Factors Associated With Inpatient Endoscopy Delay and its Impact on Hospital Length-of-Stay and 30-Day Readmission.

BACKGROUNDS AND AIMS: Inpatient endoscopy delay (IED) negatively impacts the delivery of high-quality care. We aimed to identify factors associated with IED and evaluate its effect on hospital length-of-stay (LOS) and readmission. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of all inpatient endoscopies performed between November 2017 and November 2019 at a tertiary care center. IED was defined as the number of days elapsed between anticipated versus actual procedure day. Data were extracted from the endoscopy documentation software and via electronic chart review. Multivariate logistic regressions were modeled to determine variables associated with IED and hospital readmission. RESULTS: A total of 4239 inpatients (mean age, 58.3 years; 50.3% women) underwent endoscopic procedures during the study period of which 819 patients (19.3%) experienced a delay. IED resulted in a median prolonged LOS of 2 days (interquartile range, 1-2 days). Patients with IED were less likely to have an etiology identified on endoscopy (odds ratio [OR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.86; P < .001). The 2 most common causes for delays were poor bowel preparation (n = 218; 27%) and lack of endoscopy personnel/unit availability (n = 197; 24.4%). Independent predictors of IED included: older age (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.01-1.03; P = .03), female sex (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.03-1.40; P = .02), use of antithrombotics (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.08-1.57; P = .006), opioids (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.04-1.44; P = .012), being on contact isolation (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.09-1.75; P = .008), and colonoscopy (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.27-1.77; P < .001). Conversely, inpatients admitted to a dedicated GI medicine service were less likely to have IED (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.96; P = .02). IED was the only independent predictor of 30-day readmission (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.02-1.47; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: IED occurred frequently, unfavorably prolonged LOS, and was an independent risk factor for 30-day readmission. We provide a comprehensive analysis of actionable variables associated with IED that can be targeted to improve inpatient endoscopy delivery.

Barrett's esophagus after sleeve gastrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has become significantly more common in recent years. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a major concern in patients undergoing SG and is the major risk factor for Barrett's esophagus (BE). We aimed to assess the prevalence of BE in patients who had undergone SG. METHODS: We searched the major search engines ending in July 2020. We included studies on patients who had undergone esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) after SG. The primary outcome was the prevalence of BE in patients who had undergone SG. We assessed heterogeneity using I2 and Q statistics. We used funnel plots and the classic fail-safe test to assess for publication bias. We used random-effects modeling to report effect estimates. RESULTS: Our final analysis included 10 studies that included 680 patients who had undergone EGD 6 months to 10 years after SG. The pooled prevalence of BE was 11.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1%-16.4%; P < .001; I2 = 28.7%). On logistic meta-regression analysis, there was no significant association between BE and the prevalence of postoperative GERD (ß = 3.5; 95% CI, -18 to 25; P = .75). There was a linear relationship between the time of postoperative EGD and the rate of esophagitis (ß = 0.13; 95% CI, 0.06-0.20; P = .0005); the risk of esophagitis increased by 13% each year after SG. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of BE in patients who had EGD after SG appears to be high. There was no correlation with GERD symptoms. Most cases were observed after 3 years of follow-up. Screening for BE should be considered in patients after SG even in the absence of GERD symptoms postoperatively.

Diagnostic yield of EUS-guided through-the-needle microforceps biopsy versus EUS-FNA of pancreatic cystic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Accurate diagnosis and risk stratification of pancreatic cysts (PCs) is challenging. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the feasibility, safety, and diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided through-the-needle biopsy (TTNB) versus fine-needle aspiration (FNA) in PCs. Methods Comprehensive search of databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science) for relevant studies on TTNB of PCs (from inception to June 2019). The primary outcome was to compare the pooled diagnostic yield and concordance rate with surgical pathology of TTNB histology and FNA cytology of PCs. The secondary outcome was to estimate the safety profile of TTNB. Results: Eight studies (426 patients) were included. The diagnostic yield was significantly higher with TTNB over FNA for a specific cyst type (OR: 9.4; 95 % CI: [5.7-15.4]; I 2  = 48) or a mucinous cyst (MC) (OR: 3.9; 95 % CI: [2.0-7.4], I 2  = 72 %). The concordance rate with surgical pathology was significantly higher with TTNB over FNA for a specific cyst type (OR: 13.5; 95 % CI: [3.5-52.3]; I 2  = 48), for a MC (OR: 8.9; 95 % [CI: 1.9-40.8]; I 2  = 29), and for MC histologic severity (OR: 10.4; 95 % CI: [2.9-36.9]; I 2  = 0). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of TTNB for MCs were 90.1 % (95 % CI: [78.4-97.6]; I 2  = 36.5 %) and 94 % (95 % CI: [81.5-99.7]; I 2  = 0), respectively. The pooled adverse event rate was 7.0 % (95 % CI: [2.3-14.1]; I 2  = 82.9). Conclusions TTNB is safe, has a high sensitivity and specificity for MCs and may be superior to FNA cytology in risk-stratifying MCs and providing a specific cyst diagnosis.

Effect of referral pattern and histopathology grade on surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The incidence of surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps is rising. The aims of this study were to evaluate referral patterns to surgery for nonmalignant polyps, to compare outcomes between surgery and endoscopic resection (ER), and to identify factors associated with surgery in a university-based, tertiary care center. METHODS: Patients referred to colorectal surgery (CRS) for nonmalignant colorectal polyps between 2014 and 2019 were selected from the institution's integrated data repository. Clinical characteristics were obtained through chart review. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with surgery for nonmalignant polyps. RESULTS: Six hundred sixty-four patients with colorectal lesions were referred to CRS, of which 315 were for nonmalignant polyps. Most referrals (69%) came from gastroenterologists. Of the 315 cases, 136 underwent surgery and 117 were referred for attempt at ER. Complete ER was achieved in 87.2% (n = 102), with polyp recurrence in 27.2% at a median of 14 months (range, 0-72). When compared with surgery, ER was associated with a lower hospitalization rate (22.2% vs 95.6%; P < .0001), shorter hospital stay (mean, .5 ± .9 vs 2.23 ± 1 days; P < .0001), and fewer adverse events (5.9% vs 22.8%; P = .0002). Intramucosal adenocarcinoma on baseline pathology (odds ratio, 5.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-28.2) and referrals by academic gastroenterologists (odds ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-5.72) were associated with a higher likelihood of surgery on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Gastroenterologists commonly refer nonmalignant colorectal polyps to surgery, even though ER is effective and associated with lower morbidity. Both referrals from academic gastroenterologists and baseline pathology of intramucosal adenocarcinoma were factors associated with surgery. All colorectal polyps should be evaluated in a multidisciplinary approach to identify lesions suitable for ER before embarking in surgery.