Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on an interdisciplinary endoscopy unit in a German "hotspot" area: a single center experience.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Since December 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative pathogen of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has posed a pandemic threat to global health and has challenged health care system in all affected countries. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a combined study including a descriptive part about the changes in the daily work routine of an Interdisciplinary Endoscopic Unit (IEU) and a prospective analysis of patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 who required endoscopic interventions. Conclusively, we present the finding of a point-prevalence analysis in the staff of the IEU. RESULTS: We present effects of the COVID-19-related restructuring of processes in our interdisciplinary endoscopy unit (IEU) with respect to cancelation of examinations, relocation of staff to other departments, impact of SARS-CoV-2 on medical staff of the IEU, and supply of protective clothing. Additionally, we analyzed the cohort of COVID-19 patients: Sixteen endoscopic interventions were done in ten patients. In all patients with confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2, emergency endoscopies were required for relevant bleeding situations. Re-endoscopies were required only in critically ill COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The restructuring of processes in the IEU was feasible in short time, effective, and can also be applied broadly at least in developed countries [Garbe et al. in Gastroenterology 159:778-780, 2020; Repici A, Pace F, Gabbiadini R, Colombo M, Hassan C, Dinelli M, Group IG-CW, Maselli R, Spadaccini M, Mutignani M, Gabbrielli A, Signorelli C, Spada C, Leoni P, Fabbri C, Segato S, Gaffuri N, Mangiavillano B, Radaelli F, Salerno R, Bargiggia S, Maroni L, Benedetti A, Occhipinti P, De Grazia F, Ferraris L, Cengia G, Greco S, Alvisi C, Scarcelli A, De Luca L, Cereatti F, Testoni PA, Mingotto R, Aragona G, Manes G, Beretta P, Amvrosiadis G, Cennamo V, Lella F, Missale G, Lagoussis P, Triossi O, Giovanardi M, De Roberto G, Cantu P, Buscarini E, Anderloni A, Carrara S, Fugazza A, Galtieri PA, Pellegatta G, Antonelli G, Rosch T, Sharma P (2020) Endoscopy units and the COVID-19 Outbreak: a Multi-Center Experience from Italy. Gastroenterology;]. The endoscopy-related rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection of staff is low, but supply of protective equipment is crucial for this. Endoscopic procedures in COVID-19 patients were not directly related to SARS-CoV-2 infection, but to other underlying diseases or typical complications of long-term ICU treatment.

Endoscopic negative pressure therapy with open-pore film drainage and open-pore polyurethane sponge drainage for iatrogenic perforation of the esophagus.

BACKGROUND: Management of iatrogenic esophageal perforation (IEP) is challenging. Endoscopic negative pressure therapy (ENPT) is an emerging and effective tool for the treatment of gastrointestinal and anastomotic leaks. We have used ENPT as first-line therapy for IEP since 2017. The aim of this study was to present our results with this strategy in patients with IEP. METHODS: Nine patients were treated with ENPT for IEP between August 2017 and August 2019. Their treatment characteristics, including duration of therapy, strategy used, and outcomes, were analyzed. Treatment included ENPT with open-pore film drainage (OFD) and open-pore polyurethane foam drainage (OPD). RESULTS: Early diagnosis (< 24 hours) of IEP occurred in four patients. After a mean (standard deviation) of 19.0 (13.5) days of ENPT, 6.4 (3.4) endoscopies, and 38.1 (40.3) days of hospitalization, endoscopic treatment was effective and successful in all of the patients. Additional video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) was done in four patients. CONCLUSIONS: ENPT is an effective new method for the management of IEP. ENPT with OFD and OPD can be combined with minimally invasive operative methods for sepsis control in IEP.

Analysis of Predictors and Risk Factors of Postpolypectomy Syndrome.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Postpolypectomy syndrome (PPS) is a relevant adverse event that can appear after polypectomy. Several publications mention postpolypectomy syndrome using different criteria to define it. The aim of this study is to detect potential risk factors and predictors for developing PPS and to define the main criteria of PPS. METHODS: In this retrospective monocentric study, 475 out of 966 patients who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy from October 2015 to June 2020 were included. The main criterion of PPS is defined as the development of postinterventional abdominal pain lasting more than six hours. RESULTS: A total of 9.7% of the patients developed PPS, which was defined as local abdominal pain around the polypectomy area after six hours. A total of 8.6% of the study population had abdominal pain within six hours postintervention. A total of 3.7% had an isolated triad of fever, leukocytosis, and increased CRP in the absence of abdominal pain. Increased CRP combined with an elevated temperature over 37.5 °C seems to be a positive predictor for developing PPS. Four independent risk factors could be detected: serrated polyp morphology, polypoid configurated adenomas, polyp localization in the cecum, and the absence of intraepithelial neoplasia. CONCLUSIONS: Four independent risk factors for developing PPS were detected. The combination of increased CRP levels with elevated temperature seems to be a predictor for this pathology. As expected, the increasing use of cold snare polypectomies will reduce the incidence of this syndrome. Key summary: Our monocentric study on 966 patients detected four independent risk factors for developing PPS: pedunculated polyp, resected polyps in the cecum, absence of IEN, and serrated polyp morphology. The combination of increased CRP levels with elevated temperature seems to be a predictor for this pathology.

Comparison of Two Endoscopic Therapeutic Interventions as Primary Treatment for Anastomotic Leakages after Total Gastrectomy.

INTRODUCTION: An esophagojejunal anastomotic leak following an oncological gastrectomy is a life-threatening complication, and its management is challenging. A stent application and endoscopic negative pressure therapy are possible therapeutic options. A clinical comparison of these strategies has been missing until now. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 14 consecutive patients endoscopically treated for an anastomotic leak after a gastrectomy between June 2014 and December 2019 was performed. RESULTS: The mean time of the diagnosis of the leakage was 7.14 days after surgery. Five patients were selected for a covered stent, and nine patients received endoscopic negative pressure therapy. In the stent group, the mean number of endoscopies was 2.4, the mean duration of therapy was 26 days, and the mean time of hospitalization was 30 days. In patients treated with endoscopic negative pressure therapy, the mean number of endoscopies was 6.0, the mean days of therapy duration was 14.78, and the mean days of hospitalization was 38.11. Treatment was successful in all patients in the stent-based therapy group and in eight of nine patients in the negative pressure therapy group. DISCUSSION: Good clinical results in preserving the anastomosis and providing sepsis control was achieved in all patients. Stent therapy resulted in anastomosis healing with a lower number of endoscopies, a shorter time of hospitalization, and rapid oral nutrition.

Analysis of the effects of the first and second/third waves of the COVID-19 pandemic on an Interdisciplinary Endoscopy Unit in a German 'hotspot' area: a single-center experience.

Background: Since December 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has posed a pandemic threat to global health. We are now in the fourth wave of this pandemic. As the pandemic developed, the requirements and therapeutic endoscopic procedures for SARS-CoV-2-positive patients underwent changes. Methods: Analysis of implications for an endoscopy unit during the first and second/third waves of the COVID-19 pandemic with a focus on COVID-19-related process changing. Addressed are number of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients and endoscopic examinations performed in patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the various waves, adherence to scheduled examinations, rotation of staff to COVID-dedicated structures and, finally, impact of vaccination on infection rate among endoscopic staff. Results: During the first wave, 10 SARS-CoV-2-positive in-house patients underwent a total of 22 gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. During the second and third waves, 59 GI endoscopies were performed in 38 patients. While in the first wave, GI bleeding was the main indication for endoscopy (82%), in the second and third waves the main indication for endoscopy was endoscopic insertion of deep feeding tubes (78%; p < 0.001). During the first wave, 5 (17%) of 29 Interdisciplinary Endoscopy Unit (IEU) staff members were moved to designated COVID wards, which was not necessary during the following waves. Lack of protective clothing was critical during the first wave, but not in the later waves. Screening tests for patients and staff were widely available after the first wave, and IEU staff was vaccinated during the second wave. Conclusion: Strategies to ensure safe endoscopies with respect to preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from patients to staff were effective. Organizational adjustments allowed the routine program to continue unaffected. Indications for GI endoscopies changed over time: during the first wave, GI endoscopies were performed for life-threatening indications, whereas later supportive procedures were the main indication.