Ecogastroenterology: cultivating sustainable clinical excellence in an environmentally conscious landscape.

Gastrointestinal practices, especially endoscopy, have a substantial environmental impact, marked by notable greenhouse gas emissions and waste generation. As the world struggles with climate change, there emerges a pressing need to re-evaluate and reform the environmental footprint within gastrointestinal medicine. The challenge lies in finding a harmonious balance between ensuring clinical effectiveness and upholding environmental responsibility. This task involves recognising that the most significant reduction in the carbon footprint of endoscopy is achieved by avoiding unnecessary procedures; addressing the use of single-use endoscopes and accessories; and extending beyond the procedural suites to include clinics, virtual care, and conferences, among other aspects of gastrointestinal practice. The emerging digital realm in health care is crucial, given the potential environmental advantages of virtual gastroenterological care. Through an in-depth analysis, this review presents a path towards sustainable gastrointestinal practices, emphasising integrated strategies that prioritise both patient care and environmental stewardship.

Estimating the environmental impact of endoscopic activity at a tertiary center: a pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: The growing number of endoscopic procedures, frequently requiring single-use disposable instruments, is responsible for the production of a large amount of waste. To this date, the reality of waste production at large European Gastroenterology centers is unknown. This study aimed to estimate the amount of waste due to endoscopic practice at a tertiary center in Portugal. METHODS: We performed a prospective study to calculate the mass (in kg) of residues generated during a period of 5 working days of endoscopic practice. We included residues produced at endoscopy suites, pre and postprocedure areas and during endoscope reprocessing. Residues were categorized as non-dangerous (groups I/II), of biologic risk (group III) and specific hazardous hospital residues (group IV). The production of residues separated for recycling/valorization (paper/card and plastic) was also quantified. The volume of water used for reprocessing an endoscope was also assessed. RESULTS: During the analyzed period, 241 endoscopic procedures were performed. A total of 443.2 kg of waste (22.6 kg from groups I/II, 266.9 kg from group III and 3.9 kg from group IV) were produced, most from group III (75%). For each endoscopic procedure, 1.8 kg of waste was generated. Of the total waste mass, 17.8% was separated for recycling/valorization. A volume of 55L of water was required for reprocessing one endoscope. CONCLUSION: Each endoscopic procedure generated a significant amount of waste and water consumption during reprocessing. These real-life analyses are a pivotal step before implementing effective measures to improve resource utilization and more sustainable practices.

Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate Reduces the Severity of COVID-19 in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: HIV-positive patients on tenofovir hydroxyl fumarate (TDF)/emtricitabine have a lower risk of COVID-19 and hospitalization than those given other treatments. Our aim was to analyze the severity of COVID-19 in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) on TDF or entecavir (ETV). METHODS: Spanish hospital databases (n = 28) including information regarding adult CHB patients on TDF or ETV for the period February 1st to November 30th 2020 were searched for COVID-19, defined as a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction, and for severe COVID-19. RESULTS: Of 4736 patients, 117 had COVID-19 (2.5%), 67 on TDF and 50 on ETV. Compared to patients on TDF, those on ETV showed (p < 0.05) greater rates of obesity, diabetes, ischemic cardiopathy, and hypertension. COVID-19 incidence was similar in both groups (2.3 vs. 2.6%). Compared to TDF, patients on ETV more often (p < 0.01) had severe COVID-19 (36 vs. 6%), required intensive care unit (ICU) (10% vs. 0) or ventilatory support (20 vs. 3%), were hospitalized for longer (10.8 ± 19 vs. 3.1 ± 7 days) or died (10 vs. 1.5%, p = 0.08). In an IPTW propensity score analysis adjusted for age, sex, obesity, comorbidities, and fibrosis stage, TDF was associated with a sixfold reduction in severe COVID-19 risk (adjusted-IPTW-OR 0.17, 95%CI 0.04-0.67, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Compared to ETV, TDF seems to play a protective role in CHB patients with SARS-CoV-2 whereby the risk of severe COVID-19 is lowered.

Association between endoscopic pressure study integrated system (EPSIS) and high-resolution manometry.

Background and study aims The endoscopic pressure study integrated system (EPSIS), a novel diagnostic tool for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), allows evaluation of the anti-reflux barrier using endoscopy by monitoring the intragastric pressure (IGP) during insufflation. In this study, we evaluated the association between EPSIS results and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) function measured by high-resolution manometry (HRM) to elucidate whether EPSIS can evaluate the LES function. Patients and methods A retrospective, single-center study of patients with GERD symptoms who underwent endoscopy, pH-impedance monitoring, EPSIS, and HRM was conducted. The primary outcome was basal LES pressure and the secondary outcomes were end-respiratory LES pressure and integrated relaxation pressure (IRP). As EPSIS parameters, the following were measured: 1) pressure difference (mmHg), the difference between maximum and basal IGP; and 2) pressure gradient (mmHg/s), calculated by dividing pressure difference by the insufflating time. Pressure difference < 4.7 mmHg or pressure gradient < 0.07 mmHg/s was defined as an EPSIS GERD pattern. Results Forty-seven patients (median age: 53 years, 37 female) were analyzed. Pressure difference and pressure gradient significantly correlated with basal LES pressure (ρ = 0.29; P =  0.04 and ρ = 0.29; P =  0.04). Patients with EPSIS GERD pattern showed significantly lower basal LES pressure [13.2 (4.8-26.6) vs 25.3 (10.4-66.7) mmHg, P =  0.002], lower end-respiratory LES pressure [8.5 (1.1-15.9) vs 15.5 (1.9-43.9) mmHg, P =  0.019] and lower IRP [5.9 (1.0-12.0) vs 9.8 (1.3-17.8) mmHg, P =  0.020]. Conclusions This study showed a close association between EPSIS results and LES pressures measured by HRM. This indicates that EPSIS can evaluate the LES function during endoscopy and endorse the role of EPSIS as a diagnostic tool for GERD.

Anti-reflux mucosal ablation (ARMA) as a new treatment for gastroesophageal reflux refractory to proton pump inhibitors: a pilot study.

Background The incidence of proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has been increasing. While surgical intervention with Laparoscopic Nissen Fundoplication remains the gold standard, less invasive anti-reflux interventions are desired. We have developed a minimally invasive anti-reflux mucosal ablation (ARMA) treatment. Herein, we report its technical details and describe its feasibility, safety, and efficacy in PPI-refractory GERD. Methods We conducted a prospective single-center single-arm interventional trial evaluating the outcome of ARMA in 12 patients with PPI-refractory GERD. GERD-Health Related Quality of Life Questionnaire (GERD-HRQL) evaluation, Frequency Scale for the Symptoms of GERD (FSSG) assessment, and impedance-pH monitoring were performed at baseline and at 2 months post-ARMA. Results A total of 12 patients underwent ARMA with a median follow-up duration of 9 months (range: 6 - 14 months). Median GERD-HRQL score significantly improved from 30.5 to 12 ( P  = 0.002); median FSSG score significantly improved from 25 to 10.5 ( P  = 0.002), and median DeMeester score decreased from 33.5 to 2.8 ( P  = 0.049) at 2 months follow-up. No immediate complications were observed. Conclusion Our pilot study has shown that ARMA, a new endoscopic treatment for PPI-refractory GERD, is simple, safe, and improves GERD-related symptoms and objective acid reflux parameters.