Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes of Clinically Significant Post-ERCP Bleeding: a Contemporary Multi-center Study.

BACKGROUND AIMS: Clinically significant post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) bleeding (CSPEB) is common. Contemporary estimates of risk are lacking. We aimed to identify risk factors for and outcomes following CSPEB. METHODS: We analyzed multi-center prospective ERCP data between 2018-2023 with 30-day follow-up. The primary outcome was CSPEB, defined as hematemesis, melena, or hematochezia resulting in: hemoglobin drop ≥20 g/L or transfusion and/or endoscopy to evaluate suspected bleeding, and/or unplanned healthcare visitation and/or prolongation of existing admission. Firth logistic regression was employed. P-values <0.05 were significant, with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals reported. RESULTS: CSPEB occurred following 129 (1.5%) of 8,517 ERCPs (mean onset 3.2 days), with 110 of 4,849 events (2.3%) occurring following higher-risk interventions (sphincterotomy, sphincteroplasty, pre-cut sphincterotomy, and/or needle-knife access). CSPEB patients required endoscopy and transfusion in 86.0% and 53.5% of cases, respectively, with three cases (2.3%) being fatal. P2Y12 inhibitors were held for a median of 4 days (IQR 4) prior to higher-risk ERCP. Following higher-risk interventions, P2Y12 inhibitors (OR 3.33, 1.26-7.74), warfarin (OR 8.54, 3.32-19.81), dabigatran (OR 13.40, 2.06-59.96), rivaroxaban (OR 7.42, 3.43-15.24) and apixaban (OR 4.16, 1.99-8.20) were associated with CSPEB. Significant intraprocedural bleeding post sphincterotomy (OR 2.32, 1.06-4.60), but not post sphincteroplasty, was also associated. Concomitant cardiorespiratory events occurred more frequently within 30 days following CSPEB (OR 12.71, 4.75-32.54). CONCLUSIONS: Risks of antiplatelet-related CSPEB may be underestimated by endoscopists based on observations of suboptimal holding before higher-risk ERCP. Appropriate periprocedural antithrombotic management is essential and could represent novel quality initiative targets.

Adverse events associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is performed to diagnose and manage conditions of the biliary and pancreatic ducts. Though effective, it is associated with common adverse events (AEs). The purpose of this study is to systematically review ERCP AE rates and report up-to-date pooled estimates. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive electronic search will be conducted of relevant medical databases through 10 November 2020. A study team of eight data abstracters will independently determine study eligibility, assess quality and abstract data in parallel, with any two concordant entries constituting agreement and with discrepancies resolved by consensus. The primary outcome will be the pooled incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis, with secondary outcomes including post-ERCP bleeding, cholangitis, perforation, cholecystitis, death and unplanned healthcare encounters. Secondary outcomes will also include rates of specific and overall AEs within clinically relevant subgroups determined a priori. DerSimonian and Laird random effects models will be used to perform meta-analyses of these outcomes. Sources of heterogeneity will be explored via meta-regression. Subgroup analyses based on median dates of data collection across studies will be performed to determine whether AE rates have changed over time. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this study as it is a planned meta-analysis of previously published data. Participant consent is similarly not required. Dissemination is planned via presentation at relevant conferences in addition to publication in peer-reviewed journals.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020220221.

Development of a definition and rules for causal attribution of post-colonoscopy bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Post-colonoscopy bleeding (PCB) is an important colonoscopy quality indicator that is recommended to be routinely collected by colorectal cancer screening programs and endoscopy quality improvement programs. We created a standardized and reliable definition of PCB and set of rules for attributing the relatedness of PCB to a colonoscopy. METHODS: PCB events were identified from colonoscopies performed at the Forzani & MacPhail Colon Cancer Screening Centre. Existing definitions and relatedness rules for PCB were reviewed by the authors and a draft definition and set of rules was created. The definition and rules were revised after initial testing was performed using a set of 15 bleeding events. Information available for each event included the original endoscopy report and data abstracted from the emergency or inpatient record by a trained research assistant. A validation set of 32 bleeding events were then reviewed to assess their interrater reliability by having three endoscopists and one research assistant complete independent reviews and three endoscopists complete a consensus review. The Kappa statistic was used to measure interrater reliability. RESULTS: The panel classified 28 of 32 events as meeting the definition of PCB and rated 7, 8 and 6 events as definitely, probably and possibly related to the colonoscopy, respectively. The Kappa for the definition of PCB for the three independent reviews was 0.82 (substantial agreement). The Kappa for the attribution of the PCB to the colonoscopy by the three endosocopists was 0.74 (substantial agreement). The research assistant had a high agreement with the panel for both the definition (100% agreement) and application of the causal criteria (kappa 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: A standardized definition of PCB and attribution rules achieved high interrater reliability by endoscopists and a non-endoscopist and provides a template of required data for event adjudication by screening and quality improvement programs.

The 2012 SAGE wait times program: Survey of Access to GastroEnterology in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Periodically surveying wait times for specialist health services in Canada captures current data and enables comparisons with previous surveys to identify changes over time. METHODS: During one week in April 2012, Canadian gastroenterologists were asked to complete a questionnaire (online or by fax) recording demographics, reason for referral, and dates of referral and specialist visits for at least 10 consecutive new patients (five consultations and five procedures) who had not been seen previously for the same indication. Wait times were determined for 18 indications and compared with those from similar surveys conducted in 2008 and 2005. RESULTS: Data regarding adult patients were provided by 173 gastroenterologists for 1374 consultations, 540 procedures and 293 same-day consultations and procedures. Nationally, the median wait times were 92 days (95% CI 85 days to 100 days) from referral to consultation, 55 days (95% CI 50 days to 61 days) from consultation to procedure and 155 days (95% CI 142 days to 175 days) (total) from referral to procedure. Overall, wait times were longer in 2012 than in 2005 (P<0.05); the wait time to same-day consultation and procedure was shorter in 2012 than in 2008 (78 days versus 101 days; P<0.05), but continued to be longer than in 2005 (P<0.05). The total wait time remained longest for screening colonoscopy, increasing from 201 days in 2008 to 279 days in 2012 (P<0.05). DISCUSSION: Wait times for gastroenterology services continue to exceed recommended targets, remain unchanged since 2008 and exceed wait times reported in 2005.

Development and validation of a nurse-assessed patient comfort score for colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Comfort during colonoscopy is a critical component of safety and quality. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate the Nurse-Assessed Patient Comfort Score (NAPCOMS). DESIGN: Prospective scale validation. SETTING: Colorectal cancer screening centers in the United Kingdom and Canada. PATIENTS: A total of 300 consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy at participating colorectal cancer screening centers. INTERVENTION: The NAPCOMS was developed by using a modified Delphi process. During colonoscopy, two endoscopy room nurses independently observed and rated patient comfort and tolerability by using NAPCOMS. In addition, endoscopists reported global comfort scores and patients' reported global comfort by using visual 4-point Likert and National Health Service-United Kingdom Global Rating Scales. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Reliability and validity of NAPCOMS was measured by using intraclass correlations (ICC) between nurse ratings of colonoscopies and between NAPCOMS, endoscopist ratings, and patient ratings of global comfort. RESULTS: The ICC for the overall NAPCOMS was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-0.87). There was high agreement between the NAPCOMS and endoscopist ratings of comfort (ICC = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.72-0.81), moderate agreement between the NAPCOMS and patient ratings (ICC = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.53-0.67), and moderate agreement between the endoscopist and patient ratings (ICC = 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43-0.60). LIMITATIONS: NAPCOMS was validated in outpatients who received colonoscopy with minimal to moderate sedation as part of a screening and surveillance program, so performance among inpatients or those requiring deep sedation was not tested. CONCLUSION: NAPCOMS is a reliable and valid tool for assessing patient comfort in the setting of outpatient colonoscopy performed with minimal to moderate sedation.

Canadian Digestive Health Foundation Public Impact Series 5: Pancreatitis in Canada. Incidence, prevalence, and direct and indirect economic impact.

The Canadian Digestive Health Foundation initiated a scientific program to assess the incidence, prevalence, mortality and economic impact of digestive disorders across Canada in 2009. The current article presents the updated findings from the study concerning pancreatitis.

Development and implementation of a comprehensive quality assurance program at a community endoscopy facility.

Quality assurance (QA) is a process that includes the systematic evaluation of a service, institution of improvements and ongoing evaluation to ensure that effective changes were made. QA is a fundamental component of any organized colorectal cancer screening program. However, it should play an equally important role in opportunistic screening. Establishing the processes and procedures for a comprehensive QA program can be a daunting proposition for an endoscopy unit. The present article describes the steps taken to establish a QA program at the Forzani & MacPhail Colon Cancer Screening Centre (Calgary, Alberta) - a colorectal cancer screening centre and nonhospital endoscopy unit that is dedicated to providing colorectal cancer screening-related colonoscopies. Lessons drawn from the authors' experience may help others develop their own initiatives. The Global Rating Scale, a quality assessment and improvement tool developed for the gastrointestinal endoscopy services of the United Kingdom's National Health Service, was used as the framework to develop the QA program. QA activities include monitoring the patient experience through surveys, creating endoscopist report cards on colonoscopy performance, tracking and evaluating adverse events and monitoring wait times.

Survey of access to gastroenterology in Canada: the SAGE wait times program.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of current wait times for specialist health services in Canada is a key method that can assist government and health care providers to plan wisely for future health needs. These data are not readily available. A method to capture wait time data at the time of consultation or procedure has been developed, which should be applicable to other specialist groups and also allows for assessment of wait time trends over intervals of years. METHODS: In November 2008, gastroenterologists across Canada were asked to complete a questionnaire (online or by fax) that included personal demographics and data from one week on at least five consecutive new consultations and five consecutive procedure patients who had not previously undergone a procedure for the same indication. Wait times were collected for 18 primary indications and results were then compared with similar survey data collected in 2005. RESULTS: The longest wait times observed were for screening colonoscopy (201 days) and surveillance of previous colon cancer or polyps (272 days). The shortest wait times were for cancer-likely based on imaging or physical examination (82 days), severe or rapidly progressing dysphagia or odynophagia (83 days), documented iron deficiency anemia (90 days) and dyspepsia with alarm symptoms (99 days). Compared with 2005 data, total wait times in 2008 were lengthened overall (127 days versus 155 days; P<0.05) and for most of the seven individual indications that permitted data comparison. CONCLUSION: Median wait times for gastroenterology services continue to exceed consensus conference recommended targets and have significantly worsened since 2005.

Leptomeningeal carcinomatosis secondary to gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma: a case report and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Leptomeningeal carcinomatosis (LC) is a rare metastatic complication of solid tumours. It has been mainly described in association with breast cancer, lung cancer and melanoma. CASE PRESENTATION: A patient presenting with progressive solid food dysphagia with documented adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus and gastroesophageal junction is reported. One month after the initial diagnosis, the patient developed gradual onset of increasing headache and progressive decrease in the level of consciousness. Computed tomography of the head showed evidence of meningeal enhancement, and cerebrospinal fluid examination showed the presence of adenocarcinoma cells, making the diagnosis of LC. The patient died one month after LC was diagnosed. DISCUSSION: LC is a poor prognostic sign in solid organ malignancies. It usually presents with headache, altered level of consciousness and focal neurological deficits. Diagnosis is established by finding malignant cells in the cerebrospinal fluid and supported by marked meningeal enhancement on computed tomography of the brain. A review of the English literature found only three reported cases of LC secondary to esophageal malignancy. CONCLUSION: A case of LC complicating esophageal and gastroesophageal junction malignancy is described. A high index of suspicion and early diagnosis may influence the poor outcome of these patients.