Search

Dedicated studies evaluating the impact of COVID-19 on outcomes of pancreatobiliary IgG4 related disease (IgG4-RD) patients are scarce. Whether COVID-19 infection or vaccination would trigger IgG4-RD exacerbation remains unknown.Pancreatobiliary IgG4-RD patients ≥ 18 years old with active follow-up since January 2020 from nine referral centers in Asia, Europe, and North America were included in this multicenter retrospective study. Outcome measures include incidence and severity of COVID-19 infection, IgG4-RD disease activity and treatment status, interruption of indicated IgG4-RD treatment. Prospective data on COVID-19 vaccination status and new COVID-19 infection during the Omicron outbreak were also retrieved in the Hong Kong cohort.Of the 124 pancreatobiliary IgG4-RD patients, 25.0% had active IgG4-RD, 71.0% were on immunosuppressive therapies and 80.6% had ≥ 1 risk factor for severe COVID. In 2020 (pre-vaccination period), two patients (1.6%) had COVID-19 infection (one requiring ICU admission), and 7.2% of patients had interruptions in indicated immunosuppressive treatment for IgG4-RD. Despite a high vaccination rate (85.0%), COVID-19 infection rate has increased to 20.0% during Omicron outbreak in the Hong Kong cohort. A trend towards higher COVID-19 infection rate was noted in the non-fully vaccinated/unvaccinated group (17.6% vs 33.3%, P = 0.376). No IgG4-RD exacerbation following COVID-19 vaccination or infection was observed.While a low COVID-19 infection rate with no mortality was observed in pancreatobiliary IgG4-RD patients in the pre-vaccination period of COVID-19, infection rate has increased during the Omicron outbreak despite a high vaccination rate. No IgG4-RD exacerbation after COVID-19 infection or vaccination was observed.

Despite experienced hands and availability of various well-designed catheters and wires, selective bile duct cannulation may still fail in 10–20% of cases during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). In case standard ERCP cannulation technique fails, salvage options include advanced ERCP cannulation techniques such as double-guidewire technique (DGW) with or without pancreatic stenting and precut papillotomy, percutaneous biliary drainage (PBD), and endoscopic ultrasound-guided Rendezvous (EUS-RV) ERCP. If the pancreatic duct is inadvertently entered during cannulation attempts, DGW technique is a reasonable next step, which can be followed by pancreatic stenting to reduce risks of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Studies suggest that early precut papillotomy is not associated with a higher risk of PEP, while needle-knife fistulotomy is the preferred method. For patients with critical clinical condition who may not be fit for endoscopy, surgically altered anatomy in which endoscopic biliary drainage is not feasible, and non-communicating multisegmental biliary obstruction, PBD has a unique role to provide successful biliary drainage efficiently in this particular population. As endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage techniques advance, EUS-RV ERCP has been increasingly employed to guide bile duct access and cannulation with satisfactory clinical outcomes and is especially valuable for benign pathology at centres where expertise is available. Endoscopists should become familiar with each technique’s advantages and limitations before deciding the most appropriate treatment that is tailored to patient’s anatomy and clinical needs.

Anti-thrombotics use is a significant risk factor of post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB). Evidence of prophylactic clipping is only available for proximal and large colonic lesions in general population. Dedicated studies to examine the benefit of prophylactic clipping in patients on aspirin remain scarce.A propensity-score weighted retrospective cohort study was performed in a tertiary referral center from January 2018 to September 2021. Patients who received aspirin and underwent colonoscopic polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection were included. Data on baseline demographics, medications and endoscopic factors (polyp number, size, location, morphology, resection method and prophylactic clipping) were captured. Propensity-score weighting models were developed between prophylactic clipping and no clipping groups. The primary outcome was delayed PPB within 30 days, with a composite endpoint consisting of repeated colonoscopy for hemostasis, requirement of blood transfusion or hemoglobin drop of greater than 2g/dL.Total 1,373 patients with 3,952 polyps were included. Baseline characteristics were balanced between two groups. In the multivariate analysis, the largest polyp size was a significant risk factor for PPB (odds ratio (OR) 1.07, 95%CI 1.02-1.11, p=0.002). Prophylactic clipping was not associated with a reduced risk of PPB (OR 1.34, 95%CI 0.83-2.18, p=0.240) and did not show any risk reduction in subgroups with different polyp sizes, locations and endoscopic resection techniques.Prophylactic clipping was not associated with a lower risk of PPB in aspirin users after endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Aspirin use should not be regarded as the only factor for the routine use of prophylactic clips.

Purpose of Review This paper reviews the latest literature regarding the impact of COVID on endoscopy service provision. Recent Findings Endoscopy has been shown to be largely safe when appropriate infection prevention and control measures are in place. Endoscopy training and education has been profoundly affected though novel training models to overcome this have been developed. Proper handling of delayed or cancelled procedures is of utmost importance to minimize delays in diagnosis and treatment of diseases such as cancer. Adoption of new technologies such as non-endoscopy alternatives and telehealth may be a viable alternative to minimize infection risks. Summary This pandemic has led to tangible differences in how we provide endoscopy service in the future. Future research focusing on better risk stratification of patients who need endoscopy, validating novel endoscopy training models, and adopting new technologies are urgently needed to support these changes in the post-pandemic world.

Adequate bowel preparation is an important colonoscopy quality indicator. Reinforced education is effective in improving bowel preparation quality of colonoscopy with mixed indications. However, it remains unclear whether such improvement can be consistently observed in pre- and post-irrigation during colonoscopy in screening population.We aimed to study the effectiveness of nurse-led reinforced education delivered via mobile messenger (WhatsApp Messenger) on pre- and post-irrigation bowel preparation adequacy in colonoscopies for positive fecal immunochemical test in a population-based colorectal cancer screening program.Randomized controlled trial.A hospital-based endoscopy centre in Hong Kong, China.Patients undergoing colonoscopy for positive fecal immunochemical test in a population-based colorectal cancer screening program.The recruited patients were randomized to receive either WhatsApp Reinforced Education (WRE) or No Reinforced Education (NRE) (1:1). Patients in WRE group received one-off reinforced education of bowel preparation in text and video formats via WhatsApp Messenger four days prior to colonoscopy sent by investigator while NRE group received standard-of-care only. Primary outcome was the bowel preparation adequacy rate as evaluated by Aronchick Scale. Secondary outcomes included bowel preparation adequacy rate as evaluated by Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, adenoma detection rate and risk factors of bowel preparation inadequacy. Continuous variables were described as means with standard deviation (SD) and analyzed with Student's t-test. The Pearson Chi Square Test or Fisher Exact Test was used to assess categorical variables when appropriate. Risk factors were determined by logistic regression.From July 2017 to April 2019, 685 eligible patients were randomized to WRE (n = 343) and NRE (n = 342) groups. Patients in WRE group had higher bowel preparation adequacy rate as evaluated by Aronchik Scale (83.4% vs 75.4%, p = 0.010) and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (94.2% vs 88.9%, p = 0.013). Adenoma detection rate was higher in WRE group but without statistical significance (71.4% vs 67.5%, p = 0.27). In logistic regression, WhatsApp Reinforced Education reduced the inadequate bowel preparation risk (Adjusted odds ratio: 0.564; 95% confidence interval: 0.371-0.856, p = 0.007). Male gender (Adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 1.638; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.054-2.546, p = 0.028) and diabetes (AOR: 2.062; 95% CI: 1.215-3.497, p = 0.007) were risk factors of bowel preparation inadequacy.Nurse-led mobile messenger-initiated reinforced education improves both pre- and post-irrigation bowel preparation quality of screening colonoscopy following positive fecal immunochemical test. It is readily incorporable in clinical practice because of its low setup cost.Registered on 4 July 2017 on https://clinicaltrials.gov/ (NCT03209739).

Background/study aims Laser lithotripsy can effectively fragment complicated biliary stones, but current cholangioscopes are limited by fragility, restricted mobility or moderate visual resolution. The efficacy and safety of a new digital single-operator peroral cholangioscope to guide laser lithotripsy were evaluated. Patients and methods In this prospective single-center series, consecutive patients with complicated biliary stones, defined as impacted stones > 1.5 cm in size and wider than the more distal common bile duct, or stones that failed extraction by basket mechanical lithotripsy, underwent ERCP and SpyGlass DS peroral cholangioscope (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, United States)-guided laser lithotripsy. Stone clearance rate and incidence of adverse events were determined. Results Seventeen patients (10 men, 7 women; median age 76 years) with a median biliary stone size of 2 cm underwent predominantly holmium:yttrium aluminum garnet laser lithotripsy, achieving a 94 % stone clearance rate over 1 median procedure. Lithotripsy was performed in 8 of 17 patients due to an impacted biliary stone. The remaining patients underwent lithotripsy due to prior failure of the basket mechanical lithotripter to capture or crush their stones. Post lithotripsy, 2 patients developed cholangitis and 1 patient with underlying COPD developed respiratory distress, all resolved with conservative management. There were no hemobilia, perforations, pancreatitis nor any deaths. Conclusion SpyGlass DS peroral cholangioscopy-guided laser lithotripsy is an efficient and safe modality for management of complicated biliary stones.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence is rising among50-year olds. The objective of this study was to determine screening colonoscopy outcomes among 40- to 49-year olds, which are currently limited.Asymptomatic 40- to 49-year olds underwent one time CRC screening colonoscopy at The Chinese University of Hong Kong between 2007 and 2011. Screening outcomes, including prevalence, distribution, and predictive factors for overall and specifically proximal colorectal neoplasia were determined.Among 1133 ethnic Chinese, colorectal neoplasia prevalence was 20.5%. In men, distal adenomas were associated with proximal colorectal neoplasia. Men, advancing age, a first degree relative (FDR) with CRC, and diabetes mellitus were independently associated with colorectal neoplasia. A colorectal neoplasia was three times more likely to be found in a 45- to 49-year-old man with FDR of CRC compared with a 40- to 44-year-old woman without a FDR of CRC. The numbers needed to screen one colorectal neoplasia, and one advanced neoplasm in the highest risk group of 45- to 49-year-old men with FDR with CRC were 2.8 (95% CI: 2.2-4.4) and 18.5 (95% CI: 8.9-39.2), respectively.Colorectal neoplasia prevalence in this 40- to 49-year-old Chinese cohort was higher than previous studies. Men, advancing age, FDR with CRC, and diabetes mellitus, can be used to risk stratify for neoplasia development. Men 45-49 years old with FDR with CRC represented the highest risk subgroup, with the lowest number needed to screen.

Management of patients on antithrombotic therapy undergoing endoscopic procedures can be challenging. Although guidelines from major gastrointestinal endoscopy societies provide useful recommendations in this regard, data are limited concerning the bleeding risk of new complex endoscopic procedures and the management of novel anticoagulants in patients needing invasive procedures. The approach to the management of antithrombotic therapy often needs to be formulated on an individual basis, especially in patients with high thrombotic risk undergoing a high-risk endoscopic procedure. In addition to the procedure-related bleeding risk, endoscopists also need to consider the urgency of the endoscopic procedure, the thromboembolic risk of the patient if antithrombotic therapy is temporarily withheld, and the timing of discontinuation/resumption of antithrombotic therapy in the decision-making process. Diagnostic endoscopic procedures with or without biopsy can often be done without interruption of antithrombotic therapy. If possible, elective procedures with high bleeding risk should be delayed in patients on antithrombotic therapy for conditions with high thrombotic risk. If high-risk procedures cannot be delayed in these patients, thienopyridines, traditional and novel anticoagulants are usually withheld, whereas aspirin withdrawal is decided on a case by case basis. In patients with high thrombotic risk, communication with the prescribing clinician before proceeding to procedures with high bleeding risk is particularly important in optimizing the peri-procedural management plan of antithrombotic therapy.