selection of relevant articles in two steps: title and abstract step and full-text screening step, by two independent reviewers and any debate was solved by a third reviewer. RESULTS: Final studies included in qualitative synthesis were 47. The data shown in the relevant articles were evident for marked reduction in the volume of endoscopy, marked affection of colorectal cancer screening, impairments in the workflow, deficiency in personal protective equipment (PPE) and increased likelihood of catching the infection among both the staff and the patients. CONCLUSION: The main outcomes from this review are rescheduling of endoscopy procedures to be suitable with the situation of COVID-19 pandemic in each Country. Also, the endorsement of the importance of PPE use for health care workers and screening of COVID-19 infection pre-procedure.Key messagesThe data focussing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and COVID-19 emerged from different areas around the globe. The data presented on the published studies were heterogeneous. However, there were remarkable reductions in the volume of GI endoscopy worldwideStaff reallocation added a burden to endoscopy practiceThere was a real risk for COVID-19 spread among both the staff and the patients.

Beneficial and Harmful Effects of Monoclonal Antibodies for the Treatment and Prophylaxis of COVID-19: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: We systematically assessed beneficial and harmful effects of monoclonal antibodies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment, and prophylaxis in individuals exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. METHODS: We searched 5 engines and 3 registries until November 3, 2021 for randomized controlled trials evaluating monoclonal antibodies vs control in hospitalized or non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19, or as prophylaxis. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, COVID-19-related death, and serious adverse events; hospitalization for non-hospitalized; and development of symptomatic COVID-19 for prophylaxis. Inverse variance random effects models were used for meta-analyses. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials were included: 20 in hospitalized patients (n = 8253), 5 in non-hospitalized patients (n = 2922), and 2 in prophylaxis (n = 2680). In hospitalized patients, monoclonal antibodies slightly reduced mechanical ventilation (relative risk [RR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.9; I2 = 20%, low certainty of evidence) and bacteremia (RR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64-0.92; I2 = 7%, low certainty of evidence); evidence was very uncertain about the effect on adverse events (RR 1.31; 95% CI, 1.02-1.67; I2 = 77%, very low certainty of evidence). In non-hospitalized patients, monoclonal antibodies reduced hospitalizations (RR 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.53; I2 = 0%, high certainty of evidence) and may slightly reduce serious adverse events (RR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.22-1.01; I2 = 33%, low certainty of evidence). In prophylaxis studies, monoclonal antibodies probably reduced viral load slightly (mean difference -0.8 log10; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.39, moderate certainty of evidence). There were no effects on other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Monoclonal antibodies had limited effects on most of the outcomes in COVID-19 patients, and when used as prophylaxis. Additional data are needed to determine their efficacy and safety.

Efficacy and harms of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Efficacy and safety of treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 are uncertain. We systematically reviewed efficacy and safety of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19. METHODS: Studies evaluating remdesivir in adults with hospitalized COVID-19 were searched in several engines until August 21, 2020. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, clinical improvement or recovery, need for invasive ventilation, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Inverse variance random effects meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: We included four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 2296) [two vs. placebo (n = 1299) and two comparing 5-day vs. 10-day regimens (n = 997)], and two case series (n = 88). Studies used intravenous remdesivir 200mg the first day and 100mg for four or nine more days. One RCT (n = 236) was stopped early due to AEs; the other three RCTs reported outcomes between 11 and 15 days. Time to recovery was decreased by 4 days with remdesivir vs. placebo in one RCT (n = 1063), and by 0.8 days with 5-days vs. 10-days of therapy in another RCT (n = 397). Clinical improvement was better for 5-days regimen vs. standard of care in one RCT (n = 600). Remdesivir did not decrease all-cause mortality (RR 0.71, 95%CI 0.39 to 1.28, I2 = 43%) and need for invasive ventilation (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.23 to 1.42, I2 = 60%) vs. placebo at 14 days but had fewer SAEs; 5-day decreased need for invasive ventilation and SAEs vs. 10-day in one RCT (n = 397). No differences in all-cause mortality or SAEs were seen among 5-day, 10-day and standard of care. There were some concerns of bias to high risk of bias in RCTs. Heterogeneity between studies could be due to different severities of disease, days of therapy before outcome determination, and how ordinal data was analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: There is paucity of adequately powered and fully reported RCTs evaluating effects of remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Until stronger evidence emerges, we cannot conclude that remdesivir is efficacious for treating COVID-19.

Colorectal cancer screening: a South American perspective.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) occupies the first places of cancer incidence and mortality worldwide. There are screening guidelines that must be adapted to the available resources. South America (SA) is a region with characteristics that influences in the behavior of diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A bibliographic review focused on publications originating in SA in the last 10 years was performed by two independents reviewers using Medline, EMBASE and LILACS platforms. RESULTS: Forty-seven publications were included. There is an increase in the incidence of CRC, mortality and years of life lost. Higher mortality is observed in indigenous populations, older adults, and low socioeconomic strata. Many barriers in the access to screening were observed (lack of knowledge about screening in the population and health professionals, insufficient technical resources). Prevention of CRC is a health challenge where improvement in living conditions is a central part. SA is taking its first steps in the prevention of CRC and the path must contemplate elements inherent of the region. A central point in the development of effective screening strategies is to increase research and scientific production. We consider useful for each country, to evaluate its screening actions taking into account the incidence (high, average or low) to determine if it is convenient to develop structured or opportunistic programs but always starting from the premise that the awareness of the population is essential. CONCLUSIONS: The great challenge to achieve effective CRC prevention can be summed up in the concept of equity. CRC screening in SA requires leadership, creativity, and the ability to craft responses tailored to each local setting.

The global impact of COVID-19 on gastrointestinal endoscopy units: An international survey of endoscopists.

BACKGROUND & STUDY AIMS: Corona virus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has markedly impacted routine medical services including gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. We aim to report the real-life performance in high volume GI endoscopy units during the pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A web-based survey covering all aspects of daily performance in GI endoscopy units was sent to endoscopy units worldwide. Responses were collected and data were analyzed to reveal the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on endoscopy practice. RESULTS: Participants from 48 countries (n = 163) responded to the survey with response rate of 67.35%. The majority (85%) decreased procedure volume by over 50%, and four endoscopy units (2.45%) completely stopped. The top three indications for procedures included upper GI bleeding (89.6%), lower GI bleeding (65.6%) and cholangitis (62.6%). The majority (93.9%) triaged patients for COVID-19 prior to procedure. N95 masks were used in (57.1%), isolation gowns in (74.2%) and head covers in (78.5%). Most centers (65%) did not extend use of N95 masks, however 50.9% of centers reused N95 masks. Almost all (91.4%) centers used standard endoscopic decontamination and most (69%) had no negative pressure rooms. Forty-two centers (25.8%) reported positive cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients and 50 (30.7%) centers reported positive cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection among their healthcare workers. CONCLUSIONS: Most GI endoscopy centers had a significant reduction in their volume and most procedures performed were urgent. Most centers used the recommended personal protective equipment (PPE) by GI societies however there is still a possibility of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection in GI endoscopy units.

Colorectal cancer screening: a South American perspective / Tamizaje de cáncer colorectal: una perspectiva Sudamericana

ABSTRACT Colorectal cancer (CRC) occupies the first places of cancer incidence and mortality worldwide. There are screening guidelines that must be adapted to the available resources. South America (SA) is a region with characteristics that influences in the behavior of diseases. Materials and methods: A bibliographic review focused on publications originating in SA in the last 10 years was performed by two independents reviewers using Medline, EMBASE and LILACS platforms. Results: Forty-seven publications were included. There is an increase in the incidence of CRC, mortality and years of life lost. Higher mortality is observed in indigenous populations, older adults, and low socioeconomic strata. Many barriers in the access to screening were observed (lack of knowledge about screening in the population and health professionals, insufficient technical resources). Prevention of CRC is a health challenge where improvement in living conditions is a central part. SA is taking its first steps in the prevention of CRC and the path must contemplate elements inherent of the region. A central point in the development of effective screening strategies is to increase research and scientific production. We consider useful for each country, to evaluate its screening actions taking into account the incidence (high, average or low) to determine if it is convenient to develop structured or opportunistic programs but always starting from the premise that the awareness of the population is essential. Conclusions: The great challenge to achieve effective CRC prevention can be summed up in the concept of equity. CRC screening in SA requires leadership, creativity, and the ability to craft responses tailored to each local setting.

RESUMEN El cáncer colorrectal (CCR) ocupa los primeros puestos globales en incidencia y mortalidad. Existen guías para la detección precoz que deben ser adaptadas a los recursos disponibles. Sudamérica (SA) es una región con características especiales que influyen en el comportamiento de las enfermedades. Materiales y métodos: Se realizó una revisión bibliográfica de publicaciones originadas en SA utilizando las plataformas MEDLINE, EMBASE y LILACS. Dos investigadores en forma independiente revisaron y seleccionaron la bibliografía. Resultados: Se incluyen para el análisis cuarenta y siete publicaciones. Existe un incremento de la incidencia, mortalidad y años de vida perdidos por CCR. Se observa mayor mortalidad en pueblos originarios, adultos mayores y personas de nivel socioeconómico bajo. Existen diversas barreras en el acceso al screening (falta de conocimientos en la población y el equipo de salud, recursos técnicos insuficientes). La prevención del CCR es un desafío donde el mejoramiento de las condiciones de vida es central. En SA la prevención del CCR está dando sus primeros pasos y ese camino debe contemplar elementos propios. Un punto central es la investigación y producción científica relacionada. Consideramos útil que cada país evalúe sus acciones preventivas teniendo en cuenta la incidencia (alta, media o baja) para determinar si es conveniente realizar un screening oportunista o estructurado siempre partiendo de la premisa de que la concientización y participación de la población es esencial. Conclusiones: El gran desafío para lograr una prevención efectiva del CCR puede resumirse en el concepto de equidad. El screening del CCR en SA requiere de liderazgo, creatividad y de la capacidad de diseñar respuestas adaptadas a cada realidad local.

[Performance of the FIB-4 index in esophageal varices screening in patients with the diagnosis of liver cirrhosis]. / Desempeñ o del índice FIB-4 en el despistaje de vá rices esofá gicas en pacientes con el diagnóstico de cirrosis hepá tica.

INTRODUCTION: The diagnosis of esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients is made by the upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Multiple non-invasive predictors have been studied for the diag-nosis of esophageal varices. The objective of this study is to testthe FIB4 index as screening of esophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional analytic study was developed in four national hospital using hepatic cirrhosis patient's medi-cal files. We assessed the information using univariate and bivariate analysis, sensitivity, speci-ficity, predictive positive and negative value, the positive and negative likelihood ratio calcu-lation of the esophageal varices screening and its size. We built ROC curve for every analysis group. RESULTS: The study included 289 liver cirrhosis patients. Most of the patients were male (54.33%). 77.85% patients had esophageal varices. The distribution of varices was 19.03%, 35.99% and 22.84% for large, medium and small varices, respectively. In the FIB-4 index analysis for the presence of varices, it was found a sensitivity of 81.3%, specificity of 37.5% (AUC: 0.57). The calculation for variceal size showed a sensitivity of 81.8%, specificity of 23.9% (AUC: 0.50). In the analysis of FIB-4 index for prophylaxis groups was found a sensitivity of 81.8% and a specificity of 28.5% (AUC: 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: The FIB-4 index has no good performance in the screening for the presence of esophageal varices and its size in liver cirrhosis patients.

[Recommendations of the Society of Gastroenterology of Peru to avoid the spread of SARS-CoV-2 through digestive endoscopy procedures]. / Recomendaciones de la Sociedad de Gastroenterología del Perú para evitar la propagación del SARS-CoV-2 a través de procedimientos de endoscopía digestiva.

The SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus produces the disease called COVID-19, currently spreading in a rapidly evolving pandemic. It can be transmitted by contact, drops and aerosols, and has been isolated from gastrointestinal secretions and faeces. During digestive endoscopy, transmission by any of these mechanisms could occur. It is recommended to limit digestive endoscopy to cases of digestive bleeding, severe dysphagia, foreign body in the digestive tract, biliary obstruction with intractable pain or cholangitis, pseudocyst or complicated encapsulated pancreatic necrosis, gastrointestinal obstruction, and cases at risk of deterioration over time. It is recommended to screen patients based on temperature, symptoms, and epidemiological factors to classify them according to their risk of infection. For procedures in low risk patients, personnel must wear a disposable gown, gloves, eye or face shield, standard surgical mask, disposable hat, disposable shoe covers. In cases of intermediate or high risk, or confirmed COVID-19, protection should be increased using disposable waterproof gown, N95 respirator or similar, and double glove. In case of shortage it may be necessary to reuse N95 respirators for up to 5 uses, following CDC recommendations for donning, removing and storing to prevent secondary contact contamination. Likewise, all protective equipment should be put on and removed according to CDC recommendations. The presence of personnel in endoscopy should be limited to the bare minimum. Said personnel must have daily temperature control and if it is above 37.3ºC, the corresponding evaluation must be carried out. After each procedure, the stretcher and room surfaces should be properly disinfected. High-level disinfection of endoscopes eliminates SARS-CoV-2.

Higher HOMA-IR index is associated with increased excess weight loss in patients with BMI≥35kg/m2 after vertical gastrectomy. / Índice HOMA-IR como predictor de reducción de exceso de peso en pacientes con índice de masa corporal (IMC)≥35kg/m2 sometidos a gastrectomía vertical.

INTRODUCTION: Bariatric surgery is considered the most effective treatment for severe obesity. However, it is not clear if patients with diabetes mellitus or insulin resistance have the same response than patients without those conditions. Our objective was to evaluate association between pre-surgical HOMA-IR index and percentage of excess weight loss (EWL%) one year after bariatric surgery using sleeve gastrectomy. METHODS: Retrospective cohort including patients ≥18 years old with BMI≥35kg/m2, who underwent primary sleeve gastrectomy between 2014-2017 at the Avendaño Medical Center, Peru. Only patients with Type 2 Diabetes, Hypertension, or Dyslipidemia were included. EWL% ≥60% one year after surgery was considered satisfactory. Crude and adjusted Lineal and Poisson regression with robustness was used to assess statistical associations with EWL%. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were included with a median of 34 years, and 57.1% were women. 85.7% had insulin resistance as per HOMA-IR. One year after surgery, 76.9% had a satisfactory EWL%. The lineal model showed .29% less EWL% per each extra year of life (P=.019), and .93% more EWL% per each extra HOMA-IR point (P=.004). The adjusted Poisson model showed 2% lower risk of having a satisfactory EWL% per each additional year of life (P=.050), and 2% more chance of success per each additional HOMA-IR point (P=.038). CONCLUSIONS: There was association between a higher pre-surgical HOMA-IR index and increased EWL% one year after surgery. It is possible that insulin resistance does not affect negatively sleeve gastrectomy outcomes.