Establishment of standards for the referral of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: an international expert consensus using a modified Delphi process.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Resection of colorectal polyps has been shown to decrease the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. Large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps are often referred to expert centers for endoscopic resection, which requires relevant information to be conveyed to the therapeutic endoscopist to allow for triage and planning of resection technique. The primary objective of this study was to establish minimum expected standards for the referral of large nonpedunculated colonic polyps for potential endoscopic resection. METHODS: A Delphi method was used to establish consensus on minimum expected standards for the referral of large colorectal polyps among a panel of international endoscopy experts. The expert panel was recruited through purposive sampling, and 3 rounds of surveys were conducted to achieve consensus. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed for each round. RESULTS: A total of 24 international experts from diverse continents participated in the Delphi study, resulting in consensus on 19 statements related to the referral of large colorectal polyps. The identified factors, including patient demographic characteristics, relevant medications, lesion factors, photodocumentation, and the presence of a tattoo, were deemed important for conveying the necessary information to therapeutic endoscopists. The mean scores for the statements, which were scored on a scale of 1 to 10, ranged from 7.04 to 9.29, with high percentages of experts considering most statements as a very high priority. Subgroup analysis according to continent revealed some variations in consensus rates among experts from different regions. CONCLUSIONS: The identified consensus statements can aid in improving the triage and planning of resection techniques for large colorectal polyps, ultimately contributing to the reduction of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

Training in basic gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement.

This ESGE Position Statement provides structured and evidence-based guidance on the essential requirements and processes involved in training in basic gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. The document outlines definitions; competencies required, and means to their assessment and maintenance; the structure and requirements of training programs; patient safety and medicolegal issues. 1: ESGE and ESGENA define basic endoscopic procedures as those procedures that are commonly indicated, generally accessible, and expected to be mastered (technically and cognitively) by the end of any core training program in gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2: ESGE and ESGENA consider the following as basic endoscopic procedures: diagnostic upper and lower GI endoscopy, as well as a limited range of interventions such as: tissue acquisition via cold biopsy forceps, polypectomy for lesions ≤ 10 mm, hemostasis techniques, enteral feeding tube placement, foreign body retrieval, dilation of simple esophageal strictures, and India ink tattooing of lesion location. 3: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that training in GI endoscopy should be subject to stringent formal requirements that ensure all ESGE key performance indicators (KPIs) are met. 4: Training in basic endoscopic procedures is a complex process and includes the development and acquisition of cognitive, technical/motor, and integrative skills. Therefore, ESGE and ESGENA recommend the use of validated tools to track the development of skills and assess competence. 5: ESGE and ESGENA recommend incorporating a multimodal approach to evaluating competence in basic GI endoscopic procedures, including procedural thresholds and the measurement and documentation of established ESGE KPIs. 7: ESGE and ESGENA recommend the continuous monitoring of ESGE KPIs during GI endoscopy training to ensure the trainee's maintenance of competence. 9: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy training units fulfil the ESGE KPIs for endoscopy units and, furthermore, be capable of providing the dedicated personnel, infrastructure, and sufficient case volume required for successful training within a structured training program. 10: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that trainers in basic GI endoscopic procedures should be endoscopists with formal educational training in the teaching of endoscopy, which allows them to successfully and safely teach trainees.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Position Statement.

1: The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) adheres to the overarching principles of equality of opportunity, fair treatment, nondiscrimination, and diversity of health care professionals. 2: ESGE strongly supports the creation of collaborations within and between national and international endoscopy societies to disseminate the principles of diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) in the field of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. 3: ESGE aims to reflect the diversity of its membership in all its scientific and educational activities. 4: ESGE supports the fostering of collaborative work settings that empower all members of the endoscopy team to reach their full potential. 5: ESGE supports international and national endoscopy societies in promoting equitable access to high quality endoscopy training. 6: ESGE recommends the implementation of ergonomic principles in endoscopy units to prevent injuries and to provide adapted workplace conditions for personnel with disabilities and/or special needs. 7: ESGE recommends comprehensive mentorship, that includes diverse backgrounds, and equitable sponsorship for professional development, training, and academic excellence. 8: ESGE recommends that endoscopists actively identify, discuss, and attempt to accommodate reasonable patient preferences and expectations regarding endoscopy procedures. 9: ESGE advocates for educational and awareness campaigns targeting both health care professionals and patients, as well as the adoption of cost-effective health care strategies to address disparities and enhance equity in endoscopy care. 10: ESGE is committed to increasing support for underrepresented scholars and minorities pursuing research in endoscopy. 11: ESGE identifies mentorship and sponsorship as factors that may mitigate the barriers to academic careers for underrepresented endoscopy scholars. 12: ESGE recognizes the need to increase awareness of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the field of endoscopy and supports publications on these topics.

Efficacy of endoscopic interventions versus surgery for pain management in patients with chronic calcific pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic calcific pancreatitis (CCP) is a debilitating inflammatory condition characterized by the accumulation of calcific deposits in the pancreatic tissue, leading to chronic abdominal pain and functional insufficiencies. This study aims to systematically review and meta-analyse comparative studies assessing the efficacy of endotherapy versus surgery in managing CCP-related pain. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library (CENTRAL and CDSR), from inception to October 2023, were searched. The inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (NRS), and cohort studies comparing endoscopic interventions to surgery for pain management in patients with CCP. Pain relief, procedural technical success, and procedural-related complications were the outcomes of interest. Two review authors (CN, KK) independently assessed study eligibility criteria and performed data extraction. Using a random-effects model, pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. The level of certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Five studies were included. For the outcome of pain relief, a meta-analysis of five studies (3 RCTs and 2 cohort studies) demonstrated a significant therapeutic effect in favour of surgery with an OR of 2.36 (95% CI: 1.12 to 5.00, I2 = 41.70), with moderate level of certainty of evidence. In the analysis of five studies (3 RCTs, 1 NRS and 2 cohort studies), procedural technical success was comparable between the two groups (OR of 3.02, 95% CI: 0.47 to 19.59, I2 = 79.27%) as were adverse events (OR 1.31, 95% CI: 0.47 to 3.70, I2 = 50.93%). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that surgery may be more effective in relieving pain in patients with CCP compared to endoscopic interventions. Disease stage may be important to determine the appropriateness of each procedure. PROSPERO (CRD42023476153).

The Toronto Upper Gastrointestinal Cleaning Score: a prospective validation study.

BACKGROUND : Assessment of mucosal visualization during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) can be improved with a standardized scoring system. To address this need, we created the Toronto Upper Gastrointestinal Cleaning Score (TUGCS). METHODS : We developed the TUGCS using Delphi methodology, whereby an international group of endoscopy experts iteratively rated their agreement with proposed TUGCS items and anchors on a 5-point Likert scale. After each Delphi round, we analyzed responses and refined the TUGCS using an 80 % agreement threshold for consensus. We used the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to assess inter-rater and test-retest reliability. We assessed internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha and item-total and inter-item correlations with Pearson's correlation coefficient. We compared TUGCS ratings with an independent endoscopist's global rating of mucosal visualization using Spearman's ρ. RESULTS : We achieved consensus with 14 invited participants after three Delphi rounds. Inter-rater reliability was high at 0.79 (95 %CI 0.64-0.88). Test-retest reliability was excellent at 0.83 (95 %CI 0.77-0.87). Cronbach's α was 0.81, item-total correlation range was 0.52-0.70, and inter-item correlation range was 0.38-0.74. There was a positive correlation between TUGCS ratings and a global rating of visualization (r = 0.41, P = 0.002). TUGCS ratings for EGDs with global ratings of excellent were significantly higher than those for EGDs with global ratings of fair (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION : The TUGCS had strong evidence of validity in the clinical setting. The international group of assessors, broad variety of EGD indications, and minimal assessor training improves the potential for dissemination.

Gastrointestinal symptoms and complications in patients hospitalized due to COVID-19, an international multicentre prospective cohort study (TIVURON project).

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies suggest that coronavirus disease (COVID-19) commonly involves gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and complications. Our aim was to prospectively evaluate GI manifestations in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS: This international multicentre prospective cohort study recruited COVID-19 patients hospitalized at 31 centres in Spain, Mexico, Chile, and Poland, between May and September 2020. Patients were followed-up until 15 days post-discharge and completed comprehensive questionnaires assessing GI symptoms and complications. A descriptive analysis as well as a bivariate and multivariate analysis were performer using binary logistic regression. p<0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Eight hundred twenty-nine patients were enrolled; 129 (15.6%) had severe COVID-19, 113 (13.7%) required ICU admission, and 43 (5.2%) died. Upon admission, the most prevalent GI symptoms were anorexia (n=413; 49.8%), diarrhoea (n=327; 39.4%), nausea/vomiting (n=227; 27.4%), and abdominal pain (n=172; 20.7%), which were mild/moderate throughout the disease and resolved during follow-up. One-third of patients exhibited liver injury. Non-severe COVID-19 was associated with ≥2 GI symptoms upon admission (OR 0.679; 95% CI 0.464-0.995; p=0.046) or diarrhoea during hospitalization (OR 0.531; 95% CI 0.328-0.860; p=0.009). Multivariate analysis revealed that worse hospital outcomes were not independently associated with liver injury or GI symptoms. CONCLUSION: GI symptoms were more common than previously documented, and were mild, rapidly resolved, and not independently associated with COVID-19 severity. Liver injury was a frequent complication in hospitalized patients not independently associated with COVID-19 severity.

Scoring system assessing mucosal visibility of upper gastrointestinal tract: The POLPREP scale.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The proper visibility of mucosa during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is crucial for the detection of early upper gastrointestinal tract lesions. In contrast to colonoscopy, no validated scoring system for the assessment of upper gastrointestinal mucosal cleanliness has been developed so far. The aim of the study was to create and validate standardized grading system (POLPREP) to assess the mucosal cleanliness during EGD. METHODS: To assess the visibility of mucosa during EGD, 4-point scale was developed (0-3). Twelve operators assessed 18 images of esophagus, stomach, and duodenum twice (in 2 weeks interval). In validation round, the images and endoscopy reports of 443 EGDs performed in six centers were assessed. RESULTS: The inter-observer accordance of POLPREP was 0.8 (intra-class correlation coefficient; 0.79 consultants, 0.85 trainees). The intra-observer repeatability was 0.64 (Fleiss kappa value; 0.64 consultants, 0.64 trainees). The lesions detection rate was significantly higher in clean (scores 2 and 3; 19.7%) than in "unclean" segments (score 1; 7.7%, P = 0.049). Score 3 was associated with over three-fold higher lesion detection than score 1 (odds ratio 3.2, 95% confidence interval 1.1-9; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed POLPREP scale allows for unified assessment of upper gastrointestinal tract mucosal cleanliness. The higher cleanliness scores are related with greater upper gastrointestinal pathologies detection.

On the Track of New Endoscopic Alternatives for the Treatment of Selected Gastric GISTs-A Pilot Study.

Background and Objectives: GISTs (Gastrointestinal stromal tumors) are the most common mesenchymal gastrointestinal tract tumours and are mainly located in the stomach. Their malignant potential depends on size, location, and type. Endoscopic techniques are a less invasive modality for patients not eligible for surgery. ESD (endoscopic submucosal dissection) is mainly used for the removal of smaller GISTs, with intraluminal growth and a more superficial location. Thus, R0 resection capability in some cases may be not sufficient, limited by tumour size, location in the gastric wall, and its connection level with the muscularis propria. In such cases, an endoscopic full-thickness resection can become a new alternative. In this retrospective pilot study, we evaluated ESD and hybrid resection techniques in terms of safety, efficacy, and disease recurrence for selected types of gastric GISTs. Materials and Methods: A retrospective comparison was conducted in a group of patients who underwent ESD or a hybrid technique combining endoscopic resection with endoscopic suturing using the OverStitch system (HT) for type II or III gastric GISTs. A total of 21 patients aged 70 ± 8 years underwent endoscopic resection. Seventeen lesions were treated with ESD and four with the HT. Results: R0 resection was achieved in all patients treated using HT (type III lesions) and in 53% of those treated with ESD (p = 0.08). None of the type III lesions treated with ESD were excised with R0. Lesions treated with R0 ESD resections were significantly smaller (1.76 ± 0.35 cm) than those with R1 ESD resections (2.39 ± 0.40 cm) (p < 0.01). The mean lesion size treated with the HT was 2.88 ± 0.85 cm. Conclusions: HT may be a new resection modality for large gastric GISTs with high muscularis propria connection grades. Further studies are required to evaluate its safety and efficacy and to form precise inclusion criteria for endoscopic resection techniques.

Impact of COVID-19 on endoscopy trainees: an international survey.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected endoscopy services globally, the impact on trainees has not been evaluated. We aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on procedural volumes and on the emotional well-being of endoscopy trainees worldwide. METHODS: An international survey was disseminated over a 3-week period in April 2020. The primary outcome was the percentage reduction in monthly procedure volume before and during COVID-19. Secondary outcomes included potential variation of COVID-19 impact between different continents and rates and predictors of anxiety and burnout among trainees. RESULTS: Across 770 trainees from 63 countries, 93.8% reported a reduction in endoscopy case volume. The median percentage reduction in total procedures was 99% (interquartile range, 85%-100%), which varied internationally (P < .001) and was greatest for colonoscopy procedures. Restrictions in case volume and trainee activity were common barriers. A total of 71.9% were concerned that the COVID-19 pandemic could prolonged training. Anxiety was reported in 52.4% of respondents and burnout in 18.8%. Anxiety was independently associated with female gender (odds ratio [OR], 2.15; P < .001), adequacy of personal protective equipment (OR, 1.75; P = .005), lack of institutional support for emotional health (OR, 1.67; P = .008), and concerns regarding prolongation of training (OR, 1.60; P = .013). Modifying existing national guidelines to support adequate endoscopy training during the pandemic was supported by 68.9%. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to restrictions in endoscopic volumes and endoscopy training, with high rates of anxiety and burnout among endoscopy trainees worldwide. Targeted measures by training programs to address these key issues are warranted to improve trainee well-being and support trainee education.