Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add filters








Language
Year range
1.
Clinical Endoscopy ; : 522-525, 2021.
Article in English | WPRIM | ID: wpr-890027

ABSTRACT

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.

2.
Clinical Endoscopy ; : 522-525, 2021.
Article in English | WPRIM | ID: wpr-897731

ABSTRACT

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.

3.
Clinical Endoscopy ; : 909-915, 2021.
Article in English | WPRIM | ID: wpr-914003

ABSTRACT

Background/Aims@#The management of patients with walled-off necrosis (WON) has undergone a paradigm shift from surgical to nonsurgical modalities. Real-world data on the management of symptomatic WON are scarce. @*Methods@#Prospectively collected data of symptomatic WON cases were retrospectively evaluated. The treatment modalities used were medical management alone, percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) or endoscopic drainage, or a combination of PCD and endoscopic drainage. We compared technical success, clinical success, mortality, readmissions, complications, and length of hospital stay among these modalities. @*Results@#A total of 264 patients were evaluated (predominantly men: n=195, 74%). The mean age was 37.66 (±14.41) years. The etiology of acute pancreatitis was excessive alcohol consumption in 115 (44%) and biliary (gall stone, microlithiasis) in 89 (34%). The most common indications for drainage were pain (n=253, 96%) and fever (n=140, 53%). Of the patients, 74 (28%) were treated with medical therapy alone, 81 (31%) with endoscopic drainage, 98 (37%) with PCD, and 10 (4%) with a combined approach. Technical success and clinical success were achieved in 78 (93%) and 74 (91%) patients in the endoscopic arm and in 88 (90%) and 79 (81%) patients in the PCD arm, respectively (p=0.0004 for clinical success). Lower rates of complications (7% vs. 22%, p=0.005), readmission (20% vs. 34%, p=0.04), and mortality (4% vs. 19%, p=0.0012), and shorter hospital stay (13 days vs. 19 days, p=0.0018) were observed in the endoscopic group than in the PCD group. @*Conclusions@#Endoscopic drainage of WON is better than PCD and is associated with lower mortality, fewer complications, and shorter hospitalization.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL