AEG-SEED position paper for the resumption of endoscopic activity after the peak phase of the COVID-19 pandemic

The Effect of Coronavirus Disease 2019 on the Quality of Associated Care in Patients with Gastric Cancer

Coronavirus is a new virus that has affected human life on a large scale; it has infected millions of people and killed hundreds of thousands of people. In contrast, among cancers, stomach neoplasia is the most common cancer of the upper gastrointestinal (UGI) tract. COVID-19 disease has disrupted the optimal management of patients with cancer. Metastasis, deterioration of the patient's nutritional status, UGI bleeding, and increased surgical complications are all consequences of delayed treatment of patients with gastric cancer. However, there is still insufficient evidence on the immunogenicity of the vaccine and the protection provided by coronavirus vaccines in patients with cancer, especially those with immunodeficiency or those who are treated for certain types of cancers. Also, as part of the prevention and control of COVID-19 disease, nutritional support for patients with gastrointestinal cancer is particularly important, and the psychological and physiological limitations caused by the disease duration are hurting the well-being of patients. Therefore, the assessment of the impact of the coronavirus on cancer should be treated as an important issue, and healthcare professionals should be prepared to deal with the long-term effects of the coronavirus disease.

Reducing the environmental footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement

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 become a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions practice by 2050.

Consensus among clinicians on referrals' priority and use of digital decision-making support systems

The growing demand for referrals is a main policy concern in health systems. One approach involves the development of demand management tools in the form of clinical prioritization to regulate patient referrals from primary care to specialist care. For clinical prioritization to be effective, it is critical that general practitioners (GPs) assess patient priority in the same way as specialists. The progressive development of IT tools in clinical practice, in the form of electronic referrals support systems (e-RSS), can facilitate clinical prioritization. In this study, we tested if higher use of e-RSS or higher use of high-priority categories was associated with the degree of agreement and therefore consensus on clinical priority between GPs and specialists. We found that higher use by GPs of the e-RSS tool was positively associated with greater degree of priority agreement with specialists, while higher use of the high-priority categories was associated with lower degree of priority agreement with specialists. Furthermore, female GPs, GPs in association with others, and GPs using a specific electronic medical record showed higher agreement with specialists. Our study therefore supports the use of electronic referrals systems to improve clinical prioritization and manage the demand of specialist visits and diagnostic tests. It also shows that there is scope for reducing excessive use by GPs of high-priority categories.

The use of personal protective equipment in endoscopy: what should the endoscopist wear during a pandemic?

Endoscopists are at high risk of exposure and nosocomial transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 virus) when performing endoscopic procedures due to the highly aerosol generating nature of these procedures. At present, there is still no consensus among endoscopists with regards to the type of protective equipment to be worn by healthcare workers, when performing endoscopy during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This review encompasses a summary of currently published guidelines related to the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) when performing endoscopic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic. With increasing calls to rationalize the use of PPE due to shortages in global supply chains, the review offers a concise summary on the most appropriate and adequate use of PPE when performing endoscopy during the pandemic. It is expected that these adaptations in the use of PPE during the pandemic will help to improve standards of care and safety of healthcare workers.

Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: Can we improve the diagnostic yield?

Although adenomas and serrated polyps are the preneoplastic lesions of colorectal cancer, only few of them will eventually progress to cancer. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the present and future of post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance. Post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines have recently been updated and all share the aim towards more selective and less frequent surveillance. We have examined these current guidelines and compared the recommendations of each of them. To improve the diagnostic yield of post-polypectomy surveillance it is important to find predictors of metachronous polyps that better identify high-risk individuals of developing advanced neoplasia. For this reason, we have also conducted a literature review of the molecular biomarkers of metachronous advanced colorectal polyps. Finally, we have discussed future directions of post-polypectomy surveillance and identified possible strategies to improve the use of endoscopic resources with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Colorectal cancer screening in the COVID-19 era

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most diagnosed form of cancer and second most deadly cancer worldwide. Introduction of better screening has improved both incidence and mortality. However, as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic began, healthcare resources were shunted away from cancer screening services resulting in a sharp decrease in CRC screening and a backlog of patients awaiting screening tests. This may have significant effects on CRC cancer mortality, as delayed screening may lead to advanced cancer at diagnosis. Strategies to overcome COVID-19 related disruption include utilizing stool-based cancer tests, developing screening protocols based on individual risk factors, expanding telehealth, and increasing open access colonoscopies. In this review, we will summarize the effects of COVID-19 on CRC screening, the potential long-outcomes, and ways to adapt CRC screening during this global pandemic.

Resumption of endoscopy in the Galician colorectal cancer screening programme after the COVID-19 lock down: patient safety results

The COVID-19 pandemic meant that the population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs had to be suspended. Modifications were made to the organization in order to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. We report the experience of the Galician CRC screening program and patient safety results. Endoscopy was suspended between 13/03/2020 and 11/05/2020. After resumption, a total of 3,310 colonoscopies were performed (1,702 positive fecal occult blood tests and 1,608 endoscopy monitoring) and no SARS-CoV-2 infections were detected in the subsequent two weeks. Thus, resumption of activity associated with population screening was safe.

Pre-procedural antibody testing for SARS-CoV-2 in the routine endoscopic practice

METHODS

a retrospective multicenter cohort study was performed of all endoscopic procedures performed between April 27 and June 15, 2020. A screening questionnaire (SQ) was performed with patients three days prior to the procedure and 14 days after. Furthermore, a serologic SARS-CoV-2 test was performed 48 hours before.

RESULTS

two hundred and eleven consecutive patients with endoscopic procedures were included. No patients had a positive SQ, either on entry to the study or 14 days later. Only four patients (1.9 % [95 % CI: 0.07-4.8 %]) were positive for antibodies.

CONCLUSION

the pre-endoscopy seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 is low in this cohort. Pre-procedural SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing does not add any benefit over clinical SQ to identify active COVID-19 patients.

Implications of SARS-COV-2 infection in the diagnosis and management of the pediatric gastrointestinal disease

Gastrointestinal diseases such as celiac disease, functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs), inflammatory bowel disease (IBDs) and acute or chronic diarrhea are quite frequent in the pediatric population. The approach, the diagnosis and management can be changed in the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic era. This review has focused on: i) the current understanding of digestive involvement in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infected children and adolescents and the clinical implications of COVID-19 for pediatric gastroenterologists, ii) the impact of COVID-19 on the clinical approach to patients with pre-existing or onset diseases, including diagnosis and treatment, and iii) the role and limited access to the instrumental diagnosis such as digestive endoscopy. To date, it is unclear if immunosuppression in patients with IBD and chronic liver disease represents a risk factor for adverse outcomes. Scheduled outpatient follow-up visits may be postponed, especially in patients in remission. Conversely, telemedicine services are strongly recommended. The introduction of new therapeutic regimens should be made on an individual basis, discussing the benefits and risks with each patient. Furthermore, psychological care in all children with chronic disease and their parents should be ensured. All non-urgent and elective endoscopic procedures may be postponed as they must be considered at high risk of viral transmission. Finally, until SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is not available, strict adherence to standard social distancing protocols and the use of personal protective equipment should continue to be recommended.

The EPAGE guidelines are not an effective strategy for managing colonoscopies during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introducción La pandemia producida por el virus SARS-CoV-2 ha generado un grave impacto en el funcionamiento de las unidades de endoscopia digestiva. La Asociación Española de Gastroenterología y la Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva (AEG-SEED) han propuesto la utilización de la guía European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy II (EPAGE) para la gestión de las colonoscopias pospuestas.

Objetivo

Evaluar la guía EPAGE como herramienta de gestión en comparación con el test de sangre oculta en heces inmunológico (TSOHi) y con una calculadora de riesgo (CR), que incluye la edad, el sexo y el TSOHi, para la detección de cáncer colorrectal (CCR) y lesión significativa colónica (LSC).

Métodos

Estudio unicéntrico prospectivo. Se incluyeron 743 pacientes derivados para una colonoscopia diagnóstica. Se clasificó cada solicitud según EPAGE en apropiada, indeterminada e inapropiada. Se les entregó un TSOHi y se calculó el valor de la CR.

Resultados

El TSOHi (p<0,001), pero no EPAGE (p = 0,742), fue una variable independiente de riesgo de CCR. El área bajo la curva receiver operating characteristic (ROC) de EPAGE, TSOHi y CR fue: 0,61(IC 95% 0,49 a 0,75), 0,95 (0,93 a 0,97) y 0,90 (0,87 a 0,93) para CCR; y 0,55 (0,49 a 0,61), 0,75 (0,69 a 0,813) y 0,78 (0,73 a 0,83) para LSC, respectivamente. El número necesario de colonoscopias para detectar un CCR y una LSC fue de 38 y siete para EPAGE, de siete y dos para TSOHi, y de 19 y cuatro para CR ≥ cinco puntos, respectivamente.

Conclusión

La EPAGE, a diferencia del TSOHi, no es adecuada para seleccionar a los pacientes candidatos a colonoscopia diagnóstica para la detección de CCR. El TSOHi, en combinación con la edad y el sexo, es la estrategia correcta para gestionar la demanda de endoscopia en un escenario de acceso restrictivo.

COVID-19 and liver disease: An update

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has proven to be a serious challenge for the Spanish healthcare system. The impact of the virus on the liver is not well known, but in patients with chronic liver disease, mostly in advanced stages, it can critically compromise survival and trigger decompensation. Treatment in this subpopulation is complex due to the potential hepatotoxicity of some of the medicinal products used. Moreover, the pandemic has also negatively impacted patients with liver disease who have not contracted COVID-19, since the reallocation of human and material resources to the care of patients with the virus has resulted in a decrease in the treatment, diagnosis and follow-up of patients with liver disease, which will surely have negative consequences in the near future. Efficient reorganization of hepatology units is a priority to minimise the impact of the pandemic on a population as vulnerable as liver disease patients.

Evaluation of endoscopy requests in the resumption of activity during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: denial of nonindicated requests and prioritization of accepted requests

INTRODUCTION

the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic forced the closure of endoscopy units. Before resuming endoscopic activity, we designed a protocol to evaluate gastroscopies and colonoscopies cancelled during the pandemic, denying inappropriate requests and prioritizing appropriate ones.

METHODS

two types of inappropriate request were established: a) COVID-19 context, people aged ≤ 50 years without alarm symptoms and a low probability of relevant endoscopic findings; and b) inappropriate context, requests not in line with clinical guidelines or protocols. Denials were filed in the medical record. Appropriate requests were classified into priority, conventional and follow-up. Requests denied by specialty were compared and the findings of priority requests were evaluated.

RESULTS

between March 16th and June 30th 2020, 1,658 requests (44 % gastroscopies and 56 % colonoscopies) were evaluated, of which 1,164 (70 %) were considered as appropriate (priority 8.5 %, conventional 48 %, follow-up 43 % and non-evaluable 0.5 %) and 494 (30 %) as inappropriate (20 % COVID-19 context, 80 % inappropriate context). The reasons for denial of gastroscopy were follow-up of lesions (33 %), insufficiently studied symptoms (20 %) and relapsing symptoms after a previous gastroscopy (18 %). The reasons for denial of colonoscopies were post-polypectomy surveillance (25 %), colorectal cancer after surgery (21 %) and a family history of cancer (13 %). There were significant differences in denied requests according to specialty: General Surgery (52 %), Hematology (37 %) and Primary Care (29 %); 31 % of priority cases showed relevant findings.

CONCLUSIONS

according to our study, 24 % of endoscopies were discordant with scientific recommendations. Therefore, their denial and the prioritization of appropriate ones optimize the use of resources.