Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Preoperative Vedolizumab and Postoperative Complications in Patients with IBD.

OBJECTIVES: The effect of vedolizumab on postoperative outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains unclear. We aimed to determine the relation between preoperative vedolizumab and early postoperative complications in patients with IBD undergoing abdominal surgery. METHODS: A search of databases and abstracts from gastroenterology conferences was performed. Primary outcomes included overall and infectious postoperative complication rates as well as surgical site infections. Studies that compared Crohn disease, ulcerative colitis, or patients with IBD-undefined with preoperative vedolizumab treatment undergoing abdominal surgery with controls with preoperative antitumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNF-α) treatment or no preoperative biologic treatment were included. A meta-analysis was completed using the Mantel-Haenszel and DerSimonian and Laird models. RESULTS: Six studies totaling 1201 patients were included; 281 patients were treated preoperatively with vedolizumab, 327 patients were treated preoperatively with anti-TNF-α agents, and 593 patients were not treated preoperatively with any biologics. There was no significant difference in overall complications (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48-2.24, P = 0.92, I2 =77%) between the vedolizumab and no-biologic groups. There also was no significant difference in infectious complications (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.37-2.69, P = 1.00, I2 = 78%), which persisted after sensitivity analysis (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.31-1.60, P = 0.41, I2 = 46%). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in overall complications (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.24-2.46, P = 0.66, I2 = 85%) and infectious complications (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.20-3.94, P = 0.87, I2 = 86%) between the vedolizumab and anti-TNF-α groups. After sensitivity analysis, differences in overall and infectious complications remained insignificant (OR 0.54 and 0.50, 95% CI 0.24-1.17 and 0.22-1.15, P = 0.12 and 0.10, I2 = 39% and 18%, respectively). Vedolizumab was also not associated with a significant increase in surgical site infections compared with the no-biologic (OR 1.45, 95% CI 0.33-6.32, P = 0.62, I2 = 75%) and anti-TNF (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.22-7.60, P = 0.77, I2 = 81%) groups. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative treatment with vedolizumab in patients with IBD undergoing abdominal surgery is not associated with increases in overall or infectious postoperative complications compared with preoperative anti-TNF-α treatment and no preoperative biologic treatment. Large, prospective studies are needed to further assess the impact of preoperative vedolizumab treatment on postoperative complications, particularly with respect to IBD subtype.

Impact of moderate versus deep sedation on adenoma detection rate in index average-risk screening colonoscopies.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The debate between moderate sedation versus deep sedation for index average-risk screening colonoscopies is well known to gastroenterologists. Ensuring the best of all metrics to perform quality colonoscopies for colon cancer prevention is paramount for both patients and physicians alike, because colon cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death and is the most-used screening tool in the United States. The aim of this study was to determine if moderate sedation versus deep sedation affects outcomes of adenoma detection rate (ADR) or polyp detection rate (PDR) in index, average-risk colonoscopies for colon cancer screening. METHODS: A retrospective, single, tertiary care outpatient center study of 585 healthy average-risk patients who underwent index screening colonoscopy between June 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (moderate sedation only) and June 1, 2016,to December 31, 2016 (deep sedation only) was performed after Institutional Review Board approval. Demographic data and polyp details were collected to determine ADR and PDR. Patients who were not average risk were excluded from the study. RESULTS: A total of 585 index average-risk screening colonoscopies were included in this study with 57.7% moderate sedation and 42.2% deep sedation. Neither ADR nor PDR was significantly different between the 2 groups (44.1% vs 38.5% [P = .18] and 71.9% vs 67.6% [P = .27], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In index average-risk screening colonoscopies, deep sedation appears to have no benefit compared with moderate sedation for ADR and PDR.

Corrigendum: 2016 ACG Abstracts- Outcomes Research.

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2016.360.

Normal saline solution versus other viscous solutions for submucosal injection during endoscopic mucosal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EMR is being increasingly practiced for the removal of large colorectal polyps. A variety of solutions such as normal saline solution (NS) and other viscous and hypertonic solutions (VS) have been used as submucosal injections for EMR. A systematic review and meta-analysis is presented comparing the efficacy and adverse events of EMR performed using NS versus VS. METHODS: Two independent reviewers conducted a search of all databases for human, randomized controlled trials that compared NS with VS for EMR of colorectal polyps. Data on complete en bloc resection, presence of residual lesions, and adverse events were extracted using a standardized protocol. Pooled odds ratio (OR) estimates along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed effect or random effects models. RESULTS: Five prospective, randomized controlled trials (504 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The mean polyp sizes were 20.84 mm with NS and 21.44 mm with VS. On pooled analysis, a significant increase in en bloc resection (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.11-3.29; P = .02; I2 = 0%) and decrease in residual lesions (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.91; P = .02; I2 = 0%) were noted in VS compared with NS. There was no significant difference in the rate of overall adverse events between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Use of VS during EMR leads to higher rates of en bloc resection and lower rates of residual lesions compared with NS, without any significant difference in adverse events. Endoscopists could consider using VS for EMR of large colorectal polyps and NS for smaller polyps because there is no significant difference in the outcomes with lesions <2 cm.

ASA Classification Pre-Endoscopic Procedures: A Retrospective Analysis on the Accuracy of Gastroenterologists.

OBJECTIVES: Before an endoscopic procedure, an evaluation to assess the risk of sedation is performed by the gastroenterologist. To risk stratify based on medical problems, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification scores are used routinely in the preprocedure evaluation. The objective of our study was to evaluate among physicians the ASA score accuracy pre-endoscopic procedures. METHODS: At a single tertiary-care center an institutional review board-approved retrospective study was performed. Upper endoscopies performed from May 2012 through August 2013 were reviewed; data were collected and recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive statistics and linear weighted kappa analysis for agreement (≤0.20 is poor agreement, 0.21-0.40 is fair, 0.41-0.60 is moderate, 0.61-0.80 is good, and 0.81-1.00 is very good). RESULTS: The mean ASA scores by the gastroenterologist compared with the anesthesiologist were 2.28 ± 0.56 and 2.78 ± 0.60, respectively, with only fair agreement (weighted kappa index 0.223, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.113-0.333; 48% agreement). The mean ASA scores for gastroenterologists compared with other gastroenterologists were 2.26 ± 0.5 and 2.26 ± 0.44, respectively, with poor agreement (weighted kappa index 0.200, 95% CI 0.108-0.389; 68% agreement). Agreement on ASA scores was only moderate between the gastroenterologist and himself or herself (weighted kappa index 0.464, 95% CI 0.183-0.745; 75% agreement). CONCLUSIONS: Gastroenterologists performing preprocedure assessments of ASA scores have fair agreement with anesthesiologists, poor agreement with other gastroenterologists, and only moderate agreement with themselves. Given this level of inaccuracy, it appears that the ASA score pre-endoscopy is of limited significance.

Low-residue versus clear liquid diet before colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colonoscopy is extremely important for the identification and removal of precancerous polyps. Bowel preparation before colonoscopy is essential for adequate visualization. Traditionally, patients have been instructed to consume only clear liquids the day before a colonoscopy. However, recent studies have suggested using a low-residue diet, with varying results. We evaluated the outcomes of patients undergoing colonoscopy who consumed a clear liquid diet (CLD) versus low-residue diet (LRD) on the day before colonoscopy by a meta-analysis. METHODS: Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane databases, and CINAHL were searched (February 2015). Studies involving adult patients undergoing colonoscopy examination and comparing LRD with CLD on the day before colonoscopy were included. The analysis was conducted by using the Mantel-Haenszel or DerSimonian and Laird models with the odds ratio (OR) to assess adequate bowel preparations, tolerability, willingness to repeat diet and preparation, and adverse effects. RESULTS: Nine studies (1686 patients) were included. Patients consuming an LRD compared with a CLD demonstrated significantly higher odds of tolerability (OR 1.92; 95% CI, 1.36-2.70; P < .01) and willingness to repeat preparation (OR 1.86; 95% CI, 1.34-2.59; P < .01) with no differences in adequate bowel preparations (OR 1.21; 95% CI, 0.64-2.28; P = .58) or adverse effects (OR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58-1.35; P = .57). CONCLUSION: An LRD before colonoscopy resulted in improved tolerability by patients and willingness to repeat preparation with no differences in preparation quality and adverse effects.

Vitamin D and the Pathogenesis of Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Vitamin D has traditionally been known for its role in bone metabolism, but emerging evidence has suggested a broader role for vitamin D in immune regulation. Vitamin D deficiency has been associated with the pathogenesis of diverse autoimmune disorders and has similarly been implicated as a contributor to inflammatory bowel disease. In this review, we discuss animal, in vitro, genetic, and epidemiologic studies that have linked vitamin D deficiency with inflammatory bowel disease pathogenesis or severity. Nonetheless, we present the caveat in interpreting these studies in the context of reverse causation: Does vitamin D deficiency lead to gastrointestinal disease, or does gastrointestinal disease (with related changes in dietary choices, intestinal absorption, nutritional status, lifestyle) lead to vitamin D deficiency?

Nutritional Strategies in the Management of Adult Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Dietary Considerations from Active Disease to Disease Remission.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a group of chronic, lifelong, and relapsing illnesses, such as ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, which involve the gastrointestinal tract. There is no cure for these diseases, but combined pharmacological and nutritional therapy can induce remission and maintain clinical remission. Malnutrition and nutritional deficiencies among IBD patients result in poor clinical outcomes such as growth failure, reduced response to pharmacotherapy, increased risk for sepsis, and mortality. The aim of this review is to highlight the consequences of malnutrition in the management of IBD and describe nutritional interventions to facilitate induction of remission as well as maintenance; we will also discuss alternative delivery methods to improve nutritional status preoperatively.

Efficacy of preoperative biliary drainage in malignant obstructive jaundice: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In patients requiring surgical resection for malignant biliary jaundice, it is unclear if preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) would improve mortality and morbidity by restoration of biliary flow prior to operation. This is a meta-analysis to pool the evidence and assess the utility of PBD in patients with malignant obstructive jaundice. The primary outcome is comparing mortality outcomes in patients with malignant obstructive jaundice undergoing direct surgery (DS) versus PBD. The secondary outcomes include major adverse events and length of hospital stay in both the groups. METHODS: Studies using PBD in patients with malignant obstructive jaundice were included in this study. For the data collection and extraction, articles were searched in MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials & Database of Systematic Reviews, etc. Pooled proportions were calculated using both Mantel-Haenszel method (fixed effects model) and DerSimonian-Laird method (random effects model). RESULTS: Initial search identified 2230 reference articles, of which 204 were selected and reviewed. Twenty-six studies (N = 3532) for PBD in malignant obstructive jaundice which met the inclusion criteria were included in this analysis. The odds ratio for mortality in PBD group versus DS group was 0.96 (95 % CI = 0.71 to 1.29). Pooled number of major adverse effects was lower in the PBD group at 10.40 (95 % CI = 9.96 to 10.83) compared to 15.56 (95 % CI = 15.06 to 16.05) in the DS group. Subgroup analysis comparing internal PBD to DS group showed lower odds for major adverse events (odds ratio, 0.48 with 95 % CI = 0.32 to 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with malignant biliary jaundice requiring surgery, PBD group had significantly less major adverse effects than DS group. Length of hospital stay and mortality rate were comparable in both the groups.

A Clinician's Guide to Fecal Occult Blood Testing for Colorectal Cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant healthcare issue, with substantial morbidity and mortality. Screening for CRC is essential in the prevention and treatment of this disease. The two most common CRC screening modalities are colonoscopy and the stool-based occult blood test, with two types of stool-based occult blood tests: the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (FOBT) and the immunochemical FOBT. Despite many similarities, these two stool tests are different and often are confused in clinical practice. In an effort to improve awareness of these testing modalities, this review provides extensive information on both of these FOBTs, as well as discusses comparisons in the literature between these stool-based blood tests and other screening modalities such as stool DNA and colonoscopy.

Pancreatic Cancer Survival Outcomes at a Tertiary Medical Center Based on Sex and Geographic Location.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the survival outcomes of patients with histologically proven primary pancreatic cancer based on geographic location and sex. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of medical records from 2009 through 2013 of patients with pancreatic cancer using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code 157.9 and International Statistical Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision code C 25.9. The variables extracted included demographics, date of diagnosis, mode of diagnosis, duration, treatment methods, family history, history of chronic pancreatitis, and diabetes mellitus. ZIP codes were used to identify the geographic location of each subject, and rural urban commuting area codes were used to further classify the areas as metropolitan, micropolitan, small town, and rural. Population sizes were classified as metropolitan >50,000, micropolitan 10,000 to 49,999, small town 2500 to 9999, and rural <2500. Descriptive analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival for survival outcomes were performed with statistical significance identified as P < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 400 medical charts were extracted for review, 301 of which belonged to patients with primary pancreatic cancer. Of the 301 cases, we identified 175 men (58%), 125 women (41%), and 1 missing sex data. There were 280 whites (95%), 8 African Americans (2%), 2 Asian Americans (0.64%), 1 Hispanic American (0.34%) and 1 Native American (0.34%), with a mean age of 63.2 ± 12.6 years. Based on geography, there were 34%, 27%, 20%, and 19% in rural areas, metropolitans, small towns, and micropolitans, respectively. No statistically significant difference was noted in sex on survival outcomes (P = 0.85) or geography (P = 0.62). Additional analysis revealed no statistical significant difference between sexes when stratifying by location (P = 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in survival outcomes of patients with primary pancreatic cancer based on sex or geographic location. Our survival outcomes differ from the national survival outcomes, which reveal that mortality in men is higher than it is in women.

Effect of Immunosuppressive Therapies for the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Response to Routine Vaccinations: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have evaluated the effect of immunosuppressive therapy for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on response to routine vaccinations. The overall effect of specific classes of medications (i.e., immunomodulator vs. biologics) on vaccine response remains undefined. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of each class of immunosuppressive therapy in IBD patients on response to routine vaccinations. METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases was performed (December 2014). All studies on adults comparing vaccine response among IBD patients on immunosuppression with non-immunosuppressed patients were included. Meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel (fixed effects) model with odds ratio (OR) to assess for adequate vaccine response. RESULTS: In the pooled analysis of nine studies (N = 1474), we found that there was nearly a 60 % lower chance of achieving adequate seroprotection in the group that received immunosuppressive therapy compared to the group that was not on any immunosuppressive therapies (OR 0.41 95 % CI 0.30, 0.55, p < 0.001). Specifically, we also demonstrated that patients on immunomodulator monotherapy had a twofold higher probability of achieving adequate immune response to vaccination, compared to patients on anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) monotherapy (OR 1.92 95 % CI 1.30, 2.84). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, IBD patients on immunosuppressive therapy have a significantly lower response to routine vaccinations. The greatest effect is seen among patients on anti-TNF and combination immunosuppressive therapy. Routine monitoring of vaccine titers post-vaccination is important to ensure that adequate immunologic response has been achieved among IBD patients.

pANCA positivity predicts lower clinical response to infliximab therapy among patients with IBD.

OBJECTIVES: Several studies have been performed evaluating the role of perinuclear anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodies (pANCA) to predict early clinical response among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who are undergoing infliximab therapy. The results of these studies are variable, however, and the effect of pANCA+ as a predictor of clinical response to infliximab remains largely undefined. The goal of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the role of pANCA in predicting poor responders to infliximab. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases was performed in June 2014. All of the studies that evaluated pANCA levels in patients with IBD who were undergoing antitumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNF-α) therapy and their clinical responses were included. A meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel model with odds ratios to assess for clinical remission. RESULTS: In the pooled analysis (N = 415), patients who were pANCA negative had nearly a twofold higher response to anti-TNF-α therapy compared with patients who were pANCA+ (odds ratio 1.87; 95% confidence interval 1.02-3.41). Serologic testing for pANCA+ predicting nonresponse to infliximab therapy showed a sensitivity of 25.2%, a specificity of 85.5%, a positive predictive value of 41.1%, and a negative predictive value of 74.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Being more proactive (ie, early dose escalation or accelerated loading regimen) in patients who are pANCA+ may be necessary to improve clinical response.

Miralax with gatorade for bowel preparation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a very popular bowel preparation for colonoscopy. However, its large volume may reduce patient compliance, resulting in suboptimal preparation. Recently, a combination of Miralax and Gatorade has been studied in various randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as a lower volume and more palatable bowel preparation. However, results have varied. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis assessing the use of Miralax-Gatorade (M-G) vs. PEG for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched (January 2014). RCTs on adults comparing M-G (238-255 g in 1.9 l that is 64 fl oz) vs. PEG (3.8-4 l) for bowel preparation before colonoscopy were included. The effects were analyzed by calculating pooled estimates of quality of bowel preparation (satisfactory, unsatisfactory, excellent), patient tolerance (nausea, cramping, bloating), and polyp detection by using odds ratio (OR) with fixed- and random-effects models. RESULTS: Five studies met inclusion criteria (N=1,418), with mean age ranging from 53.8 to 61.3 years. M-G demonstrated statistically significantly fewer satisfactory bowel preparations as compared with PEG (OR 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.43-0.98, P=0.04) but more willingness to repeat preparation (OR 7.32; 95% CI: 4.88-10.98, P<0.01). Furthermore, no statistically significant differences in polyp detection (P=0.65) or side effects were apparent between the two preparations for nausea (P=0.71), cramping (P=0.84), or bloating (P=0.50). Subgroup analysis revealed similar results for split-dose M-G vs. split-dose PEG. CONCLUSIONS: M-G for bowel preparation before colonoscopy was inferior to PEG in bowel preparation quality while demonstrating no significant improvements in adverse effects or polyp detection. Therefore, PEG appears superior to M-G for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.

National trends and inpatient outcomes of inflammatory bowel disease patients with concomitant chronic liver disease.

BACKGROUND: There is little information on the frequency of chronic liver disease among hospitalized patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In this study, we seek to define the common etiologies contributing to chronic liver disease among IBD patients and to identify potential risk factors predictive of increased mortality in this population. METHODS: We analyzed the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 1988 to 2006 to determine the frequency of chronic liver disease among patients with IBD and to determine their in-hospital outcomes. RESULTS: From 1988 to 2006, the age-adjusted rate of chronic liver disease among hospitalized patients with IBD has increased from 4.35 per 100,000 persons in 1988-2001 to 7.45 per 100,000 persons in 2004-2006. The most common etiologies contributing to chronic liver disease among IBD patients were: primary sclerosing cholangitis, unspecified chronic hepatitis, chronic hepatitis C, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Compared to IBD patients without liver disease, there was more than a twofold higher rate of inpatient morality among IBD patients with concomitant liver disease (2.7% vs. 1.3%, p < 0.01). The multivariate analysis showed that factors predictive of inpatient mortality include age >50, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, presence of cirrhosis, malnutrition, Clostridium difficile colitis, and hospital-acquired pneumonia. CONCLUSION: There is a higher rate of inpatient mortality among patients with concomitant IBD and chronic liver disease compared to IBD alone. Early recognition and management of complications related to portal hypertension among patients with IBD and chronic liver disease is particularly important in order to reduce inpatient mortality and morbidity.

Tips and tricks for deep jejunal enteral access: modifying techniques to maximize success.

Endoscopic insertion of enteral feeding tubes is a major advance in the delivery of nutrition therapy. Since the first report of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) in 1980 (Gauderer et al. J Pediatr Surg. 15:872-5, 1980), insertion techniques and equipment have been refined and improved. Despite this progress, deep jejunal enteral access remains a difficult procedure, and many endoscopists do not have experience with the techniques of nasojejunal (NJ) placement, percutaneous endoscopic gastrojejunostomy (PEGJ), or direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) (Shike and Latkany, Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 8:569-80, 1998). The difference between an exasperating experience and a rewarding procedure lies in mastering the "tips and tricks" that make insertion easy. While the basic techniques are described elsewhere (McClave and Chang 2011), we review several universal basic principles to enhance deep jejunal access, which should promote a more efficient and successful procedure.

The pharmacologic treatment of short bowel syndrome: new tricks and novel agents.

Short bowel syndrome (SBS) is a manifestation of massive resection of the intestines resulting in severe fluid, electrolyte, and vitamin/mineral deficiencies. Diet and parenteral nutrition play a large role in the management of SBS; however, pharmacologic options are becoming more readily available. These pharmacologic agents focus on reducing secretions and stimulating intestinal adaptation. The choice of medication is highly dependent on the patient's symptoms, remaining anatomy, and risk versus benefit profile for each agent. This article focuses on common and novel pharmacologic medications used in SBS, including expert advice on their indications and use.

Airway assessment of patients undergoing endoscopic procedures.

OBJECTIVES: In advance of endoscopic procedures, an evaluation to assess the risk of sedation is performed by the gastroenterologist. Based on regulations, gastroenterologists are required to perform an airway assessment. At this time, data supporting this regulation are limited; therefore, we evaluated airway assessment accuracy by gastroenterologists before endoscopic procedures. METHODS: A retrospective, single tertiary care center study was performed from May 2012 through August 2013. Patients who underwent an endoscopy or colonoscopy performed at the University of Missouri-Columbia with documented Mallampati scores were included in the analysis. Three primary cohorts of patients were included in our study: gastroenterologist versus anesthesiologist, gastroenterologist versus other gastroenterologists, and gastroenterologists versus themselves. Data were collected and recorded for patient age, body mass index, and Mallampati score. Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive statistics and linear weighted kappa analysis for agreement. RESULTS: For gastroenterologists versus anesthesiologists and versus other gastroenterologists, the agreement on Mallampati scores was poor (weighted kappa index 0.103, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.0126 to 0.219; percentage of agreement 42% and 0.120, 95% CI -0.0211 to 0.260; percentage of agreement 46%, respectively). For gastroenterologists versus themselves for the same patient, the agreement on Mallampati scores was only moderate (weighted kappa index 0.420, 95% CI 0.119-0.722; percentage of agreement 65%). CONCLUSIONS: Gastroenterologists performing a preprocedure assessment using Mallampati scores have poor agreement with anesthesiologists and colleagues and only moderate agreement with themselves.