A Prospective Multicenter Study Evaluating Endoscopy Competence Among Gastroenterology Trainees in the Era of the Next Accreditation System.

PURPOSE: The Next Accreditation System requires training programs to demonstrate competence among trainees. Within gastroenterology (GI), there are limited data describing learning curves and structured assessment of competence in esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy. In this study, the authors aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of a centralized feedback system to assess endoscopy learning curves among GI trainees in EGD and colonoscopy. METHOD: During academic year 2016-2017, the authors performed a prospective multicenter cohort study, inviting participants from multiple GI training programs. Trainee technical and cognitive skills were assessed using a validated competence assessment tool. An integrated, comprehensive data collection and reporting system was created to apply cumulative sum analysis to generate learning curves that were shared with program directors and trainees on a quarterly basis. RESULTS: Out of 183 fellowships invited, 129 trainees from 12 GI fellowships participated, with an overall trainee participation rate of 72.1% (93/129); the highest participation level was among first-year trainees (90.9%; 80/88), and the lowest was among third-year trainees (51.2%; 27/53). In all, 1,385 EGDs and 1,293 colonoscopies were assessed. On aggregate learning curve analysis, third-year trainees achieved competence in overall technical and cognitive skills, while first- and second-year trainees demonstrated the need for ongoing supervision and training in the majority of technical and cognitive skills. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the feasibility of using a centralized feedback system for the evaluation and documentation of trainee performance in EGD and colonoscopy. Furthermore, third-year trainees achieved competence in both endoscopic procedures, validating the effectiveness of current training programs.

Effect of individualized feedback on learning curves in EGD and colonoscopy: a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Gastroenterology fellowships need to ensure that trainees achieve competence in upper endoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy. Because the impact of structured feedback remains unknown in endoscopy training, this study compared the effect of structured feedback with standard feedback on trainee learning curves for EGD and colonoscopy. METHODS: In this multicenter, cluster, randomized controlled trial, trainees received either individualized quarterly learning curves or feedback standard to their fellowship. Assessment was performed in all trainees using the Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy tool on 5 consecutive procedures after every 25 EGDs and colonoscopies. Individual learning curves were created using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. The primary outcome was the mean CUSUM score in overall technical and overall cognitive skills. RESULTS: In all, 13 programs including 132 trainees participated. The intervention arm (6 programs, 51 trainees) contributed 558 EGD and 600 colonoscopy assessments. The control arm (7 programs, 81 trainees) provided 305 EGD and 468 colonoscopy assessments. For EGD, the intervention arm (-.7 [standard deviation {SD}, 1.3]) had a superior mean CUSUM score in overall cognitive skills compared with the control arm (1.6 [SD, .8], P = .03) but not in overall technical skills (intervention, -.26 [SD, 1.4]; control, 1.76 [SD, .7]; P = .06). For colonoscopy, no differences were found between the 2 arms in overall cognitive skills (intervention, -.7 [SD, 1.3]; control, .7 [SD, 1.3]; P = .95) or overall technical skills (intervention, .1 [SD, 1.5]; control, -.1 [SD, 1.5]; P = .77). CONCLUSIONS: Quarterly feedback in the form of individualized learning curves did not affect learning curves for EGD and colonoscopy in a clinically meaningful manner. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02891304.).

Increased Incidence of Pseudoaneurysm Bleeding With Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents Compared to Double-Pigtail Plastic Stents in Patients With Peripancreatic Fluid Collections.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There have been few studies that compared the effects of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) and double-pigtail plastic stents (DPS) in patients with peripancreatic fluid collections from pancreatitis. We aimed to compare technical and clinical success and adverse events in patients who received LAMS vs DPS for pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of endoscopic ultrasound-mediated drainage in 149 patients (65% male; mean age, 47 y) with pancreatic pseudocysts or walled-off necrosis (97 received LAMS and 152 received DPS), from January 2011 through September 2016 at a single center. We collected data on patient characteristics, outcomes, hospitalizations, and imaging findings. Technical success was defined as LAMS insertion or a minimum of 2 DPS. Clinical success was defined as resolution of pancreatic pseudocysts or walled-off necrosis based on imaging results. The primary outcome was resolution of peripancreatic fluid collection with reduced abdominal pain or obstructive signs or symptoms. Secondary outcomes included the identification and management of adverse events, number of additional procedures required to resolve fluid collection, and the recurrence of fluid collection. RESULTS: Patients who received LAMS had larger peripancreatic fluid collections than patients who received DPS prior to intervention (P = .001), and underwent an average 1.7 interventions vs 1.9 interventions for patients who received DPS (P = .93). Technical success was achieved for 90 patients with LAMS (92.8%) vs 137 patients with DPS (90.1%) (odds ratio [OR] for success with DPS, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.33-2.0; P = .67). Despite larger fluid collections in the LAMS group, there was no significant difference in proportions of patients with clinical success following placement of LAMS (82 of 84 patients, 97.6%) vs DPS (118 of 122 patients, 96.7%) (OR for clinical success with DPS, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.13-4.0; P = .71). Adverse events developed in 24 patients who received LAMS (24.7%) vs 27 patients who received DPS (17.8%) (OR for an adverse event in a patient receiving a DPS, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.33-2.0; P = .67). However, patients with LAMS had a higher risk of pseudoaneurysm bleeding than patients with DPS (OR, 10.0; 95% CI, 1.19-84.6; P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective study of patients undergoing drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts or walled-off necrosis, we found LAMS and DPS to have comparable rates of technical and clinical success and adverse events. Drainage of walled-off necrosis or pancreatic pseudocysts using DPS was associated with fewer bleeding events overall, including pseudoaneurysm bleeding, but bleeding risk with LAMS should be weighed against the trend of higher actionable perforation and infection rates with DPS.

A low-volume polyethylene glycol solution was associated with an increased suboptimal bowel preparation rate but had similar recommendations for an early repeat colonoscopy, procedure times, and adenoma detection rates.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparations are better tolerated by patients than high-volume preparations and may achieve similar preparation quality. However, there is little data comparing their effects on a recommendation for an early repeat colonoscopy (because of a suboptimal preparation), procedure times, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of outpatient colonoscopies performed during a one-year period at a single academic medical center in which low-volume MoviPrep® (n = 1841) or high-volume Colyte® (n = 1337) was used. All preparations were split-dosed. Appropriate covariates were included in regression models assessing suboptimal preparation quality (fair, poor, or inadequate), procedure times, recommendation for an early repeat colonoscopy, ADR, and AADR. RESULTS: MoviPrep® was associated with an increase in having a suboptimal bowel preparation (OR 1.36; 95% CI: 1.06-1.76), but it was not associated with differences in insertion (p = 0.43), withdrawal (p = 0.22), or total procedure times (p = 0.10). The adjusted percentage with a suboptimal preparation was 11.7% for patients using MoviPrep® and 8.8% for patients using Colyte®. MoviPrep® was not associated with a significant difference in overall ADR (OR 0.93; 95% CI: 0.78-1.11), AADR (OR 1.18; 95% CI: 0.87-1.62), or recommendation for early repeat colonoscopy (OR 1.16; 95% CI: 0.72-1.88). CONCLUSIONS: MoviPrep® was associated with a small absolute increase in having a suboptimal preparation, but did not affect recommendations for an early repeat colonoscopy, procedure times, or adenoma detection rates. Mechanisms to reduce financial barriers limiting low-volume preparations should be considered because of their favorable tolerability profile.

Current Endoscopic Approaches for the Treatment of Barrett Esophagus.

Barrett esophagus (BE) is the only identifiable premalignant condition for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), a cancer associated with a poor 5-year survival rate. The stepwise pathologic progression of BE to invasive cancer provides an opportunity to halt progression and potentially decrease incidence and ultimately the morbidity and mortality related to this lethal cancer. Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) in patients at increased risk of progression to invasive EAC (intramucosal EAC, high-grade dysplasia, and low-grade dysplasia) is a practice that is endorsed by multiple societies and has replaced esophagectomy as the standard of care for these patients. Although the effectiveness, safety, and durability of EET have been demonstrated in several studies, this review addresses the several challenges with EET that need to be considered to optimize patient outcomes. Finally, the critical role of training, competence, and quality indicators in EET are emphasized in this era of value-based health care practice.

Medicare Under Age 65 and Medicaid Patients Have Poorer Bowel Preparations: Implications for Recommendations for an Early Repeat Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Colonoscopy is performed on patients across a broad spectrum of demographic characteristics. These characteristics may aggregate by patient insurance provider and influence bowel preparation quality and the prevalence of adenomas. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association of insurance status and suboptimal bowel preparation, recommendation for an early repeat colonoscopy due to suboptimal bowel preparation, adenoma detection rate (ADR), and advanced ADR (AADR). METHODS: This is a cohort study of outpatient colonoscopies (n = 3113) at a single academic medical center. Patient insurance status was categorized into five groups: 1) Medicare < 65y; 2) Medicare ≥ 65y; 3) Tricare/VA; 4) Medicaid/Colorado Indigent Care Program (CICP); and 5) commercial insurance. We used multivariable logistic or linear regression modeling to estimate the risks for the association between patient insurance and suboptimal bowel preparation, recommendation for an early repeat colonoscopy due to suboptimal bowel preparation, ADR, and AADR. Models were adjusted for appropriate covariates. RESULTS: Medicare patients < 65y (OR 4.91; 95% CI: 3.25-7.43) and Medicaid/CICP patients (OR 4.23; 95% CI: 2.65-7.65) were more likely to have a suboptimal preparation compared to commercial insurance patients. Medicare patients < 65y (OR 5.58; 95% CI: 2.85-10.92) and Medicaid/CICP patients (OR 3.64; CI: 1.60-8.28) were more likely to receive a recommendation for an early repeat colonoscopy compared to commercial insurance patients. Medicare patients < 65y had a significantly higher adjusted ADR (OR 1.50; 95% CI: 1.03-2.18) and adjusted AADR (OR 1.99; 95% CI: 1.15-3.44) compared to commercial insurance patients. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the reasons for the higher rate of a suboptimal bowel preparation in Medicare < 65y and Medicaid/CICP patients and reducing this rate is critical to improving colonoscopy outcomes and reducing healthcare costs in these populations.

Medical marijuana for digestive disorders: high time to prescribe?

The use of recreational and medical marijuana is increasingly accepted by the general public in the United States. Along with growing interest in marijuana use has come an understanding of marijuana's effects on normal physiology and disease, primarily through elucidation of the human endocannabinoid system. Scientific inquiry into this system has indicated potential roles for marijuana in the modulation of gastrointestinal symptoms and disease. Some patients with gastrointestinal disorders already turn to marijuana for symptomatic relief, often without a clear understanding of the risks and benefits of marijuana for their condition. Unfortunately, that lack of understanding is shared by health-care providers. Marijuana's federal legal status as a Schedule I controlled substance has limited clinical investigation of its effects. There are also potential legal ramifications for physicians who provide recommendations for marijuana for their patients. Despite these constraints, as an increasing number of patients consider marijuana as a potential therapy for their digestive disorders, health-care providers will be asked to discuss the issues surrounding medical marijuana with their patients.

Enteral stents for malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is a commonly encountered entity, defined as the inability of the stomach to empty because of mechanical obstruction at the level of either the stomach or the proximal small bowel. In this article, current literature on GOO is reviewed with a focus on enteral stents to include symptoms and diagnosis, stent and nonstent treatment, types of enteral stents, indications and contraindications to stent placement, and technical and clinical success rates. In comparison with gastrojejunostomy, enteral stent placement is better suited for patients with a shorter life expectancy and/or those who are poor surgical candidates.

Esophageal stents for the treatment of malignant dysphagia in patients with esophageal cancer.

Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are the current standard for relief of malignant esophageal dysphagia. Self-expanding plastic stents (SEPS) are also used for relief of malignant esophageal dysphagia and as neoadjuvant therapy due to their relative ease of removability. The innovations in design of both SEMS and SEPS have made their use more prevalent in patients with malignant dysphagia. We review the current literature on esophageal stents, including general concepts, indications, contraindications, SEMS and SEPS models, complications and their management, implications of tumor location, cost-effectiveness of stents in comparison with other modalities, and quality of life after stent placement.