Impact of Telemedicine on No-Show Rates in an Ambulatory Gastroenterology Practice.

Background: Studies suggest that telemedicine worsens health care disparities in certain groups, partly owing to a lack of access to appropriate technology or poor technological literacy. Our aim was to use clinic no-show data to determine the impact of telemedicine on patient access to care in the ambulatory gastroenterology setting. Methods: Single-center retrospective study of ambulatory in-person and telemedicine clinic appointments comparing the 15-month prepandemic (PP) with the first 15 months during the pandemic (DTP) using an administrative database. Statistical analysis was performed using univariate and multivariable logistic regression. Results: About 9,746 and 12,808 patient-encounters were scheduled PP and DTP respectively. The no-show rate decreased from 9.8% to 6.9% DTP (p < 0.001). The no-show rate decreased for Black (p = 0.02) and non-Hispanic White patients (p = 0.018). The no-show rate increased for LatinX (p < 0.001) and Asian (p = 0.007) patients. In multivariate analysis, older patients and patients identifying as Black, Asian, or LatinX all had higher odds of no-show DTP (p < 0.05 for all). Patients from high-income counties were 43% less likely to no-show than those in the lowest income counties. Conclusions: The transition to telemedicine improves health care access by decreasing the overall no-show rate. Some groups have been negatively affected, including the older, lower income, LatinX, and Asian populations. Future studies should aim to identify the risk factors within these populations that can be modified to increase health care participation, including targeted application of in-person visits, and improved technology to drive engagement.

Current state of biliary cannulation techniques during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): International survey study.

Background and study aims Endoscopist techniques affect biliary cannulation success and the risk of adverse events during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This survey study aims to understand the current practice of biliary cannulation techniques among endoscopists. Methods Practicing endoscopists were sent an anonymous 28-question electronic survey on biliary cannulation techniques and intraprocedural pancreatitis prophylactic strategies. Results The survey was completed by 692 endoscopists (6.2% females). A wire-guided cannulation technique (WGT) was the preferred initial biliary cannulation approach (95%). The preferred secondary approaches were a double-wire (DWT) (65.8%), precut needle-knife technique (NKT) (25.7%), transpancreatic sphincterotomy (5.9%) or other (2.6%). Overall, 18.1% of respondents were not comfortable with NKTs. In the setting of pancreatic duct (PD) access, 81.9% and 97% reported a threshold of three or more wire passes or contrast injections into the PD, respectively, before changing strategy, 34% reported placement of a prophylactic PD stent <50% of the time and 12.1% reported removal of the PD stent at the end of the procedure. Advanced endoscopy fellowship (AEF) training and high volume (>200 ERCPs per year) were associated with comfort with precut NKTs and likelihood of prophylactic PD stent ( P <0.001 for both). Conclusions A WGT technique followed by the DWT and NKT were the preferred biliary cannulation techniques; however, almost one-fifth of respondents were not comfortable with the NKT. There was considerable variability in secondary cannulation approaches, time spent attempting biliary cannulation and prophylactic PD stent placement, factors known to be associated with cannulation success and adverse outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided gallbladder drainage for rescue treatment of malignant biliary obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ERCP is the first line of treatment for malignant biliary obstruction and EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is usually used for patients who have failed ERCP. EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) has been suggested as a rescue treatment for patients who fail EUS-BD and ERCP. In this meta-analysis, we have evaluated the efficacy and safety of EUS-GBD as a rescue treatment of malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP and EUS-BD. We reviewed several databases from inception to August 27, 2021, to identify studies that evaluated the efficacy and/or safety of EUS-GBD as a rescue treatment in the management of malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP and EUS-BD. Our outcomes of interest were clinical success, adverse events, technical success, stent dysfunction requiring intervention, and difference in mean pre- and postprocedure bilirubin. We calculated pooled rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for categorical variables and standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous variables. We analyzed data using a random-effects model. We included five studies with 104 patients. Pooled rates (95% CI) of clinical success and adverse events were 85% (76%, 91%) and 13% (7%, 21%). Pooled rate (95% CI) for stent dysfunction requiring intervention was 9% (4%, 21%). The postprocedure mean bilirubin was significantly lower compared to preprocedure bilirubin, SMD (95% CI): -1.12 (-1.62--0.61). EUS-GBD is a safe and effective option to achieve biliary drainage after unsuccessful ERCP and EUS-BD in patients with malignant biliary obstruction.

Over-the-Scope Clips Versus Standard Endoscopic Treatment for First Line Therapy of Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Over-The-Scope Clips (OTSC) use have shown promising results for first line treatment of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). We conducted this meta-analysis to compare outcomes in patients treated with OTSC versus standard endoscopic intervention for first line endoscopic treatment of NVUGIB. METHODS: We reviewed several databases from inception to December 9, 2022 to identify studies comparing OTSC and standard treatments as the first line treatment for NVUGIB. The outcomes assessed included re-bleeding, initial hemostasis, need for vascular embolization, mortality, need for repeat endoscopy, 30 day readmission rate, and need for surgery. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 statistic. RESULTS: We included 11 studies with 1608 patients (494 patients in OTSC group and 1114 patients in control group). OTSC use was associated with significantly lower risk of re-bleeding (RR, 0.58; 95% CI 0.41-0.82). We found no significant difference in rates of initial hemostasis (RR, 1.05; 95% CI 0.99- 1.11), vascular embolization rates (RR, 0.93; 95% CI 0.40- 2.13), need for repeat endoscopy (RR, 0.78; 95% CI 0.40-1.49), 30 day readmission rate (RR, 0.59; 95% CI 0.17-2.01), need for surgery (RR, 0.81; 95% CI 0.29-2.28) and morality (RR, 0.69; 95% CI 0.38-1.23). CONCLUSIONS: OTSC are associated with significantly lower risk of re-bleeding compared to standard endoscopic treatments when used as first line endoscopic therapy for NVUGIB.

Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided biliary drainage for benign biliary obstruction - A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and Objectives: ERCP is the first line of treatment for benign and malignant biliary obstruction and EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is usually used for patients who have failed ERCP. Recently, several studies have evaluated the role of EUS-BD in the management of benign biliary obstruction. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD in the management of benign biliary obstruction. Methods: We reviewed several databases from inception to July 8, 2022, to identify studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD in the management of benign biliary obstruction. Our outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, and adverse events. Pooled rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all outcomes were calculated using a random effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed including patients with normal anatomy versus surgically altered anatomy (SAA). Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 statistic. Results: We included 14 studies with 329 patients. The pooled rate (95% CI) of technical success was 88% (83%, 92%). The pooled rate (95% CI) of technical success for patients with SAA and normal anatomy was 92% (85%, 96%) and 83% (75%, 89%), respectively. The pooled rates (95% CI) of clinical success and adverse events were 89% (83%, 93%) and 19% (13%, 26%), respectively. We found low heterogeneity in most of the analyses. Conclusions: EUS-BD is an effective and safe option in patients with benign biliary obstruction and should be considered after a failed attempt at ERCP or when ERCP is not technically possible.

Telecytology versus in-room cytopathologist for EUS-guided FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling of solid pancreatic lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Rapid on-site-evaluation (ROSE) with an in-room cytopathologist (ROSE-P) has been shown to improve the diagnostic yield of specimens obtained from patients undergoing EUS-guided FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling (EUS-FNAB) of pancreatic lesions. Recently, there has been an increased interest and use of ROSE using telecytology (ROSE-T) to optimize clinical workflows and to address social distancing mandates created during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The purpose of this study was to compare diagnostic outcomes of ROSE-P and ROSE-T. METHODS: A single-center cohort study of patients who underwent EUS-FNAB of solid pancreatic lesions with ROSE was conducted. The primary outcome was overall diagnostic yield of cancer. All patients who underwent EUS-FNAB were entered into a prospectively maintained database. Statistical analyses were performed using descriptive statistics and univariate analysis. RESULTS: There were 165 patients in each arm. There was no difference in diagnostic yield between ROSE-P and ROSE-T (96.4% vs 94.5%, P = .428). ROSE-T was associated with an increased use of 22-gauge needles (P = .006) and more needle passes (P < .001). No significant differences were found in age, gender, lesion size, needle type, procedure times, or adverse events between the 2 groups (P < .05 for all). More pancreatic tail lesions were sampled in the ROSE-P group (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: ROSE-T was not associated with any difference in final histologic diagnosis for EUS-FNAB of solid pancreatic masses. This has important implications for optimizing clinical workflows.

Second exam of right colon improves adenoma detection rate: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background and study aims A second examination of the right colon, either as a second forward view (SFV) or as retroflexion (RF) in the cecum, can increase adenoma detection rate (ADR) in the right colon. In this meta-analysis, we have evaluated the role of a second examination of the right colon in improving ADR. Methods We reviewed several databases to identify randomized controlled trials that compared right colon SFV with no SFV, and RCTs that compared SFV with RF in the right colon, and reported data on ADR. Our outcomes of interest were ADR and polyp detection rate (PDR) with SFV vs no SFV, right colon and total withdrawal times, and additional ADR and PDR with SFV vs RF. For categorical variables, we calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs); for continuous variables, we calculated standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95 % CI. Data were analyzed using random effects model. Results We included six studies with 3901 patients. Comparing SFV with no SFV, right colon ADR and PDR were significantly higher in the SFV group: ADR (RR [95 % CI] 1.39 [1.22,1.58]) and PDR (RR [95 % CI] 1.47 [1.30, 1.65]). We found no significant difference in right colon withdrawal time (SMD [95 % CI] 1.54 [-0.20,3.28]) or total withdrawal time (SMD (95 % CI) 0.37 [-0.39,1.13]) with and without SFV. We found no significant difference in additional ADR between SFV and RF. Conclusions SFV of the right colon significantly increases right-sided and overall ADR.

Declining Colectomy Rates for Nonmalignant Colorectal Polyps in a Large, Ethnically Diverse, Community-Based Population.

INTRODUCTION: Despite studies showing improved safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic resection for nonmalignant colorectal polyps, colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps have been increasing in the United States and Europe. Given this alarming trend, we aimed to investigate whether colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps are increasing or declining in a large, integrated, community-based healthcare system with access to advanced endoscopic resection procedures. METHODS: We identified all individuals aged 50-85 years who underwent a colonoscopy between 2008 and 2018 and were diagnosed with a nonmalignant colorectal polyp(s) at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California integrated healthcare system. Among these individuals, we identified those who underwent a colectomy for nonmalignant colorectal polyps within 12 months after the colonoscopy. We calculated annual colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps and stratified rates by age, sex, and race and ethnicity. Changes in rates over time were tested by the Cochran-Armitage test for a linear trend. RESULTS: Among 229,730 patients who were diagnosed with nonmalignant colorectal polyps between 2008 and 2018, 1,611 patients underwent a colectomy. Colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps decreased significantly from 125 per 10,000 patients with nonmalignant polyps in 2008 to 12 per 10,000 patients with nonmalignant polyps in 2018 (P < 0.001 for trend). When stratified by age, sex, and race and ethnicity, colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps also significantly declined from 2008 to 2018. DISCUSSION: In a large, ethnically diverse, community-based population in the United States, we found that colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps declined significantly over the past decade likely because of the establishment of advanced endoscopy centers, improved care coordination, and an organized colorectal cancer screening program.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: one-year outcomes of gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy for refractory gastroparesis.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have examined the efficacy of gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) for gastroparesis. AIM: To evaluate the mid-term efficacy of G-POEM by meta-analysis of studies with a minimum 1 year of follow-up. METHODS: We reviewed several databases from inception to 10 June 2021 to identify studies that evaluated the efficacy of G-POEM in refractory gastroparesis, and had at least 1 year of follow-up. Our outcomes of interest were clinical success at 1 year, adverse events, difference in mean pre- and 1 year post-procedure Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI) score, and difference in mean pre- and post-procedure EndoFLIP measurements. We analysed data using a random-effects model and assessed heterogeneity by I2 statistic. RESULTS: We included 10 studies comprising 482 patients. Pooled rates (95% CI) of clinical success at 1 year and adverse events were 61% (49%, 71%) and 8% (6%, 11%), respectively. Mean GCSI at 1 year post-procedure was significantly lower than pre-procedure; mean difference (MD) (95% CI) -1.4 (-1.9, -0.9). Mean post-procedure distensibility index was significantly higher than pre-procedure in the clinical success group at 40 and 50 mL volume distension; standardised mean difference (95% CI) 0.82 (0.07, 1.64) and 0.91 (0.32, 1.49), respectively. In the clinical failure group, there was no significant difference between mean pre- and post-procedure EndoFLIP measurements. CONCLUSIONS: G-POEM is associated with modest clinical success at 1 year. Additional studies with longer follow-up are required to evaluate its longer-term efficacy.

Efficacy of empiric esophageal dilation in patients with non-obstructive dysphagia: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Empiric esophageal dilation is frequently performed for non-obstructive dysphagia. Studies evaluating its efficacy have reported conflicting results. In this meta-analysis, we have evaluated the efficacy of esophageal dilation in the management of non-obstructive dysphagia. METHODS: We reviewed several databases from inception to 26 May 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that evaluated the role of empiric esophageal dilation for non-obstructive dysphagia. Our outcomes of interest were clinical success (improvement in dysphagia after dilation) and difference in post-operative dysphagia score between groups. For categorical variables, we calculated pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI); for continuous variables, we calculated standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI. Data were analyzed using a random effects model. We used GRADE framework to ascertain the quality of evidence. RESULTS: We included 4 studies (3 RCTs and one observational) with 243 patients; there were 133 treated with empiric dilation and 110 controls. We found no significant difference in clinical success (OR (95% CI) 1.91 (0.89, 4.08)) or post-procedure dysphagia score between groups (SMD (95% CI) 0.38 (-0.37, 1.14)). Our findings remained consistent on subgroup analysis including RCTs only. Quality of evidence ranged from low to very low based on GRADE framework. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis does not support the use of empiric esophageal dilation in patients with non-obstructive dysphagia. More studies are required to confirm these findings.

Efficacy of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Superficial Gastric Neoplasia in a Large Cohort in North America.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a widely accepted treatment option for superficial gastric neoplasia in Asia, but there are few data on outcomes of gastric ESD from North America. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of gastric ESD in North America. METHODS: We analyzed data from 347 patients who underwent gastric ESD at 25 centers, from 2010 through 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, lesion characteristics, procedure details and related adverse events, treatment outcomes, local recurrence, and vital status at the last follow up. For the 277 patients with available follow-up data, the median interval between initial ESD and last clinical or endoscopic evaluation was 364 days. The primary endpoint was the rate of en bloc and R0 resection. Secondary outcomes included curative resection, rates of adverse events and recurrence, and gastric cancer-related death. RESULTS: Ninety patients (26%) had low-grade adenomas or dysplasia, 82 patients (24%) had high-grade dysplasia, 139 patients (40%) had early gastric cancer, and 36 patients (10%) had neuroendocrine tumors. Proportions of en bloc and R0 resection for all lesions were 92%/82%, for early gastric cancers were 94%/75%, for adenomas and low-grade dysplasia were 93%/ 92%, for high-grade dysplasia were 89%/ 87%, and for neuroendocrine tumors were 92%/75%. Intraprocedural perforation occurred in 6.6% of patients; 82% of these were treated successfully with endoscopic therapy. Delayed bleeding occurred in 2.6% of patients. No delayed perforation or procedure-related deaths were observed. There were local recurrences in 3.9% of cases; all occurred after non-curative ESD resection. Metachronous lesions were identified in 14 patients (6.9%). One of 277 patients with clinical follow up died of metachronous gastric cancer that occurred 2.5 years after the initial ESD. CONCLUSIONS: ESD is a highly effective treatment for superficial gastric neoplasia and should be considered as a viable option for patients in North America. The risk of local recurrence is low and occurs exclusively after non-curative resection. Careful endoscopic surveillance is necessary to identify and treat metachronous lesions.

Combined Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Extended Laparoscopic Appendectomy for the Treatment of Periappendiceal, Cecal, and Appendiceal Adenomas.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection is the gold standard in the treatment of neoplasia involving the appendiceal orifice (Ao). Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of adenomas involving the Ao can be challenging because of the risk of appendicitis, perforation, or incomplete resection. Surgical resection of Ao lesions is limited by the difficulty of ensuring a negative lateral margin without compromising the ileocecal valve and usually necessitates ileocecal resection. Although combined endoscopic and laparoscopic surgery has become more widely accepted for a variety of conditions, a structured approach to lesions involving the Ao has yet to be described. We describe a novel approach to the treatment of periappendiceal, cecal, and appendiceal adenomas-and present an algorithm to guide decision-making regarding the application of these techniques. METHODS: All patients referred to our therapeutic endoscopy practice with tumors involving the Ao between August 2013 and July 2017 were included. Based on tumor size and involvement of the os, patients were either referred for extended laparoscopic appendectomy (ELA), EMR, or a combined approach. RESULTS: In total, 47 patients were included; 25 patients underwent EMR only, 13 patients underwent ELA only, and nine patients underwent combined resection. Two patients undergoing EMR had postpolypectomy syndrome. One EMR-only patient with a positive lateral margin was referred for appendectomy, but declined. No patient required ileocecectomy. Pathologic examination revealed a high rate of sessile serrated adenoma (SSA; 36%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results introduce a decision algorithm and suggest that EMR combined with ELA is a safe and curative technique for the treatment of large cecal adenomas involving the Ao.

Morbidity and Mortality After Surgery for Nonmalignant Colorectal Polyps: A 10-Year Nationwide Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Rates of surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps are increasing in the United States despite evidence that most polyps can be managed endoscopically. We aimed to determine nationally representative estimates and to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality and morbidity after surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps. METHODS: Data were analyzed from the National Inpatient Sample for 2005-2014. All discharges for adult patients undergoing surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps were identified. Rates of in-hospital mortality and postoperative wound, infectious, urinary, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, or cardiovascular adverse events were calculated. Multivariable logistic regression using survey-weighted data was used to evaluate covariables associated with postoperative mortality and morbidity. RESULTS: An estimated 262,843 surgeries for nonmalignant colorectal polyps were analyzed. In-hospital mortality was 0.8% [95% confidence interval: 0.7%-0.9%] and morbidity was 25.3% [95% confidence interval: 24.2%-26.4%]. Postoperative mortality was associated with open surgical technique (vs laparoscopic), older age, black race (vs non-Hispanic white), Medicaid use, and burden of comorbidities. Female sex and private insurance were associated with lower risk. Patients developing a postoperative adverse event had a 106% increase in mean hospital length of stay (10.3 vs 5.0 days; P < 0.0001) and 91% increase in mean hospitalization cost ($77,015.24 vs $40,258.30; P < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps is associated with almost 1% mortality and common morbidity. These findings should inform risk vs benefit discussions for clinicians and patients, and although confounding by patient selection cannot be excluded, the risks associated with surgery support consideration of endoscopic resection as a potentially less invasive therapeutic option.

Acute Obstructive Suppurative Pancreatic Ductitis.

Acute obstructive suppurative pancreatic ductitis (AOSPD) is a rare clinical entity defined as suppuration from the pancreatic duct without concomitant pancreatic cyst, abscess, or necrosis. We describe a case of AOSPD in a woman with a past medical history of type 2 diabetes and chronic pancreatitis who presented with abdominal sepsis, which resolved only after therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Our case highlights the importance of considering AOSPD as a cause of abdominal sepsis particularly in patients with chronic pancreatitis or any recent pancreatic duct instrumentation and demonstrates that treatment requires prompt drainage and decompression of the pancreatic duct.