Anesthesiologist-directed care for elective gastrointestinal endoscopy: results of an Italian multicentric prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Sedation, ranging from minimal, moderate and deep sedation to general anesthesia, improves patient comfort and procedure quality in gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE). There are currently no comprehensive recommendations on sedation practice in diagnostic and therapeutic GIE. We aimed to investigate real-life sedation practice in elective GIE. METHODS: We performed a multicentric observational study across 14 Endoscopy Units in Italy. We recorded consecutive data on all diagnostic procedures performed with Anesthesiologist-directed care (ADC) and all therapeutic procedures performed with ADC or non-Anesthesiologist sedation (NAS) over a three-month period. RESULTS: Dedicated ADC is available five days/week in 28.6% (4/14), four days/week in 21.5% (3/14), three days/week in 35.7% (5/14), two days/week in 7.1% (1/14) and one day/week in 7.1% (1/14) of participating Centers. ADC use for elective diagnostic GIE varied from 18.2% to 75.1% of the total number of procedures performed with ADC among different Centers. ADC use for elective therapeutic GIE varied from 10.8% to 98.9% of the total number of elective therapeutic procedures performed among different Centers. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the lack of standardization and consequent great variability in sedation practice for elective GIE, with ADC being potentially overused for diagnostic procedures and underused for complex therapeutic procedures. A collaborative effort involving Endoscopists, Anesthesiologist and Institutions is needed to optimize sedation practice in GIE.

Technical failure during colorectal endoscopic full-thickness resection: the "through thick and thin" study.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is an effective and safe technique for nonlifting colorectal lesions. Technical issues or failures with the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) system are reported, but there are no detailed data. The aim of our study was to quantify and classify FTRD technical failures. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study involving 17 Italian centers with experience in advanced resection techniques and the required devices. Each center shared and classified all prospectively collected consecutive failures during colorectal EFTR using the FTRD from 2018 to 2022. The primary outcome was the technical failure rate and their classification; secondary outcomes included subsequent management, clinical success, and complications. RESULTS: Included lesions were mainly recurrent (52 %), with a mean (SD) dimension of 18.4 (7.5) mm. Among 750 EFTRs, failures occurred in 77 patients (35 women; mean [SD] age 69.4 [8.9] years). A classification was proposed: type I, snare noncutting (53 %); type II, clip misdeployment (31 %); and type III, cap misplacement (16 %). Among endoscopic treatments completed, rescue endoscopic mucosal resection was performed in 57 patients (74 %), allowing en bloc and R0 resection in 71 % and 64 %, respectively. The overall adverse event rate was 27.3 %. Pooled estimates for the rates of failure, complications, and rescue endoscopic therapy were similar for low and high volume centers (P = 0.08, P = 0.70, and P = 0.71, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal EFTR with the FTRD is a challenging technique with a non-negligible rate of technical failure and complications. Experience in rescue resection techniques and multidisciplinary management are mandatory in this setting.

Over-the-scope clip as first-line treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding: a multicenter randomized controlled trial (TOP Study).

BACKGROUND: First-line over-the-scope (OTS) clip treatment has shown higher efficacy than standard endoscopic therapy in acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) from different causes. We compared OTS clips with through-the-scope (TTS) clips as first-line mechanical treatment in the specific setting of peptic ulcer bleeding. METHODS: We conducted an international, multicenter randomized controlled trial on consecutive patients with suspected NVUGIB. Patients with Forrest Ia-IIb gastroduodenal peptic ulcer were randomized 1:1 to OTS clip or TTS clip treatment. The primary outcome was the rate of 30-day rebleeding after successful initial hemostasis. Secondary outcomes included the rates of successful initial hemostasis and overall clinical success, defined as the composite of successful initial hemostasis and no evidence of 30-day rebleeding. RESULTS: 251 patients were screened and 112 patients were randomized to OTS (n = 61) or TTS (n = 51) clip treatment. The 30-day rebleeding rates were 1.6% (1/61) and 3.9% (2/51) in patients treated with OTS clips and TTS clips, respectively (Kaplan-Meier log-rank, P = 0.46). Successful initial hemostasis rates were 98.4% (60/61) in the OTS clip group and 78.4% (40/51) in the TTS clip group (P = 0.001). Overall clinical success rates were 96.7% (59/61) with OTS clips and 74.5% (38/51) with TTS clips (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Low rates of 30-day rebleeding were observed after first-line endoscopic treatment of acute peptic ulcer bleeding with either OTS or TTS clips. However, OTS clips showed higher efficacy than TTS clips in achieving successful initial hemostasis and overall clinical success.

Endoscopic lithotripsy of a gallstone impacted in lumen-apposing metal stent positioned for cholecysto-gastrostomy.

Video 1Endoscopic lithotripsy of a gallstone impacted in the lumen-apposing metal stent positioned for cholecysto-gastrostomy.

Linear EUS Accuracy in Preoperative Staging of Gastric Cancer: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Preoperative gastric cancer (GC) staging is the most reliable prognostic factor that affects therapeutic strategies. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and radial endoscopic ultrasound (R-EUS) scans are the most commonly used staging tools for GC. The accuracy of linear EUS (L-EUS) in this setting is still controversial. The aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to evaluate the accuracy of L-EUS and CECT in preoperative GC staging, with regards to depth of tumor invasion (T staging) and nodal involvement (N staging). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 191 consecutive patients who underwent surgical resection for GC were retrospectively enrolled. Preoperative staging had been performed using both L-EUS and CECT, and the results were compared to postoperative staging by histopathologic analysis of surgical specimens. RESULTS: L-EUS diagnostic accuracy for depth of invasion of the GC was 100%, 60%, 74%, and 80% for T1, T2, T3, and T4, respectively. CECT accuracy for T staging was 78%, 55%, 45%, and 10% for T1, T2, T3, and T4, respectively. L-EUS diagnostic accuracy for N staging of GC was 85%, significantly higher than CECT accuracy (61%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that L-EUS has a higher accuracy than CECT in preoperative T and N staging of GC.

Risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation in patients using high- and low-volume cleansing products.

INTRODUCTION: Bowel preparation is crucial for colonoscopy completeness and lesions detection. Today, several cleansing products are equally recommended by guidelines, irrespective of patients' characteristics. Identification of preparation-specific risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation may lead to a personalized prescription of cleansing products to refine patients' tolerance and improve endoscopic outcomes. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled consecutive outpatients referred for colonoscopy using either a high-volume [HV: 4 l polyethylene glycol (PEG)] or a low-volume (LV: 2 l PEG + bisacodyl) preparation. Day-before regimen or split-dose regimen was used for morning or afternoon colonoscopies, respectively. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify risk factors related to inadequate bowel preparation, according to the Boston bowel preparation scale for HV and LV preparations. RESULTS: We enrolled 2040 patients, of which 1815 were included in the final analysis (average age 60.6 years, 50.2% men). Half of them (52%) used LV preparation. Adequate preparation was achieved by 87.6% without differences between the HV and LV groups (89.2% vs. 86.6%; P = 0.098). The use of day-before regimen and incomplete assumption of PEG were independent predictors of poor visibility for either HV or LV preparation. However, different specific risk factors for HV [diabetes: odds ratio (OR), 3.81; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.91-7.58; low level of instruction: OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.11-3.44; and previous abdominal surgery: OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.20-4.30] and for LV (heart disease: OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.09-3.88; age > 65 years: OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.01-2.27) preparations were identified. CONCLUSION: Day-before preparation and incomplete assumption of the purgative agents affect bowel visibility irrespective of the preparation volume. LV should be preferred to HV preparations in patients with diabetes, low level of instruction, and previous abdominal surgery, whereas an HV preparation should be preferred in patients with heart disease and in older patients.

Incidence, risk and protective factors of symptoms after colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Few studies focused on minor adverse events which may develop after colonoscopy. AIMS: To investigate the incidence and factors associated to post-colonoscopy symptoms. METHODS: This is a prospective study conducted in 10 Italian hospitals. The main outcome was a cumulative score combining 10 gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms occurring the week following colonoscopy. The analyses were conducted via multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 793 subjects included in the analysis, 361 (45.5%) complained the new onset of at least one GI symptom after the exam; one symptom was reported by 202 (25.5%), two or more symptoms by 159 (20.1%). Newly developed symptoms more frequently reported were epigastric/abdominal bloating (32.2%), pain (17.3%), and dyspeptic symptoms (17.9%). Symptoms were associated with female sex (odds ratio [OR]=2.54), increasing number of symptoms developed during bowel preparation intake (OR=1.35) and somatic symptoms (OR=1.27). An inverse association was observed with better mood (OR=0.74). A high-risk profile was identified, represented by women with bad mood and somatic symptoms (OR=8.81). CONCLUSION: About half of the patients develop de novo GI symptoms following colonoscopy. Improving bowel preparation tolerability may reduce the incidence of post-colonoscopy symptoms, especially in more vulnerable patients.

Determinants of symptom burden related to bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms developing during bowel preparation are major concerns among subjects who refuse the procedure. AIMS: We aimed to explore the determinants of symptoms occurring during preparation among patients undergoing elective colonoscopy. METHODS: This is a prospective multicenter study conducted in 10 Italian hospitals. A multidimensional approach collecting socio-demographic, clinical, psychological and occupational information before colonoscopy through validated instruments was used. Outcome was a four-category cumulative score based on symptoms occurring during preparation, according to the Mayo Clinic Bowel Prep Tolerability Questionnaire, weighted by intensity. Missing values were addressed through multiple imputation. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated through multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: 1137 subjects were enrolled. Severe symptoms were associated with female sex (OR=3.64, 95%CI 1.94-6.83), heavier working hours (OR=1.13, 95% CI=1.01-1.25), previous gastrointestinal symptoms (OR=7.81, 95% CI 2.36-25.8 for high score), somatic symptoms (OR=2.19, 95% CI=1.06-4.49 for multiple symptoms), day-before regimen (OR=2.71, 95%CI 1.28-5.73). On the other hand, age ≥60 years (OR=0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.44) and good mood (p=0.042) were protective factors. A high-risk profile was identified, including women with low mood and somatic symptoms (OR=15.5, 95%CI 4.56-52.7). CONCLUSIONS: We identified previously unreported determinants of symptoms burdening bowel preparation and identified a particularly vulnerable phenotype. Symptoms during preparation especially impact heavier working activity.

Safety of a novel 1L-polyethylene glycol-ascorbate solution for colonoscopy cleansing (REAL Study).

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Very low-volume bowel preparation (BP) for colonoscopy with 1-liter polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (1L-PEG-Asc) has displayed high tolerability and quality of bowel cleansing. Concerns have been raised regarding its safety. We aimed to evaluate the incidence of adverse events (AEs) following BP with 1L-PEG-Asc or 2L-PEG-Asc. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2019 to September 2020, data from all consecutive adult outpatients who underwent colonoscopy in Our Unit were collected. AEs were assessed by reviewing the clinical and laboratory data of patients who attended the Emergency Department (ED) of Modena District Hospitals in the 7 days following the colonoscopy, and were classified as "BP-related" or "BP-unrelated". RESULTS: During the study, 4069 (68.03%) and 1912 (31.97%) patients underwent colonoscopy after taking 2L-PEG-Asc or 1L-PEG-Asc, respectively. Regarding AEs, 77 (1.29%) patients attended ED, 53 (53/4069, 1.30%) and 24 (24/1912, 1.25%) after taking 2L-PEG-Asc and 1L-PEG-Asc. BP-related AEs were observed in 5 (5/4069, 0.12%) and 4 (4/1912, 0.21%) patients, respectively. The most frequent BP-related AEs were tachyarrhythmias (6/5981, 0.10%). CONCLUSION: The incidence rate of clinically relevant BP-related AEs is extremely low. This strongly suggests that 1L-PEG-Asc colonoscopy BP is as safe as 2L-PEG-Asc BP in a real-life clinical setting of unselected patients.

Digital single-operator cholangioscopy in diagnostic and therapeutic bilio-pancreatic diseases: A prospective, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Digital single-operator cholangioscopy (D-SOC) is an endoscopic procedure that is increasingly used for the management of bilio-pancreatic diseases. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of D-SOC for diagnostic and therapeutic indications. METHODS: This is a multicenter, prospective study(January 2016-June 2019) across eighteen tertiary centers. The primary outcome was procedural success of D-SOC. Secondary outcomes were: D-SOC visual assessment and diagnostic yield of SpyBite biopsy in cases of biliary strictures, stone clearance rate in cases of difficult biliary stones, rate of adverse events(AEs) for all indications. RESULTS: D-SOC was performed in 369 patients (201(54,5%) diagnostic and 168(45,5%)therapeutic). Overall, procedural success rate was achieved in 360(97,6%) patients. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy in biliary strictures were: 88,5%, 77,3%, 83,3%, 84,1% and 83,6% for D-SOC visual impression; 80,2%, 92,6%, 95,1%, 72,5% and 84,7% for the SpyBite biopsy, respectively. For difficult biliary stones, complete duct clearance was obtained in 92,1% patients (82,1% in a single session). Overall, AEs occurred in 37(10%) cases.The grade of AEs was mild or moderate for all cases, except one which was fatal. CONCLUSION: D-SOC is effective for diagnostic and therapeutic indications.Most of the AEs were minor and managed conservatively, even though a fatal event has happened that is not negligible and should be considered before using D-SOC.

Impact of colonoscopy on working productivity: a prospective multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients undergoing colonoscopy are often in the workforce. Therefore, colonoscopy may affect patients' work productivity in terms of missed working days and/or reduced working efficiency. We aimed to investigate the impact of colonoscopy on work productivity and factors influencing this impact. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational, multicenter study in 10 Italian hospitals between 2016 and 2017. We collected information on individual characteristics, work productivity, symptoms, and conditions before, during, and after the procedure from patients undergoing colonoscopy for several indications using validated tools. Outcomes were interference of preparation with work, absenteeism, and impaired work performance after the procedure. We fitted multivariate logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for potential predictors of the outcomes. RESULTS: Among 1137 subjects in the study, 30.5% reported at least 1 outcome. Impaired work performance was associated with bowel preparation regimen (full dose on the day of colonoscopy vs split dose: OR, 4.04; 95% CI, 1.43-11.5), symptoms during bowel preparation (high symptom score: OR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.15-8.95), and pain during the procedure (OR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.40-4.35). Increasing number of working hours and less comfortable jobs were associated with absenteeism (P for trend = .06) and impairment of working performance (P for trend = .01) and GI symptoms both before and after colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational and individual characteristics of patients should be considered when scheduling colonoscopy because this procedure may impair work productivity in up to one-third of patients. Split-dose bowel preparation, performing a painless colonoscopy, and preventing the occurrence of GI symptoms may minimize the impact of colonoscopy on work productivity.

Erratum: Updating the recommendations on bowel preparation for acute lower gastro-intestinal bleeding: The time has come!

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1055/a-1372-4051.].