The Gastroscopy RAte of Cleanliness Evaluation (GRACE) Scale: an international reliability and validation study.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: mucosal visualization during upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy can be impaired by the presence of foam, bubbles, and mucus. Some UGI endoscopy visibility scales were proposed but without a multicenter validation. This study aimed to develop and validate the Gastroscopy RAte of Cleanliness Evaluation (GRACE) scale. PATIENTS AND METHODS: a multicenter international cross-sectional study was conducted. The GRACE scale is based on a score from 0-worst to 3-excellent of esophagus, stomach, and duodenum, for a total ranging from 0 to 9. In the first phase, four expert endoscopists evaluated 60 selected images twice with a two-week interval; in the second phase, the same 60 images were scored twice by one expert and one non-expert endoscopist from 27 different Endoscopy Departments worldwide. For reproducibility assessment and clinical validation, a real-time scale application was performed on consecutive patients undergoing gastroscopy in each center. RESULTS: in the internal validation, the interobserver agreement was 0.81 (95%CI[0.73-0.87]) and 0.80 (95%CI[0.72-0.86]), with a reliability of 0.73 (95%CI[0.63-0.82]) and 0.72 (95%CI[0.63-0.81]), in the two rounds, respectively. In the external validation, the overall interobserver agreement was 0.85 (95%CI[0.82-0.88]) with a reliability of 0.79 (95%CI[0.73-0.84]). In the real-time evaluation phase, the overall percentage of correct classifications was 0.80 (95%CI[0.77-0.82]). CONCLUSIONS: the GRACE scale showed good interobserver agreement and reliability and good validity. The spread of this scale could enhance the quality and standardize the cleanliness of the mucosa assessment during UGI endoscopy, pushing endoscopists to obtain excellent visibility and reducing the risk of missing lesions.

Can white-light endoscopy or narrow-band imaging avoid biopsy of colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection scars? A multicenter randomized single-blind crossover trial.

BACKGROUND : Current guidelines suggest that routine biopsy of post-endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) scars can be abandoned, provided that a standardized imaging protocol with virtual chromoendoscopy is used. However, few studies have examined the accuracy of advanced endoscopic imaging, such as narrow-band imaging (NBI) vs. white-light endoscopy (WLE) for prediction of histological recurrence. We aimed to assess whether NBI accuracy is superior to that of WLE and whether one or both techniques can replace biopsies. METHODS : The study was a multicenter, randomized, pathologist-blind, crossover trial, with consecutive patients undergoing first colonoscopy after EMR of lesions ≥ 20 mm. Computer-generated randomization and opaque envelope concealed allocation. Patients were randomly assigned to scar examination with NBI followed by WLE (NBI + WLE), or WLE followed by NBI (WLE + NBI). Histology was the reference method, with biopsies being performed for all tissues. RESULTS : The study included 203 scars (103 in the NBI + WLE group, 100 in the WLE + NBI group). Recurrence was confirmed histologically in 29.6 % of the scars. The diagnostic accuracy of NBI was not statistically different from that of WLE (95 % [95 %CI 92 %-98 %] vs. 94 % [95 %CI 90 %-97 %]; P = 0.48). The negative predictive values (NPVs) were 96 % (95 %CI 93 %-99 %) for NBI and 93 % (95 %CI 89 %-97 %) for WLE (P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS : The accuracy of NBI for the diagnosis of recurrence was not superior to that of WLE. Endoscopic assessment of EMR scars with WLE and NBI achieved an NPV that would allow routine biopsy to be avoided in cases of negative optical diagnosis.

Empirical rescue treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection in third and subsequent lines: 8-year experience in 2144 patients from the European Registry on H. pylori management (Hp-EuReg).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use, effectiveness and safety of Helicobacter pylori empirical rescue therapy in third and subsequent treatment lines in Europe. DESIGN: International, prospective, non-interventional registry of the clinical practice of European gastroenterologists. Data were collected and quality reviewed until October 2021 at Asociación Española de Gastroenterología-Research Electronic Data Capture. All cases with three or more empirical eradication attempts were assessed for effectiveness by modified intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 2144 treatments were included: 1519, 439, 145 and 41 cases from third, fourth, fifth and sixth treatment lines, respectively. Sixty different therapies were used; the 15 most frequently prescribed encompassed >90% of cases. Overall effectiveness remained <90% in all therapies. Optimised treatments achieved a higher eradication rate than non-optimised (78% vs 67%, p<0.0001). From 2017 to 2021, only 44% of treatments other than 10-day single-capsule therapy used high proton-pump inhibitor doses and lasted ≥14 days. Quadruple therapy containing metronidazole, tetracycline and bismuth achieved optimal eradication rates only when prescribed as third-line treatment, either as 10-day single-capsule therapy (87%) or as 14-day traditional therapy with tetracycline hydrochloride (95%). Triple amoxicillin-levofloxacin therapy achieved 90% effectiveness in Eastern Europe only or when optimised. The overall incidence of adverse events was 31%. CONCLUSION: Empirical rescue treatment in third and subsequent lines achieved suboptimal effectiveness in most European regions. Only quadruple bismuth-metronidazole-tetracycline (10-day single-capsule or 14-day traditional scheme) and triple amoxicillin-levofloxacin therapies reached acceptable outcomes in some settings. Compliance with empirical therapy optimisation principles is still poor 5 years after clinical practice guidelines update. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02328131.

Empirical Second-Line Therapy in 5000 Patients of the European Registry on Helicobacter pylori Management (Hp-EuReg).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: After a first Helicobacter pylori eradication attempt, approximately 20% of patients will remain infected. The aim of the current study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of second-line empiric treatment in Europe. METHODS: This international, multicenter, prospective, non-interventional registry aimed to evaluate the decisions and outcomes of H pylori management by European gastroenterologists. All infected adult cases with a previous eradication treatment attempt were registered with the Spanish Association of Gastroenterology-Research Electronic Data Capture until February 2021. Patients allergic to penicillin and those who received susceptibility-guided therapy were excluded. Data monitoring was performed to ensure data quality. RESULTS: Overall, 5055 patients received empiric second-line treatment. Triple therapy with amoxicillin and levofloxacin was prescribed most commonly (33%). The overall effectiveness was 82% by modified intention-to-treat analysis and 83% in the per-protocol population. After failure of first-line clarithromycin-containing treatment, optimal eradication (>90%) was obtained with moxifloxacin-containing triple therapy or levofloxacin-containing quadruple therapy (with bismuth). In patients receiving triple therapy containing levofloxacin or moxifloxacin, and levofloxacin-bismuth quadruple treatment, cure rates were optimized with 14-day regimens using high doses of proton pump inhibitors. However, 3-in-1 single capsule or levofloxacin-bismuth quadruple therapy produced reliable eradication rates regardless of proton pump inhibitor dose, duration of therapy, or previous first-line treatment. The overall incidence of adverse events was 28%, and most (85%) were mild. Three patients developed serious adverse events (0.3%) requiring hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Empiric second-line regimens including 14-day quinolone triple therapies, 14-day levofloxacin-bismuth quadruple therapy, 14-day tetracycline-bismuth classic quadruple therapy, and 10-day bismuth quadruple therapy (as a single capsule) provided optimal effectiveness. However, many other second-line treatments evaluated reported low eradication rates. ClincialTrials.gov number: NCT02328131.

The Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS): a two-phase evaluation study.

BACKGROUND: To date, no scale has been validated to assess bubbles associated with bowel preparation. This study aimed to develop and assess the reliability of a novel scale - the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS). METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study with two online evaluation phases of 45 randomly distributed still colonoscopy images (15 per scale grade). Observers assessed images twice, 2 weeks apart, using CEBuS (CEBuS-0 - no or minimal bubbles, covering < 5 % of the surface; CEBuS-1 - bubbles covering 5 %-50 %; CEBuS-2 - bubbles covering > 50 %) and reporting the clinical action (do nothing; wash with water; wash with simethicone). RESULTS: CEBuS provided high levels of agreement both in evaluation Phase 1 (4 experts) and Phase 2 (6 experts and 13 non-experts), with almost perfect intraobserver reliability: kappa 0.82 (95 % confidence interval 0.75-0.88) and 0.86 (0.85-0.88); interobserver agreement - intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.83 (0.73-0.89) and 0.90 (0.86-0.94). Previous endoscopic experience had no influence on agreement among experts vs. non-experts: kappa 0.86 (0.80-0.91) vs. 0.87 (0.84-0.89) and ICC 0.91 (0.87-0.94) vs. 0.90 (0.86-0.94), respectively. Interobserver agreement on clinical action was ICC 0.63 (0.43-0.78) in Phase 1 and 0.77 (0.68-0.84) in Phase 2. Absolute agreement on clinical action per scale grade was 85 % (82-88) for CEBuS-0, 21 % (16-26) for CEBuS-1, and 74 % (70-78) for CEBuS-2. CONCLUSION: CEBuS proved to be a reliable instrument to standardize the evaluation of colonic bubbles during colonoscopy. Assessment in daily practice is warranted.

Expected value of artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

This ESGE Position Statement defines the expected value of artificial intelligence (AI) for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal neoplasia within the framework of the performance measures already defined by ESGE. This is based on the clinical relevance of the expected task and the preliminary evidence regarding artificial intelligence in artificial or clinical settings. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS:: (1) For acceptance of AI in assessment of completeness of upper GI endoscopy, the adequate level of mucosal inspection with AI should be comparable to that assessed by experienced endoscopists. (2) For acceptance of AI in assessment of completeness of upper GI endoscopy, automated recognition and photodocumentation of relevant anatomical landmarks should be obtained in ≥90% of the procedures. (3) For acceptance of AI in the detection of Barrett's high grade intraepithelial neoplasia or cancer, the AI-assisted detection rate for suspicious lesions for targeted biopsies should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists with or without advanced imaging techniques. (4) For acceptance of AI in the management of Barrett's neoplasia, AI-assisted selection of lesions amenable to endoscopic resection should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists. (5) For acceptance of AI in the diagnosis of gastric precancerous conditions, AI-assisted diagnosis of atrophy and intestinal metaplasia should be comparable to that provided by the established biopsy protocol, including the estimation of extent, and consequent allocation to the correct endoscopic surveillance interval. (6) For acceptance of artificial intelligence for automated lesion detection in small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), the performance of AI-assisted reading should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists for lesion detection, without increasing but possibly reducing the reading time of the operator. (7) For acceptance of AI in the detection of colorectal polyps, the AI-assisted adenoma detection rate should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists. (8) For acceptance of AI optical diagnosis (computer-aided diagnosis [CADx]) of diminutive polyps (≤5 mm), AI-assisted characterization should match performance standards for implementing resect-and-discard and diagnose-and-leave strategies. (9) For acceptance of AI in the management of polyps ≥ 6 mm, AI-assisted characterization should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists in selecting lesions amenable to endoscopic resection.

Adverse Event Profile During the Treatment of Helicobacter pylori: A Real-World Experience of 22,000 Patients From the European Registry on H. pylori Management (Hp-EuReg).

INTRODUCTION: The safety of Helicobacter pylori eradication treatments and to what extent adverse events (AEs) influence therapeutic compliance in clinical practice are hardly known. Our aim was to assess the frequency, type, intensity, and duration of AEs, and their impact on compliance, for the most frequently used treatments in the "European Registry on Helicobacter pylori management." METHODS: Systematic prospective noninterventional registry of the clinical practice of European gastroenterologists (27 countries, 300 investigators) on the management of H. pylori infection in routine clinical practice. All prescribed eradication treatments and their corresponding safety profile were recorded. AEs were classified depending on the intensity of symptoms as mild/moderate/severe and as serious AEs. All data were subject to quality control. RESULTS: The different treatments prescribed to 22,492 patients caused at least 1 AE in 23% of the cases; the classic bismuth-based quadruple therapy was the worst tolerated (37% of AEs). Taste disturbance (7%), diarrhea (7%), nausea (6%), and abdominal pain (3%) were the most frequent AEs. The majority of AEs were mild (57%), 6% were severe, and only 0.08% were serious, with an average duration of 7 days. The treatment compliance rate was 97%. Only 1.3% of the patients discontinued treatment due to AEs. Longer treatment durations were significantly associated with a higher incidence of AEs in standard triple, concomitant, bismuth quadruple, and levofloxacin triple or quadruple therapies. DISCUSSION: Helicobacter pylori eradication treatment frequently induces AEs, although they are usually mild and of limited duration. Their appearance does not interfere significantly with treatment compliance.

Performance of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy for adenoma and polyp detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: One-fourth of colorectal neoplasia are missed at screening colonoscopy, representing the main cause of interval colorectal cancer. Deep learning systems with real-time computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) showed high accuracy in artificial settings, and preliminary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported favorable outcomes in the clinical setting. The aim of this meta-analysis was to summarize available RCTs on the performance of CADe systems in colorectal neoplasia detection. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central databases until March 2020 for RCTs reporting diagnostic accuracy of CADe systems in the detection of colorectal neoplasia. The primary outcome was pooled adenoma detection rate (ADR), and secondary outcomes were adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) according to size, morphology, and location; advanced APC; polyp detection rate; polyps per colonoscopy; and sessile serrated lesions per colonoscopy. We calculated risk ratios (RRs), performed subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and assessed heterogeneity and publication bias. RESULTS: Overall, 5 randomized controlled trials (4354 patients) were included in the final analysis. Pooled ADR was significantly higher in the CADe group than in the control group (791/2163 [36.6%] vs 558/2191 [25.2%]; RR, 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-1.62; P < .01; I2 = 42%). APC was also higher in the CADe group compared with control (1249/2163 [.58] vs 779/2191 [.36]; RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.53-1.89; P < .01; I2 = 33%). APC was higher for ≤5-mm (RR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.48-1.84), 6- to 9-mm (RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.19-1.75), and ≥10-mm adenomas (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.04-2.06) and for proximal (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.34-1.88), distal (RR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.50-1.88), flat (RR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.47-2.15), and polypoid morphology (RR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.40-1.68). Regarding histology, CADe resulted in a higher sessile serrated lesion per colonoscopy (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.14-2.02), whereas a nonsignificant trend for advanced ADR was found (RR, 1.35; 95% CI, .74-2.47; P = .33; I2 = 69%). Level of evidence for RCTs was graded as moderate. CONCLUSIONS: According to available evidence, the incorporation of artificial intelligence as aid for detection of colorectal neoplasia results in a significant increase in the detection of colorectal neoplasia, and such effect is independent from main adenoma characteristics.

Overcoming the barriers to dissemination and implementation of quality measures for gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) position statement.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has developed performance measures and established a framework for quality assessment for gastrointestinal endoscopy in Europe. Most national societies actively undertake initiatives to implement and explicitly endorse these quality indicators. Given this, ESGE proposes that, at a national level, strong leadership should exist to disseminate and implement quality parameters. Thus, understanding the potential barriers that may vary locally is of paramount importance. ESGE suggests that each national society should prioritize quality and standards of care in gastrointestinal endoscopy in their activities and should survey/understand which measures are a local priority to their members and make measuring quality intrinsic to daily endoscopy practice.

Procalcitonin in preterm rupture of membranes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Early detection of infection is of supreme importance in obstetrics; however, during pregnancy it is not reliably predicted by standard laboratory tests. We aimed to determine if procalcitonin (PCT) is a reliable predictor of chorioamnionitis (CA) in women with premature rupture of membranes (PPROM). METHODS: An electronic search of Scopus, ISI, Medline, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library databases was performed using specified key words. We examined all English and French reports on PCT measurement after admission for PPROM and considered: human studies published between 1990 and 2019; observational studies; and randomized controlled trials. A protocol was determined previously, registered at PROSPERO as CRD42019145464. The eligibility was independently assessed by two researchers and literature search yielded 590 studies; after revision of the titles and abstracts, 46 articles were identified as potentially eligible; eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. Primary data synthesis was performed in Review Manager Version 5.3 and average sensitivity and specificity was calculated using Midas, Stata. RESULTS: From the eight studies included, 335 participants with PPROM were enrolled. Our meta-analysis disclosed that PCT has a poor sensitivity (0.50; 95% CI 0.28-0.73) and a modest specificity (0.72; 95% CI 0.51-0.87) in diagnosing CA. C-reactive protein (CRP) not only has better sensitivity (0.71; 95% CI 0.53-0.84), but also better specificity (0.75; 95% CI 0.55-0.88), compared with the other inflammatory parameters analyzed. Procalcitonin does not seems to be better than CRP in preterm rupture of membranes for chorioamnionitis diagnosis.

Role of gastrointestinal endoscopy in the screening of digestive tract cancers in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

In Europe at present, but also in 2040, 1 in 3 cancer-related deaths are expected to be caused by digestive cancers. Endoscopic technologies enable diagnosis, with relatively low invasiveness, of precancerous conditions and early cancers, thereby improving patient survival. Overall, endoscopy capacity must be adjusted to facilitate both effective screening programs and rigorous control of the quality assurance and surveillance systems required. 1 : For average-risk populations, ESGE recommends the implementation of organized population-based screening programs FOR COLORECTAL CANCER: , based on fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), targeting individuals, irrespective of gender, aged between 50 and 75 years. Depending on local factors, namely the adherence of the target population and availability of endoscopy services, primary screening by colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy may also be recommendable. 2 : In high-risk populations, endoscopic screening FOR GASTRIC CANCER: should be considered for individuals aged more than 40 years. Its use in countries/regions with intermediate risk may be considered on the basis of local settings and availability of endoscopic resources. 3 : For esophageal and pancreatic cancer, endoscopic screening may be considered only in high-risk individuals:- FOR SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA: , in those with a personal history of head/neck cancer, achalasia, or previous caustic injury; - FOR BARRETT'S ESOPHAGUS (BE)-ASSOCIATED ADENOCARCINOMA: , in those with long-standing gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms (i. e., > 5 years) and multiple risk factors (age ≥ 50 years, white race, male sex, obesity, first-degree relative with BE or esophageal adenocarcinoma [EAC]). - FOR PANCREATIC CANCER SCREENING: , endoscopic ultrasound may be used in selected high-risk patients such as those with a strong family history and/or genetic susceptibility.

Helicobacter pylori first-line and rescue treatments in patients allergic to penicillin: Experience from the European Registry on H pylori management (Hp-EuReg).

BACKGROUND: Experience in Helicobacter pylori eradication treatment of patients allergic to penicillin is very scarce. A triple combination with a PPI, clarithromycin (C), and metronidazole (M) is often prescribed as the first option, although more recently the use of a quadruple therapy with PPI, bismuth (B), tetracycline (T), and M has been recommended. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of first-line and rescue treatments in patients allergic to penicillin in the "European Registry of H pylori management" (Hp-EuReg). METHODS: A systematic prospective registry of the clinical practice of European gastroenterologists (27 countries, 300 investigators) on the management of H pylori infection. An e-CRF was created on AEG-REDCap. Patients with penicillin allergy were analyzed until June 2019. RESULTS: One-thousand eighty-four patients allergic to penicillin were analyzed. The most frequently prescribed first-line treatments were as follows: PPI + C + M (n = 285) and PPI + B + T + M (classic or Pylera® ; n = 250). In first line, the efficacy of PPI + C + M was 69%, while PPI + B + T + M reached 91% (P < .001). In second line, after the failure of PPI + C + M, two rescue options showed similar efficacy: PPI + B + T + M (78%) and PPI + C + levofloxacin (L) (71%) (P > .05). In third line, after the failure of PPI + C + M and PPI + C + L, PPI + B + T + M was successful in 75% of cases. CONCLUSION: In patients allergic to penicillin, a triple combination with PPI + C + M should not be generally recommended as a first-line treatment, while a quadruple regimen with PPI + B + T + M seems to be a better option. As a rescue treatment, this quadruple regimen (if not previously prescribed) or a triple regimen with PPI + C + L could be used but achieved suboptimal (<80%) results.

Management of epithelial precancerous conditions and lesions in the stomach (MAPS II): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG), European Society of Pathology (ESP), and Sociedade Portuguesa de Endoscopia Digestiva (SPED) guideline update 2019.

Patients with chronic atrophic gastritis or intestinal metaplasia (IM) are at risk for gastric adenocarcinoma. This underscores the importance of diagnosis and risk stratification for these patients. High definition endoscopy with chromoendoscopy (CE) is better than high definition white-light endoscopy alone for this purpose. Virtual CE can guide biopsies for staging atrophic and metaplastic changes and can target neoplastic lesions. Biopsies should be taken from at least two topographic sites (antrum and corpus) and labelled in two separate vials. For patients with mild to moderate atrophy restricted to the antrum there is no evidence to recommend surveillance. In patients with IM at a single location but with a family history of gastric cancer, incomplete IM, or persistent Helicobacter pylori gastritis, endoscopic surveillance with CE and guided biopsies may be considered in 3 years. Patients with advanced stages of atrophic gastritis should be followed up with a high quality endoscopy every 3 years. In patients with dysplasia, in the absence of an endoscopically defined lesion, immediate high quality endoscopic reassessment with CE is recommended. Patients with an endoscopically visible lesion harboring low or high grade dysplasia or carcinoma should undergo staging and treatment. H. pylori eradication heals nonatrophic chronic gastritis, may lead to regression of atrophic gastritis, and reduces the risk of gastric cancer in patients with these conditions, and it is recommended. H. pylori eradication is also recommended for patients with neoplasia after endoscopic therapy. In intermediate to high risk regions, identification and surveillance of patients with precancerous gastric conditions is cost-effective.

Premedication with simethicone and N-acetylcysteine in improving visibility during upper endoscopy: a double-blind randomized trial.

Background and study aim Upper endoscopy is the most common method for the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal tract diseases. The aim of this study was to determine whether premedication with simethicone or N-acetylcysteine improves mucosal visualization during upper endoscopy. Patients and methods This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 297 patients scheduled for upper endoscopy who were premedicated 15 - 30 minutes before the procedure with: 100 mL of water (placebo, group A); water plus 100 mg simethicone (group B); water plus 100 mg simethicone plus 600 mg N-acetylcysteine (group C). The primary outcome measure was the quality of mucosal visualization (score: excellent, adequate or inadequate). Results The addition of simethicone (group B) or simethicone plus N-acetylcysteine to the water (group C) improved the visualization scores of endoscopies compared with water alone (group A). In particular, groups B and C produced a significantly higher percentage of endoscopies with excellent visualization for the esophagus (91.1 % and 86.7 %, respectively, vs. 71.4 % in group A; P < 0.001) and stomach (76.2 % and 74.5 % vs. 38.8 % in group A; P < 0.001). For the duodenum, the use of simethicone also showed an increase in the endoscopies with excellent visualization compared with water alone (85.1 % vs. 73.5 %; P = 0.042). There were no significant differences in scores between groups B and C or between gastric scores in patients with previous subtotal gastrectomy (B and C vs. A): 60.0 % and 42.1 % vs. 28.6 % (P = 0.14). The rate of reported lesions was higher in group B but without statistical significance. Conclusions Premedication with simethicone resulted in better mucosal visibility. Such premedication might improve diagnostic yield, and should be considered for standard practice. Trial registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02357303).

Low-molecular-weight heparin plus aspirin versus aspirin alone in pregnant women with hereditary thrombophilia to improve live birth rate: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: To determine in women with hereditary thrombophilia whether the use of the combination of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and aspirin (ASA) is better than ASA alone. METHODS: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating LMWH + ASA compared to ASA in pregnant women with hereditary thrombophilia in order to improve live birth rate. A systematic literature search was conducted in 5 databases (PubMed, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, EMBASE, Scopus and ISI Web of Knowledge). Trial selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors. The main outcome measure was live birth rate. Secondary outcomes included rates of first-trimester miscarriage, prematurity, pre-eclampsia, and low birth weight for gestational age babies. RESULTS: Four trials were included in the quantitative synthesis in a total of 222 randomized women. Effect of LMWH + ASA versus ASA with regard to live births was evaluable in all four randomized controlled trials with a similar overall treatment effect for the therapies OR 1.7 (95 % CI 0.72-4.0) and without heterogeneity (I (2) = 0 %). No significant differences or heterogeneity were observed between groups for secondary outcomes, namely first-trimester miscarriages OR 0.69 (0.22-2.16), prematurity OR 0.99 (0.4-2.08), pre-eclampsia OR 1.49 (0.63-3.5), and small for gestational age babies OR 2.08 (0.96-4.47). CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in live birth weight and other pregnancy outcomes between LMWH + ASA versus ASA. However, these findings were based on few trials presenting methodological limitations. Therefore, there is no evidence to support any incremental benefit of adding LMWH to ASA alone in women with inherited thrombophilia.

Cost-utility analysis of endoscopic surveillance of patients with gastric premalignant conditions.

BACKGROUND: Progression of extensive gastric premalignant conditions to cancer might warrant surveillance programms. Recent guidelines suggest a 3-yearly endoscopic follow-up for these patients. Our aim was to determine the cost utility of endoscopic surveillance of patients with extensive gastric premalignant conditions such as extensive atrophy or intestinal metaplasia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-utility economic analysis was performed from a societal perspective in Portugal using a Markov model to compare two strategies: surveillance versus no surveillance. Clinical data were collected from a systematic review of the literature, costs from published national data, and community utilities derived from a population study by the EuroQol questionnaire in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Population started at age 50, for a time horizon of 25 years and an annual discount rate of 3% was used for cost and effectiveness. Primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of a 3-yearly endoscopic surveillance versus no surveillance for a base case scenario and in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Secondary outcomes were ICER of 5- and 10-yearly endoscopic surveillance versus no surveillance. RESULTS: Endoscopic surveillance every 3 years provided an ICER of € 18,336, below the adopted threshold of € 36,575 which corresponds to the proposed guideline limit of USD 50,000 and this strategy dominated surveillance every 5 or 10 years. Utilities for endoscopic treatment were relevant in deterministic analysis, while probabilistic analysis showed that in 78% of cases the model was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic surveillance every 3 years of patients with premalignant conditions is cost-effective.

Combined gastric and colorectal cancer endoscopic screening may be cost-effective in Europe with the implementation of artificial intelligence: an economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Endoscopic screening for gastric cancer (GC) is not recommended in low-intermediate incidence countries. Artificial intelligence (AI) has high accuracy in GC detection and might increase the cost-effectiveness of screening strategies. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of AI for GC detection in settings with different GC incidence and different accuracies of AI systems. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis (using Markov model) comparing different screening strategies (no screening versus single esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at 50 years versus stand-alone EGD every 5/10 years versus combined EGD and screening colonoscopy once or twice per decade in Netherlands, Italy and Portugal) with variable AI accuracy settings. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the different strategies versus no screening. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Without AI, one single EGD at 50 years (Netherlands, Italy, Portugal), EGD combined with screening colonoscopy once per decade (Italy and Portugal) and EGD combined with screening colonoscopy twice per decade (Portugal) are cost-effective when compared with no screening. If AI increases the accuracy of EGD by at least 1% in comparison to the accuracy of white-light endoscopy accuracy (89%), combined screening twice per decade also becomes cost-effective in Italy. If AI accuracy reaches at least 96%, combined screening once per decade is also cost-effective in the Netherlands. DISCUSSION: In European countries, AI-assisted EGD may improve the cost-effectiveness of GC screening with combined EGD and screening colonoscopy. The actual effect of AI on cost-effectiveness may vary dependent on the accuracy and costs of the AI system.

The Effect of Oral Simethicone in a Bowel Preparation in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Colonoscopy Setting: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Introduction: Current guidelines suggest adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation for colonoscopy. However, its effect on key quality indicators for screening colonoscopy remains unclear. The primary aim was to assess the rate of adequate bowel preparation in split-dose high-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG), with or without simethicone. Methods: This is an endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial, including patients scheduled for colonoscopy after a positive faecal immunochemical test. Patients were randomly assigned to 4 L of PEG split dose (PEG) or 4 L of PEG split dose plus 500 mg oral simethicone (PEG + simethicone). The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, the preparation quality regarding bubbles using the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS), ADR, CIR, and the intraprocedural use of simethicone were recorded. Results: We included 191 and 197 patients in the PEG + simethicone group and the PEG group, respectively. When comparing the PEG + simethicone group versus the PEG group, no significant differences in adequate bowel preparation rates (97% vs. 93%; p = 0.11) were found. However, the bubble scale score was significantly lower in the PEG + simethicone group (0 [0] versus 2 [5], p < 0.01), as well as intraprocedural use of simethicone (7% vs. 37%; p < 0.01). ADR (62% vs. 61%; p = 0.86) and CIR (98% vs. 96%, p = 0.14) did not differ between both groups. Conclusion: Adding oral simethicone to a split-bowel preparation resulted in a lower incidence of bubbles and a lower intraprocedural use of simethicone but no further improvement on the preparation quality or ADR.

Introdução: As normas de orientação atuais sugerem a adição de simeticone oral à preparação intestinal para colonoscopia. Contudo, o seu efeito nos indicadores de qualidade no âmbito da colonoscopia de rastreio não está comprovado. O objetivo principal foi avaliar a taxa de preparação adequada usando polietilenoglicol (PEG) em dose dividida com e sem simeticone oral. Métodos: Estudo randomizado controlado, cego para o endoscopista, incluindo doentes admitidos para colonoscopia após teste fecal imunoquímico positivo. Os doentes foram aleatoriamente alocados para 4 litros de PEG em dose dividida (PEG) ou 4 litros de PEG em dose divida + simeticone oral (PEG + simeticone). Foram avaliados: Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), qualidade da preparação relativa às bolhas através da Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS) scale, ADR, CIR e uso de simeticone durante o procedimento. Resultados: Foram incluídos 191 e 197 doentes nos grupos PEG + simeticone e PEG, respetivamente. Comparando os grupos PEG + simeticone versus PEG, não se registaram diferenças de significado estatístico relativamente à taxa de preparação intestinal adequada (97% vs. 93%; p = 0,01) mas o score da escala de bolhas foi significativamente inferior no grupo PEG + simeticone [0 (0) versus 2 (5), p < 0.01], assim como o uso de simeticone durante o procedimento (7% vs. 37%; p < 0,01). A ADR (62% vs. 61%; p = 0,86) e a CIR (98% vs. 96%, p = 0,14) não diferiram significativamente entre os dois grupos, respetivamente. Discussão/Conclusão: Adicionar simeticone oral à preparação intestinal em dose dividida permitiu menor incidência de bolhas e menor utilização de simeticone durante o procedimento, mas não se associa a melhor preparação intestinal ou melhor ADR.