Optimizing the quality of endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease: focus on surveillance and management of colorectal dysplasia using interactive image- and video-based teaching.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Varying recommendations regarding the detection and management of dysplasia can lead to uncertainty and may impede the uptake of strategies that could improve surveillance in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). An educational event was held to assist in disseminating the recently published Surveillance for Colorectal Endoscopic Neoplasia Detection and Management in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: International Consensus Recommendations (SCENIC). METHODS: Specialists in IBD and endoscopy led the Optimizing Quality of Endoscopy in IBD course. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) organized the course, and the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America (CCFA) provided endorsement. One was held in March 2015 at the ASGE Institute for Training and Technology in Chicago, Illinois, and the second in September 2016 preceding the ASGE Endofest in Chandler, Arizona. The program included interactive case-based discussions and didactic presentations on topics including the rationale and current approach of surveillance in IBD; endoscopic characterization and nomenclature of active and quiescent disease; detection of dysplasia during IBD surveillance; role of image-enhanced endoscopy in IBD surveillance, with a focus on chromoendoscopy technique; and management of dysplasia in IBD. Participants were surveyed before and after the course to assess their perspectives and practice. RESULTS: Eighteen presenters or panel members and approximately 92 IBD and endoscopist physician leaders attended the meeting. Most attendees were aged 30 to 49 years (88.1%), had been in practice less than 10 years (89.7%), were from academic medical centers (90.7%), and spent >50% of their time caring for patients with IBD (59.7%). Recommended quality improvements for endoscopy in IBD included the use of endoscopic scoring systems to describe disease activity, the use of a modified Paris classification to characterize visible dysplastic lesions (polypoid, nonpolypoid with description of presence of ulcer and distinct or indistinct borders), the use of chromoendoscopy for dysplasia detection, and the endoscopic removal of visible dysplastic lesions. In the follow-up survey, participants were asked to indicate whether they had changed their practice as a result of attending the course. Ninety-three percent (93%) indicated they had changed their practice. For dysplasia detection, the use of chromoendoscopy increased: 51.7% of respondents reported using chromoendoscopy in most surveillance colonoscopies compared with 34.3% before the course. For dysplasia management, the use of EMR increased for polypoid and nonpolypoid lesions 10 to 20 mm in size; and the referral of dysplastic lesions 20 mm or larger that appeared endoscopically resectable shifted toward removal by an experienced endoscopist. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based advances in endoscopy have occurred in the characterization and nomenclature of active and quiescent disease, polypoid and nonpolypoid dysplasia in IBD, and in the detection and management of dysplasia in colonic IBD. Implementation of updated guidelines and recommendations into clinical practice may be facilitated by interactive image- and video-based courses on the topic.

4-Liter split-dose polyethylene glycol is superior to other bowel preparations, based on systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Adequate bowel cleansing is an important determinant of the efficacy of screening colonoscopy. Polyethylene glycol (PEG)-based solutions are used commonly in bowel preparation, but their poor palatability and large volumes (4 L) influence compliance. Adjunct therapies, such as bisacodyl, split-dose regimens, and lower-volume regimens have been tested. We performed a meta-analysis to determine whether a 4-L split dose of PEG is better than others for bowel cleansing before colonoscopy. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database, recent abstracts from major conference proceedings, references from selected reviews and randomized trials (http://clinicaltrials.gov), and Google Scholar, through September 2011, for high-quality, randomized trials that compared 4-L split-dose PEG without adjunct therapy with other bowel preparation methods. Nine of 2477 trials considered were used in the analysis. We calculated pooled estimates of bowel preparation quality (primary outcome: excellent or good), preparation compliance, favorable overall experiences, willingness to repeat same preparation, and side effects. We calculated pooled estimates of odds ratios by fixed- and random-effects models. We also assessed heterogeneity among studies and publication bias. RESULTS: The overall pooled odds ratio for excellent or good bowel preparation quality for 4-L split-dose PEG was 3.46, compared with other methods (95% confidence interval, 2.45-4.89; P < .01). Although there was significant heterogeneity in results among studies, 7 of 9 reported a significant benefit from the 4-L split-dose PEG preparation. There were no significant differences between PEG and others in preparation compliance, favorable overall experience, willingness to repeat the same preparation, abdominal cramping, nausea, or sleep disturbance. There was no significant publication bias based on funnel plot. CONCLUSIONS: A meta-analysis showed that 4-L split-dose PEG is better than other bowel preparation methods for colonoscopy. Significant heterogeneity among studies might result from differences in patient demographics and protocols. A 4-L split dose of PEG should be considered the standard with which new bowel preparation methods are compared.

The effect of GI bleeding on Helicobacter pylori diagnostic testing: a prospective study at the time of bleeding and 1 month later.

BACKGROUND: Some case series and cohort studies suggest that acute GI bleeding decreases the sensitivity of Helicobacter pylori diagnostic testing. OBJECTIVE: To assess H pylori biopsy testing in patients with acute upper-GI bleeding and 1 month later. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study using patients as their own controls. SETTING: Urban county hospital. PATIENTS: Sixty-one patients with acute variceal bleeding. INTERVENTIONS: Antral and body endoscopic biopsies at admission and 1 month later. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: CLOtest and histologic examinations were performed and biopsy specimens were coded and mixed for blinded histologic examination for H pylori density and inflammation. RESULTS: CLOtest results changed from H pylori negative at baseline to H pylori positive at 1 month in two patients (3%), from H pylori positive to H pylori negative in 6 patients (10%), and remained the same in 53 (87%). Histologic results changed from H pylori negative at baseline to H pylori positive at 1 month in two patients (3%), from H pylori positive to H pylori negative in 5 patients (8%), and remained the same in 54 (89%). Changes occurred only in patients with low H pylori density. No significant increase in H pylori density or change in inflammatory cell infiltration was seen. CLOtest sensitivity was 8% higher with bleeding vs. 1 month after bleeding (79% vs. 71%; 95% CI of difference was -11% to 27%; i.e., maximal potential decrease in sensitivity with bleeding is 11%). LIMITATIONS: The population is not one for which H pylori testing is recommended, and biopsy test performance was less consistent than expected. CONCLUSIONS: Acute-GI bleeding did not decrease the sensitivity of rapid urease testing, unless the effect lasts more than 1 month. Furthermore, bleeding did not produce falsely negative histologic examinations for H pylori, decrease H pylori density, or alter inflammatory cell infiltration. However, given the lower than expected overall CLOtest sensitivity and frequent use of proton pump inhibitors for GI bleeding, histology may be preferred in this setting.