Voluntary perioperative colorectal cancer registry from Kerala-An initial overview.

BACKGROUND: Although colorectal cancer (CRC) may not be uncommon in India, accurate data regarding its demographics and surgical outcomes is sparse. METHODS: With an aim to assess demographics and perioperative outcomes of CRC in Kerala, all members of Association of Surgical Gastroenterologists of Kerala (ASGK) were invited to participate in a registry. Data of operated cases of CRC were entered on a web-based questionnaire by participating members from January 2016. Analysis of accrued data until March 2018 was performed. RESULTS: From 25 gastrointestinal surgical centers in Kerala, 15 ASGK member hospitals contributed 1018 CRC cases to the database (M:F 621:397; median age-63.5 years [15-95 years]). Rectum (39.88%) and rectosigmoid (20.33%) cancers comprised the majority of the patients. Among them, preoperative bowel preparation was given to 37.68%, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was performed in 73%, covering stoma in 47% and had an overall leak rate of 3.58%. In colonic malignancies, MIS was performed in 56.74%, covering stoma created in 13% and had a leak rate of 2.71%. Of 406 patients with rectal cancers, neo-adjuvant radiotherapy/chemoradiotherapy was given to 51.23%. The mean hospital stay for MIS in both rectal and colonic cancer patients was significantly shorter than open approach (10.46 ± 5.08 vs. 12.26 ± 6.03 days; p = 0.001and 10.29 ± 4.58 vs. 12.46 ± 6.014 days; p = <0.001). Mortality occurred in 2.2% patients. CONCLUSION: A voluntary non-funded registry for CRC surgery was successfully created. Initial data suggest that MIS was performed in majority, which was associated with shorter hospital stay than open approach. Overall mortality and leak rate appeared to be low.

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.

Collaboration is Key - Bridging the Gap and Building an IR Endoscopy Practice.

While the tools and techniques employed by interventional radiologists on a day-to-day basis translate well to learning the skills required to perform basic endoscopic interventions, collaboration with other specialties is crucial to the success of an interventional radiology endoscopy program. As in any field in medicine, the paramount goal is to improve patient care. Adding the ability to directly visualize structures through an endoscope to certain interventional radiologic procedures may greatly augment the efficacy, safety, and success of interventional radiology procedures. Colleagues in urology, gastroenterology, and surgery should be involved in decision-making and treatment planning to ensure that a shared vision for optimal patient care is achieved.

Strategies to Improve Follow-up After Positive Fecal Immunochemical Tests in a Community-Based Setting: A Mixed-Methods Study.

OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening for colorectal cancer depends on timely colonoscopy follow-up of positive tests, although limited data exist regarding effective system-level strategies for improving follow-up rates. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods design (qualitative and quantitative), we first identified system-level strategies that were implemented for improving timely follow-up after a positive FIT test in a large community-based setting between 2006 and 2016. We then evaluated changes in time to colonoscopy among FIT-positive patients across 3 periods during the study interval, controlling for screening participant age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidity, FIT date, and previous screening history. RESULTS: Implemented strategies over the study period included setting a goal of colonoscopy follow-up within 30 days of a positive FIT, tracking FIT-positive patients, early telephone contact to directly schedule follow-up colonoscopies, assigning the responsibility for follow-up tracking and scheduling to gastroenterology departments (vs primary care), and increasing colonoscopy capacity. Among 160,051 patients who had a positive FIT between 2006 and 2016, 126,420 (79%) had a follow-up colonoscopy within 180 days, including 67% in 2006-2008, 79% in 2009-2012, and 83% in 2013-2016 (P < 0.001). Follow-up within 180 days in 2016 varied moderately across service areas, between 72% (95% CI 70-75) and 88% (95% CI 86-91), but there were no obvious differences in the pattern of strategies implemented in higher- vs lower-performing service areas. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of system-level strategies coincided with substantial improvements in timely colonoscopy follow-up after a positive FIT. Intervention studies are needed to identify the most effective strategies for promoting timely follow-up.

Five common errors to avoid in clinical practice: the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Endoscopists (AIGO) Choosing Wisely Campaign.

Modern medicine provides almost infinite diagnostic and therapeutic possibilities if compared to the past. As a result, patients undergo a multiplication of tests and therapies, which in turn may trigger further tests, often based on physicians' attitudes or beliefs, which are not always evidence-based. The Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists and Endoscopists (AIGO) adhered to the Choosing Wisely Campaign to promote an informed, evidence-based approach to gastroenterological problems. The aim of this article is to report the five recommendations of the AIGO Choosing Wisely Campaign, and the process used to develop them. The AIGO members' suggestions regarding inappropriate practices/interventions were collected. One hundred and twenty-one items were identified. Among these, five items were selected and five recommendations were developed. The five recommendations developed were: (1) Do not request a fecal occult blood test outside the colorectal cancer screening programme; (2) Do not repeat surveillance colonoscopy for polyps, after a quality colonoscopy, before the interval suggested by the gastroenterologist on the colonoscopy report, or based on the polyp histology report; (3) Do not repeat esophagogastroduodenoscopy in patients with reflux symptoms, with or without hiatal hernia, in the absence of different symptoms or alarm symptoms; (4) Do not repeat abdominal ultrasound in asymptomatic patients with small hepatic haemangiomas (diameter < 3 cm) once the diagnosis has been established conclusively; (5) Do not routinely prescribe proton pump inhibitors within the context of steroid use or long-term in patients with functional dyspepsia. AIGO adhered to the Choosing Wisely Campaign and developed five recommendations. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of these recommendations in clinical practice with regards to clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness.

The gastroenterologist's guide to management of the post-liver transplant patient.

The management of the post-liver transplant patient is complex and involves a large interdisciplinary team. After referral to a transplant center, evaluation and listing, and eventual transplantation, the patient is cared for closely by the transplant center. Once deemed ready for discharge, the patient returns to the primary care provider for ongoing management of the various issues that increase in incidence post transplant such as osteoporosis, cardiovascular, and renal diseases, as well as metabolic syndrome. The role of the gastroenterologist is not well defined, but certainly, he or she may be called upon for the initial evaluation and ongoing management of gastrointestinal as well as hepatobiliary issues. This includes but is not limited to the investigation of abnormal liver tests, non-specific gastrointestinal complaints such as nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea, biliary complications, and even recurrent hepatic disease. Having familiarity with post-transplant immunosuppressive agents, drug interactions, and potential infectious and malignancy-related complications of transplant is essential, as the primary gastroenterologist may be expected in some situations to field the initial work-up, if patient access to the transplant center is limited. The aim of this review is to summarize the gastroenterologist's role in the management of the post-liver transplant patient.

Split-dose bowel preparation improves adequacy of bowel preparation and gastroenterologists' adherence to National Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance Guidelines.

AIM: To quantify the impact of split-dose regimen on endoscopists' compliance with guideline recommendations for timing of repeat colonoscopy in patients with normal colonoscopy or 1-2 small polyps (< 10 mm). METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all endoscopy reports was undertaken in average-risk individuals > 50 years old with a normal screening colonoscopy and 1-2 small polyps. Data were abstracted from two time periods, pre and post-split-dose bowel preparation institution. Main outcome measurements were recommendation for timing of repeat colonoscopy and bowel preparation quality. Bivariate analysis by χ2 tests and Student's t-tests were performed to assess differences between the two cohorts. Multivariable logistic regression was used with guideline consistent recommendations as the dependent variables and an indicator for 2011 cohort as the primary predictor. RESULTS: Four thousand two hundred and twenty-five patients were included in the study; 47.0% (1987) prior to the institution of split dose bowel preparation, and 53.0% (2238) after the institution of split dose bowel preparation. Overall, 82.2% (n = 3472) of the colonoscopies were compliant with guideline recommendations, with a small but significantly increased compliance rate in year 2011 (83.7%) compared to year 2009 (80.4%, P = 0.005), corresponding to an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.25 (95%CI: 1.07-1.47; P = 0.005). Colonoscopies with either "Adequate" or "Excellent" had increased from 30.6% in year 2009 to 39.6% in year 2011 (P < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in poor/inadequate category of bowel preparation as there was a mild increase from 4.6% in year 2009 to 5.1% in year 2011 (P = 0.50). CONCLUSION: Split-dose bowel regimen increases endoscopists' compliance to guidelines in average-risk patients with normal colonoscopy or 1-2 small polyps.

Who is Responsible for What Happens Before, During, and After Colonoscopy? Results of a National Survey of Primary Care Physicians.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Primary care providers (PCPs) play a critical role in colon cancer screening by initiating referrals to gastroenterologists for colonoscopy, but little is known about their role in pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation selection and pre-colonoscopy follow-up care. This study aimed to better understand coordination of care between PCPs and gastroenterologists as well as the current availability of "open-access" screening colonoscopy. METHODS: A multiple-choice survey was developed to assess PCPs' experiences with open-access colonoscopy, their involvement in the pre-colonoscopy process, and follow-up after colonoscopy. The survey was distributed electronically to a nationally representative sample of PCPs, via the American College of Physicians (ACP) Research Center's Internal Medicine Insider Research Panel. RESULTS: Of 442 PCPs invited to participate, 210 responded (response rate, 210/442, 48%), and 29 were ineligible (spent <25% of their time on clinical care or placed no referrals to colonoscopy), yielding 181 completed surveys. A total of 39% reported that open access was "rarely" or "never" available in their practice setting. The majority reported that pre-colonoscopy care was coordinated by gastroenterologists rather than PCPs. For example, 93% reported that gastroenterologists were responsible for bowel preparation selection in their practice setting. Post-colonoscopy, 54% of PCPs reported that they were responsible for ordering subsequent colonoscopies. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs frequently coordinate follow-up care postprocedure but play a relatively minor role in the pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation process. Open access availability for screening colonoscopy remains limited in this national sample of PCPs.

Resistance to clarithromycin and gastroenterologist's persistence roles in nomination for Helicobacter pylori as high priority pathogen by World Health Organization.

Due to the increasing prevalence of clarithromycin resistance, future of management of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infections need to be recognized. To now, clarithromycin was the best effective, well-tolerated and safe antibiotic used in treatment of the bacterium, but, increasing trend of resistance reduced efficacy of recommended regimens. Indeed, gastroenterologists are mostly unable to start appropriate therapy-according to the sensitivity profile-due to the certain difficulties in routine H. pylori culture procedure and being time consuming method. This announcement by World Health Organization (WHO) was an onset to reconsider current challenging dilemma about H. pylori clarithromycin resistant isolates. Therefore, investigating of various factors affecting this nomination by WHO is highly welcomed. In fact, WHO enumerated more than 16 pathogens which seriously threats human life and public health, thus better management or effective guidelines are necessary. Here for the first time, we nominated this phenomenon as ''gastroenterologist's persistence'' which should be equally investigated as antibiotic resistance. The ability of gastroenterologists to win the game against H. pylori infections is highly influenced by their collaboration with diagnostic laboratories to apply susceptibility patterns before any prescription. In conclusion, closer collaboration between two important partners (gastroenterologists and microbiologists) in management of H. pylori infection may hopefully trigger an era to remedy current crisis in clarithromycin resistance, a later gastric cancer can be practically preventable.

Twelve-year experience of "radical but conservative" liver surgery for colorectal metastases: impact on surgical practice and oncologic efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Liver surgery for colorectal metastases (CLM) is moving toward parenchyma-sparing approaches. The authors reported the technical feasibility of parenchyma-sparing hepatectomy for deeply located tumors, but its impact on daily practice and long-term outcomes remain unclear. METHODS: The patients undergoing liver resection (LR) for CLM with vascular contact (first-/second-order pedicle or hepatic vein (HV) trunk) were considered. Those undergoing major hepatectomy were excluded. The authors' technique included tumor-vessel detachment, partial resection of marginally infiltrated HVs, and detection of communicating vessels (CVs) among HVs to preserve outflow after HV resection. RESULTS: Among 169 patients with major vascular contact, parenchyma-sparing LR was feasible in 146 (86%). Twenty-eight SERPS, 13 transversal hepatectomies, 6 mini-mesohepatectomies, and 4 liver tunnels were performed. Sixty-six (45%) patients underwent CLM-vessel detachment, 25 (17%) underwent partial HV resection, and 30 (21%) achieved outflow preservation by CV identification. The mortality and severe morbidity rates were 1.4% and 8.2%, respectively. The 5-year survival rate was 30.7%. The parenchyma-sparing strategy failed in 14 (7%) patients because of recurrence in the spared parenchyma or cut edge; 13 were radically retreated. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound-guided parenchyma-sparing surgery is feasible in most patients with ill-located CLMs. This procedure is safe and achieves adequate oncologic outcomes.

Person-centered endoscopy safety checklist: Development, implementation, and evaluation.

AIM: To describe the development and implementation of a person-centered endoscopy safety checklist and to evaluate the effects of a "checklist intervention". METHODS: The checklist, based on previously published safety checklists, was developed and locally adapted, taking patient safety aspects into consideration and using a person-centered approach. This novel checklist was introduced to the staff of an endoscopy unit at a Stockholm University Hospital during half-day seminars and team training sessions. Structured observations of the endoscopy team's performance were conducted before and after the introduction of the checklist. In addition, questionnaires focusing on patient participation, collaboration climate, and patient safety issues were collected from patients and staff. RESULTS: A person-centered safety checklist was developed and introduced by a multi-professional group in the endoscopy unit. A statistically significant increase in accurate patient identity verification by the physicians was noted (from 0% at baseline to 87% after 10 mo, P < 0.001), and remained high among nurses (93% at baseline vs 96% after 10 mo, P = nonsignificant). Observations indicated that the professional staff made frequent attempts to use the checklist, but compliance was suboptimal: All items in the observed nurse-led "summaries" were included in 56% of these interactions, and physicians participated by directly facing the patient in 50% of the interactions. On the questionnaires administered to the staff, items regarding collaboration and the importance of patient participation were rated more highly after the introduction of the checklist, but this did not result in statistical significance (P = 0.07/P = 0.08). The patients rated almost all items as very high both before and after the introduction of the checklist; hence, no statistical difference was noted. CONCLUSION: The intervention led to increased patient identity verification by physicians - a patient safety improvement. Clear evidence of enhanced person-centeredness or team work was not found.