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.

Training in basic gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement.

This ESGE Position Statement provides structured and evidence-based guidance on the essential requirements and processes involved in training in basic gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. The document outlines definitions; competencies required, and means to their assessment and maintenance; the structure and requirements of training programs; patient safety and medicolegal issues. 1: ESGE and ESGENA define basic endoscopic procedures as those procedures that are commonly indicated, generally accessible, and expected to be mastered (technically and cognitively) by the end of any core training program in gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2: ESGE and ESGENA consider the following as basic endoscopic procedures: diagnostic upper and lower GI endoscopy, as well as a limited range of interventions such as: tissue acquisition via cold biopsy forceps, polypectomy for lesions ≤ 10 mm, hemostasis techniques, enteral feeding tube placement, foreign body retrieval, dilation of simple esophageal strictures, and India ink tattooing of lesion location. 3: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that training in GI endoscopy should be subject to stringent formal requirements that ensure all ESGE key performance indicators (KPIs) are met. 4: Training in basic endoscopic procedures is a complex process and includes the development and acquisition of cognitive, technical/motor, and integrative skills. Therefore, ESGE and ESGENA recommend the use of validated tools to track the development of skills and assess competence. 5: ESGE and ESGENA recommend incorporating a multimodal approach to evaluating competence in basic GI endoscopic procedures, including procedural thresholds and the measurement and documentation of established ESGE KPIs. 7: ESGE and ESGENA recommend the continuous monitoring of ESGE KPIs during GI endoscopy training to ensure the trainee's maintenance of competence. 9: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy training units fulfil the ESGE KPIs for endoscopy units and, furthermore, be capable of providing the dedicated personnel, infrastructure, and sufficient case volume required for successful training within a structured training program. 10: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that trainers in basic GI endoscopic procedures should be endoscopists with formal educational training in the teaching of endoscopy, which allows them to successfully and safely teach trainees.

Assessing the impact of center volume on the cost-effectiveness of centralizing ERCP.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: ERCP is a complex endoscopic procedure in which the center's procedure volume influences outcomes. With the increasing healthcare expenses and limited resources, promoting cost-effective care becomes essential for healthcare provision. This study performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate the hypothesis that high-volume (HV) centers perform ERCP with higher quality at lower costs than low-volume (LV) centers. METHODS: A baseline case compared the current distribution of ERCPs among HV and LV centers with a hypothetical scenario in which all ERCPs are performed at HV centers. A cost-effectiveness analysis was constructed, followed by one-way and two-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) using Monte Carlo simulations. RESULTS: In the baseline case, the ICER was -141,017€/year, due to the hypothetical scenario's lower costs and slightly higher QALYs. The model was most sensitive to changes in the transportation costs (109.34%), probability of significant adverse events (AEs) after successful ERCP at LV centers (42.12%), utility after ERCP with significant AEs (30.10%), and probability of significant AEs after successful ERCP at HV centers (23.53%) but only transportation cost above 3,407€ changed the study outcome. The current ERCP distribution would only be cost-effective if LV centers achieved higher success (≥ 92.4% vs. 89.3%) with much lower significant AEs (≤ 0.5% vs 6.7%). The study's main findings remained unchanged while combining all model parameters in the PSA. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that HV centers have high-performance rates at lower costs, raising the need to consider the principle of centralization of ERCPs into HV centers to improve the quality of care.

Models and scores to predict adequacy of bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

Adequate bowel preparation is of paramount importance for the effectiveness of preventive colonoscopy as it allows visualization of the mucosal surface and adenomas detection, the pre-malignant lesions leading to colon cancer. Still, a considerable portion of patients fail to achieve adequate bowel cleansing, with predictors of inadequate bowel preparation being at the focal point of several studies, so far. Incorporation of these factors within predictive models has been implemented in an effort to promptly identify patients at risk for inadequate bowel preparation and thus, timely adopt practices that have the potential to improve bowel cleansing. Ultimately, this could lead to improved procedural outcomes not only in terms of neoplastic detection rate but also interval repeat procedures, expenses, patient convenience and adverse events risk. Aim of this manuscript is to present an up to date overview of all predictive scores/models addressing bowel cleansing adequacy in everyday clinical practice.

The impact of a multidisciplinary team approach on the management of focal pancreatic lesions: a single tertiary center experience.

Background: Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings aim to optimize patient management. We evaluated the impact of MDT discussions on the management and diagnosis of focal pancreatic lesions in a single tertiary center. Methods: All patients with an initial diagnosis of solid or cystic pancreatic lesion discussed in our institution's MDT meeting on pancreatic diseases between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021, were included. The impact of MDT discussion on patient management, defined as a modification of the initially proposed therapeutic plan after MDT discussion, as well as the criteria leading to this modification, were the primary outcomes. Impact on diagnosis was the secondary outcome. Results: A total of 522 patients were included. Of these, 185 (35.4%) and 337 (64.6%) had an initial diagnosis of cystic or solid lesion, respectively. The most common referral query was regarding the management plan (349/522; 66.9%). Endoscopy was the procedure most often proposed before MDT discussion (109/522; 20.9%). Overall, the MDT discussion led to modification of the management plan in 377/522 patients (72.2%), with a statistically significant difference between cystic and solid lesions (63.2% vs. 77.2%; P<0.001). Management modifications were mainly driven by revision of cross-sectional radiological images. MDT discussion led to modification of the diagnosis in 92/522 patients (17.6%), with a significant difference regarding cystic lesions (35.7% vs. 7.7%; P<0.001). Conclusion: MDT discussion impacts the management of patients with cystic and solid pancreatic lesions, leading to a modification of the initially proposed management in two-thirds of them, mainly through revision of cross-sectional imaging.

Jejunal access for enteral nutrition: A practical guide for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension and direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy.

For patients requiring long-term (>4 weeks) jejunal nutrition, jejunal medication delivery, or decompression, a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension (PEG-J) or a direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) may be indicated. PEG-J is the preferred option if a PEG tube is already in place or if simultaneous gastric decompression and jejunal nutrition are needed. DPEJ is recommended for patients with altered anatomy due to foregut surgery, high risk of jejunal extension migration, and whenever PEG-J fails. Successful placement rates are lower for DPEJ but recent publications have reported improvements, partly due to the use of balloon-assisted enteroscopy. Both techniques are contraindicated in cases of active peritonitis, uncorrectable coagulopathy, and ongoing bowel ischaemia, and relative contraindications include, among other, peptic ulcer disease and haemodynamic or respiratory instability. In this narrative review, we present the most recent evidence on indications, contraindications, technical considerations, adverse events, and outcomes of PEG-J and DPEJ.

Using Endoscopy in the Diagnosis of Pancreato-Biliary Cancers.

Pancreatic cancer and cholangiocarcinoma are life threatening oncological conditions with poor prognosis and outcome. Pancreatic cystic lesions are considered precursors of pancreatic cancer as some of them have the potential to progress to malignancy. Therefore, accurate identification and classification of these lesions is important to prevent the development of invasive cancer. In the biliary tract, the accurate characterization of biliary strictures is essential for providing appropriate management and avoiding unnecessary surgery. Techniques have been developed to improve the diagnosis, risk stratification, and management of pancreato-biliary lesions. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and associated techniques, such as elastography, contrasted-enhanced EUS, and EUS-guided needle confocal laser endomicroscopy, may improve diagnostic accuracy. In addition, intraductal techniques applied during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), such as new generation cholangioscopy and in vivo cellular evaluation through probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy, can increase the diagnostic yield in characterizing indeterminate biliary strictures. Both EUS-guided and intraductal approaches can provide the possibility for tissue sampling with new tools, such as needles, biopsies forceps, and brushes. At the molecular level, novel biomarkers have been explored that provide new insights into diagnosis, risk stratification, and management of these lesions.

Dietary strategies in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease patients: From evidence to daily clinical practice, a systematic review.

Lifestyle modification comprising calorie restriction (CR) and increased physical activity enabling weight loss is the first-line of treatment for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). However, CR alone is not optimal and evidence suggests that dietary pattern and composition are also critical in NAFLD management. Accordingly, high consumption of red and processed meat, saturated fat, added sugar, and sweetened beverages are associated with an increased risk of developing NAFLD and hepatocellular carcinoma, while other foods and compounds such as fish, olive oil, and polyphenols are, in contrast, beneficial for metabolic disorders. Therefore, several dietary interventions have been studied in order to determine which strategy would be the most beneficial for NAFLD. The evidence regarding the effectiveness of different dietary interventions such as low carbohydrate/low-fat diet, time-restricted eating diet, CR, and the well-studied Mediterranean diet is summarized.

Recent Developments in the Field of Endoscopic Ultrasound for Diagnosis, Staging, and Treatment of Pancreatic Lesions.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) plays a crucial role in the diagnosis of both solid and cystic pancreatic lesions and in the staging of patients with pancreatic cancer through its use for tissue and fluid sampling. Additionally, in cases of precancerous lesions, EUS-guided therapy can also be provided. This review aims to describe the most recent developments regarding the role of EUS in the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic lesions. Moreover, complementary EUS imaging modalities, the role of artificial intelligence, new devices, and modalities for tissue acquisition, and techniques for EUS-guided treatment are discussed.

Performance and Safety of EUS Ablation Techniques for Pancreatic Cystic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) represent an increasingly diagnosed condition with significant burden to patients' lives and medical resources. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) ablation techniques have been utilized to treat focal pancreatic lesions. This systematic review with meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy of EUS ablation on PCL in terms of complete or partial response and safety. METHODS: A systematic search in Medline, Cochrane and Scopus databases was performed in April 2023 for studies assessing the performance of the various EUS ablation techniques. The primary outcome was complete cyst resolution, defined as cyst disappearance in follow-up imaging. Secondary outcomes included partial resolution (reduction in PCL size), and adverse events rate. A subgroup analysis was planned to evaluate the impact of the available ablation techniques (ethanol, ethanol/paclitaxel, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and lauromacrogol) on the results. Meta-analyses using a random effects model were conducted and the results were reported as percentages with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). RESULTS: Fifteen studies (840 patients) were eligible for analysis. Complete cyst resolution after EUS ablation was achieved in 44% of cases (95%CI: 31-57; 352/767; I2 = 93.7%), and the respective partial response rate was 30% (95%CI: 20-39; 206/767; I2 = 86.1%). Adverse events were recorded in 14% (95%CI: 8-20; 164/840; I2 = 87.2%) of cases, rated as mild in 10% (95%CI: 5-15; 128/840; I2 = 86.7%), and severe in 4% (95%CI: 3-5; 36/840; I2 = 0%). The subgroup analysis for the primary outcome revealed rates of 70% (95%CI: 64-76; I2 = 42.3%) for ethanol/paclitaxel, 44% (95%CI: 33-54; I2= 0%) for lauromacrogol, 32% (95%CI: 27-36; I2 = 88.4%) for ethanol, and 13% (95%CI: 4-22; I2 = 95.8%) for RFA. Considering adverse events, the ethanol-based subgroup rated the highest percentage (16%; 95%CI: 13-20; I2 = 91.0%). CONCLUSION: EUS ablation of pancreatic cysts provides acceptable rates of complete resolution and a low incidence of severe adverse events, with chemoablative agents yielding higher performance rates.

Impact of center and endoscopist ERCP volume on ERCP outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopist experience and center volume might be associated with ERCP outcomes, as in other fields of endoscopy and in surgery. An effort to assess this relationship is important to improve practice. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate these comparative data and to assess the impact of endoscopist and center volume on ERCP procedure outcomes. METHODS: We performed a literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus through March 2022. Volume classification included high- and low-volume (HV and LV) endoscopists and centers. The primary outcome was the impact of endoscopist and center volume on ERCP success. Secondary outcomes were the overall adverse event (AE) rate and the specific AE rate. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data synthesis was obtained by direct meta-analyses using a random-effects model; results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Of 6833 relevant publications, 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. Procedure success was higher among HV endoscopists (OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.59-2.06; I2 = 57%) and in HV centers (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.22-2.57; I2 = 67%). The overall AE rate was lower for procedures performed by HV endoscopists (OR, .71; 95% CI, .61-.82; I2 = 38%) and in HV centers (OR, .70; 95% CI, .51-.97; I2 = 92%). Bleeding was less frequent in procedures performed by HV endoscopists (OR, .67; 95% CI, .48-.95; I2 = 37%) but did not differ based on center volume (OR, .68; 95% CI, .24-1.90; I2 = 89%). No statistical differences were detected concerning pancreatitis, cholangitis, and perforation rates. CONCLUSIONS: HV endoscopists and centers provide higher ERCP success rates with fewer overall AEs, especially bleeding, compared with respective LV comparators.

Performance and safety of motorized spiral enteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The introduction of motorized spiral enteroscopy (mSE) into clinical practice holds diagnostic and therapeutic potential for small-bowel investigations. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the performance of this modality in diagnosing and treating small-bowel lesions. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were performed through September 2022. The primary outcome was diagnostic success, defined as the identification of a lesion relative to the indication. Secondary outcomes were successful therapeutic manipulation, total enteroscopy rate (examination from the duodenojejunal flexion to the cecum), technical success (passage from the ligament of Treitz or ileocecal valve for anterograde and retrograde approach, respectively), and adverse event rates. We performed meta-analyses using a random-effects model, and the results are reported as percentages with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: From 2016 to 2022, 9 studies (959 patients; 42% women; mean age >45 years; 474 patients [49.4%] investigated for mid-GI bleeding/anemia) were considered eligible and included in analysis. The diagnostic success rate of mSE was 78% (95% CI, 72-84; I2 = 78.3%). Considering secondary outcomes, total enteroscopy was attempted in 460 cases and completed with a rate of 51% (95% CI, 30-72; I2 = 96.2%), whereas therapeutic interventions were successful in 98% of cases (95% CI, 96-100; I2 = 79.8%) where attempted. Technical success rates were 96% (95% CI, 94-97; I2 = 1.5%) for anterograde and 97% (95% CI, 94-100; I2 = 38.6%) for retrograde approaches, respectively. Finally, the incidence of adverse events was 17% (95% CI, 13-21; I2 = 65.1%), albeit most were minor adverse events (16%; 95% CI, 11-20; I2 = 67.2%) versus major adverse events (1%; 95% CI, 0-1; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: mSE provides high rates of diagnostic and therapeutic success with a low prevalence of severe adverse events.

Comparison between Enteroscopy-, Laparoscopy- and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Assisted Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreatography in Patients with Surgically Altered Anatomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), in surgically altered anatomy (SAA), can be challenging and the optimal technique selection remains debatable. Most common foregut interventions resulting to this burden consist of Billroth II gastrectomy, Whipple surgery and Roux-en-Y anastomoses, including gastric by-pass. This systematic review, with meta-analysis, aimed to compare the rates of successful enteroscope-assisted (EA)-, endosonography-directed transgastric- (EDGE), and laparoscopy-assisted (LA)-ERCP. METHODS: A systematic research (Medline) was performed for relative studies, through January 2022. The primary outcome was technical success, defined as approaching the ampulla site. Secondary outcomes included the desired duct cannulation, successful therapeutic manipulations, and complication rates. We performed meta-analyses of pooled data, and subgroup analysis considering the EA-ERCP subtypes (spiral-, double and single balloon-enteroscope). Pooled rates are reported as percentages with 95% Confidence Intervals (95%CIs). RESULTS: Seventy-six studies were included (3569 procedures). Regarding primary outcome, EA-ERCP was the least effective [87.3% (95%CI: 85.3-89.4); I2: 91.0%], whereas EDGE and LA-ERCP succeeded in 97.9% (95%CI: 96.4-99.4; I2: 0%) and 99.1% (95%CI: 98.6-99.7; I2: 0%), respectively. Similarly, duct cannulation and therapeutic success rates were 74.7% (95%CI: 71.3-78.0; I2: 86.9%) and 69.1% (95%CI: 65.3-72.9; I2: 91.8%) after EA-ERCP, 98% (95%CI: 96.5-99.6; I2: 0%) and 97.9% (95%CI: 96.3-99.4) after EDGE, and 98.6% (95%CI: 97.9-99.2; I2: 0%) and 98.5% (95%CI: 97.8-99.2; I2: 0%) after LA-ERCP, respectively. The noticed high heterogeneity in EA-ERCP results probably reflects the larger number of included studies, the different enteroscopy modalities and the variety of surgical interventions. Comparisons revealed the superiority of LA-ERCP and EDGE over EA-ERCP (p ≤ 0.001) for all success-related outcomes, though LA-ERCP and EDGE were comparable (p ≥ 0.43). ERCP with spiral-enteroscope was inferior to balloon-enteroscope, while the type of the balloon-enteroscope did not affect the results. Most adverse events were recorded after LA-ERCP [15.1% (95%CI: 9.40-20.8); I2: 87.1%], and EDGE [13.1% (95%CI: 7.50-18.8); I2: 48.2%], significantly differing from EA-ERCP [5.7% (95%CI: 4.50-6.80); p ≤ 0.04; I2: 64.2%]. CONCLUSIONS: LA-ERCP and EDGE were associated with higher technical, cannulation, and therapeutic success compared to EA-ERCP, though accompanied with more adverse events.

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.