ESGE and ESGENA Position Statement on gastrointestinal endoscopy and COVID-19: An update on guidance during the post-lockdown phase and selected results from a membership survey

Gastrointestinal Bleeding in COVID-19 Infected Patients, and Management Outcomes

Introduction

Gastrointestinal bleeding in COVID-19-infection poses unique challenges to patients owing to the high risk of concomitant respiratory failure. However, endoscopic care providers are prone to transmission. This study aimed to understand the risk and management outcomes of gastrointestinal bleeding in COVID-19-infected patients.

Methods

Data were abstracted from electronic patient medical records, using ICD 10 codes, and demographic and clinical data were collected, for COVID-19-infected patients who developed gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Complications related to COVID-19 infection and management outcomes of GI bleeding were studied. Statistically, descriptive analysis was used because of the small sample size.

Results

Eighteen COVID-19-infected patients developed episodes of GI bleeding, yielding a prevalence of 0.45%. Their mean age was 74.8 years, 55.5% were female, and 66.6% of patients (n=12) had upper GI bleeding symptoms, predominantly melena (55.5%), followed by coffee ground nasogastric aspirates (n=2). Only two patients (11.11%) had episodes of lower GI bleeding, and the remaining four patients (22.2%) had recurrent acute anemia requiring blood transfusion. The Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) at presentation ranged between 6 to 16 (mean 8.8) and seven patients (38.8%) underwent endoscopic evaluation for GI bleeding. The predominant comorbid conditions included hypertension (22.2%), diabetes mellitus (27.7%), chronic kidney disease (50%), ischemic heart disease (33%), atrial fibrillation (11.1%), and peripheral vascular disease (11.1%). The median hospitalization was 24.6 days (range: 3-54 days). The 30-day mortality rate in our cohort was 22.2%, (4/18) mainly noted in older patients aged> 60 years with comorbid conditions and severe COVID-19 infection.

Conclusion

The prevalence of GI bleeding observed in our cohort was approximately 0.45%, significantly lower than the global prevalence observed, majority (66%) had upper GI bleeding. The exact reasons for the observed low prevalence of GI bleeding cannot be explained and will be the subject of future research.

Training in basic gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement

This ESGE Position Statement provides structured and evidence-based guidance on the essential requirements and processes involved in training in basic gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. The document outlines definitions; competencies required, and means to their assessment and maintenance; the structure and requirements of training programs; patient safety and medicolegal issues. 1:  ESGE and ESGENA define basic endoscopic procedures as those procedures that are commonly indicated, generally accessible, and expected to be mastered (technically and cognitively) by the end of any core training program in gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2:  ESGE and ESGENA consider the following as basic endoscopic procedures: diagnostic upper and lower GI endoscopy, as well as a limited range of interventions such as: tissue acquisition via cold biopsy forceps, polypectomy for lesions ≤ 10 mm, hemostasis techniques, enteral feeding tube placement, foreign body retrieval, dilation of simple esophageal strictures, and India ink tattooing of lesion location. 3:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that training in GI endoscopy should be subject to stringent formal requirements that ensure all ESGE key performance indicators (KPIs) are met. 4:  Training in basic endoscopic procedures is a complex process and includes the development and acquisition of cognitive, technical/motor, and integrative skills. Therefore, ESGE and ESGENA recommend the use of validated tools to track the development of skills and assess competence. 5:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend incorporating a multimodal approach to evaluating competence in basic GI endoscopic procedures, including procedural thresholds and the measurement and documentation of established ESGE KPIs. 7:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend the continuous monitoring of ESGE KPIs during GI endoscopy training to ensure the trainee's maintenance of competence. 9:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy training units fulfil the ESGE KPIs for endoscopy units and, furthermore, be capable of providing the dedicated personnel, infrastructure, and sufficient case volume required for successful training within a structured training program. 10:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that trainers in basic GI endoscopic procedures should be endoscopists with formal educational training in the teaching of endoscopy, which allows them to successfully and safely teach trainees.

COVID-19 detection prior to motility examinations: Prospective evaluation of pre-test questionnaires and PCR-testing

BACKGROUND/AIMS

COVID-19 pandemic has produced an increased burden for motility laboratories due to the need to implement measures to minimize infection risk during examinations. International Societies have proposed algorithms for evaluation of active infection risk using symptom questionnaires or performing COVID-19 specific detection tests. The aim of the present study is to evaluate prospectively the independent value of a symptom-based questionnaire and RT-PCR test to detect COVID-19 infection before a digestive motility examination.

PATIENTS/METHODS

All patients referred for a motility study during a 4 month period with high incidence of COVID-19 in the community were prospectively evaluated with a symptom-questionnaire administered by phone one week before the examination, and a PCR test performed 48h before the examination, following international guidelines recommendations.

RESULTS

The symptom questionnaire could be obtained from 435 patients, 7 patients referred COVID-19 symptoms, but only 1 of them had a positive PCR. From 481 PCR tests performed, 8 were positive. Only 1 patient had reported symptoms in the previous questionnaire, and 2 additional patients developed COVID-19 symptoms later. Hence, 435 telephonic questionnaires should be done for one COVID-19 case detection (detection tax 0.22%); and 60 PCR should be performed for one COVID-19 case detection (detection tax 1.66%).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of screening strategies prior to a motility exploration results in a low rate of infection detection, especially the use of subjective symptom questionnaires, and the correct protection measures during motility explorations with aerosol generation remain the cornerstone to prevent COVID-19 infections.

Does an Extraoral Suction Device Reduce Aerosol Generation and Prevent Droplet Exposure to the Examiner during Esophagogastroduodenoscopy?

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is an aerosol-generating procedure. A major challenge in the COVID-19 era is how to prevent the spread of aerosols and droplets in endoscopic units. We evaluated the effectiveness of an extraoral suction device in preventing indoor aerosol diffusion and droplet exposure for examiners. The study involved 61 patients who underwent EGD at our institution from 1 February to 31 March 2022. To determine whether aerosol spread increases before or after EGD examination with an extraoral suction device located in front of the patient’s mouth, aerosols of 0.3, 0.5, 1, 3, 5, and 10 μm were measured with a handheld particle counter. The degree of contamination of the plastic gowns on the examiners was assessed using the rapid adenosine triphosphate test. The extraoral suction device significantly reduced the diffusion of large particles (3, 5, and 10 μm) after finishing the EGD examination. However, the diffusion of small particles (0.3 and 0.5 μm) was significantly increased. This extraoral suction device was effective in reducing large particle diffusion during EGD examination but was limited for minimizing small particle diffusion or droplet exposure to the examiner.

Patient Attitudes and Barriers to Endoscopy During the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

After COVID-19 restrictions on nonessential procedures were lifted and safety protocols established, utilization rates of endoscopic procedures remained reduced.

AIMS

This study assessed patient attitudes and barriers to scheduling endoscopy during the pandemic.

METHODS

A survey was administered to patients with ordered procedures at a hospital-based setting (7/21/2020-2/19/2021) collecting demographic data, body mass index, COVID-19 relevant comorbidities, level of procedural urgency (defined by recommended scheduling window), scheduling and attendance, concerns, and awareness of safety measures.

RESULTS

The average respondent was female (63.8%), age 57.6 ± 14, White (72.3%), married (76.7%), insured (99.3%), affluent English speakers (92.3%) and highly educated (at least college 90.2%). Most reported moderate to excellent COVID-19 knowledge (96.6%). Of 1039 procedures scheduled, emergent cases accounted for 5.1%, urgent 55.3% and elective 39.4%. Respondents identified appointment convenience (48.53%) as the most frequent factor impacting scheduling, also noting concern for results (28.4%). Age (p = .022), native language (p = .04), education (p = .007), self-reported COVID knowledge (p = .002), and a desire to be COVID tested pre-procedure (p = .023) were associated with arrival, more commonly in an ambulatory surgical center than hospital (p = .008). Diabetes mellitus (p = .004) and an immunocompromised state (p = .009) were adversely related to attendance. Attitudes towards safety protocols did not affect scheduling. Multivariate analysis demonstrated age, education and COVID knowledgeability were associated with procedure completion.

CONCLUSIONS

Safety protocols and urgency levels were not associated with procedure completion. Pre-pandemic barriers to endoscopy persisted as dominant factors amid pandemic concerns.

COVID-19 und gastrointestinale Endoskopie –angepasste Strategien im pandemischen Wandel

Im Dezember 2019 begann mit dem Ausbruch der Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) eine neue Herausforderung in vielen Bereichen der Medizin und des persönlichen Lebens. Der individuelle Schutz der professionellen Leistungsbringer vor der Infektion wurde zur Sicherung der Leistungsfähigkeit des Gesundheitssystems essenziell. Neue Arbeiten definierten die obere gastrointestinale Endoskopie als aerosolgenerierende Prozedur (AGP), die insbesondere aufgrund des engen Kontakts für das Personal ein erhöhtes Infektionsrisiko darstellt. Da das „severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2“ (SARS-CoV-2) in erster Linie durch Aerosole und/oder Tröpfchen übertragen wird, besteht die Notwendigkeit der Verwendung von persönlicher Schutzausrüstung („personal protective equipment“, PPE). Empfehlungen der Leitlinien haben entsprechend früh PPE als infektionspräventive Maßnahmen empfohlen. Die strikte Verwendung von PPE hat sich mit der Erfahrung aus nunmehr 3 Jahren als effektive Präventionsstrategie bewiesen. Mit der Einführung der Vakzinierung gegen SARS-CoV‑2, einer zunehmenden Immunisierung der Bevölkerung und einem sich ändernden pandemischen Infektionsgeschehen haben sich die Anforderungen für endoskopische Abteilungen in den Krankenhäusern und in der ambulanten Versorgung stetig geändert. In der postpandemischen Situation bestehen nur noch geringe Einschränkungen, die die neue „postpandemische Realität“ beeinflussen und die Durchführung endoskopischer Leistungen ohne größere Restriktionen ermöglichen. Die Anpassungen der infektionspräventiven Strategien im Verlauf der Pandemie und die erhobenen wissenschaftlichen Daten mit folgender Anpassung der aktuellen Empfehlungen bis zum heutigen Tag werden in dieser Arbeit zusammengefasst und diskutiert.

Shielding device for endoscopic procedures during lower gastrointestinal endoscopy

Objectives

The coronavirus pandemic significantly impacted endoscopic practice. During lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, infectious substances disseminate; therefore, we developed an infection control device (STEP‐L) for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy and examined its usefulness.

Methods

STEP‐L wraps around the patient's buttocks and covers the endoscope. Using lower endoscopy training models, three endoscopists performed 18 colonoscopies with STEP‐L (group S) and without (group C). Endoscopic insertion time and pigmented areas of ​​gloves and diapers after the examination were compared between both groups.

Results

Insertion of the endoscope up to the cecum was possible in all 18 examinations. The insertion time to the cecum was 52.4 ± 19.0 s in group S and 53.9 ± 13.3 s in group C. The pigmented areas of the ​​gloves measured 39,108.0 ± 16,155.3 pixels in group C, but were significantly reduced to 2610.5 ± 4333.8 pixels in group S (p < 0.05). The pigmented areas of the diapers measured 2280.9 ± 3285.2 pixels in group C, but were significantly reduced to 138.0 ± 82.9 pixels in group S (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Using STEP‐L does not change the insertion time, and is technically feasible. STEP‐L significantly reduces the adhesion of virtual pollutants to the surroundings, suggesting that this device is useful for infection control during lower gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Aerosol and droplet generation in upper and lower GI endoscopy: whole procedure and event-based analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Aerosol-generating procedures have become an important healthcare issue during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic because the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus can be transmitted through aerosols. We aimed to characterize aerosol and droplet generation in GI endoscopy, where there is little evidence.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included 36 patients undergoing routine peroral gastroscopy (POG), 11 undergoing transnasal endoscopy (TNE), and 48 undergoing lower GI (LGI) endoscopy. Particle counters took measurements near the appropriate orifice (2 models were used with diameter ranges of .3-25 μm and 20-3000 μm). Quantitative analysis was performed by recording specific events and subtracting background particles.

RESULTS

POG produced 1.96 times the level of background particles (P < .001) and TNE produced 2.00 times (P < .001), but a direct comparison showed POG produced 2.00 times more particles than TNE. LGI procedures produced significant particle counts (P < .001) with 2.4 times greater production per procedure than POG but only .63 times production per minute. Events that were significant relative to the room background particle count were POG, with throat spray (150.0 times, P < .001), esophageal extubation (37.5 times, P < .001), and coughing or gagging (25.8 times, P < .01); TNE, with nasal spray (40.1 times, P < .001), nasal extubation (32.0 times, P < .01), and coughing or gagging (20.0, P < .01); and LGI procedures, with rectal intubation (9.9 times, P < .05), rectal extubation (27.2 times, P < .01), application of abdominal pressure (9.6 times, P < .05), and rectal insufflation or retroflexion (7.7 times, P < .01). These all produced particle counts larger than or comparable with volitional cough.

CONCLUSIONS

GI endoscopy performed through the mouth, nose, or rectum generates significant quantities of aerosols and droplets. Because the infectivity of procedures is not established, we therefore suggest adequate personal protective equipment is used for all GI endoscopy where there is a high population prevalence of COVID-19. Avoiding throat and nasal spray would significantly reduce particles generated from upper GI procedures.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal and gastric cancer diagnosis, disease stage and mortality

Background

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, a significant decline in endoscopic procedures has been observed.

Aims

We investigated the change of incidence, clinical characteristics, disease stage and mortality of patients with gastric cancer (GC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) diagnosed in 2020 compared to the pre-pandemic year 2019.

Methods

Demographic, clinical and laboratory data on all patients diagnosed with GC or CRC at the Soroka University Medical Center were retrospectively collected and compared. Number of cases, time of diagnosis, clinical presentation, staging at diagnosis and mortality rates were compared.

Results

Two hundred sixteen patients were diagnosed with CRC in 2019, whereas only 162 were diagnosed in 2020 (25% reduction), while 36 GC diagnoses were made in 2019 compared to 24 in 2020 (33% reduction). The age-adjusted incidence was calculated to be 24.28 for CRC and 5.0 for GC in 2020 compared to 29.93 and 5.32 in 2019, respectively. CRC patients had a significantly lower rate of rectal bleeding as their presenting symptom in 2020 compared with 2019, 8.1 vs. 19% (p = 0.003), but higher rate of diarrhea as their presenting symptom, 4.3 vs. 1% (p = 0.044). No significant differences regarding other presenting symptoms, comorbidities, surgery or mortality rates were found between the groups diagnosed in 2019 or 2020.

Conclusion

A decrease in GC and CRC incidence was observed during the year 2020; lower rate of rectal bleeding and higher rate of diarrhea as presenting symptoms were noted in 2020, but no significant difference was found regarding other presenting symptoms, disease stage, surgery or mortality.

Clinical and Endoscopic Consequences of Delay in Stent Exchange Procedures With ERCP During the Covid-19 Pandemic

INTRODUCTION

During the COVID-19 pandemic, elective endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures have been postponed as recommended by international guidelines. In this study, the results of biliary and pancreatic ERCP procedures that had to be postponed during the pandemic process were investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-seven patients whose stent exchange procedures with ERCP were postponed between March 2020 and June 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic were included in the study. Patients were evaluated in 2 groups as delayed biliary procedures (n: 32) and delayed pancreatic procedures (n: 15). Clinical problems (biliary or pancreatic pain, itching, cholangitis, etc.) and technical problems encountered during the procedure (stent migration, abundant stone sludge in the bile ducts, etc.) were compared with 46 patients who could be treated without delay (39 interventions for the biliary system and seven interventions for the pancreas).

FINDINGS

Considering the procedures for the biliary system, there was no difference in age and sex between the groups. Although clinical problems in biliary procedures were more common in the group with delay than in those without delay, this difference was not significant (34% vs. 20%; P: 0.14). The technical problems encountered during the procedures in the group with delay were significantly higher than those without delay (21% vs. 2.5%; P: 0.019), with stent migration being the most common problem (n: 5). Age and sex did not differ in the patients who had pancreatic interventions with and without delay. The clinical problems that developed in the patients did not differ between the groups with and without delay (26% vs. 28%; P: 0.8). Although technical problems were encountered in 1 out of 15 patients in the group with delay, no technical problem was experienced in the group without delay (P: 0.68).

CONCLUSION

Postponing elective ERCP procedures for the biliary system not for the pancreatic system during the COVID-19 pandemic brings technical problems.

Identification of the source events for aerosol generation during oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy

OBJECTIVE

To determine if oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (OGD) generates increased levels of aerosol in conscious patients and identify the source events.

DESIGN

A prospective, environmental aerosol monitoring study, undertaken in an ultraclean environment, on patients undergoing OGD. Sampling was performed 20 cm away from the patient's mouth using an optical particle sizer. Aerosol levels during OGD were compared with tidal breathing and voluntary coughs within subject.

RESULTS

Patients undergoing bariatric surgical assessment were recruited (mean body mass index 44 and mean age 40 years, n=15). A low background particle concentration in theatres (3 L-1) enabled detection of aerosol generation by tidal breathing (mean particle concentration 118 L-1). Aerosol recording during OGD showed an average particle number concentration of 595 L-1 with a wide range (3-4320 L-1). Bioaerosol-generating events, namely, coughing or burping, were common. Coughing was evoked in 60% of the endoscopies, with a greater peak concentration and a greater total number of sampled particles than the patient's reference voluntary coughs (11 710 vs 2320 L-1 and 780 vs 191 particles, n=9 and p=0.008). Endoscopies with coughs generated a higher level of aerosol than tidal breathing, whereas those without coughs were not different to the background. Burps also generated increased aerosol concentration, similar to those recorded during voluntary coughs. The insertion and removal of the endoscope were not aerosol generating unless a cough was triggered.

CONCLUSION

Coughing evoked during OGD is the main source of the increased aerosol levels, and therefore, OGD should be regarded as a procedure with high risk of producing respiratory aerosols. OGD should be conducted with airborne personal protective equipment and appropriate precautions in those patients who are at risk of having COVID-19 or other respiratory pathogens.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on high-resolution manometry and peroral endoscopic myotomy for esophageal motility disorder in Japan

AIM

To elucidate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the practice of high-resolution manometry (HRM) and peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) in Japan.

METHODS

We utilized a large-scale database involving 14 high-volume centers in Japan to investigate changes in the numbers of HRM and POEM procedures performed and outcomes of POEM between 2019 and 2020. A questionnaire survey was also conducted to analyze pandemic-associated changes in the HRM and POEM protocols.

RESULTS

Compared to that in 2019, the number of HRM and POEM procedures decreased by 17.2% (1587-1314) and 20.9% (630-498), respectively. These declines were prominent during the state of emergency from April to May 2020, particularly in pandemic areas. HRM and POEM in nonpandemic areas were relatively unaffected. From 2019 to 2020, there was a 0.4% (254-248) decrease in POEM cases within the prefecture, but the number outside the prefecture decreased by 33.6% (372-247). During the pandemic, the safety and efficacy of POEM were maintained. The implementation of personal protective equipment (PPE) measures varied among facilities, and PPE for POEM was relatively insufficient compared to that for HRM.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic influenced HRM and POEM practices in Japan. It is necessary to establish a sufficient system for HRM and POEM in each hospital as well as countrywide to overcome the effects of the pandemic.

The Effects of COVID-19 on Clinical Outcomes of Non-COVID-19 Patients Hospitalized for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding during the Pandemic

This study aims to investigate the effects of COVID-19 on clinical outcomes of non-COVID-19 patients hospitalized for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) during the pandemic. A retrospective review is conducted. We recruited patients with UGIB admitted during the pandemic’s first wave (April 2020 to June 2020), and the year before the pandemic. The outcomes between the two groups were compared using propensity score matching (PSM). In total, 60 patients (pandemic group) and 460 patients (prepandemic group) are included. Patients admitted during the pandemic (mean age of 67 ± 14 years) had a mean Glasgow−Blatchford score of 10.8 ± 3.9. They were older (p = 0.045) with more underlying malignancies (p = 0.028), had less history of NSAID use (p = 0.010), had a lower platelet count (p = 0.007), and had lower serum albumin levels (p = 0.047) compared to those admitted before the pandemic. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) was performed less frequently during the pandemic (43.3% vs. 95.4%, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the procedure was less likely to be performed within 24 h after admission (p < 0.001). After PSM, admissions during the pandemic were significantly associated with decreased chances of receiving an endoscopy (adjusted odds Ratio (OR), 0.02; 95% CI, 0.003−0.06, p < 0.001) and longer hospital stay (adjusted OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.13−3.20, p < 0.001). Additionally, there was a slight increase in 30-day mortality without statistical significance (adjusted OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 0.71−5.19, p = 0.199) and a marginally higher rebleeding rate (adjusted OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.44−4.03, p = 0.605). During the pandemic, the number of EGDs performed in non-COVID-19 patients with UGIB decreased with a subsequent prolonged hospitalization and potentially increased 30-day mortality and rebleeding rate.

Coronavirus Disease Transmission Prevented in an Endoscopy Unit with Universal Protective Measures and No Systematic Preprocedural Testing

Background and aims: Even after two years of pandemic, there are still uncertainties on how to proceed when we schedule endoscopic procedures. During the COVID-19 pandemic, some scientific societies recommended universal preprocedural testing for all patients. However, other societies recommended against and considered enough to maintain strict infection control strategies. Our aim was to evaluate this approach in order to see if it was safe for both patients and healthcare workers to proceed with the endoscopies without performing a systematic PCR on all patients. Methods: Retrospective chart review of all patients undergoing endoscopy without preprocedural COVID testing at our center from March 2020 to May 2021. PCR tests performed in the patients receiving an endoscopic procedure were analyzed, and patients who tested positive between 14 days before and after the endoscopic procedure were selected. The registry of the endoscopy unit members participating in these procedures was also analyzed. Results: A total of 10,132 procedures were performed in the unit with 26 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Nineteen of these procedures were performed in patients with unknown SARS-CoV-2 carrier status. In 23 (88.5%) cases, transmission occurred through social or familial contact, and in 3 (11.5%), transmission occurred in the hospital. Four health care workers became infected during this period and none of them were related to the endoscopic procedures performed in patients with COVID-19. Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 positive testing in asymptomatic ambulatory patients is rare and the adequate use of individual protective measures emerges as the main way to control the spread of COVID-19 infection in endoscopy centers.

Cancer Screening Recommendations During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Cancer screening tests are recommended to prevent cancer-associated mortality by detecting precancerous and cancerous lesions in early stages. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the use of preventive health care services. Although there was an increase in the number of cancer screening tests beginning in late 2020, screenings remained 29% to 36% lower than in the prepandemic era.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review is to assist health care providers in identifying approaches for prioritizing patients and increasing breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening during the uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We used the scoping review framework to identify articles on PubMed and EBSCO databases. A total of 403 articles were identified, and 23 articles were selected for this review. The literature review ranged from January 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021.

RESULTS

The articles included two primary categories of recommendations: (1) risk stratification and triage to prioritize screenings and (2) alternative methods to conduct cancer screenings. Risk stratification and triage recommendations focused on prioritizing high-risk patients with an abnormal or suspicious result on the previous screening test, patients in certain age groups and sex, patients with a personal medical or family cancer history, patients that are currently symptomatic, and patients that are predisposed to hereditary cancers and cancer-causing mutations. Other recommended strategies included identifying areas facing the most disparities, creating algorithms and using artificial intelligence to create cancer risk scores, leveraging in-person visits to assess cancer risk, and providing the option of open access screenings where patients can schedule screenings and can be assigned a priority category by health care staff. Some recommended using telemedicine to categorize patients and determine screening eligibility for patients with new complaints. Several articles noted the importance of implementing preventive measures such as COVID-19 screening prior to the procedures, maintaining hygiene measures, and social distancing in waiting rooms. Alternative screening methods that do not require an in-person clinic visit and can effectively screen patients for cancers included mailing self-collection sampling kits for cervical and colorectal cancers, and implementing or expanding mobile screening units.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the COVID-19 pandemic had devastating effects on population health globally, it could be an opportunity to adapt and evolve cancer screening methods. Disruption often creates innovation, and focus on alternative methods for cancer screenings may help reach rural and underresourced areas after the pandemic has ended.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of colon capsule endoscopy accuracy for colorectal cancer screening. An alternative during the Covid-19 pandemic?

Aim

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of colon capsule endoscopy for colorectal cancer screening.

Methods

Studies that compared the diagnostic performance of colonoscopy and second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE-2) for screening of asymptomatic patients aged 50–75 years were included. The primary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios for polyps and adenomas measuring at least 6 mm or 10 mm.

Results

Eight full-text studies that evaluated 1602 patients were included for systematic review. Of these, 840 (52.43%) patients participated in an opportunistic screening program. The pooled outcomes of CCE-2 for polyps at least 6 mm / 10 mm were (CI = confidence interval): sensitivity: 88% (95% CI: 0.84–0.91) / 88% (95% CI: 0.82–0.93), specificity: 94% (95% CI: 0.92–0.95) / 95.5% (95% CI: 0.94–0.97); positive likelihood ratio: 11.86 (95% CI: 5.53–25.46) / 23.07 (95% CI: 6.163–86.36); negative likelihood ratio: 0.14 (95% CI: 0.1–0.21) / 0.14 (95% CI: 0.09–0.21). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve for polyps at least 6 and 10 mm was 96.3% and 96.7%, respectively. The only cancer missed by complete CCE-2 was shown at multiple frames in the unblinded review. In total, 125 (7.8%) patients presented mild adverse events mostly related to bowel preparation.

Conclusion

CCE-2 is demonstrated to be an effective and safe alternative method for colorectal cancer screening. Diagnostic performance of CCE-2 for polyps of at least 6 and 10 mm was similar. Completion rates still need to be improved.

Predicting the future: introducing business analytics to endoscopy units

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

currently, most endoscopy software only provides limited statistics of past procedures, while none allows patterns to be extrapolated. To overcome this need, the authors applied business analytic models to predict future demand and the need for endoscopists in a tertiary hospital Endoscopy Unit.

METHODS

a query to the endoscopy database was performed to retrieve demand from 2015 to 2021. The graphical inspection allowed inferring of trends and seasonality, perceiving the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and selecting the best forecasting models. Considering COVID-19's impact in the second quarter of 2020, data for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy was estimated using linear regression of historical data. The actual demand in the first two quarters of 2022 was used to validate the models.

RESULTS

during the study period, 53,886 procedures were requested. The best forecasting models were: a) simple seasonal exponential smoothing for EGD, colonoscopy and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG); b) double exponential smoothing for capsule endoscopy and deep enteroscopy; and c) simple exponential smoothing for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). The mean average percentage error ranged from 6.1 % (EGD) to 33.5 % (deep enteroscopy). Overall, 8,788 procedures were predicted for 2022. The actual demand in the first two quarters of 2022 was within the predicted range. Considering the usual time allocation for each technique, 3.2 full-time equivalent endoscopists (40 hours-dedication to endoscopy) will be required to perform all procedures in 2022.

CONCLUSIONS

the incorporation of business analytics into the endoscopy software and clinical practice may enhance resource allocation, improving patient-focused decision-making and healthcare quality.

Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: Can we improve the diagnostic yield?

Although adenomas and serrated polyps are the preneoplastic lesions of colorectal cancer, only few of them will eventually progress to cancer. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the present and future of post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance. Post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines have recently been updated and all share the aim towards more selective and less frequent surveillance. We have examined these current guidelines and compared the recommendations of each of them. To improve the diagnostic yield of post-polypectomy surveillance it is important to find predictors of metachronous polyps that better identify high-risk individuals of developing advanced neoplasia. For this reason, we have also conducted a literature review of the molecular biomarkers of metachronous advanced colorectal polyps. Finally, we have discussed future directions of post-polypectomy surveillance and identified possible strategies to improve the use of endoscopic resources with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Routine SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing before digestive endoscopy during the peak of the pandemic - a single tertiary center experience

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

COVID-19 pandemic has impacted on all endoscopy centers in the Czech Republic, that belongs to the most affected countries in the world. The aim of our study was to analyze all procedures following routine RT-PCR testing in our tertiary center during the peak of the pandemic.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all procedures performed from October 2020 to January 2021 after a new RT-PCR center had been set up. Main outcomes were type of scheduled procedure, indication, rate of therapeutic interventions and rate of new relevant and malignant findings. Comparison to the same period before the pandemic and SARS-CoV-2 infection in endoscopy staff are also reported.

RESULTS

A total of 1,953 procedures were performed. 624 patients were referred with a negative RT-PCR test and the remaining 1,346 patients were tested in the new center. 1,293 negative tests led to 1,329 procedures. A new relevant finding was reported in 589 (44.3%), including new malignancy in 56 (4.2%). 53 patients tested positive (3.9%). There was a reduction by 9% in the number of all procedures compared to the same period before the pandemic and an increase in the number of screening colonoscopies and ERCP procedures. In the study period, 9 of 54 staff members contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine RT-PCR testing of patients scheduled for elective endoscopy during the peak of COVID-19 pandemic enabled us to essentially maintain our unit productivity, including activities such as screening colonoscopy, endoscopic resection and pancreatobiliary endoscopy.

[Impact of Covid 19 on endoscopy in Germany]

BACKGROUND

Practices and hospitals are facing great challenges in coping with the COVID-19-pandemic. So far, data on the impact of the pandemic on gastroenterological facilities are lacking, especially on a temporal course. A database is lacking, especially for the outpatient care sector. University Hospital of Augsburg was commissioned to generate data on this as a part of the collaborative project B-FAST of the Network of University Medicine (NUM).

METHODS

Gastroenterological institutions nationwide were surveyed by an online questionnaire. Recruitment was carried out via the German Society of Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS) and the Professional Association of Gastroenterologists in Private Practice (bng). This manuscript provides an overview of data on the use of protective equipment, pre-interventional testing of patients, staff screening and economic impact over the course of the pandemic.

RESULTS

429 facilities answered the questionnaire. Practices tested their patients pre-interventionally significantly less often than clinics (7.8% vs. 82.6%). In clinics, inpatients (93.1%) were tested significantly more often than outpatients (72.2%). The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) increased significantly during the pandemic. It was shown that over 70% of facilities screened their staff for SARS-CoV-2 without cause. Clinics cancelled elective procedures significantly more often than practices in quarter 4/2020. Procedures and turnover decreased in 2020 compared to the previous year. However, fewer facilities were affected by a loss of revenue than expected in previous studies.

CONCLUSION

Our data demonstrate the variable implementation of pre-interventional SARS-CoV-2 testing in outpatient and inpatient care. The use of adequate PPE and staff screening increased during the pandemic.

Evaluation of the ESGE recommendations for COVID-19 pre-endoscopy risk-stratification in a high-volume center in Germany

Background and study aims  The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has defined COVID-19 infection prevention and control strategies within the endoscopy unit. These include pre-endoscopic questionnaire-based risk-stratification as well as pre-procedure viral testing. Real-life data on the effectiveness of these measures are presented here. Patients and methods  Data from the outpatient endoscopic unit of the University Hospital Augsburg between July 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 including the second pandemic wave were reviewed retrospectively. All patients were assessed with a pre-endoscopic risk-stratification questionnaire as well as viral testing using an antigen point-of-care test (Ag-POCT) in conjunction with a standard polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. Highly elective procedures were postponed. The theoretically expected number of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients was simulated and compared with the actual number. In addition, endoscopy staff was evaluated with a rapid antibody test to determine the number of infections among the personnel. Results  In total, 1029 procedures, 591 questionnaires, 591 Ag-POCTs, and 529 standard PCR tests were performed in 591 patients. 247 procedures in 142 patients were postponed. One Ag-POCT was positive but with a negative PCR test, while one PCR test was positive but with a negative Ag-POCT. This was lower than the theoretically expected number of COVID-19-positive patients (n = 15). One of 43 employees (2.3 %) in the outpatient endoscopy unit was seropositive. Conclusions  Pre-endoscopic risk management including questionnaire-based risk stratification and viral testing seems to be an effective tool in combination with personal protective equipment for SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention and control within the endoscopy unit even in a high-prevalence setting.

Possibility of new shielding device for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Background and study aims  Infection control is essential when performing endoscopic procedures, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, we have developed a new shielding device called STEP for infection control in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients and methods  STEP consists of a mask worn by the patient and a drape that is connected to the mask and covers the endoscope. A suction tube attached to the mask prevents aerosols from spreading. The endoscopist operates the endoscope through the drape. Three endoscopists performed a total of 18 examinations using an upper endoscopy training model with and without STEP. Endoscopic images were evaluated by three other endoscopists, using a visual analog scale. We also simulated contact, droplet, and aerosol infection and evaluated the utility of STEP. Results  All examinations were conducted without a problem. Mean procedure time was 126.3 ± 11.6 seconds with STEP and 122.3 ± 10.0 seconds without STEP. The mean visual analog score was 90.7 ± 10.1 with STEP and 90.4 ± 10.0 without STEP. In the contact model, adherence of simulated contaminants was 4.9 ± 1.4 % without STEP and 0 % with STEP. In the droplet model, the number of simulated contaminants attached to the paper was 338 273 ± 90 735 pixels without STEP and 0 with STEP. In the aerosol model, the total number of particles was 346 837 ± 9485 without STEP and was significantly reduced to 222 ± 174 with STEP. Conclusions  No effect on examination time or endoscopic image quality was observed when using STEP in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Using STEP reduced the diffusion of simulated contaminants in all three infection models.

COVID-19 in gastroenterology: Where are we now? Current evidence on the impact of COVID-19 in gastroenterology

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges in all fields of society with social, economic, and health-related consequences worldwide. In this context, gastroenterology patients and healthcare systems and professionals have seen their routines changed and were forced to adapt, adopting measures to minimize the risk of infection while guaranteeing continuous medical care to chronic patients.

OBJECTIVE

At this point, it is important to evaluate the impact of the pandemic on this field to further improve the quality of the services provided in this context.

METHODS/RESULTS/CONCLUSION

We performed a literature review that summarizes the main aspects to consider in gastroenterology, during the pandemic crisis, and includes a deep discussion on the main changes affecting gastroenterology patients and healthcare systems, anticipating the pandemic recovery scenario with future practices and policies.

Impact of restrictions due to COVID-19 on a quality-assured screening colonoscopy program

Background and study aims  On February 25, 2020, the first patient was diagnosed with COVID-19 in Austria. On March 16, 2020, the Austrian government imposed restrictions and subsequently the Austrian Medical Association recommended minimizing screening examinations in compliance with government restrictions. The aims of this study were to evaluate the impact of this recommendation on the number of colonoscopies performed weekly and detection of non-advanced adenomas, advanced adenomas (AA) and colorectal cancer (CRC) and to calculate how many undetected adenomas could have developed into CRC. Methods  We analyzed the number of colonoscopies and pathological findings within a quality assured national colorectal cancer screening program before the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1, ^t 2019 to September 1, 2019, Period 1) and compared those rates to months during which access to colonoscopy was limited (March 1, 2020 and September 1, 2020, Period 2) with a Wilcoxon-rank-test and a chi-square test. Results  A total of 29,199 screening colonoscopies were performed during Period 1 and 24,010 during Period 2. The mean rate of colonoscopies per week during Period 1 was significantly higher than during Period 2 (808,35 [SD = 163,75] versus 594,50 [SD = 282,24], P  = 0.005). A total of 4,498 non-advanced adenomas were detected during Period 1 versus 3,562 during Period 2 ( P  < 0.001). In total 1,317 AAs and 140 CRCs were detected during Period 1 versus 919 AAs and 106 CRCs during Period 2. These rates did not differ significantly ( P  = 0.2 and P  = 0.9). Conclusions  During the COVID-19 crisis, the number of colonoscopies performed per week was significantly lower compared to the year before, but there was no difference in the detection of CRCs and AAs.

Gastroenterologists attitude in various clinical settings in the era of COVID-19 pandemic: An online Uni-National Israeli Survey

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted our clinical practice. Many gastroenterologists have changed their attitudes toward various gastroenterological clinical settings. The aim of the present study is to explore the gastroenterologist's attitudes in several clinical settings encountered in the clinical practice.An online based survey was completed by 101 of 250 Israeli gastroenterologists (40.5%).Most of the participants were males (76.2%), and most of them were in the age range of 40 to 50 (37.6%). For all questionnaire components, the 2 most common chosen options were "I perform endoscopy with N95 mask, gloves and gown protection in a standard endoscopy room without preendoscopy severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing" and "Tend to postpone endoscopy until SARS-CoV-2 test is performed because of fear from being infected, or virus spreading in the endoscopy suite." Notably, 12 (11.9%) gastroenterologists were infected by Coronavirus disease 2019 during their work. Classifying the clinical settings to either elective and non-elective, most gastroenterologists (77.4%) chose the attitude of "I perform endoscopy with N95 mask, gloves and gown protection in a standard endoscopy room without SARS-COV-2 testing" in the nonelective settings as compared to 54.2% for the elective settings, (P < .00001), whereas 32.9% of the responders chose the attitude of "Tend to postpone endoscopy until SARS-COV-2 test is performed because of fear from being infected, or virus spreading in the endoscopy suite" in the elective settings (P < .00001).Gastroenterologists' attitude in various gastroenterological settings was based on the clinical indication. Further studies are needed to assess the long-term consequences of the different attitudes.

Commonly available but highly effective protection against SARS-CoV-2 during gastrointestinal endoscopies

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

SARS-CoV-2 is a worldwide serious health problem. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the number of potentially infectious particles present during endoscopic procedures and find effective tools to eliminate the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection while performing them.

METHODS

An experimental model which focused on aerosol problematics was made in a specialized laboratory. This model simulated conditions present during endoscopic procedures and monitored the formation of potentially infectious fluid particles from the patient's body, which pass through the endoscope and are then released into the environment. For this reason, we designed and tested a prototype of a protective cover for the endoscope's control body to prevent the release and spread of these fluid particles from its working channel. We performed measurements with and without the protective cover of the endoscope's control body.

RESULTS

It was found that liquid coming through the working channel of the endoscope with forceps or other instruments inside generates droplets with a diameter in the range of 0.1-1.1 mm and an initial velocity of up to 0.9 m/s. The average number of particles per measurement per whole measured area without a protective cover on the endoscope control body was 51.1; with this protective cover on, the measurement was 0.0, p<0.0001.

CONCLUSIONS

Our measurements proved that fluid particles are released from the working channel of an endoscope when forceps are inserted. A special protective cover for the endoscope control body, made out of breathable material (surgical cap) and designed by our team, was found to eliminate this release of potentially infectious fluid particles.

Gastroenterology and liver disease during COVID-19 and in anticipation of post-COVID-19 era: Current practice and future directions

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has emerged as a major threat to global public health. The virus causes the clinical syndrome known as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), in which multiple organs can get affected. Apart from manifestations of the respiratory system, which predominate, its clinical presentation is frequently accompanied by symptoms of the gastro-intestinal (GI) tract and liver abnormalities. The correlation of symptoms and abnormalities with disease severity is discussed, leading to ambiguous results from international literature. Moreover, the disease infects patients with co-existing liver and GI disorders affecting both their health status and the availability of healthcare services provided to them. The risk of transmission of the disease during aerosol-generating procedures has changed the diagnostic approach and follow-up algorithms for liver and GI diseases. For the safety of both doctors and patients, telemedicine and distant evaluation have become everyday practice, whereas several routines and emergency visits at outpatient and emergency departments have been postponed or delayed. Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is underway, providing hope to humanity and the expectation that the post-COVID-19 era is near. This review aims to update knowledge about the manifestations of COVID-19 related to liver and GI diseases and the effect of the pandemic on the diagnostic and therapeutic procedures for these diseases with a special focus on how current practices have changed and what changes will possibly remain in the future.

The Role of Preprocedure Screening of SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Tertiary Care Medical Center Analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to understand the prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection among patients undergoing endoscopic procedures at a tertiary care hospital. The results allow prediction of the magnitude of cases which this endoscopic service might witness in the next months and planning of future actions accordingly.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted in the gastroenterology department of a large urban tertiary care medical center from October 15, 2020, to November 15, 2020. In this institution, all patients proposed for endoscopic procedures under deep sedation must be submitted to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) detection. These results were thoroughly reviewed.

RESULTS

In the 1-month period, a total of 833 different procedures were done in 833 patients admitted to the endoscopy unit. Of these, 167 (20%) were submitted to nasal swab for SARS-CoV-2. Only 1 (0.6%) was positive for this infection, and her procedure was postponed. This RT-PCR-positive patient was not symptomatic for CO-VID-19 infection at the time of preprocedure screening. She had no positive contacts for COVID-19 and had not traveled outside the country.

CONCLUSION

We found that the proportion of patients proposed for an endoscopic intervention who were asymptomatic carriers of SARS-CoV-2 was low. However, only one fifth of patients were tested and, considering the proportion of 0.6%, it is reasonable to consider that exposure of healthcare workers and other patients can occur. So, all prevention measures must be strictly followed. However, the cost-benefit of an universal testing policy must be proven.

Safety and protection in endoscopic services during phase II of COVID-19 pandemic: a national survey

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic requires appropriate measures for containing infection spreading. Endoscopic procedures are considered at increased risk of infection transmission. We evaluated organizational aspects and personal behaviours in Italian Endoscopic Units during phase II of the pandemic.

METHODS

A questionnaire on organizational aspects and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) were e-mailed to gastroenterologists working in Endoscopic Units. Data were analysed accordingly to the National Health Institute and Gastroenterology Societies recommendations.

RESULTS

Data of 117 centres were collected, and different shortcomings emerged. Specific protocols for containing infection and training programs for operators were lacking in 20 and 30% of centres, respectively, and telephone triage 24-72 h before the endoscopy was not implemented in 25% of hospitals. In 30% of centres, the slot time for endoscopies and between examinations was not prolonged. PPE, masks, shirts and gloves were universally adopted, although with some differences. In 20% of centres, a FFPE-FFP3 mask was not adopted during endoscopic examinations. Postendoscopy patient tracking/contact was completed in only one-third of centres.

CONCLUSIONS

Our survey provides information on organizational and medical behaviours during COVID-19 phase II in Italy, which could be useful for adopting appropriate measures for containing COVID-19 spread during phase II.

Factors associated with risk of COVID-19 contagion for endoscopy healthcare workers: A survey from the Italian society of digestive endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The present study was aimed to assess the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and associated factors among HCWs in endoscopy centers in Italy.

METHODS

All members of the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) were invited to participate to a questionnaire-based survey during the first months of the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy.

RESULTS

314/1306 (24%) SIED members accounting for 201/502 (40%) endoscopic centers completed the survey. Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) were available in most centers, but filtering face-piece masks (FFP2 or FFP3) and negative pressure room were not in 10.9 and 75.1%. Training courses on PPE use were provided in 57.2% of centers only; there was at least one positive HCW in 17.4% of centers globally, 107/3308 (3.2%) HCWs were diagnosed with COVID-19 with similar rates of physicians (2.9%), nurses (3.5%) and other health operators (3.5%). Involvement in a COVID-19 care team (OR: 4.96) and the lack of training courses for PPE, (OR: 2.65) were associated with increased risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of COVID-19 among endoscopy HCWs was not negligible and was associated with work in a COVID-19 care team and lack of education on proper PPE use. These data deserve attention during the subsequent waves.

Colorectal cancer screening in the COVID-19 era

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most diagnosed form of cancer and second most deadly cancer worldwide. Introduction of better screening has improved both incidence and mortality. However, as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic began, healthcare resources were shunted away from cancer screening services resulting in a sharp decrease in CRC screening and a backlog of patients awaiting screening tests. This may have significant effects on CRC cancer mortality, as delayed screening may lead to advanced cancer at diagnosis. Strategies to overcome COVID-19 related disruption include utilizing stool-based cancer tests, developing screening protocols based on individual risk factors, expanding telehealth, and increasing open access colonoscopies. In this review, we will summarize the effects of COVID-19 on CRC screening, the potential long-outcomes, and ways to adapt CRC screening during this global pandemic.

The methodological quality is insufficient in clinical practice guidelines in the context of COVID-19: systematic review

Objectives

The number of published clinical practice guidelines related to COVID-19 has rapidly increased. This study explored if basic methodological standards of guideline development have been met in the published clinical practice guidelines related to COVID-19.

Study Design and Setting

Rapid systematic review from February 1 until April 27, 2020 using MEDLINE [PubMed], CINAHL [Ebsco], Trip and manual search, including all types of healthcare workers providing any kind of healthcare to any patient population in any setting.

Results

There were 1342 titles screened and 188 guidelines included. The highest average AGREE II domain score was 89% for scope and purpose, the lowest for rigor of development (25%). Only eight guidelines (4%) were based on a systematic literature search and a structured consensus process by representative experts (classified as the highest methodological quality). The majority (156; 83%) was solely built on an informal expert consensus. A process for regular updates was described in 27 guidelines (14%). Patients were included in the development of only one guideline.

Conclusion

Despite clear scope, most publications fell short of basic methodological standards of guideline development. Clinicians should use guidelines that include up-to-date information, were informed by stakeholder involvement, and employed rigorous methodologies.

COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test: Role in Screening Prior to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Background/Aims

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic has affected the gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy units globally owing to the risk of transmission. We present our data on the use of rapid antigen test (RAT) as a screening tool prior to endoscopy to prevent the transmission of coronavirus disease (COVID-19).

Methods

This study was a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent any GI endoscopic procedure from July 2020 to October 2020 at a tertiary referral center in New Delhi, India. All patients underwent screening for COVID-19 using RAT, and endoscopy was performed only when the RAT was negative. The data are presented as numbers and percentages.

Results

A total of 3,002 endoscopic procedures were performed during the study period. Only one endoscopic procedure was performed in a COVID-19 positive patient. A total of 53 healthcare workers were involved in conducting these procedures. Only 2 healthcare workers (3.8%) were diagnosed COVID-19 positive, presumably due to community-acquired infection, during this period.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 RAT is easily usable as a simple screening tool prior to GI endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Pratique de l'endoscopie digestive à l'ère de la pandémie COVID-19

Introduction:

Le personnel de la santé qui travaille en unité d'endoscopie digestive est exposé au risque de transmission du SARS-CoV-2 via les aérosols et le contact avec les surfaces contaminées.

Objectifs:

Etablir des recommandations pour la pratique de l'endoscopie digestive durant les différentes phases de l'épidémie COVID-19, applicables pour notre pays dans un contexte de ressources limitées, d'équipements couteux et d'absence de dépistage de masse.

Méthodes:

Une revue de la littérature médicale a été réalisée via la base de données Medline®, moyennant diverses combinaisons des mots clés suivants : SARS-CoV-2, coronavirus, COVID-19, pandemics, endoscopy, digestive system, Real-time polymerase chain reaction, infection control, personal protective equipment. Les articles les plus pertinents ont été retenus. Dans un second temps le club d'endoscopie digestive a émis des recommandations en tenant compte des conditions locales.

Résultats:

Afin de réduire le risque de transmission du virus, une stratification du risque d'infection des patients et du degré d'urgence des examens endoscopiques était recommandée avant la procédure. Durant la phase 4 de l'épidémie, tous les patients doivent être considérés à haut risque d'infection, seules les endoscopies urgentes ou hautement prioritaires sont réalisées et les équipements de protection renforcés doivent être portés en salles d'endoscopie et de désinfection. Durant les autres phases, certaines mesures doivent être respectées en fonction de la période épidémique et du risque infectieux du patient.

Conclusion:

L'application des recommandations proposées permettront au personnel des unités d'endoscopie digestive de travailler en sécurité et de prévenir la transmission du virus aux patients durant l'épidémie COVID-19.

Mots clés:

Coronavirus, COVID-19, endoscopie, système digestif, équipement de protection individuelle.

Paediatric surgery and COVID-19: urgent lessons to be learned

Background

The dissemination of scientific data on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continually builds but, in April 2020, could not keep up with the spread of the disease. Through technology, surgeons in Italy and the UK, representing both peak and pre-peak infective time zones, were able to communicate so that the urgent lessons on the huge expected demands of care learned in Italy could be brought to the UK in advance. This paper specifically discusses the issues related to paediatric surgery, currently under-reported in the literature.

Methods

The aim of this paper is to conjoin experience from the field to provide a framework for a safe assessment and treatment of paediatric patients by adopting a systemic approach aimed at reducing the risk of contamination. We reviewed the processes and good practices that were undertaken in contexts of emergency such as in Italy and the UK and then adapted them within the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) framework to provide an assessment of how to reorganize the services in order to cope with an unexpected situation. The SEIPS model is the adopted theoretical framework, which allows to analyse the system in its main components with a human factors and ergonomics (HFE) perspective.

Results

The results introduce some of the good practices and recommendations developed during the emergency in the surgical scenario with a focus on the paediatric patients. They represent the lessons learned from the combination of the little existing evidence of literature and the experience from surgical teams who responded in an impromptu and unrehearsed way.

Conclusions

Lessons learned from the frontline ‘on the fly’ during COVID-19 emergency should be consolidated and taken into the future. In order to prepare proactively for the next phases and get ahead of the curve of these hospital accesses, there is a need for a risk assessment of the new clinical pathways with a multidisciplinary approach centred on HFE with the adoption of the SEIPS model and an involvement of all the surgical teams.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention strategies including pre-endoscopic virus testing and use of high risk personal protective equipment

BACKGROUND

Infection prevention strategies to protect healthcare workers in endoscopy units during the post-peak phase of the COVID-19 pandemic are currently under intense discussion. In this paper, the cost-effectiveness of routine pre-endoscopy testing and high risk personal protective equipment (PPE) is addressed.

METHOD

A model based on theoretical assumptions of 10 000 asymptomatic patients presenting to a high volume center was created. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and absolute costs per endoscopy were calculated using a Monte Carlo simulation.

RESULTS

ICER values for universal testing decreased with increasing prevalence rates. For higher prevalence rates (≥ 1 %), ICER values were lowest for routine pre-endoscopy testing coupled with use of high risk PPE, while cost per endoscopy was lowest for routine use of high risk PPE without universal testing.

CONCLUSION

In general, routine pre-endoscopy testing combined with high risk PPE becomes more cost-effective with rising prevalence rates of COVID-19.

Adherence to recommendations for endoscopy practice during COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America: how are we doing it?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Digestive endoscopy is considered a high-risk procedure for COVID-19. Recommendations have been made for its practice during the pandemic. This study was conducted to determine adherence to recommendations for endoscopy practice during the COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America (LA).

METHODS

A survey was conducted of endoscopists from LA consisting of 43 questions for the evaluation of four items: general and sociodemographic features, and preprocedure, intraprocedure and postprocedure aspects.

RESULTS

A response was obtained from 338 endoscopists (response rate 34.5%) across 15 countries in LA. In preprocedure aspects (hand washing, use of face masks for patients, respiratory triage area, training for the placement/removal of personal protective equipment (PPE) and availability of specific area for the placement/removal of PPE), there was adherence in <75%. Regarding postprocedure aspects, 77% (261/338) had reused PPE, mainly the N95 respirator or higher, and this was with a standardised decontamination procedure only in 32% (108/338) of the time. Postprocedure room decontamination was carried out by 47% on >75% of occasions. In relationship to intraprocedure aspects (knowledge of risk and type of endoscopic procedures, use of PPE, airway management in patients and infrastructure), there was adherence in >75% for all the parameters and 78% of endoscopists only performed emergencies or time-sensitive procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to the recommendations for endoscopy practice during the COVID-19 pandemic is adequate in the intraprocedure aspect. However, it is deficient in the preprocedure and postprocedure aspects.

COVID-19 and the digestive system: implications for transforming care delivery

The pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has posed an unprecedented challenge to health systems, leading in many countries to the collapse of health care and a lack of preventive measures both for the most vulnerable sections of the population and among healthcare professionals.