Search

Over 17.7 million gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures are performed annually, contributing to 68% of all endoscopic procedures in the United States. Usually, endoscopic procedures are low risk, but adverse events may occur, including cardiopulmonary complications, bleeding, perforation, pancreatitis, cholangitis, and infection. Infections after the GI endoscopies most commonly result from the patient's endogenous gut flora. Although many studies have reported infection after GI endoscopic procedures, a true estimate of the incidence rate of post-endoscopy infection is lacking. In addition, the infection profile and causative organisms have evolved over time. In recent times, multi-drug-resistant microorganisms have emerged as a cause of outbreaks of endoscope-associated infections (EAI). In addition, lapses in endoscope reprocessing have been reported, with some but not all outbreaks in recent times. This systematic review summarizes the demographical, clinical, and management data of EAI events reported in the literature. A total of 117 articles were included in the systematic review, with the majority reported from North America and Western Europe. The composite infection rate was calculated to be 0.2% following GI endoscopic procedures, 0.8% following ERCP, 0.123% following non-ERCP upper GI endoscopic procedures, and 0.073% following lower GI endoscopic procedures. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most common culprit organism, followed by other Enterobacteriaceae groups of organisms and Gram-positive cocci. We have also elaborated different prevention methods such as antimicrobial prophylaxis, adequate sterilization methods for reprocessing endoscopes, periodic surveillance, and current evidence supporting their utilization. Finally, we discuss disposable endoscopes, which could be an alternative to reprocessing to minimize the chances of EAIs with their effects on the environmental and financial situation., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Over the last few decades, advances have been made regarding gender equality starting from medical students to trainees, to leadership in academics. The female representation in specialty academic conferences not only reflects the existing gender disparities in that specialty but also can influence young female trainees to join that field. Digestive Disease Week (DDW) is the premier digestive disease event. We aimed to calculate the proportion of female representation among speakers and moderators at the DDW meetings held from 2018 to 2020., Methods: The data for DDW 2018-2020 were collected via the online web-based planner. The gender of speakers of presentations and moderators of sessions were identified by a google search. We further categorized the data by each participating society (AGA, ASGE, AASLD, and SSAT), by presentation track, by session track, and total overall representation in each year., Results: Despite the subject of the gender gap being in focus, the proportion of female moderators and speakers was low in DDW in the last 3 years. The female speakers constituted 31.6% in 2018, 33.8% in 2019 and 34.6% in 2020. There was slightly improved female representation in sessions of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Stomach, and Small Bowel Disorders, Microbiome in GI & Liver disease, and Basic Science over the last 3 years., Conclusion: Based on our study and those referenced in this article, we believe that strategies to promote the inclusivity of female moderators and speakers at DDW provide a huge opportunity to influence gender equity within GI., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Identifying high-risk groups for pancreatic cancer (PC) may lead to earlier detection. We determined the risk of subsequent PC among survivors of sporadic colorectal cancer (CRC)., Methods: We evaluated data from the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry to identify individuals with primary CRC between the years 1973-2006. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) were calculated to compare the risk of subsequent primary PC in the study cohort to that of the standard population. Analysis was stratified by age at diagnosis of CRC and sex. CRC characteristics were compared among CRC survivors with and without PC. Multivariate sub-hazard ratios were calculated to identify factors associated with subsequent primary PC, using death from non-PC causes as a competing event., Results: Of the 273,144 patients with first primary CRC, 657 (0.24 %) developed subsequent PC. CRC survivors were more likely to develop PC (SIR 1.22; 95 % CI 1.09-1.35). Mean latency period (time between CRC and PC diagnosis) was 1, 3, and 5 years from index age of CRC 20-49, 50-64, and >65 years, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed CRC survivors >50 years had 3.5-fold, those with right-sided CRC had 1.2-fold, and those with localized and regional CRCs had sixfold and fivefold increased risk of PC, respectively., Conclusion: This study suggests that CRC survivors have an increased risk of developing subsequent PC within 1-5 years. CRC survivors age >50 with localized/regional stage, and right-sided CRC have higher predisposition to PC.

Background: Preoperative diagnosis of malignancy in pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) remains challenging. Most non-mucinous cystic lesions (NMCLs) are benign, but mucinous cystic lesions (MCLs) are more likely to be premalignant or malignant., Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) of EUS-FNA-based cytology in differentiating MCLs from non-mucinous PCLs., Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Cochrane, and "CINAHL Plus" databases to identify studies, in which the results of EUS-FNA-based cytology of PCLs were compared with those of surgical biopsy or surgical excision histopathology. A DerSimonian-Laird random effect model was used to estimate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and LRs, and a summary receiver-operating characteristic (SROC) curve was constructed., Results: We included 376 patients from 11 distinct studies who underwent EUS-FNA-based cytology and also had histopathological diagnosis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing MCLs were 0.63 (95% CI, 0.56-0.70) and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.83-0.93), respectively. The positive and negative LRs in diagnosing MCLs were 4.46 (95% CI, 1.21-16.43) and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.25-0.86), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.89., Conclusions: EUS-FNA-based cytology has overall low sensitivity but good specificity in differentiating MCLs from NMCLs. Further research is required to improve the overall sensitivity of EUS-FNA-based cytology to diagnose MCLs while evaluating PCL.