Search

Background: Lombardy was severely hit by the COVID-19 pandemic since February 2020 and the Health System underwent rapid reorganization. Outpatient clinics were stopped for non-urgent patients: it became a priority to manage hundreds of fragile neurological patients who suddenly had less reference points. In Italy, before the pandemic, Televisits were neither recognized nor priced. Methods: At the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico C. Besta, we reorganized outpatient clinics to deliver Neuro-telemedicine services, including Televisits and Teleneurorehabilitation, since March 2020. A dedicated Working Group prepared the procedure, tested the system, and designed satisfaction questionnaires for adults and children. Results: After a pilot phase, we prepared a procedure for Telemedicine outpatient clinics which was approved by hospital directions. It included prescription, booking, consenting, privacy and data protection, secure connection with patients (Teams Microsoft 365), electronic report preparation and delivery, reporting, and accountability of the services. During the March–September 2020 period, we delivered 3167 Telemedicine services, including 1618 Televisits, to 1694 patients (972 adults, 722 children) with a wide range of chronic neurological disorders. We successfully administered different clinical assessment and scales. Satisfaction among patients and caregivers was very high. Conclusions: During the dramatic emergency, we were able to take care of more than 1600 patients by organizing Neuro-telehealth in a few weeks, lessening the impact of the pandemic on fragile patients with chronic neurological disorders; this strategy is now stably embedded in our care pathways. In Italy, Telehealth is at present recognized and priced and is becoming a stable pillar of the health system.

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 & 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 âPatients with prior colon cancer have increased risk of metachronous colorectal neoplasms; therefore, endoscopic surveillance is indicated. Current recommendations are not risk-stratified. We investigated predictive factors for colorectal neoplasms to build a model to spare colonoscopies for low-risk patients. Methods â This was a multicenter, retrospective study including patients who underwent surgery for colon cancer in 2001âŠ-âŠ2008 (derivation cohort) and 2009âŠ-âŠ2013 (validation cohort). A predictive model for neoplasm occurrence at second surveillance colonoscopy was developed and validated. Results â 421 and 203 patients were included in derivation and validation cohort, respectively. At second surveillance colonoscopy, 112 (26.6âŠ%) and 55 (27.1âŠ%) patients had metachronous neoplasms in derivation and validation groups; three cancers were detected in the latter. History of left-sided colon cancer (OR 1.64, 95âŠ%CI 1.02âŠ-âŠ2.64), ≥âŠ1 advanced adenoma at index colonoscopy (OR 1.90, 95âŠ%CI 1.05âŠ-âŠ3.43), and ≥âŠ1 adenoma at first surveillance colonoscopy (OR 2.06, 95âŠ%CI 1.29âŠ-âŠ3.27) were independently predictive of metachronous colorectal neoplasms at second surveillance colonoscopy. For patients without such risk factors, diagnostic accuracy parameters were: 89.3âŠ% (95âŠ%CI 82.0âŠ%-94.3âŠ%) and 78.2âŠ% (95âŠ%CI 65.0âŠ%-88.2âŠ%) sensitivity, and 28.5âŠ% (95âŠ%CI 23.5âŠ%-33.9âŠ%) and 33.8âŠ% (95âŠ%CI 26.2âŠ%-42.0âŠ%) specificity in derivation and validation group, respectively. No cancer would be missed. Conclusions â Patients with prior left-sided colon cancer or ≥âŠ1 advanced adenoma at index colonoscopy or ≥âŠ1 adenoma at first surveillance colonoscopy had a significantly higher risk of neoplasms at second surveillance colonoscopy; patients without such factors had much lower risk and could safely skip the second surveillance colonoscopy. A prospective, multicent

Background: Inpatients are at risk for inadequate colon cleansing. Experts recommend 4L-polyethylene-glycol (PEG) solution. A higher colon cleansing adequacy rate for a hyperosmolar 1L-PEG plus ascorbate prep has been recently reported. Aims: We aimed to determine whether 1L-PEG outperforms 4L-PEG among inpatients. Methods: post-hoc analysis of a large Italian multicenter prospective observational study among inpatients (QIPS study). We performed a propensity score matching between 1L-PEG and 4L-PEG group. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate colon cleansing as assessed by unblinded endoscopists through Boston scale. Secondary outcome was the safety profile. Results: Among 1,004 patients undergoing colonoscopy, 724 (72%) were prescribed 4L-PEG and 280 (28%) 1L-PEG. The overall adequate colon cleansing rate was 69.2% (n = 695). We matched 274 pairs of patients with similar distribution of confounders. The rate of patients with adequate colon cleansing was higher in 1L-PEG than in 4L-PEG group (84.3% vs. 77.4%, p = 0.039). No different shift in serum concentration of electrolytes (namely Na+, K+, Ca2+), creatinine and hematocrit were observed for both preparations. Conclusion: We found a higher rate of adequate colon cleansing for colonoscopy with the 1L-PEG bowel prep vs. 4L-PEG, with apparent similar safety profile, among inpatients. A confirmatory randomized trial is needed. (ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT04310332)

Background and Aim: Upper gastrointestinal endoscopic findings, such as esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus, peptic ulcer, and malignancy, represent a public health problem. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the prevalence of upper gastrointestinal endoscopic findings in the community. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PUBMED and EMBASE to May 2015. Studies were eligible if they reported the prevalence of upper gastrointestinal endoscopic findings in unselected samples of the community. Results: Twelve articles were eligible, nine reported data from three endoscopic surveys (n = 3063 subjects), and three from national screening programs (n = 84 153). The overall prevalence of upper gastrointestinal endoscopic findings in the community was 30% in the Kalixanda study (Sweden), 24.9% in the Loiano–Monghidoro study (Italy), and 68.9% in the Systematic Investigation of Gastrointestinal Diseases study (China). The pooled prevalence of esophagitis, endoscopically suspected esophageal metaplasia (ESEM), peptic ulcer, and gastric cancer in all studies was 11.2, 5.1, 6.8, and 0.33%, respectively. The most frequent finding was esophagitis in Europe, with a prevalence of 15.5% in Sweden and 11.8% in Italy, and peptic ulcer in China (17.1%), both in asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals. The prevalence of Helicobacter pylori was positively associated with the prevalence of peptic ulcer (r = 0.91) but negatively associated with the prevalence of both esophagitis (r = −0.99) and ESEM (r = −0.95). Conclusions: Upper gastrointestinal endoscopic findings are present in at least a quarter of subjects in the community with different patterns in Western and Eastern countries, both in asymptomatic and symptomatic subjects. H. pylori prevalence negatively impacts on the prevalence of reflux-related esophageal findings.

Knowledge on the role of Helicobacter pylori (HP) infection is continually evolving, and treatment is becoming more challenging due to increasing bacterial resistance. Since the management of HP infection is changing, an update of the national Italian guidelines delivered in 2007 was needed. In the III Working Group Consensus Report 2015, a panel of 17 experts from several Italian regions reviewed current evidence on different topics relating to HP infection. Four working groups examined the following topics: (1) "open questions" on HP diagnosis and treatment (focusing on dyspepsia, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or aspirin use and extra-gastric diseases); (2) non-invasive and invasive diagnostic tests; (3) treatment of HP infection; (4) role of HP in the prevention of gastric cancer. Statements and recommendations were discussed and a consensus reached in a final plenary session held in February 2015 in Bologna. Recommendations are based on the best current evidence to help physicians manage HP infection in Italy. The guidelines have been endorsed by the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy.