EPAGE no es una estrategia eficaz para la gestión de colonoscopias durante la pandemia por COVID-19 / The EPAGE guidelines are not an effective strategy for managing colonoscopies during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introducción: La pandemia producida por el virus SARS-CoV-2 ha generado un grave impacto en el funcionamiento de las unidades de endoscopia digestiva. La Asociación Española de Gastroenterología y la Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva (AEG-SEED) han propuesto la utilización de la guía European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy II (EPAGE) para la gestión de las colonoscopias pospuestas.Objetivo: Evaluar la guía EPAGE como herramienta de gestión en comparación con el test de sangre oculta en heces inmunológico (TSOHi) y con una calculadora de riesgo (CR), que incluye la edad, el sexo y el TSOHi, para la detección de cáncer colorrectal (CCR) y lesión significativa colónica (LSC).Métodos: Estudio unicéntrico prospectivo. Se incluyeron 743 pacientes derivados para una colonoscopia diagnóstica. Se clasificó cada solicitud según EPAGE en apropiada, indeterminada e inapropiada. Se les entregó un TSOHi y se calculó el valor de la CR.ResultadosEl TSOHi (p<0,001), pero no EPAGE (p = 0,742), fue una variable independiente de riesgo de CCR. El área bajo la curva receiver operating characteristic (ROC) de EPAGE, TSOHi y CR fue: 0,61(IC 95% 0,49 a 0,75), 0,95 (0,93 a 0,97) y 0,90 (0,87 a 0,93) para CCR; y 0,55 (0,49 a 0,61), 0,75 (0,69 a 0,813) y 0,78 (0,73 a 0,83) para LSC, respectivamente. El número necesario de colonoscopias para detectar un CCR y una LSC fue de 38 y siete para EPAGE, de siete y dos para TSOHi, y de 19 y cuatro para CR ≥ cinco puntos, respectivamente.Conclusión: La EPAGE, a diferencia del TSOHi, no es adecuada para seleccionar a los pacientes candidatos a colonoscopia diagnóstica para la detección de CCR. El TSOHi, en combinación con la edad y el sexo, es la estrategia correcta para gestionar la demanda de endoscopia en un escenario de acceso restrictivo.

Introduction: The pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has had a serious impact on the functioning of gastrointestinal endoscopy Units. The Asociación Española de Gastroenterología (AEG) and the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva (SEED) have proposed the EPAGE guidelines for managing postponed colonoscopies.ObjectiveTo evaluate the EPAGE guidelines as a management tool compared to the immunologic faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) and compared to risk score (RS) that combines age, sex and the iFOBT for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and significant bowel disease (SBD).Methods: A prospective, single-centre study enrolling 743 symptomatic patients referred for a diagnostic colonoscopy. Each order was classified according to the EPAGE guidelines as appropriate, indeterminate or inappropriate. Patients underwent an iFOBT and had their RS calculated.Results: The iFOBT (p<0.001), but not the EPAGE guidelines (p = 0.742), was an independent predictive factor of risk of CRC. The ROC AUCs for the EPAGE guidelines, the iFOBT and the RS were 0.61 (95% CI 0.49-0.75), 0.95 (0.93-0.97) and 0.90 (0.87-0.93) for CRC, and 0.55 (0.49-0.61), 0.75 (0.69-0.813) and 0.78 (0.73-0.83) for SBD, respectively. The numbers of colonoscopies needed to detect a case of CRC and a case of SBD were 38 and seven for the EPAGE guidelines, seven and two for the iFOBT, and 19 and four for a RS ≥5 points, respectively.Conclusion: The EPAGE guidelines, unlike the iFOBT, is not suitable for screening candidate patients for a diagnostic colonoscopy to detect CRC. The iFOBT, in combination with age and sex, is the most suitable strategy for managing demand for endoscopy in a restricted-access situation

The EPAGE guidelines are not an effective strategy for managing colonoscopies during the COVID-19 pandemic. / EPAGE no es una estrategia eficaz para la gestión de colonoscopias durante la pandemia por COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has had a serious impact on the functioning of gastrointestinal endoscopy Units. The Asociación Española de Gastroenterología (AEG) and the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva (SEED) have proposed the EPAGE guidelines for managing postponed colonoscopies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the EPAGE guidelines as a management tool compared to the immunologic faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) and compared to risk score (RS) that combines age, sex and the iFOBT for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and significant bowel disease (SBD). METHODS: A prospective, single-centre study enrolling 743 symptomatic patients referred for a diagnostic colonoscopy. Each order was classified according to the EPAGE guidelines as appropriate, indeterminate or inappropriate. Patients underwent an iFOBT and had their RS calculated. RESULTS: The iFOBT (p<0.001), but not the EPAGE guidelines (p = 0.742), was an independent predictive factor of risk of CRC. The ROC AUCs for the EPAGE guidelines, the iFOBT and the RS were 0.61 (95% CI 0.49-0.75), 0.95 (0.93-0.97) and 0.90 (0.87-0.93) for CRC, and 0.55 (0.49-0.61), 0.75 (0.69-0.813) and 0.78 (0.73-0.83) for SBD, respectively. The numbers of colonoscopies needed to detect a case of CRC and a case of SBD were 38 and seven for the EPAGE guidelines, seven and two for the iFOBT, and 19 and four for a RS ≥5 points, respectively. CONCLUSION: The EPAGE guidelines, unlike the iFOBT, is not suitable for screening candidate patients for a diagnostic colonoscopy to detect CRC. The iFOBT, in combination with age and sex, is the most suitable strategy for managing demand for endoscopy in a restricted-access situation.

Endoscopic band ligation without resection in selected patients for small and superficial upper gastrointestinal tract lesions

Background and aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic band ligation (EBL) in carefully selected patients who would benefit from this method of resection. Methods: Patients with early upper gastrointestinal and small (< 15 mm) lesions treated with EBL (Duette® Multi-Band Mucosectomy) were prospectively recruited and retrospectively analyzed between 2010 and 2015. All cases were discussed in a multidisciplinary cancer committee and it was concluded that, owing to patient conditions, surgery was not possible and that not conducting histology would not change the clinical management. A first endoscopic control with biopsies was planned at 4-8 weeks. If there was no persistence of the lesion, new controls were programmed at 6 and 12 months. Results: The group (n = 12) included 5 esophagus lesions (adenosquamous carcinoma, n = 1; carcinoma squamous, n = 2; adenocarcinoma, n = 2); 4 gastric lesions (high grade dysplasia, n = 1; adenocarcinoma, n = 2; neuroendocrine tumor [NET], n = 1), and 3 duodenal lesions (NETs) (n = 3). The mean tumor diameter was 9.6 ± 2.8 mm (range 4-15). Only one minor adverse event was described. At first follow-up (4-8 weeks), there was 91.6% and 75% of endoscopic and histological remission, respectively. At 6-month follow-up there was 70% of both endoscopic remission and negative biopsies. And at 12 months, there was 100% and 75% of endoscopic and histological remission, respectively. Persisting lesions were T1 cancers. The median follow-up was 30.6 months. Conclusion: EBL without resection is an easy and safe technique that should be considered in patients with multiple morbidities and small superficial UGI lesions (AU)

No disponible

Endoscopic band ligation without resection in selected patients for small and superficial upper gastrointestinal tract lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic band ligation (EBL) in carefully selected patients who would benefit from this method of resection. METHODS: Patients with early upper gastrointestinal and small (< 15 mm) lesions treated with EBL (Duette® Multi-Band Mucosectomy) were prospectively recruited and retrospectively analyzed between 2010 and 2015. All cases were discussed in a multidisciplinary cancer committee and it was concluded that, owing to patient conditions, surgery was not possible and that not conducting histology would not change the clinical management. A first endoscopic control with biopsies was planned at 4-8 weeks. If there was no persistence of the lesion, new controls were programmed at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: The group (n = 12) included 5 esophagus lesions (adenosquamous carcinoma, n = 1; carcinoma squamous, n = 2; adenocarcinoma, n = 2); 4 gastric lesions (high grade dysplasia, n = 1; adenocarcinoma, n = 2; neuroendocrine tumor [NET], n = 1), and 3 duodenal lesions (NETs) (n = 3). The mean tumor diameter was 9.6 ± 2.8 mm (range 4-15). Only one minor adverse event was described. At first follow-up (4-8 weeks), there was 91.6% and 75% of endoscopic and histological remission, respectively. At 6-month follow-up there was 70% of both endoscopic remission and negative biopsies. And at 12 months, there was 100% and 75% of endoscopic and histological remission, respectively. Persisting lesions were T1 cancers. The median follow-up was 30.6 months. CONCLUSION: EBL without resection is an easy and safe technique that should be considered in patients with multiple morbidities and small superficial UGI lesions.