Recovery of endoscopy services in the era of COVID-19: recommendations from an international Delphi consensus.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on provision of endoscopy services globally as staff and real estate were repurposed. As we begin to recover from the pandemic, a cohesive international approach is needed, and guidance on how to resume endoscopy services safely to avoid unintended harm from diagnostic delays. The aim of these guidelines is to provide consensus recommendations that clinicians can use to facilitate the swift and safe resumption of endoscopy services. An evidence-based literature review was carried out on the various strategies used globally to manage endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic and control infection. A modified Delphi process involving international endoscopy experts was used to agree on the consensus statements. A threshold of 80% agreement was used to establish consensus for each statement. 27 of 30 statements achieved consensus after two rounds of voting by 34 experts. The statements were categorised as pre-endoscopy, during endoscopy and postendoscopy addressing relevant areas of practice, such as screening, personal protective equipment, appropriate environments for endoscopy and infection control precautions, particularly in areas of high disease prevalence. Recommendations for testing of patients and for healthcare workers, appropriate locations of donning and doffing areas and social distancing measures before endoscopy are unique and not dealt with by any other guidelines. This international consensus using a modified Delphi method to produce a series of best practice recommendations to aid the safe resumption of endoscopy services globally in the era of COVID-19.

COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction testing before endoscopy: an economic analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has limited endoscopy utilization, causing significant health and economic losses. We aim to model the impact of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing into resuming endoscopy practice. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of endoscopy utilization during the COVID-19 pandemic for a baseline reference. A computer model compared 3 approaches: strategy 1, endoscopy for urgent indications only; strategy 2, testing for semiurgent indications; and strategy 3, testing all patients. Analysis was made under current COVID-19 prevalence and projected prevalence of 5% and 10%. Primary outcomes were number of procedures performed and/or canceled. Secondary outcomes were direct costs, reimbursement, personal protective equipment used, and personnel infected. Disease prevalence, testing accuracy, and costs were obtained from the literature. RESULTS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, endoscopy volume was 12.7% of expected. Strategies 2 and 3 were safe and effective interventions to resume endoscopy in semiurgent and elective cases. Investing 22 U.S. dollars (USD) and 105 USD in testing per patient allowed the completion of 19.4% and 95.3% of baseline endoscopies, respectively. False-negative results were seen after testing 4700 patients (or 3 months of applying strategy 2 in our practice). Implementing PCR testing over 1 week in the United States would require 13 and 64 million USD, with a return of 165 and 767 million USD to providers, leaving 65 and 325 healthcare workers infected. CONCLUSIONS: PCR testing is an effective strategy to restart endoscopic practice in the United States. PCR screening should be implemented during the second phase of the pandemic, once the healthcare system is able to test and isolate all suspected COVID-19 cases.

COVID-19 pandemic and personal protective equipment shortage: protective efficacy comparing masks and scientific methods for respirator reuse.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The abrupt outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 and its rapid spread over many healthcare systems throughout the world has led to a shortage in personal protective equipment (PPE), which cannot be solved by reducing their use or by increasing production. It is thus necessary to promote PPE rational use, highlighting possible differences in terms of efficacy and promoting an effective technique to reuse them. METHODS: A literature search was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar, and from the 25 top cited articles, 15 were selected for relevance and impact. RESULTS: Most studies on previous respiratory virus epidemics to date suggest surgical masks are not inferior compared with N95 respirators in terms of protective efficacy among healthcare workers. Therefore, the use of N95 respirators should be limited to high-risk situations. Concerning respirator reuse, highly energetic, short-wave, ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) at 254 nm was determined to decontaminate N95 respirators from viral respiratory agents, but UVGI requires careful consideration of the type of respirator and of the biologic target. CONCLUSIONS: Rational use and successful reuse of respirators can help in the shortage of PPE during a pandemic. Further studies testing UVGI and other decontamination techniques are an unmet need. The definitive answer to pandemic issues can be found in artificial intelligence and deep learning. These groundbreaking modalities could help in identifying high-risk patients and in suggesting appropriate types and use of PPE.