Endoscopy International Open最新文献

Optimizing the adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a major goal in colorectal cancer (CCR) screening, as it has long been established that ADR is inversely proportional to the risk of post-colonoscopy CRC occurrence. To achieve this goal, many optimization devices have been developed, and numerous randomized controlled trials have been conducted to evaluate the benefits of these devices compared with a "standard arm," which corresponds to date to high-definition white light (HD-WLI) colonoscopy. Numerous studies have confirmed the positive impact of various optimization devices, such as caps, computer-aided detection, and contrast-enhanced technologies. Moreover, the different ways in which the devices can impact ADR make them complementary. However, despite substantial and consistent data, practices remain unchanged, and HD-WLI colonoscopy, considered the "standard," is still routinely performed without any optimization devices. The objective of this viewpoint is to understand the barriers to change and to show why standard screening colonoscopy without the use of any optimization devices should no longer be considered relevant in 2024.

Background and study aims Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (EGD) is one of the most common diagnostic procedures done to examine the foregut, but it can also be used for therapeutic interventions. The main objectives of this study were to investigate trends in EGD utilization and mortality related to it in a national low-threshold healthcare system, assess perioperative safety, and identify and describe patient-reported malpractice claims from the national database. Patients and methods We retrospectively identified patients from the Finnish Patient Care Registry who underwent diagnostic or procedural EGD between 2010 and 2018. In addition, patient-reported claims for malpractice were analyzed from the National Patient Insurance Center (PIC) database. Patient survival data were gathered collectively from the National Death Registry from Statistics Finland. Results During the study period, 409,153 EGDs were performed in Finland for 298,082 patients, with an annual rate of 9.30 procedures per 1,000 inhabitants, with an annual increase of 2.6%. Thirty-day all-cause mortality was 1.70% and 90-day mortality was 3.84%. For every 1,000 patients treated, 0.23 malpractice claims were filed. Conclusions The annual rate of EGD increased by 2.6% during the study, while the rate of interventional procedures remained constant. Also, while the 30-day mortality rate declined over the study period, it is an unsuitable quality metric for EGDs in comprehensive centers because a patient's underlying disease plays a larger role than the procedure in perioperative mortality. Finally, there were few malpractice claims, with self-evident causes prevailing.

Background and study aims Optical diagnosis poses challenges to implementation of "resect and discard" strategies. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and performance of a new commercially available system for colorectal polyps. Patients and methods Nine expert endoscopists in three centers performed colonoscopies using artificial intelligence-equipped colonoscopes (CAD EYE, Fujifilm). Histology and predictions were compared, with hyperplastic polyps and sessile serrated lesions grouped for analysis. Results Overall, 253 polyps in 119 patients were documented (n=152 adenomas, n=78 hyperplastic polyps, n=23 sessile serrated lesions). CAD EYE detected polyps before endoscopists in 81 of 253 cases (32%). The mean polyp size was 5.5 mm (SD 0.6 mm). Polyp morphology was Paris Ip (4 %), Is (28 %), IIa (60 %), and IIb (8 %). CAD EYE achieved a sensitivity of 80%, specificity of 83%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 96%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 72%. Expert endoscopists had a sensitivity of 88%, specificity of 83%, PPV of 96%, and NPV of 72%. Diagnostic accuracy was similar between CAD EYE (81%) and endoscopists (86%). However, sensitivity was greater with endoscopists as compared with CAD EYE ( P <0.05). CAD EYE classified sessile serrated lesions as hyperplasia in 22 of 23 cases, and endoscopists correctly classified 16 of 23 cases. Conclusions The CAD EYE system shows promise for detecting and characterizing colorectal polyps. Larger studies are needed, however, to confirm these findings.

Background and study aims Reprocessing reusable endoscopes is challenging due to their non-sterilizable nature. Disinfection has been shown to have a significant risk of failure with serious consequences. Single-use endoscopes can eliminate contamination risk and reduce workflow delays caused by reprocessing. This study evaluated the clinical performance of single-use gastroscopes in patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Patients and methods In this case series, 60 patients underwent EGD using single-use gastroscopes, with 34 procedures in the endoscopy department and 26 in the intensive care unit. The primary outcome was successful completion of the intended EGD objective. Furthermore, certified endoscopists assessed device performance on a five-point Likert scale (ranging from 1-"much worse" to 5-"much better"), considering their experience with a reusable gastroscope. Results Successful completion of EGDs using only the single-use gastroscope was achieved in 58 of 60 cases (96.7%). In two cases, crossover to an ultra-slim endoscope was necessary to either reach the esophageal stenosis or to transverse the stenosis. Overall satisfaction was rated as comparable to reusable scopes in 51 of 56 cases (91.1%) and inferior in five cases (8.9%). The lower weight of the single-use gastroscope was rated as superior in 42 of 60 cases (70.0%). Drawbacks included reduced image quality (23 of 45 cases; 51.1%). Feedback included the absence of a freeze button, lens cleaning issues, and small image size. Conclusions Single-use gastroscopes exhibited a high EGD completion rate and effectiveness for various indications. Further research should focus on evaluating the implementation of single-use gastroscopes in a comprehensive context, considering clinical effectiveness, costs, and environmental impact.

Background and study aims The aim of this study was to assess the effect of an educational video on the quality of bowel preparation of patients from a UK population attending for their first colonoscopy. Patients and methods A prospective, endoscopist-blinded trial with 1:1 allocation was performed. Patients referred for their first colonoscopy were recruited between February 2019 and December 2019. All participants were prescribed Moviprep and received the trial site's standard written bowel preparation instructions, with the intervention group also receiving a bespoke educational video. Adequacy of bowel preparation (defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale of ≥2 in each segment of the bowel) and polyp detection rates (PDRs) were compared. Fisher's chi squared test was utilized with P <0.05 as the threshold for significance. Results A total of 509 participants completed the trial from six centers; 251 were randomized to the intervention group. The mean age was 57 years and 52.3% were female. The primary endpoint was met with an adequacy rate of 216 of 251 (86.1%) in the intervention group, compared with 205 of 259 (79.1%) in the control group ( P <0.05, odds ratio [OR] 1.626, 95% CI 1.017-2.614). The PDR was significantly higher in the intervention group (39% vs 30%, OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.04-2.19, P <0.05). Conclusions An educational video leads to improved bowel preparation for patients attending for their first colonoscopy, and is also associated with greater detection of polyps. Widespread adoption of an educational video incurs minimal investment, but would reduce the number of inadequate procedures, missed pathology, and the cost that both these incur.

Several cases have been reported that suggest the efficacy of gel immersion endoscopic mucosal resection (GI-EMR) for gastric neoplasms. However, no study has evaluated treatment outcomes of GI-EMR for gastric neoplasms. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of GI-EMR for early gastric neoplasms. Nine patients (17 lesions) undergoing gastric GI-EMR were included, with a median lesion size of 10 mm (interquartile range [IQR] 5-13 mm). All lesions were protruding or flat elevated. The median procedure time was 3 minutes (IQR 2-5) and en bloc resection was achieved in all cases. Among 15 neoplastic lesions, the R0 resection rate was 86.7% (13/15 lesions). Adverse events included immediate bleeding requiring hemostasis in two cases, which was controlled endoscopically. No delayed bleeding or perforation occurred. In conclusion, GI-EMR may be a safe and effective treatment for early, small gastric neoplasms. However, due to the small sample in the present study, further investigation is required regarding the indication for this technique.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1055/a-2204-8316.].

Background and study aims In 2019, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) created a working group to develop technical and quality standards for small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) to improve the daily practice of endoscopy services. They developed 10 quality parameters, which have yet to be tested in a real-life setting. Our study aimed to evaluate the accomplishment of the quality standards in SBCE established by the ESGE in several Spanish centers. Materials and methods An online survey of 11 multiple-choice questions related to the ESGE performance measures was sent to Spanish centers with experience in SBCE. In order to participate and obtain reliable data, at least 100 questionnaires had to be answered per center because that is the minimum number established by ESGE. Results 20 centers participated in the study, compiling 2049 SBCEs for the analysis. Only one of 10 performance measures (cecal visualization) reached the minimum standard established by the ESGE. In five of 10 performance measures (Indication, lesion detection rate, terminology, and retention rate) the minimum standard was nearly achieved. Conclusions Our study is the first multicenter study regarding SBCE quality performance measures in a real setting. Our results show that the minimum standard is hardly reached in most procedures, which calls into question their clinical applicability in real life. We suggest performing similar studies in other countries to evaluate whether there is a need for quality improvement programs or a need to reevaluate the minimum and target values published so far.

Background and study aims In colonoscopy, preparation is often regarded as the most burdensome part of the intervention. Traditionally, specific diets have been recommended, but the evidence to support this policy is insufficient. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the decision not to follow a restrictive diet on bowel preparation and colonoscopy outcomes. Patients and methods This was a multicenter, controlled, non-inferiority randomized trial with FIT-positive screening colonoscopy. The subjects were assigned to follow the current standard (1-day low residue diet [LRD]) or a liberal diet. The allocation was balanced for the risk of inadequate cleansing using the Dik et al. score. All participants received the same instructions for morning colonoscopy preparation. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate preparations as defined by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Secondary outcomes included tolerability and measures of colonoscopy performance and quality. Results A total of 582 subjects were randomized. Of these, 278 who received the liberal diet and 275 who received the 1-day LRD were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. Non-inferiority was demonstrated with adequate preparation rates of 97.8% in the 1-day LRD and 96.4% in the liberal diet group. Tolerability was higher with the liberal diet (94.7% vs. 83.2%). No differences were found with respect to cecal intubation time, aspirated volume, or length of the examination. Global and right colon average adenoma detection rates per colonoscopy were similar. Conclusions The liberal diet was non-inferior to the 1-day LRD, and increased tolerability. Colonoscopy performance and quality were not affected. (NCT05032794).