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

Risk-based decision-making related to preprocedural coronavirus disease 2019 testing in the setting of GI endoscopy: management of risks, evidence, and behavioral health economics

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Controversies exist regarding the benefits and most appropriate approach for preprocedural coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing (eg, rapid antigen test, polymerase chain reaction, or real-time polymerase chain reaction) for outpatients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, such as GI endoscopy, to prevent COVID-19 infections among staff. Guidelines for protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from outpatient procedures varies across medical professional organizations. This study provides an evidence-based decision support tool for key decision-makers (eg, clinicians) to respond to COVID-19 transmission risks and reduce the effect of personal biases.

METHODS

A scoping review was used to identify relevant factors influencing COVID-19 transmission risk relevant for GI endoscopy. From 12 relevant publications, 8 factors were applicable: test sensitivity, prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the population, age-adjusted SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in the patient cohort, proportion of asymptomatic patients, risk of transmission from asymptomatic carriers, risk reduction by personal protective equipment (PPE), vaccination rates of HCWs, and risk reduction of SAE by vaccination. The probability of a serious adverse event (SAE), such as workplace-acquired infection resulting in HCW death, under various scenarios with preprocedural testing was determined to inform decision-makers of expected costs of reductions in SAEs.

RESULTS

In a setting of high community transmission, without testing and PPE, 117.5 SAEs per million procedures were estimated to occur, and this was reduced to between .079 and 2.35 SAEs per million procedures with the use of PPE and preprocedural testing. When these variables are used and a range of scenarios are tested, the probability of an SAE was low even without testing but was reduced by preprocedural testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Under all scenarios tested, preprocedural testing reduced the SAE risk for HCWs regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 variant. Benefits of preprocedural testing are marginal when community transmission is low (eg, below 10 infections a day per 100,000 population). The proposed decision support tool can assist in developing rational preprocedural testing policies.

Analysis of the effects of the first and second/third waves of the COVID-19 pandemic on an Interdisciplinary Endoscopy Unit in a German 'hotspot' area: a single-center experience

BACKGROUND

Since December 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has posed a pandemic threat to global health. We are now in the fourth wave of this pandemic. As the pandemic developed, the requirements and therapeutic endoscopic procedures for SARS-CoV-2-positive patients underwent changes.

METHODS

Analysis of implications for an endoscopy unit during the first and second/third waves of the COVID-19 pandemic with a focus on COVID-19-related process changing. Addressed are number of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients and endoscopic examinations performed in patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the various waves, adherence to scheduled examinations, rotation of staff to COVID-dedicated structures and, finally, impact of vaccination on infection rate among endoscopic staff.

RESULTS

During the first wave, 10 SARS-CoV-2-positive in-house patients underwent a total of 22 gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. During the second and third waves, 59 GI endoscopies were performed in 38 patients. While in the first wave, GI bleeding was the main indication for endoscopy (82%), in the second and third waves the main indication for endoscopy was endoscopic insertion of deep feeding tubes (78%; p < 0.001). During the first wave, 5 (17%) of 29 Interdisciplinary Endoscopy Unit (IEU) staff members were moved to designated COVID wards, which was not necessary during the following waves. Lack of protective clothing was critical during the first wave, but not in the later waves. Screening tests for patients and staff were widely available after the first wave, and IEU staff was vaccinated during the second wave.

CONCLUSION

Strategies to ensure safe endoscopies with respect to preventing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from patients to staff were effective. Organizational adjustments allowed the routine program to continue unaffected. Indications for GI endoscopies changed over time: during the first wave, GI endoscopies were performed for life-threatening indications, whereas later supportive procedures were the main indication.