Risk of adverse events in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Zero-inflated Poisson regression mixture model for count data and multinomial logit model for the type of event

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

Development and validation of a scoring system to predict esophagogastroduodenoscopy necessity

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop and validate a scoring system for predicting the need for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in clinical practice to enhance accuracy and reduce misapplications.

METHODS

From February 2021 to April 2022, outpatients scheduled for EGD at the Department of Gastroenterology in our hospital were recruited. Patients completed the system evaluation by providing clinical symptoms, relevant medical history, and endoscopic findings. Patients were randomly divided into the training and validation cohorts (at 2:1 ratio). The optimal algorithm was selected from five alternatives including a parallel test. Six physicians participated in a human-computer comparative validation. Sensitivity and negative likelihood ratio (-LR) were used as the primary indicators.

RESULTS

Altogether 865 patients were enrolled, with 578 in the training cohort and 287 in the validation cohort. The scoring system comprised 21 variables, including age, 13 typical clinical symptoms, and seven medical history variables. The parallel test was selected as the final algorithm. Positive EGD findings were reported in 54.5% of the training cohort and 62.7% of the validation cohort. The scoring system demonstrated a sensitivity of 79.0% in the training cohort and 83.9% in the validation cohort, with -LR being 0.627 and 0.615, respectively. Compared to physicians, the scoring system exhibited higher sensitivity (84.0% vs 68.7%, P = 0.02) and a lower -LR (1.11 vs 2.41, P = 0.439).

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a scoring system to predict the necessity of EGD using a parallel test algorithm, which was user-friendly and effective, as evidenced by single-center validation.

The Saudi Gastroenterology Association guidelines for quality indicators in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

The quality and safety of gastrointestinal endoscopy varies considerably across regions and facilities worldwide. In this field, quality management has traditionally focused on individual performance of endoscopists, with most indicators addressing process measures and limited evidence of improvement in health outcomes. Indicators of quality can be classified according to their nature and sequence. The various professional societies and organizations have proposed many systems of indicators, but a universal system is necessary so that healthcare professionals are not overburdened and confused with a variety of quality improvement approaches. In this paper, we propose guidelines by the Saudi Gastroenterology Association pertaining to quality in endoscopic procedures aiming to improve the awareness of endoscopy unit staff toward important quality indications to enhance and standardize quality of care provided to our patients.

The Association Between Low Body-Mass Index and Serious Post-endoscopic Adverse Events

BACKGROUND

Low body mass index (LBMI) was associated with longer colonoscopy procedure time and procedural failure, and commonly considered to be a risk factor for post-endoscopic adverse events, but evidence is lacking.

AIM

We aimed to assess the association between serious adverse events (SAE) and LBMI.

METHODS

A single center retrospective cohort of patients with LBMI (BMI ≤ 18.5) undergoing an endoscopic procedure was matched (1:2 ratio) to a comparator group (19 ≤ BMI ≤ 30). Matching was performed according to age, gender, inflammatory bowel disease or malignancy diagnoses, previous abdomino-pelvic surgery, anticoagulation therapy and type of endoscopic procedure. The primary outcome was SAE, defined as bleeding, perforation, aspiration or infection, following the procedure. The attribution between each SAE and the endoscopic procedure was determined. Secondary outcomes included each complication alone and endoscopy-attributed SAEs. Univariate and multivariate analyses were applied.

RESULTS

1986 patients were included (662 in the LBMI group). Baseline characteristics were mostly similar between the groups. The primary outcome occurred in 31/662 (4.7%) patients in the LBMI group and in 41/1324 (3.1%) patients in the comparator group (p = 0.098). Among the secondary outcomes, infections (2.1% vs. 0.8%, p = 0.016) occurred more frequently in the LBMI group. Multivariate analysis revealed an association between SAE and LBMI (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.07-2.87), male gender, diagnosis of malignancy, high-risk endoscopic procedure, age > 40 years, and ambulatory setting.

CONCLUSION

Low BMI was associated with higher post-endoscopic serious adverse events. Special attention is required when performing endoscopy in this fragile patient population.

A comparative study on the efficacy and safety of propofol combined with different doses of alfentanil in gastroscopy: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Propofol can be used alone or in combination with opioids during gastroscopy. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous propofol and different doses of alfentanil in patients undergoing gastroscopy.

METHODS

A total of 300 patients undergoing sedative gastroscopy were randomly divided into four groups, and 0.9% saline (group A), 2 μg/kg alfentanil (group B), 3 μg/kg alfentanil (group C) or 4 μg/kg alfentanil (group D) were injected intravenously 1 min before the intravenous injection of 1.5 mg/kg propofol. If body movement and coughing occurred during the procedure, 0.5 mg/kg propofol would be administered intravenously. The primary outcome (awakening time) and secondary outcomes were recorded and analyzed, including hemodynamic changes, the incidences of body movement, coughing, hypoxemia, hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia, tachycardia, nausea and vomiting, drowsiness and dizziness.

RESULTS

Patients in group C (7.0 [5.0 to 8.0] min) and group D (6.0 [5.0 to 7.0] min) woke up significantly earlier than those in group A (8.0 [6.0 to 10.0] min) (P < 0.001). Patients in group A experienced more body movement (P = 0.001) and coughing (P < 0.001) than the other groups. With the increasing dose of alfentanil, the morbidity of hypotension and bradycardia increased significantly (P = 0.001), while the incidence of dizziness decreased significantly (P = 0.037). The incidences of hypoxemia, tachycardia, drowsiness, nausea and vomiting were similar among the four groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous 1.5 mg/kg propofol combined with 3 μg/kg alfentanil is more suitable for patients undergoing gastroscopy, and the dose of alfentanil can be reduced according to the patient's actual physical condition.

Safety, Efficacy and High-Quality Standards of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Procedures in Personalized Sedoanalgesia Managed by the Gastroenterologist: A Retrospective Study

Performing GI endoscopy under sedoanalgesia improves the quality-indices of the examination, in particular for cecal intubation and adenoma detection rates during colonoscopy. The implementation of procedural sedoanalgesia in GI endoscopy is also strongly recommended by the guidelines of the major international scientific societies. Nevertheless, there are regional barriers that prevent the widespread adoption of this good practice. A retrospective monocentric analytic study was performed on a cohort of 529 patients who underwent EGDS/Colonoscopy in sedoanalgesia, with personalized dosage of Fentanyl and Midazolam. ASA class, age and weight were collected for each patient. The vital parameters were recorded during, pre- and post-procedure. The rates of cecal intubation and of procedure-related complications were entered. The VAS scale was used to evaluate the efficacy of sedoanalgesia, and the Aldrete score was used for patient discharge criteria. No clinically significant differences were found between vital signs pre- and post-procedure. Both anesthesia and endoscopic-related complications occurring were few and successfully managed. At the end of examination, both the mean Aldrete score (89.56), and the VAS score (<4 in 99.1%) were suitable for discharge. For the colonoscopies, the cumulative adenoma detection rate (25%) and the cecal intubation rate in the general group (98%) and in the colorectal cancer screening group (100%) were satisfying. Pain control management is an ethical and medical issue aimed at increasing both patient compliance and the quality of the procedures. The findings of this work underscore that in selected patients personalized sedoanalgesia in GI endoscopy can be safely managed by gastroenterologists.