Implications of COVID-19 for the busy gastroenterologist.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infection caused by a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) originated in China in December 2020 and declared pandemic by WHO. This coronavirus mainly spreads through the respiratory tract and enters cells through angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). The clinical symptoms of COVID-19 patients include fever, cough, and fatigue. Gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhea, anorexia, and vomiting) may be present in 50% of patients and may be associated with worst prognosis. Other risk factors are older age, male gender, and underlying chronic diseases. Mitigation measures are essential to reduce the number of people infected. Hospitals are a place of increased SARS-CoV-2 exposure. This has implications in the organization of healthcare services and specifically endoscopy departments. Patients and healthcare workers safety must be optimized in this new reality. Comprehension of COVID-19 gastrointestinal manifestations and implications of SARS-CoV-2 in the management of patients with gastrointestinal diseases, under or not immunosuppressant therapies, is essential. In this review, we summarized the latest research progress and major societies recommendations regarding the implications of COVID-19 in gastroenterology, namely the adaptations that gastroenterology/endoscopy departments and professionals must do in order to optimize the provided assistance, as well as the implications that this infection will have, in particularly vulnerable patients such as those with chronic liver disease and inflammatory bowel disease under or not immunosuppressant therapies.

Rethink analgo-sedation in digestive endoscopy: the role of scientific societies in tracing training path.

OBJECTIVE: The Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Reanimation and Intensive Care Medicine (SIAARTI) and the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) worked together to produce a joint Good Clinical Practice (GCP) on analgo-sedation in digestive endoscopy and launched a survey to support the document. The aim was to identify and describe the actual clinical practice of sedation in Italian digestive endoscopy units and offer material for a wider and more widespread discussion among anesthetists and endoscopists. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A national survey was planned, in order to support the statements of the GCP. Twelve thousand and five hundred questionnaires were sent to the members of SIAARTI and SIED in June 2020. RESULTS: A total of 662 forms (5.3%) returned completed. Highly complex procedures are performed according to 70% of respondents; daily anesthesiologist's assistance is guaranteed in 26%, for scheduled sessions in 14.5% and as needed in 8%. 69% of respondents declared not to have a dedicated team of anesthesiologists, while just 5% reported an anesthesiologist in charge. A complete monitoring system was assured by 70% of respondents. Dedicated pathways for COVID-19-positive patients were confirmed in <40% of the answers. With regard to moderate/deep sedation, 90% of respondents stated that an anesthetist decides timing and doses. Propofol was exclusively administered by anesthetists according to 94% of answers, and for 6% of respondents the endoscopist is allowed to administer propofol in presence of a dedicated nurse, but with a readily available anesthetist. Only 32.8% of respondents reported institutional training courses on procedural analgo-sedation. CONCLUSIONS: The need to provide patients scheduled for endoscopy procedures with an adequate analgo-sedation is becoming an increasing concern, well-known in almost all countries, but many factors compromise the quality of patient care. Results of a national survey would give strength to the need for a shared GCP in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Training and certification of non-anesthetist professionals should be one of the main ways to center the objective.

Prevalence, causes, medical interventions, and mortality outcome of acute gastrointestinal bleeding among COVID-19 inpatients.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence, causes, medical interventions, and mortality outcome of acute gastrointestinal bleeding (AGIB) among COVID-19 patients hospitalized during the delta pandemic in Vietnam. METHODS: The medical records of COVID-19 patients hospitalized in a tertiary hospital in Vietnam from July to October 2021 were retrospectively collected. Data regarding age, sex, comorbidities, COVID-19 severity, onset time of AGIB, therapeutic interventions for AGIB, and mortality outcome were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 1567 COVID-19 inpatients, 56 (3.6%) had AGIB. The independent risk factors for AGIB in COVID-19 inpatients included age (OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 1.01-1.04, p = .003), male sex (OR = 1.86, 95% CI: 1.06-3.26, p = .03), chronic liver disease (OR = 6.21, 95% CI: 2.97-13.00, p < .001), and chronic kidney disease (OR = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.01-4.65, p = .047). Among 34 AGIB patients undergoing endoscopy, upper AGIB was determined in 24 (70.6%) patients. Peptic ulcer disease and hemorrhagic erosive gastritis were the most common causes (64.7%, 22/34). The therapeutic interventions for AGIB included blood transfusion (76.8%, 43/56), endoscopic hemostasis (23.5%, 8/34), and surgery (1.8%, 1/56). The mortality rate in the AGIB group was significantly higher than that in the non-AGIB group (46.4% vs. 27.7%, OR = 2.26, 95% CI: 1.32-3.87, p = .002). However, the majority (76.9%) of deaths in COVID-19 inpatients with AGIB were not bleeding-related. CONCLUSIONS: Age, male sex, chronic liver disease, and chronic kidney disease are risk factors for AGIB among COVID-19 inpatients. Peptic ulcer disease is the most common cause. COVID-19 inpatients with AGIB have a higher risk of mortality, but a large percentage of deaths are not bleeding-related.

Since there is not enough information of sudden digestive tract bleeding among Asian populations with COVID-19, this study aimed to measure the proportion of existing cases, causes, medical treatments and deaths of sudden digestive tract bleeding in COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized during the Delta-variant pandemic in Vietnam. We collected medical records of 1567 COVID-19 patients from a specialty hospital in Vietnam from July to October 2021. Sudden digestive tract bleeding was present in 3.6% of COVID-19 inpatients. The risk of sudden digestive tract bleeding was higher in COVID-19 patients who were old, male, or had long-term liver or kidney disease. The most common cause of sudden digestive tract bleeding among COVID-19 inpatients were stomach ulcers. In addition, COVID-19 inpatients with sudden digestive tract bleeding had a higher risk of death, but a large proportion of deaths were not bleeding-related.

Development and Validation of a Patient-Reported Experience Measure for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: The Comprehensive Endoscopy Satisfaction Tool (CEST).

GOALS: We aimed to develop and validate a patient-reported experience measure for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, the Comprehensive Endoscopy Satisfaction Tool that captures relevant domains that influence the patient's experience and identify factors that shape satisfaction. BACKGROUND: Patient-reported experience measures are used to capture specific quality aspects of health care services. GI endoscopic services are high-volume services, and there is a lack of specific, validated instruments to capture various domains that shape the patients' experience with routine clinical endoscopic services. STUDY: After an environmental scan and structured literature review, focus groups with patients were conducted to identify relevant factors influencing the patient experience with GI endoscopic services. After an initial validation in 101 patients undergoing routine GI endoscopies, the instrument was tested in 7800 patients. In addition, the influence of sociodemographic factors on global satisfaction was explored. RESULTS: The final version included 26 specific items plus 4 global ratings for preprocedure, experience on day of procedure, postprocedure care, and infrastructure. In addition, a global rating of the overall experience was included. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in older patients (P<0.001) but not influenced by gender, nationality, marital status, education, or employment status. Interestingly, during periods of coronavirus disease-19-related service interruptions, the Net Promoter Score was significantly reduced (P<0.0001) providing evidence for the responsiveness of the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: The Comprehensive Endoscopy Satisfaction Tool is a valid measure for the patient experience with the various components of endoscopic services, allows for the identification of domains that impact on the patient experience and is a practical tool to compare patient satisfaction over time and across facilities.

Patient Attitudes and Barriers to Endoscopy During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: After COVID-19 restrictions on nonessential procedures were lifted and safety protocols established, utilization rates of endoscopic procedures remained reduced. AIMS: This study assessed patient attitudes and barriers to scheduling endoscopy during the pandemic. METHODS: A survey was administered to patients with ordered procedures at a hospital-based setting (7/21/2020-2/19/2021) collecting demographic data, body mass index, COVID-19 relevant comorbidities, level of procedural urgency (defined by recommended scheduling window), scheduling and attendance, concerns, and awareness of safety measures. RESULTS: The average respondent was female (63.8%), age 57.6 ± 14, White (72.3%), married (76.7%), insured (99.3%), affluent English speakers (92.3%) and highly educated (at least college 90.2%). Most reported moderate to excellent COVID-19 knowledge (96.6%). Of 1039 procedures scheduled, emergent cases accounted for 5.1%, urgent 55.3% and elective 39.4%. Respondents identified appointment convenience (48.53%) as the most frequent factor impacting scheduling, also noting concern for results (28.4%). Age (p = .022), native language (p = .04), education (p = .007), self-reported COVID knowledge (p = .002), and a desire to be COVID tested pre-procedure (p = .023) were associated with arrival, more commonly in an ambulatory surgical center than hospital (p = .008). Diabetes mellitus (p = .004) and an immunocompromised state (p = .009) were adversely related to attendance. Attitudes towards safety protocols did not affect scheduling. Multivariate analysis demonstrated age, education and COVID knowledgeability were associated with procedure completion. CONCLUSIONS: Safety protocols and urgency levels were not associated with procedure completion. Pre-pandemic barriers to endoscopy persisted as dominant factors amid pandemic concerns.

Airborne transmission of SARS-Cov2: What consequences for digestive endoscopy?

The SARS-Cov-2 disease disrupted essential hospital procedures, such as gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, due to concerns about air transmission and the risk of exposing health care workers. With the spread of the pandemic, air transmission was considered as the main source of SARS-Cov2 transmission. This raised the problem of transmission by aerosolization of viral particles in operating rooms as well as endoscopy units. This is in line with the known airborne transmission of many other respiratory viruses. The risk of SARS-Cov-2 transmission during GI endoscopy was initially reduced by controlled measures, involving personal protections (mask…), restricted access to endoscopy rooms, and detection of infected patients. Gastrointestinal endoscopy generates aerosols, which may carry viruses. In addition, the endoscopy system may facilitate the diffusion of virus particles or fomites considering the forced-air cooling system used to maintain a stable temperature inside the box (25°C). The volume of air that goes through the light source box is high (240-300 m3 for a 1-h period). Moreover, the light system contains an air pump to inflate air inside the gut lumen. In order to isolate people from hazard, different levels of protection and solutions to avoid airborne transmission of microorganisms should be proposed, such as the reinforcement of personal protective equipment, the change in the way people work and engineering control of the risk.

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019: Indications, Findings, and Safety.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has changed the practice of gastroenterology and how we perform endoscopy. As with any new or emerging pathogen, early in the pandemic, there was limited evidence and understanding of disease transmission, limited testing capability, and resource constraints, especially availability of personal protective equipment (PPE). As the COVID-19 pandemic progressed, enhanced protocols with particular emphasis on assessing the risk status of patients and proper use of PPE have been incorporated into routine patient care. The COVID-19 pandemic has taught us important lessons for the future of gastroenterology and endoscopy.

Gastrointestinal Bleeding in COVID-19-Infected Patients.

COVID-19 infection is an ongoing catastrophic global pandemic with significant morbidity and mortality that affects most of the world population. Respiratory manifestations predominate and largely determine patient prognosis, but gastrointestinal (GI) manifestations also frequently contribute to patient morbidity and occasionally affect mortality. GI bleeding is usually noted after hospital admission and is often one aspect of this multisystem infectious disease. Although the theoretical risk of contracting COVID-19 from GI endoscopy performed on COVID-19-infected patients remains, the actual risk does not seem to be high. The introduction of PPE and widespread vaccination gradually increased the safety and frequency of performing GI endoscopy in COVID-19-infected patients. Three important aspects of GI bleeding in COVID-19-infected patients are (1) GI bleeding is often from mucosal erosions from mucosal infalammation that causes mild GI bleeding; (2) severe upper GI bleeding is often from PUD or stress gastritis from COVID-19 pneumonia; and (3) lower GI bleeding frequently arises from ischemic colitis associated with thromboses and hypercoagulopathy from COVID-19 infection. The literature concerning GI bleeding in COVID-19 patients is presently reviewed.

Critical Review Two-Years Thereafter of the Effectiveness of the Revolutionary Changes in a Gastroenterology Division at A Medical School Teaching Hospital in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Medical School, Residency, and Gastrointestinal Fellowship Education and Clinical Practice of Gastroenterology Attendings and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Profound and pervasive GI divisional changes maximized clinical resources devoted to COVID-19-infected patients and minimized risks of transmitting infection. Academic changes degraded by massive cost-cutting while offering institution to about 100 hospital systems and eventually "selling" institution to Spectrum Health, without faculty input.

Clinical advances: pregnancy in gastroenterologic and hepatic conditions.

The fields of gastroenterology and hepatology, along with endoscopic practice, have seen significant changes and innovations to practice in just the past few years. These practice changes are not limited to gastroenterology, but maternal fetal medicine and the care of the pregnant person have become increasingly more sophisticated as well. Gastroenterologists are frequently called on to provide consultative input and/or perform endoscopy during pregnancy. To be able to provide the best possible care to these patients, gastroenterologists need to be aware of (and familiar with) the various nuances and caveats related to the care of pregnant patients who either have underlying gastrointestinal (GI) conditions or present with GI and liver disorders. Here, we offer a clinical update with references more recent than 2018, along with a few words about SARS-CoV-2 infection and its relevance to pregnancy.

Pre-Endoscopy real-time PCR testing for SARS-CoV2 does not reduce health care workers infection and is associated with a higher reduction of endoscopic activity in an outpatient setting.

Objective: The role of pre-procedure SARS-CoV2 testing in digestive endoscopy is still debated. AGA guidelines recommend against pre-procedure testing considering low prevalence of SARS- CoV2 infection in the general population and low incidence of infection among endoscopy units Health Care Workers (HCWs). However, no studies have compared pre-procedure testing associated to symptom screening vs. symptom screening alone in reducing the risk of infection for HCWs. Main aim of the present study is to compare the risk of infection for HCWs in different Endoscopy Units adopting different pre-endoscopy screening and operating in two nearby hospital of the same region in Northern Italy in pre-vaccination period. For outpatients in the Endoscopy Unit of Trento (Unit 1) only pre-procedure symptom screening was performed, while in the Endoscopy Unit of Bolzano (Unit 2) pre-procedure symptom screening and negative pre-procedure real-time PCR were requested. Secondary aims were to assess the impact of pre-procedure real-time PCR testing on endoscopic activity and diagnostic delay. Design: Retrospective data collection on a prospectively maintained database was performed, including outpatient endoscopy procedures performed between June 1st 2020 and February 28th 2021 in Unit 1 and Unit 2. Results: No differences in terms of infection rate in HCWs have been identified in Unit 1 and Unit 2 (9.0 vs. 19.3% P=0.2) over a nine-month period. Moreover, in the unit performing pre- procedure real-time PCR before endoscopy a significantly higher reduction in endoscopic activity has been recorded (61.9% vs. 53.4%; P<0.01). In patients with positive real-time PCR, endoscopy was performed with a mean delay of 61.7 days (range 9-294) and 22.5% of them were lost at follow-up and did not undergo any endoscopic procedure in the following 12 months. Conclusions: This study supports the AGA recommendation suggesting that pre-endoscopy real-time PCR is an expensive and time-consuming procedure without proven benefits in an outpatient setting.

Challenges of developing and executing a multi-site registry for a novel device with evolving indications for use.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of new technologies in endoscopy has been met with uncertainty, skepticism, and lack of standardization or training parameters, particularly when disruptive devices or techniques are involved. The widespread availability of a novel endoscopic suturing device (OverStitch™) for tissue apposition has enabled the development of applications of endoscopic suturing. METHODS: The American Gastroenterological Association partnered with Apollo Endosurgery to develop a registry to capture in a pragmatic non-randomized study the safety, effectiveness, and durability of endoscopic suturing in approximating tissue in the setting of bariatric revision and fixation of endoprosthetic devices. RESULTS: We highlight the challenges of the adoption of novel techniques by examining the process of developing and executing this multicenter registry to assess real-world use of this endoscopic suturing device. We also present our preliminary data on the safety and effectiveness of the novel device as it is applied in the treatment of obesity. CONCLUSIONS: The Prospective Registry for Trans-Orifice Endoscopic Suturing Applications (ES Registry) was an effective Phase 4, postmarketing registry aimed at capturing pragmatic, real-world use of a novel device. These findings serve to solidify the role of endoscopic suturing in clinical practice.

Risk factors of active upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with COVID-19 infection and the effectiveness of PPI prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is one of the most impactful complications in patients hospitalized from COVID-19 infection. Limited study has focused on patients with upper GI bleeding (UGIB). This study aimed to identify the risk factors of patients who were hospitalized from COVID-19 infection and developed UGIB as well as the effectiveness of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prophylaxis in those patients. METHODS: This study was comprised of two phases. The first phase was the retrospective enrollment of patients who were admitted due to COVID-19 infection and developed UGIB between April and August 2021 to evaluate the associated factors of active UGIB. The second phase was a retrospective analysis after PPI prophylaxis protocol from September - October 2021 to assess the benefit of PPI use in those patients. RESULTS: Of 6,373 patients hospitalized, 43 patients (0.7%) had evidence of UGIB. The majority were male 28 (65.1%) with a mean age of 69.1 ± 11.8 years. Twenty-four of 43 patients (55.8%) needed mechanical ventilation, 35 patients (81.4%) received systemic corticosteroids, and 10 patients (23.3%) were taking anticoagulants for venous thromboembolic prophylaxis. Seven of 43 patients (16%) had active UGIB. There was no significant difference in the number of patients taking antiplatelets, anticoagulants, or steroids and the severity of COVID-19 infection between the two groups. An emergency endoscopy or endoscopic hemostasis were performed in 6/7 (85.7%) patients. The multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed two significant factors associated with active UGIB including higher of Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) per point (OR = 7.89; 95%CI 1.03-72.87; p = 0.04) and an absence of PPI use (OR 4.29; 95%CI 1.04-19.51; p = 0.04). After prescribing PPI as a prophylaxis, there was a slightly lower incidence of UGIB (0.6% vs 0.7%) in addition to an absence of active UGIB (0% vs 16%). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that the absence of PPI and higher GBS were significant risk factors for active UGIB which required therapeutic endoscopy in patients with COVID-19 infection. We suggest that short-term PPI prophylaxis should be prescribed in those patients once they need hospitalization regardless of the severity of COVID-19 infection to minimize the severity of UGIB.

Endoscopic evaluation during the COVID-19 pandemic: Observational study of the experience in community practices.

Endoscopic screening is used widely to minimize the rates of colorectal cancer cases and deaths. During highly virulent infectious disease pandemics such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, it is essential to weigh the risks and benefits of receiving endoscopy, especially in regions with moderately high viral infection rates. An observational study was conducted to assess the number of patients seen for endoscopic procedure at 2 of our surgery centers. Reasons for their procedure were collected in addition to information regarding any positive COVID-19 cases. This study considers the rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection along with the number of colorectal cancer cases encountered at a community endoscopy center to suggest that the benefits of undergoing endoscopic evaluation may outweigh the risks of attending an endoscopy procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the main reasons patients underwent endoscopic procedure was for colon cancer screenings (41.9%), and 5 of 1020 patients seen during the observation period were diagnosed with cancer. Of these 1020 patients, 8 were found to have positive tests for COVID-19 within 2 to 4 weeks after their procedure.

Effect of COVID-19 on gastrointestinal endoscopy practice: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Since the emergence of the novel corona virus (SARS-Cov-2) in the late 2019 and not only the endoscopy practice and training but also the health care systems around the globe suffers. This systematic review focused the impact of Corona Virus Disease (COVID-19) on the endoscopy practice. METHODS: A web search of different databases combining different search terms describing the endoscopy practice and the COVID-19 pandemic was done. Articles were screened for selection of relevant articles in two steps: title and abstract step and full-text screening step, by two independent reviewers and any debate was solved by a third reviewer. RESULTS: Final studies included in qualitative synthesis were 47. The data shown in the relevant articles were evident for marked reduction in the volume of endoscopy, marked affection of colorectal cancer screening, impairments in the workflow, deficiency in personal protective equipment (PPE) and increased likelihood of catching the infection among both the staff and the patients. CONCLUSION: The main outcomes from this review are rescheduling of endoscopy procedures to be suitable with the situation of COVID-19 pandemic in each Country. Also, the endorsement of the importance of PPE use for health care workers and screening of COVID-19 infection pre-procedure.Key messagesThe data focussing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and COVID-19 emerged from different areas around the globe. The data presented on the published studies were heterogeneous. However, there were remarkable reductions in the volume of GI endoscopy worldwideStaff reallocation added a burden to endoscopy practiceThere was a real risk for COVID-19 spread among both the staff and the patients.

Visualizing endoscopy-generated aerosols with laser light scattering (with videos).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Upper GI endoscopy is speculated to be an aerosol-generating procedure (AGP). Robust evidence exists for aerosol transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. The quality of data available confirming aerosol generation during GI endoscopy is limited. We aimed to objectively demonstrate that GI endoscopy is an AGP and illustrate the mechanism by which the greatest risk for aerosolization of droplets during endoscopy may occur. METHODS: Aerosolized droplets generated during insertion and withdrawal of an endoscope and with passage of various tools through the endoscopic working channel using 2 experimental apparatuses modeling an upper GI tract (ie, a fluid-filled tube and a lamb esophagus) were qualitatively assessed by laser light scattering. RESULTS: Insertion and withdrawal of the upper endoscope into the upper GI tract models generated numerous aerosolized particles. A large number of brightly scattering particles were observed at the site of insertion and withdrawal of the endoscope. Passage of a cytology brush, biopsy forceps, and hemostatic clip through the working endoscope channel also generated aerosolized particles but in fewer numbers. There was no significant variation in quantity or brightness of droplets generated on testing different biopsy valve cap models or when suctioning fluid with an open versus closed biopsy valve cap. These results were reproducible over several trials. CONCLUSIONS: We illustrate in an objective manner that upper GI endoscopy is an AGP. These findings may have implications for transmission of infectious airborne pathogens outside of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and can help to inform guidance on appropriate personal protective equipment use and other measures for transmission risk mitigation during GI endoscopy.

The Changes in Trends of Lower Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Conducted in Children and Adolescents after the COVID-19 Outbreak in Korea.

Background and Objectives: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected medical practice in diverse ways. We aimed to investigate the change in trends of lower gastrointestinal (LGI) endoscopy conducted in children and adolescents after the COVID-19 outbreak in Korea. Material and Methods: This was a multicenter, retrospective study conducted in Korea. We included children and adolescents aged <19 years who had undergone their first LGI endoscopy between 2016 and 2020. We compared clinicodemographic and endoscopic factors between groups divided according to the pre- and postCOVID-19 era in Korea. Results: We included 1307 patients in this study. Colonoscopies, instead of sigmoidoscopies, were conducted in most patients in the postCOVID-19 era compared to those in the preCOVID-19 era (86.9% vs. 78.5%, p = 0.007). The diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) was also significantly higher in the postCOVID-19 era compared to the preCOVID-19 era (47.2% vs. 28.5%, p < 0.001). According to multivariate logistic regression analysis, age at LGI endoscopy, LGI bleeding indication, and IBD diagnosis were independently associated with the use of a colonoscopy over a sigmoidoscopy (odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-1.27, p < 0.001; OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37-0.83, p = 0.005; OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.20-2.77, p = 0.006, respectively). Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed LGI endoscopy practice trends of pediatric gastroenterologists in Korea, who tended to perform lesser LGI endoscopies compared to previous years while conducting significantly more colonoscopies than sigmoidoscopies in the postCOVID-19 era. Furthermore, these colonoscopies were significantly associated with the diagnosis of IBD, as well as a significant increase in IBD diagnosis in the postCOVID-19 era.

Risk-based decision-making related to preprocedural coronavirus disease 2019 testing in the setting of GI endoscopy: management of risks, evidence, and behavioral health economics.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Controversies exist regarding the benefits and most appropriate approach for preprocedural coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing (eg, rapid antigen test, polymerase chain reaction, or real-time polymerase chain reaction) for outpatients undergoing diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, such as GI endoscopy, to prevent COVID-19 infections among staff. Guidelines for protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from outpatient procedures varies across medical professional organizations. This study provides an evidence-based decision support tool for key decision-makers (eg, clinicians) to respond to COVID-19 transmission risks and reduce the effect of personal biases. METHODS: A scoping review was used to identify relevant factors influencing COVID-19 transmission risk relevant for GI endoscopy. From 12 relevant publications, 8 factors were applicable: test sensitivity, prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the population, age-adjusted SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in the patient cohort, proportion of asymptomatic patients, risk of transmission from asymptomatic carriers, risk reduction by personal protective equipment (PPE), vaccination rates of HCWs, and risk reduction of SAE by vaccination. The probability of a serious adverse event (SAE), such as workplace-acquired infection resulting in HCW death, under various scenarios with preprocedural testing was determined to inform decision-makers of expected costs of reductions in SAEs. RESULTS: In a setting of high community transmission, without testing and PPE, 117.5 SAEs per million procedures were estimated to occur, and this was reduced to between .079 and 2.35 SAEs per million procedures with the use of PPE and preprocedural testing. When these variables are used and a range of scenarios are tested, the probability of an SAE was low even without testing but was reduced by preprocedural testing. CONCLUSIONS: Under all scenarios tested, preprocedural testing reduced the SAE risk for HCWs regardless of the SARS-CoV-2 variant. Benefits of preprocedural testing are marginal when community transmission is low (eg, below 10 infections a day per 100,000 population). The proposed decision support tool can assist in developing rational preprocedural testing policies.