Quality indicators for EGD

The 2023 top 10 list of endoscopy topics in medical publishing: an annual review by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Editorial Board

Using a systematic literature search of original articles published during 2023 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (GIE) and other high-impact medical and gastroenterology journals, the GIE Editorial Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy compiled a list of the top 10 most significant topic areas in general and advanced GI endoscopy during the year. Each GIE Editorial Board member was directed to consider 3 criteria in generating candidate topics-significance, novelty, and impact on global clinical practice-and subject matter consensus was facilitated by the Chair through electronic voting and a meeting of the entire GIE Editorial Board. The 10 identified areas collectively represent advances in the following endoscopic spheres: GI bleeding, endohepatology, endoscopic palliation, artificial intelligence and polyp detection, artificial intelligence beyond the colon, better polypectomy and EMR, how to make endoscopy units greener, high-quality upper endoscopy, endoscopic tissue apposition and closure devices, and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Each board member was assigned a topic area around which to summarize relevant important articles, thereby generating this overview of the "top 10" endoscopic advances of 2023.

Effects of adding adjuvants to propofol on the post-anesthesia cognitive function in patients undergoing gastroscopy/colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to elucidate the effects of propofol plus adjuvants on postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) and patient satisfaction.

METHODS

Studies published up to September 2023 on the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Sinomed, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Clinictrials.gov websites were searched. Binary summary of results was used for meta-analyses.

RESULTS

We included 18 studies (2691 patients). The combined sedation did not affect the processing speed (ES = 0.02, 95%CI: -0.01, 0.04; I2 = 79.3%, p < 0.001), attention (ES = 0.02, 95%CI: -0.02, 0.05; I2 = 95.0%, p < 0.001), nor working memory (ES = 0.02, 95%CI: -0.03, 0.06; I2 = 94.4%, p < 0.001) in CogState brief battery tool. A significant effect of combined sedation was observed in the domain of visual learning in CogState tool (ES = -0.03, 95%CI: -0.04, -0.02; I2 = 15.8%, p = 0.306). The TDT (ES = 4.96, 95%CI: 2.92, 7.00) indicates that combined sedation would increase error rates in the tests of cognitive function. The DSST (ES = 0.16, 95% CI: -0.44, 0.75) shown that combined sedation does not affect cognitive function. In addition, an insignificant difference in patient satisfaction between combined sedation and propofol alone was observed (ES = -0.03, 95%CI: -0.09, 0.02).

CONCLUSION

The available evidence suggests that propofol combined with adjuvants may affect POCD but not patient satisfaction.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

INPLASY2023110092.

The prospective validation of a scoring system to assess mucosal cleanliness during EGD

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Cleanliness of the mucosa of the upper GI (UGI) tract is critical for performing a high-quality EGD. The aim of this study was to validate a recently developed UGI cleanliness scale (the Polprep: Effective Assessment of Cleanliness in Esophagogastroduodenoscopy [PEACE] system) in the detection of clinically significant lesions (CSLs) in the UGI tract.

METHODS

Patients who underwent a complete diagnostic EGD were prospectively enrolled from August 2021 to October 2022. The UGI tract (esophagus, stomach, and duodenum) cleanliness was scored from 0 to 3 for each segment. The primary outcomes were the detection of CSLs and PEACE scores.

RESULTS

Of 995 patients enrolled from 5 centers, adequate cleanliness (AQ; all scores ≥2) was found in 929 patients. In multivariate regression analysis, AQ was associated with the number of diagnosed CSLs (odds ratio [OR], 1.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-3.01; P = .03). Other factors related to CSL detection were duration of EGD (OR, 1.29, 95% CI, 1.23-1.35, P < .001), male sex (OR, 1.33, 95% CI, 1.04-1.71; P = .025), and EGD indication (dyspepsia, alarm symptoms, gastritis surveillance, other indications vs GERD) (OR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.31-0.6, P < .001], OR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.28-0.67, P < .001], OR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.25-0.76; P = .004], and OR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.31-0.62; P < .001], respectively). Twenty-seven patients were diagnosed with UGI neoplasia, all in patients with adequate cleanliness of the UGI tract.

CONCLUSIONS

Adequate cleanliness of the UGI tract as assessed with the PEACE system was associated with a significantly higher detection rate of CSLs during EGD. The relationship of this scale with UGI neoplasia detection warrants further investigation.

Risk factors of missed early gastric cancer in endoscopic resected population: a retrospective, case-control study

BACKGROUND

Missed early gastric cancer (MEGC) is prevalent during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), which is the first-line recommended strategy for detecting early gastric cancer (EGC). Hence, we explored the risk factors for MEGC and different types of MEGC, based on the endoscopic resected population.

METHODS

This retrospective, case-control study was conducted at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital (NJDTH). We included patients who were diagnosed with EGC during screening EGD, underwent endoscopic resection, and were confirmed by postoperative pathology at the NJDTH from January 2014 to December 2021, and classified them into different types according to the different root causes of misses. Univariable, multivariable, subgroup and propensity score analyses were used to explore the risk factors for MEGC and different types of MEGC.

RESULTS

A total of 447 patients, comprising 345 with initially detected early gastric cancer (IDEGC) and 102 with MEGC, were included in this study. Larger size (≥ 1 cm) (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27-0.74, P = 0.002) and invasion depth of submucosa (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10-0.69, P = 0.007) were negatively associated with MEGC. Use of sedation (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.20-0.52, P < 0.001) and longer observation time (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37-0.96, P = 0.034) exhibited protective effect on MEGC.

CONCLUSIONS

Smaller and more superficial EGC lesions are more susceptible to misdiagnosis. The use of sedation and prolonged observation time during EGD could help reduce the occurrence of MEGC.

Assessing the benefits of repeated esophagogastroduodenoscopy at a specialized center before gastric and esophageal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

The surgical treatment of gastric and esophageal cancer in Denmark is centralized in four specialized esophagogastric cancer (EGC) centers. Patients are referred after an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at a secondary healthcare facility. The EGD is repeated at the specialized EGC center before determining a surgical treatment strategy. This multicenter retrospective study aimed to investigate the quality of EGDs performed at a secondary healthcare facility and evaluate the clinical value of repeated EGD at a specialized center when determining the surgical treatment strategy.

METHODS

Patients from three of the four centers, who underwent esophagectomy or gastrectomy with curative intent from 1 June 2016 to 1 May 2021, were included. EGD reports from the referral facilities and EGC centers were compared based on a predefined checklist. Furthermore, endoscopist experience, the time between examinations, and histology were registered. Finally, it was assessed whether the specialized EGD led to any substantial changes in surgical treatment. Baseline characteristics and differences in EGD reports were described and McNemar's chi-square test was performed. A logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify risk factors for a change in surgical strategy.

RESULTS

The study included 953 patients who underwent both an initial EGD and EGD at referral to a specialized center. In 644 cases (68%), the information from the initial EGD was considered insufficient concerning preoperative tumor information. In 113 (12%) cases, the findings in the specialized EGD would lead to a significant alteration in the surgical strategy compared with the primary EGD.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that repeated EGD at a specialized center is of clinical value and helps ensure proper surgical treatment for patients undergoing curative surgery for gastroesophageal cancer.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on High-Quality Upper Endoscopy: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this Clinical Practice Update (CPU) Expert Review is to provide clinicians with guidance on best practices for performing a high-quality upper endoscopic exam.

METHODS

The best practice advice statements presented herein were developed from a combination of available evidence from published literature, guidelines, and consensus-based expert opinion. No formal rating of the strength or quality of the evidence was carried out, which aligns with standard processes for American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute CPUs. These statements are meant to provide practical, timely advice to clinicians practicing in the United States. This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates (CPU) Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology & Hepatology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Endoscopists should ensure that upper endoscopy is being performed for an appropriate indication and that informed consent clearly explaining the risks, benefits, alternatives, sedation plan, and potential diagnostic and therapeutic interventions is obtained. These elements should be documented by the endoscopist before the procedure. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Endoscopists should ensure that adequate visualization of the upper gastrointestinal mucosa, using mucosal cleansing and insufflation as necessary, is achieved and documented. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: A high-definition white-light endoscopy system should be used for upper endoscopy instead of a standard-definition white-light endoscopy system whenever possible. The endoscope used for the procedure should be documented in the procedure note. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Image enhancement technologies should be used during the upper endoscopic examination to improve the diagnostic yield for preneoplasia and neoplasia. Suspicious areas should be clearly described, photodocumented, and biopsied separately. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Endoscopists should spend sufficient time carefully inspecting the foregut mucosa in an anterograde and retroflexed view to improve the detection and characterization of abnormalities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Endoscopists should document any abnormalities noted on upper endoscopy using established classifications and standard terminology whenever possible. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Endoscopists should perform biopsies for the evaluation and management of foregut conditions using standardized biopsy protocols. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopists should provide patients with management recommendations based on the specific endoscopic findings (eg, peptic ulcer disease, erosive esophagitis), and this should be documented in the medical record. If recommendations are contingent upon histopathology results (eg, H pylori infection, Barrett's esophagus), then endoscopists should document that appropriate guidance will be provided after results are available. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Endoscopists should document whether subsequent surveillance endoscopy is indicated and, if so, provide appropriate surveillance intervals. If the determination of surveillance is contingent on histopathology results, then endoscopists should document that surveillance intervals will be suggested after results are available.

Applicability of the Barcelona scale to assess the quality of cleanliness of mucosa at esophagogastroduodenoscopy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There are few scales with prospective validation for the assessment of the upper gastrointestinal mucosal cleanliness during an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). The aim of this study was to develop a valid and reproducible cleanliness scale for use during an EGD.

METHODS

We developed a cleanliness scale (Barcelona scale) with a score (0-2 points) of five segments of the upper gastrointestinal tract with thorough cleaning techniques (esophagus, fundus, body, antrum, and duodenum). First, 125 photos (25 of each area) were assessed, and a score was assigned to each image by consensus among 7 experts endoscopists. Subsequently, 100 of the 125 images were selected and the inter- and intra-observer variability of 15 previously trained endoscopists was evaluated using the same images at two different times.

RESULTS

In total, 1500 assessments were performed. In 1336/1500 observations (89%) there was agreement with the consensus score, with a mean kappa value of 0.83 (0.45-0.96). In the second evaluation, in 1330/1500 observations (89%) there was agreement with the consensus score, with a mean kappa value of 0.82 (0.45-0.93). The intra-observer variability was 0.89 (0.76-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

The Barcelona cleanliness scale is a valid measure and reproducible with minimal training. Its application in clinical practice is a significant step to standardize the quality of the EGD.

The effective dose of remimazolam in adult gastroscopy

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to explore the median effective dose (ED50) and the dose required for successful anesthesia in 95% of the patients (ED95) of remimazolam for intravenous anesthesia in adult outpatients undergoing gastroscopy.

METHODS

This pilot study was conducted in patients scheduled to undergo painless gastroscopy at the authors' hospital between March 15, 2022 and March 25, 2022. The ED of remimazolam was determined using the modified Dixon sequential method, using an initial induction dose of 0.2 mg/kg. With successful or failed anesthesia, the remimazolam dose was decreased or increased by 0.05 mg/kg for the next patient, respectively.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients (43.6 ± 10.5 years of age) were enrolled. During gastroscopy, the remimazolam induction dose was 19.93 ± 2.96 mg (0.2-0.45 mg/kg). Eighteen patients could complete anesthesia with remimazolam alone, and four patients needed propofol to complete anesthesia. The induction time after the injection of remimazolam was 20.8 ± 8.4 s, the gastroscopy time was 5.1 ± 1.3 min, and the anesthesia recovery time was 17.5 ± 5.6 min. The ED50 and the ED95 of remimazolam were 0.362 mg/kg (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.313-0.455 mg/kg) and 0.464 mg/kg (95% CI: 0.403-2.242 mg/kg), respectively. The vital signs of all patients remained within the predefined acceptable limits. No patients required antagonist rescue.

CONCLUSION

The ED50 and ED95 of remimazolam for adult gastroscopy were 0.362 mg/kg and 0.464 mg/kg, respectively. Additional anesthetics might be required during gastroscopy in some patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered. The number is ChiCTR2200057446.

Pediatric endoscopy: how can we improve patient outcomes and ensure best practices?

INTRODUCTION

Strategies to promote high-quality endoscopy in children require consensus around pediatric-specific quality standards and indicators. Using a rigorous guideline development process, the international Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) was developed to support continuous quality improvement efforts within and across pediatric endoscopy services.

AREAS COVERED

This review presents a framework, informed by the PEnQuIN guidelines, for assessing endoscopist competence, granting procedural privileges, audit and feedback, and for skill remediation, when required. As is critical for promoting quality, PEnQuIN indicators can be benchmarked at the individual endoscopist, endoscopy facility, and endoscopy community levels. Furthermore, efforts to incorporate technologies, including electronic medical records and artificial intelligence, into endoscopic quality improvement processes can aid in creation of large-scale networks to facilitate comparison and standardization of quality indicator reporting across sites.

EXPERT OPINION

PEnQuIN quality standards and indicators provide a framework for continuous quality improvement in pediatric endoscopy, benefiting individual endoscopists, endoscopy facilities, and the broader endoscopy community. Routine and reliable measurement of data, facilitated by technology, is required to identify and drive improvements in care. Engaging all stakeholders in endoscopy quality improvement processes is crucial to enhancing patient outcomes and establishing best practices for safe, efficient, and effective pediatric endoscopic care.

Current status of quality control in screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy and the emerging role of artificial intelligence

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) screening is being implemented in countries with a high incidence of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer. High-quality EGD screening ensures the yield of early diagnosis and prevents suffering from advanced UGI cancer and minimal operational-related discomfort. However, performance varied dramatically among endoscopists, and quality control for EGD screening remains suboptimal. Guidelines have recommended potential measures for endoscopy quality improvement and research has been conducted for evidence. Moreover, artificial intelligence offers a promising solution for computer-aided diagnosis and quality control during EGD examinations. In this review, we summarized the key points for quality assurance in EGD screening based on current guidelines and evidence. We also outline the latest evidence, limitations, and future prospects of the emerging role of artificial intelligence in EGD quality control, aiming to provide a foundation for improving the quality of EGD screening.

Promoting Research that Supports High-Quality Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Children

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Defining and measuring the quality of endoscopic care is a key component of performing gastrointestinal endoscopy in children. The purpose of this review is to discuss quality metrics for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy and identify where additional research is needed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Pediatric-specific standards and indicators were recently defined by the international Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) working group through a rigorous guideline consensus process. Although the aim of these guidelines is to facilitate best practices for safe and high-quality gastrointestinal endoscopy in children, they highlight the pressing need to expand upon the body of evidence supporting these standards and indicators as predictors of clinically relevant outcomes. In this review, we propose and discuss ideas for several high-yield research topics to engage pediatric endoscopists and promote best practices in pediatric endoscopy.

Variation in the rate of detection of minute and small early gastric cancers at diagnostic endoscopy may reflect the performance of individual endoscopists

OBJECTIVE

The documented variation in gastric cancer (GC) detection among endoscopists has often been dismissed as a coincidental artefact of the low incidence of gastric neoplasms; it is not considered associated with differences in physicians' performance of the esophagogastroduodenoscopy procedure. This study is to confirm whether significant variations among endoscopists in early GC detection suggest the individual performance of the upper endoscopy.

DESIGN

A retrospective observational study at a single centre in Japan assessed the results of 218 early GCs detected during 25 688 routine esophagogastroduodenoscopies by 12 endoscopists. The main outcome was the rate of early GC detection for each endoscopist under the same circumstances. Other measures included the major diameters and locations of the lesions, Helicobacter pylori infection status, and baseline patient characteristics that could affect the prevalence of GC.

RESULTS

The early GC detection rates exhibited wide variation among endoscopists (0.09%-2.87%) despite performing routine esophagogastroduodenoscopies in a population with a similar background. Endoscopists were assigned to a low-detection group (n=6; detection rate: 0.47% (range: 0.09%-0.55%)) and a high-detection group (n=5; detection rate: 0.83% (range: 0.63%-1.12%)), with the single highest detector analysed separately due to his distinct detection rate (2.87%). Endoscopists in the high-detection group had better detection rates for minute (major diameter ≤5 mm) and small (major diameter 6-10 mm) GCs than the low-detection group (0.19%/0.23% vs 0.085%/0.098%). These differences were significant (p<0.01), although there were no significant differences in detection of larger tumours (major diameter ≥11 mm; 0.40% vs 0.28%; p=0.13). The tumour location and H. pylori status were similar in the low-detection group, high-detection group and for the highest detector.

CONCLUSION

Significant variation in the detection of hard-to-find, smaller GCs may reflect individual performance of the examination.

Quality indicators in the endoscopic detection of gastric cancer

Gastroscopy is the reference standard for the diagnosis of gastric cancer, but it is operator-dependent and associated with missed gastric cancer. The proliferation of gastroscopic examinations, increasingly for the screening and detection of subtle premalignant lesions, has motivated scrutiny of quality in gastroscopy. The concept of a high-quality endoscopic examination for the detection of superficial gastric neoplasia has been defined by expert guidelines to improve mucosal visualization, engender a systematic examination process and detect superficial neoplasia. This review discusses the evidence supporting the components of a high-quality diagnostic gastroscopic examination in relation to the detection of gastric cancer, and their potential role as procedural quality indicators to drive a structured improvement in clinically meaningful outcomes.

The Saudi Gastroenterology Association guidelines for quality indicators in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

The quality and safety of gastrointestinal endoscopy varies considerably across regions and facilities worldwide. In this field, quality management has traditionally focused on individual performance of endoscopists, with most indicators addressing process measures and limited evidence of improvement in health outcomes. Indicators of quality can be classified according to their nature and sequence. The various professional societies and organizations have proposed many systems of indicators, but a universal system is necessary so that healthcare professionals are not overburdened and confused with a variety of quality improvement approaches. In this paper, we propose guidelines by the Saudi Gastroenterology Association pertaining to quality in endoscopic procedures aiming to improve the awareness of endoscopy unit staff toward important quality indications to enhance and standardize quality of care provided to our patients.

Role of artificial intelligence-guided esophagogastroduodenoscopy in assessing the procedural completeness and quality

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The quality of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) can have great impact on the detection of esophageal and gastric lesions, including malignancies. The aim of the study is to investigate the use of artificial intelligence (AI) during EGD by the  endoscopists-in-training so that a real-time feedback can be provided, ensuring compliance to a pre-decided protocol for examination.

METHODS

This is an observational pilot study. The videos of the EGD procedure performed between August 1, 2021, and September 30, 2021, were prospectively analyzed using AI system. The assessment of completeness of the procedure was done based on the visualizsation of pre-defined 29 locations. Endoscopists were divided into two categories - whether they are in the training period (category A) or have competed their endoscopy training (category B).

RESULTS

A total of 277 procedures, which included 114 category-A and 163 category-B endoscopists, respectively, were included. Most commonly covered areas by the endoscopists were greater curvature of antrum (97.47%), second part of duodenum (96.75%), other parts of antrum such as the anterior, lesser curvature and the posterior aspect (96.75%, 94.95%, and 94.22%, respectively). Commonly missed or inadequately seen areas were vocal cords (99.28%), epiglottis (93.14%) and posterior, anterior, and lateral aspect of incisura (78.70%, 73.65%, and 73.53%, respectively). The good quality procedures were done predominantly by categoryB endoscopists (88.68% vs. 11.32%, p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

AI can play an important role in assessing the quality and completeness of EGD and can be a part of training of endoscopy in future.

The Toronto Upper Gastrointestinal Cleaning Score: a prospective validation study

BACKGROUND : Assessment of mucosal visualization during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) can be improved with a standardized scoring system. To address this need, we created the Toronto Upper Gastrointestinal Cleaning Score (TUGCS). METHODS : We developed the TUGCS using Delphi methodology, whereby an international group of endoscopy experts iteratively rated their agreement with proposed TUGCS items and anchors on a 5-point Likert scale. After each Delphi round, we analyzed responses and refined the TUGCS using an 80 % agreement threshold for consensus. We used the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to assess inter-rater and test-retest reliability. We assessed internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha and item-total and inter-item correlations with Pearson's correlation coefficient. We compared TUGCS ratings with an independent endoscopist's global rating of mucosal visualization using Spearman's ρ. RESULTS : We achieved consensus with 14 invited participants after three Delphi rounds. Inter-rater reliability was high at 0.79 (95 %CI 0.64-0.88). Test-retest reliability was excellent at 0.83 (95 %CI 0.77-0.87). Cronbach's α was 0.81, item-total correlation range was 0.52-0.70, and inter-item correlation range was 0.38-0.74. There was a positive correlation between TUGCS ratings and a global rating of visualization (r = 0.41, P = 0.002). TUGCS ratings for EGDs with global ratings of excellent were significantly higher than those for EGDs with global ratings of fair (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION : The TUGCS had strong evidence of validity in the clinical setting. The international group of assessors, broad variety of EGD indications, and minimal assessor training improves the potential for dissemination.

Endoscopic diagnosis and treatment in gastric cancer: Current evidence and new perspectives

Gastric cancer is the fifth most common cause of cancer related deaths worldwide. Despite advancement in endoscopic techniques, the majority of the cases are diagnosed at late stage, when the curative treatment options are very limited. The early gastric cancer (EGC) on the other side is potentially curable, and in selected cases endoscopic resection techniques offer similar survival rates then surgical resection. The detection of EGC is endoscopically challenging and requires high quality examination. Recent data show that close to 10% of the gastric cancer cases had a previous negative endoscopy. This highlights the urgent need to improve the quality of the endoscopy services, what can be achieved by increasing the awareness of gastroenterologists and continuously monitoring the key performance indicators of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Newer endoscopic imaging techniques are also becoming commonly available to aid the detection of gastric premalignant lesions and EGC. High-definition endoscopy with image enhancement techniques is preferred over white light endoscopy to recognize these lesions, and they are also useful to determine the invasion depth of EGC. The endoscopic optical characterization of lesions is necessary for the selection of proper resection method and decide whether endoscopic resection techniques can be considered. Artificial intelligence systems aid the detection of EGC and can help to determine the depth of invasion. Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection requires centralized care and tertiary referral centers with appropriate expertise to ensure proper patient selection, high success rate and low adverse event rate. Appropriately scheduled endoscopic surveillance of high-risk patients, premalignant lesions and after resection of EGC is also important in the early detection and successful treatment of gastric cancer.

The Approach to Performance of Quality Upper Endoscopy in Lynch Syndrome (QUELS): An International Expert Statement

Strong evidence demonstrates the protective benefit of frequent colonoscopy surveillance for colorectal cancer prevention in Lynch Syndrome (LS) and is endorsed by many guidelines. Until recently, the evidence supporting the utility of upper endoscopy [esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)] for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer surveillance was limited. Over the last 3 years, multiple studies have demonstrated that EGD surveillance in LS is associated with the detection of both precancerous lesions and early-stage UGI cancers. On the basis of the emerging favorable evidence derived from EGD surveillance programs, the 2022 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines for LS recommend UGI surveillance with EGD starting between age 30 and 40 years with repeat EGDs every 2 to 4 years, preferably in conjunction with colonoscopy, in all patients with a germline pathogenic variant (PV) in MLH1, MSH2, EPCAM, and MSH6 and, because of the lack of data, consideration in PMS2. Standardization of the approach to performing EGD surveillance in LS and reporting clinically actionable findings is requisite for both improving quality and understanding the cost efficiency and outcomes of patients undergoing EGD as a surveillance tool. Accordingly, the primary objective of this Quality of Upper Endoscopy in Lynch Syndrome (QUELS) statement is to articulate a framework for standardizing the approach to performing and reporting EGD findings in patients with LS by introducing emerging quality metrics. The recommendations presented herein were developed from available evidence and consensus-based expert opinion and provide a practical approach for clinicians applying EGD surveillance in accordance with the most recent and existing LS guidelines.

Causes and Outcomes of Medicolegal Proceedings Following Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Canada

Background and Aims

Endoscopic procedures are frequently performed in Canada but can be associated with potential complications and medicolegal implications. This study aimed to identify potential medicolegal cases in Canada relating to upper and lower endoscopies as well as advanced endoscopic procedures.

Methods

Westlaw Canada was searched for any cases regarding upper and lower endoscopies and advanced endoscopic procedures from inception to December 31, 2020. Cases were classified by type of case, procedure performed, patient and defendant demographics, outcome, and alleged reason for litigation/complaint.

Results

Twenty-nine civil cases and 9 board and tribunal decisions for upper and lower endoscopies and 3 advanced endoscopic procedure cases were analyzed. The most frequent defendant specialties were family physician, general surgery, and gastroenterology. The plaintiff was successful in 12 cases involving upper or lower endoscopy with an average award of $243,934 (2021 CDN). The most alleged reasons for litigation were procedural error or negligence (n = 19). The plaintiff was successful in 1 advanced endoscopic procedure case with an award of $153,032.

Conclusion

Medicolegal cases regarding gastrointestinal endoscopy in Canada occur infrequently. Endoscopy should be performed by skilled providers with appropriate informed consent from the patient, and careful consideration of whether procedures are indicated are key for endoscopic providers.

Interval Advanced Gastric Cancer After Negative Endoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is effective in reducing gastric cancer mortality through detection of early-stage cancer in areas with a high prevalence of gastric cancer. Although the risk of post-endoscopy advanced gastric cancer (AGC) is low, interval AGC remains a concern. We investigated the characteristics and predictors of interval AGC after negative EGD.

METHODS

We included 1257 patients with gastric cancer within 6 to 36 months of a "cancer-negative" index EGD between 2005 and 2021 at a tertiary university hospital in South Korea. Observation time on the index EGD was used as a quality indicator. We compared the clinical and endoscopic characteristics and quality indicators between interval AGC and screen-detected early gastric cancer (EGC).

RESULTS

Within 6 to 36 months of negative EGD, 102 AGCs (8.1%) and 1155 EGCs (91.9%) were identified. The percentage of patients with shorter observation time (<3 minutes) in the index EGD was higher in the interval AGC group than in the detected EGC group (P = .002). A multivariable analysis comparing screen-detected EGD and interval AGC was adjusted for age, sex, family history of gastric cancer, H. pylori status, endoscopic findings, and endoscopy-related factors including gastric observation time and interval time. A shorter observation time (<3 minutes) (odds ratio, 2.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-4.30), and interval time >2 years (odds ratio, 1.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-3.24) were associated with an increased risk of interval AGC.

CONCLUSION

A shorter observation time during index EGD is an important predictor of interval AGC. Further, withdrawal time longer than 3 minutes may be a quality indicator for screening EGD.

Interventions to improve the performance of upper GI endoscopy quality indicators

The promotion of quality and best practices in gastroenterology and endoscopy is an ongoing effort. For upper GI endoscopy, quality indicators derived from clinical studies and expert consensus have been long established but remain variably obtained. To date, data on interventions aimed to improve these indicators are scarce. We systematically reviewed the literature to identify interventions and measures demonstrated to improve the performance of previously established upper endoscopy quality indicators. We also identified evidence gaps and opportunities for improvement in this area.

Prevalence of Extensive and Limited Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia and Progression to Dysplasia and Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Guidelines cite extensive gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) as a bigger risk factor for gastric cancer (GC) than limited GIM and an indication for endoscopic surveillance. Data on progression of extensive GIM to GC in the USA are limited. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence and progression rates of extensive GIM in a US cohort.

METHODS

This retrospective study assessed the prevalence of extensive GIM between 1/1/1990 and 8/1/2019 at a large academic medical center. Multivariable regression was used to identify predictors of extensive GIM. Incidence of GC on follow-up was calculated as number of new diagnoses divided by person-years of follow-up. Presence of GIM on subsequent follow-up endoscopy was assessed.

RESULTS

Of 1256 individuals with GIM, 352 (28%) had extensive GIM and 904 (72%) had limited GIM. On multivariable analysis, older age (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02) and Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.11-2.16) were predictive of extensive GIM. The annual incidence of GC for GIM overall was 0.09%. There was no difference in progression to GC between extensive or limited GIM (IRR 0, 95% CI 0-2.6), or to advanced lesions overall (IRR 0.37, 95% CI 0.04-1.62). 70% of individuals had persistent GIM on follow-up biopsy, and 22% with limited GIM had extensive GIM on follow-up biopsy.

CONCLUSIONS

28% of individuals with GIM have the extensive subtype, and are more likely to be older and of Hispanic ethnicity. There was no difference in progression to GC between extensive and limited GIM. Further research is needed to better assess risk of GIM in the US context.

The relation of esophagogastroduodenoscopy time and novel upper gastrointestinal quality measures

OBJECTIVES

Various measures of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) quality have been proposed so far and the examination time was one of the first. The aim of the study was to compare the procedure time with novel novel quality measures - composite detection rate (CDR) and endoscopist biopsy rate (EBR).

METHODS

It was prospective observational study. A total of 880 diagnostic EGDs conducted from 01.2019 to 07.2019 have been enrolled in the study.

RESULTS

Median EGD time was 4.2 min. Procedures of longer duration were marked with higher CDR (26.3% vs. 11.8%; P < 0.0001), higher EBR (44.9% vs. 12.3%; P < 0.0001), and better upper gastrointestinal neoplasm (UGN) detection (1.8% vs. 0%; P = 0.004) in comparison with procedures of shorter duration. The procedures were divided into 4 groups based on the time quartiles (group 1 <3.3 min; group 2 3.3-4.2 min; group 3 4.2-5.3 min; group 4 >5.3 min). The odds ratios of groups 2, 3, and 4 for biopsy rate were 2.42 (95% CI, 1.33-4.55), 4.33 (95% CI, 2.46-7.94), and 5.51 (95% CI, 3.18-10.03), respectively, in comparison with group 1. The odds ratios of groups 2, 3, and 4 for CDR were 3.18 (95% CI, 2.03-4.97), 5.46 (95% CI, 3.51-8.50), and 23.44 (95% CI, 14.3-38.4), respectively, in comparison with group 1.

CONCLUSIONS

The procedure time is related to novel metrics - CDR and EBR. It is also related to UGN. Based on our findings it could be concluded that EGD should not last less than 4.2 min.

Performance measures for the SACRED team-centered approach to advanced gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology have defined performance measures for upper and lower gastrointestinal, pancreaticobiliary, and small-bowel endoscopy. Quality indicators to guide endoscopists in the growing field of advanced endoscopy are also underway. We propose that equal attention is given to developing the entire advanced endoscopy team and not the individual endoscopist alone.We suggest that the practice of teams intending to deliver high quality advanced endoscopy is underpinned by six crucial principles concerning: selection, acceptance, complications, reconnaissance, envelopment, and documentation (SACRED).

Quality measures in endoscopy: A systematic analysis of the overall scientific level of evidence and conflicts of interest

Background and study aims  Quality measures were established to develop standards to help assess quality of care, yet variation in endoscopy exists. We performed a systematic review to assess the overall quality of evidence cited in formulating quality measures in endoscopy. Methods  A systematic search was performed on multiple databases from inception until November 15, 2020, to examine the quality measures proposed by all major societies. Quality measures were assessed for their level of quality evidence and categorized as category A (guideline-based), category B (observational studies) or category C (expert opinion). They were also examined for the type of measure (process, structure, outcome), the quality, measurability, review, existing conflicts of interest (COI), and patient participation of the quality measure. Results  An aggregate total of 214 quality measures from nine societies (15 manuscripts) were included and analyzed. Of quality measures in endoscopy, 71.5 %, 23.8 %, and 4.7 % were based on low, moderate, and high quality of evidence, respectively. The proportion of high-quality evidence across societies was significantly different ( P  = 0.028). Of quality measures, 76 % were quantifiable, 18 % contained patient-centric outcomes, and 7 % reported outcome measures. None of the organizations reported on patient involvement or external review, six disclosed existing COI, and 40 % were published more than 5 years ago. Conclusions  Quality measures are important to standardize clinical practice. Because over 70 % of quality measures in endoscopy are based on low-quality evidence, further studies are needed to improve the overall quality to effectively set a standard, reduce variation, and improve care in endoscopic practice.

Quality indicators in esophagogastroduodenoscopy

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) has been used to diagnose a wide variety of upper gastrointestinal diseases. In particular, EGD is used to screen high-risk subjects of gastric cancer. Quality control of EGD is important because the diagnostic rate is examiner-dependent. However, there is still no representative quality indicator that can be uniformly applied in EGD. There has been growing awareness of the importance of quality control in improving EGD performance. Therefore, we aimed to review the available and emerging quality indicators for diagnostic EGD.

Simethicone and N-acetyl cysteine combination as premedication before esophagogastroduodenoscopy: Double-blind randomized controlled trial

Background and study aims  Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), the most common method used for diagnosing upper gastrointestinal diseases, is often limited by the presence of foam and mucous. Thus, this study was designed to detect whether the combination of simethicone with N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) as premedication before EGD improves mucosal visualization. Patients and methods  A total of 768 consenting patients were enrolled in this prospective, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial in four groups (A: simethicone + N-acetyl cysteine; B: simethicone alone; C: NAC alone; and D: placebo). After 20 minutes of consuming the corresponding solution, EGD was done and multiple images were obtained from the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum. Based on the various images obtained, the study parameters were calculated. Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) was used to analyze the results using Kruskal-Wallis with the Bonferroni correction method. Results  The study population consisted of 57 % men and the mean age was 44.18 years. Each group was randomized with 192 participants. Group A (combination of simethicone + NAC) premedication had the lowest total mucosal visibility score of 8.31, a significantly lower score for mucous/bubbles obscuring the vision, and less time to complete the procedure. Also, 81 % of the participants in group A did not require flushing to clear the mucous/bubbles. There were no side effects due to this premedication in any of the groups. Conclusions  Using simethicone and NAC combined for premedication may improve the quality of EGD.

Overview of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Quality Standards and Indicators for Pediatric Endoscopy: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

Pediatric-specific quality standards for endoscopy are needed to define best practices, while measurement of associated indicators is critical to guide quality improvement. The international Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) working group was assembled to develop and define quality standards and indicators for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures through a rigorous guideline consensus process.

METHODS

The Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument guided PEnQuIN members, recruited from 31 centers of various practice types representing 11 countries, in generating and refining proposed quality standards and indicators. Consensus was sought via an iterative online Delphi process, and finalized at an in-person conference. Quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

RESULTS

Forty-nine quality standards and 47 indicators reached consensus, encompassing pediatric endoscopy facilities, procedures, endoscopists, and the patient experience. The evidence base for PEnQuIN standards and indicators was largely adult-based and observational, and downgraded for indirectness, imprecision, and study limitations to "very low" quality, resulting in "conditional" recommendations for most standards (45/49).

CONCLUSIONS

The PEnQuIN guideline development process establishes international agreement on clinically meaningful metrics that can be used to promote safety and quality in endoscopic care for children. Through PEnQuIN, pediatric endoscopists and endoscopy services now have a framework for auditing, providing feedback, and ultimately, benchmarking performance. Expansion of evidence and prospective validation of PEnQuIN standards and indicators as predictors of clinically relevant outcomes and high-quality pediatric endoscopic care is now a research priority.

Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network Pediatric Endoscopy Reporting Elements: A Joint NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN Guideline

INTRODUCTION

High-quality procedure reports are a cornerstone of high-quality pediatric endoscopy as they ensure the clear communication of procedural events and outcomes, guide patient care and facilitate continuous quality improvement. The aim of this document is to outline standardized reporting elements that achieved international consensus as requirements for high-quality pediatric endoscopy procedure reports.

METHODS

With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used Delphi methodology to identify key elements that should be found in all pediatric endoscopy reports. Item reduction was attained through iterative rounds of anonymized online voting using a 6-point scale. Responses were analyzed after each round and items were excluded from subsequent rounds if ≤50% of panelists rated them as 5 ("agree moderately") or 6 ("agree strongly"). Reporting elements that ≥70% of panelists rated as "agree moderately" or "agree strongly" were considered to have achieved consensus.

RESULTS

Twenty-six PEnQuIN group members from 25 centers internationally rated 63 potential reporting elements that were generated from a systematic literature review and the Delphi panelists. The response rates were 100% for all three survey rounds. Thirty reporting elements reached consensus as essential for inclusion within a pediatric endoscopy report.

DISCUSSION

It is recommended that the PEnQuIN Reporting Elements for pediatric endoscopy be universally employed across all endoscopists, procedures and facilities as a foundational means of ensuring high-quality endoscopy services, while facilitating quality improvement activities in pediatric endoscopy.

Assessment of Cimetropium Bromide Use for the Detection of Gastric Neoplasms During Esophagogastroduodenoscopy

IMPORTANCE

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is a common procedure used to examine upper gastrointestinal diseases. Although cimetropium bromide and other antispasmodic agents are commonly administered as premedication to inhibit peristalsis during EGD examination, there are few data regarding the benefits of cimetropium bromide for the detection of gastric neoplasms.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between the use of cimetropium bromide as premedication and gastric neoplasm detection rates during EGD examination.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study included 67 683 participants who received EGD screening at the Health Promotion Center of Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, from January 2, 2010, to June 30, 2017. Data were analyzed from April 1 to December 30, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Participants were divided into 2 groups: those who received cimetropium bromide before EGD examination (intervention group) and those who did not (control group).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Gastric neoplasm detection rates.

RESULTS

Among 67 683 participants, the mean (SD) age was 48.6 (10.8) years, and 36 517 participants (54.0%) were male; all participants were Asian (a racially homogenous population). Of those, 28 280 participants (41.8%; mean [SD] age, 50.3 [10.6] years; 57.8% male) received cimetropium bromide, and 39 403 participants (58.2%; mean [SD] age, 47.4 [10.8] years; 51.2% male) did not. Propensity score matching based on confounding variables yielded 41 670 matched participants (20 835 pairs). Detected lesions included 52 dysplasias (0.12%), 40 early cancers (0.10%), 7 advanced cancers (0.02%), and 3 lymphomas (0.01%). Gastric neoplasm detection rates were significantly higher in the intervention group (63 participants [0.30%]) vs the control group (39 participants [0.19%]; P = .02). A significant difference in the combined detection rate of dysplasia and early gastric cancer was found between those in the intervention group (57 participants [0.27%]) vs the control group (35 participants [0.17%]; P = .02). For small gastric lesions (<1 cm), those who received cimetropium bromide had higher detection rates (24 participants [0.12%]) than those who did not (11 participants [0.05%]; P = .03). Lesions in the gastric body were detected significantly more often in the intervention group (34 participants [0.16%]) vs the control group (15 participants [0.07%]; P = .007). In multivariate analyses involving all 67 683 participants, the use of cimetropium bromide was more likely to detect gastric neoplasms compared with nonuse (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.04-1.95; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, the use of cimetropium bromide as premedication was significantly associated with increased gastric neoplasm detection rates during EGD screening, and lesions in the gastric body were detected more frequently among those who received cimetropium bromide compared with those who did not. These findings suggest that cimetropium bromide may be considered as premedication before EGD examination among individuals with no contraindications.

Educational intervention to improve quality of care in Barrett's esophagus: the AQUIRE randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Despite quality measures in upper endoscopy (EGD) for Barrett's esophagus (BE), considerable variability remains in practice among gastroenterologists. This randomized controlled trial evaluated the role of structured intensive training on the quality of EGD in BE.

METHODS

In this multicenter study, 8 sites (from the GI Quality Consortium) were cluster randomized (1:1) to receive AQUIRE (A Quality Improvement program in cancer care during Endoscopy) training (intervention) or continue local standard practices (control). The primary outcome was compliance with the Seattle biopsy protocol. Secondary outcomes were change in knowledge of BE detection and sampling assessed by questionnaire and dysplasia detection rate (DDR) before and after completion of the 6-month study period.

RESULTS

The intervention sites (n = 4) had 31 gastroenterologists and the control sites (n = 4) had 34. There was a significant improvement in the compliance rates with the Seattle biopsy protocol from baseline to the end of the study in the intervention sites (64.8%-73.2%, P = .002) but not in the control sites (69.5%-69.4%, P = .953). The accurate response rate on the questionnaire at the intervention sites increased from 73% at baseline to 88% after AQUIRE training (difference, 14.8%; standard deviation, 18.7; P = .008). DDR did not change significantly from baseline to 6 months in either the control or intervention groups (P = .06).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the capacity of a structured educational intervention to improve utilization of a standard biopsy protocol and knowledge of standards of care in BE but without significant change in DDR.

Deep learning model for diagnosing gastric mucosal lesions using endoscopic images: development, validation, and method comparison

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic differential diagnoses of gastric mucosal lesions (benign gastric ulcer, early gastric cancer [EGC], and advanced gastric cancer) remain challenging. We aimed to develop and validate convolutional neural network-based artificial intelligence (AI) models: lesion detection, differential diagnosis (AI-DDx), and invasion depth (AI-ID; pT1a vs pT1b among EGC) models.

METHODS

This study included 1366 consecutive patients with gastric mucosal lesions from 2 referral centers in Korea. One representative endoscopic image from each patient was used. Histologic diagnoses were set as the criterion standard. Performance of the AI-DDx (training/internal/external validation set, 1009/112/245) and AI-ID (training/internal/external validation set, 620/68/155) was compared with visual diagnoses by independent endoscopists (stratified by novice [<1 year of experience], intermediate [2-3 years of experience], and expert [>5 years of experience]) and EUS results, respectively.

RESULTS

The AI-DDx showed good diagnostic performance for both internal (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC] = .86) and external validation (AUROC = .86). The performance of the AI-DDx was better than that of novice (AUROC = .82, P = .01) and intermediate endoscopists (AUROC = .84, P = .02) but was comparable with experts (AUROC = .89, P = .12) in the external validation set. The AI-ID showed a fair performance in both internal (AUROC = .78) and external validation sets (AUROC = .73), which were significantly better than EUS results performed by experts (internal validation, AUROC = .62; external validation, AUROC = .56; both P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The AI-DDx was comparable with experts and outperformed novice and intermediate endoscopists for the differential diagnosis of gastric mucosal lesions. The AI-ID performed better than EUS for evaluation of invasion depth.

Gastroenterologists' attitudes on the detection and management of gastric premalignant conditions: results of a nationwide survey in Spain

INTRODUCTION

Gastric premalignant conditions (GPC) surveillance has been proposed to improve the prognosis of gastric cancer (GC), but the early GC detection rate remaining low, and missing GC during an esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy is still a problem. We aimed to explore the gastroenterologists' attitudes on the detection and management of GPC.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was designed based on a survey among gastroenterologists from Asociación Española de Gastroenterología.

RESULTS

The participation rate was 12% (146/1243). Eighty-one percent worked at secondary or tertiary-care hospitals with the capability to perform mucosectomy (80%), but with a lesser availability of endoscopic submucosal dissection (35%). Most respondents had high-definition endoscopes (88%), and virtual chromoendoscopy (86%), but during performing an upper endoscopy, 34% never or rarely use chromoendoscopy, and 73% apply a biopsy protocol often/very often when atrophy or intestinal metaplasia (IM) is suspected. Half of the respondents self-reported their ability to recognize atrophy or IM ≤7 (on a scale from 0 to 10), whereas ≤6 for dysplasia or early GC. Helicobacter pylori infection is eradicated and verified by ≥90%. Endoscopic surveillance of atrophy/IM is performed by 62%. An immediate endoscopy for dysplasia is not always performed. For low-grade dysplasia, 97.6% consider endoscopic management, but for high-grade dysplasia, 23% regard gastric surgery.

CONCLUSION

There is a wide variability in the detection and management of GPC among Spanish gastroenterologists, and compliance with guidelines and biopsy protocols could be improved. Performance of high-quality gastroscopies including use of virtual chromoendoscopy, that might allow an improvement in the GPC detection, needs also to be generalized.

Important Quality Metrics and Standardization in Endoscopy

Quality metrics and standardization has become critical as the Affordable Care Act mandates that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services change reimbursement from volume to a value-based system. While the most commonly used quality indicators are related to that of colonoscopy, quality metrics for other procedures and endoscopy units have been developed mainly by the American College of Gastroenterology and the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Data to show that these quality metrics, especially in the field of advanced endoscopy as well as in the era of COVID-19 pandemic, can improve patient outcomes, are anticipated.

The role of computer-assisted systems for upper-endoscopy quality monitoring and assessment of gastric lesions

This article analyses the literature regarding the value of computer-assisted systems in esogastroduodenoscopy-quality monitoring and the assessment of gastric lesions. Current data show promising results in upper-endoscopy quality control and a satisfactory detection accuracy of gastric premalignant and malignant lesions, similar or even exceeding that of experienced endoscopists. Moreover, artificial systems enable the decision for the best treatment strategies in gastric-cancer patient care, namely endoscopic vs surgical resection according to tumor depth. In so doing, unnecessary surgical interventions would be avoided whilst providing a better quality of life and prognosis for these patients. All these performance data have been revealed by numerous studies using different artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms in addition to white-light endoscopy or novel endoscopic techniques that are available in expert endoscopy centers. It is expected that ongoing clinical trials involving AI and the embedding of computer-assisted diagnosis systems into endoscopic devices will enable real-life implementation of AI endoscopic systems in the near future and at the same time will help to overcome the current limits of the computer-assisted systems leading to an improvement in performance. These benefits should lead to better diagnostic and treatment strategies for gastric-cancer patients. Furthermore, the incorporation of AI algorithms in endoscopic tools along with the development of large electronic databases containing endoscopic images might help in upper-endoscopy assistance and could be used for telemedicine purposes and second opinion for difficult cases.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in children and adults: How do they differ?

Gastrointestinal endoscopy has grown dramatically over the past century, and with subsequent improvements in technology and anaesthesia, it has become a safe and useful tool for evaluation of GI pathology in children. There are substantial differences between paediatric and adult endoscopy beyond size, including: age-related patho-physiology and the different spectrum of diseases in children. Literature on endoscopic procedures in children is sparse but significant. The present review aims at describing the current knowledges on paediatric endoscopy practice and highlights the main areas of differences between paediatric and adult practice.

Identification of gaze pattern and blind spots by upper gastrointestinal endoscopy using an eye-tracking technique

BACKGROUND

The lesion detection rate of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) varies depending on the degree of experience of the endoscopist and anatomical blind spots. This study aimed to identify gaze patterns and blind spots by analyzing the endoscopist's gaze during real-time EGD.

METHODS

Five endoscopists were enrolled in this study. The endoscopist's eye gaze tracked by an eye tracker was selected from the esophagogastric junction to the second portion of the duodenum without the esophagus during insertion and withdrawal, and then matched with photos. Gaze patterns were visualized as a gaze plot, blind spot detection as a heatmap, observation time (OT), fixation duration (FD), and FD-to-OT ratio.

RESULTS

The mean OT and FD were 11.10 ± 11.14 min and 8.37 ± 9.95 min, respectively, and the FD-to-OT ratio was 72.5%. A total of 34.3% of the time was spent observing the antrum. When observing the body of the stomach, it took longer to observe the high body in the retroflexion view and the low-to-mid body in the forward view.

CONCLUSIONS

It is necessary to minimize gaze distraction and observe the posterior wall in the retroflexion view. Our results suggest that eye-tracking techniques may be useful for future endoscopic training and education.

Adequacy of EGD Reporting: a Review of 100 Reports from 100 Endoscopists

INTRODUCTION

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is commonly performed in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). An EGD report should document pertinent findings such as esophagitis, a columnar-lined esophagus (CLE), the location of the squamo-columnar and gastroesophageal junctions, the size and type of a hiatal hernia and the number and location of any biopsies. The aim of this study was to evaluate how commonly these findings were noted in the EGD reports of patients referred for antireflux surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of patient charts from 2012 to 2015 to identify 100 consecutive EGD reports from different endoscopists in different patients. Each EGD report was reviewed for pertinent findings and the use of a classification system for esophagitis (Savory-Miller or Los Angeles) and for reporting a CLE (Prague).

RESULTS

In 100 EGD reports, esophagitis was noted in 33 patients, but was graded in only 14 (42%). A CLE was noted in 28 patients, but the length was reported in only 16 (57%) and no report used the Prague classification system. A hiatal hernia was noted in 61 patients, measured in 31 (51%) and the type classified in 26%. A biopsy was taken in 93 patients and the location noted in 86 patients (93%). The number of biopsies was recorded in only 20 patients (22%). In 12 patients the EGD was for Barrett's surveillance, yet a Seattle biopsy protocol was reported to be used in only 3 patients.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopy reports frequently do not include the use of a grading system for esophagitis or the Prague system for CLE. This hampers the assessment of change with therapy or over time. The size of a hiatal hernia was typically reported in a subjective fashion and only infrequently was the type specified. Lack of clarity about the presence of a paraesophageal hernia can impede evaluation of acute symptoms. In patients with Barrett's esophagus a standard biopsy protocol was infrequently reported to be used. These findings raise concern about the quality of upper endoscopy, both in the performance of the procedure and the documentation of findings. A consistent reporting system is recommended for routine use with upper endoscopy.

Quality in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for the detection and surveillance of gastric cancer precursor lesions: Position paper of AEG, SEED and SEAP

This position paper, sponsored by the Asociación Española de Gastroenterología [Spanish Association of Gastroenterology], the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva [Spanish Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Society] and the Sociedad Española de Anatomía Patológica [Spanish Anatomical Pathology Society], aims to establish recommendations for performing an high quality upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for the screening of gastric cancer precursor lesions (GCPL) in low-incidence populations, such as the Spanish population. To establish the quality of the evidence and the levels of recommendation, we used the methodology based on the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We obtained a consensus among experts using a Delphi method. The document evaluates different measures to improve the quality of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in this setting and makes recommendations on how to evaluate and treat the identified lesions. We recommend that upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for surveillance of GCPL should be performed by endoscopists with adequate training, administering oral premedication and use of sedation. To improve the identification of GCPL, we recommend the use of high definition endoscopes and conventional or digital chromoendoscopy and, for biopsies, NBI should be used to target the most suspicious areas of intestinal metaplasia. Regarding the evaluation of visible lesions, the risk of submucosal invasion should be evaluated with magnifying endoscopes and endoscopic ultrasound should be reserved for those with suspected deep invasion. In lesions amenable to endoscopic resection, submucosal endoscopic dissection is considered the technique of choice.

Structured oropharynx, hypopharynx and larynx assessment during routine esophagogastroduodenoscopy improves detection of pre- and early cancerous lesions: a multicenter, comparative study

Background and study aims  A structured assessment of the oropharynx, hypopharynx and larynx (OHL) may improve the diagnostic yield for the detection of precancerous and early cancerous lesions (PECLs) during routine esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Thus, we aimed to compare routine EGDs ± structured OHL assessment (SOHLA), including photo documentation with regard to the detection of PECLs. Patients and methods  Consecutive patients with elective EGD were arbitrarily allocated to endoscopy lists with or without SOHLA. All detected OHL abnormalities were assessed by an otolaryngologist-head & neck surgeon (ORL-HNS) and the frequency of PECLS detected during SOHLA vs. standard cohort compared. Results  Data from 1000 EGDs with and 1000 EGDs without SOHLA were analyzed. SOHLA was successful in 93.3 % of patients, with a median assessment time of 45 seconds (interquartile range: 40-50). SOHLA identified 46 potential PECLs, including two benign subepithelial lesions (4.6 %, 95 % CI: 3.4-6.1) while without SOHLA, no malignant and only one benign lesion was found ( P  < 0.05). ORL-HNS imaging review classified 23 lesions (2.3 %, 95 % CI: 1.5-3.4) as concerning and ORL-HNS clinic assessment was arranged. This identified six PECLs (0.6 %, 95 % CI: 0.2-1.3) including two pharyngeal squamous cell lesions (0.2 %) demonstrating high-grade dysplasia and carcinoma in situ (CIS) and four premalignant glottic lesions (0.4 %) demonstrating low-grade dysplasia and CIS. Conclusion  In the routine setting of a gastrointestinal endoscopy practice precancerous and early cancerous lesions of the oropharynx, hypopharynx, and larynx are rare (< 1 %) but can be detected with a structured assessment of this region during routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Composite detection rate as an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy quality measure correlating with detection of neoplasia

BACKGROUND

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is commonly used diagnostic method with no widely accepted quality measure. We assessed quality indicator-composite detection rate (CDR)-consisting of detection of at least one of the following: cervical inlet patch, gastric polyp and post-ulcer duodenal bulb deformation. The aim of the study was to validate CDR according to detection rate of upper gastrointestinal neoplasms (UGN).

METHODS

It was a multicenter, prospective, observational study conducted from January 2019 to October 2019. The endoscopic reports from 2896 symptomatic patients who underwent diagnostic EGD were analyzed. The EGDs were performed in three endoscopy units located in tertiary university hospital, private outpatient clinic and local hospital.

RESULTS

64 UGNs were detected. The mean CDR was 21.9%. The CDR correlated with UGN detection rate (R = 0.49, p = 0.045). Based on CDR quartiles, operators were divided into group 1 with CDR < 10%, group 2 with CDR 10-17%, group 3 with CDR 17.1-26%, and group 4 with CDR > 26%. Detection rate of UGN was significantly higher in the group 4 in comparison to group 1 (OR 4.4; 95% CI 2.2 - 9.0). In the multivariate regression model, patient age, male gender and operator's CDR > 26% were independent risk factors of UGN detection (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.01 - 1.05, OR 2; 95% CI 1.2 - 3.5, and OR 5.7 95% CI 1.5 - 22.3, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The CDR is associated with the detection of upper gastrointestinal neoplasms. This parameter may be a useful quality measure of EGD to be applied in general setting.

Incidental Otolaryngologic Pathology Noted Upon Esophagogastroduodenoscopy: Case Series and Review of Literature

OBJECTIVES

We report and analyze eight cases in which patients were referred from gastroenterology (GI) to otolaryngology following esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). We aim to provide specific examples of head and neck pathology encountered by gastroenterologists during upper endoscopy.

METHODS

A series of eight cases between 2016 and 2019 were analyzed by chart review. In each case, otolaryngology consultation was requested after an abnormality was noticed by a gastroenterologist during EGD. Subsequent laryngoscopy or bronchoscopy was performed in all cases allowing for image comparison. Select images comparing EGD to laryngoscopy findings are included as well as a literature review concerning the nature of communication between the two specialties.

RESULTS

Eight adult patients were referred to otolaryngology for abnormalities noted by a gastroenterologist during EGD at the following anatomic sites: soft palate (n=1), base of tongue (n=2), glottis (n=3), and interarytenoid mucosa (n=1). Additionally, a potential airway foreign body was noted on EGD which was ultimately determined to represent normal subglottic anatomy by bronchoscopy. Some 5/8 (63%) cases were considered true pathology while 3/8 (37%) represented normal anatomy or anatomic variants upon subsequent otolaryngologic evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is minimal literature regarding the nature of referrals from GI to otolaryngology following EGD. Our findings suggest that EGD offers a unique opportunity for early detection of otolaryngologic pathology. However, certain inter-specialty anatomic knowledge gaps were noted which contributed to occasional unnecessary referrals, procedures, and associated patient anxiety. We hope that the results of this study can inform future research aimed at improving communication and collaboration between the two specialties.

Long-term endoscopic follow-up after sleeve gastrectomy

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic follow-up after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) sometime reveals worrisome findings as the presence of major digestive lesions such as esophagitis, Barrett's esophagus (BE), and also esophageal cancer.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency and severity of esophageal and gastric lesions after SG.

METHODS

Our team collected the results of esogastric endoscopies performed on patients who underwent SG up to five years before in our hospital, from April 2010 to August 2014. Summons were sent by mail to all patients operated on between those dates. The results were collected from January 2018 to June 2019.

RESULTS

Of the 765 patients who underwent SG up to five years before, only 78 (10.2%) agreed to undergo an upper digestive endoscopy. The average age before surgery was 51 years (range: 25-70 years). The mean preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 44.2±4.6kg/m². For 12 out of these 78 patients (15.4%) it was revisional surgery: 9 SG after gastric banding, and 3 revisional SG (Re-SG). With an average follow-up of 6.3±0.8 years, the endoscopic results of the 78 patients were found to be normal in 31 cases (39.7%): gastritis was found in 28 patients (35.9%), severe grade C or D esophagitis was found in 15 cases (19.2%), hiatal hernia in 18 cases (23.1%), a benign gastric polyp in 2 cases (2.6%). Of the 28 patients with gastritis, HelicobacterPylori was detected in 8 cases (28.6%). No cancer was diagnosed, and BE after SG was found in only one case (1.3%) (normal before surgery). Six of 15 patients with esophagitis (40%) had reflux symptoms. Fourteen of these patients (93.3%) developed de novo esophagitis.

CONCLUSION

Only 10.2% of operated patients agreed to a long-term esogastric endoscopy. The frequency and severity of endoscopic anomalies observed with an average follow-up of more than 6 years pleads for a policy of systematic upper endoscopies of long-term control after SG.

Taking More Gastroscopy Images Increases the Detection Rate of Clinically Significant Gastric Lesions: Validation of a Systematic Screening Protocol for the Stomach

Background/Aims: For systematic screening protocol for the stomach (SSS), 22 gastroscopy images are considered sufficient to avoid blind spots during gastroscopy. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the number of gastroscopy images taken during the gastroscopy procedure and the detection rate of clinically significant gastric lesions (CSGLs).Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data obtained from a cohort of consecutive subjects at a health promotion center. The primary outcome measure was the detection rate of CSGLs per endoscopist, according to the number of gastroscopy images. We also analyzed whether all the CSGLs were detected via SSS.Results: The mean number of gastroscopy images obtained by eight endoscopists was 27.6±10.5 in 2,912 subjects without CSGLs and without biopsies. Among the 5,970 subjects who underwent gastroscopy by the eight endoscopists, 712 CSGLs were detected in 551 subjects. Fifty-six CSGLs (7.9%) in 55 subjects (10.0%) were not detected during the SSS. Photo-endoscopists who took more images achieved a higher detection rate of CSGLs than those who took fewer images (adjusted OR 2.07, 95% CI 1.41~3.05; <i>P</i><0.0001).Conclusions: The modified SSS, which included 22 SSS images, the fundus, and the saddle area, detected significantly more CSGLs. This modified SSS should be validated with further prospective studies.

Quality indicators in gastroscopy. Gastroscopy procedure

Within the project "Quality indicators in digestive endoscopy", pioneered by the Spanish Society for Digestive Diseases (SEPD), the objective of this research is to suggest the structure, process, and results procedures and indicators necessary to implement and assess quality in the gastroscopy setting. First, a chart was designed with the steps to be followed during a gastroscopy procedure. Secondly, a team of experts in care quality and/or endoscopy performed a qualitative review of the literature searching for quality indicators for endoscopic procedures, including gastroscopies. Finally, using a paired analysis approach, a selection of the literature obtained was undertaken. For gastroscopy, a total of nine process indicators were identified (one preprocedure, eight intraprocedure). Evidence quality was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification scale.