British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

Oesophageal cell collection device and biomarker testing to identify high-risk Barrett's patients requiring endoscopic investigation.

BACKGROUND: Barrett's oesophagus surveillance places significant burden on endoscopy services yet is vital to detect early cancerous change. Oesophageal cell collection device (OCCD) testing was introduced across Scotland for Barrett's surveillance in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This national pragmatic retrospective study presents the CytoSCOT programme results and evaluates whether OCCD testing is successfully identifying high-risk Barrett's patients requiring urgent endoscopy. METHODS: All patients undergoing OCCD testing for Barrett's surveillance across 11 Scottish health boards over a 32-month period were identified. Patients who underwent endoscopy within 12 months of OCCD test were included. Individual patient records were interrogated to record clinical information and OCCD test result to categorize patients into risk groups. Endoscopic histopathology results were analysed according to risk group and segment length. Patients were deemed high risk if the OCCD test demonstrated atypia and/or p53 positivity. RESULTS: 4204 OCCD tests were performed in 3745 patients: 608 patients underwent endoscopy within 12 months and were included in this analysis. Patients with longer Barrett's segments were significantly more likely to have an abnormal OCCD test. 50/608 patients (8.2%) had high-grade dysplasia or cancer on endoscopic biopsies: this equates to 1.3% of the total group (50/3745). 46/50 patients (92.0%) were deemed high risk, triggering urgent endoscopy: this rose to 100% with insufficient tests removed. There were no cancers diagnosed within 12 months post-OCCD in the low-risk group. CONCLUSION: OCCD testing is an effective triage tool to identify high-risk patients with Barrett's oesophagus requiring further investigation with endoscopy within the real-world setting.

National adoption of an esophageal cell collection device for Barrett's esophagus surveillance: impact on delay to investigation and pathological findings.

High quality Barrett's esophagus surveillance is crucial to detect early neoplastic changes. An esophageal cell collection device (OCCD) was introduced as a triage tool for Barrett's surveillance. This study aims to evaluate whether the Scottish OCCD program (CytoSCOT) has reduced delays to Barrett's surveillance, and whether delayed surveillance negatively impacts endoscopic pathology. All patients undergoing OCCD testing for Barrett's surveillance across 11 Scottish health boards between 14/9/2020 and 13/9/2022 were identified. Patients were dichotomised into two groups (Year 1 vs. Year 2), with individual records interrogated to record demographics, recommended surveillance interval, time from last endoscopy to OCCD test, and OCCD result. Patients were deemed high-risk if the OCCD demonstrated atypia and/or p53 positivity. Further analysis was performed on patients who underwent endoscopy within 12 months of OCCD testing. A total of 3223 OCCD tests were included in the analysis (1478 in Year 1; 1745 in Year 2). In Year 1 versus Year 2, there was a longer median delay to surveillance (9 vs. 5 months; P < 0.001), increased proportion of patients with delayed surveillance (72.6% vs. 57.0%; P < 0.001), and more high-risk patients (12.0% vs. 5.3%; P < 0.001). 425/3223 patients (13.2%) were further investigated with upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, 57.9% of which were high-risk. As surveillance delay increased beyond 24 months, high-risk patients were significantly more likely to develop dysplasia or malignancy (P = 0.004). Delayed Barrett's esophagus surveillance beyond 24 months is associated with increased risk of pre-cancerous pathology. The CytoSCOT program has reduced delays in surveillance, promoting earlier detection of dysplasia and reducing burden on endoscopy services.

Production and possible reduction of greenhouse gases produced during GI endoscopy activity: a systematic review of available literature.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Greenhouse gases (GHGs) that trap heat in the atmosphere are composed of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases (synthetic hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and nitrogen trifluoride). In the USA, the health sector accounts for 8.5% of total GHG emissions. The primary objective of this systematic review was to critically analyse the carbon emissions data from GI endoscopic activity. DESIGN: The GI endoscopy carbon cycle was evaluated at preprocedural, intraprocedural and postprocedural levels. We performed a systematic literature search of articles published on these issues until 30 June 2022 and discussed these available data on endoscopy unit GHG carbon cycle, barriers to reduce GHG emissions and potential solutions. The inclusion criteria were any full-text articles (observational, clinical trials, brief communications, case series and editorials) reporting waste generation from GI endoscopy. Abstracts, news articles and conference proceedings were excluded. RESULTS: Our search yielded 393 records in PubMed, 1708 in Embase and 24 in Google Scholar. After application of inclusion and exclusion factors, we focused on 9 fulllength articles in detail, only 3 of them were cross-sectional studies (all from the USA), the others reviews or position statements. Therefore, the quality of the studies could not be assessed due to heterogeneity in definitions and amount of emissions. CONCLUSIONS: Recognition of carbon emissions generated by GI endoscopy activity is critical. Although multiple limitations exists for quantification of these emission, there is an urgent need for collecting proper data as well as examining novel methods for reduction of these emissions for a sustainable endoscopic practices in the future.

UK and Ireland Joint Advisory Group (JAG) consensus statements for training and certification in diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: International endoscopy societies vary in their approach for credentialing individuals in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) to enable independent practice; however, there is no consensus in this or its implementation. In 2019, the Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy (JAG) commissioned a working group to examine the evidence relating to this process for EUS. The aim of this was to develop evidence-based recommendations for EUS training and certification in the UK. METHODS: Under the oversight of the JAG quality assurance team, a modified Delphi process was conducted which included major stakeholders from the UK and Ireland. A formal literature review was made, initial questions for study were proposed and recommendations for training and certification in EUS were formulated after a rigorous assessment using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool and subjected to electronic voting to identify accepted statements. These were peer reviewed by JAG and relevant stakeholder societies before consensus on the final EUS certification pathway was achieved. RESULTS: 39 initial questions were proposed of which 33 were deemed worthy of assessment and finally formed the key recommendations. The statements covered four key domains, such as: definition of competence (13 statements), acquisition of competence (10), assessment of competence (5) and postcertification mentorship (5). Key recommendations include: (1) minimum of 250 hands-on cases before an assessment for competency can be made, (2) attendance at the JAG basic EUS course, (3) completing a minimum of one formative direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS) every 10 cases to allow the learning curve in EUS training to be adequately studied, (4) competent performance in summative DOPS assessments and (5) a period of mentorship over a 12-month period is recommended as minimum to support and mentor new service providers. CONCLUSIONS: An evidence-based certification pathway has been commissioned by JAG to support and quality assure EUS training. This will form the basis to improve quality of training and safety standards in EUS in the UK and Ireland.

Radiofrequency ablation for Barrett's oesophagus related neoplasia with the 360 Express catheter: initial experience from the United Kingdom and Ireland-preliminary results.

BACKGROUND: Radio-frequency ablation (RFA) for Barrett's oesophagus (BE)-related neoplasia is currently used after endoscopic resection of visible neoplasia. The HALO 360 balloon has been used to ablate long segment BE. The Barrx™ 360 Express RFA self-sizing catheter ('RFA Express') may potentially allow quicker ablation times and improved treatment outcomes. The aim of this paper is to present real world data on the use of the 360 Express Device. METHODS: Centres in the UK and Ireland submitted cases where the RFA Express was used. The primary outcome was regression of BE at 3 months. Secondary outcomes were the rate of symptomatic stricture formation and resolution of intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM) and dysplasia (CR-D) at End of Treatment (EoT). RESULTS: 11 centres submitted 123 consecutive patients. 112 had a follow up endoscopy. The median age was 67 years (IQR 62-75). 3 dosimetries were used. The mean reduction in Circumferential (C) length was 78% ± 36 and mean reduction in Maximal length (M) was 55% ± 36. 17 patients (15%) developed strictures requiring dilation. There was a higher rate of stricture formation when the 12 J energy was used (p < 0.05). 47 patients had EoT biopsies, 40 (85%) had CR-D and 34(76%) had CR-IM. CONCLUSIONS: The RFA 360 Express catheter shows reduction in length of baseline BE at 3 months after index treatment, and eradication of intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia at 12 months similar to other studies with earlier devices. It appears that the symptomatic stricture rate is slightly higher than previous series with the HALO 360 catheter. This study was performed as part of the HALO registry and has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee - MREC Number 08/H0714/27 Local project reference 08/0104 Project ID 15,033 IRAS Number 54678 EudraCT 2009-015980-1. Registered on ISRCTN as below: ISRCTN93069556. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN93069556.

Teamworking in endoscopy: a human factors toolkit for the COVID-19 era.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopy services have had to rapidly adapt their working practices in response to COVID-19. As recovery of endoscopy services proceeds, our workforce faces numerous challenges that can impair effective teamworking. We designed and developed a novel toolkit to support teamworking in endoscopy during the pandemic. METHODS: A human factors model was developed to understand the impact of COVID-19 on endoscopy teams. From this, we identified a set of key teamworking goals, which informed the development of a toolkit to support several team processes. The toolkit was refined following expert input and refinement over a 6-week period. RESULTS: The toolkit consists of four cognitive aids that can be used to support team huddles, briefings, and debriefs, alongside techniques to optimize endoscopic nontechnical skills across the patient-procedure pathway. We describe the processes that local endoscopy units can employ to implement this toolkit. CONCLUSION: A toolkit of cognitive aids, based on human factors principles, may be useful in supporting teams, helping them adapt to working safely in the era of COVID-19.

Surgical and endoscopic management of high grade dysplasia and early oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of endoscopic techniques has led to debate about optimal management of early oesophageal adenocarcinoma. The aim was to evaluate patient selection and outcomes for endoscopic or surgical treatment at a tertiary referral centre. METHODS: A prospectively collected database of consecutive patients staged with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or T1 oesophageal adenocarcinoma treated with curative intent between 2005 and 2013 was undertaken. All patients were discussed at the multidisciplinary team meeting. Surgical treatment was by thoracoscopic assisted or standard/laparoscopic assisted Ivor Lewis oesophagectomy. Endoscopic treatment was a structured programme of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and/or radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Outcomes included treatment variables, recurrence and complications. RESULTS: 83 patients treated; 50 with endoscopic therapy (EMR only-4, EMR then RFA-22, RFA only-24) and 38 by surgery (33 straight to surgery and 5 following EMR). Median age (67) and mean follow-up (21 months) were similar. HGD was more common in the endoscopic group (32/50, 64%, vs.3/33, 9%, p = 0.0001). Significant complications were more common following surgery (13/38, 34%, vs. 1/50, 2%, p = 0.0001). There were two in-hospital deaths following oesophagectomy (1 open, 1 thoracoscopic). Endoscopic treatment beyond 12 months for persisting HGD/intramucosal disease was required in 2 patients. Recurrence of HGD/invasive cancer was diagnosed in 2/36 (5.6%, T1a recurrence) of endoscopic and 1/38 (2.6%, T2N0 - subsequent hepatic metastases) surgical patients. CONCLUSION: A management algorithm including both endoscopic treatment and oesophagectomy provides optimal outcome for these patients. Due to additional morbidity of surgery, endoscopic treatment is appropriate first-line treatment.

Comparing outcome of radiofrequency ablation in Barrett's with high grade dysplasia and intramucosal carcinoma: a prospective multicenter UK registry.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM: Mucosal neoplasia arising in Barrett's esophagus can be successfully treated with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) followed by radiofrequency ablation (RFA). The aim of the study was to compare clinical outcomes of patients with high grade dysplasia (HGD) or intramucosal cancer (IMC) at baseline from the United Kingdom RFA registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prior to RFA, visible lesions and nodularity were removed entirely by EMR. Thereafter, patients underwent RFA every 3 months until all visible Barrett's mucosa was ablated or cancer developed (end points). Biopsies were taken at 12 months or when end points were reached. RESULTS: A total of 515 patients, 384 with HGD and 131 with IMC, completed treatment. Prior to RFA, EMR was performed for visible lesions more frequently in the IMC cohort than in HGD patients (77 % vs. 47 %; P < 0.0001). The 12-month complete response for dysplasia and intestinal metaplasia were almost identical in the two cohorts (HGD 88 % and 76 %, respectively; IMC 87 % and 75 %, respectively; P = 0.7). Progression to invasive cancer was not significantly different at 12 months (HGD 1.8 %, IMC 3.8 %; P = 0.19). A trend towards slightly worse medium-term durability may be emerging in IMC patients (P = 0.08). In IMC, EMR followed by RFA was definitely associated with superior durability compared with RFA alone (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The Registry reports on endoscopic therapy for Barrett's neoplasia, representing real-life outcomes. Patients with IMC were more likely to have visible lesions requiring initial EMR than those with HGD, and may carry a higher risk of cancer progression in the medium term. The data consolidate the approach to ensuring that these patients undergo thorough endoscopic work-up, including EMR prior to RFA when necessary.

Radiofrequency ablation and endoscopic mucosal resection for dysplastic barrett's esophagus and early esophageal adenocarcinoma: outcomes of the UK National Halo RFA Registry.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or early neoplasia increasingly receive endoscopic mucosal resection and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) therapy. We analyzed data from a UK registry that follows the outcomes of patients with BE who have undergone RFA for neoplasia. METHODS: We collected data on 335 patients with BE and neoplasia (72% with HGD, 24% with intramucosal cancer, 4% with low-grade dysplasia [mean age, 69 years; 81% male]), treated at 19 centers in the United Kingdom from July 2008 through August 2012. Mean length of BE segments was 5.8 cm (range, 1-20 cm). Patients' nodules were removed by endoscopic mucosal resection, and the patients then underwent RFA every 3 months until all areas of BE were ablated or cancer developed. Biopsies were collected 12 months after the first RFA; clearance of HGD, dysplasia, and BE were assessed. RESULTS: HGD was cleared from 86% of patients, all dysplasia from 81%, and BE from 62% at the 12-month time point, after a mean of 2.5 (range, 2-6) RFA procedures. Complete reversal dysplasia was 15% less likely for every 1-cm increment in BE length (odds ratio = 1.156; SE = 0.048; 95% confidence interval: 1.07-1.26; P < .001). Endoscopic mucosal resection before RFA did not provide any benefit. Invasive cancer developed in 10 patients (3%) by the 12-month time point and disease had progressed in 17 patients (5.1%) after a median follow-up time of 19 months. Symptomatic strictures developed in 9% of patients and were treated by endoscopic dilatation. Nineteen months after therapy began, 94% of patients remained clear of dysplasia. CONCLUSIONS: We analyzed data from a large series of patients in the United Kingdom who underwent RFA for BE-related neoplasia and found that by 12 months after treatment, dysplasia was cleared from 81%. Shorter segments of BE respond better to RFA; http://www.controlled-trials.com, number ISRCTN93069556.

Tailoring follow-up endoscopy in patients with severe oesophagitis.

Objective: We aimed to investigate the clinical utility of follow-up oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD2) in patients with severe oesophagitis (Los Angeles grades C or D) through evaluating the yield of Barrett's oesophagus (BO), cancer, dysplasia and strictures. Second, we aimed to determine if the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) may be used to identify patients to undergo OGD2s. Design/method: Patients in NHS Lothian with an index OGD (OGD1) diagnosis of severe oesophagitis between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2015 were identified. Univariate analysis identified factors associated with grade. Patients were stratified by frailty and a diagnosis of stricture, cancer, dysplasia and BO. Results: In total 964 patients were diagnosed with severe oesophagitis, 61.7% grade C and 38.3% grade D. The diagnostic yield of new pathology at OGD2 was 13.2% (n=51), new strictures (2.3%), dysplasia (0.5%), cancer (0.3%) and BO (10.1%). A total of 140 patients had clinical frailty (CFS score ≥5), 88.6% of which were deceased at review (median of 76 months). In total 16.4% of frail patients underwent OGD2s and five new pathologies were diagnosed, none of which were significantly associated with grade. Among non-frail patients at OGD2, BO was the only pathology more common (p=0.010) in patients with grade D. Rates of cancer, dysplasia and strictures did not vary significantly between grades. Conclusion: Our data demonstrate that OGD2s in patients with severe oesophagitis may be tailored according to clinical frailty and only be offered to non-frail patients. In non-frail patients OGD2s have similar pick-up rates of sinister pathology in both grades of severe oesophagitis.

Individualised consent for endoscopy: update on the 2016 BSG guidelines.

In 2016, the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) published comprehensive guidelines for obtaining consent for endoscopic procedures. In November 2020, the General Medical Council (GMC) introduced updated guidelines on shared decision making and consent. These guidelines followed the Montgomery ruling in 2015, which changed the legal doctrine determining what information should be given to a patient before a medical intervention. The GMC guidance and Montgomery ruling expand on the role of shared decision making between the clinician and patient, explicitly highlighting the importance of understanding the values of the patient. In November 2021, the BSG President's Bulletin highlighted the 2020 GMC guidance and the need to incorporate patient -related factors into decision making. Here, we make formal recommendations in support of this communication, and update the 2016 BSG endoscopy consent guidelines. The BSG guideline refers to the Montgomery legislation, but this document expands on the findings and gives proposals for how to incorporate it into the consent process. The document is to accompany, not replace the recent GMC and BSG guidelines. The recommendations are made in the understanding that there is not a single solution to the consent process, but that medical practitioners and services must work together to ensure that the principles and recommendations laid out below are deliverable at a local level. The 2020 GMC and 2016 BSG guidance had patient representatives involved throughout the process. Further patient involvement was not sought here as this update is to give practical advice on how to incorporate these guidelines into clinical practice and the consent process. This document should be read by endoscopists and referrers from primary and secondary care.

UK endoscopy workload and workforce patterns: is there potential to increase capacity? A BSG analysis of the National Endoscopy Database.

Background: The lack of comprehensive national data on endoscopy activity and workforce hampers strategic planning. The National Endoscopy Database (NED) provides a unique opportunity to address this in the UK. We evaluated NED to inform service planning, exploring opportunities to expand capacity to meet service demands. Design: Data on all procedures between 1 March 2019 and 29 February 2020 were extracted from NED. Endoscopy activity and endoscopist workforce were analysed. Results: 1 639 640 procedures were analysed (oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) 693 663, colonoscopy 586 464, flexible sigmoidoscopy 335 439 and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography 23 074) from 407 sites by 4990 endoscopists. 89% of procedures were performed in NHS sites. 17% took place each weekday, 10% on Saturdays and 6% on Sundays. Training procedures accounted for 6% of total activity, over 99% of which took place in NHS sites. Median patient age was younger in the independent sector (IS) (51 vs 60 years, p<0.001). 74% of endoscopists were male. Gastroenterologists and surgeons each comprised one-third of the endoscopist workforce; non-medical endoscopists (NMEs) comprised 12% yet undertook 23% of procedures. Approximately half of endoscopists performing OGD (52%) or colonoscopies (48%) did not meet minimum annual procedure numbers. Conclusion: This comprehensive analysis reveals endoscopy workload and workforce patterns for the first time across both the NHS and the IS in all four UK nations. Half of all endoscopists perform fewer than the recommended minimum annual procedure numbers: a national strategy to address this, along with expansion of the NME workforce, would increase endoscopy capacity, which could be used to exploit latent weekend capacity.

Increasing the low-risk threshold for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding during the COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective, multicentre feasibility study.

Objective: During the COVID-19 pandemic, we extended the low-risk threshold for patients not requiring inpatient endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) from Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS) 0-1 to GBS 0-3. We studied the safety and efficacy of this change. Methods: Between 1 April 2020 and 30 June 2020 we prospectively collected data on consecutive unselected patients with UGIB at five large Scottish hospitals. Primary outcomes were length of stay, 30-day mortality and rebleeding. We compared the results with prospective prepandemic descriptive data. Results: 397 patients were included, and 284 index endoscopies were performed. 26.4% of patients had endoscopic intervention at index endoscopy. 30-day all-cause mortality was 13.1% (53/397), and 33.3% (23/69) for pre-existing inpatients. Bleeding-related mortality was 5% (20/397). 30-day rebleeding rate was 6.3% (25/397). 84 patients had GBS 0-3, of whom 19 underwent inpatient endoscopy, 0 had rebleeding and 2 died. Compared with prepandemic data in three centres, there was a fall in mean number of UGIB presentations per week (19 vs 27.8; p=0.004), higher mean GBS (8.3 vs 6.5; p<0.001) with fewer GBS 0-3 presentations (21.5% vs 33.3%; p=0.003) and higher all-cause mortality (12.2% vs 6.8%; p=0.02). Predictors of mortality were cirrhosis, pre-existing inpatient status, age >70 and confirmed COVID-19. 14 patients were COVID-19 positive, 5 died but none from UGIB. Conclusion: During the pandemic when services were under severe pressure, extending the low-risk threshold for UGIB inpatient endoscopy to GBS 0-3 appears safe. The higher mortality of patients with UGIB during the pandemic is likely due to presentation of a fewer low-risk patients.