Endoscopic scoring system utilization for inflammatory bowel disease activity assessment: A multicenter real-world study from Argentina / Uso de puntajes endoscopicos para la medicion de la actividad mucosa en pacientes con enfermedades inflamatorias intestinales: un estudio de vida real multicentrico de la Argentina

Background The frequency and patterns of use of scores for the assessment of endoscopic activity in inflammatory bowel disease patients are not known. Aim To describe the prevalence of adequate use of endoscopic scores in IBD patients who underwent colonoscopy in a real-life setting. Materials and methods A multicenter observational study comprising six community hospitals in Argentina was undertaken. Patients with a diagnosis of Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis who underwent colonoscopy for endoscopic activity assessment between 2018 and 2022 were included. Colonoscopy reports of included subjects were manually reviewed to determine the proportion of colonoscopies that included an endoscopic score report. We determined the proportion of colonoscopy reports that included all of the IBD colonoscopy report quality elements proposed by BRIDGe group. Endoscopist's specialty, years of experience as well as expertise in IBD were assessed. Results A total of 1556 patients were included for analysis (31.94% patients with Crohn's disease). Mean age was 45.94±15.46. Endoscopic score reporting was found in 58.41% of colonoscopies. Most frequently used scores were Mayo endoscopic score (90.56%) and SES-CD (56.03%) for ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, respectively. In addition, 79.11% of endoscopic reports failed to comply with all recommendations on endoscopic reporting for inflammatory bowel disease. Conclusions A significant proportion of endoscopic reports of inflammatory bowel disease patients do not include the description of an endoscopic score to assess mucosal inflammatory activity in a real-world setting. This is also associated with a lack of compliance in recommended criteria for proper endoscopic reporting. (AU)

Introduccion La frecuencia y el patrón de uso de puntajes para evaluar la actividad endoscópica en pacientes con enfermedades inflamatorias intestinales no se conoce bien. Objetivo Describir la prevalencia de uso adecuado de puntajes de actividad endoscópica en colonoscopias de pacientes con enfermedades inflamatorias intestinales en la vida real. Materiales y métodos Se realizó un estudio multicéntrico observacional en seis hospitales de comunidad en Argentina. Se incluyeron pacientes con enfermedad de Crohn o colitis ulcerosa sometidos a colonoscopia para evaluación de la actividad endoscópica entre 2018 y 2022. Se revisaron los reportes de colonoscopias de sujetos incluidos evaluando la proporción de reportes que incluyeron algún puntaje de actividad endoscópica. Se evaluó la proporción de reportes que incluyeron los elementos de calidad en reporte de colonoscopia en enfermedades inflamatorias intestinales sugeridos por el grupo BRIDGe. Se evaluó la especialidad de los operadores, sus años de experiencia y su experiencia en el manejo de enfermedades inflamatorias intestinales. Resultados Se incluyeron 1556 pacientes (31.94% con enfermedad de Crohn). La edad promedio fue de 45.94±15.46. El reporte de algún puntaje endoscópico se identificó en el 58.41% de las colonoscopias. Los puntajes más utilizados fueron el puntaje endoscópico de Mayo (90.56%) y el SES-CD (56.03%). El 79.11% de los reportes de colonoscopias no contaban con todas las recomendaciones para el correcto reporte de colonoscopias en enfermedades inflamatorias intestinales. Conclusiones Una proporción signifivativa de reportes de colonoscopias en sujetos con enfermedades inflamatorias intestinales no incluyen puntajes endoscópicos de actividad. (AU)

Endoscopic scoring system utilization for inflammatory bowel disease activity assessment: A multicenter real-world study from Argentina.

BACKGROUND: The frequency and patterns of use of scores for the assessment of endoscopic activity in inflammatory bowel disease patients are not known. AIM: To describe the prevalence of adequate use of endoscopic scores in IBD patients who underwent colonoscopy in a real-life setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicenter observational study comprising six community hospitals in Argentina was undertaken. Patients with a diagnosis of Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis who underwent colonoscopy for endoscopic activity assessment between 2018 and 2022 were included. Colonoscopy reports of included subjects were manually reviewed to determine the proportion of colonoscopies that included an endoscopic score report. We determined the proportion of colonoscopy reports that included all of the IBD colonoscopy report quality elements proposed by BRIDGe group. Endoscopist's specialty, years of experience as well as expertise in IBD were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1556 patients were included for analysis (31.94% patients with Crohn's disease). Mean age was 45.94±15.46. Endoscopic score reporting was found in 58.41% of colonoscopies. Most frequently used scores were Mayo endoscopic score (90.56%) and SES-CD (56.03%) for ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, respectively. In addition, 79.11% of endoscopic reports failed to comply with all recommendations on endoscopic reporting for inflammatory bowel disease. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of endoscopic reports of inflammatory bowel disease patients do not include the description of an endoscopic score to assess mucosal inflammatory activity in a real-world setting. This is also associated with a lack of compliance in recommended criteria for proper endoscopic reporting.

Cold snare polypectomy without submucosal injection: safety and efficacy in 615 large serrated lesions.

Background and study aim Cold resection is becoming the standard of care for the resection of nonpedunculated colon lesions up to 10 mm in diameter. Sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSA/Ps), including those ≥ 10 mm, present various characteristics that make them ideal candidates for cold snare polypectomy (CSP). Patients and methods A prospectively maintained database was searched retrospectively for consecutive patients with lesions ≥ 10 mm resected between March 2013 and March 2018. During that period, all SSA/P-appearing lesions were resected using CSP without submucosal injection, except for lesions with endoscopic suspicion of dysplasia or submucosal invasion. Patients with a pathological diagnosis of SSA/P were included in the analysis. Adverse events were recorded up to 21 days following colonoscopy. Results 615 SSA/Ps ≥ 10 mm were resected during 452 colonoscopy procedures in 379 patients (mean age 54.1 years; standard deviation [SD] 11.9 years). Mean polyp size was 13.7 (SD 5.2) mm; 122 lesions (19.8 %) were ≥ 20 mm and 479 lesions (77.9 %) underwent piecemeal resection. Immediate adverse events included persistent abdominal pain that resolved spontaneously within 2 hours in three patients (0.8 %; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.2 %-2.3 %). One patient with persistent intraprocedural bleeding was successfully treated with a hemostatic clip. No late adverse events were detected. Surveillance colonoscopy was performed in 293 patients (77.3 %) at 23.4 (SD 11.6) months following index colonoscopy; residual/recurrent lesions were diagnosed in 23 patients (7.8 %; 95 %CI 5.0 %-11.6 %). Conclusion CSP without submucosal injection appeared to be safe and effective for the resection of large SSA/Ps.

Timed screening colonoscopy: a randomized trial of two colonoscopic withdrawal techniques.

BACKGROUND AND GOALS: Missed adenomas are likely to be located in the proximal colon and failure to detect these lesions might explain the occurrence of a certain percentage of interval carcinomas. Though studies have demonstrated increased detection of significant neoplastic lesions in colonoscopic examinations where the withdrawal time is 6 min or more, there are no recommendations on how much time to spend in each colonic segment. The aim of the trial was to find ways to reduce the number of lesions missed in the proximal segments of the colon assessing the difference in adenoma detection rate (ADR) between two colonoscopic withdrawal timed techniques. STUDY: This was a randomized trial in a university hospital. Population was composed of patients referred for screening colonoscopy. The Main Outcome measurements was ADRs for patients subjected to a timed colonoscopy with specific withdrawal times, with special interest in the proximal colon, and implying a minimum of 2-min withdrawal delay in the cecum and right colon, a 1-min delay time in the transverse colon, and a minimum additional 3-min delay time in the left colon, as compared to a standard timed colonoscopy with free withdrawal delay time of at least 6 min. RESULTS: A total of 1160 patients were included. Eleven were initially excluded due to incomplete colonoscopies. Of the remaining 1149 patients, 573 were randomized to the group with fixed withdrawal times (Group A) and 576 to conventional withdrawal (Group B). Median age was 57 years (SD 6), a total of 634 (55.2%) were male patients and the mean withdrawal time was 7:05 min (SD 1 min). Seven hundred and eighty-one adenomas/serrated lesions were found in 470 patients (1.66 per patient), with 28 advanced lesions and 3 adenocarcinomas. Global ADR was 41% with no significant statistical differences between the two groups (42.1% vs 39.8%, p 0.43), respectively. A multivariate analysis showed clear relation between the finding of adenomas and higher BBPS ratings (Adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] 0.92, p 0.05), age (aOR 1.03, p 0.01), male sex (aOR 1.51, p 0.001), and time of withdrawal (aOR 1.17, p 0.001), while no association was observed with either withdrawal technique (aOR 0.89, IC 95% 0.70-1.03, p 0.32). There was no statistical significant difference between the two groups concerning the finding of proximal lesions (cOR 0.93, CI 95% 0.71-1.20, p 0.56) (aOR 0.89, CI 95% 0.69-1.17, p 0.41) or serrated polyps (cOR 0.81, CI 95% 0.51-1.27, p 0.35) (aOR 0.81, IC 95% 0.51-1.28, p 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Fixed withdrawal times did not prove to lead to an increase in the number of detected adenomas. Nevertheless, our study supports previous reports stating that longer withdrawal times are indeed associated with better proximal and distal adenoma detection.