Prospective assessment of the accuracy of ASGE and ESGE guidelines for choledocholithiasis.

Background and study aims American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines recommend categorizing patients by risk for choledocholithiasis to determine management. The goal of our study was to compare the accuracy of criteria proposed in these guidelines. Patients and methods All patients with suspected choledocholithiasis at our institution were prospectively identified. Based upon initial test results, patients were categorized as low, intermediate, and high risk for choledocholithiasis per ASGE 2010 and 2019, and ESGE criteria. Patients were followed until 30 days post-discharge. Results of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP), endoscopic ultrasound, and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography were used as criteria standard for choledocholithiasis. The accuracy of each criterion for choledocholithiasis was computed. Results During the study period, 359 consecutive patients with suspected choledocholithiasis were identified, of whom 225 had choledocholithiasis. Median patient age was 69 years and 55.3% were women. ESGE criteria categorized 47.9% as high-risk, lower than ASGE 2010 (62.7%, P <0.01), and 2019 criteria (54.6%, P =0.07). In high-risk patients, choledocholithiasis was noted in 83.1% for ESGE criteria, similar for ASGE 2019 (81.6%, P =0.7) and 2010 criteria (79.1%, P =0.3). The percentage of patients who underwent unnecessary ERCP was 8.1% per ESGE criteria, lower than ASGE 2010 (13.1%, P =0.03), but similar to 2019 criteria (10%, P =0.4). No difference in accuracy for choledocholithiasis was noted among the three criteria. No 30-day readmissions for choledocholithiasis were noted in the low-risk category. Conclusions ESGE and ASGE guidelines have similar accuracy for diagnosis of choledocholithiasis. However, ESGE criteria result in more patients needing additional testing, but also a smaller proportion of patients undergoing unnecessary ERCP.

Coronavirus disease-2019: implications for the gastroenterologist.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the practicing gastroenterologist in several ways. Although majority of COVID-19 patients present with respiratory symptoms, gastrointestinal symptoms are also seen. COVID-19 has also disrupted gastrointestinal endoscopy services in numerous ways. There are also concerns regarding the impact of these changes on gastrointestinal cancer screening and management of chronic gastrointestinal diseases. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the implications of COVID-19 for the practicing gastroenterologist. RECENT FINDINGS: COVID-19 patients can have gastrointestinal symptoms including diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, abdominal pain and anorexia. Separate from the management of COVID-19 patients, there has been a reduction in endoscopy volume worldwide. This has also resulted in reduction/cessation of in-person clinic visits and an increasing use of telemedicine services. In addition, patients with certain chronic diseases like chronic liver disease or inflammatory bowel disease may have worse outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. SUMMARY: Gastroenterologists need to rapidly adapt to the challenges being faced and need to make both systems and practice-based changes to the endoscopy unit and outpatient clinic practices. Gastroenterologists should stay up-to-date with the rapidly evolving literature regarding gastrointestinal symptoms in COVID-19 patients as well as its impact on chronic gastrointestinal illnesses.

Patients over Age 75 Are at Increased Risk of Emergency Department Visit and Hospitalization Following Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: The age to stop screening or surveillance colonoscopy is not well established, and unplanned hospital use after colonoscopy in the elderly is not well understood. AIMS: To evaluate unplanned emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalization in patients over 75 within 7 days of outpatient colonoscopy. METHODS: In this retrospective, single-center, cohort study, we reviewed outpatient screening or surveillance colonoscopies in patients ≥ 50 in a tertiary care academic medical center or affiliated facility between January 2008 and September 2013. Colonoscopies were divided by age based on USPSTF recommendations. The rate of ED visits and hospitalizations per colonoscopy for each age-group was determined. Predictors of ED visit and hospitalization were assessed through univariate and multivariate logistic regressions, and mortality following colonoscopy was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: A total of 30,409 colonoscopies were performed in 27,173 patients (51% male) by 40 endoscopists. ED visits occurred after 188 colonoscopies (0.62%). Age over 75 years was independently associated with ED visit (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.05-2.37, p = 0.027) and hospitalization (OR 3.7, 95% CI 2.03-6.73, p < 0.001) within 7 days of colonoscopy. Higher number of medication classes, recent ED visit, polypectomy, and endoscopic mucosal resection were also independent variables associated with ED utilization after procedure. The mortality rate at the end of the follow-up (median 4.4; IQR 2.7-6 years) was 1.9, 8.6, and 15.8% for the age-groups 50-75, 76-85, and > 85 years, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients over age 75 are 1.6 times as likely to use the ED and 3.7 times as likely to be hospitalized after colonoscopy. Further prospective studies are needed to assess the risk/benefit of nondiagnostic colonoscopy in geriatric patients.

Prospective assessment of the effectiveness of standard high-level disinfection for echoendoscopes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Duodenoscopes have been implicated in the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). Echoendoscopes could potentially transmit infection. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of standard high-level disinfection (HLD) for radial and linear echoendoscopes and to compare it with that of duodenoscopes. METHODS: We performed a prospective single-center study sampling echoendoscopes immediately before use, from the working channel (radial and linear echoendoscopes) and the transducer (radial echoendoscope) or elevator mechanism and transducer (linear echoendoscope). The primary outcome was the proportion of echoendoscopes with any culture showing ≥1 MDRO; secondary outcomes included bacterial growth >0 colony forming units (CFUs) and ≥10 CFUs on either sampling location. We compared these findings with duodenoscope cultures from the previously published DISINFECTS trial. RESULTS: During the study period, 101 echoendoscopes were sampled (n = 50 radial echoendoscopes, n = 51 linear echoendoscopes). No MDROs were recovered. Bacterial growth >0 CFUs was noted in 6% and ≥10 CFUs in 3% of all echoendoscopes. There was no significant difference in growth between radial and linear echoendoscopes (P = .4 for >0 CFU growth; P = .6 for ≥10 CFUs growth). The proportion of transducer and/or elevator mechanism positive for bacterial growth was significantly higher in duodenoscopes as compared with echoendoscopes (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: After standard HLD, no echoendoscope showed MDRO growth, 6% showed >0 CFUs, and 3% showed ≥10 CFUs bacterial growth. Bacterial growth was higher in duodenoscopes at the level of the transducer and/or elevator mechanism when compared with echoendoscopes.

Prospective assessment of consensus criteria for evaluation of patients with suspected choledocholithiasis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines have proposed criteria to stratify patients into low, intermediate and high risk of choledocholithiasis. The criteria include variables that are readily available in clinical practice. The objective of the present study was to prospectively assess the accuracy of these criteria. METHODS: A prospective observational cohort study was conducted at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. All adult patients referred for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with suspected choledocholithiasis were considered for inclusion. ASGE criteria were applied, and each patient was categorized as high, intermediate or low risk for choledocholithiasis. Presence of stone at ERCP served as criteria standard. RESULTS: During the study period, 402 patients met study inclusion criteria and 336 were reported in the final analysis. Of the 244 patients in the high risk for choledocholithiasis group, 185 were found to have stones at ERCP (75.8%, 95% CI 70.2-80.1%). Of the 92 patients in the intermediate risk for choledocholithiasis group, 45 had stones at ERCP (48.9%, 95% CI 38.8-59.1%); P-value for difference between groups = 0.001. Diagnostic accuracy for choledocholithiasis in the high-risk group was 69.05%, and for the intermediate group was 39.95%. Presence of choledocholithiasis on pre-ERCP imaging (OR: 3.6; 95% CI 2.2-6.0; P < 0.01), and bilirubin >1.8 but <4 mg/dL (OR: 1.69; 95% CI 1.0-2.8; P < 0.04) were the strongest predictors of choledocholithiasis. No additional variable that improved accuracy of ASGE criteria was identified. CONCLUSION: ASGE criteria stratify patients by risk for choledocholithiasis and can be used in routine clinical practice.

Development and validation of the PROcedural Sedation Assessment Survey (PROSAS) for assessment of procedural sedation quality.

BACKGROUND: More than 20 million invasive procedures are performed annually in the United States. The vast majority are performed with moderate sedation or deep sedation, yet there is limited understanding of the drivers of sedation quality and patient satisfaction. Currently, the major gap in quality assurance for invasive procedures is the lack of procedural sedation quality measures. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a robust, patient-centered measure of procedural sedation quality, the PROcedural Sedation Assessment Survey (PROSAS). DESIGN: Through a series of interviews with patients, proceduralists, nurses, anesthesiologists, and an interactive patient focus group, major domains influencing procedural sedation quality were used to create a multipart survey. The pilot survey was administered and revised in sequential cohorts of adults receiving moderate sedation for GI endoscopy. After revision, the PROSAS was administered to a validation cohort. SETTING: GI endoscopy unit. PATIENTS: A expert panel of proceduralists, nurses, and anesthesiologists, an initial survey development cohort of 40 patients, and a validation cohort of 858 patients undergoing sedation for outpatient GI endoscopy with additional surveys completed by the gastroenterologist, procedure nurse, and recovery nurse. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASUREMENTS: Survey characteristics of the PROSAS. RESULTS: Patients were able to independently complete the PROSAS after procedural sedation before discharge. Of the patients, 91.6% reported minimal discomfort; however, 8.4% of patients reported significant discomfort and 2.4% of patients experienced hemodynamic and/or respiratory instability. There was a high correlation between patient-reported intraprocedure discomfort and both clinician assessments of procedural discomfort and patient recall of procedural pain 24 to 48 hours post procedure (P < .001 for all), suggesting high external validity. LIMITATIONS: Single-center study, variability of sedation technique between providers, inclusion of patients with chronic pain taking analgesics. CONCLUSIONS: The PROSAS is a clinically relevant, patient-centered, easily administered instrument that allows for standardized evaluation of procedural sedation quality. The PROSAS may be useful in both research and clinical settings.

A prospective assessment of sedation-related adverse events and patient and endoscopist satisfaction in ERCP with anesthesiologist-administered sedation.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing use of anesthesiologist-administered sedation for monitored anesthesia care (MAC) or general anesthesia in patients undergoing ERCP, limited prospective data exist on the effectiveness, safety, and cost of this approach. OBJECTIVE: To prospectively assess sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs), patient- and procedure-related risk factors associated with SRAEs, and endoscopist and patient satisfaction with anesthesiologist-administered sedation. DESIGN: Single-center, prospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary-care referral center. PATIENTS: A total of 528 consecutive patients undergoing ERCP. INTERVENTIONS: Anesthesiologist-administered MAC or general anesthesia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: SRAEs, endoscopist and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: There were 120 intraprocedure SRAEs during 109 of the 528 ERCPs (21% of cases). Intraprocedure SRAEs included hypotension (38 events), arrhythmia (20 events), O(2) desaturation to less than 85% (66 events), unplanned intubation (16 events), and procedure termination (1 event). Thirty postprocedure SRAEs occurred in a total of 22 patients (4% of cases), including hypotension (5 events), endotracheal intubation (2 events), and arrhythmia (12 events). Patient-related variables associated with adverse intraprocedure events were American Society of Anesthesiologists class (P = .004) and body mass index (kg/m(2)) (P = .02). On a 10-point scale, mean endoscopist satisfaction with sedation was 9.2 (standard deviation 1.8) and patient satisfaction with sedation was 9.9 (standard deviation 0.7). LIMITATIONS: The approach to sedation was not randomized. CONCLUSIONS: Higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class and body mass index are associated with an increased rate of cardiac and respiratory events during ERCP. Cardiac and respiratory events are generally minor, and MAC can be considered a safe option for most ERCP patients. Despite the frequency of minor sedation-related events, procedure interruption or premature termination was rare in the setting of anesthesiologist-administered sedation.

The incidence and cost of unexpected hospital use after scheduled outpatient endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Data on complications of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are limited. We evaluated prospectively the incidence and cost of hospital visits resulting from outpatient endoscopy. METHODS: We developed an electronic medical record-based system to record automatically admissions to the emergency department (ED) within 14 days after endoscopy. Physicians evaluated all reported cases for relatedness of the ED visit to the prior endoscopy based on predetermined criteria. RESULTS: We evaluated 6383 esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs) and 11 632 colonoscopies (7392 for screening and surveillance). Among these, 419 ED visits and 266 hospitalizations occurred within 14 days after the procedure. One hundred thirty-four (32%) of the ED visits and 76 (29%) of the hospitalizations were procedure related, whereas 31 complications were recorded by standard physician reporting (P < .001). Procedure-related hospital visits occurred in 1.07%, 0.84%, and 0.95% of all EGDs, all colonoscopies, and screening colonoscopies, respectively. The mean costs were $1403 per ED visit and $10 123 per hospitalization based on Medicare standardized rates. Across the overall screening/surveillance colonoscopy program, these episodes added $48 per examination. CONCLUSIONS: Using a novel automated system, we observed a 1% incidence of related hospital visits within 14 days of outpatient endoscopy, 2- to 3-fold higher than recent estimates. Most events were not captured by standard reporting, and strategies for automating adverse event reporting should be developed. The cost of unexpected hospital visits postendoscopy may be significant and should be taken into account in screening or surveillance programs.