Effect of a quality program with adverse events identification on airway management during overtube-assisted enteroscopy.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Adverse events associated with overtube-assisted enteroscopy are similar to those with routine endoscopy. Our endoscopy quality program identified a number of respiratory adverse events resulting in emergency resuscitation efforts. The aim is to report all adverse events identified by quality monitoring and outcomes of adverse events associated with overtube-assisted enteroscopy. METHODS: A retrospective study used data prospectively obtained from consecutive patients undergoing overtube-assisted enteroscopy between December 2008 and July 2012. Patient characteristics, medical history, procedure indication, and procedure outcomes, including diagnosis, endoscopic therapy, and complications, were obtained. RESULTS: In 432 overtube-assisted enteroscopies, 15 adverse events (most frequently hypoxemia, 9 /15, 60 %) occurred in 14 patients (3.2 % of total cohort; 12 were outpatients) mostly during antegrade enteroscopy. Four patients required endotracheal intubation and 4 /12 outpatients required intensive care. The procedure was aborted in 13 /14 patients, and only 1 of 10 patients scheduled for repeat antegrade enteroscopy returned. There was no mortality. Based on the frequency of adverse events, and in consultation with anesthesia providers, from August 2012 all antegrade overtube-assisted enteroscopies at our institution were done with general anesthesia. From then till September 2013, 145 antegrade and 52 retrograde overtube-assisted enteroscopies have been done, with no adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring of endoscopy practice identified adverse events associated with overtube-assisted enteroscopy. The peer-review prompted a change in practice: all patients undergoing antegrade overtube-assisted enteroscopy at our institution now have endotracheal intubation which has dramatically decreased the rate of respiratory adverse events. The impact of endoscopic quality measurements on practices, procedures, and outcomes will be of further interest.

Endoscopic evaluation of surgically altered bowel in inflammatory bowel disease: a consensus guideline from the Global Interventional Inflammatory Bowel Disease Group.

The majority of patients with Crohn's disease and a proportion of patients with ulcerative colitis will ultimately require surgical treatment despite advances in diagnosis, therapy, and endoscopic interventions. The surgical procedures that are most commonly done include bowel resection with anastomosis, strictureplasty, faecal diversion, and ileal pouch. These surgical treatment modalities result in substantial alterations in bowel anatomy. In patients with inflammatory bowel disease, endoscopy plays a key role in the assessment of disease activity, disease recurrence, treatment response, dysplasia surveillance, and delivery of endoscopic therapy. Endoscopic evaluation and management of surgically altered bowel can be challenging. This consensus guideline delineates anatomical landmarks and endoscopic assessment of these landmarks in diseased and surgically altered bowel.

Metastatic colorectal cancer to the small bowel-an uncommon cause of obscure GI bleeding: a three-case experience with review of the literature.

PURPOSE: Metastatic colorectal cancer to the small intestine is a rare condition presenting with nonspecific symptoms such as obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). We report our experience with the use of capsule endoscopy (CE) and double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) to identify and diagnose the metastatic colorectal cancer to the small bowel. The aim was to demonstrate the approach to the diagnosis of metastatic colorectal cancer to the small bowel including literature review. METHODS: This is a retrospective case series from an academic tertiary referral center. Three patients with a history of colorectal cancer referred for OGIB underwent CE and subsequent DBE. RESULTS: All patients underwent evaluation including esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy prior to referral. In each case, CE was performed revealing the source of bleeding which was confirmed as metastatic colorectal cancer to the small bowel by DBE. Significant lag time was noted from the initial diagnosis of colorectal cancer to the onset of symptomatic small bowel metastasis in this series (1.3-7 years). CONCLUSIONS: We found the incidence of metastatic colorectal cancer to the small intestine of those with small intestine tumors to be 6%. Clinicians should be suspicious of this condition in any patient with OGIB and prior history of colorectal cancer. The approach to this diagnosis is varied but one algorithm includes the combined use of CE for tumor localization and balloon-assisted enteroscopy for confirmation.

Effectiveness of open-access endoscopy in routine primary-care practice.

BACKGROUND: Direct referral of patients for endoscopic procedures without prior consultation (open-access endoscopy) has become commonplace. However, the effect of open-access endoscopy on the care of patients in routine clinical practice has not been studied. METHODS: The impact of open-access endoscopy was examined in 168 consecutive patients referred from 8 primary-care practices to our tertiary hospital-based endoscopy center. The effectiveness of open-access endoscopy was assessed by review of office medical records at the primary-care practice sites for a minimum follow-up period of 6 months. Outcome measures evaluated included postprocedure communication between primary-care physician and patient, primary-care physician adherence to postprocedure recommendations, and the need for subsequent diagnostic evaluation and/or consultation. RESULTS: The mean age of the 168 patients was 60 years; 56 (33%) underwent EGD and 112 (67%) had colonoscopy; 65% were from hospital-based practices and 35% from community practices. The indication(s) for 77% of the procedures met American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines for the appropriate use of endoscopy. An office follow-up was noted for 82% of patients after the open-access procedure. Discussion of results was documented in 61% of the patient charts. Compliance with diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations was documented, respectively, in 75% and 90% of patient charts. A follow-up GI consultation was requested for only 7% of the patients. CONCLUSION: Open-access endoscopy in the primary-care setting is effective to the extent that subsequent GI consultations are rare and the level of compliance with endoscopist recommendations is high. However, documentation of communication of the results of endoscopy with the patient can be improved.