Ultrathin disposable gastroscope for screening and surveillance of gastroesophageal varices in patients with liver cirrhosis: a prospective comparative study

Effect of anxiety-targeted care combined with seamless care on psychological status, stress response in patients undergoing gastroscopy

This study aimed to analyze the feasibility of anxiety-targeted care combined with seamless care for patients undergoing gastroscopy, and to investigate its effects on patients' psychological state, stress response and examination results. 120 patients undergoing gastroscopy were divided into a study group (anxiety care + seamless care, 70 cases) and a control group (routine care, 50 cases). The differences in SAS and SDS scores before the intervention did not differ between two groups (p > 0.05) and they were lower in observation group than in control group after the intervention (p < 0.05); The heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure of patients in the study group were significantly lower than those in the control group at 10 min before intubation (T0), upon intubation (T1), 1 min after intubation (T2) and upon extubation (T3) (p < 0.05); The mean time to intubation was shorter and first-pass intubation success rate was higher in the study group than in the control group (p < 0.05); The complication rate in the study group was significantly lower than that in the control group (4.29% vs 16.00) (p < 0.05). Anxiety care combined with seamless care is feasible for patients undergoing gastroscopy.

Disposable Gastrointestinal Scopes: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopes are an essential tool in the diagnosis, screening, and treatment of gastrointestinal diseases. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration issued a news release, recommending that duodenoscope manufacturers and health care facilities phase out fully reusable duodenoscopes with fixed endcaps in lieu of duodenoscopes that are either fully disposable or those that contain disposable endcaps. With this study, we systematically reviewed the published literature on single-use disposable gastrointestinal scopes to describe the current state of the literature and provide summary recommendations on the role of disposable gastrointestinal endoscopes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For our inclusion criteria, we searched for studies that were published in the year 2015 and afterward. We performed a literature search in PubMed using the keywords, "disposable," "reusable," "choledochoscope," "colonoscope," "duodenoscope," "esophagoscope," "gastroscope," and "sigmoidoscope." After our review, we identified our final article set, including 13 articles relating to disposable scopes, published from 2015 to 2023.

RESULTS

In this review, we show 13 articles discussing the infection rate, functionality, safety, and affordability of disposable gastrointestinal scopes in comparison to reusable gastrointestinal scopes. Of the 3 articles that discussed infection rates (by Forbes and colleagues, Ridtitid and colleagues, and Ofosu and colleagues), each demonstrated a decreased risk of infection in disposable gastrointestinal scopes. Functionality was another common theme among these articles. Six articles (by Muthusamy and colleagues, Bang and colleagues, Lisotti and colleagues, Ross and colleagues, Kang and colleagues, and Forbes and colleagues) demonstrated comparable functionality of disposable scopes to reusable scopes. The most reported functionality issue in disposable scopes was decreased camera resolution. Disposable scopes also showed comparable safety profiles compared with reusable scopes. Six articles (by Kalipershad and colleagues, Muthusamy and colleagues, Bang and colleagues, Lisotti and colleagues, Luo and colleagues, and Huynh and colleagues) showed comparable rates of AEs, whereas 1 article (by Ofosu and colleagues) demonstrated increased rates of AEs with disposable scopes. Lastly, a cost analysis was looked at in 3 of the articles. Two articles (by Larsen et al and Ross and colleagues) remarked that further research is needed to understand the cost of disposable scopes, whereas 1 article (by Kang and colleagues) showed a favorable cost analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

After a review of the literature published since the 2015 Food and Drug Administration safety communication, disposable scopes have been shown to be effective in decreasing infection risks while maintaining similar safety profiles to conventional reusable scopes. However, more research is required to compare disposable and reusable scopes in terms of functionality and cost-effectiveness.

Single-use accessories and endoscopes in the era of sustainability and climate change-A balancing act

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is among the highest waste generator in healthcare facilities. The major reasons include production of large-volume non-renewable waste, use of single-use devices, and reprocessing or decontamination processes. Single-use endoscopic accessories have gradually replaced reusable devices over last two decades contributing to the rising impact of GI endoscopy on ecosystem. Several reports of infection outbreaks with reusable duodenoscopes raised concerns regarding the efficacy and adherence to standard disinfection protocols. Even the enhanced reprocessing techniques like double high-level disinfection have not been found to be the perfect ways for decontamination of duodenoscopes and therefore, paved the way for the development of single-use duodenoscopes. However, the use of single-use endoscopes is likely to amplify the net waste generated and carbon footprint of any endoscopy unit. Moreover, single-use devices challenge one of the major pillars of sustainability, that is, "reuse." In the era of climate change, a balanced approach is required taking into consideration patient safety as well as financial and environmental implications. The possible solutions to provide optimum care while addressing the impact on climate include selective use of disposable duodenoscopes and careful selection of accessories during a case. Other options include use of disposable endcaps and development of effective high-level disinfection techniques. The collaboration between the healthcare professionals and the manufacturers is paramount for the development of environmental friendly devices with low carbon footprint.

Small varices in chronic liver diseases

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Gastroesophageal varices are common complications of chronic liver diseases (CLDs) and portal hypertension. Small varices have the risk of progressing to larger varices, causing bleeding or even death. Thus, early detection and appropriate management of small varices are necessary. The purpose of this review is to summarize the advance in the recent 5years about diagnosing and managing the small varices in CLDs.

RECENT FINDINGS

The diagnosing methods of small varices in recent studies include improved endoscopic examinations, such as capsule endoscopy, and many noninvasive methods, including blood tests, ultrasound, computed tomography and magnetic resonance. For the management of small varices, though it is controversial, prevention using nonselective beta-blockers is still an essential part.

SUMMARY

In this review, we summarize the classification of varices, the invasive and noninvasive diagnostic methods, their performances, and the emerging progression in the management of small varices in the recent 5 years. We hope that this review provides relevant information to understand better and appropriately manage small varices.

The influence of the COVID-19 epidemic on the gastrointestinal endoscopy practice in China: a national survey

BACKGROUND AND AIM

With the worldwide spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it has devastated the economy and taken a toll on people' life in every aspects. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the influence of the COVID-19 epidemic on the GI endoscopy practice in China.

METHODS

The nationwide survey conducted from 13 to 19 April, 2020. A predesigned standard structured questionnaire was sent to all members of the Chinese Society of Digestive Endoscopy (CSDE) in mainland China by email. Number of various GI endoscopic procedures and participants getting endoscopic training from January 1 to April 10, 2020 (the COVID-19 period) and the same period of 2019 were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 468 hospitals responded to this survey, and most of them (85.4%) were tertiary referral hospitals. The sum number of GI endoscopic procedures deceased significantly from 3,203,594 in 2019 to 1,512,619 in 2020, including 2,996,779 to 1,401,665 of diagnostic procedures and 206,815 to 110,954 of therapeutic procedures. More than half of centers (57.1%) reduced about 1,000-5,000 endoscopic activities. Of 271 hospitals (57.9%) providing endoscopic training, the total number of participants decreased from 2,977 in 2019 to 1,131 in 2020. Most of hospitals (93.8%) adhered to the recommendation of endoscopy practice issued by CSDE during the outbreak of COVID-19, and there was no cases of infection in endoscopic departments of all surveyed hospitals.

CONCLUSION

With the influence of the COVID-19 epidemic, there has been significant decease of GI endoscopy practice in mainland China.

One-stop shop for variceal surveillance: integration of unsedated ultrathin endoscopy into the routine clinic visit

BACKGROUND

The endoscopic appearance of oesophageal varices determines the need for prophylaxis. However, as the point prevalence of varices is low (25%), the majority of surveillance endoscopies are unnecessary and costly. Narrow diameter, ultrathin (UT) endoscopes are more tolerable than conventional upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopes and can be used without sedation. We hypothesised that unsedated UT endoscopy for variceal surveillance could be implemented during the routine outpatient clinic visit allowing accurate diagnosis of varices and the timely provision of prophylaxis.

METHODS

Patients with cirrhosis awaiting surveillance endoscopy were identified. UT endoscopy was scheduled during routine clinic review at the same time as ultrasound surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma. UGI endoscopy was performed unsedated using the E.G Scan II disposable endoscope. Varices were graded using the modified Paquet classification. Video recordings of procedures were reviewed by blinded assessors and agreement was assessed using the kappa statistic.

RESULTS

40 patients (80% male) underwent unsedated UT endoscopy. All procedures were successful and tolerated well in 98% of cases. Median procedure time was 2 min (IQR 1-3). Varices were found in 37.5% (17.5% grade 1 and 20% grade 2). Patients with grade 2 varices were prescribed non-selective beta blockers at the clinic appointment. Kappa statistic for the finding of any varices was 0.636 (p=0.001) and 0.8-1.0 for diagnosis of grade 2 varices (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient unsedated ultrathin endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis is accurate, safe and feasible. This integrative care model is convenient, particularly for regional communities, and is likely to result in significant cost savings associated with variceal surveillance.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: ultra-thin gastroscopy compared to conventional gastroscopy for the diagnosis of oesophageal varices in people with cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Haemorrhage from ruptured oesophageal varices is a common cause of death in people with cirrhosis. Guidelines recommend screening for varices at time of cirrhosis diagnosis and throughout the course of the disease. Conventional gastroscopy is the criterion standard for variceal screening; however, is invasive, costly, and carries risks related to use of sedation. Ultra-thin gastroscopy (using endoscopes with a shaft diameter ≤6 mm) has been proposed as an alternative method of variceal screening that mitigates these risks.

AIM

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of ultra-thin gastroscopy compared to conventional gastroscopy for the diagnosis of varices in people with cirrhosis.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases were searched for studies that evaluated the accuracy of ultra-thin gastroscopy compared to conventional gastroscopy in the diagnosis of oesophageal varices.

RESULTS

Ten studies, 7 in known cirrhosis, with 752 participants were included in this systematic review. The overall prevalence of oesophageal varices was 42%. On bivariate modelling, pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were 98% (95% CI 93%-99%) and 96% (95% CI 91%-99%) respectively. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 28 (95% CI 10.7-73.2) and 0.02 (95% CI 0.01-0.72) respectively. Kappa coefficient for inter-observer agreement for any varices ranged from 0.45 to 0.90. No serious adverse events related to ultra-thin gastroscopy were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultra-thin gastroscopy is accurate in the diagnosis of oesophageal varices, safe and well tolerated. It is a valid alternative to conventional gastroscopy for the screening and surveillance of varices in people with cirrhosis.

Rates of infection after colonoscopy and osophagogastroduodenoscopy in ambulatory surgery centres in the USA

OBJECTIVE

Over 15 million colonoscopies and 7 million osophagogastroduodenoscopies (OGDs) are performed annually in the USA. We aimed to estimate the rates of infections after colonoscopy and OGD performed in ambulatory surgery centres (ASCs).

DESIGN

We identified colonoscopy and OGD procedures performed at ASCs in 2014 all-payer claims data from six states in the USA. Screening mammography, prostate cancer screening, bronchoscopy and cystoscopy procedures were comparators. We tracked infection-related emergency department visits and unplanned in-patient admissions within 7 and 30 days after the procedures, examined infection sites and organisms and analysed predictors of infections. We investigated case-mix adjusted variation in infection rates by ASC.

RESULTS

The rates of postendoscopic infection per 1000 procedures within 7 days were 1.1 for screening colonoscopy, 1.6 for non-screening colonoscopy and 3.0 for OGD; all higher than screening mammography (0.6) but lower than bronchoscopy (15.6) and cystoscopy (4.4) (p<0.0001). Predictors of postendoscopic infection included recent history of hospitalisation or endoscopic procedure; concurrence with another endoscopic procedure; low procedure volume or non-freestanding ASC; younger or older age; black or Native American race and male sex. Rates of 7-day postendoscopic infections varied widely by ASC, ranging from 0 to 115 per 1000 procedures for screening colonoscopy, 0 to 132 for non-screening colonoscopy and 0 to 62 for OGD.

CONCLUSION

We found that postendoscopic infections are more common than previously thought and vary widely by facility. Although screening colonoscopy is not without risk, the risk is lower than diagnostic endoscopic procedures.

Reliability and safety of transnasal compared to conventional endoscopy for detecting oesophageal varices in cirrhotic patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Unsedated transnasal endoscopy may be used for detecting oesophageal varices. However, few studies evaluated feasibility and accuracy of this technique. We aimed to evaluate accuracy, interobserver agreement and safety of the transnasal ultrathin compared to conventional endoscopy in patients with cirrhosis.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included consecutive patients referred for screening or surveillance of oesophageal varices. Patients underwent unsedated transnasal and sedated conventional endoscopies at the same day, which were recorded in a digital video file and randomly analysed by two double-blinded endoscopists. High-risk varices were defined by the presence of large calibre or red wale marks. Accuracy, interobserver agreement and safety of transnasal were compared to conventional endoscopy.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-three cirrhotic patients (48% male, aged of 60 ± 5, 34% Child-Pugh B/C and 71% of cases for variceal screening) were included in the study. The prevalence of oesophageal varices and high-risk oesophageal varices were 59% (n = 79) and 29% (n = 39) respectively. For the presence of oesophageal varices, transnasal GIE yielded sensitivity of 94% [95% Confidence Interval, CI 88-99], specificity of 89% [81-97] as well as positive and negative predictive value of 93% and 91% respectively. A satisfactory interobserver agreement was observed for the presence of oesophageal varices (κ = 0.89) and high-risk varices (κ = 0.65). No serious adverse events were recorded; transnasal GIE was safe and significantly associated with lower rates of hypoxaemia (P < .0001) and hypotension (P < .0001) compared to conventional endoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Unsedated transnasal endoscopy was safe and had an excellent accuracy and high interobserver agreement for detecting oesophageal varices and for identifying high-risk varices in cirrhotic patients.