Prognostic performance of the 'DICA' endoscopic classification and the 'CODA' score in predicting clinical outcomes of diverticular disease: an international, multicentre, prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the predictive value of the Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment (DICA) classification and to develop and validate a combined endoscopic-clinical score predicting clinical outcomes of diverticulosis, named Combined Overview on Diverticular Assessment (CODA). DESIGN: A multicentre, prospective, international cohort study. SETTING: 43 gastroenterology and endoscopy centres located in Europe and South America. PARTICIPANTS: 2215 patients (2198 completing the study) at the first diagnosis of diverticulosis/diverticular disease were enrolled. Patients were scored according to DICA classifications. INTERVENTIONS: A 3-year follow-up was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To predict the acute diverticulitis and the surgery according to DICA classification. Survival methods for censored observation were used to develop and validate a novel combined endoscopic-clinical score for predicting diverticulitis and surgery (CODA score). RESULTS: The 3-year cumulative probability of diverticulitis and surgery was of 3.3% (95% CI 2.5% to 4.5%) in DICA 1, 11.6% (95% CI 9.2% to 14.5%) in DICA 2 and 22.0% (95% CI 17.2% to 28.0%) in DICA 3 (p<0.001), and 0.15% (95% CI 0.04% to 0.59%) in DICA 1, 3.0% (95% CI 1.9% to 4.7%) in DICA 2 and 11.0% (95% CI 7.5% to 16.0%) in DICA 3 (p<0.001), respectively. The 3-year cumulative probability of diverticulitis and surgery was ≤4%, and ≤0.7% in CODA A; <10% and <2.5% in CODA B; >10% and >2.5% in CODA C, respectively. The CODA score showed optimal discrimination capacity in predicting the risk of surgery in the development (c-statistic: 0.829; 95% CI 0.811 to 0.846) and validation cohort (c-statistic: 0.943; 95% CI 0.905 to 0.981). CONCLUSIONS: DICA classification has a significant role in predicting the risk of diverticulitis and surgery in patients with diverticulosis, which is significantly enhanced by the CODA score. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02758860.

[A cross-sectional study on the prevalence and incidence of pressure ulcers in an Italian University Hospital-Umbria Region]. / Prevalenza e incidenza delle ulcere da pressione in Italia: studio trasversale in un'Azienda Ospedaliera-Universitaria dell'Umbria.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess the prevalence and incidence of pressure ulcers (PUs) in patients hospitalized in a University Hospital in central Italy. METHODS: We carried out a prevalence and incidence study on PUs and an additional prevalence estimate of PUs was also produced ten days after the first assessment. All data were explored by descriptive statistics, the Chi-square test and a multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The prevalence of pressure ulcers was of 6,5%, while it increased to 9,9% at the second assessment ten days after the first measurement. Prevalence was statistically significant and increased with the age of inpatients (p=0,004) and was correlated to the origin of the patients (p=0,002). The incidence of PUs ten days after hospital admittance was of 3,6%. Ulcers are more frequently observed in the general medicine rather than in the surgery and intensive care units. Results showed that there exists a meaningful relationship between increased risk (Braden 16) and the presence of PUs, with an OR of 1,40 (95% CI 1,03-1,62) in high risk patients (Braden -12) and with an OR of 1,61 (95% CI 1,06-2,42) in very high or prohibitive risk patients (Braden 13-16). The most affected areas are the sacrum, the heels and the ankles. Mobilization plans were scarcely available, or do not described. CONCLUSIONS: The obtained data confirmed the difficulty to measure whether PU prevention practices are being carried out in compliance with the set guidelines presently in use in all the University Hospital Units. There is still a very limited use of available risk assessment tools for predicting PU risk and mobilization plans are still poorly documented. A monitoring and follow-up strategy should be implemented to better understand prevalence and incidence rates.

Preparation for colonoscopy: Recommendations by an expert panel in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Despite several guidelines on bowel preparation being available, their applicability in Italy is poorly investigated. AIMS: (1) To create expert-based recommendations for the Italian setting based on available international guidelines on bowel preparation for colonoscopy; (2) to assess consensus across the Italian endoscopy community. METHODS: The study was conducted in 2 phases: (a) statements formulation, (b) assessment of consensus. For the first phase, 6 topics related to bowel preparation were identified: (1) efficacy/tolerability; (2) timing; (3) assessment of quality of bowel preparation; (4) factors associated with inadequate preparation; (5) patient education and (6) impact of organisational factors. For each topic, statements were produced and voted by a panel of experts. For consensus assessment, the invited participants were asked to rate the statements. The statement achieved a good level of agreement when at least 70% of voters agreed with it. RESULTS: 25 statements were agreed in the first phase. Agreement was not achieved by the endoscopy community for 7 statements, mainly concerning practical aspects (i.e. strategies for management of patients with inadequate preparation, organisational factors). CONCLUSION: A clinically relevant consensus was achieved on the main topics of bowel preparation, such as the choice of laxative and the time of administration, and it may help to homogenize the colonoscopy practice in Italy. Nevertheless, there are a few country-specific preparation-related issues that need to be addressed.

Development and validation of an endoscopic classification of diverticular disease of the colon: the DICA classification.

BACKGROUND: A validated endoscopic classification of diverticular disease (DD) of the colon is lacking at present. Our aim was to develop a simple endoscopic score of DD: the Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment (DICA) score. METHODS: The DICA score for DD resulted in the sum of the scores for the extension of diverticulosis, the number of diverticula per region, the presence and type of inflammation, and the presence and type of complications: DICA 1 (≤ 3), DICA 2 (4-7) and DICA 3 (>7). A comparison with abdominal pain and inflammatory marker expression was also performed. A total of 50 videos of DD patients were reassessed in order to investigate the predictive role of DICA on the outcome of the disease. RESULTS: Overall agreement in using DICA was 0.847 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.812-0.893): 0.878 (95% CI 0.832-0.895) for DICA 1, 0.765 (95% CI 0.735-0.786) for DICA 2 and 0.891 (95% CI 0.845-0.7923) for DICA 3. Intra-observer agreement (kappa) was 0.91 (95% CI 0.886-0.947). A significant correlation was found between the DICA score and C-reactive protein values (p = 0.0001), as well as between the median pain score and the DICA score (p = 0.0001). With respect to the 50 patients retrospectively reassessed, occurrence/recurrence of disease complications was recorded in 29 patients (58%): 10 (34.5%) were classified as DICA 1 and 19 (65.5%) as DICA 2 (p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: The DICA score is a simple, reproducible, validated and easy-to-use endoscopic scoring system for DD of the colon.

Detection of gastric precancerous conditions in daily clinical practice: a nationwide survey.

BACKGROUND: The burden of gastric precancerous conditions and factors associated with their detection have not been fully investigated in community-based settings. Little is known about adherence to Sydney system for histopathology of gastric biopsies. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate what really happens in clinical practice with regard to the detection of gastric atrophy and intestinal metaplasia in dyspeptic patients. METHODS: We performed a nationwide survey of 979 consecutive patients (50-65 years old) with dyspeptic symptoms, examined at 24 gastrointestinal endoscopy units throughout Italy. Clinical information was collected from questionnaires; a standard bioptic mapping was performed in each unit, biopsies from each patient were analyzed by histopathology performed according to daily clinical practice in each local histopathology center. RESULTS: Separate descriptions of antral and corporal biopsies were included in 679 pathology reports (69%), whereas Sydney system was applied in 324 reports (33%). Gastric atrophy without intestinal metaplasia (GA) and gastric atrophy with intestinal metaplasia (GIM) were detected in 322 (33%) patients. The full adherence to Sydney system significantly increased the probability of detecting GIM (OR 9.6, 95% CI 5.5-16.7), GA (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.07-3.44), and either of the conditions (OR 6.67, 95% CI 4.36-10.19). CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide survey showed that in one-third of dyspeptic patients, gastric precancerous conditions are detected. In daily routine practice, only 1/3 of histology reports were worked out adhering to Sydney system showing that international guidelines are poorly observed in clinical practice. This may represent a critical element for surveillance strategies for gastric cancer.

Prevalence of lesions detected at upper endoscopy: an Italian survey.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence of gastroduodenal lesions is changing in the last decades. Prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy may be involved in such a phenomenon. We assessed gastroduodenal lesions prevalence in a nationwide study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent upper endoscopy for the first time in 24 Italian centres between January 2012 and 31 March 2012 were enrolled. Prevalence of gastric ulcer (GU), duodenal ulcer (DU), gastric erosions (GE), duodenal erosions (DE), gastric polyp (GP), Barrett's oesophagus (BE), and neoplasia was assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 1054 (M/F: 388/666; Mean age: 57.5 ± 5 years) patients were enrolled. H. pylori infection was detected in 356 (33.9%) patients, 358 (34%) were taking NSAIDs, and 532 (50.5%) PPIs. PPI therapy was associated with a significantly lower H. pylori detection rate (27.8% vs 39.8%; OR: 0.6, 95% CI 0.45-0.77; P<0.001). GU, DU, GE, DE, GP and BE were detected in 17 (1.6%), 13 (1.2%), 150 (14.2%), 50 (4.7%), 51 (4.8%) and 17 (1.6%), respectively. Moreover, 3 (0.3%) distal gastric cancers were observed. H. pylori infection remained the most prevalent factor for all gastroduodenal lesions, but gastric polyp. One third of patients with GU and GE were taking only NSAIDs therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of peptic ulcer was very low (<3%), with a similar rate between DU and GU. As many as half patients were on ongoing PPI therapy. Such a therapy could affect both the detection rate of H. pylori infection and the real prevalence of gastroduodenal lesions.

Appropriateness guidelines and predictive rules to select patients for upper endoscopy: a nationwide multicenter study.

OBJECTIVES: Selecting patients appropriately for upper endoscopy (EGD) is crucial for efficient use of endoscopy. The objective of this study was to compare different clinical strategies and statistical methods to select patients for EGD, namely appropriateness guidelines, age and/or alarm features, and multivariate and artificial neural network (ANN) models. METHODS: A nationwide, multicenter, prospective study was undertaken in which consecutive patients referred for EGD during a 1-month period were enrolled. Before EGD, the endoscopist assessed referral appropriateness according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines, also collecting clinical and demographic variables. Outcomes of the study were detection of relevant findings and new diagnosis of malignancy at EGD. The accuracy of the following clinical strategies and predictive rules was compared: (i) ASGE appropriateness guidelines (indicated vs. not indicated), (ii) simplified rule (>or=45 years or alarm features vs. <45 years without alarm features), (iii) logistic regression model, and (iv) ANN models. RESULTS: A total of 8,252 patients were enrolled in 57 centers. Overall, 3,803 (46%) relevant findings and 132 (1.6%) new malignancies were detected. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the simplified rule were similar to that of the ASGE guidelines for both relevant findings (82%/26%/0.55 vs. 88%/27%/0.52) and cancer (97%/22%/0.58 vs. 98%/20%/0.58). Both logistic regression and ANN models seemed to be substantially more accurate in predicting new cases of malignancy, with an AUC of 0.82 and 0.87, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A simple predictive rule based on age and alarm features is similarly effective to the more complex ASGE guidelines in selecting patients for EGD. Regression and ANN models may be useful in identifying a relatively small subgroup of patients at higher risk of cancer.