Gastrointestinal endoscopy最新文献

Background and aims: The impact of CADe application on surveillance colonoscopy findings remains unknown. We compare surveillance colonoscopy findings in patients with high-risk lesions detected at baseline, with or without the application of CADe.

Methods: We included patients with high-risk baseline lesions and had undergone surveillance colonoscopy. High-risk baseline lesions included advanced adenoma, advanced serrated lesion, or three or more adenomas at baseline colonoscopy. Patients were divided into two groups according to baseline use of CADe (vs conventional), and matched by propensity score matching (PSM) in 1:2 ratio for surveillance interval, baseline characteristics and index colonoscopy findings. The primary outcome was metachronous advanced adenoma (AA) rate.

Results: Of 403 patients with high-risk baseline lesions and surveillance colonoscopy, 162 patients were included after PSM. In patients with baseline use of CADe, both the AA detection rate (11.1% vs 24.1%, p=0.05) and the number of AA per colonoscopy (0.1 vs 0.3, p=0.01) were significantly lower than those with conventional colonoscopy. Similar pattern was observed for detection rate of adenoma (44.4% vs 63.0%, p=0.02) and the mean number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy (adenoma: 0.6 vs 1.2, p=0.01). The cumulative incidence of patients with any metachronous adenoma or serrated lesion was significantly lower in patients with baseline use of CADe than conventional colonoscopy (log rank p=0.05).

Conclusions: Patients who had CADe use at baseline colonoscopy had significantly lower rates of metachronous lesions, including advanced adenoma, on surveillance colonoscopy.

Background and aims: ERCP carries potential for serious adverse events, and there is risk for unplanned health encounters after the procedure. The primary objective of this study was to identify the rate of 30-day hospital admission after outpatient ERCP in patients at elevated risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis based on patient- and procedure-related risk factors. We also explored whether pancreatitis rates and lengths of hospital stay differ with delayed hospitalization (versus admission immediately after ERCP) and identified factors associated with 30-day hospital admission.

Methods: High-risk patients in the Stent Versus Indomethacin trial who underwent outpatient ERCP were identified. The primary outcome was hospital admission within 30 days after outpatient ERCP. Patient and procedural factors associated with 30-day hospital admission were explored by means of univariable analysis followed by multivariable analysis, controlling for potential known confounders.

Results: Among 768 patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis who underwent outpatient ERCP and were discharged home, 21.9% required hospitalization within 30 days. Compared with patients who underwent outpatient ERCP but were admitted immediately to the hospital after the procedure, patients who were discharged after ERCP and admitted later had a higher incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (40.5% vs 30.9%; P = .04), moderate to severe post-ERCP pancreatitis (24.4% vs 13.8%; P < .01), and longer length of hospital stay (6.2 d vs 3.7 d; P < .001). Factors associated with 30-day hospitalization included patient age (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99), biliary stent placement (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.05-2.48), and attempt at pancreatic duct cannulation (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.02-2.64).

Conclusions: High-risk patients who undergo outpatient ERCP and are discharged home are at considerable risk for hospital admission within 30 days and have an increased rate of pancreatitis and longer length of hospital stay compared with outpatients admitted to the hospital immediately after ERCP, and some factors may predict this outcome. These findings should influence decision making and informed consent when electing to proceed with high-risk ERCP, recognizing that patients with sphincter of Oddi dysfunction were over-represented in this cohort, which may limit generalizability to a typical ERCP practice.

Background and aims: In colorectal cancer screening with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), the optimal follow-up after first-round colonoscopy for a positive FIT, particularly after negative colonoscopy, is unknown. Therefore, using Screening of Swedish Colons (SCREESCO) study data, we aimed to elucidate the risk factors for the detection of colorectal neoplasia in second-round colonoscopy, which can affect recommendations for the optimal follow-up.

Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis using data from SCREESCO participants undergoing colonoscopy after a positive 2-stool FIT, with a positivity cutoff value of ≥10 μg/g feces, in both the first and second rounds separated by a 2-year interval. We assessed the associations between colorectal neoplasia detection in second-round colonoscopy and participant characteristics, FIT concentrations, first-round colonoscopy results, and endoscopists' adenoma detection rates (ADRs), which were categorized as very low, low, intermediate, and high.

Results: This study included 343 individuals. Despite negative first-round colonoscopies (n = 230), colorectal cancer and advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) were detected in 0.9% and 8.3% of participants in the second-round colonoscopy, respectively. An association was demonstrated between the first-round endoscopists' ADRs and the risk of second-round ACN detection. The multivariable odds ratios of the first-round intermediate and high ADRs, compared with the very low ADR, for second-round ACN detection were 0.17 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.79) and 0.19 (95% CI, 0.04-0.86), respectively.

Conclusions: The impact of endoscopists' ADRs on ACN detection in subsequent-round colonoscopies underscores the importance of considering ADR for optimal follow-up after first-round colonoscopy in an FIT-based screening program.