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.

Metabolic endoscopy: Today's science-tomorrow's treatment.

Obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis are increasing pandemic metabolic disorders. Lifestyle intervention (LSI) is the cornerstone treatment for these but is successful as standard care alone in only a few patients, given the modest weight loss at mid and long term. Conversely, bariatric surgery is the only proven effective treatment for these metabolic disorders, albeit offered only in a small percentage of cases because of its invasiveness and cost. The so-called endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs) include new, less-invasive technologies such as intragastric balloons, aspiration therapy, endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty, diversion devices, and duodenal mucosal resurfacing, currently at various stages of development. EBMTs, as an add-on to LSI, might represent an effective treatment filling the gap between medical and surgical management, taking into account, however, that obesity and its associated comorbidities constitute a chronic disease that needs lifelong therapy. In this review we describe the current scientific evidence surrounding EBMTs as well as future opportunities for such treatments in managing obesity and metabolic disorders.

ESGE and ESGENA Position Statement on gastrointestinal endoscopy and the COVID-19 pandemic.

We are currently living in the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic that imposes a significant stress on health care providers and facilities. Europe is severely affected with an exponential increase in incident infections and deaths. The clinical manifestations of COVID-19 can be subtle, encompassing a broad spectrum from asymptomatic mild disease to severe respiratory illness. Health care professionals in endoscopy units are at increased risk of infection from COVID-19. Infection prevention and control has been shown to be dramatically effective in assuring the safety of both health care professionals and patients. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (www.esge.com) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (www.esgena.org) are joining forces to provide guidance during this pandemic to help assure the highest level of endoscopy care and protection against COVID-19 for both patients and endoscopy unit personnel. This guidance is based upon the best available evidence regarding assessment of risk during the current status of the pandemic and a consensus on which procedures to perform and the priorities on resumption. We appreciate the gaps in knowledge and evidence, especially on the proper strategy(ies) for the resumption of normal endoscopy practice during the upcoming phases and end of the pandemic and therefore a list of potential research questions is presented. New evidence may result in an updated statement.

Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of acute pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with computed tomography (CT) in assessing acute pancreatitis (AP) and to explore the correlation between MRI findings and clinical outcome. METHODS: Patients with AP were investigated by contrast-enhanced CT and MRI on admission and 7 and 30 days thereafter. MRI was performed with intravenous secretin and contrast medium. Balthazar's grading system was used to measure CT and MRI severity indices (CTSI and MRSI, respectively). RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients (median age, 47 years; range, 15-86) were studied. AP was of biliary etiology in 19 patients (49%). On admission, AP was assessed clinically as severe in 7 patients (18%). A strong correlation was demonstrated between CTSI and MRSI on admission and 7 days later. MRSI on admission correlated with the following: the Ranson score, C-reactive protein levels 48 hours after admission, duration of hospitalization, and clinical outcome regarding morbidity, including local and systemic complications. Considering the Ranson score as the gold standard, MRI detected severe AP with 83% (58-96, 95% CI) sensitivity, 91% (68-98) specificity vs. 78% (52-93) and 86% (63-96) for CT. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography after i.v. secretin injection showed pancreatic duct leakage in 3 patients (8%). CONCLUSIONS: MRI is a reliable method of staging AP severity, has predictive value for the prognosis of the disease, and has fewer contraindications than CT. It can also detect pancreatic duct disruption, which may occur early in the course of AP.