The Role of Imaging for GI Bleeding: ACG and SAR Consensus Recommendations.

Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is the most common GI diagnosis leading to hospitalization within the United States. Prompt diagnosis and treatment of GI bleeding is critical to improving patient outcomes and reducing high health care utilization and costs. Radiologic techniques including CT angiography, catheter angiography, CT enterography, MR enterography, nuclear medicine red blood cell scan, and technetium-99m pertechnetate scintigraphy (Meckel scan) are frequently used to evaluate patients with GI bleeding and are complementary to GI endoscopy. However, multiple management guidelines exist, which differ in the recommended utilization of these radiologic examinations. This variability can lead to confusion as to how these tests should be used in the evaluation of GI bleeding. In this document, a panel of experts from the American College of Gastroenterology and Society of Abdominal Radiology provide a review of the radiologic examinations used to evaluate for GI bleeding including nomenclature, technique, performance, advantages, and limitations. A comparison of advantages and limitations relative to endoscopic examinations is also included. Finally, consensus statements and recommendations on technical parameters and utilization of radiologic techniques for GI bleeding are provided. © Radiological Society of North America and the American College of Gastroenterology, 2024. Supplemental material is available for this article. This article is being published concurrently in American Journal of Gastroenterology and Radiology. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Citations from either journal can be used when citing this article. See also the editorial by Lockhart in this issue.

A National Survey of the Infrastructure and Scope of Practice for Gastroenterology Hospitalists.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-based specialty-trained physicians have become more prevalent with emerging data suggesting benefit in consult and procedure volume, reduced complication rates, and increased practice productivity. Interest in gastroenterology (GI) hospitalist programs has increased in recent years. However, little is known regarding the types of GI hospitalist models that currently exist. AIMS: To characterize the infrastructure of GI hospitalist models across the USA. METHODS: A 50-question survey was distributed to the GI Hospitalist Special Interest Group of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Information on demographics, hospital infrastructure, and compensation were collected. RESULTS: 31 of 33 (94%) GI hospitalists completed the questionnaire. Respondents were mostly male (65%), white (48%) or Asian (42%). Most GI hospitalists spent at least half of their clinical time dedicated to the inpatient consultation service (73%), during which they had no other clinical duties. Most services had endoscopy suites with dedicated inpatient endoscopy rooms (66%), over 4 h allotted for procedures (83%), and were available on weekends (62%). Over half of GI hospitalists reported having outpatient duties, the most common being performance of direct access endoscopy (69%). Outside of clinical responsibilities, GI hospitalists were most frequently involved in clinical education or fellowship program leadership (48%). Most GI hospitalists were salaried with an incentive-based bonus based on work relative value units. CONCLUSION: GI hospitalist programs are varied throughout the USA but key commonalities exist between most programs.

Diagnostic yield of inpatient capsule endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Capsule endoscopy (CE) provides a novel approach to evaluate obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. Yet CE is not routinely utilized in the inpatient setting for a variety of reasons. We sought to identify factors that predict complete CE and diagnostically meaningful CE, as well as assess the impact of inpatient CE on further hospital management.1 na d2 METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patients undergoing inpatient CE at a tertiary referral, academic center over a 3 year period. We analyzed data on patient demographics, medical history, endoscopic procedures, hospital course, and results of CE. The primary outcome was complete CE and the secondary outcome was positive findings of pathology on CE. RESULTS: 131 patients were included (56.5% were men 43.5% women, median age of 71.0 years). Overall, CE was complete in 77.1% of patients. Complete CE was not related to motility risk factors, gender, or administration modality. Patients with incomplete CE tended to be older, have lower BMI, and Caucasian, however results did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.06; p = 0.06; p = 0.08 respectively). Positive CE was noted in 73.3% of patients, with 35.1% of all patients having active bleeding. Positive CE was not associated with AVM risk factors or medication use. 28.0% of patients underwent subsequent hospital procedures, among which 67.6% identified the same pathology seen on CE. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to previous studies, we found the majority of inpatient CEs were complete and positive for pathology. We found high rates of correlation between CE and subsequent procedures. The use of CE in the inpatient setting helps to guide the diagnosis and treatment of hospitalized patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding.

Hemostatic powder TC-325 treatment of malignancy-related upper gastrointestinal bleeds: International registry outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Upper gastrointestinal tumors account for 5% of upper gastrointestinal bleeds. These patients are challenging to treat due to the diffuse nature of the neoplastic bleeding lesions, high rebleeding rates, and significant transfusion requirements. TC-325 (Cook Medical, North Carolina, USA) is a hemostatic powder for gastrointestinal bleeding. The aim of this study was to examine the outcomes of upper gastrointestinal bleeds secondary to tumors treated with Hemospray therapy. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected on the use of Hemospray from 17 centers. Hemospray was used during emergency endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeds secondary to tumors at the discretion of the endoscopist as a monotherapy, dual therapy with standard hemostatic techniques, or rescue therapy. RESULTS: One hundred and five patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeds secondary to tumors were recruited. The median Blatchford score at baseline was 10 (interquartile range [IQR], 7-12). The median Rockall score was 8 (IQR, 7-9). Immediate hemostasis was achieved in 102/105 (97%) patients, 15% of patients had a 30-day rebleed, 20% of patients died within 30 days (all-cause mortality). There was a significant improvement in transfusion requirements following treatment (P < 0.001) when comparing the number of units transfused 3 weeks before and after treatment. The mean reduction was one unit per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Hemospray achieved high rates of immediate hemostasis, with comparable rebleed rates following treatment of tumor-related upper gastrointestinal bleeds. Hemospray helped in improving transfusion requirements in these patients. This allows for patient stabilization and bridges towards definitive surgery or radiotherapy to treat the underlying tumor.

A multicenter, prospective, inpatient feasibility study to evaluate the use of an intra-colonoscopy cleansing device to optimize colon preparation in hospitalized patients: the REDUCE study.

BACKGROUND: High quality bowel preparation prior to colonoscopy can be difficult to achieve in the inpatient setting. Hospitalized patients are at risk for extended hospital stays and low diagnostic yield due to inadequate bowel preparation. The Pure-Vu System is a novel device intended to fit over existing colonoscopes to improve intra-colonoscopy bowel preparation. The objective of the REDUCE study was to conduct the first inpatient study to evaluate optimization of bowel preparation quality following overnight preparation when using the Pure-Vu System during colonoscopy. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective feasibility study enrolled hospitalized subjects undergoing colonoscopy. Subjects recorded the clarity of their last bowel movement using a 5-point scale prior to colonoscopy. After one night of preparation, all enrolled subjects underwent colonoscopy utilizing the Pure-Vu System. The primary endpoint was improvement of colon cleanliness from baseline to post-cleansing with the Pure-Vu System as assessed by the improvement in Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). An exploratory analysis was conducted to assess whether the clarity of the last bowel movement could predict inadequate bowel preparation. RESULTS: Ninety-four subjects were included. BBPS analyses showed significant improvements in bowel preparation quality across all evaluable colon segments after cleansing with Pure-Vu, including left colon (1.74 vs 2.89; p < 0.0001), transverse colon (1.74 vs 2.91; p < 0.0001), and the right colon (1.41 vs 2.88; p < 0.0001). Prior to Pure-Vu, adequate cleansing (BBPS scores of ≥ 2) were reported in 60%, 62%, and 47% for the left colon, transverse colon, and right colon segments, respectively. After intra-colonoscopy cleansing with the Pure-Vu System, adequate colon preparation was reported in 100%, 99%, and 97% of the left colon, transverse colon, and right colon segments, respectively. Subjects with lower bowel movement clarity scores were more likely to have inadequate bowel preparation prior to cleansing with Pure-Vu. CONCLUSIONS: In this feasibility study, the Pure-Vu System appears to be effective in significantly improving bowel preparation quality in hospitalized subjects undergoing colonoscopy. Clarity of last bowel movement may be useful indicator in predicting poor bowel preparation. Larger studies powered to evaluate clinical outcomes, hospital costs, and blinded BBPS assessments are required to evaluate the significance of these findings. Trial registration Evaluation of the Bowel Cleansing in Hospitalized Patients Using Pure-Vu System (NCT03503162).

Donning a New Approach to the Practice of Gastroenterology: Perspectives From the COVID-19 Pandemic Epicenter.

The COVID-19 pandemic seemingly is peaking now in New York City and has triggered significant changes to the standard management of gastrointestinal diseases. Priorities such as minimizing viral transmission, preserving personal protective equipment, and freeing hospital beds have driven unconventional approaches to managing gastroenterology (GI) patients. Conversion of endoscopy units to COVID units and redeployment of GI fellows and faculty has profoundly changed the profile of most GI services. Meanwhile, consult and procedural volumes have been reduced drastically. In this review, we share our collective experiences regarding how we have changed our practice of medicine in response to the COVID surge. Although we review our management of specific consults and conditions, the overarching theme focuses primarily on noninvasive measures and maximizing medical therapies. Endoscopic procedures have been reserved for those timely interventions that are most likely to be therapeutic. The role of multidisciplinary discussion, although always important, now has become critical. The support of our faculty and trainees remains essential. Local leadership can encourage well-being by frequent team check-ins and by fostering trainee development through remote learning. Advancing a clear vision and a transparent process for how to organize and triage care in the recovery phase will allow for a smooth transition to our new normal.

Microbiome as mediator: Do systemic infections start in the gut?

The intestinal microbiome is emerging as a crucial mediator between external insults and systemic infections. New research suggests that our intestinal microorganisms contribute to critical illness and the development of non-gastrointestinal infectious diseases. Common pathways include a loss of fecal intestinal bacterial diversity and a disproportionate increase in toxogenic bacterial species. Therapeutic interventions targeting the microbiome - primarily probiotics - have yielded limited results to date. However, knowledge in this area is rapidly expanding and microbiome-based therapy such as short-chain fatty acids may eventually become a standard strategy for preventing systemic infections in the context of critical illness.

Endoscopic biopsy technique in the diagnosis of celiac disease: one bite or two?

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of celiac disease is dependent on the quality of biopsy specimens obtained at EGD. Endoscopists may obtain a single- or double-biopsy specimen with each pass of the forceps. OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of biopsy specimens obtained with the single-biopsy and double-biopsy techniques. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: U.S. tertiary-care university hospital. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing upper endoscopy with confirmed, suspected, or unknown celiac disease status. INTERVENTIONS: Four biopsy specimens from the second portion of the duodenum: 2 by using the single-biopsy technique (1 bite per pass of the forceps) and an additional 2 by using the double-biopsy technique (2 bites per pass of the forceps). Specimens were blindly reviewed to determine orientation, consecutive crypt-to-villous units, and Marsh score. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of well-oriented biopsy specimens. RESULTS: Patients (N = 86) were enrolled, 47% with known celiac disease, 36% with suspected celiac disease, and 17% with an unknown celiac disease status. Well-oriented biopsy specimens were noted in 66% of patients with the single-biopsy technique and 42% of patients with the double-biopsy technique (P < .01). Analysis of matched pairs showed improved orientation with the single-biopsy technique (odds ratio 3.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-7.1; P < .01). This persisted in subgroup analysis of patients with known celiac disease (P = .02), villous atrophy (P = .02), and a final diagnosis of celiac disease (P < .01). LIMITATIONS: A single-center trial. CONCLUSION: The single-biopsy technique improves the yield of well-oriented duodenal biopsy specimens. Endoscopists should consider taking only 1 biopsy specimen per pass of the forceps in patients undergoing biopsies of the duodenal mucosa.

Current therapies for lupus nephritis in an ethnically heterogeneous cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate responses to mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and intravenous cyclophosphamide (CYC) in lupus nephritis in a multiethnic population. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of all patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) that underwent kidney biopsy at New York University Medical Center. Patients with followup of at least 6 months were included. Clinical response was defined as complete (return to +/- 10% of normal) or partial (improvement of 50% in abnormal renal measurements). RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients were included in the study: 86% females, 86% non-Caucasian, age 34.2 +/- 1.1 years, 62% with proliferative nephritis (PN; ISN/RPS-III and IV), and 32% with membranous nephritis (MN; ISN/RPS-V). Of the 70 patients with PN, 37 were treated with CYC and 33 with MMF. The baseline characteristics of the 2 treatment groups were different in the incidence of ISN/RPS-IV, values of serum creatinine and serum albumin, and type of insurance (p < 0.05). The response rate was greater in the MMF than in the CYC group (70% vs 41%). Responses to MMF were different in Asians (11/11), Caucasians (4/5), African Americans (3/5), and Hispanics (5/11). Responses to CYC had a similar distribution (Asians 6/10, Caucasians 4/5, African Americans 4/9, Hispanics 1/11). In the MN group (N = 23) responses were similar to the PN group (73% MMF and 38% CYC). After adjusting for race, serum creatinine, serum albumin, type of insurance, and class of nephritis, in a logistic regression model, response to MMF was superior to CYC: OR 6.2 (95% CI 1.9-20.2). Hispanics had worse outcome than Caucasians (OR 0.17). Longterm followup suggested no difference in maintenance with MMF or CYC. CONCLUSION: After controlling for the fact that less severe nephritis is preferentially treated with MMF, we found overall that response to MMF was superior to CYC. In this US population, ethnicity was observed to have an influence on response.