ABSTRACT
Background/Aims@#The Thai Association for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy published recommendations on safe endoscopy during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study aimed to assess the practicality and applicability of the recommendations and the perceptions of endoscopy personnel on them. @*Methods@#A validated questionnaire was sent to 1290 endoscopy personnel globally. Of these, the data of all 330 responders (25.6%) from 15 countries, related to the current recommendations on proper personal protective equipment (PPE), case selection, scope cleaning, and safety perception, were analyzed. Ordinal logistic regression was used to determine the relationships between the variables. @*Results@#Despite an overwhelming agreement with the recommendations on PPE (94.5%) and case selection (95.5%), their practicality and applicability on PPE recommendations and case selection were significantly lower (p=0.001, p=0.047, p<0.001, and p=0.032, respectively). Factors that were associated with lower sense of safety in endoscopy units were younger age (p=0.004), less working experience (p=0.008), in-training status (p=0.04), and higher national prevalence of COVID-19 (p=0.003). High prevalent countries also had more difficulty implementing the guidelines (p<0.001) and they considered the PPE recommendations less practical and showed lower agreement with them (p<0.001 and p=0.008, respectively). A higher number of in-hospital COVID-19 patients was associated with less agreement with PPE recommendations (p=0.039). @*Conclusions@#Using appropriate PPE and case selection in endoscopic practice during a pandemic remains a challenge. Resource availability and local prevalence are critical factors influencing the adoption of the current guidelines.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Symptom-based diagnosis for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has been accepted in the population with high prevalence. Carlsson-Dent questionnaire (CDQ) is a standardized symptom-based diagnosis tool for GERD. The value of this tool in the population with low prevalence is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine CDQ performance for diagnosis of GERD in Thai population with low prevalence versus endoscopy or 24 hour pH monitoring. METHODS: Patients with dyspepsia by Rome II criteria were recruited. All patients completed a Thai version of CDQ and underwent endoscopic examination. Those without esophagitis or peptic ulcer and positive CDQ score took pH monitoring. RESULTS: One hundred patients (68 female) with mean age +/- SD of 45.6 +/- 12.4 years were recruited. Six with Los Angeles grade A esophagitis had negative CDQ score. In 44 with positive CDQ score, 3 had Los Angeles grade B esophagitis and 41 had pH monitoring done with 8 having positive test. The GERD diagnosis by CDQ was confirmed in 11 of 44 patients (25%). CDQ detected 11 out of 17 GERD detected by endoscopy and pH monitoring and the sensitivity of CDQ was 64%. CONCLUSIONS: CDQ diagnosed more GERD in Thai population with low prevalence compared with endoscopy and pH monitoring. This may be due to some patients with functional heartburn were picked up by CDQ and some patients with GERD were not detected by endoscopy and pH monitoring.