Peptic ulcer disease.

Annual prevalence estimates of peptic ulcer disease range between 0·12% and 1·5%. Peptic ulcer disease is usually attributable to Helicobacter pylori infection, intake of some medications (such as aspirin and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications), or being critically ill (stress-related), or it can be idiopathic. The clinical presentation is usually uncomplicated, with peptic ulcer disease management based on eradicating H pylori if present, the use of acid-suppressing medications-most often proton pump inhibitors (PPIs)-or addressing complications, such as with early endoscopy and high-dose PPIs for peptic ulcer bleeding. Special considerations apply to patients on antiplatelet and antithrombotic agents. H pylori treatment has evolved, with the choice of regimen dictated by local antibiotic resistance patterns. Indications for primary and secondary prophylaxis vary across societies; most suggest PPIs for patients at highest risk of developing a peptic ulcer, its complications, or its recurrence. Additional research areas include the use of potassium-competitive acid blockers and H pylori vaccination; the optimal approach for patients at risk of stress ulcer bleeding requires more robust determinations of optimal patient selection and treatment selection, if any. Appropriate continuation of PPI use outweighs most possible side-effects if given for approved indications, while de-prescribing should be trialled when a definitive indication is no longer present.

The periprocedural management of patients on a direct oral anticoagulant undergoing an elective gastrointestinal endoscopic procedure.

This narrative review summarizes the current body of literature regarding the periprocedural management of direct anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients undergoing digestive endoscopy since the publication of the 2022 American College of Gastroenterology - Canadian Association of Gastroenterology guidelines. We provide a detailed analysis of TE risk, endoscopic procedure-specific bleeding risks, contemporary intra-procedural techniques to reduce bleeding risk, and a summary of major gastrointestinal societies' periprocedural DOAC guidelines, including procedure risk stratification. While there exists heterogeneity in the data, the overall trend of the current literature supports the contemporary practice of a minimal DOAC interruption without the need for heparin bridging.

Previously undiagnosed Morgagni hernia with bowel perforation detected during repeat screening colonoscopy: A case report.

BACKGROUND: Morgagni hernia (MH) is a form of congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) characterized by an incomplete formation of diaphragm, resulting in the protrusion of abdominal organs into the thoracic cavity. The estimated incidence of CDH is between 1 in 2000 and 1 in 5000 live births, although the true incidence is unknown. MH typically presents in childhood and can be diagnosed either prenatally or postnatally. However, it can also be asymptomatic and carry the risk of developing into a life-threatening condition in adulthood. CASE SUMMARY: A 76-year-old female with no history of prior abdominal surgeries presented for an elective colonoscopy for polyp surveillance. During the procedure, when approaching the hepatic flexure, the scope could not be advanced further despite multiple attempts. The patient experienced mild abdominal discomfort, leading to the abortion of the procedure. While in the recovery area, she developed increasing abdominal pains and hypotension. Urgent abdominal imaging revealed herniation of the proximal transverse colon through a MH into the chest with evidence of perforation. The patient underwent laparoscopic urgent colonic resection and primary hernia repair and was discharged uneventfully 2 d later. CONCLUSION: A MH is a rare condition in adults that can present as a life-threatening complication of colonoscopy, even in patients with a history of uneventful colonoscopies. This case highlights the importance of considering congenital and internal hernias when faced with sudden and unexplained difficulties during colonoscopy. If there is a suspicion of MH, the endoscopist should halt the procedure and immediately obtain abdominal imaging to confirm the diagnosis.

Effect of fecal immunochemical test cut-off levels on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is higher after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) compared to direct screening colonoscopy. OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis evaluated how ADR, the rates of advanced adenoma detection (AADR), colorectal cancer detection (CDR), and sessile serrated lesion detection (SSLDR) are affected by different FIT positivity thresholds. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and EBM Reviews databases for studies reporting ADR, AADR, CDR, and SSLDR according to different FIT cut-off values in asymptomatic average-risk individuals aged 50-74 years old. Data were stratified according to sex, age, time to colonoscopy, publication year, continent, and FIT kit type. Study quality, heterogeneity, and publication bias were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 4280 articles were retrieved and fifty-eight studies were included (277,661 FIT-positive colonoscopies; mean cecal intubation 96.3%; mean age 60.8 years; male 52.1%). Mean ADR was 56.1% (95% CI 53.4 - 58.7%), while mean AADR, CDR, and SSLDR were 27.2% (95% CI 24.4 - 30.1%), 5.3% (95% CI 4.7 - 6.0%), and 3.0% (95% CI 1.7 - 4.6%), respectively. For each 20 µg Hb/g increase in FIT cut-off level, ADR increased by 1.54% (95% CI 0.52 - 2.56%, p < 0.01), AADR by 3.90% (95% CI 2.76 - 5.05%, p < 0.01) and CDR by 1.46% (95% CI 0.66 - 2.24%, p < 0.01). Many detection rates were greater amongst males and Europeans. CONCLUSIONS: ADRs in FIT-positive colonoscopies are influenced by the adopted FIT positivity threshold, and identified targets, importantly, proved to be higher than most current societal recommendations.

Assessment, Resuscitation and Medical Management of Variceal and Nonvariceal Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) continues to be an important cause for emergency room visits and carries significant morbidity and mortality. Early resuscitative measures form the basis of the management of patients presenting with UGIB and can improve the outcomes of such patients including lowering mortality. In this review, using an evidence-based approach, we discuss the initial assessment and resuscitation of patients presenting with UGIB including identifying clues from history and physical examination to confirm UGIB, preendoscopic risk assessment tools, the role of early fluid resuscitation, utilization of blood products, use of pharmacologic interventions, and the optimal timing of endoscopy.

Autonomous Artificial Intelligence vs Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Human Optical Diagnosis of Colorectal Polyps: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based optical diagnosis systems (CADx) have been developed to allow pathology prediction of colorectal polyps during colonoscopies. However, CADx systems have not yet been validated for autonomous performance. Therefore, we conducted a trial comparing autonomous AI to AI-assisted human (AI-H) optical diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a randomized noninferiority trial of patients undergoing elective colonoscopies at 1 academic institution. Patients were randomized into (1) autonomous AI-based CADx optical diagnosis of diminutive polyps without human input or (2) diagnosis by endoscopists who performed optical diagnosis of diminutive polyps after seeing the real-time CADx diagnosis. The primary outcome was accuracy in optical diagnosis in both arms using pathology as the gold standard. Secondary outcomes included agreement with pathology for surveillance intervals. RESULTS: A total of 467 patients were randomized (238 patients/158 polyps in the autonomous AI group and 229 patients/179 polyps in the AI-H group). Accuracy for optical diagnosis was 77.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 69.7-84.7) in the autonomous AI group and 72.1% (95% CI, 65.5-78.6) in the AI-H group (P = .86). For high-confidence diagnoses, accuracy for optical diagnosis was 77.2% (95% CI, 69.7-84.7) in the autonomous AI group and 75.5% (95% CI, 67.9-82.0) in the AI-H group. Autonomous AI had statistically significantly higher agreement with pathology-based surveillance intervals compared to AI-H (91.5% [95% CI, 86.9-96.1] vs 82.1% [95% CI, 76.5-87.7]; P = .016). CONCLUSIONS: Autonomous AI-based optical diagnosis exhibits noninferior accuracy to endoscopist-based diagnosis. Both autonomous AI and AI-H exhibited relatively low accuracy for optical diagnosis; however, autonomous AI achieved higher agreement with pathology-based surveillance intervals. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number NCT05236790).

Expert endoscopist assessment of colorectal polyp size using virtual scale endoscopy, visual or snare-based estimation: a prospective video-based study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Accurate polyp size estimation during colonoscopy has an impact on clinical decision-making. A laser-based virtual scale endoscope (VSE) is available to allow measuring polyp size using a virtual adaptive scale. This study evaluates video-based polyp size measurement accuracy among expert endoscopists using either VSE or visual assessment (VA) with either snare as reference size or without any reference size information. METHODS: A prospective, video-based study was conducted with 10 expert endoscopists. Video sequences from 90 polyps with known reference size (fresh specimen measured using calipers) were distributed on three different slide sets so that each slide set showed the same polyp only once with either VSE, VA or snare-based information. A slide set was randomly assigned to each endoscopist. Endoscopists were asked to provide size estimation based on video review. RESULTS: Relative accuracies for VSE, VA, and snare-based estimation were 75.1% (95% CI [71.6-78.5]), 65.0% (95% CI [59.5-70.4]) and 62.0% (95% CI [54.8-69.0]), respectively. VSE yielded significantly higher relative accuracy compared to VA (p = 0.002) and to snare (p = 0.001). A significantly lower percentage of polyps 1-5 mm were misclassified as >5 mm using VSE versus VA and snare (6.52% vs. 19.6% and 17.5%, p = 0.004) and a significantly lower percentage of polyps >5 mm were misclassified as 1-5 mm using VSE versus VA and snare (11.4% vs. 31.9% and 14.9%, p = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopists estimate polyp size with the highest accuracy when virtual adaptive scale information is displayed. Using a snare to assist sizing did not improve measurement accuracy compared to displaying visual information alone.

Primary and Specialty Care Trainees' Perceptions About Proton Pump Inhibitor Use.

OBJECTIVE: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely prescribed with proven efficacy in many indications, yet longstanding controversy about potential adverse events persists. We aimed to acquire knowledge about perceptions of outpatient PPI long-term prescribing (≥8 wk) among primary and specialty care trainees at 2 Canadian Universities. METHODS: Family medicine, internal medicine, and gastroenterology trainees completed a web-based survey that included 20 clinical scenarios assessing trainee knowledge about PPI efficacy. Contextual PPI prescribing decisions were also elicited, balancing possible PPI indications versus side effects. Management strategies were compared between junior and senior trainees, as well as across training programs. RESULTS: Over a 4-month period,163 trainees (age <26 y: 12%; age 26 to 45: 88%; 59% females) participated in the survey (family medicine: 51%, internal medicine: 44%, and gastroenterology: 5%); 83% were considered junior residents. Only 42% had received formal education on prescribing PPI long-term. Overall, 93% believed they would benefit from such teaching, with 98% stating they would follow related guidelines. No between-group differences were noted in knowledge of appropriate PPI indications nor possible side effects when comparing juniors to seniors, or among different specialties. Across different management scenarios, inappropriate PPI discontinuation was chosen by 14.3% to 67.2%, whereas inappropriate PPI continuation was reported in up to 57%. Trainee seniority and specialty did not differ in appropriate deprescribing rates. CONCLUSIONS: Training level and primary versus specialty care settings are associated with frequent inappropriate PPI prescribing and deprescribing. These findings highlight the need for and may inform future educational programs on PPI usage.

Indomethacin with or without prophylactic pancreatic stent placement to prevent pancreatitis after ERCP: a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of rectally administered indomethacin and placement of a prophylactic pancreatic stent is recommended to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients. Preliminary evidence suggests that the use of indomethacin might eliminate or substantially reduce the need for stent placement, a technically complex, costly, and potentially harmful intervention. METHODS: In this randomised, non-inferiority trial conducted at 20 referral centres in the USA and Canada, patients (aged ≥18 years) at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive rectal indomethacin alone or the combination of indomethacin plus a prophylactic pancreatic stent. Patients, treating clinicians, and outcomes assessors were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis. To declare non-inferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) would have to be less than 5% (non-inferiority margin) in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02476279), and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Sept 17, 2015, and Jan 25, 2023, a total of 1950 patients were randomly assigned. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 145 (14·9%) of 975 patients in the indomethacin alone group and in 110 (11·3%) of 975 in the indomethacin plus stent group (risk difference 3·6%; 95% CI 0·6-6·6; p=0·18 for non-inferiority). A post-hoc intention-to-treat analysis of the risk difference between groups showed that indomethacin alone was inferior to the combination of indomethacin plus prophylactic stent (p=0·011). The relative benefit of stent placement was generally consistent across study subgroups but appeared more prominent among patients at highest risk for pancreatitis. Safety outcomes (serious adverse events, intensive care unit admission, and hospital length of stay) did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: For preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients, a strategy of indomethacin alone was not as effective as a strategy of indomethacin plus prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. These results support prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in addition to rectal indomethacin administration in high-risk patients, in accordance with clinical practice guidelines. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.

Review article: Advances in the management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a common emergency with substantial associated morbidity and mortality. Elective colonoscopy plays an essential role in management, with an even more important role for radiology in the acute setting. Recent advances in the management of patients with LGIB warrant review as the management has recently evolved. AIMS: To provide a comprehensive and updated overview of advances in the approach to patients with LGIB METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search to examine the current data for this narrative review supplemented by expert opinion. RESULTS: The incidence of LGIB is increasing worldwide, partly related to an ageing population and the increasing use of antithrombotics. Diverticulosis continues to be the most common aetiology of LGIB. Pre-endoscopic risk stratification tools, especially the Oakland score, can aid appropriate patient triage. Adequate resuscitation continues to form the basis of management, while appropriate management of antithrombotics is crucial to balance the risk of worsening bleeding against increased cardiovascular risk. Radiological imaging plays an essential role in the diagnosis and treatment of acute LGIB, especially among unstable patients. Colonoscopy remains the gold-standard test for the elective management of stable patients. CONCLUSIONS: The management of LGIB has evolved significantly in recent years, with a shift towards radiological interventions for unstable patients while reserving elective colonoscopy for stable patients. A multidisciplinary approach is essential to optimise the outcomes of patients with LGIB.

Measuring the observer (Hawthorne) effect on adenoma detection rates.

Background and study aims An independent observer can improve procedural quality. We evaluated the impact of the observer (Hawthorne effect) on important quality metrics during colonoscopies. Patients and Methods In a single-center comparative study, consecutive patients undergoing routine screening or diagnostic colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled. In the index group, all procedural steps and quality metrics were observed and documented, and the procedure was video recorded by an independent research assistant. In the reference group, colonoscopies were performed without independent observation. Colonoscopy quality metrics such as polyp, adenoma, serrated lesions, and advanced adenoma detection rates (PDR, ADR, SLDR, AADR) were compared. The probabilities of increased quality metrics were evaluated through regression analyses weighted by the inversed probability of observation during the procedure. Results We included 327 index individuals and 360 referents in the final analyses. The index group had significantly higher PDRs (62.4% vs. 53.1%, P =0.02) and ADRs (39.4% vs. 28.3%, P =0.002) compared with the reference group. The SLDR and AADR were not significantly increased. After adjusting for potential confounders, the ADR and SLDR were 50% (relative risk [RR] 1.51; 95%, CI 1.05-2.17) and more than twofold (RR 2.17; 95%, CI 1.05-4.47) more likely to be higher in the index group than in the reference group. Conclusions The presence of an independent observer documenting colonoscopy quality metrics and video recording the colonoscopy resulted in a significant increase in ADR and other quality metrics. The Hawthorne effect should be considered an alternative strategy to advanced devices to improve colonoscopy quality in practice.

Pre-Endoscopic Scores Predicting Low-Risk Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several risk scores have attempted to risk stratify patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) who are at a lower risk of requiring hospital-based interventions or negative outcomes including death. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare predictive abilities of pre-endoscopic scores in prognosticating the absence of adverse events in patients with UGIB. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central, and ISI Web of knowledge from inception to February 2023. All fully published studies assessing a pre-endoscopic score in patients with UGIB were included. The primary outcome was a composite score for the need of a hospital-based intervention (endoscopic therapy, surgery, angiography, or blood transfusion). Secondary outcomes included: mortality, rebleeding, or the individual endpoints of the composite outcome. Both proportional and comparative analyses were performed. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies were included from 2153 citations, (n = 36,215 patients). Few patients with a low Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) cutoff (0, ≤1 and ≤2) required hospital-based interventions (0.02 (0.01, 0.05), 0.04 (0.02, 0.09) and 0.03 (0.02, 0.07), respectively). The proportions of patients with clinical Rockall (CRS = 0) and ABC (≤3) scores requiring hospital-based intervention were 0.19 (0.15, 0.24) and 0.69 (0.62, 0.75), respectively. GBS (cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2), CRS (cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2), AIMS65 (cutoffs 0 and ≤1) and ABC (cutoffs ≤1 and ≤3) scores all were associated with few patients (0.01-0.04) dying. The proportion of patients suffering other secondary outcomes varied between scoring systems but, in general, was lowest for the GBS. GBS (using cutoffs 0, ≤1 and ≤2) showed excellent discriminative ability in predicting the need for hospital-based interventions (OR 0.02, (0.00, 0.16), 0.00 (0.00, 0.02) and 0.01 (0.00, 0.01), respectively). A CRS cutoff of 0 was less discriminative. For the other secondary outcomes, discriminative abilities varied between scores but, in general, the GBS (using cutoffs up to 2) was clinically useful for most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A GBS cut-off of one or less prognosticated low-risk patients the best. Expanding the GBS cut-off to 2 maintains prognostic accuracy while allowing more patients to be managed safely as outpatients. The evidence is limited by the number, homogeneity, quality, and generalizability of available data and subjectivity of deciding on clinical impact. Additional, comparative and, ideally, interventional studies are needed.

Automated Detection of Anatomical Landmarks During Colonoscopy Using a Deep Learning Model.

Background and aims: Identification and photo-documentation of the ileocecal valve (ICV) and appendiceal orifice (AO) confirm completeness of colonoscopy examinations. We aimed to develop and test a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) model that can automatically identify ICV and AO, and differentiate these landmarks from normal mucosa and colorectal polyps. Methods: We prospectively collected annotated full-length colonoscopy videos of 318 patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopies. We created three nonoverlapping training, validation, and test data sets with 25,444 unaltered frames extracted from the colonoscopy videos showing four landmarks/image classes (AO, ICV, normal mucosa, and polyps). A DCNN classification model was developed, validated, and tested in separate data sets of images containing the four different landmarks. Results: After training and validation, the DCNN model could identify both AO and ICV in 18 out of 21 patients (85.7%). The accuracy of the model for differentiating AO from normal mucosa, and ICV from normal mucosa were 86.4% (95% CI 84.1% to 88.5%), and 86.4% (95% CI 84.1% to 88.6%), respectively. Furthermore, the accuracy of the model for differentiating polyps from normal mucosa was 88.6% (95% CI 86.6% to 90.3%). Conclusion: This model offers a novel tool to assist endoscopists with automated identification of AO and ICV during colonoscopy. The model can reliably distinguish these anatomical landmarks from normal mucosa and colorectal polyps. It can be implemented into automated colonoscopy report generation, photo-documentation, and quality auditing solutions to improve colonoscopy reporting quality.

EUS-guided gastroenterostomy vs. surgical gastrojejunostomy and enteral stenting for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (MGOO) is traditionally treated with surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ), which is effective but associated with high rates of morbidity, or endoscopic stenting (ES), which is less invasive but associated with significant risk of stent dysfunction and need for reintervention. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) provides a robust bypass without the invasiveness of surgery. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing EUS-GE to SGJ and ES for MGOO. Electronic databases were searched from inception through February 2022. A meta-analysis was performed with results reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random effects models. Primary outcomes included clinical success without recurrent GOO and adverse events (AEs). Results Sixteen studies involving 1541 patients were included. EUS-GE was associated with higher clinical success without recurrent GOO compared to ES or SGJ [OR 2.60, 95% CI1.58-4.28] and compared to ES alone [OR 5.08, 95% CI 3.42-7.55], but yielded no significant difference compared to SGJ alone [OR 1.94, 95% CI 0.97-3.88]. AE rates were significantly lower for EUS-GE compared to ES or SGJ grouped together [OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.20-0.58], or SGJ alone [OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.10-0.30] but were not significant different versus ES alone [OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.29-1.14]. Conclusions EUS-GE is the most successful approach to treating MGOO, exhibiting a lower risk of recurrent obstruction compared to ES, and fewer AEs compared to SGJ.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage of First Intent With a Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent vs Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study (ELEMENT Trial).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy with a lumen-apposing metal stent (EUS-CDS) is a promising modality for management of malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) with potential for better stent patency. We compared its outcomes with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with metal stenting (ERCP-M). METHODS: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, we recruited patients with MDBO secondary to borderline resectable, locally advanced, or unresectable peri-ampullary cancers across 10 Canadian institutions and 1 French institution. This was a superiority trial with a noninferiority assessment of technical success. Patients were randomized to EUS-CDS or ERCP-M. The primary end point was the rate of stent dysfunction at 1 year, considering competing risks of death, clinical failure, and surgical resection. Analyses were performed according to intention-to-treat principles. RESULTS: From February 2019 to February 2022, 144 patients were recruited; 73 were randomized to EUS-CDS and 71 were randomized to ERCP-M. The mean (SD) procedure time was 14.0 (11.4) minutes for EUS-CDS and 23.1 (15.6) minutes for ERCP-M (P < .01); 40% of the former was performed without fluoroscopy. Technical success was achieved in 90.4% (95% CI, 81.5% to 95.3%) of EUS-CDS and 83.1% (95% CI, 72.7% to 90.1%) of ERCP-M with a risk difference of 7.3% (95% CI, -4.0% to 18.8%) indicating noninferiority. Stent dysfunction occurred in 9.6% vs 9.9% of EUS-CDS and ERCP-M cases, respectively (P = .96). No differences in adverse events, pancreaticoduodenectomy and oncologic outcomes, or quality of life were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Although not superior in stent function, EUS-CDS is an efficient and safe alternative to ERCP-M in patients with MDBO. These findings provide evidence for greater adoption of EUS-CDS in clinical practice as a complementary and exchangeable first-line modality to ERCP in patients with MDBO. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT03870386.