British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

A root cause analysis system to establish the most plausible explanation for post-endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer.

BACKGROUND : Missing upper gastrointestinal cancer (UGIC) at endoscopy may prevent curative treatment. We have developed a root cause analysis system for potentially missed UGICs at endoscopy (post-endoscopy UGIC [PEUGIC]) to establish the most plausible explanations. METHODS : The electronic records of patients with UGIC at two National Health Service providers were examined. PEUGICs were defined as UGICs diagnosed 6-36 months after an endoscopy that did not diagnose cancer. An algorithm based on the World Endoscopy Organization post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer algorithm was developed to categorize and identify potentially avoidable PEUGICs. RESULTS : Of 1327 UGICs studied, 89 (6.7 %) were PEUGICs (patient median [IQR] age at endoscopy 73.5 (63.5-81.0); 60.7 % men). Of the PEUGICs, 40 % were diagnosed in patients with Barrett's esophagus. PEUGICs were categorized as: A - lesion detected, adequate assessment and decision-making, but PEUGIC occurred (16.9 %); B - lesion detected, inadequate assessment or decision-making (34.8 %); C - possible missed lesion, endoscopy and decision-making adequate (8.9 %); D - possible missed lesion, endoscopy or decision-making inadequate (33.7 %); E - deviated from management pathway but appropriate (5.6 %); F - deviated inappropriately from management pathway (3.4 %). The majority of PEUGICs (71 %) were potentially avoidable and in 45 % the cancer outcome could have been different if it had been diagnosed on the initial endoscopy. There was a negative correlation between endoscopists' mean annual number of endoscopies and the technically attributable PEUGIC rate (correlation coefficient -0.57; P = 0.004). CONCLUSION : Missed opportunities to avoid PEUGIC were identified in 71 % of cases. Root cause analysis can standardize future investigation of PEUGIC and guide quality improvement efforts.

Assessment of the role of the Edinburgh dysphagia score in referral triage in a national service evaluation of the urgent suspected upper gastrointestinal cancer pathway.

BACKGROUND: The British Society of Gastroenterology has recommended the Edinburgh Dysphagia Score (EDS) to risk-stratify dysphagia referrals during the endoscopy COVID recovery phase. AIMS: External validation of the diagnostic accuracy of EDS and exploration of potential changes to improve its diagnostic performance. METHODS: A prospective multicentre study of consecutive patients referred with dysphagia on an urgent suspected upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer pathway between May 2020 and February 2021. The sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) of EDS were calculated. Variables associated with UGI cancer were identified by forward stepwise logistic regression and a modified Cancer Dysphagia Score (CDS) developed. RESULTS: 1301 patients were included from 19 endoscopy providers; 43% male; median age 62 (IQR 51-73) years. 91 (7%) UGI cancers were diagnosed, including 80 oesophageal, 10 gastric and one duodenal cancer. An EDS ≥3.5 had a sensitivity of 96.7 (95% CI 90.7-99.3)% and an NPV of 99.3 (97.8-99.8)%. Age, male sex, progressive dysphagia and unintentional weight loss >3 kg were positively associated and acid reflux and localisation to the neck were negatively associated with UGI cancer. Dysphagia duration <6 months utilised in EDS was replaced with progressive dysphagia in CDS. CDS ≥5.5 had a sensitivity of 97.8 (92.3-99.7)% and NPV of 99.5 (98.1-99.9)%. Area under receiver operating curve was 0.83 for CDS, compared to 0.81 for EDS. CONCLUSIONS: In a national cohort, the EDS has high sensitivity and NPV as a triage tool for UGI cancer. The CDS offers even higher diagnostic accuracy. The EDS or CDS should be incorporated into the urgent suspected UGI cancer pathway.

Controversies in ERCP: Technical aspects.

The aim of the series of papers on controversies of biliopancreatic drainage procedures is to discuss pros and cons of the varying clinical practices and techniques in ERCP and EUS for drainage of biliary and pancreatic ducts. While the first part focuses on indications, clinical and imaging prerequisites prior to ERCP, sedation options, post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis, and other related technical topics, the second part discusses specific procedural ERCP techniques including precut techniques and their timing as well as management algorithms. In addition, reviews on controversies in EUS-guided bile duct and pancreatic drainage procedures are under preparation.

Controversies in ERCP: Indications and preparation.

The aim of the series of papers on controversies of biliopancreatic drainage procedures is to discuss the pros and cons of the varying clinical practices and techniques in ERCP and EUS for drainage of biliary and pancreatic ducts. The first part focuses on indications, clinical and imaging prerequisites before ERCP, sedation options, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) prophylaxis, and other related technical topics. In the second part, specific procedural ERCP-techniques including precut techniques and its timing as well as management algorithms are discussed. In addition, controversies in EUS-guided bile duct and pancreatic drainage procedures are under preparation.

Deep sedation and anaesthesia in complex gastrointestinal endoscopy: a joint position statement endorsed by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), Joint Advisory Group (JAG) and Royal College of Anaesthetists (RCoA).

In the UK, more than 2.5 million endoscopic procedures are carried out each year. Most are performed under conscious sedation with benzodiazepines and opioids administered by the endoscopist. However, in prolonged and complex procedures, this form of sedation may provide inadequate patient comfort or result in oversedation. As a result, this may have a negative impact on procedural success and patient outcome. In addition, there have been safety concerns on the high doses of benzodiazepines and opioids used particularly in prolonged and complex procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy has evolved rapidly over the past 5 years with advances in technical skills and equipment allowing interventions and procedural capabilities that are moving closer to minimally invasive endoscopic surgery. It is vital that safe and appropriate sedation practices follow the inevitable expansion of this portfolio to accommodate safe and high-quality clinical outcomes. This position statement outlines the current use of sedation in the UK and highlights the role for anaesthetist-led deep sedation practice with a focus on propofol sedation although the choice of sedative or anaesthetic agent is ultimately the choice of the anaesthetist. It outlines the indication for deep sedation and anaesthesia, patient selection and assessment and procedural details. It considers the setup for a deep sedation and anaesthesia list, including the equipment required, the environment, staffing and monitoring requirements. Considerations for different endoscopic procedures in both emergency and elective setting are also detailed. The role for training, audit, compliance and future developments are discussed.

Establishing an anaesthetist-delivered propofol sedation service for advanced endoscopic procedures: implementing the RCA/BSG guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Following recommendations from the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the British Society of Gastroenterology, we report our results of propofol sedation for complex endoscopic procedures delivered by a single consultant anaesthetist over a 5-year period. METHODS: A weekly session was provided in the endoscopy department for procedures that were complex or could previously not be completed successfully. Deep sedation was provided by intermittent propofol bolus doses, supplemented with fentanyl where necessary, titrated to clinical effect. Patients were usually in semiprone or lateral positions and spontaneously breathed air supplemented with nasal oxygen. Service evaluation included patient recall, endoscopist satisfaction with conditions, procedural success and airway-related adverse outcomes. RESULTS: We completed 1000 procedures, 42.5% of which were endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, with the remainder comprising a diverse range of endoscopic procedures of 3-156 min duration. Procedural conditions were excellent in 79% of cases, 261 procedures were completed which had been previously abandoned, 246 patients (24.6%) had a better experience than previously and none recalled any part of their procedure. Three patients required transient bag and mask ventilation, and nasal airways were used in 12 patients, but none required tracheal intubation or vasopressor support. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines facilitated a propofol sedation service with considerable benefits for patients and endoscopists. Provision of deep propofol sedation by an anaesthetist, in patients with an unsecured airway, appears practical, effective and efficient. Small adjustments to the airway were fairly common, but the incidence of adverse events and requirement for airway instrumentation was low.

EUS-guided thrombin injection for management of gastric fundal varices.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Cyanoacrylate glue is recommended first-line endoscopic therapy for gastric fundal varices but it is difficult to use and carries a risk of embolization. Thrombin is preferred by many in the UK, but its effectiveness can be difficult to establish at endoscopy and the rate of re-bleeding is higher. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) can help assess variceal blood flow and has the potential to improve both targeting and effectiveness of injection therapy. Whereas there is already some data for its use with glue, little data currently exist in relation to its use with thrombin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We present a series of patients treated with EUS-guided thrombin injection over the last 4 years. Thrombin was injected under EUS guidance with the intention of obliterating flow within the fundal varices. Outcomes reviewed included whether haemostasis was achieved, the dose of thrombin required for endosonographic variceal obliteration, the incidence of re-bleeding, and procedural related adverse events. RESULTS: Eight patients received EUS-guided thrombin: 3 with active bleeding and 5 as elective prevention. In 2/3 (66 %) patients with active bleeding haemostasis was achieved after a single dose with complete variceal obliteration. 1/3 (33 %) had no alteration in blood flow despite 10 000 IU. None of the elective prevention group had further bleeding and obliteration was observed in 4/5 (80 %). A range of 600 to 10 000 IU of thrombin was used and there were no adverse procedure-related outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are promising and suggest that EUS-guided thrombin injection may have a role in managing bleeding from gastric fundal varices.

Late acute liver allograft rejection; a study of its natural history and graft survival in the current era.

BACKGROUND: Late acute rejection (LAR) after liver transplantation is often associated with poor clinical outcomes. We reviewed our experience of managing LAR in the current era to determine its natural history. METHODS: A database of 970 consecutive adult liver transplants was reviewed retrospectively. LAR was defined as histologically proven acute cellular rejection occurring more than 90 days after transplantation. RESULTS: The incidence of LAR was 11%, with a mean time of 565 days (median, 311 days; range, 90-2922 days) after transplantation. The highest rates for LAR were in seronegative hepatitis (17%), primary biliary cirrhosis (16%), and primary sclerosing cholangitis (13%) with an odds ratio of 2.3, 2.1, and 1.8, respectively. Logistic regression showed that younger recipients, primary biliary cirrhosis, and previous graft loss were independent predictors of LAR (P<0.001). Mean trough whole blood tacrolimus levels were at their lowest levels 1 week before the diagnosis of rejection (5.5 ng/mL; SD, 2.6) compared with levels of 7.7 ng/mL 4 weeks before rejection, showing a clear temporal relation. Graft survival was worse in those with LAR (P<0.01), whereas the best graft survival was among early acute rejection cases (85% 10-year survival; P<0.01). Poor response to treatment correlated with the development of ductopenic rejection (r=0.3; P<0.01). Approximately half with early ductopenic rejection eventually died (n=15). CONCLUSION: LAR continues to provide a risk to patient and graft survival: understanding risk factors may allow an improvement in monitoring and early intervention and so prevent early graft loss.

Siblings with recessive oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy.

Oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophy (OPMD) is a late onset myopathy usually presenting in the 5th or 6th decade of life with progressive ptosis, dysphagia and proximal muscle weakness. It is usually dominantly inherited; however, a rare recessive form has also been described although documentation of such cases in the literature is very sparse. Here we report two siblings with recessive OPMD, in one of whom the clinical picture is complicated by ankylosing spondilitis and pneumonia. They exhibit later onset and milder symptoms than is typical for patients with dominantly inherited OPMD. This and the possibility that OPMD may be masked by symptoms of other diseases of the elderly may account for the paucity of cases of recessive OPMD reported in the literature.