Is it necessary to stop glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists prior to endoscopic procedure? A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) are effective in diabetes and obesity, reducing hyperglycemia by increasing insulin release and delaying gastric emptying. However, they can cause gastroparesis, raising concerns about aspiration during procedures. Recent guidelines advise discontinuing GLP-1 RA before surgery to reduce the risk of pulmonary aspiration. AIM: To evaluate the effect of GLP-1 RAs on gastric residual contents during endoscopic procedures. METHODS: A retrospective chart review at BronxCare Health System, New York, from January 2019 to October 2023, assessed gastric residue and aspiration in GLP-1 RA patients undergoing endoscopic procedures. Two groups were compared based on dietary status before the procedure. Data included demographics, symptoms of gastroparesis, opiate use, hemoglobin A1c, GLP-1 agonist indication, endoscopic details, and aspiration occurrence. IBM SPSS was used for analysis, calculating means, standard deviations, and applying Pearson's chi-square and t-tests for associations, with P < 0.05 as being significant. RESULTS: During the study, 306 patients were included, with 41.2% on a clear liquid/low residue diet and 58.8% on a regular diet before endoscopy. Most patients (63.1%) were male, with a mean age of 60 ± 12 years. The majority (85.6%) were on GLP-1 RAs for diabetes, and 10.1% reported digestive symptoms before endoscopy. Among those on a clear liquid diet, 1.5% had residual food at endoscopy compared to 10% on a regular diet, which was statistically significant (P = 0.03). Out of 31 patients with digestive symptoms, 13% had residual food, all from the regular diet group (P = 0.130). No complications were reported during or after the procedures. CONCLUSION: The study reflects a significant rise in GLP-1 RA use for diabetes and obesity. A 24-hour liquid diet seems safe for endoscopic procedures without aspiration. Patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms might have a higher residual food risk, though not statistically significant. Further research is needed to assess risks based on diabetes duration, gastroparesis, and GLP-1 RA dosing, aiming to minimize interruptions in therapy during procedures.

Patients with Clostridium difficile infection and prior appendectomy may be prone to worse outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) occurs due to a dysbiosis in the colon. The appendix is considered a 'safe house' for gut microbiota and may help repopulate gut flora of patients with CDI. AIM: To study the impact of prior appendectomy on the severity and outcomes of CDI. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data of 1580 patients with CDI, admitted to our hospital between 2008 to 2018. Patients were grouped based on the presence or absence of the appendix. The primary aim was to (1) assess all-cause mortality and (2) the severity of CDI. Severity was defined as per the Infectious Diseases Society of America criteria. Logistic regression, and propensity score analysis using inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) was performed. RESULTS: Of the 1580 patients, 12.5% had a history of appendectomy. There was no statistical difference in mortality between patients with a prior appendectomy or without (13.7% vs 14%, P = 0.877). However, a history of appendectomy affected the severity of CDI [odds ratio (OR) = 1.32, 95% confidence interval: 1.01-1.75]. On IPTW, this association remained significant (OR = 1.59, P < 0.05). On multivariable analysis of secondary outcomes, prior appendectomy was also associated with toxic megacolon (OR = 5.37, P < 0.05) and colectomy (OR = 2.77, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Prior appendectomy may affect the severity of CDI, development of toxic megacolon and the eventual need for colectomy. Since treatment of CDI is governed by its severity, stronger antibiotic regimens or earlier use of fecal microbiota transplant may be a viable option for patients with prior appendectomy.

Characteristics of Patients with Post-Colonoscopy Unplanned Hospital Visit: A Retrospective Single-Center Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy, although a low-risk procedure, is not without associated adverse events. The rates of major adverse events such as perforation and bleeding after a colonoscopy are well reported. The rates of minor incidents following a colonoscopy, however, are less well examined. Recently the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) started public reporting on the quality of outpatient endoscopy facilities by using a measure of risk-standardized rates of unplanned hospital visits within 7 days of colonoscopy. AIM: We intended to record and present the characteristics of our patient population who had an unplanned hospital visit within 7 days after undergoing colonoscopy in an outpatient setting. METHODS: This is a retrospective single-center observational study. During the study period of July 2018 to December 2019, we reviewed charts of all patients who returned to the emergency room within a week of undergoing an outpatient colonoscopy. Patient demographics, clinical data and details of colonoscopy were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 5344 outpatient colonoscopies performed, our post-colonoscopy emergency room visit rate was 1.05% (n=56). The mean age of the participants was 58 years and 55% were male; 32% of our patients reported gastrointestinal symptoms such as abdominal pain or gastrointestinal bleeding. Patients with gastrointestinal symptoms had a higher rate of polypectomies performed (36.4% vs 11.8%, P = 0.04) and reported higher illicit drug use (31.9% vs 5.9%, P = 0.02) compared with those with non-gastrointestinal complaints. After colonoscopy, 41% of the patients reported reasons for emergency room visits that were entirely unrelated to the procedure. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights that unplanned visits within 7 days of colonoscopy are not necessarily related to the procedure, and those that are, tend to be due to unavoidable patient factors. Hence the CMS measure may not be an accurate determinant of the quality of procedure or facility care delivered.