Search

Artificial Intelligence (ai) systems are precious support for decision-making, with many applications also in the medical domain. The interaction between mds and ai enjoys a renewed interest following the increased possibilities of deep learning devices. However, we still have limited evidence-based knowledge of the context, design, and psychological mechanisms that craft an optimal human–ai collaboration. In this multicentric study, 21 endoscopists reviewed 504 videos of lesions prospectively acquired from real colonoscopies. They were asked to provide an optical diagnosis with and without the assistance of an ai support system. Endoscopists were influenced by ai (OR=3.05), but not erratically: they followed the ai advice more when it was correct (OR=3.48) than incorrect (OR=1.85). Endoscopists achieved this outcome through a weighted integration of their and the ai opinions, considering the case-by-case estimations of the two reliabilities. This Bayesian-like rational behavior allowed the human–ai hybrid team to outperform both agents taken alone. We discuss the features of the human–ai interaction that determined this favorable outcome.

01 april 2023, Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Current surveillance for Barrett's esophagus (BE), consisting of four-quadrant random forceps biopsies (FBs), has an inherent risk of sampling error. Wide-area transepithelial sampling (WATS) may increase detection of high grade dysplasia (HGD) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). In this multicenter randomized trial, we aimed to evaluate WATS as a substitute for FB. METHODS: Patients with known BE and a recent history of dysplasia, without visible lesions, at 17 hospitals were randomized to receive either WATS followed by FB or vice versa. All WATS samples were examined, with computer assistance, by at least two experienced pathologists at the CDx Diagnostics laboratory. Similarly, all FBs were examined by two expert pathologists. The primary end point was concordance/discordance for detection of HGD/EAC between the two techniques. RESULTS: 172 patients were included, of whom 21 had HGD/EAC detected by both modalities, 18 had HGD/EAC detected by WATS but missed by FB, and 12 were detected by FB but missed by WATS. The detection rate of HGD/EAC did not differ between WATS and FB (P = 0.36). Using WATS as an adjunct to FB significantly increased the detection of HGD/EAC vs. FB alone (absolute increase 10 % [95 %CI 6 % to 16 %]). Mean procedural times in minutes for FB alone, WATS alone, and the combination were 6.6 (95 %CI 5.9 to 7.1), 4.9 (95 %CI 4.1 to 5.4), and 11.2 (95 %CI 10.5 to 14.0), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although the combination of WATS and FB increases dysplasia detection in a population of BE patients enriched for dysplasia, we did not find a statistically significant difference between WATS and FB for the detection of HGD/EAC as single modality.

01 april 2023, Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Current surveillance for Barrett's esophagus (BE), consisting of four-quadrant random forceps biopsies (FBs), has an inherent risk of sampling error. Wide-area transepithelial sampling (WATS) may increase detection of high grade dysplasia (HGD) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). In this multicenter randomized trial, we aimed to evaluate WATS as a substitute for FB. METHODS: Patients with known BE and a recent history of dysplasia, without visible lesions, at 17 hospitals were randomized to receive either WATS followed by FB or vice versa. All WATS samples were examined, with computer assistance, by at least two experienced pathologists at the CDx Diagnostics laboratory. Similarly, all FBs were examined by two expert pathologists. The primary end point was concordance/discordance for detection of HGD/EAC between the two techniques. RESULTS: 172 patients were included, of whom 21 had HGD/EAC detected by both modalities, 18 had HGD/EAC detected by WATS but missed by FB, and 12 were detected by FB but missed by WATS. The detection rate of HGD/EAC did not differ between WATS and FB (P = 0.36). Using WATS as an adjunct to FB significantly increased the detection of HGD/EAC vs. FB alone (absolute increase 10 % [95 %CI 6 % to 16 %]). Mean procedural times in minutes for FB alone, WATS alone, and the combination were 6.6 (95 %CI 5.9 to 7.1), 4.9 (95 %CI 4.1 to 5.4), and 11.2 (95 %CI 10.5 to 14.0), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although the combination of WATS and FB increases dysplasia detection in a population of BE patients enriched for dysplasia, we did not find a statistically significant difference between WATS and FB for the detection of HGD/EAC as single modality.

Contains fulltext : 294691.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), Gastrointestinal endoscopy is largely dependent on medical devices. The European Union (EU) has recently introduced stricter rules and regulations for the approval of medical devices. This has consequences both for endoscopists and for patients. The new regulations increase the need for clinical trials and observational studies for new and current devices used in endoscopy to ensure clinical benefit and reduce patient harm. European endoscopy environments should facilitate industry-sponsored clinical trials and registry studies to meet the demand for robust data on endoscopic devices as required in the new legislation. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) will play an active role in the establishment of the new system.The EU is establishing independent expert panels for device regulation in gastroenterology and hepatology, including endoscopy, that are charged with assessing the requirements for device testing. The ESGE encourages endoscopists with expertise in the technical and clinical performance of endoscopy devices to apply for expert panel membership. The ESGE has provided information for interested endoscopists on the ESGE website. Private European companies called "notified bodies" are entitled to conduct device approval for the EU. The ESGE will actively engage with these notified bodies for topics related to the new endoscopy device approval process to ensure continued access to high quality endoscopy devices for endoscopists in Europe.

Objective: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the first-line technique for the sampling of pancreatic lesions. Many factors can influence the diagnostic performance of this procedure, including the use of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE). The primary aim of this study was to compare the adequacy, diagnostic yield, accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions before and after the introduction of ROSE. Methods: This retrospective single-centre study evaluated all consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA for suspicious, solid pancreatic masses from April 2012 to March 2015. We compared the findings of EUS-FNA procedures performed during the first and second years following the adoption of ROSE (“ROSE1” and “ROSE2”, respectively) to those performed the year before ROSE introduction (the “pre-ROSE” group). Results: Ninety-one consecutive patients with a total of 93 pancreatic lesions were enrolled. For the pre-ROSE, ROSE1 and ROSE2 groups, the adequacy rates were 96.2%, 96.6% and 100%, the diagnostic yield values were 76.9%, 89.7% and 92.1% and accuracy values were 69.2%, 86.2% and 89.5% (p = NS). Sensitivity for malignancy improved from 63.7% in the pre-ROSE group to 91.7% and 91.2% in the post-ROSE groups (p < 0.05). Specificity for malignancy was 100% in all groups. Conclusions: ROSE can improve the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic lesions, although only sensitivity reached statistical significance.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND : The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has developed a core curriculum for high quality optical diagnosis training for practice across Europe. The development of easy-to-measure competence standards for optical diagnosis can optimize clinical decision-making in endoscopy. This manuscript represents an official Position Statement of the ESGE aiming to define simple, safe, and easy-to-measure competence standards for endoscopists and artificial intelligence systems performing optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps (1 - 5 mm). METHODS : A panel of European experts in optical diagnosis participated in a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on Simple Optical Diagnosis Accuracy (SODA) competence standards for implementation of the optical diagnosis strategy for diminutive colorectal polyps. In order to assess the clinical benefits and harms of implementing optical diagnosis with different competence standards, a systematic literature search was performed. This was complemented with the results from a recently performed simulation study that provides guidance for setting alternative competence standards for optical diagnosis. Proposed competence standards were based on literature search and simulation study results. Competence standards were accepted if at least 80 % agreement was reached after a maximum of three voting rounds. RECOMMENDATION 1: In order to implement the leave-in-situ strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1-5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 90 % sensitivity and 80 % specificity is achieved for high confidence endoscopic characterization of colorectal neoplasia of 1-5 mm in the rectosigmoid. Histopathology is used as the gold standard.Level of agreement 95 %. RECOMMENDATION 2: In order to implement the resect-and-discard strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1-5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 80 % sensitivit

01 augustus 2022, Item does not contain fulltext, Climate change and the destruction of ecosystems by human activities are among the greatest challenges of the 21st century and require urgent action. Health care activities significantly contribute to the emission of greenhouse gases and waste production, with gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy being one of the largest contributors. This Position Statement aims to raise awareness of the ecological footprint of GI endoscopy and provides guidance to reduce its environmental impact. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) outline suggestions and recommendations for health care providers, patients, governments, and industry. MAIN STATEMENTS 1: GI endoscopy is a resource-intensive activity with a significant yet poorly assessed environmental impact. 2: ESGE-ESGENA recommend adopting immediate actions to reduce the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 3: ESGE-ESGENA recommend adherence to guidelines and implementation of audit strategies on the appropriateness of GI endoscopy to avoid the environmental impact of unnecessary procedures. 4: ESGE-ESGENA recommend the embedding of reduce, reuse, and recycle programs in the GI endoscopy unit. 5: ESGE-ESGENA suggest that there is an urgent need to reassess and reduce the environmental and economic impact of single-use GI endoscopic devices. 6: ESGE-ESGENA suggest against routine use of single-use GI endoscopes. However, their use could be considered in highly selected patients on a case-by-case basis. 7: ESGE-ESGENA recommend inclusion of sustainability in the training curricula of GI endoscopy and as a quality domain. 8: ESGE-ESGENA recommend conducting high quality research to quantify and minimize the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 9: ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy companies assess, disclose, and audit the environmental impact of their value chain. 10: ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy should becom

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND : The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has developed a core curriculum for high quality optical diagnosis training for practice across Europe. The development of easy-to-measure competence standards for optical diagnosis can optimize clinical decision-making in endoscopy. This manuscript represents an official Position Statement of the ESGE aiming to define simple, safe, and easy-to-measure competence standards for endoscopists and artificial intelligence systems performing optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps (1 - 5 mm). METHODS : A panel of European experts in optical diagnosis participated in a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on Simple Optical Diagnosis Accuracy (SODA) competence standards for implementation of the optical diagnosis strategy for diminutive colorectal polyps. In order to assess the clinical benefits and harms of implementing optical diagnosis with different competence standards, a systematic literature search was performed. This was complemented with the results from a recently performed simulation study that provides guidance for setting alternative competence standards for optical diagnosis. Proposed competence standards were based on literature search and simulation study results. Competence standards were accepted if at least 80 % agreement was reached after a maximum of three voting rounds. RECOMMENDATION 1: In order to implement the leave-in-situ strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1-5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 90 % sensitivity and 80 % specificity is achieved for high confidence endoscopic characterization of colorectal neoplasia of 1-5 mm in the rectosigmoid. Histopathology is used as the gold standard.Level of agreement 95 %. RECOMMENDATION 2: In order to implement the resect-and-discard strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1-5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 80 % sensitivit

01 augustus 2022, Item does not contain fulltext, Climate change and the destruction of ecosystems by human activities are among the greatest challenges of the 21st century and require urgent action. Health care activities significantly contribute to the emission of greenhouse gases and waste production, with gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy being one of the largest contributors. This Position Statement aims to raise awareness of the ecological footprint of GI endoscopy and provides guidance to reduce its environmental impact. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) outline suggestions and recommendations for health care providers, patients, governments, and industry. MAIN STATEMENTS 1: GI endoscopy is a resource-intensive activity with a significant yet poorly assessed environmental impact. 2: ESGE-ESGENA recommend adopting immediate actions to reduce the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 3: ESGE-ESGENA recommend adherence to guidelines and implementation of audit strategies on the appropriateness of GI endoscopy to avoid the environmental impact of unnecessary procedures. 4: ESGE-ESGENA recommend the embedding of reduce, reuse, and recycle programs in the GI endoscopy unit. 5: ESGE-ESGENA suggest that there is an urgent need to reassess and reduce the environmental and economic impact of single-use GI endoscopic devices. 6: ESGE-ESGENA suggest against routine use of single-use GI endoscopes. However, their use could be considered in highly selected patients on a case-by-case basis. 7: ESGE-ESGENA recommend inclusion of sustainability in the training curricula of GI endoscopy and as a quality domain. 8: ESGE-ESGENA recommend conducting high quality research to quantify and minimize the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 9: ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy companies assess, disclose, and audit the environmental impact of their value chain. 10: ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy should becom

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext

Widespread adoption of optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia is prevented by suboptimal endoscopist performance and lack of standardized training and competence evaluation. We aimed to assess diagnostic accuracy of endoscopists in optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia in the framework of artificial intelligence (AI) validation studies. Literature searches of databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus) up to April 2022 were performed to identify articles evaluating accuracy of individual endoscopists in performing optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia within studies validating AI against a histologically verified ground-truth. The main outcomes were endoscopists' pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV/NPV), positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR) and area under the curve (AUC for sROC) for predicting adenomas versus non-adenomas. Six studies with 67 endoscopists and 2085 (IQR: 115–243,5) patients were evaluated. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for adenomatous histology was respectively 84.5% (95% CI 80.3%–88%) and 83% (95% CI 79.6%–85.9%), corresponding to a PPV, NPV, LR+, LR− of 89.5% (95% CI 87.1%–91.5%), 75.7% (95% CI 70.1%–80.7%), 5 (95% CI 3.9%–6.2%) and 0.19 (95% CI 0.14%–0.25%). The AUC was 0.82 (CI 0.76–0.90). Expert endoscopists showed a higher sensitivity than non-experts (90.5%, [95% CI 87.6%–92.7%] vs. 75.5%, [95% CI 66.5%–82.7%], p < 0.001), and Eastern endoscopists showed a higher sensitivity than Western (85%, [95% CI 80.5%–88.6%] vs. 75.8%, [95% CI 70.2%–80.6%]). Quality was graded high for 3 studies and low for 3 studies. We show that human accuracy for diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia in the setting of AI studies is suboptimal. Educational interventions could benefit by AI validation settings which seem a feasible framework for competence assessment.

Background To date, no scale has been validated to assess bubbles associated with bowel preparation. This study aimed to develop and assess the reliability of a novel scale - the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS). Methods This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study with two online evaluation phases of 45 randomly distributed still colonoscopy images (15 per scale grade). Observers assessed images twice, 2 weeks apart, using CEBuS (CEBuS-0 - no or minimal bubbles, covering<5% of the surface; CEBuS-1 - bubbles covering 5%-50%; CEBuS-2 - bubbles covering >50%) and reporting the clinical action (do nothing; wash with water; wash with simethicone). Results CEBuS provided high levels of agreement both in evaluation Phase 1 (4 experts) and Phase 2 (6 experts and 13 non-experts), with almost perfect intraobserver reliability: kappa 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.75-0.88) and 0.86 (0.85-0.88); interobserver agreement - intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.83 (0.73-0.89) and 0.90 (0.86-0.94). Previous endoscopic experience had no influence on agreement among experts vs. non-experts: kappa 0.86 (0.80-0.91) vs. 0.87 (0.84-0.89) and ICC 0.91 (0.87-0.94) vs. 0.90 (0.86-0.94), respectively. Interobserver agreement on clinical action was ICC 0.63 (0.43-0.78) in Phase 1 and 0.77 (0.68-0.84) in Phase 2.Absolute agreement on clinical action per scale grade was 85% (82-88) for CEBuS-0, 21% (16-26) for CEBuS-1, and 74% (70-78) for CEBuS-2. Conclusion CEBuS proved to be a reliable instrument to standardize the evaluation of colonic bubbles during colonoscopy. Assessment in daily practice is warranted.

Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common neoplasm in Western countries. Prioritizing access to colonoscopy appears of critical relevance. Alarm features are considered to increase the likelihood of CRC. Our aim was to assess the diagnostic performance of alarm features for CRC diagnosis. Methods We performed a systematic review and metaanalysis of studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of alarm features (rectal bleeding, anemia, change in bowel habit, and weight loss) for CRC, published up to September 2021. Colonoscopy was required as the reference diagnostic test. Diagnostic accuracy measures were pooled by a bivariate mixed-effects regression model. The number needed to scope (NNS; i. e. the number of patients who need to undergo colonoscopy to diagnose one CRC) according to each alarm feature was calculated. Results 31 studies with 45 100 patients (mean age 31 88 years; men 36% 63 %) were included. The prevalence of CRC ranged from 0.2% to 22%. Sensitivity was suboptimal, ranging from 12.4% for weight loss to 49% for rectal bleeding, whereas specificity ranged from 69.8% for rectal bleeding to 91.9% for weight loss. Taken individually, rectal bleeding and anemia would be the only practical alarm features mandating colonoscopy (NNS 5.3 and 6.7, respectively). Conclusions When considered independently, alarm features have variable accuracy for CRC, given the high heterogeneity of study populations reflected by wide variability in CRC prevalence. Rectal bleeding and anemia are the most practical to select patients for colonoscopy. Integration of alarm features in a comprehensive evaluation of patients should be considered.

BACKGROUND: Reading capsule endoscopy (CE) is time-consuming. The Express View (EV) (IntroMedic, Seoul, Korea) software was designed to shorten CE video reading. Our primary aim was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EV in detecting significant small-bowel (SB) lesions. We also compared the reading times with EV mode and standard reading (SR). METHODS: 126 patients with suspected SB bleeding and/or suspected neoplasia were prospectively enrolled and underwent SB CE (MiroCam®1200, IntroMedic, Seoul, Korea). CE evaluation was performed in standard and EV mode. In case of discrepancies between SR and EV readings, a consensus was reached after reviewing the video segments and the findings were re-classified. RESULTS: The completion rate of SB CE in our cohort was 86.5% and no retention occurred. The per-patient analysis of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy of EV compared to SR were 86%, 86%, 90%, 81%, and 86%, respectively, before consensus. After consensus, they increased to 97%, 100%, 100%, 96%, and 98%, respectively. The median reading time with SR and EV was 71 min (range 26–340) and 13 min (range 3–85), respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The new-generation EV shows high diagnostic accuracy and significantly reduces CE reading times.

Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a common neoplasm in Western countries. Prioritizing access to colonoscopy appears of critical relevance. Alarm features are considered to increase the likelihood of CRC. Our aim was to assess the diagnostic performance of alarm features for CRC diagnosis. Methods We performed a systematic review and metaanalysis of studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of alarm features (rectal bleeding, anemia, change in bowel habit, and weight loss) for CRC, published up to September 2021. Colonoscopy was required as the reference diagnostic test. Diagnostic accuracy measures were pooled by a bivariate mixed-effects regression model. The number needed to scope (NNS; i. e. the number of patients who need to undergo colonoscopy to diagnose one CRC) according to each alarm feature was calculated. Results 31 studies with 45 100 patients (mean age 31 88 years; men 36% 63 %) were included. The prevalence of CRC ranged from 0.2% to 22%. Sensitivity was suboptimal, ranging from 12.4% for weight loss to 49% for rectal bleeding, whereas specificity ranged from 69.8% for rectal bleeding to 91.9% for weight loss. Taken individually, rectal bleeding and anemia would be the only practical alarm features mandating colonoscopy (NNS 5.3 and 6.7, respectively). Conclusions When considered independently, alarm features have variable accuracy for CRC, given the high heterogeneity of study populations reflected by wide variability in CRC prevalence. Rectal bleeding and anemia are the most practical to select patients for colonoscopy. Integration of alarm features in a comprehensive evaluation of patients should be considered.

Background and aims Artificial intelligence has been shown to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR) as the main surrogate outcome parameter of colonoscopy quality. To which extent this effect may be related to physician experience is not known. We performed a randomised trial with colonoscopists in their qualification period (AID-2) and compared these data with a previously published randomised trial in expert endoscopists (AID-1). Methods In this prospective, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (AID-2), 10 non-expert endoscopists (<2000 colonoscopies) performed screening/surveillance/diagnostic colonoscopies in consecutive 40-80 year-old subjects using high-definition colonoscopy with or without a real-time deep-learning computer-aided detection (CADe) (GI Genius, Medtronic). The primary outcome was ADR in both groups with histology of resected lesions as reference. In a post-hoc analysis, data from this randomised controlled trial (RCT) were compared with data from the previous AID-1 RCT involving six experienced endoscopists in an otherwise similar setting. Results In 660 patients (62.3±10 years; men/women: 330/330) with equal distribution of study parameters, overall ADR was higher in the CADe than in the control group (53.3% vs 44.5%; relative risk (RR): 1.22; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.40; p<0.01 for non-inferiority and p=0.02 for superiority). Similar increases were seen in adenoma numbers per colonoscopy and in small and distal lesions. No differences were observed with regards to detection of non-neoplastic lesions. When pooling these data with those from the AID-1 study, use of CADe (RR 1.29; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.42) and colonoscopy indication, but not the level of examiner experience (RR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.16) were associated with ADR differences in a multivariate analysis. Conclusions In less experienced examiners, CADe assistance during colonoscopy increased ADR and a number of related polyp parameters as compared with the control group. Experien

The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group aims to raise awareness for improvement in colonoscopy standards across Europe. We analyzed data collected on a sample of procedures conducted across Europe to evaluate the achievement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) mean withdrawal time (WT) target. We also investigated factors associated with WT, in the hope of establishing areas that could lead to a quality improvement. Methods: 6445 form completions from 12 countries between 2 June 2016 and 30 April 2018 were considered for this analysis. We performed an exploratory analysis looking at WT according to the ESGE definition. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the most influential associated factors after adjusting for the other pre-specified variables. Results: In 1150 qualifying colonoscopies, the mean WT was 7.8 min. Stepwise analysis, including 587 procedures where all inputs were known, found that the variables most associated with mean WT were a previous total colonoscopy in the last five years (p = 0.0011) and the time of day the colonoscopy was performed (p = 0.0192). The main factor associated with a WT < 6 min was the time of day that a colonoscopy was performed. Use of sedation was the main factor associated with a higher propor-tion of WT > 10 min, along with a previous colonoscopy. Conclusions: On average, the sample of European practice captured by the ECQI survey met the minimum standard set by the ESGE. How-ever, there was variation and potential for improvement.

Background: The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group aims to raise awareness for improvement in colonoscopy standards across Europe. We analysed data collected on a sample of procedures conducted across Europe to evaluate the achievement of the polyp detection rate (PDR) target. We also investigated factors associated with PDR, in the hope of establishing areas that could lead to a quality improvement. Methods: 6445 form completions from 12 countries between 2 June 2016 and 30 April 2018 were considered for this analysis. We performed an exploratory analysislooking at PDR according to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) definition. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the most influential associated factors after adjusting for the other pre-specified variables. Results: In our sample therewere 3365 screening and diagnostic procedures performed in those over 50 years. The PDR was 40.5%, which is comparable with the ESGE minimum standard of 40%. The variables found to be associated with PDR were in descending order: Use of high-definition equipment, body mass index (BMI), patient gender, age group, and the reason for the procedure. Use of HD equipment was associated with a significant increase in the reporting of flat lesions (14.3% vs. 5.7%, p < 0.0001) and protruded lesions (34.7% vs. 25.4%, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: On average, the sample of European practice captured by the ECQI survey meets the minimum PDR standard set by the ESGE. Our findings support the ESGE recommendation for routine use of HD colonoscopy.

The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group aims to raise awareness for improvement in colonoscopy standards across Europe. We analyzed data collected on a sample of procedures conducted across Europe to evaluate the achievement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) mean withdrawal time (WT) target. We also investigated factors associated with WT, in the hope of establishing areas that could lead to a quality improvement. Methods: 6445 form completions from 12 countries between 2 June 2016 and 30 April 2018 were considered for this analysis. We performed an exploratory analysis looking at WT according to the ESGE definition. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the most influential associated factors after adjusting for the other pre-specified variables. Results: In 1150 qualifying colonoscopies, the mean WT was 7.8 min. Stepwise analysis, including 587 procedures where all inputs were known, found that the variables most associated with mean WT were a previous total colonoscopy in the last five years (p = 0.0011) and the time of day the colonoscopy was performed (p = 0.0192). The main factor associated with a WT < 6 min was the time of day that a colonoscopy was performed. Use of sedation was the main factor associated with a higher propor-tion of WT > 10 min, along with a previous colonoscopy. Conclusions: On average, the sample of European practice captured by the ECQI survey met the minimum standard set by the ESGE. How-ever, there was variation and potential for improvement.

Background and aims Artificial intelligence has been shown to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR) as the main surrogate outcome parameter of colonoscopy quality. To which extent this effect may be related to physician experience is not known. We performed a randomised trial with colonoscopists in their qualification period (AID-2) and compared these data with a previously published randomised trial in expert endoscopists (AID-1). Methods In this prospective, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial (AID-2), 10 non-expert endoscopists (<2000 colonoscopies) performed screening/surveillance/diagnostic colonoscopies in consecutive 40-80 year-old subjects using high-definition colonoscopy with or without a real-time deep-learning computer-aided detection (CADe) (GI Genius, Medtronic). The primary outcome was ADR in both groups with histology of resected lesions as reference. In a post-hoc analysis, data from this randomised controlled trial (RCT) were compared with data from the previous AID-1 RCT involving six experienced endoscopists in an otherwise similar setting. Results In 660 patients (62.3±10 years; men/women: 330/330) with equal distribution of study parameters, overall ADR was higher in the CADe than in the control group (53.3% vs 44.5%; relative risk (RR): 1.22; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.40; p<0.01 for non-inferiority and p=0.02 for superiority). Similar increases were seen in adenoma numbers per colonoscopy and in small and distal lesions. No differences were observed with regards to detection of non-neoplastic lesions. When pooling these data with those from the AID-1 study, use of CADe (RR 1.29; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.42) and colonoscopy indication, but not the level of examiner experience (RR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.16) were associated with ADR differences in a multivariate analysis. Conclusions In less experienced examiners, CADe assistance during colonoscopy increased ADR and a number of related polyp parameters as compared with the control group. Experien

Background To date, no scale has been validated to assess bubbles associated with bowel preparation. This study aimed to develop and assess the reliability of a novel scale - the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS). Methods This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study with two online evaluation phases of 45 randomly distributed still colonoscopy images (15 per scale grade). Observers assessed images twice, 2 weeks apart, using CEBuS (CEBuS-0 - no or minimal bubbles, covering<5% of the surface; CEBuS-1 - bubbles covering 5%-50%; CEBuS-2 - bubbles covering >50%) and reporting the clinical action (do nothing; wash with water; wash with simethicone). Results CEBuS provided high levels of agreement both in evaluation Phase 1 (4 experts) and Phase 2 (6 experts and 13 non-experts), with almost perfect intraobserver reliability: kappa 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.75-0.88) and 0.86 (0.85-0.88); interobserver agreement - intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.83 (0.73-0.89) and 0.90 (0.86-0.94). Previous endoscopic experience had no influence on agreement among experts vs. non-experts: kappa 0.86 (0.80-0.91) vs. 0.87 (0.84-0.89) and ICC 0.91 (0.87-0.94) vs. 0.90 (0.86-0.94), respectively. Interobserver agreement on clinical action was ICC 0.63 (0.43-0.78) in Phase 1 and 0.77 (0.68-0.84) in Phase 2.Absolute agreement on clinical action per scale grade was 85% (82-88) for CEBuS-0, 21% (16-26) for CEBuS-1, and 74% (70-78) for CEBuS-2. Conclusion CEBuS proved to be a reliable instrument to standardize the evaluation of colonic bubbles during colonoscopy. Assessment in daily practice is warranted.

BACKGROUND: Reading capsule endoscopy (CE) is time-consuming. The Express View (EV) (IntroMedic, Seoul, Korea) software was designed to shorten CE video reading. Our primary aim was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EV in detecting significant small-bowel (SB) lesions. We also compared the reading times with EV mode and standard reading (SR). METHODS: 126 patients with suspected SB bleeding and/or suspected neoplasia were prospectively enrolled and underwent SB CE (MiroCam®1200, IntroMedic, Seoul, Korea). CE evaluation was performed in standard and EV mode. In case of discrepancies between SR and EV readings, a consensus was reached after reviewing the video segments and the findings were re-classified. RESULTS: The completion rate of SB CE in our cohort was 86.5% and no retention occurred. The per-patient analysis of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy of EV compared to SR were 86%, 86%, 90%, 81%, and 86%, respectively, before consensus. After consensus, they increased to 97%, 100%, 100%, 96%, and 98%, respectively. The median reading time with SR and EV was 71 min (range 26–340) and 13 min (range 3–85), respectively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The new-generation EV shows high diagnostic accuracy and significantly reduces CE reading times.

Contains fulltext : 235679.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: One of the aims of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is to encourage high quality endoscopic research at a European level. In 2016, the ESGE research committee published a set of research priorities. As endoscopic research is flourishing, we aimed to review the literature and determine whether endoscopic research over the last 4 years had managed to address any of our previously published priorities. METHODS: As the previously published priorities were grouped under seven different domains, a working party with at least two European experts was created for each domain to review all the priorities under that domain. A structured review form was developed to standardize the review process. The group conducted an extensive literature search relevant to each of the priorities and then graded the priorities into three categories: (1) no longer a priority (well-designed trial, incorporated in national/international guidelines or adopted in routine clinical practice); (2) remains a priority (i. e. the above criterion was not met); (3) redefine the existing priority (i. e. the priority was too vague with the research question not clearly defined). RESULTS: The previous ESGE research priorities document published in 2016 had 26 research priorities under seven domains. Our review of these priorities has resulted in seven priorities being removed from the list, one priority being partially removed, another seven being redefined to make them more precise, with eleven priorities remaining unchanged. This is a reflection of a rapid surge in endoscopic research, resulting in 27 % of research questions having already been answered and another 27 % requiring redefinition. CONCLUSIONS: Our extensive review process has led to the removal of seven research priorities from the previous (2016) list, leaving 19 research priorities that have been redefined to make them more precise and relevant for researchers and funding bodies to target.

Contains fulltext : 235679.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: One of the aims of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is to encourage high quality endoscopic research at a European level. In 2016, the ESGE research committee published a set of research priorities. As endoscopic research is flourishing, we aimed to review the literature and determine whether endoscopic research over the last 4 years had managed to address any of our previously published priorities. METHODS: As the previously published priorities were grouped under seven different domains, a working party with at least two European experts was created for each domain to review all the priorities under that domain. A structured review form was developed to standardize the review process. The group conducted an extensive literature search relevant to each of the priorities and then graded the priorities into three categories: (1) no longer a priority (well-designed trial, incorporated in national/international guidelines or adopted in routine clinical practice); (2) remains a priority (i. e. the above criterion was not met); (3) redefine the existing priority (i. e. the priority was too vague with the research question not clearly defined). RESULTS: The previous ESGE research priorities document published in 2016 had 26 research priorities under seven domains. Our review of these priorities has resulted in seven priorities being removed from the list, one priority being partially removed, another seven being redefined to make them more precise, with eleven priorities remaining unchanged. This is a reflection of a rapid surge in endoscopic research, resulting in 27 % of research questions having already been answered and another 27 % requiring redefinition. CONCLUSIONS: Our extensive review process has led to the removal of seven research priorities from the previous (2016) list, leaving 19 research priorities that have been redefined to make them more precise and relevant for researchers and funding bodies to target.

Contains fulltext : 235679.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: One of the aims of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is to encourage high quality endoscopic research at a European level. In 2016, the ESGE research committee published a set of research priorities. As endoscopic research is flourishing, we aimed to review the literature and determine whether endoscopic research over the last 4 years had managed to address any of our previously published priorities. METHODS: As the previously published priorities were grouped under seven different domains, a working party with at least two European experts was created for each domain to review all the priorities under that domain. A structured review form was developed to standardize the review process. The group conducted an extensive literature search relevant to each of the priorities and then graded the priorities into three categories: (1) no longer a priority (well-designed trial, incorporated in national/international guidelines or adopted in routine clinical practice); (2) remains a priority (i. e. the above criterion was not met); (3) redefine the existing priority (i. e. the priority was too vague with the research question not clearly defined). RESULTS: The previous ESGE research priorities document published in 2016 had 26 research priorities under seven domains. Our review of these priorities has resulted in seven priorities being removed from the list, one priority being partially removed, another seven being redefined to make them more precise, with eleven priorities remaining unchanged. This is a reflection of a rapid surge in endoscopic research, resulting in 27 % of research questions having already been answered and another 27 % requiring redefinition. CONCLUSIONS: Our extensive review process has led to the removal of seven research priorities from the previous (2016) list, leaving 19 research priorities that have been redefined to make them more precise and relevant for researchers and funding bodies to target.

Introduction Primary colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are the most commonly used colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modalities. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) might be an alternative. Data on the performance of CCE as a CRC screening tool in a screening population remain scarce. This is the first systematic review to provide an overview of the applicability of CCE as a CRC screening tool. Methods A systematic search was conducted of literature published up to September 2020. Studies reporting on CRC screening by second-generation CCE in an average-risk screening population were included. Results 582 studies were identified and 13 were included, comprising 2485 patients. Eight studies used CCE as a filter test after a positive FIT result and five studies used CCE for primary screening. The polyp detection rate of CCE was 24 % - 74 %. For polyps > 6 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 79 % - 96 % and specificity was 66 % - 97 %. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 84 % - 97 %, which was superior to computed tomographic colonography (CTC). The CRC detection rate for completed CCEs was 93 % (25/27). Bowel preparation was adequate in 70 % - 92 % of examinations, and completion rates varied from 57 % to 92 %, depending on the booster used. No CCE-related complications were described. Conclusion CCE appeared to be a safe and effective tool for the detection of CRC and polyps in a screening setting. Accuracy was comparable to colonoscopy and superior to CTC, making CCE a good alternative to colonoscopy in CRC screening programs, although completion rates require improvement.

Background One of the aims of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is to encourage high quality endoscopic research at a European level. In 2016, the ESGE research committee published a set of research priorities. As endoscopic research is flourishing, we aimed to review the literature and determine whether endoscopic research over the last 4 years had managed to address any of our previously published priorities. Methods As the previously published priorities were grouped under seven different domains, a working party with at least two European experts was created for each domain to review all the priorities under that domain. A structured review form was developed to standardize the review process. The group conducted an extensive literature search relevant to each of the priorities and then graded the priorities into three categories: (1) no longer a priority (well-designed trial, incorporated in national/international guidelines or adopted in routine clinical practice); (2) remains a priority (i. e. the above criterion was not met); (3) redefine the existing priority (i. e. the priority was too vague with the research question not clearly defined). Results The previous ESGE research priorities document published in 2016 had 26 research priorities under seven domains. Our review of these priorities has resulted in seven priorities being removed from the list, one priority being partially removed, another seven being redefined to make them more precise, with eleven priorities remaining unchanged. This is a reflection of a rapid surge in endoscopic research, resulting in 27 % of research questions having already been answered and another 27 % requiring redefinition. Conclusions Our extensive review process has led to the removal of seven research priorities from the previous (2016) list, leaving 19 research priorities that have been redefined to make them more precise and relevant for researchers and funding bodies to target.

Background One of the aims of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is to encourage high quality endoscopic research at a European level. In 2016, the ESGE research committee published a set of research priorities. As endoscopic research is flourishing, we aimed to review the literature and determine whether endoscopic research over the last 4 years had managed to address any of our previously published priorities. Methods As the previously published priorities were grouped under seven different domains, a working party with at least two European experts was created for each domain to review all the priorities under that domain. A structured review form was developed to standardize the review process. The group conducted an extensive literature search relevant to each of the priorities and then graded the priorities into three categories: (1) no longer a priority (well-designed trial, incorporated in national/international guidelines or adopted in routine clinical practice); (2) remains a priority (i. e. the above criterion was not met); (3) redefine the existing priority (i. e. the priority was too vague with the research question not clearly defined). Results The previous ESGE research priorities document published in 2016 had 26 research priorities under seven domains. Our review of these priorities has resulted in seven priorities being removed from the list, one priority being partially removed, another seven being redefined to make them more precise, with eleven priorities remaining unchanged. This is a reflection of a rapid surge in endoscopic research, resulting in 27 % of research questions having already been answered and another 27 % requiring redefinition. Conclusions Our extensive review process has led to the removal of seven research priorities from the previous (2016) list, leaving 19 research priorities that have been redefined to make them more precise and relevant for researchers and funding bodies to target.

Background & aim: Although acute lower GI bleeding (LGIB) represents a significant healthcare burden, prospective real-life data on management and outcomes are scanty. Present multicentre, prospective cohort study was aimed at evaluating mortality and associated risk factors and at describing patient management. Methods: Adult outpatients acutely admitted for or developing LGIB during hospitalization were consecutively enrolled in 15 high-volume referral centers. Demographics, comorbidities, medications, interventions and outcomes were recorded. Results: Overall 1,198 patients (1060 new admissions;138 inpatients) were included. Most patients were elderly (mean-age 74±15 years), 31% had a Charlson-Comorbidity-Index ≥3, 58% were on antithrombotic therapy. In-hospital mortality (primary outcome) was 3.4% (95%CI 2.5–4.6). At logistic regression analysis, independent predictors of mortality were increasing age, comorbidity, inpatient status, hemodynamic instability at presentation, and ICU-admission. Colonoscopy had a 78.8% diagnostic yield, with significantly higher hemostasis rate when performed within 24-hours than later (21.3% vs.10.8%, p = 0.027). Endoscopic hemostasis was associated with neither in-hospital mortality nor rebleeding. A definite or presumptive source of bleeding was disclosed in 90.4% of investigated patients. Conclusion: Mortality in LGIB patients is mainly related to age and comorbidities. Although early colonoscopy has a relevant diagnostic yield and is associated with higher therapeutic intervention rate, endoscopic hemostasis is not associated with improved clinical outcomes [ClinicalTrial.gov number: NCT 04364412].

Background & aim: Although acute lower GI bleeding (LGIB) represents a significant healthcare burden, prospective real-life data on management and outcomes are scanty. Present multicentre, prospective cohort study was aimed at evaluating mortality and associated risk factors and at describing patient management. Methods: Adult outpatients acutely admitted for or developing LGIB during hospitalization were consecutively enrolled in 15 high-volume referral centers. Demographics, comorbidities, medications, interventions and outcomes were recorded. Results: Overall 1,198 patients (1060 new admissions;138 inpatients) were included. Most patients were elderly (mean-age 74±15 years), 31% had a Charlson-Comorbidity-Index ≥3, 58% were on antithrombotic therapy. In-hospital mortality (primary outcome) was 3.4% (95%CI 2.5–4.6). At logistic regression analysis, independent predictors of mortality were increasing age, comorbidity, inpatient status, hemodynamic instability at presentation, and ICU-admission. Colonoscopy had a 78.8% diagnostic yield, with significantly higher hemostasis rate when performed within 24-hours than later (21.3% vs.10.8%, p = 0.027). Endoscopic hemostasis was associated with neither in-hospital mortality nor rebleeding. A definite or presumptive source of bleeding was disclosed in 90.4% of investigated patients. Conclusion: Mortality in LGIB patients is mainly related to age and comorbidities. Although early colonoscopy has a relevant diagnostic yield and is associated with higher therapeutic intervention rate, endoscopic hemostasis is not associated with improved clinical outcomes [ClinicalTrial.gov number: NCT 04364412].

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has developed performance measures and established a framework for quality assessment for gastrointestinal endoscopy in Europe. Most national societies actively undertake initiatives to implement and explicitly endorse these quality indicators. Given this, ESGE proposes that, at a national level, strong leadership should exist to disseminate and implement quality parameters. Thus, understanding the potential barriers that may vary locally is of paramount importance. ESGE suggests that each national society should prioritize quality and standards of care in gastrointestinal endoscopy in their activities and should survey/understand which measures are a local priority to their members and make measuring quality intrinsic to daily endoscopy practice.

Background & Aims: Hospitalization is associated with inadequate colon cleansing before colonoscopy. We aimed to identify factors associated to inadequate colon cleansing among inpatients, and to derive and validate a model to identify inpatients with inadequate cleansing. Methods: We performed a prospective observational study at 12 hospitals in Italy. Consecutive adult inpatients scheduled for colonoscopy for any indication were enrolled from February through May 2019 (derivation cohort, n = 1016) and from June through August 2019 (validation cohort, n = 508). Inadequate cleansing was defined as Boston bowel preparation scale scores below 2 in any colon segment. We performed multivariate logistic regression to identify factors associated with inadequate cleansing. Results: In the combined cohorts, 1032 patients (68%) had adequate colon cleansing. Physicians’ meetings to optimize bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27–0.65), written and oral instructions to patients (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36–0.65), admission to gastroenterology unit (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51–0.98), split-dose regimens (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.20–0.35), a 1-liter polyethylene glycol-based bowel purge (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.23—0.65), and 75% or more intake of bowel preparation (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.05–0.15) significantly reduced odds of inadequate colon cleansing. Alternatively, bedridden status (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.55–2.98), constipation (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.55–3.0), diabetes mellitus (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.18–2.20), use of anti-psychotic drugs (OR, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.62–6.56), and 7 or more days of hospitalization (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00–1.04) increased risk of inadequate colon cleansing. We developed a model to identify patients with inadequate cleaning using data from patients in the derivation cohort and tested it in the validation cohort. Calibration values were P = .218 for the discrimination cohort and P = .232 for the validation cohort. Discrimination values were c-statistic, 0.78 (95% C

Background Ischemic colitis (IC) is caused by a transient hypo-perfusion of the colon leading to mucosal ulcerations, inflammation, and hemorrhage. The primary aim was to identify predictive factors of endoscopic severity of IC. Secondary endpoints were to show epidemiology, clinical presentation, endoscopic findings, and outcomes of IC. Methods In this single-center retrospective analysis, IC was scored according to endoscopy as: grade 1 (hyperemia, <1 cm erosions and non-confluent ulcers); grade 2 (>1 cm superficial, partially confluent ulcers); and grade 3 (deep or diffuse ulcers or necrosis). Then, IC was grouped into low-(grade 1) and high-grade (grades 2 and 3). Significant (P≤0.1) independent factor of severe IC at univariate analysis were entered into multivariate analysis and considered significant at P<0.05. Results 227 patients (male:female 60:167; mean age 72.7±16.2 years) were included. IC was scored as grade 1 in 137/227 (60.4%), grade 2 in 62/227 (27.3%), and grade 3 in 28/227 (12.3%) patients. At univariate analysis, age (74.9 vs. 71.3 years; P=0.09), diabetes (14.4% vs. 12.4%; P=0.09), and leukocytosis or creatinine elevation (74.4% vs. 60.6%; P=0.032) were associated with endoscopic high-grade IC. At multivariate analysis, leukocytosis and creatinine levels remained associated with high-grade IC (44.7% vs. 29.9%; odds ratio 1.92, 95% confidence interval 1.07-3.52; P=0.030). Conclusions Although confounding factors cannot be excluded due to study design and patients’ characteristics, leukocytosis and/or creatinine elevation at hospital admission were significantly related with endoscopic high-grade IC and might be used to stratify patients for the need of endoscopy.

Background and Aims: Adequate bowel cleansing is critical to ensure quality and safety of a colonoscopy. A novel 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (1L-PEG+ASC) regimen was previously validated against low-volume regimens but was never compared with high-volume regimens. Methods: In a phase IV study, patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized 1:1 to receive split-dose 1L PEG+ASC or a split-dose 4-L PEG-based regimen (4L-PEG) in 5 Italian centers. Preparation was assessed with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) by local endoscopists and centralized reading, both blinded to the randomization arm. The primary endpoint was noninferiority of 1L-PEG+ASC in colon cleansing. Secondary endpoints were superiority of 1L-PEG+ASC, patient compliance, segmental colon cleansing, adenoma detection rate, tolerability, and safety. Results: Three hundred eighty-eight patients (median age, 59.8 years) were randomized between January 2019 and October 2019: 195 to 1L-PEG+ASC and 193 to 4L-PEG. Noninferiority of 1L-PEG+ASC was demonstrated for cleansing in both the entire colon (BBPS ≥ 6: 97.9% vs 93%; relative risk [RR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.001-1.04; P superiority = .027) and in the right-sided colon segment (98.4% vs 96.0%; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, .99-1.02; P noninferiority = .013). Compliance was higher with 1L-PEG+ASC than with 4L-PEG (178/192 [92.7%] vs 154/190 patients [81.1%]; RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.12), whereas no difference was found regarding safety (moderate/severe side effects: 20.8% vs 25.8%; P = .253). No difference in adenoma detection rate (38.8% vs 43.0%) was found. Conclusions: One-liter PEG+ASC showed noninferiority compared with 4L-PEG in achieving adequate colon cleansing and provided a higher patient compliance. No differences in tolerability and safety were detected. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03742232.)

Background Ischemic colitis (IC) is caused by a transient hypo-perfusion of the colon leading to mucosal ulcerations, inflammation, and hemorrhage. The primary aim was to identify predictive factors of endoscopic severity of IC. Secondary endpoints were to show epidemiology, clinical presentation, endoscopic findings, and outcomes of IC. Methods In this single-center retrospective analysis, IC was scored according to endoscopy as: grade 1 (hyperemia, <1 cm erosions and non-confluent ulcers); grade 2 (>1 cm superficial, partially confluent ulcers); and grade 3 (deep or diffuse ulcers or necrosis). Then, IC was grouped into low-(grade 1) and high-grade (grades 2 and 3). Significant (P≤0.1) independent factor of severe IC at univariate analysis were entered into multivariate analysis and considered significant at P<0.05. Results 227 patients (male:female 60:167; mean age 72.7±16.2 years) were included. IC was scored as grade 1 in 137/227 (60.4%), grade 2 in 62/227 (27.3%), and grade 3 in 28/227 (12.3%) patients. At univariate analysis, age (74.9 vs. 71.3 years; P=0.09), diabetes (14.4% vs. 12.4%; P=0.09), and leukocytosis or creatinine elevation (74.4% vs. 60.6%; P=0.032) were associated with endoscopic high-grade IC. At multivariate analysis, leukocytosis and creatinine levels remained associated with high-grade IC (44.7% vs. 29.9%; odds ratio 1.92, 95% confidence interval 1.07-3.52; P=0.030). Conclusions Although confounding factors cannot be excluded due to study design and patients’ characteristics, leukocytosis and/or creatinine elevation at hospital admission were significantly related with endoscopic high-grade IC and might be used to stratify patients for the need of endoscopy.

Background: Colonoscopy is frequently performed in industrialised countries. Inappropriate colonoscopies might lead to unnecessary exams, increasing risks and costs. Aim: To estimate the impact of colonoscopy appropriateness in terms of gain in additional diagnoses and sparing of unnecessary exams. Methods: Systematic review including studies reporting the prevalence of relevant findings, colorectal cancer (CRC) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) according to colonoscopy appropriateness as defined by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and European Panel on Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Results: Twenty-one studies with 19,822 patients were included. Colonoscopy was appropriate in 15,162 (71%, CI 64%-78%). Appropriateness significantly increased the probability of relevant findings (34% vs. 18%; RR 1.81, CI 1.53-2.14), CRC (7% vs. 2%; RR 3.62, CI 2.44-5.37) and IBD (6% vs. 4%; RR 1.86, CI 1.09-3.19). Appropriateness had sensitivity 88% (CI 85%-91%), 97% (CI 93%-98%) and 89% (CI 80%-94%), and specificity 24% (CI 20%-29%), 22% (CI 18%-26%) and 24% (CI 20%-28%) for relevant findings, CRC and IBD, respectively. On average, performing colonoscopy with appropriate indication would find 15 (CI 10-21) more relevant findings, five (CI 3-9) more CRCs and three (CI 1-9) more diagnoses of IBD per 100 patients, and save 24 (CI 20-29), 22 (CI 18-26) and 24 (CI 20-28) examinations per 100 patients for relevant findings, CRC and IBD, respectively. Conclusions: Appropriateness affects the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy for CRC, IBD and relevant findings. Appropriateness criteria are useful, although integrated with clinical evaluation of the patient.

Background & Aims: Hospitalization is associated with inadequate colon cleansing before colonoscopy. We aimed to identify factors associated to inadequate colon cleansing among inpatients, and to derive and validate a model to identify inpatients with inadequate cleansing. Methods: We performed a prospective observational study at 12 hospitals in Italy. Consecutive adult inpatients scheduled for colonoscopy for any indication were enrolled from February through May 2019 (derivation cohort, n = 1016) and from June through August 2019 (validation cohort, n = 508). Inadequate cleansing was defined as Boston bowel preparation scale scores below 2 in any colon segment. We performed multivariate logistic regression to identify factors associated with inadequate cleansing. Results: In the combined cohorts, 1032 patients (68%) had adequate colon cleansing. Physicians’ meetings to optimize bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27–0.65), written and oral instructions to patients (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36–0.65), admission to gastroenterology unit (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51–0.98), split-dose regimens (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.20–0.35), a 1-liter polyethylene glycol-based bowel purge (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.23—0.65), and 75% or more intake of bowel preparation (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.05–0.15) significantly reduced odds of inadequate colon cleansing. Alternatively, bedridden status (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.55–2.98), constipation (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.55–3.0), diabetes mellitus (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.18–2.20), use of anti-psychotic drugs (OR, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.62–6.56), and 7 or more days of hospitalization (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00–1.04) increased risk of inadequate colon cleansing. We developed a model to identify patients with inadequate cleaning using data from patients in the derivation cohort and tested it in the validation cohort. Calibration values were P = .218 for the discrimination cohort and P = .232 for the validation cohort. Discrimination values were c-statistic, 0.78 (95% C

Background: Colonoscopy is frequently performed in industrialised countries. Inappropriate colonoscopies might lead to unnecessary exams, increasing risks and costs. Aim: To estimate the impact of colonoscopy appropriateness in terms of gain in additional diagnoses and sparing of unnecessary exams. Methods: Systematic review including studies reporting the prevalence of relevant findings, colorectal cancer (CRC) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) according to colonoscopy appropriateness as defined by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and European Panel on Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Results: Twenty-one studies with 19,822 patients were included. Colonoscopy was appropriate in 15,162 (71%, CI 64%-78%). Appropriateness significantly increased the probability of relevant findings (34% vs. 18%; RR 1.81, CI 1.53-2.14), CRC (7% vs. 2%; RR 3.62, CI 2.44-5.37) and IBD (6% vs. 4%; RR 1.86, CI 1.09-3.19). Appropriateness had sensitivity 88% (CI 85%-91%), 97% (CI 93%-98%) and 89% (CI 80%-94%), and specificity 24% (CI 20%-29%), 22% (CI 18%-26%) and 24% (CI 20%-28%) for relevant findings, CRC and IBD, respectively. On average, performing colonoscopy with appropriate indication would find 15 (CI 10-21) more relevant findings, five (CI 3-9) more CRCs and three (CI 1-9) more diagnoses of IBD per 100 patients, and save 24 (CI 20-29), 22 (CI 18-26) and 24 (CI 20-28) examinations per 100 patients for relevant findings, CRC and IBD, respectively. Conclusions: Appropriateness affects the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy for CRC, IBD and relevant findings. Appropriateness criteria are useful, although integrated with clinical evaluation of the patient.

Background: Colonoscopy demands a considerable amount of resources, and little is known about its diagnostic yield among inpatients. Aims: To assess indications, diagnostic yield and findings of colonoscopy for inpatients, and to identify risk factors for relevant findings and cancer. Methods: Multicentre, prospective, observational study including 12 hospitals. Consecutive adult inpatients undergoing colonoscopy were evaluated from February through November 2019. Results: 1,302 inpatients underwent colonoscopy. Diagnostic yield for relevant findings and cancer was 586 (45%) and 112 (8.6%), respectively. Adequate colon cleansing was achieved in 896 (68.8%) patients. Split-dose/same-day regimen was adopted in 847 (65%) patients. Factors associated to relevant findings were age ≥70 years (RR 1.32), male gender (RR 1.11), blood loss (RR 1.22) and adequate cleansing (RR 1.63). Age ≥70 years (RR 2.08), no previous colonoscopy (RR 2.69) and split-dose/same-day regimen (RR 1.59) significantly increased cancer detection. Implementing adequate cleansing and split-dose/same-day regimen in all patients would increase the diagnostic yield for any relevant findings and cancer from 43% to 70% and from 6% to 10%, respectively. Conclusion: Relevant colorectal diseases and cancer were frequent among inpatients. Factors associated with detection of relevant findings were identified. Adequate colon cleansing and split-dose/same-day regimen significantly increased colonoscopy diagnostic yield.

Background: Colonoscopy demands a considerable amount of resources, and little is known about its diagnostic yield among inpatients. Aims: To assess indications, diagnostic yield and findings of colonoscopy for inpatients, and to identify risk factors for relevant findings and cancer. Methods: Multicentre, prospective, observational study including 12 hospitals. Consecutive adult inpatients undergoing colonoscopy were evaluated from February through November 2019. Results: 1,302 inpatients underwent colonoscopy. Diagnostic yield for relevant findings and cancer was 586 (45%) and 112 (8.6%), respectively. Adequate colon cleansing was achieved in 896 (68.8%) patients. Split-dose/same-day regimen was adopted in 847 (65%) patients. Factors associated to relevant findings were age ≥70 years (RR 1.32), male gender (RR 1.11), blood loss (RR 1.22) and adequate cleansing (RR 1.63). Age ≥70 years (RR 2.08), no previous colonoscopy (RR 2.69) and split-dose/same-day regimen (RR 1.59) significantly increased cancer detection. Implementing adequate cleansing and split-dose/same-day regimen in all patients would increase the diagnostic yield for any relevant findings and cancer from 43% to 70% and from 6% to 10%, respectively. Conclusion: Relevant colorectal diseases and cancer were frequent among inpatients. Factors associated with detection of relevant findings were identified. Adequate colon cleansing and split-dose/same-day regimen significantly increased colonoscopy diagnostic yield.

Background and Aims: Adequate bowel cleansing is critical to ensure quality and safety of a colonoscopy. A novel 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (1L-PEG+ASC) regimen was previously validated against low-volume regimens but was never compared with high-volume regimens. Methods: In a phase IV study, patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized 1:1 to receive split-dose 1L PEG+ASC or a split-dose 4-L PEG-based regimen (4L-PEG) in 5 Italian centers. Preparation was assessed with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) by local endoscopists and centralized reading, both blinded to the randomization arm. The primary endpoint was noninferiority of 1L-PEG+ASC in colon cleansing. Secondary endpoints were superiority of 1L-PEG+ASC, patient compliance, segmental colon cleansing, adenoma detection rate, tolerability, and safety. Results: Three hundred eighty-eight patients (median age, 59.8 years) were randomized between January 2019 and October 2019: 195 to 1L-PEG+ASC and 193 to 4L-PEG. Noninferiority of 1L-PEG+ASC was demonstrated for cleansing in both the entire colon (BBPS ≥ 6: 97.9% vs 93%; relative risk [RR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.001-1.04; P superiority = .027) and in the right-sided colon segment (98.4% vs 96.0%; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, .99-1.02; P noninferiority = .013). Compliance was higher with 1L-PEG+ASC than with 4L-PEG (178/192 [92.7%] vs 154/190 patients [81.1%]; RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.12), whereas no difference was found regarding safety (moderate/severe side effects: 20.8% vs 25.8%; P = .253). No difference in adenoma detection rate (38.8% vs 43.0%) was found. Conclusions: One-liter PEG+ASC showed noninferiority compared with 4L-PEG in achieving adequate colon cleansing and provided a higher patient compliance. No differences in tolerability and safety were detected. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03742232.)

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has developed performance measures and established a framework for quality assessment for gastrointestinal endoscopy in Europe. Most national societies actively undertake initiatives to implement and explicitly endorse these quality indicators. Given this, ESGE proposes that, at a national level, strong leadership should exist to disseminate and implement quality parameters. Thus, understanding the potential barriers that may vary locally is of paramount importance. ESGE suggests that each national society should prioritize quality and standards of care in gastrointestinal endoscopy in their activities and should survey/understand which measures are a local priority to their members and make measuring quality intrinsic to daily endoscopy practice.

Introduction Primary colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) are the most commonly used colorectal cancer (CRC) screening modalities. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) might be an alternative. Data on the performance of CCE as a CRC screening tool in a screening population remain scarce. This is the first systematic review to provide an overview of the applicability of CCE as a CRC screening tool. Methods A systematic search was conducted of literature published up to September 2020. Studies reporting on CRC screening by second-generation CCE in an average-risk screening population were included. Results 582 studies were identified and 13 were included, comprising 2485 patients. Eight studies used CCE as a filter test after a positive FIT result and five studies used CCE for primary screening. The polyp detection rate of CCE was 24 % - 74 %. For polyps > 6 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 79 % - 96 % and specificity was 66 % - 97 %. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, sensitivity of CCE was 84 % - 97 %, which was superior to computed tomographic colonography (CTC). The CRC detection rate for completed CCEs was 93 % (25/27). Bowel preparation was adequate in 70 % - 92 % of examinations, and completion rates varied from 57 % to 92 %, depending on the booster used. No CCE-related complications were described. Conclusion CCE appeared to be a safe and effective tool for the detection of CRC and polyps in a screening setting. Accuracy was comparable to colonoscopy and superior to CTC, making CCE a good alternative to colonoscopy in CRC screening programs, although completion rates require improvement.

Background & Aims: There is a lack of clinical studies to establish indications and methodology for tattooing, therefore technique and practice of tattooing is very variable. We aimed to establish a consensus on the indications and appropriate techniques for colonic tattoo through a modified Delphi process. Methods: The baseline questionnaire was classified into 3 areas: where tattooing should not be used (1 domain, 6 questions), where tattooing should be used (4 domains, 20 questions), and how to perform tattooing (1 domain 20 questions). A total of 29 experts participated in the 3 rounds of the Delphi process. Results: A total of 15 statements were approved. The statements that achieved the highest agreement were as follows: tattooing should always be used after endoscopic resection of a lesion with suspicion of submucosal invasion (agreement score, 4.59; degree of consensus, 97%). For a colorectal lesion that is left in situ but considered suitable for endoscopic resection, tattooing may be used if the lesion is considered difficult to detect at a subsequent endoscopy (agreement score, 4.62; degree of consensus, 100%). A tattoo should never be injected directly into or underneath a lesion that might be removed endoscopically at a later point in time (agreement score, 4.79; degree of consensus, 97%). Details of the tattoo injection should be stated clearly in the endoscopy report (agreement score, 4.76; degree of consensus, 100%). Conclusions: This expert consensus has developed different statements about where tattooing should not be used, when it should be used, and how that should be done.

Contains fulltext : 220005.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), In Europe at present, but also in 2040, 1 in 3 cancer-related deaths are expected to be caused by digestive cancers. Endoscopic technologies enable diagnosis, with relatively low invasiveness, of precancerous conditions and early cancers, thereby improving patient survival. Overall, endoscopy capacity must be adjusted to facilitate both effective screening programs and rigorous control of the quality assurance and surveillance systems required. 1 : For average-risk populations, ESGE recommends the implementation of organized population-based screening programs FOR COLORECTAL CANCER: , based on fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), targeting individuals, irrespective of gender, aged between 50 and 75 years. Depending on local factors, namely the adherence of the target population and availability of endoscopy services, primary screening by colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy may also be recommendable. 2 : In high-risk populations, endoscopic screening FOR GASTRIC CANCER: should be considered for individuals aged more than 40 years. Its use in countries/regions with intermediate risk may be considered on the basis of local settings and availability of endoscopic resources. 3 : For esophageal and pancreatic cancer, endoscopic screening may be considered only in high-risk individuals:- FOR SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA: , in those with a personal history of head/neck cancer, achalasia, or previous caustic injury; - FOR BARRETT'S ESOPHAGUS (BE)-ASSOCIATED ADENOCARCINOMA: , in those with long-standing gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms (i. e., > 5 years) and multiple risk factors (age ≥ 50 years, white race, male sex, obesity, first-degree relative with BE or esophageal adenocarcinoma [EAC]). - FOR PANCREATIC CANCER SCREENING: , endoscopic ultrasound may be used in selected high-risk patients such as those with a strong family history and/or genetic susceptibility.

Contains fulltext : 225257.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 220063.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), We are currently living in the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic that imposes a significant stress on health care providers and facilities. Europe is severely affected with an exponential increase in incident infections and deaths. The clinical manifestations of COVID-19 can be subtle, encompassing a broad spectrum from asymptomatic mild disease to severe respiratory illness. Health care professionals in endoscopy units are at increased risk of infection from COVID-19. Infection prevention and control has been shown to be dramatically effective in assuring the safety of both health care professionals and patients. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (www.esge.com) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (www.esgena.org) are joining forces to provide guidance during this pandemic to help assure the highest level of endoscopy care and protection against COVID-19 for both patients and endoscopy unit personnel. This guidance is based upon the best available evidence regarding assessment of risk during the current status of the pandemic and a consensus on which procedures to perform and the priorities on resumption. We appreciate the gaps in knowledge and evidence, especially on the proper strategy(ies) for the resumption of normal endoscopy practice during the upcoming phases and end of the pandemic and therefore a list of potential research questions is presented. New evidence may result in an updated statement.