Adherence to quality indicators and best practices in surveillance endoscopy of Barrett's esophagus: A video-based assessment.

Background and study aims Adherence to quality indicators (QIs) and best practices (BPs) for endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE) is low based on clinical documentation which is an inaccurate representation of events occurring during procedures. This study aimed to assess adherence to measurable QI and BP using video evaluation. Methods We performed a single center video-based retrospective review of surveillance endoscopies performed for BE ≥1 cm between March 1, 2018 and October 1, 2020. Adherence to QIs and BPs was assessed through video review and documentation. Videos were evaluated by five gastroenterologists. Interrater variability was determined using 10 videos before reviewing the remaining 128 videos. A generalized linear regression model was used to determine predictors of adherence to QIs and BPs. Results There were 138 endoscopies reviewed. Inspection with virtual chromoendoscopy (VC) occurred in 75 cases (54%) on video review with documentation in 50 of these cases (67%). Adherence to the Seattle protocol (SP) occurred in 74 cases (54%) on video review with documentation in 28 of these cases (38%). Use of VC or the SP was documented but not observed on video review in 16 (12%) and 30 (22%) cases, respectively. Length of BE was associated with increased use of the Prague classification (odds ratio [OR] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.37) while years in practice was associated with a decreased likelihood of VC use (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.99). Conclusions This study validates prior data demonstrating poor adherence to QIs and BPs and highlights discrepancies between clinical documentation and events occurring during procedures.

Effect of Polypectomy Simulation-Based Mastery Learning on Skill Retention Among Practicing Endoscopists.

PURPOSE: Practicing endoscopists frequently perform and teach screening colonoscopies and polypectomies, but there is no standardized method to train and assess physicians who perform polypectomy procedures. The authors created a polypectomy simulation-based mastery learning (SBML) curriculum and hypothesized that completion of the curriculum would lead to immediate improvement in polypectomy skills and skill retention at 6 and 12 months after training. METHOD: The authors performed a pretest-posttest cohort study with endoscopists who completed SBML and were randomized to follow-up at 6 or 12 months from May 2021 to August 2022. Participants underwent SBML training, including a pretest, a video lecture, deliberate practice, and a posttest. All learners were required to meet or exceed a minimum passing standard on a 17-item skills checklist before completing training and were randomized to follow-up at 6 or 12 months. The authors compared simulated polypectomy skills performance on the checklist from pretest to posttest and posttest to 6- or 12-month follow-up test. RESULTS: Twenty-four of 30 eligible participants (80.0%) completed the SBML intervention, and 20 of 24 (83.3%) completed follow-up testing. The minimum passing standard was set at 93% of checklist items correct. The pretest passing rate was 4 of 24 participants (16.7%) compared with 24 of 24 participants (100%) at posttest ( P < .001). There were no significant differences in passing rates from posttest to combined 6- and 12-month posttest in which 18 of 20 participants (90.0%) passed. CONCLUSIONS: Before training and despite years of clinical experience, practicing endoscopists demonstrated poor performance of polypectomy skills. SBML was an effective method for practicing endoscopists to acquire and maintain polypectomy skills during a 6- to 12-month period.

Novel histologic score predicts recurrent intestinal metaplasia after successful endoscopic eradication therapy.

Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is an effective treatment for Barrett's esophagus (BE); however, disease recurrence remains problematic requiring surveillance post-treatment. While data regarding predictors of recurrence are limited, uncontrolled reflux may play a significant role. Our aim was to develop a scoring system based on histopathologic reflux in surveillance biopsies following EET to identify patients at high risk for recurrence of BE. Patients were identified from two centers in the treatment with resection and endoscopic ablation techniques for BE consortium. Hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides of surveillance biopsies post-EET were assessed for histologic changes associated with reflux from a cohort of patients who also underwent pH-metry (derivation cohort). We developed a novel scoring system (Recurrent Epithelial Changes from Uncontrolled Reflux [RECUR]) composed of dilated intercellular spaces, epithelial ballooning, basal cell hyperplasia, and parakeratosis, to identify patients with abnormal esophageal acid exposure. This scoring system was then used to grade surveillance biopsies from patients with or without recurrence of BE following EET (validation cohort). Of 41 patients in the derivation cohort, 19.5% had abnormal acid exposure times (AET) while on proton pump inhibitor therapy. The mean (SD) RECUR score for patients with AET <4% was 4.0 (1.6), compared with 5.5 (0.9) for AET ≥4% (P = 0.015). In the validation cohort consisting of 72 patients without recurrence and 64 patients with recurrence following EET, the RECUR score was the only significant predictor of recurrence (odds ratio: 1.36, 95% confidence interval: 1.10-1.69, P = 0.005). Histologic grading of surveillance biopsies using the RECUR scoring system correlates with BE recurrence following EET.

Magnetic sphincter augmentation: considerations for use in Barrett's esophagus.

Barrett's esophagus (BE) occurs in 5-15% of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). While acid suppressive therapy is a critical component of BE management to minimize the risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma, surgical control of mechanical reflux is sometimes necessary. Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is an increasingly utilized anti-reflux surgical therapy for GERD. While the use of MSA is listed as a precaution by the United States Food and Drug Administration, there are limited data showing effective BE regression with MSA. MSA offers several advantages in BE including effective reflux control, anti-reflux barrier restoration and reduced hiatal hernia recurrence. However, careful patient selection for MSA is necessary.

Identification of visible lesions during surveillance endoscopy for Barrett's esophagus: a video-based survey study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Visible lesion (VL) detection is essential in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE). We sought to assess the rate of VL detection by academic and community endoscopists using high-definition white-light endoscopy (HD-WLE) and narrow-band imaging (NBI) during surveillance endoscopy. METHODS: Fifty endoscopists were invited to participate in a prospective video survey study. Participants viewed 25 standardized clips of patients referred for endoscopic therapy. Participants noted identification of anatomic landmarks and VLs using HD-WLE and NBI and reported practice-level data. The criterion standard of VL identification was established by consensus of 5 BE experts. Our primary outcome was the rate of VL identification using HD-WLE and NBI. RESULTS: Forty-four of 50 participants completed the study (22 academic and 22 community). Compared with the criterion standard, participants did not identify 28% (HD-WLE) and 31% (NBI) of VLs. Community endoscopists had more experience (>5 years in practice: community 85% vs academic 54.5%, P = .041; >5 surveillance endoscopies a month: community 85% vs academic 31.8%, P = .046). Across all participants, VL detection using NBI improved significantly with a minimum of 5 surveillance endoscopies per month (area under the curve = .72; 95% confidence interval, .56-.85; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: Despite improved endoscope resolution and availability of virtual chromoendoscopy, the overall rate of VL detection remains low. Identification of VLs using NBI may be volume dependent. Further education and training efforts focused on VL detection during BE surveillance endoscopy are needed.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on New Technology and Innovation for Surveillance and Screening in Barrett's Esophagus: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this best practice advice (BPA) article from the Clinical Practice Update Committee of the American Gastroenterological Association is to provide an update on advances and innovation regarding the screening and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus. METHODS: The BPA statements presented here were developed from expert review of existing literature combined with discussion and expert opinion to provide practical advice. Formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of BPAs was not the intent of this clinical practice update. This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Screening with standard upper endoscopy may be considered in individuals with at least 3 established risk factors for Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma, including individuals who are male, non-Hispanic white, age >50 years, have a history of smoking, chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease, obesity, or a family history of BE or esophageal adenocarcinoma. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Nonendoscopic cell-collection devices may be considered as an option to screen for BE. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Screening and surveillance endoscopic examination should be performed using high-definition white light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy, with endoscopists spending adequate time inspecting the Barrett's segment. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Screening and surveillance exams should define the extent of BE using a standardized grading system documenting the circumferential and maximal extent of the columnar lined esophagus (Prague classification) with a clear description of landmarks and the location and characteristics of visible lesions (nodularity, ulceration), when present. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Advanced imaging technologies such as endomicroscopy may be used as adjunctive techniques to identify dysplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Sampling during screening and surveillance exams should be performed using the Seattle biopsy protocol (4-quadrant biopsies every 1-2 cm and target biopsies from any visible lesion). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Wide-area transepithelial sampling may be used as an adjunctive technique to sample the suspected or established Barrett's segment (in addition to the Seattle biopsy protocol). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Patients with erosive esophagitis should be biopsied when concern of dysplasia or malignancy exists. A repeat endoscopy should be performed after 8 weeks of twice a day proton pump inhibitor therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Tissue systems pathology-based prediction assay may be utilized for risk stratification of patients with nondysplastic BE. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Risk stratification models may be utilized to selectively identify individuals at risk for Barrett's associated neoplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Given the significant interobserver variability among pathologists, the diagnosis of BE-related neoplasia should be confirmed by an expert pathology review. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Patients with BE-related neoplasia should be referred to endoscopists with expertise in advanced imaging, resection, and ablation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: All patients with BE should be placed on at least daily proton pump inhibitor therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Patients with nondysplastic BE should undergo surveillance endoscopy in 3 to 5 years. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: In patients undergoing surveillance after endoscopic eradication therapy, random biopsies should be taken of the esophagogastric junction, gastric cardia, and the distal 2 cm of the neosquamous epithelium as well as from all visible lesions, independent of the length of the original BE segment.

AGA White Paper: Challenges and Gaps in Innovation for the Performance of Colonoscopy for Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer.

In 2018, the American Gastroenterological Association's Center for GI Innovation and Technology convened a consensus conference, entitled "Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Role of Emerging Technology and Innovation to Improve Outcomes." The conference participants, which included more than 60 experts in colorectal cancer, considered recent improvements in colorectal cancer screening rates and polyp detection, persistent barriers to colonoscopy uptake, and opportunities for performance improvement and innovation. This white paper originates from that conference. It aims to summarize current patient- and physician-centered gaps and challenges in colonoscopy, diagnostic and therapeutic challenges affecting colonoscopy uptake, and the potential use of emerging technologies and quality metrics to improve patient outcomes.

Threshold evaluation for optimal number of endoscopic treatment sessions to achieve complete eradication of Barrett's metaplasia.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is the standard of care for Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated neoplasia. Previous data suggest the mean number of EET sessions required to achieve complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) is 3. This study aimed to define the threshold of EET sessions required to achieve CE-IM. METHODS: The TREAT-BE Consortium is a multicenter outcomes cohort including prospectively enrolled patients with BE undergoing EET. All patients achieving CE-IM were included. Demographic, endoscopic, and histologic data were recorded at treatment onset along with treatment details and surveillance data. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to define a threshold of EET sessions, with 95 %CI, required to achieve CE-IM. A secondary analysis examined predictors of incomplete response to EET using multiple logistic regression and recurrence rates. RESULTS: 623 patients (mean age 65.2 [SD 11.6], 79.6 % male, 86.5 % Caucasian) achieved CE-IM in a mean of 2.9 (SD 1.7) EET sessions (median 2) and a median total observation period of 2.7 years (interquartile range 1.4-5.0). After three sessions, 73 % of patients achieved CE-IM (95 %CI 70 %-77 %). Age (odds ratio [OR] 1.25, 95 %CI 1.05-1.50) and length of BE (OR 1.24, 95 %CI 1.17-1.31) were significant predictors of incomplete response. CONCLUSION: The current study found that a threshold of three EET sessions would achieve CE-IM in the majority of patients. Alternative therapies and further diagnostic testing should be considered for patients who do not have significant response to EET after three sessions.

Acceptability and Adequacy of a Non-endoscopic Cell Collection Device for Diagnosis of Barrett's Esophagus: Lessons Learned.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) is common, costly, and underperformed in at-risk people. A non-endoscopic cell collection device can be used to collect esophageal cells, enabling BE screening. AIMS: This study assessed the acceptability and adequacy of a commercial non-endoscopic cell collection device in a US population. METHODS: Six sites enrolled patients with confirmed BE or heartburn/regurgitation for ≥ 6 months. Patients underwent administration of the device, consisting of a sponge encapsulated in a capsule. The capsule dwelled in the stomach for 7.5 min and was retracted via an attached suture. An adequate sample was ≥ 1 columnar cell by H&E staining. Sample quality was rated using a 0-5 scale, with 0 = no columnar cells and 5 = plentiful groups. Trefoil Factor 3 (TFF3) staining was performed. Accuracy was assessed using esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)/biopsy as the gold standard. RESULTS: Of 191 patients, 99.5% successfully swallowed the device. Overall sample adequacy was 91% (171/188), with 84% (158/188) high quality. The detachment rate was 2/190 (1%). Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the assay with TFF3 staining were 76%, 77%, and 76%. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for ≥ 3 cm BE were 86%, 77%, and 82%. Asked if willing to repeat the procedure, 93% would, and 65% indicated a preference for the device over EGD. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a high rate of sample adequacy and promising acceptability of this non-endoscopic sampling device in a US population. Diagnostic characteristics suggest that non-endoscopic assessment of BE deserves further development as an alternative to endoscopy.

Simulation-based training improves polypectomy skills among practicing endoscopists.

Background and study aims Practicing endoscopists have variable polypectomy skills during colonoscopy and limited training opportunities for improvement. Simulation-based training enhances procedural skill, but its impact on polypectomy is unclear. We developed a simulation-based polypectomy intervention to improve polypectomy competency. Methods All faculty endoscopists at our tertiary care center who perform colonoscopy with polypectomy were recruited for a simulation-based intervention assessing sessile and stalked polypectomy. Endoscopists removed five polyps in a simulation environment at pretest followed by a training intervention including a video, practice, and one-on-one feedback. Within 1-4 weeks, endoscopists removed five new simulated polyps at post-test. We used the Direct Observation of Polypectomy Skills (DOPyS) checklist for assessment, evaluating individual polypectomy skills, and global competency (scale: 1-4). Competency was defined as an average global competency score of ≥ 3. Results 83 % (29/35) of eligible endoscopists participated and 95 % (276/290) of planned polypectomies were completed. Only 17 % (5/29) of endoscopists had average global competency scores that were competent at pretest compared with 52 % (15/29) at post-test ( P  = 0.01). Of all completed polypectomies, the competent polypectomy rate significantly improved from pretest to post-test (55 % vs. 71 %; P  < 0.01). This improvement was significant for sessile polypectomy (37 % vs. 65 %; P  < 0.01) but not for stalked polypectomy (82 % vs. 80 %; P  = 0.70). Conclusions Simulation-based training improved polypectomy skills among practicing endoscopists. Further studies are needed to assess the translation of simulation-based education to clinical practice.

Racial Disparities in Adherence to Quality Indicators in Barrett's Esophagus: An Analysis Using the GIQuIC National Benchmarking Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Racial disparities in outcomes in esophageal adenocarcinoma are well established. Using a nationwide registry, we aimed to compare clinical and endoscopic characteristics of blacks and whites with Barrett's esophagus (BE) and adherence to defined quality indicators. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Gastrointestinal Quality Improvement Consortium Registry between January 2012 and December 2019. Patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with an indication of BE screening or surveillance, or an endoscopic finding of BE, were included. Adherence to recommended endoscopic surveillance intervals of 3-5 years for nondysplastic BE and adherence to Seattle biopsy protocol were assessed. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to assess variables associated with adherence. RESULTS: A total of 100,848 esophagogastroduodenoscopies in 84,789 patients met inclusion criteria (blacks-3,957 and whites-96,891). Blacks were less likely to have histologically confirmed BE (34.3% vs 51.7%, P < 0.01), had shorter BE lengths (1.61 vs 2.35 cm, P < 0.01), and were less likely to have any dysplasia (4.3% vs 7.1%, P < 0.01). Although whites were predominantly male (62.2%), about half of blacks with BE were female (53.0%). Blacks with nondysplastic BE were less likely to be recommended appropriate surveillance intervals (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.68-0.89). Adherence rates to the Seattle protocol were modestly higher among blacks overall (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04-1.20), although significantly lower among blacks with BE segments >6 cm. DISCUSSION: The use of sex as a risk factor for BE screening may be inappropriate among blacks. Fewer blacks were recommended appropriate surveillance intervals, and blacks with longer segment BE were less likely to undergo Seattle biopsy protocol.

Adoption of Multi-society Guidelines Facilitates Value-Based Reduction in Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy Volume During COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has caused a backlog of endoscopic procedures; colonoscopy must now be prioritized to those who would benefit most. We determined the proportion of screening and surveillance colonoscopies appropriate for rescheduling to a future year through strict adoption of US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a single-center observational study of patients scheduled for "open-access colonoscopy"-ordered by a primary care provider without being seen in gastroenterology clinic-over a 6-week period during the COVID-19 pandemic. Each chart was reviewed to appropriately assign a surveillance year per USMSTF guidelines including demographics, colonoscopy history and family history. When guidelines recommended a range of colonoscopy intervals, both a "conservative" and "liberal" guideline adherence were assessed. RESULTS: We delayed 769 "open-access" screening or surveillance colonoscopies due to COVID-19. Between 14.8% (conservative) and 20.7% (liberal), colonoscopies were appropriate for rescheduling to a future year. Conversely, 415 (54.0%) patients were overdue for colonoscopy. Family history of CRC was associated with being scheduled too early for both screening (OR 3.9; CI 1.9-8.2) and surveillance colonoscopy (OR 2.6, CI 1.0-6.5). The most common reasons a colonoscopy was inappropriately scheduled this year were failure to use new surveillance colonoscopy intervals (28.9%), incorrectly applied family history guidelines (27.2%) and recommending early surveillance colonoscopy after recent normal colonoscopy (19.3%). CONCLUSION: Up to one-fifth of patients scheduled for "open-access" colonoscopy can be rescheduled into a future year based on USMSTF guidelines. Rigorously applying guidelines could judiciously allocate colonoscopy resources as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.

A Practical Approach to Refractory and Recurrent Barrett's Esophagus.

Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is recommended for patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated neoplasia and is effective in achieving complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM). However, BE that is refractory to EET, defined as partial or no improvement in dysplasia after less than or equal to 3 ablative sessions, and the development of recurrence post-EET is not uncommon. Identification of refractory BE or recurrent intestinal metaplasia should prompt esophageal physiologic testing and modification of antireflux strategy, as appropriate. In patients who ultimately fail standard EET despite optimization of reflux control, salvage EET with alternate modalities may need to be considered.

An Analysis of the GIQuIC Nationwide Quality Registry Reveals Unnecessary Surveillance Endoscopies in Patients With Normal and Irregular Z-Lines.

INTRODUCTION: Population-based estimates of adherence to Barrett's esophagus (BE) guidelines are not available. Using a national registry, we assessed surveillance intervals for patients with normal and irregular Z-lines based on the presence or absence of intestinal metaplasia (IM) and among patients with suspected or confirmed BE. METHODS: We analyzed data from the GI Quality Improvement Consortium Registry. Endoscopy data, including procedure indication, demographics, endoscopy and histology findings, and recommendations for further endoscopy, were assessed from January 2013 through December 2019. Patients with an indication of BE screening or surveillance or an endoscopic finding of BE were included. Biopsy and surveillance practices were assessed based on the length of columnar epithelium (0 cm, <1 cm, 1-3 cm, and >3 cm) and diagnosis based on histology findings. RESULTS: A total of 1,907,801 endoscopies were assessed; 135,704 endoscopies (7.1%) performed in 114,894 patients met the inclusion criteria (men 61.4%, Whites 91%, and mean age of 61.7 years [SD 12.5]). Among patients with normal Z-lines, surveillance endoscopy was recommended for 81% of patients with IM and 20% of individuals without IM. Among patients with irregular Z-lines, surveillance endoscopy was recommended for 81% with IM and 24% without IM. Approximately 30% of patients with confirmed nondysplastic BE (lengths 1-3 and >3 cm) had recommended surveillance intervals of <3 years. DISCUSSION: An analysis of data from a nationwide quality registry demonstrated that patients without BE are receiving recommendations for surveillance endoscopies and many patients with nondysplastic BE are reexamined too soon.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in critically ill patients is safe and effective when performed in the endoscopy suite.

Background and study aims Critically ill patients may require endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) but performing ERCP in the intensive care unit (ICU) poses logistic and technical challenges. There are no data on ICU patients undergoing ERCP in the endoscopy suite. The primary aim of this study was to report outcomes, including safety, when ERCP in critically ill patients is performed in the endoscopy suite. Patients and methods We queried our institutional endoscopy database to identify all ICU patients who underwent ERCP at a single academic medical center from 04/01/2010 to 11/30/2017. Only patients admitted to an ICU prior to ERCP were included. Results Of 7,218 ERCPs performed during the study period, 260 ERCPs (3.6 %) were performed in 231 ICU patients (mean age 61y; 53 % male); nearly all ICU patient ERCPs (n = 258; 99 %) occurred in the endoscopy suite. ERCP indications included cholangitis (50 %), post-liver transplant cholestasis (15 %), and bile leak (10 %). All ERCPs were performed with anesthesiology, most with general anesthesia (60 %) and in the prone position (60 %). Most patients (73 %) had sepsis. Prior to ERCP, 17 % of patients required vasopressors; vasopressors were begun during ERCP in 4 %. The cannulation success rate was 95 % (94 % in native papillae). Adverse events occurred in 9 % (n = 23) of cases with post-ERCP pancreatitis most common. No patients died during or within 24 hours of ERCP. Mortality at 30 days was 16 %, all attributed to underlying disease. Conclusions When advanced ventilatory and hemodynamic support is available, critically ill patients can safely and effectively undergo ERCP in the endoscopy suite.