Emergencies after endoscopic procedures

Prediction of esophagogastroduodenoscopy therapeutic usefulness for in-ICU suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding: the SUGIBI score study

BACKGROUND

Suspected upper gastrointestinal bleeding (SUGIB) is a common issue during ICU stay. In the absence of specific guidelines on the indication and timing of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), there is substantial variability in EGD indication depending on accessibility and clinical presentation. This study aimed to investigate factors associated with the need for per-EGD hemostatic therapy and to create a score predicting therapeutic benefit of emergency bedside EGD in ICU patients with SUGIB.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study in our ICU to identify factors associated with the need for hemostatic procedure during EGD performed for SUGIB. From this observational cohort, we derived a score predicting the need for hemostasis during EGD, the SUGIBI score. This score was subsequently validated in a retrospective multicenter cohort.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-five patients not primarily admitted for GI bleeding who underwent a bedside EGD for SUGIB during their ICU stay were analyzed. The preeminent EGD indication were anemia (79%), melena (19%), shock (14%), and hematemesis (13%). EGD was normal in 24.7% of cases, while primary lesions reported were ulcers (23.1%), esophagitis (18.8%), and gastritis (12.5%). Only 12.9% of patients underwent hemostatic endotherapy during EGD. A SUGIBI score < 4 had a negative predictive value of 95% (91-99) for hemostatic endotherapy [AUC of 0.81; 0.75-0.91 (p < 0.0001)]. The SUGIBI score for predicting the need for an EGD-guided hemostatic procedure was next validated in a multicenter cohort with an AUC of 0.75 (0.66-0.85) (p < 0.0001), a score < 4 having a negative predictive value of 95% (92-97).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that the therapeutic usefulness of bedside emergency EGD for SUGIB in critically ill patients is limited to a minority of patients. The SUGIBI score should help clinicians stratify the probability of a therapeutic EGD.

Development of a Nurse-Led Competency-Based Program for Therapeutic Endoscopy: The Formation of the Nurse Product Procedure Group

Therapeutic endoscopy is emerging as an innovating alternative to gastroenterology surgery. Due to the increase in new technologies, endoscopy clinical staff require ongoing education to develop safe, competent practice for new equipment and supplies. Maintaining competencies with new equipment and supplies can be challenging. This article illustrates the development and implementation of a continuous educational program for endoscopy clinical staff at a major academic medical center. An initial needs assessment of staff education and competency led to the multidisciplinary plan for continuous education. Development of the Nurse Product Procedure Group enabled endoscopy staff to standardize care and maintain competency in advanced therapeutic procedures. The Nurse Product Procedure Group offers various pathways of learning to meet clinical staff's individual learning needs. Over a 5-year span of implementation, staff satisfaction of education and resources improved. Key implementation elements of the Nurse Product Procedure Group include monthly staff education, resource development, multidisciplinary collaboration, cost savings, outreach education, and external collaboration with national and international gastroenterology professional organizations and societies.

Needs assessment survey for simulation-based training for gastrointestinal endoscopy nurses

The optimal performance of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy nurses is required for patient safety and quality improvement. The aim of the present study was to assess the educational needs for simulation-based training for Korean GI endoscopy nurses using importance-performance analysis. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 238 Korean nurses from 25 endoscopy units. The educational needs of these nurses were identified using the 35 item clinical competence importance-performance scale. Exploratory factor analysis of the scale identified the following eight factors: emergency care, patient monitoring, evidence-based practice, documentation and referral, patient safety, nursing process, patient assessment, and infection control. A significant overall mean difference was identified between importance and performance for all eight factors, with emergency care showing the largest difference. It was also ranked the highest priority for continuing education in the importance-performance analysis matrix. Therefore, simulation-based training should focus on enhancing emergency care competence for GI endoscopy nurses to improve patient safety and quality of care.

Endoscopic perforations: what are the indications for surgery?

BACKGROUND

Despite their low occurrence, endoscopic perforations (EPs) are concerning. Some predictive factors have been identified, and EP management is debated, whether non-surgical (medical and/or endoscopic) or surgical. The objective was to elaborate a predictive score for surgical management of EP.

METHODS

All the patients addressed for upper and lower EP, except oesophageal EP, were retrospectively included (2004-2015). Demographic data, endoscopic features (indication, location, type), clinical, biological and radiological presentations of EP were reviewed. Management of EP and outcomes were recorded. A predictive score was constructed by multiple linear regression and a cut-off value for surgical management was identified. Additional subgroup analysis was performed according to the location of EP (upper and lower).

RESULTS

Among 41150 endoscopic procedures, 44 patients (22 males, median age = 65 years [22-87]) presenting with EP were included (0.09%). Lower gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy was mostly performed (66%). EP diagnosis was immediate in 73% of the cases (n = 32). Non-surgical management was efficient in 2/3 cases treated medically alone, and 18/20 cases treated by endoscopy. Surgical management was always successful (n = 24/24). In case of peritonitis, surgery was systematically required, whereas easily required in case of delayed diagnostic of EP. The EP score was based on the presence of previous abdominal surgery, lower GI endoscopy and diagnostic endoscopy. A cut-off EP score of 22.8% for surgery was chosen; it was associated with a specificity and sensitivity of 40 and 100%, respectively. When subgroups were analysed according to EP location, the EP score was still based on the presence of previous abdominal surgery and diagnostic endoscopy. The cut-off was 6.3 and 73.3% for upper (specificity: 73%, sensitivity: 100%) and lower (89 and 45%) locations, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The predictive EP score may avoid inappropriate surgical management, as well as delayed surgery after non-surgical management failure. Forthcoming study should prospectively validate this score.

The role of surgery in the treatment of endoscopic complications

As the number, diversity, and complexity of endoscopic complications has increased, so too has the number, diversity, and complexity of operative interventions required to treat them. The most common complications of endoscopy in general are bleeding and perforation, but each endoscopic modality has specific nuances of these and other complications. Accordingly, this review considers the surgical complications of endoscopy by location within the gastrointestinal tract, as opposed to by complication types, since there are many complication types that are specific for only one or few locations, such as buried-bumper syndrome after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and since the management of a given complication, such as perforation, may be vastly different in one area than in another area, such as perforations of the esophagus versus the retroperitoneal duodenum versus the intraperitoneal duodenum. It is hoped that this review will provide guidance for gastroenterologists considering a particular procedure, either to assess the risks for surgical complications in preparation for patient counseling, or assist in assessing a patient who seems to be having a severe complication, or to learn what operation might be required to treat a given complication and how that operation might be performed. As with many operations, those for the treatment of endoscopic complications are typically performed only when less invasive, nonoperative strategies fail.

Complications of endoscopic resection techniques for upper GI tract lesions

Adverse events can occur during and after the endoscopic resection of upper gastrointestinal lesions. Their incidence can be minimized through the adoption of preventive measures and their final outcomes can be optimized through prompt identification and adequate treatment. In this evidence-based review we describe the risk factors for adverse events, preventive measures to avoid them and their management when they occur. Algorithms of action are also provided. Oesophageal strictures can be prevented with corticosteroids (either locally injected or systemically administered) and treated with endoscopic dilatation. Bleeding can be minimized through the adoption of prophylactic coagulation and novel preventive measures are emerging and being evaluated. Bleeding management includes coagulation therapy, clips and haemostatic powders. Perforations can nowadays be successfully treated endoscopically in the majority of the cases and conservative treatment is associated with favourable outcomes although optimal management is unclear.

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: expected post-procedural findings and adverse events

Complications related to endoscopy are commonly encountered in the emergency department (ED) due to an increased use of outpatient diagnostic and therapeutic upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. A majority of these procedures are performed on an outpatient basis, and patients with post-procedural symptoms may return to the ED. Since these patients often undergo computed tomography (CT) for diagnosis of post-procedure complications, the emergency radiologist should be familiar with the spectrum of expected post-procedural findings, as well as common and rare complications. We present a pictorial review of post-endoscopy complications and review imaging protocols in different clinical scenarios.