Closing the Gap: A Critical Examination of Adherence, Inconsistency, and Improvements in Colonoscopy Reporting Practices.

INTRODUCTION: Comprehensive and standardized colonoscopy reports are crucial in colorectal cancer prevention, monitoring, and research. This study investigates adherence to national and international guidelines by analyzing reporting practices among 21 endoscopists in 7 German centers, with a focus on polyp reporting. METHODS: We identified and assessed German, European, American, and World Health Organization-provided statements to identify key elements in colonoscopy reporting. Board-certified gastroenterologists rated the relevance of each element and estimated their reporting frequency. Adherence to the identified report elements was evaluated for 874 polyps from 351 colonoscopy reports ranging from March 2021 to March 2022. RESULTS: We identified numerous recommendations for colonoscopy reporting. We categorized the reasoning behind those recommendations into clinical relevance, justification, and quality control and research. Although all elements were considered relevant by the surveyed gastroenterologists, discrepancies were observed in the evaluated reports. Particularly diminutive polyps or attributes which are rarely abnormal (e.g., surface integrity) respectively rarely performed (e.g., injection) were sparsely documented. Furthermore, the white light morphology of polyps was inconsistently documented using either the Paris classification or free text. In summary, the analysis of 874 reported polyps revealed heterogeneous adherence to the recommendations, with reporting frequencies ranging from 3% to 89%. CONCLUSION: The inhomogeneous report practices may result from implicit reporting practices and recommendations with varying clinical relevance. Future recommendations should clearly differentiate between clinical relevance and research and quality control or explanatory purposes. Additionally, the role of computer-assisted documentation should be further evaluated to increase report frequencies of non-pathological findings and diminutive polyps.

Perspectives on Referring for Rectal Cancer Surgery: a Survey Study of Gastroenterologist and General Surgeons in Iowa.

PURPOSE: To understand referral practices for rectal cancer surgical care and to secondarily determine differences in referral practices by two main hypothesized drivers of referral: the rurality of the community endoscopists' practice and their affiliation with a colorectal surgeon. METHODS: Community gastroenterologists and general surgeons in Iowa completed a mailed questionnaire on practice demographics, volume, and referral practices for rectal cancer patients. Rurality was operationalized with RUCA codes. RESULTS: Twenty-two of 53 gastroenterologists (42%) and 120 of 188 general surgeons (64%) (total 144/241, 60%) in Iowa responded. Most performed colonoscopies, including 22 gastroenterologists (100%) and 96 general surgeons (80%). Regular referral of rectal cancer patients to colorectal surgeons was reported for 57% of urban physicians affiliated with a colorectal surgeon, 33% of urban physicians not affiliated with a colorectal surgeon, and 57% and 72% of physicians in large and small rural areas, respectively, who were not affiliated with a colorectal surgeon. High surgeon volume, high hospital volume, and colorectal surgeon specialty were important factors in the referral decisions for over half the physicians. 69% of diagnosing urban general surgeons reported performing rectal cancer surgery about half the time or more, while 85% of small rural and 60% of large rural diagnosing general surgeons reported never or rarely performing rectal cancer surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosing physicians have variable rectal cancer referral practices, including consistency in referred to surgeon and prioritization of volume and specialization. Prioritizing specialized or high-volume rectal cancer surgical care would require changing existing referring patterns.

Combination of Enhanced Instructions Improve Quality of Bowel Preparation: A Prospective, Colonoscopist-Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate bowel preparation is highly important for the efficacy of colonoscopy; however, up to one-third of patients do not accomplish adequate bowel preparation. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the impact of the combination of enhanced instruction on the quality of bowel preparation and its impact on clinically relevant outcomes. DESIGN: This was a colonoscopist-blinded, prospective, randomized trial. SETTINGS: All patients received regular instructions for bowel preparation. Patients were randomly assigned to the control, telephone reeducation, and combined enhanced instruction groups. PATIENTS: Outpatients aged 19 to 75 years scheduled to undergo colonoscopy were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was adequate bowel preparation rate. RESULTS: A total of 311 patients were randomly assigned to the combined enhanced instruction (n = 104), telephone reeducation (n = 101), and control groups (n = 106). An intention-to-treat analysis showed that the adequate bowel preparation rate was higher in the combined enhanced instruction group than in the telephone reeducation and control groups (92.3% vs 82.2% vs 76.4%, p = 0.007). The rate of compliance with the instructions was significantly higher in the combined enhanced instruction group than in the telephone reeducation and control groups. Method of education was associated with proper bowel preparation (adjusted OR 17.46; p < 0.001 for combined enhanced instruction relative to control). LIMITATIONS: This was a single-center study conducted in Korea. CONCLUSIONS: Combined enhanced instruction as an adjunct to regular instructions much improved the quality of bowel preparation and patients' adherence to the preparation instructions. The combined enhanced instruction method could be the best option for bowel preparation instruction. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B673. LA COMBINACIN DE INSTRUCCIONES MEJORADAS, INCREMENTA LA CALIDAD DE LA PREPARACIN INTESTINAL ESTUDIO PROSPECTIVO, CONTROLADO, ALEATORIO Y CIEGO PARA EL COLONOSCOPISTA: ANTECEDENTES:La preparación adecuada del intestino es muy importante para la eficacia de la colonoscopia; sin embargo, hasta un tercio de los pacientes no logran buenos resutlados.OBJETIVO:Investigar el impacto de la combinación de instrucciónes claras en la calidad de la preparación intestinal y su impacto en los resultados clínicos.DISEÑO:Trabajo aleatorio, prospectivo y ciego para el colonoscopista.AJUSTES:Los pacientes recibieron instrucciones periódicas para la preparación intestinal. Fueron asignados aleatoriamente al grupo control, educación telefónica y de instrucción mejoradas.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes ambulatorios de 19 a 75 años programados para ser sometidos a colonoscopia.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El principal resultado fue una adecuada preparación intestinal.RESULTADOS:Un total de 311 pacientes fueron asignados al azar a la instrucción mejorada combinada (n = 104), reeducación telefónica (n = 101) y grupo de control (n = 106). El análisis estadístico mostró que la tasa de preparación intestinal adecuada fue mayor en el grupo combinado de instrucción mejorada que en los grupos de reeducación telefónica y control (92,3% vs 82,2% vs 76,4%, p = 0,007). La tasa de cumplimiento de las instrucciones fue significativamente mayor en el grupo de instrucción mejorada combinada que en los otros. El método de educación se asoció con una preparación intestinal adecuada (razón de posibilidades ajustada de 17,46; p <0,001 para la instrucción mejorada combinada en relación con el control.LIMITACIONES:Estudio en un solo centro realizado en Corea.CONCLUSIONES:La instrucción mejorada combinada como complemento de las instrucciones regulares mejoró mucho la calidad de la preparación intestinal y la adherencia de los pacientes a las instrucciones de preparación. El método de instrucción mejorado combinado podría ser la mejor opción para la instrucción de preparación intestinal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B673.

Gastroenterologists attitude in various clinical settings in the era of COVID-19 pandemic: An online Uni-National Israeli Survey.

ABSTRACT: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted our clinical practice. Many gastroenterologists have changed their attitudes toward various gastroenterological clinical settings. The aim of the present study is to explore the gastroenterologist's attitudes in several clinical settings encountered in the clinical practice.An online based survey was completed by 101 of 250 Israeli gastroenterologists (40.5%).Most of the participants were males (76.2%), and most of them were in the age range of 40 to 50 (37.6%). For all questionnaire components, the 2 most common chosen options were "I perform endoscopy with N95 mask, gloves and gown protection in a standard endoscopy room without preendoscopy severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing" and "Tend to postpone endoscopy until SARS-CoV-2 test is performed because of fear from being infected, or virus spreading in the endoscopy suite." Notably, 12 (11.9%) gastroenterologists were infected by Coronavirus disease 2019 during their work. Classifying the clinical settings to either elective and non-elective, most gastroenterologists (77.4%) chose the attitude of "I perform endoscopy with N95 mask, gloves and gown protection in a standard endoscopy room without SARS-COV-2 testing" in the nonelective settings as compared to 54.2% for the elective settings, (P < .00001), whereas 32.9% of the responders chose the attitude of "Tend to postpone endoscopy until SARS-COV-2 test is performed because of fear from being infected, or virus spreading in the endoscopy suite" in the elective settings (P < .00001).Gastroenterologists' attitude in various gastroenterological settings was based on the clinical indication. Further studies are needed to assess the long-term consequences of the different attitudes.

A Gastroenterologist' clinical experience in COVID 19 and in-hospital mortality and length of stay analysis.

OBJECTIVES: COVID19 pandemic has forced physicians from different specialties to assist cases overload. Our aim is to assess gastroenterologist's assistance in COVID-19 by assessing mortality, ICU admission, and length of stay, and seek for risk factors for in-hospital mortality and longer hospital stay. METHODS: A total of 41 COVID-19 patients assisted by gastroenterologist (GI cohort) and 137 assisted by pulmonologist, internal medicine practitioners, and infectious disease specialists (COVID expert cohort) during October-November 2020 were prospectively collected. Clinical, demographic, imaging, and laboratory markers were collected and compared between both cohorts. Bivariate analysis and logistic regression were performed to search for risk factors of mortality and longer hospital stays. RESULTS: A total of 27 patients died (15.1%), 11 were admitted to ICU (6.1%). There were no differences between cohorts in mortality (14.6% vs 15.4%;p = 0.90), ICU admission (12.1% vs 4%;p = 0.13), and length of stay (6.67 ± 4 vs 7.15 ± 4.5 days; p = 0.58). PaO2/FiO2 on admission (OR 0.991;CI95% 0.984-0.998) and age > 70 (OR 17.54;CI95% 3.93-78.22) were independently related to mortality. Age > 70, history of malignancy, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease were related to longer hospital stays (p < 0.001, p = 0.03, p = 0.04, p = 0.02 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 assistance was similar between gastroenterologist and COVID experts when assessing mortality, ICU admission, and length of stay. Age>70 and decreased PaO2/FiO2 on admission were independent risk factors of mortality. Age and several comorbidities were related to longer hospital stay.

Patients Undergoing Ileoanal Pouch Surgery Experience a Constellation of Symptoms and Consequences Representing a Unique Syndrome: A Report from the Patient-Reported Outcomes After Pouch Surgery (PROPS) Delphi Consensus Study.

BACKGROUND: Functional outcomes after ileoanal pouch creation have been studied; however, there is great variability in how relevant outcomes are defined and reported. More importantly, the perspective of patients has not been represented in deciding which outcomes should be the focus of research. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim was to create a patient-centered definition of core symptoms that should be included in future studies of pouch function. DESIGN: This was a Delphi consensus study. SETTING: Three rounds of surveys were used to select high-priority items. Survey voting was followed by a series of online patient consultation meetings used to clarify voting trends. A final online consensus meeting with representation from all 3 expert panels was held to finalize a consensus statement. PATIENTS: Expert stakeholders were chosen to correlate with the clinical scenario of the multidisciplinary team that cares for pouch patients, including patients, colorectal surgeons, and gastroenterologists or other clinicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A consensus statement was the main outcome. RESULTS: patients, 62 colorectal surgeons, and 48 gastroenterologists or nurse specialists completed all 3 Delphi rounds. Fifty-three patients participated in online focus groups. One hundred sixty-one stakeholders participated in the final consensus meeting. On conclusion of the consensus meeting, 7 bowel symptoms and 7 consequences of undergoing ileoanal pouch surgery were included in the final consensus statement. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by online recruitment bias. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to identify key functional outcomes after pouch surgery with direct input from a large panel of ileoanal pouch patients. The inclusion of patients in all stages of the consensus process allowed for a true patient-centered approach in defining the core domains that should be focused on in future studies of pouch function. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B571. LOS PACIENTES SOMETIDOS A CIRUGA DE RESERVORIO ILEOANAL EXPERIMENTAN UNA CONSTELACIN DE SNTOMAS Y CONSECUENCIAS QUE REPRESENTAN UN SNDROME UNICO: Un Informe de los Resultados Reportados por los Pacientes Posterior a la Cirugía de Reservorio (PROPS) Estudio de Consenso DelphiANTECEDENTES:Los resultados funcionales después de la creación del reservorio ileoanal han sido estudiados; sin embargo, existe una gran variabilidad en la forma en que se definen y reportan los resultados relevantes. Más importante aún, la perspectiva de los pacientes no se ha representado a la hora de decidir qué resultados deberían ser el foco de investigación.OBJETIVO:El objetivo principal era crear en el paciente una definición centrada de los síntomas principales que debería incluirse en los estudios futuros de la función del reservorio.DISEÑO:Estudio de consenso Delphi.ENTORNO CLINICO:Se emplearon tres rondas de encuestas para seleccionar elementos de alta prioridad. La votación de la encuesta fue seguida por una serie de reuniones de consulta de pacientes en línea que se utilizan para aclarar las tendencias de votación. Se realizo una reunión de consenso final en línea con representación de los tres paneles de expertos para finalizar una declaración de consenso.PACIENTES:Se eligieron partes interesadas expertas para correlacionar con el escenario clínico del equipo multidisciplinario que atiende a los pacientes con reservorio: pacientes, cirujanos colorrectales, gastroenterólogos / otros médicos.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:Declaración de consenso.RESULTADOS:Ciento noventa y cinco pacientes, 62 cirujanos colorrectales y 48 gastroenterólogos / enfermeras especialistas completaron las tres rondas Delphi. 53 pacientes participaron en grupos focales en línea. 161 interesados participaron en la reunión de consenso final. Al concluir la reunión de consenso, siete síntomas intestinales y siete consecuencias de someterse a una cirugía de reservorio ileoanal se incluyeron en la declaración de consenso final.LIMITACIONES:Sesgo de reclutamiento en línea.CONCLUSIONES:Este estudio es el primero en identificar resultados funcionales claves después de la cirugía de reservorio con información directa de un gran panel de pacientes con reservorio ileoanal. La inclusión de pacientes en todas las etapas del proceso de consenso permitió un verdadero enfoque centrado en el paciente para definir los dominios principales en los que debería centrarse los estudios futuros de la función del reservorio. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B571.

Should Common Bile Duct Exploration for Choledocholithiasis Be a Specialist-Only Procedure?

Background: Common bile duct exploration (CBDE) is performed uncommonly. Issues surrounding its uptake in the laparoscopic era include perceived difficulty and lack of training. We aim to determine the success of CBDE performed by "specialist" and "nonspecialist" common bile duct (CBD) surgeons to determine whether there is a substantial difference in success and safety. Methods: A 10-year retrospective audit was performed of patients undergoing CBD exploration for choledocholithiasis. Northern Health maintains an on-call available "specialist" CBD surgeon roster to aid with CBDE. Results: Five hundred fifty-one patients were identified, of which 489/551 (88.7%) patients had stones successfully cleared. Specialists had a higher success rate (90.8% versus 82.6%, P = .008), associated with a longer surgical time. Method (transcystic or transductal), approach (laparoscopic or open), and indication for operation were similar between groups. There was no significant difference in complications. To be confident of a surgeon having an 80% success rate, 70 procedures over 10 years were required, however, an "in-control" 50% success rate may only require 1 procedure per year. Conclusion: While specialist CBDE surgeons have improved success rates, nonspecialist general surgeons also have a good and comparable success rate with an equivalent complication rate. With realistic annual targets, nonspecialist CBD surgeons should be encouraged to perform CBDE in centers without specialist support.

Provider Viewpoints in the Management and Referral of Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with rectal cancer treated at specialized or high-volume hospitals have better outcomes, but a minority of these patients are treated there. Physician recommendations are important considerations for patients with rectal cancer when making treatment decisions, yet little is known about the factors that affect these physician referral patterns. METHODS: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted in 2018-2019 with Iowa gastroenterologists (GIs) and general surgeons (GSs) who performed colonoscopies in a community setting. A thematic approach was used to analyze and code qualitative data. RESULTS: We interviewed 10 GIs and 6 GSs with self-reported averages of 15.5 y in practice, 1100 endoscopic procedures annually, and 6 rectal cancer diagnoses annually. Physicians believed surgeon experience and colorectal specialization were directly related to positive outcomes in rectal cancer resections. Most GSs performed resections on patients they diagnosed and typically only referred patients to colorectal surgeons (CRS) in complex cases. Conversely, GIs generally referred to CRS in all cases. Adhering to existing referral patterns due to the pressure of health care networks was a salient theme for both GIs and GSs. CONCLUSIONS: While respondents believe that high volume/specialization is related to improved surgical outcomes, referral recommendations are heavily influenced by existing referral networks. Referral practices also differ by diagnosing specialty and suggest rural patients may be less likely to be referred to a CRS because more GSs perform colonoscopies in rural areas and tend to keep patients for resection. System-level interventions that target referral networks may improve rectal cancer outcomes at the population level.

Healthcare Provider Perspectives on Lowering Colorectal Cancer Screening Initiation Age to 45 Years: Results From a Survey of Clinicians in the U.S.

We conducted a survey of primary care clinicians and gastroenterologists (n = 938) between 11/06/19-12/06/19 to assess knowledge and attitudes regarding colorectal cancer screening. We assessed clinicians' attitudes toward lowering the colorectal cancer screening initiation age to 45 years, a topic of current debate. We also evaluated provider and practice characteristics associated with agreement. Only 38.1% of primary care clinicians endorsed colorectal cancer screening initiation at age 45 years, compared to 75.5% of gastroenterologists (p < .0001). Gastroenterologists were over 5 times more likely than primary care clinicians to endorse lowering the screening initiation age (OR = 5.30, 3.54-7.93). Other factors found to be independently associated with agreement with colorectal cancer screening initiation at age 45 years included seeing more than 25 patients per day (vs. fewer) and suburban (vs. urban) location. Results emphasize the need for collaboration between primary care clinicians and gastroenterologists to ensure that patients receive consistent messaging and evidence-based care.

Challenges for the future: the gastroenterology specialist workforce in New Zealand.

AIM: New Zealand has among the highest rates of colorectal cancer and inflammatory bowel disease in the world. With the imminent rollout of the National Bowel Screening Programme, we sought to determine the capacity of and demand faced by the current gastroenterology specialist workforce, and to compare it with other countries. METHOD: Specialists in gastroenterology were asked to complete a questionnaire on their education, number of FTE in the public and private sectors, number of colonoscopies performed, anticipated years to retirement and other associated information. Additional statistics were obtained from personal communication, visits to endoscopy units throughout the country and government datasets. RESULTS: In November 2017 there were 93 gastroenterologists in New Zealand, equating to 1.96 gastroenterologist specialists/100,000 population. The response rate was 55%. One quarter of gastroenterologists spent time working in general internal medicine additionally to gastroenterology in public hospitals. Fifty-one percent of gastroenterologists were older than 50 years and 42% aimed to retire within the next 10 years. Four of the 20 district health boards had no gastroenterologists in post. CONCLUSIONS: New Zealand has a lower specialist gastroenterologist ratio and older workforce compared with other comparable western countries and may struggle to meet the growing gastroenterology healthcare needs of the population. Substantial regional gastroenterology service inequities exist across the country.

Impact of COVID-19 outbreak on clinical practice and training of young gastroenterologists: A European survey.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 disease (COVID-19) is a major challenge for the healthcare system and physicians, imposing changes in daily clinical activity. AIMS: we aimed to describe what European trainees and young gastroenterologists know about COVID-19 and identify training gaps to implement educational programs. METHODS: A prospective web-based electronic survey was developed and distributed via e-mail to all members of the Italian Young Gastroenterologist and Endoscopist Association and to European representatives. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-seven subjects participated in the survey, of whom 14 (7.1%) were excluded. The majority were gastroenterologists in training (123, 67.7%) working in institutions with COVID-19 inpatients (159, 86.9%), aged ≤30 years (113, 61.8%). The activity of Gastroenterology Units was restricted to emergency visits and endoscopy, with reductions of activities of up to 90%. 84.5% of participants felt that the COVID-19 outbreak impacted on their training, due to unavailability of mentors (52.6%) and interruption of trainee's involvement (66.4%). Most participants referred absence of training on the use of personal protective equipment, oxygen ventilation systems and COVID-19 therapies. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 outbreak significantly impacted on gastroenterologists' clinical activity. The resources currently deployed are inadequate, and therefore educational interventions to address this gap are warranted in the next future.

Quality of Colonoscopy: A Comparison Between Gastroenterologists and Nongastroenterologists.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy performance by gastroenterologists has been shown to be associated with lower rates of developing interval colorectal cancer. However, it is unclear if this difference among specialists stems from a difference in meeting colonoscopy quality indicators. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine and compare the rates of colonoscopy quality indicators between different specialties. DESIGN: This is a cohort study of patients undergoing screening colonoscopy investigating quality metrics as compared by the proceduralist specialty. SETTING: All screening colonoscopies performed at the Cleveland Clinic between 2012 and 2014 were followed by manual chart review. PATIENTS: Average-risk patients, ≥50 years of age, who had a complete screening colonoscopy were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation rate, withdrawal time, and other nonestablished overall and segment-specific rates were calculated and compared using t tests. RESULTS: A total of 4151 patients were included in the analysis. Colonoscopies were performed by 54 (64.3%) gastroenterologists, 21 (25%) colorectal surgeons, and 9 (10.7%) general surgeons. Gastroenterologists had the highest overall adenoma detection rate (28.6 ± 1.2; p < 0.001), followed by colorectal surgeons (24.3 ± 1.5) and general surgeons (18.4 ± 2.3), as well as the highest adenoma detection rate in men (34.7 ± 1.3; p < 0.001), followed by colorectal surgeons (28.2 ± 1.6) and general surgeons (23.7 ± 2.6). Similarly, gastroenterologists had the highest adenoma detection rate in women (24.3 ± 1.1; p < 0.001), followed by colorectal surgeons (21.6 ± 1.4) and general surgeons (12.9 ± 2.0). Withdrawal time was the longest among general surgeons (11.1 ± 5.5; p = 0.041), followed by colorectal surgeons (10.94 ± 5.2) and gastroenterologists (10.16 ± 1.26). LIMITATIONS: We could not adjust for some procedure-related details such as retroflexion in the right colon and the use of end-of-scope devices. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, only gastroenterologists met the currently accepted overall and sex-specific adenoma detection rate benchmarks. They also outperformed nongastroenterologists in many other nonestablished quality metrics. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B232. CALIDAD DE LA COLONOSCOPIA: UNA COMPARACIÓN ENTRE GASTROENTERÓLOGOS Y NO GASTROENTERÓLOGOS: Se ha demostrado que el rendimiento de la colonoscopia por parte de los gastroenterólogos, se asocia con tasas más bajas de cáncer colorrectal en intervalos de desarrollo. Sin embargo, no está claro si esta diferencia entre especialistas, se deriva de una diferencia en el cumplimiento de los indicadores de calidad de la colonoscopia.El propósito del estudio, es determinar y comparar las tasas de indicadores de calidad de colonoscopia entre diferentes especialidades.Este es un estudio de cohorte de pacientes sometidos a una colonoscopia de detección, que investiga métricas de calidad en comparación con la especialidad de procesos.Todas las colonoscopias de detección realizadas en la Clínica Cleveland entre 2012 y 2014, fueron seguidas por una revisión manual del expediente.Pacientes de riesgo promedio, ≥50 años de edad que se sometieron a una colonoscopia de detección completa.La tasa de detección de adenomas, tasa de intubación cecal, tiempo de retirada y otras tasas generales y específicas de segmento no establecidas, se calcularon y compararon usando pruebas t.Un total de 4,151 pacientes fueron incluidos en el análisis. Las colonoscopias fueron realizadas por 54 (64.3%) gastroenterólogos, 21 (25%) cirujanos colorrectales y 9 (10.7%) cirujanos generales. Los gastroenterólogos tuvieron la tasa de detección más alta de adenomas en general (28.6 ± 1.2; p < 0.001), seguidos por los cirujanos colorrectales (24.3 ± 1.5) y los cirujanos generales (18.4 ± 2.3), así como la tasa de detección más alta de adenoma en hombres (34.7 ± 1.3; p < 0.001) seguido por cirujanos colorrectales (28.2 ± 1.6) y cirujanos generales (23.7 ± 2.6). Del mismo modo, los gastroenterólogos tuvieron la tasa más alta de detección de adenoma en mujeres (24.3 ± 1.1; p < 0.001), seguidos por los cirujanos colorrectales (21.6 ± 1.4) y los cirujanos generales (12.9 ± 2.0). El tiempo de extracción fue el más largo entre los cirujanos generales (11.1 ± 5.5; p = 0.041) seguido por los cirujanos colorrectales (10.94 ± 5.2) y los gastroenterólogos (10.16 ± 1.26).No pudimos ajustar algunos detalles relacionados con el procedimiento, tales como la retroflexión en el colon derecho y el uso de accesorios endoscópicos.En este estudio, solo los gastroenterólogos cumplieron con los índices de referencia actualmente aceptados, de detección de adenomas en general y específicas de género. También superaron a los no gastroenterólogos en muchas otras métricas no establecidas de calidad. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B232. (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).

Results of a national survey on the use of stents for the treatment of colonic obstruction. / Resultados de una encuesta nacional sobre el uso de stent para el tratamiento de la obstrucción de colon.

INTRODUCTION: We distributed a survey in order to determine the current indications for the use of colonic stents to treat colonic obstruction in Spain and its compliance with international guidelines. METHODS: Descriptive study of a survey distributed by the Spanish Association of Surgeons (Asociación Española de Cirujanos), the Catalan Society of Surgery (Societat Catalana de Cirurgia) and the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy (Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva). RESULTS: 340 valid responses were received: 25% from gastrointestinal specialists, and 75% from general surgeons. During the last year, 44.4% of respondents assessed between 10 and 20 COC. Of these, 52.2% indicated less than 5 stents/year, 75% of which were indicated as a prior step to preferential surgery and only 25% were performed with palliative intent. 55.3% of the participants reported knowing the official guidelines, and 64% of respondents would use the stent as a step prior to surgery in elderly patients with localized disease. 75.9% would place stents as palliative therapy in young patients with carcinomatosis, and 61.8% would use them in stage IV malignancies under treatment with chemotherapy. Only 18.1% knew of the risk of colon perforation after stent placement in patients undergoing treatment with antiangiogenics. CONCLUSIONS: In Spain, the indication for colonic stents is reserved for selected cases and varies according to the specialty and the years of experience of the respondent. The compliance with international guidelines of most respondents is moderate. It is important to insist on the high risk of perforation after angiogenics, which is unknown to most surgeons.

Immediate dilation in esophageal food impaction is safe and effective but performed infrequently: observations from a large Midwest US cohort.

This study aimed to determine the rate and safety of immediate esophageal dilation for esophageal food bolus impaction (EFBI) and evaluate its impact on early recurrence (i.e. prior to interval esophageal dilation) from a large Midwest US cohort. We also report practice patterns among community and academic gastroenterologists practicing in similar settings. We identified adult patients with a primary discharge diagnosis for EFBI from January 2012 to June 2018 using our institutional database. Pregnant patients, incarcerated patients, and patients with esophageal neoplasm were excluded. The primary outcome measured was rate of complications with immediate esophageal dilation after disimpaction of EFBI. Secondary outcomes were recurrence of food bolus impaction prior to scheduled interval endoscopy for dilation, practice patterns between academic and private gastroenterologists, and adherence to follow-up endoscopy. Two-hundred and fifty-six patients met our inclusion criteria. Esophageal dilation was performed in 46 patients (18%) at the time of disimpaction. A total of 45 gastroenterologists performed endoscopies for EFBI in our cohort. Twenty-five (62%) did not perform immediate esophageal dilation, and only 5 (11%) performed immediate dilation on greater than 50% of cases. Academic gastroenterologists performed disimpaction of EFBI for 102 patients, immediate dilation as performed in 20 patients and interval dilation was recommended in 82 patients. Of these 82, only 31 patients (38%) did not return for interval dilation. Four patients who did not undergo immediate dilation, presented with recurrent EFBI prior to interval dilation, within 3 months. None of the patients had complications. Complications with immediate esophageal dilation after disimpaction of EFBI are infrequent but are rarely performed. Failure of immediate dilation increases the risk of EFBI recurrence. Given poor patient adherence to interval dilation, immediate dilation is recommended.

Polyp Detection Rate Correlates Strongly with Adenoma Detection Rate in Trainee Endoscopists.

BACKGROUND: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a widely accepted quality benchmark for screening colonoscopy but can be burdensome to calculate. Previous studies have shown good correlation between polyp detection rate (PDR) and ADR, but this has not been validated in trainees. Additionally, the correlation between PDR and detection rates for sessile serrated polyps (SSPDR) and advanced neoplasia (ANDR) is not well studied. AIMS: We investigated the relationship between PDR and ADR, SSPDR, and ANDR in trainees. METHODS: We examined 1600 outpatient colonoscopies performed by 24 trainees at a VA hospital from 2014 to 2017. Variables collected included patient demographics, year of fellowship, colonoscopy indication, and endoscopic and histologic findings. We calculated the overall ratios of PDR to ADR, SSPDR, and ANDR to assess the correlation between measured and calculated ADR, SSPDR, and ANDR, which is equivalent to the correlation between PDR and measured ADR, SSPDR, and ANDR. RESULTS: The overall PDR, ADR, SSPDR, and ANDR were 72%, 52%, 2%, and 14%. PDR (48%) was highest in the left colon, while ADR (32%) and ANDR (7%) were highest in the right colon (p < 0.001 for all). The overall ADR/PDR, SSPDR/PDR, and ANDR/PDR ratios were 0.73, 0.03, and 0.20. Correlation between PDR and ADR was highly positive overall (r = 0.87, p < 0.0001) and stronger in the right (r = 0.91) and transverse (r = 0.94) colon than the left colon (r = 0.80). Correlation between PDR and overall SSPDR and ANDR were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: PDR can serve as a surrogate measure of ADR to monitor colonoscopy quality in gastroenterology fellowship.

The Diagnostic Performance for Colorectal Neoplasms Using Magnified Endoscopy Differs between Experts and Novice Endoscopists: A Post Hoc Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Magnified endoscopy is difficult for novice endoscopists because it requires both knowledge and skill of endoscopic diagnosis. The aim of this study was to examine the diagnostic performance of novice endoscopists on determining the invasive depth of colorectal neoplasms and compare it with that of experts. METHODS: The present study was conducted as a post hoc analysis. Thirty expert and 30 novice endoscopists who use magnifying endoscopy (narrow-band imaging [NBI] and pit pattern analysis) were recruited for the online survey. Novice endoscopist was defined as one who has <5 years of experience in magnifying endoscopy. Three outcomes were assessed: (a) diagnostic accuracy of both novice and expert endoscopists in determining the depth of invasion; (b) additional diagnostic accuracy of novice endoscopists in determining the depth of invasion with magnifying NBI or pit pattern compared with nonmagnifying white light imaging (WLI); (c) difference in confidence on diagnosis among each modality between novice and expert endoscopists. RESULTS: The area under the curve (AUC) of expert endoscopists was significantly higher than that of novice endoscopists. The AUC of the pit pattern was significantly higher than that of WLI regardless of lesion characteristics as determined by novice endoscopists. The proportion of answers with high confidence was significantly higher with expert endoscopists than with novice endoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: Aside from learning basic diagnosis of colorectal neoplasms, magnifying endoscopy may have substantial clinical benefit for novice endoscopists.

Learning Effect of Diagnosing Depth of Invasion Using Non-Extension Sign in Early Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Determining the depth of invasion is important when considering therapeutic strategies for early gastric cancer (EGC). We determined the effects of learning the non-extension sign, that is, an index of T1b2 in EGC, on identifying its depth of invasion. METHODS: Endoscopic images of 40 EGC cases (20 showing positive non-extension sign on endoscopy as T1b2 and 20 showing negative non-extension sign on endoscopy as T1a-T1b1) were randomly displayed on PowerPoint. Participants read endoscopy findings (pretest) and attended a 60-min lecture on how to read the non-extension sign. Then, they read the same images using the non-extension sign as the marker (posttest). The primary endpoint was a change in accuracy rate for determining the depth of invasion before and after attending the lecture, for nonexperts (< 80%). RESULTS: Among 35 endoscopists, 12 were nonexperts; their test results were used for analyses. Accuracy rates for pretest and posttest among nonexperts were 75.2 and 82.5%, respectively, showing a significant increase in the accuracy rate after learning to read the non-extension sign (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Nonexperts' diagnostic ability to determine the depth of invasion of EGC improved by learning to read the non-extension sign. Thus, the non-extension sign is considered a simple and useful diagnostic marker.

Propofol Sedation in the Endoscopy Room versus Operation Room during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Gastric Tumors: A Propensity Score-Matching Analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The present study was performed to compare the safety of sedation with propofol during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for gastric tumors under sedation in the endoscopy room by an endoscopist versus sedation in the operation room by an anesthesiologist. METHODS: In total, 638 patients with gastric tumors who underwent ESD from January 2011 to August 2017 at Ureshino Medical Center and Saga Medical Center Koseikan were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were divided into 2 groups: those who underwent ESD in the endoscopy room (Group E, n = 532) and those who underwent ESD in the operation room (Group O, n = 106). Propensity score matching was applied for evaluation. The treatment outcome of ESD and the adverse events of sedation during ESD (desaturation, hypotension, bradycardia, and arrhythmia) were compared between the 2 groups to consider the safety of ESD. RESULTS: The propensity score-matching analysis created 82 matched pairs. Adjusted comparisons between Groups E and O showed similar treatment outcomes of ESD for gastric tumors. There were no significant differences in the treatment outcomes, anesthesia time, and mean propofol dose between the 2 groups. With respect to adverse events, desaturation occurred more often in Group E than Group O (18.3 vs. 3.7%, respectively; p = 0.005). There were no significant differences in other adverse events (hypotension, bradycardia, and arrhythmia) between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Sedation with propofol in the operation room might be required to ensure safer application of ESD for gastric tumors. However, a decrease in the desaturation rate was the only disadvantage of sedation in the endoscopy room.

Difference in Physician- and Patient-Dependent Factors Contributing to Adenoma Detection Rate and Serrated Polyp Detection Rate.

BACKGROUND: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is correlated with the risk of interval colorectal cancer and is considered as a quality benchmark for colonoscopy. Serrated polyp detection rate (SPDR) might be a more stringent indicator of quality in polyp detection. AIMS: To evaluate in a 2-year monocentric observational study patient-dependent and endoscopist-dependent factors influencing ADR and SPDR in daily practice. METHODS: We determined ADR and SPDR. We collected patient-dependent factors and endoscopist-dependent factors. Links between these data and detection rates were assessed by uni- and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: A total of 11682 colonoscopies were performed (female: 54.3%; male: 45.7%; median age 58) by 30 endoscopists (female: 9; male: 21). ADR and SPDR were 29.2% and 8%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, ADR was associated with patient-dependent factors: age (OR 1.044, CI 95% 1.040-1.048), male gender (OR 1.7, CI 95% 1.56-1.85), personal history of polyp/cancer (OR 1.53, CI 95% 1.3-1.9), and positive fecal immunochemical test (OR 2.47, CI 95% 2.0-3.1). In multivariate analysis, SPDR was associated with withdrawal time (OR 1.25, CI 95% 1.17-1.32), low volume activity (OR 1.3, CI 95% 1.1-1.52), and personal history of polyp/cancer (OR 1.61, CI 95% 1.15-2.25). CONCLUSION: In this large series of routine colonoscopies, we found that ADR was mainly driven by patient-dependent conditions, i.e., age, male gender, colonoscopy indication for positive FIT, and a personal history of polyp or cancer. In contrast, SPDR was mainly related to endoscopist-dependent factor, i.e., withdrawal time and low volume activity.

Physicians' Perspectives on Palliative Care for Patients With End-Stage Liver Disease: A National Survey Study.

Specialty palliative care (PC) is underused for patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD). We sought to examine attitudes of hepatologists and gastroenterologists about PC for patients with ESLD. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of these specialists who provide care to patients with ESLD. Participants were recruited from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases membership directory. Using a questionnaire adapted from prior studies, we examined physicians' attitudes about PC and whether these attitudes varied based on patients' candidacy for liver transplantation. We identified predictors of physicians' attitudes about PC using linear regression. Approximately one-third of eligible physicians (396/1236, 32%) completed the survey. Most (95%) believed that centers providing care to patients with ESLD should have PC services, and 86% trusted PC clinicians to care for their patients. Only a minority reported collaborating frequently with inpatient (32%) or outpatient (11%) PC services. Most believed that when patients hear the term PC, they feel scared (94%) and anxious (87%). Most (83%) believed that patients would think nothing more could be done for their underlying disease if a PC referral was suggested. Physicians who believed that ESLD is a terminal condition (B = 1.09; P = 0.006) reported more positive attitudes about PC. Conversely, physicians with negative perceptions of PC for transplant candidates (B = -0.22; standard error = 0.05; P < 0.001) reported more negative attitudes toward PC. In conclusion, although most hepatologists and gastroenterologists believe that patients with ESLD should have access to PC, they reported rarely collaborating with PC teams and had substantial concerns about patients' perceptions of PC. Interventions are needed to overcome misperceptions of PC and to promote collaboration with PC clinicians for patients with ESLD.