Adherence to recommendations for endoscopy practice during COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America: how are we doing it?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Digestive endoscopy is considered a high-risk procedure for COVID-19. Recommendations have been made for its practice during the pandemic. This study was conducted to determine adherence to recommendations for endoscopy practice during the COVID-19 pandemic in Latin America (LA). METHODS: A survey was conducted of endoscopists from LA consisting of 43 questions for the evaluation of four items: general and sociodemographic features, and preprocedure, intraprocedure and postprocedure aspects. RESULTS: A response was obtained from 338 endoscopists (response rate 34.5%) across 15 countries in LA. In preprocedure aspects (hand washing, use of face masks for patients, respiratory triage area, training for the placement/removal of personal protective equipment (PPE) and availability of specific area for the placement/removal of PPE), there was adherence in <75%. Regarding postprocedure aspects, 77% (261/338) had reused PPE, mainly the N95 respirator or higher, and this was with a standardised decontamination procedure only in 32% (108/338) of the time. Postprocedure room decontamination was carried out by 47% on >75% of occasions. In relationship to intraprocedure aspects (knowledge of risk and type of endoscopic procedures, use of PPE, airway management in patients and infrastructure), there was adherence in >75% for all the parameters and 78% of endoscopists only performed emergencies or time-sensitive procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to the recommendations for endoscopy practice during the COVID-19 pandemic is adequate in the intraprocedure aspect. However, it is deficient in the preprocedure and postprocedure aspects.

Comparison in the Diagnostic Yield between "Pillcam SB3" Capsule Endoscopy and "OMOM Smart Capsule 2" in Small Bowel Bleeding: A Randomized Head-to-Head Study.

INTRODUCTION: Capsule endoscopy (CE) is the first-line tool for diagnosis of small bowel bleeding. There are some studies that have compared different types of CE. OMOM CE is one of the newest in the market and has not been compared with other types of CE. The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield of the Pillcam SB3 and OMOM CE in small bowel bleeding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective, comparative, randomized, and blinded study. Patients with suspected small bowel bleeding were included. All the patients were given both types of CE in random order. Diagnostic yield and functionality between the 2 types of CE were analyzed. RESULTS: We included 44 patients, 54.5% were female with a median age of 63.5 years. Battery time was significantly longer with SB3 (816.5 vs. 700.5 min, p < 0.001), and the download time was shorter with OMOM (33 vs. 132 min, p < 0.001). Both CEs presented 1 failure. The cause of the bleeding was identified in 39 SB3 (88.6%) and in 34 OMOM CE (77.3%) (p = 0.256). P2 lesions were observed in 32 SB3 (72.7%) and in 29 OMOM CE (65.9%) (p = 0.784). The agreement between both CEs for P2 lesions was moderate (κ = 0.628). CONCLUSIONS: Pillcam SB3 and OMOM devices are safe procedures and have a similar diagnostic yield. Significant differences were observed in the battery life and download time with both CEs.

Clinical feasibility of a new antireflux ablation therapy on gastroesophageal reflux disease (with video).

BACKGROUNDS AND AIMS: New mucosal resective and ablative endoscopic procedures based on gastric cardiac remodeling to prevent reflux have appeared. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a new ablative technique named antireflux ablation therapy (ARAT) for control of GERD in patients without hiatal hernia. METHODS: Patients with proton pump inhibitor (PPI)-refractory GERD without hiatal hernia underwent ARAT between January 2016 and October 2019. Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-Health-Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL), upper endoscopy, 24-hour pH monitoring, and PPI use were documented at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months after ARAT. RESULTS: One hundred eight patients were included (61 men [56.5%]; median age, 36.5 years; range, 18-78 years). ARAT was performed on all patients. At the 36-month evaluation, 84 patients had completed the protocol. Median ARAT time was 35.5 minutes (range, 22-51 minutes), and median circumference ablation was 300° (range, 270°-320°). No major adverse events occurred, and 14 of 108 patients (12.9%) presented with stenosis that was responsive to balloon dilation (<5 sessions). At the 3-month evaluation, the acid exposure time (AET), DeMeester score, and GERD-HRQL score had decreased from 18.8% to 2.8% (P = .001), 42.5 to 9.1 (P = .001), and 36.5 to 10 (P = .02), respectively, and these values were maintained up to 36 months. Success (AET <4%) was achieved in 89% and 72.2% at 3 and 36 months, respectively. Related factors at 36 months were as follows: pre-ARAT Hill type II (odds ratio [OR], 3.212; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.431-5.951; P = .033), post-ARAT 3-month Hill type I (OR, 4.101; 95% CI, 1.812-9.121; P = .042), and AET <4% at 3 months (OR, 5.512; 95% CI, 1.451-7.621; P = .021). CONCLUSIONS: ARAT is a feasible, safe, and effective therapy for early and mid-term treatment of GERD in patients without a sliding hiatal hernia. However, longer follow-up evaluations and randomized comparative studies are needed to clarify its real role. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03548298.).

Seguridad y eficacia de la enteroscopia con intercambio de agua en comparación con la enteroscopia con dióxido de carbono / No disponible

INTRODUCCIÓN: la insuflación de dióxido de carbono (CO2) durante la enteroscopia reduce el tiempo del procedimiento y los síntomas posteriores al mismo e incrementa la profundidad de inserción comparado con aire ambiente. En colonoscopia, la técnica de intercambio de agua (IA) se asocia a menor dolor en comparación con la insuflación de CO2. La técnica IA no está bien estudiada en enteroscopia. El objetivo de este estudio es comparar la seguridad y eficacia de la enteroscopia con IA y la enteroscopia con CO2. MÉTODOS: estudio prospectivo, comparativo y observacional, que incluyó enteroscopias de doble balón (EDB) que fueron aleatorizadas en dos grupos: el primero con IA y el segundo con insuflación de CO2. Los datos recopilados se evaluaron mediante análisis univariado y una regresión logística múltiple (variables con p ≤ 0.10 en análisis univariado). RESULTADOS: se incluyeron 46 EDB (23 por brazo; mediana de edad 63,5 años, 37% mujeres). No hubo diferencias estadísticas en la vía de acceso, los hallazgos, la terapéutica y las complicaciones entre grupos. Cuatro pacientes (20%) en el grupo de CO2 tuvieron eventos adversos (distensión abdominal y dolor) y uno en el grupo IA (náuseas) sin diferencia estadística. La mediana de profundidad de inserción fue mayor en el grupo de CO2 (260 cm vs. 160 cm; p = 0,048). La regresión logística múltiple mostró una diferencia estadística en la profundidad de inserción utilizando insuflación de CO2 (OR 1,009, 1,001-1,017; p = 0,034). CONCLUSIONES: las EDB con técnica de insuflación de CO2 y con IA son seguras con una mayor profundidad de inserción con CO2

No disponible

Efficacy and safety of water-exchange enteroscopy compared to carbon dioxide insufflation during enteroscopy.

INTRODUCTION: carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation during enteroscopy reduces procedure time and subsequent symptoms and increases the insertion depth compared with room air. In colonoscopy, the water-exchange (WE) technique is associated with less pain compared with CO2 insufflation. The WE technique is not well studied in enteroscopy. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of enteroscopy with WE and CO2. METHODS: a prospective, comparative and observational study was performed of double balloon enteroscopies (DBE) that were randomized in two groups. The first group used WE while the second group used CO2 insufflation. The data collected was evaluated via univariate analysis and multiple logistic regression (variables with p ≤ 0.10 according to the univariate analysis). RESULTS: forty-six DBE were included; 23 in each arm. The median age of cases was 63.5 years and 37% were female. There were no statistical differences between the groups with regard to the access route, findings, therapy and complications. Four patients (20%) in the CO2 group had adverse events (abdominal distension and pain) and one in the WE group (nausea), which was not statistically significant. The median insertion depth was greater in the CO2 group; 260 cm vs 160 cm (p = 0.048). Multiple logistic regression showed a statistically significant difference in the insertion depth using CO2 insufflation (OR 1.009, 1.001-1.017; p = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: DBE with a CO2 insufflation technique and WE are safe with a greater insertion depth with CO2.