British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

A root cause analysis system to establish the most plausible explanation for post-endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer.

BACKGROUND : Missing upper gastrointestinal cancer (UGIC) at endoscopy may prevent curative treatment. We have developed a root cause analysis system for potentially missed UGICs at endoscopy (post-endoscopy UGIC [PEUGIC]) to establish the most plausible explanations. METHODS : The electronic records of patients with UGIC at two National Health Service providers were examined. PEUGICs were defined as UGICs diagnosed 6-36 months after an endoscopy that did not diagnose cancer. An algorithm based on the World Endoscopy Organization post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer algorithm was developed to categorize and identify potentially avoidable PEUGICs. RESULTS : Of 1327 UGICs studied, 89 (6.7 %) were PEUGICs (patient median [IQR] age at endoscopy 73.5 (63.5-81.0); 60.7 % men). Of the PEUGICs, 40 % were diagnosed in patients with Barrett's esophagus. PEUGICs were categorized as: A - lesion detected, adequate assessment and decision-making, but PEUGIC occurred (16.9 %); B - lesion detected, inadequate assessment or decision-making (34.8 %); C - possible missed lesion, endoscopy and decision-making adequate (8.9 %); D - possible missed lesion, endoscopy or decision-making inadequate (33.7 %); E - deviated from management pathway but appropriate (5.6 %); F - deviated inappropriately from management pathway (3.4 %). The majority of PEUGICs (71 %) were potentially avoidable and in 45 % the cancer outcome could have been different if it had been diagnosed on the initial endoscopy. There was a negative correlation between endoscopists' mean annual number of endoscopies and the technically attributable PEUGIC rate (correlation coefficient -0.57; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION : Missed opportunities to avoid PEUGIC were identified in 71 % of cases. Root cause analysis can standardize future investigation of PEUGIC and guide quality improvement efforts.

Assessment of the role of the Edinburgh dysphagia score in referral triage in a national service evaluation of the urgent suspected upper gastrointestinal cancer pathway.

BACKGROUND: The British Society of Gastroenterology has recommended the Edinburgh Dysphagia Score (EDS) to risk-stratify dysphagia referrals during the endoscopy COVID recovery phase. AIMS: External validation of the diagnostic accuracy of EDS and exploration of potential changes to improve its diagnostic performance. METHODS: A prospective multicentre study of consecutive patients referred with dysphagia on an urgent suspected upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer pathway between May 2020 and February 2021. The sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) of EDS were calculated. Variables associated with UGI cancer were identified by forward stepwise logistic regression and a modified Cancer Dysphagia Score (CDS) developed. RESULTS: 1301 patients were included from 19 endoscopy providers; 43% male; median age 62 (IQR 51-73) years. 91 (7%) UGI cancers were diagnosed, including 80 oesophageal, 10 gastric and one duodenal cancer. An EDS ≥3.5 had a sensitivity of 96.7 (95% CI 90.7-99.3)% and an NPV of 99.3 (97.8-99.8)%. Age, male sex, progressive dysphagia and unintentional weight loss >3 kg were positively associated and acid reflux and localisation to the neck were negatively associated with UGI cancer. Dysphagia duration <6 months utilised in EDS was replaced with progressive dysphagia in CDS. CDS ≥5.5 had a sensitivity of 97.8 (92.3-99.7)% and NPV of 99.5 (98.1-99.9)%. Area under receiver operating curve was 0.83 for CDS, compared to 0.81 for EDS. CONCLUSIONS: In a national cohort, the EDS has high sensitivity and NPV as a triage tool for UGI cancer. The CDS offers even higher diagnostic accuracy. The EDS or CDS should be incorporated into the urgent suspected UGI cancer pathway.

Controversies in ERCP: Technical aspects.

The aim of the series of papers on controversies of biliopancreatic drainage procedures is to discuss pros and cons of the varying clinical practices and techniques in ERCP and EUS for drainage of biliary and pancreatic ducts. While the first part focuses on indications, clinical and imaging prerequisites prior to ERCP, sedation options, post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis, and other related technical topics, the second part discusses specific procedural ERCP techniques including precut techniques and their timing as well as management algorithms. In addition, reviews on controversies in EUS-guided bile duct and pancreatic drainage procedures are under preparation.

Controversies in ERCP: Indications and preparation.

The aim of the series of papers on controversies of biliopancreatic drainage procedures is to discuss the pros and cons of the varying clinical practices and techniques in ERCP and EUS for drainage of biliary and pancreatic ducts. The first part focuses on indications, clinical and imaging prerequisites before ERCP, sedation options, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) prophylaxis, and other related technical topics. In the second part, specific procedural ERCP-techniques including precut techniques and its timing as well as management algorithms are discussed. In addition, controversies in EUS-guided bile duct and pancreatic drainage procedures are under preparation.

Deep sedation and anaesthesia in complex gastrointestinal endoscopy: a joint position statement endorsed by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), Joint Advisory Group (JAG) and Royal College of Anaesthetists (RCoA).

In the UK, more than 2.5 million endoscopic procedures are carried out each year. Most are performed under conscious sedation with benzodiazepines and opioids administered by the endoscopist. However, in prolonged and complex procedures, this form of sedation may provide inadequate patient comfort or result in oversedation. As a result, this may have a negative impact on procedural success and patient outcome. In addition, there have been safety concerns on the high doses of benzodiazepines and opioids used particularly in prolonged and complex procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy has evolved rapidly over the past 5 years with advances in technical skills and equipment allowing interventions and procedural capabilities that are moving closer to minimally invasive endoscopic surgery. It is vital that safe and appropriate sedation practices follow the inevitable expansion of this portfolio to accommodate safe and high-quality clinical outcomes. This position statement outlines the current use of sedation in the UK and highlights the role for anaesthetist-led deep sedation practice with a focus on propofol sedation although the choice of sedative or anaesthetic agent is ultimately the choice of the anaesthetist. It outlines the indication for deep sedation and anaesthesia, patient selection and assessment and procedural details. It considers the setup for a deep sedation and anaesthesia list, including the equipment required, the environment, staffing and monitoring requirements. Considerations for different endoscopic procedures in both emergency and elective setting are also detailed. The role for training, audit, compliance and future developments are discussed.

Late acute liver allograft rejection; a study of its natural history and graft survival in the current era.

BACKGROUND: Late acute rejection (LAR) after liver transplantation is often associated with poor clinical outcomes. We reviewed our experience of managing LAR in the current era to determine its natural history. METHODS: A database of 970 consecutive adult liver transplants was reviewed retrospectively. LAR was defined as histologically proven acute cellular rejection occurring more than 90 days after transplantation. RESULTS: The incidence of LAR was 11%, with a mean time of 565 days (median, 311 days; range, 90-2922 days) after transplantation. The highest rates for LAR were in seronegative hepatitis (17%), primary biliary cirrhosis (16%), and primary sclerosing cholangitis (13%) with an odds ratio of 2.3, 2.1, and 1.8, respectively. Logistic regression showed that younger recipients, primary biliary cirrhosis, and previous graft loss were independent predictors of LAR (P<0.001). Mean trough whole blood tacrolimus levels were at their lowest levels 1 week before the diagnosis of rejection (5.5 ng/mL; SD, 2.6) compared with levels of 7.7 ng/mL 4 weeks before rejection, showing a clear temporal relation. Graft survival was worse in those with LAR (P<0.01), whereas the best graft survival was among early acute rejection cases (85% 10-year survival; P<0.01). Poor response to treatment correlated with the development of ductopenic rejection (r=0.3; P<0.01). Approximately half with early ductopenic rejection eventually died (n=15). CONCLUSION: LAR continues to provide a risk to patient and graft survival: understanding risk factors may allow an improvement in monitoring and early intervention and so prevent early graft loss.