RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The environmental impact of endoscopy is a topic of growing interest. This study aimed to compare the carbon footprint of performing an esogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with a reusable (RU) or with a single-use (SU) disposable gastroscope. METHODS: SU (Ambu aScope Gastro) and RU gastroscopes (Olympus, H190) were evaluated using life cycle assessment methodology (ISO 14040) including the manufacture, distribution, usage, reprocessing and disposal of the endoscope. Data were obtained from Edouard Herriot Hospital (Lyon, France) from April 2023 to February 2024. Primary outcome was the carbon footprint (measured in Kg CO2 equivalent) for both gastroscopes per examination. Secondary outcomes included other environmental impacts. A sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the impact of varying scenarios. RESULTS: Carbon footprint of SU and RU gastroscopes were 10.9 kg CO2 eq and 4.7 kg CO2 eq, respectively. The difference in carbon footprint equals one conventional car drive of 28 km or 6 days of CO2 emission of an average European household. Based on environmentally-extended input-output life cycle assessment, the estimated per-use carbon footprint of the endoscope stack and washer was 0.18 kg CO2 eq in SU strategy versus 0.56 kg CO2 eq in RU strategy. According to secondary outcomes, fossil eq depletion was 130 MJ (SU) and 60.9 MJ (RU) and water depletion for 6.2 m3 (SU) and 9.5 m3 (RU), respectively. CONCLUSION: For one examination, SU gastroscope have a 2.5 times higher carbon footprint than RU ones. These data will help with the logistics and planning of an endoscopic service in relation to other economic and environmental factors.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) is established as the primary treatment modality for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs), but recently underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) has emerged as a potential alternative. The majority of previous studies focused on Asian populations and small lesions (≤20 mm). We aimed to compare the efficacy and outcomes of U-EMR vs C-EMR for SNADETs in a Western setting. METHODS: This was a retrospective multinational study from 10 European centers that performed both C-EMR and U-EMR between January 2013 and July 2023. The main outcomes were the technical success, procedure-related adverse events (AEs), and the residual/recurrent adenoma (RRA) rate, evaluated on a per-lesion basis. We assessed the association between the type of endoscopic mucosal resection and the occurrence of AEs or RRAs using mixed-effects logistic regression models (propensity scores). Sensitivity analyses were performed for lesions ≤20 mm or >20 mm. RESULTS: A total of 290 SNADETs submitted to endoscopic resection during the study period met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed (C-EMR: n = 201, 69.3%; U-EMR: n = 89, 30.7%). The overall technical success rate was 95.5% and comparable between groups. In logistic regression models, compared with U-EMR, C-EMR was associated with a significantly higher frequency of overall delayed AEs (odds ratio [OR], 4.95; 95% CI, 2.87-8.53), postprocedural bleeding (OR, 7.92; 95% CI, 3.95-15.89), and RRAs (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.49-5.37). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results when solely considering either small (≤20 mm) or large (>20 mm) lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with C-EMR, U-EMR was associated with a lower rate of overall AEs and RRAs, regardless of lesion size. Our results confirm the possible role of U-EMR as an effective and safe technique in the management of SNADETs.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The adoption of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is still limited in the West. A recent randomized trial showed that ESD is more effective and only slightly riskier than piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection; reproducibility outside expert centers was questioned. We evaluated the results according to the annual case volume in a multicentric prospective cohort. METHODS: Between September 2019 and September 2022, colorectal ESD was consecutively performed at 13 participating centers classified as low volume (LV), middle volume (MV), and high volume (HV). The main procedural outcomes were assessed. Multivariate and propensity score matching analyses were performed. RESULTS: Three thousand seven hundred seventy ESDs were included. HV centers treated larger and more often colonic lesions than MV and LV centers. En bloc , R0, and curative resection rates were 95.2%, 87.4%, and 83.2%, respectively, and were higher at HV than at MV and LV centers. HV centers also achieved a faster dissection speed. Delayed bleeding and surgery for complications rates were 5.4% and 0.8%, respectively, without significant differences. The perforation rate (overall: 9%) was higher at MV than at LV and HV centers. Lesion characteristics, but not volume center, were independently associated with both R1 resection and perforation. However, after propensity score matching, R0 rates were significantly higher at HV than at LV centers, and perforation rates were significantly higher at MV than at HV centers. DISCUSSION: Colorectal ESD can be successfully implemented in the West, even in nonexpert centers. However, difficult lesions must still be referred to experts.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Juvenile Polyposis Syndrome (JPS) is a rare hereditary autosomal dominant cancer-predisposition syndrome caused by germline pathogenic variants (PV) located in SMAD4 or BMPR1A genes. Precise clinical and endoscopic presentation as the evolution of gastric lesions remain ill-known. METHODS: Clinical, endoscopic, genetic, pathological data from patients with SMAD4 or BMPR1A PVs included between 2007 and 2020 in the French network on rare digestive polyposis (RENAPOL) database were prospectively collected to address uncertainties regarding gastric involvement. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were included: 25 (69.5%) had SMAD4 PVs, 11 had BMPR1A PVs. For SMAD4 PV carriers, median age at inclusion was 43.0 years [range 10-78]. At baseline esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), 22/25 (88%) exhibited at least one gastric juvenile polyp, 5/25 (20%) had macroscopic signs of inflammatory gastritis. Early gastric disease was mostly located under the cardia, then progressed to gastric antrum and body. During a mean follow-up period of 55.0 months, 12/25 had gastric disease progression (i.e. new juvenile polyps (91.6%), diffuse gastric involvement (41.6%), inflammatory flat progression (25%)). Among 62 biopsies, low-grade dysplasia was observed in 5 (7.5%) samples from 2 patients. Nine carriers (36%) underwent gastrectomy (mean age of 47.2 years) due to diffuse gastric involvement or worsening clinical symptoms. Gastric adenocarcinoma (T1) was found in one gastrectomy specimen. Among the 11 patients with BMPR1A PVs, 2 had gastric hamartomatomas at baseline EGD, none with dysplasia or symptoms. CONCLUSION: Gastric involvement in JPS appears to be progressive during life, initiating in the cardia area, and mostly concerns SMAD4 PV carriers.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopy Ultra-Sound (EUS)-guided fiducial marker placement in patients with esophageal or rectal cancer who have been referred for radiation therapy lacks data regarding its feasibility and safety. The aim of this study was to assess the success rate of EUS-guided fiducial marker placement in these indications. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective multicenter study enrolled patients with rectal or esophageal tumor, who were treated between March 2017 and June 2021. The primary endpoint was the success of fiducial markers placement under EUS guidance utilizing the preloaded 22-gauge EchoTip Ultra Fiducial needle® (Cook Medical, Limerick, Ireland), defined by the ability to release fiducials at least at proximal and distal ends of the tumor. The secondary endpoints were the adverse events, length of procedure, and remaining fiducial markers throughout radiation therapy. RESULTS: A total of 33 patients were included in this study, with a mean age of 64.2 years ±11.3, and 66.7% of males. Twenty patients had rectal adenocarcinoma, and 13 had esophageal malignancies. The success rate of fiducial markers placement was 93.9%. Markers could only be released at the proximal end of the tumor in two cases. The average procedure time (±SD) was 12.5 min (±4.8). The number of fiducial markers placed for each patient was 3.8 (±0.5). No adverse event was reported. At the end of radiotherapy, markers were still visible on imaging in all patients. CONCLUSION: This prospective multicenter study highlights the safety and high success of the placement of fiducial markers under EUS, for rectal and esophageal tumors, without adverse event, and with a short procedure time. Fiducial markers remain in place over time during radiation therapy. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ID: NCT03057288.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) is a promising technique for treating refractory gastroparesis. We present the first double-blind randomized study comparing the clinical efficacy of G-POEM versus pyloric botulinum toxin injection (BTI). METHODS: This randomized study, conducted in two expert centers, enrolled patients with refractory gastroparesis, medically managed for >6 months and confirmed by gastric emptying scintigraphy (GES), into two groups, G-POEM versus BTI, with follow-up of 1 year. The primary end point was the 3-month clinical efficacy, defined as a >1-point decrease in the mean Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI) score. Secondary end points were: 1-year efficacy, GES evolution, adverse events, and quality of life. RESULTS: 40 patients (22 women; mean age 48.1 [SD 17.4]), with mean symptom duration of 5.8 (SD 5.7) years, were randomized. Etiologies included idiopathic (n=18), diabetes (n=11), postoperative (n=6), and mixed (n=4). G-POEM showed a higher 3-month clinical success than BTI (65% vs. 40%, respectively; P=0.10), along with non-significantly higher 1-year clinical success (60% vs. 40%, respectively) on intention-to-treat analysis. The GCSI decreased in both groups at 3 months and 1 year. Only three minor adverse events occurred in the G-POEM group. The GES improvement rate was 72% in the G-POEM group versus 50% in the BTI group (non-significant). CONCLUSION: G-POEM seems to have a higher clinically relevant success rate than BTI, but this was not statistically demonstrated. This study confirms the interest in treatments targeting the pylorus, either mechanically or chemically, for managing refractory gastroparesis.
Assuntos
Toxinas Botulínicas , Gastroparesia , Piloromiotomia , Adulto , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Toxinas Botulínicas/administração & dosagem , Toxinas Botulínicas/efeitos adversos , Esvaziamento Gástrico/efeitos dos fármacos , Gastroparesia/tratamento farmacológico , Gastroparesia/etiologia , Gastroparesia/cirurgia , Gastroscopia , Injeções , Piloromiotomia/métodos , Piloromiotomia/efeitos adversos , Piloro/cirurgia , Qualidade de Vida , Cintilografia , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The ileocecal valve (ICV) is considered to be one of the most difficult locations for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of traction-assisted ESD in this situation. METHODS: All patients who underwent traction-assisted ESD for an ICV lesion at three centers were identified from a prospective ESD database. En bloc and R0 rates were evaluated. Factors associated with non-R0 resection were explored. RESULTS: 106 patients with an ICV lesion were included. The median lesion size was 50 mm (interquartile range 38-60) and 58.5% (62/106) invaded the terminal ileum. The en bloc and R0 resection rates were 94.3% and 76.4%, respectively. Factors associated with non-R0 resection were lesions covering ≥75% of the ICV (odds ratio [OR] 0.21. 95%CI 0.06-0.76; P=0.02), and involving the anal lip (OR 0.36, 95%CI 0.13-0.99; P=0.04) or more than two sites on the ICV (OR 0.27, 95%CI 0.07-0.99; P=0.03). CONCLUSION: Traction-assisted ESD for treatment of ICV lesions was a safe and feasible option. Large lesions and anal lip involvement appeared to be factors predictive of difficulty.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is one of healthcare's main contributors to climate change. We aimed to assess healthcare professionals' attitudes and the perceived barriers to implementation of sustainable GI endoscopy. METHODS: The LEAFGREEN web-based survey was a cross-sectional study conducted by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Green Endoscopy Working Group. The questionnaire comprised 39 questions divided into five sections (respondent demographics; climate change and sustainability beliefs; waste and resource management; single-use endoscopes and accessories; education and research). The survey was available via email to all active members of the ESGE and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) in March 2023. RESULTS: 407 respondents participated in the survey (11% response rate). Most participants (86%) agreed climate change is real and anthropogenic, but one-third did not consider GI endoscopy to be a significant contributor to climate change. Improvement in the appropriateness of endoscopic procedures (41%) and reduction in single-use accessories (34%) were considered the most important strategies to reduce the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. Respondents deemed lack of institutional support and knowledge from staff to be the main barriers to sustainable endoscopy. Strategies to reduce unnecessary GI endoscopic procedures and comparative studies of single-use versus reusable accessories were identified as research priorities. CONCLUSIONS: In this survey, ESGE and ESGENA members acknowledge climate change as a major threat to humanity. Further improvement in sustainability beliefs and professional attitudes, reduction in inappropriate GI endoscopy, and rational use of single-use accessories and endoscopes are critically required.
Assuntos
Atitude do Pessoal de Saúde , Endoscopia Gastrointestinal , Humanos , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Masculino , Inquéritos e Questionários , Adulto , Mudança Climática , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Endoscópios GastrointestinaisRESUMO
BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of salvage endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for Barrett's neoplasia recurrence after radiofrequency ablation (RFA). METHODS: Data from patients at 16 centers were collected for a multicenter retrospective study. Patients who underwent at least one RFA treatment for Barrett's esophagus and thereafter underwent further esophageal ESD for neoplasia recurrence were included. RESULTS: Data from 56 patients who underwent salvage ESD between April 2014 and November 2022 were collected. Immediate complications included one muscular tear (1.8%) treated with stent (Agree classification: grade IIIa). Two transmural perforations (3.6%; treated with clips) and five muscular tears (8.9%; two treated with clips) had no clinical impact and were not considered as adverse events. Seven patients (12.5%) developed strictures (grade IIIa), which were treated with balloon dilation. Histological analysis showed 36 adenocarcinoma, 17 high grade dysplasia, and 3 low grade dysplasia. En bloc and R0 resection rates were 89.3% and 66.1%, respectively. Resections were curative in 33 patients (58.9%), and noncurative in 22 patients (39.3%), including 11 "local risk" (19.6%) and 11 "high risk" (19.6%) resections. At the end of follow-up with a median time of 14 (0-75) months after salvage ESD, and with further endoscopic treatment if necessary (RFA, argon plasma coagulation, endoscopic mucosal resection, ESD), neoplasia remission ratio was 37/53 (69.8%) and the median remission time was 13 (1-75) months. CONCLUSION: In expert hands, salvage ESD was a safe and effective treatment for recurrence of Barrett's neoplasia after RFA treatment.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The environmental impact of endoscopy, including small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), is a topic of growing attention and concern. This study aimed to evaluate the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (kgCO2) generated by an SBCE procedure. METHODS: Life cycle assessment methodology (ISO 14040) was used to evaluate three brands of SBCE device and included emissions generated by patient travel, bowel preparation, capsule examination, and video recording. A survey of 87 physicians and 120 patients was conducted to obtain data on travel, activities undertaken during the procedure, and awareness of environmental impacts. RESULTS: The capsule itself (4âg) accounted forâ<â6â% of the total product weight. Packaging (43-119âg) accounted for 9â%-97â% of total weight, and included deactivation magnets (5âg [4â%-6â%]) and paper instructions (11-50âg [up to 40â%]). A full SBCE procedure generated approximately 20âkgCO2, with 0.04âkgCO2 (0.2â%) attributable to the capsule itself and 18âkgCO2 (94.7â%) generated by patient travel. Capsule retrieval using a dedicated device would add 0.98âkgCO2 to the carbon footprint. Capsule deconstruction revealed materials (e.âg. neodymium) that are prohibited from environmental disposal; 76â% of patients were not aware of the illegal nature of capsule disposal via wastewater, and 63â% would have been willing to retrieve it. The carbon impact of data storage and capsule reading was negligible. CONCLUSION: The carbon footprint of SBCE is mainly determined by patient travel. The capsule device itself has a relatively low carbon footprint. Given that disposal of capsule components via wastewater is illegal, retrieval of the capsule is necessary but would likely be associated with an increase in device-related emissions.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: There have been significant advances in the management of large (≥20 mm) laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) or nonpedunculated colorectal polyps; however, there is a lack of clear consensus on the management of these lesions with significant geographic variability especially between Eastern and Western paradigms. We aimed to provide an international consensus to better guide management and attempt to homogenize practices. METHODS: Two experts in interventional endoscopy spearheaded an evidence-based Delphi study on behalf of the World Endoscopy Organization Colorectal Cancer Screening Committee. A steering committee comprising six members devised 51 statements, and 43 experts from 18 countries on six continents participated in a three-round voting process. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations tool was used to assess evidence quality and recommendation strength. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement (strongly agree or agree) on a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Forty-two statements reached consensus after three rounds of voting. Recommendations included: three statements on training and competency; 10 statements on preresection evaluation, including optical diagnosis, classification, and staging of LSTs; 14 statements on endoscopic resection indications and technique, including statements on en bloc and piecemeal resection decision-making; seven statements on postresection evaluation; and eight statements on postresection care. CONCLUSIONS: An international expert consensus based on the current available evidence has been developed to guide the evaluation, resection, and follow-up of LSTs. This may provide guiding principles for the global management of these lesions and standardize current practices.