Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Endoscopy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multicenter Study from New York City

The impact of COVID-19 on hospitalizations that underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the United States

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

COVID-19 impacts technical success of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). In this study, we aimed to assess the influence of COVID-19 on hospitalizations that underwent ERCP.

METHODS

We identified all adult COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 hospitalizations that underwent ERCP in the United States using the National Inpatient Sample for 2020. Hospitalization characteristics, clinical outcomes, and complications were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

In 2020, 2015 COVID-19 and 203,094 non-COVID-19 hospitalizations underwent ERCP. The COVID-19 cohort had a higher mean age (60.3 vs 55.6 years, p < 0.001) and a higher proportion of Blacks and Hispanics compared to the non-COVID-19 cohort. After adjusting for confounders, the COVID-19 cohort had higher all-cause inpatient mortality (4.77 vs 1.45%, aOR 4.09, 95% CI 2.50-6.69, p < 0.001), mean length of stay (LOS) [10.19 vs 5.94 days, mean difference: 3.88, 95% CI 2.68-5.07, p < 0.001] and mean total hospital charges (THC) [$152,933 vs $96,398, mean difference: 46,367, 95% CI 21,776-70,957, p < 0.001] compared to the non-COVID-19 cohort. Increasing age, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, and post-ERCP pancreatitis were identified to be independent predictors of inpatient mortality for COVID-19 hospitalizations that underwent ERCP. Furthermore, the COVID-19 cohort had higher odds of developing post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) (11.55 vs 7.05%, aOR 1.64, 95% CI 1.19-2.25, p = 0.002) compared to the non-COVID-19 cohort, after adjusting for confounders. However, there was no statistical difference in the rates of bowel perforations and post-ERCP hemorrhage between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 hospitalizations that underwent ERCP had higher inpatient mortality, mean LOS, mean THC, and odds of developing PEP compared to the non-COVID-19 cohort.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is not a part of a clinical trial.

Up-to-date literature review and issues of sedation during digestive endoscopy

Sedation is common during digestive endoscopy to provide comfort and pain relief for patients. However, the use of sedation in endoscopy also poses potential risks, and recent issues have been raised regarding its safety and administration. This literature review paper will discuss the most recent developments in the field of sedation in digestive endoscopy, including the adverse events that might be associated with sedation and how to manage it, the legal issues associated with administration, the impact of COVID-19 on sedation practices, and sedation in special situations. It will also touch upon the current guidelines and recommendations for sedation, including the importance of patient selection and monitoring and the need for training and certification for endoscopists administering sedation. The review will also analyse studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of various sedation techniques, including propofol, midazolam, and others. It will examine the benefits and drawbacks of these agents.

The Prevalence of Gastrointestinal Bleeding in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 caused the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19), which rapidly became a pandemic, claiming millions of lives. Apart from the main manifestations of this infection concerning the respiratory tract, such as pneumonia, there are also many manifestations from the gastrointestinal tract. Of these, bleeding from the gastrointestinal tract is a significant complication quite dangerous for life. This bleeding is divided into upper and lower, and the primary pathophysiological mechanism is the entering of the virus into the host cells through the Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors. Also, other comorbidities and the medication of corticosteroids and anticoagulants are considered to favor the occurrence of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). Methods: This systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the studies were searched in two different databases (Scopus and PubMed) from November 2019 until February 2023. All studies that reported GIB events among COVID-19 patients were included. Results: 33 studies were selected and reviewed to estimate the prevalence of GIB. A total of 134,905 patients with COVID-19 were included in these studies, and there were 1458 episodes of GIB. The prevalence of GIB, in these 33 studies, ranges from 0.47% to 19%. This range of prevalence is justified by the characteristics of the COVID-19 patients. These characteristics are the severity of COVID-19, anticoagulant and other drug treatments, the selection of only patients with gastrointestinal manifestations, etc. The pooled prevalence of gastrointestinal bleeding was estimated to be 3.05%, rising to 6.2% when only anticoagulant patients were included. Conclusions: GIB in COVID-19 patients is not a rare finding, and its appropriate and immediate treatment is necessary as it can be life-threatening. The most common clinical findings are melena and hematemesis, which characterize upper GIB. Treatment can be conservative; however, endoscopic management of bleeding with embolization is deemed necessary in some cases.

Effect of enhanced personal protective equipment on colonoscopy performance and pain linked to procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background and study aim: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of standard personal protective equipment (SPPE) reduces transmission risks during endoscopic procedures. Our aim was to assess the effect of enhanced personal protective equipment (EPPE) on colonoscopy performance and pain linked to the procedure compared with SPPE. Patients and methods: During two similar periods with three- month duration (in 2019 and in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic), electronic medical records and colonoscopy reports were investigated for sequential patients undergoing colonoscopy. SPPE was used in 2019 and EPPE in 2020. The patients’ clinical data and information related to the procedure were collected and analyzed. Primary outcomes were the duration to intubate the cecum, total procedure duration and patient pain score at the end of the procedure. Secondary outcomes were adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR). Results: A total of 426 patients with colonoscopy performed were analyzed. The demographic features and indications for colonoscopy were similar for patients in both groups. The EPPE group had higher values for the parameters assessed as primary endpoints of cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, total procedure time and pain at the end of the procedure compared to the SPPE group and the differences were statistically significant. Conclusion: Our findings show that though the use of EPPE negatively affected colonoscopy performance and patient pain at the end of the procedure, it had no effect on the colonoscopy quality indices such as ADR, PDR and CIR.

A case of esophageal ulcer and hemorrhage due to aberrant subclavian in a COVID positive patient

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), a global pandemic, is a respiratory infection that impairs the lungs among many other organs. We report a case of a COVID-19 positive patient requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation with nasogastric tube for enteral feeding, leading to esophageal ulcer and hemorrhage, from an aberrant right subclavian artery.

Predictive Outcomes Using Child-Turcotte-Pugh and Albumin-Bilirubin Scores in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Undergoing Transarterial Chemoembolization

INTRODUCTION

We assessed the ability of the Child-Turcotte-Pugh score and the albumin-bilirubin grade to predict the outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients treated with transarterial chemoembolization.

METHODS

We retrospectively assessed 158 patients with HCC who underwent transarterial chemoembolization. The ability of the Child-Turcotte-Pugh score and the albumin-bilirubin grade to predict patient survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate survival-predictive variables and the relationship between the obtained score and overall survival.

RESULTS

Child-Turcotte-Pugh A (n = 102 (64.6%)) patients showed better overall survival than Child-Turcotte-Pugh B (n = 56 (35.4%)) patients (log-rank P = 0.017), while no significant difference in the overall survival between albumin-bilirubin ≤ 1 (n = 37 (23.4%)) and albumin-bilirubin > 1 (n = 121 (76.6%)) was detected (log-rank P = 0.140). Multivariate analysis identified alcoholic liver disease (P = 0.029), tumor size > 5 cm (P = 0.004), and serum alpha-fetoprotein > 200 ng/mL (P < 0.001) as independent predictive factors of mortality risk. A higher Child-Turcotte-Pugh score was positively associated with decreased overall survival (P = 0.031); however, a higher albumin-bilirubin grade showed marginally significant association (P = 0.088).

CONCLUSIONS

The Child-Turcotte-Pugh score precisely categorized the outcomes of HCC in patients undergoing transarterial chemoembolization, and cirrhotic patients with Child-Turcotte-Pugh A will have a better overall survival than those with Child-Turcotte-Pugh B, regardless of HCC status. These results suggest that the Child-Turcotte-Pugh classification system is a more powerful tool to predict patient outcomes than the albumin-bilirubin grading system.

Gastrointestinal Bleeding in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been reported to affect the gastrointestinal system with a variety of symptoms, including bleeding. The prevalence of bleeding in these patients remains unclear. The aim of this meta-analysis is to estimate the rate of gastrointestinal bleeding in COVID-19 patients and its association with mortality. MEDLINE and Embase were searched through December 20, 2020. Studies reporting COVID-19 patients with and without gastrointestinal bleeding were included. Estimated prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was pooled; heterogeneity was expressed as I ². Metaregression analysis was performed to assess the impact of confounding covariates. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. A total of 91887 COVID-19 patients were considered, of whom 534 reported gastrointestinal bleeding (0.6%) [409 (76.6%) upper and 121 (22.7%) lower gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB and LGIB, resp.)]. The overall pooled gastrointestinal bleeding rate was 5% [95% CI 2-8], with high heterogeneity (I ² 99.2%); "small study effect" was observed using the Egger test (p=0.049). After removing two outlier studies, the pooled bleeding rate was 2% [95% CI 0-4], with high heterogeneity (I ² 99.2%), and no "small study effect" (p=0.257). The pooled UGIB rate was 1% (95% CI 0-3, I ² 98.6%, p=0.214), whereas the pooled LGIB rate was 1% (95% CI 0-2, I ² 64.7%, p=0.919). Metaregression analysis showed that overall estimates on gastrointestinal bleeding were affected by studies reporting different sources of bleeding. No significant association between gastrointestinal bleeding and mortality was found. In this meta-analysis of published studies, individuals with COVID-19 were found to be at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, especially upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Combined Percutaneous Tracheostomy and Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tubes in COVID-19: A Prospective Series of Patient Outcomes

Background: A significant number of patients with severe respiratory failure related to COVID-19 require prolonged mechanical ventilation. Minimal data exists regarding the timing, safety, and efficacy of combined bedside percutaneous tracheostomy and endoscopy gastrostomy tube placement in these patients. The safety for healthcare providers is also in question. This study's objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of combined bedside tracheostomy and gastrostomy tube placement in COVID-19 patients. Design and Methods: This is a single arm, prospective cohort study in patients with COVID-19 and acute respiratory failure requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation who underwent bedside tracheostomy and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement. Detailed clinical and procedural data were collected. Descriptive statistics were employed and time to event curves were estimated and plotted using the Kaplan Meier method for clinically relevant prespecified endpoints. Results: Among 58 patients, the median total intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay was 29 days (24.7-33.3) with a median of 10 days (6.3-13.7) postprocedure. Nearly 88% of patients were weaned from mechanical ventilation postprocedure at a median of 9 days (6-12); 94% of these were decannulated. Sixty-day mortality was 10.3%. Almost 90% of patients were discharged alive from the hospital. All procedures were done at bedside with no patient transfer required out of the ICU. A median of 3.0 healthcare personnel total were present in the room per procedure. Conclusion: This study shows that survival of critically ill COVID-19 patients after tracheostomy and gastrostomy was nearly 90%. The time-to-event curves are encouraging regarding time to weaning, downsizing, decannulation, and discharge. A combined procedure minimizes the risk of virus transmission to healthcare providers in addition to decreasing the number of anesthetic episodes, transfusions, and transfers patients must undergo. This approach should be considered in critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation.

Changes in endoscopic patterns before and during COVID-19 outbreak: Experience at a single tertiary center in Korean

BACKGROUND

The surge of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients has markedly influenced the treatment policies of tertiary hospitals because of the need to protect medical staff and contain viral transmission, but the impact COVID-19 had on emergency gastrointestinal endoscopies has not been determined.

AIM

To compare endoscopic activities and analyze the clinical outcomes of emergency endoscopies performed before and during the COVID-19 outbreak in Daegu, the worst-hit region in South Korea.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients aged ≥ 18 years that underwent endoscopy from February 18 to March 28, 2020, at a tertiary hospital in Daegu. Demographics, laboratory findings, types and causes of emergency endoscopies, and endoscopic reports were reviewed and compared with those obtained for the same period in 2018 and 2019.

RESULTS

From February 18 to March 28, a total of 366 emergent endoscopic procedures were performed: Upper endoscopy (170, 50.6%), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (113, 33.6%), and colonoscopy with sigmoidoscopy (53, 15.8%). The numbers of procedures performed in 2018 and 2019 dropped by 48.8% and 54.8%, respectively, compared with those in 2020. During the COVID-19 outbreak, the main indications for endoscopy were melena (36.7%), hematemesis (30.6%), and hematochezia (10.2%). Of the endoscopic abnormalities detected, gastrointestinal bleeding was the most common: 39 cases in 2018, 51 in 2019, and 35 in 2020.

CONCLUSION

The impact of COVID-19 is substantial and caused dramatic reductions in endoscopic procedures and changes in patient behaviors. Long-term follow-up studies are required to determine the effects of COVID-19 induced changes in the endoscopy field.

The role of endoscopy and findings in COVID-19 patients, an early North American Cohort

Background and aims

Gastrointestinal manifestations in patients with COVID-19 are common but the role of endoscopy in this patient population remains unclear. We investigated the need for endoscopic procedures, their findings, and impact on patient care in a systematic and geographically diverse sample of patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

Methods

As part of the North American Alliance for the Study of Digestive Manifestations of COVID-19, we identified consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at 36 medical centers in the USA and Canada. We performed a secondary analysis of patients who underwent endoscopy, collecting information on endoscopic indications, findings, interventions, staffing, procedure location, anesthesia utilization, and adverse events.

Results

Data were collected on 1992 patients; 24 (1.2%) underwent 27 endoscopic procedures (18 upper endoscopies, 7 colonoscopies, 2 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies). The most common indications were: gastrointestinal bleeding (13) and enteral access (6). The most common findings were erosive or inflammatory changes. Ten patients underwent an endoscopic intervention for hemostatic therapy (2), enteral access (6), or biliary obstruction (2). Half of cases employed anesthesiology support; no sedation-related adverse events were reported. One-third of cases were performed in the intensive care setting and one quarter in the endoscopy unit.

Conclusions

In this large, systematic, geographically diverse cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in North America, very few patients underwent endoscopy despite a high prevalence of gastrointestinal manifestations. Almost all endoscopic findings and interventions were thought related to critical illness rather than direct viral injury. This systematic assessment of endoscopic necessity and outcomes may help guide resource allocation in the event of ongoing and future surges.

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Effects of Enhanced Personal Protective Equipment

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Personal protective equipment (PPE) decreases the risk of disease contagion, and because of the COVID-19 pandemic, enhanced PPE (EPPE) is widely used during endoscopic procedures including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of EPPE on ERCP success parameters compared to standard PPE (SPPE).

METHODS

ERCP procedures were evaluated retrospectively and ERCP outcomes were compared for similar time periods as before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Primary outcomes were cannulation time, number of cannulation attempts, cannulation success rate, difficult cannulation rate, undesired pancreatic duct cannulation rate, ERCP-related adverse events, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Three hundred and eighty ERCP procedures were examined. One hundred and fifty-nine procedures were excluded due to missing data, previous sphincterotomy or altered anatomy. Of the final eligible sample size of 221 ERCPs, 93 were performed using SPPE and 128 were performed under EPPE. Indications of ERCP and demographic parameters were similar between groups. The majority of the ERCP cases included were for benign biliary obstruction of common bile duct stones (88.7%). No significant differences were detected in overall technical success (91.4% vs 92.2%, p = 0.832), cannulation success rates (94.6% vs 96.8%, p = 0.403), cannulation times (median times of both groups were 3 min, p = 0.824), difficult cannulation rates (37.6% vs 33.6%, p = 0.523), undesired pancreatic duct cannulation rates (29% vs 22.7%, p = 0.593), number of cannulation attempts (2.80 vs 2.71, p = 0.731), ERCP-related adverse events (9.7% vs 10.9%, p = 0.762), and length of hospital stay (6.63 vs 6.92 days, p = 0.768) between SPPE and EPPE groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Biliary obstructions of common bile duct stones were the major indication of ERCP in the current study. The use of EPPE had no negative effects on ERCP performance in this patient group. ERCP can be effectively performed under EPPE.