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.
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.
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.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Patients with small bowel strictures have varied etiologies, including malignancy. Little data are available on the demographic profiles and etiologies of small bowel strictures in patients who undergo surgery because of intestinal obstruction but do not have a definitive pre-operative diagnosis. METHODS: Retrospective data were analyzed for all patients operated between January 2000 and October 2014 for small bowel strictures without mass lesions and a definite diagnosis after imaging and endoscopic examinations. Demographic parameters, imaging, endoscopic, and histological data were extracted from the medical records. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to identify factors that could differentiate between intestinal tuberculosis (ITB) and Crohn's disease (CD) and between malignant and benign strictures. RESULTS: Of the 7,425 reviewed medical records, 89 met the inclusion criteria. The most common site of strictures was the proximal small intestine (41.5%). The most common histological diagnoses in patients with small bowel strictures were ITB (26.9%), CD (23.5%), non-specific strictures (20.2%), malignancy (15.5%), ischemia (10.1%), and other complications (3.4%). Patients with malignant strictures were older than patients with benign etiologies (47.6±15.9 years vs. 37.4±16.4 years, P=0.03) and age >50 years had a specificity for malignant etiology of 80%. Only 7.1% of the patients with malignant strictures had more than 1 stricture and 64% had proximally located strictures. Diarrhea was the only factor that predicted the diagnosis of CD 6.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.10–38.25; P=0.038) compared with the diagnosis of ITB. CONCLUSIONS: Malignancy was the cause of small bowel strictures in approximately 16% patients, especially among older patients with a single stricture in the proximal location. Empirical therapy should be avoided and the threshold for surgical resection is low in these patients.