Recent advances in pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy: an overview

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the incidence rates of adverse events after digestive endoscopy in children

BACKGROUND

With the widespread use of digestive endoscopy in children, a variety of adverse events (AEs) have occurred after digestive endoscopy. However, there are notable differences in the incidence of adverse reactions in digestive endoscopy in children at present, which makes it difficult to assess the safety of digestive endoscopy in children.

METHODS

Studies related to digestive endoscopy in children were screened from January 2005 to October 2021 from PubMed, Web of Science, Spring, CNKI, and Science Direct databases. RevMan5.3 and Stata were employed to carry out meta-analysis on the incidence of adverse respiratory events, myoclonus, abdominal pain, fever, bleeding, chest pain, sore throat, vomiting, and delayed capsule discharge after digestive endoscopy in children. The article quality was evaluated by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The chi-square test and I² were adopted to test literature heterogeneity, and the article publication bias was assessed by displaying an inverted funnel plot as a funnel plot.

RESULTS

In all, 15 articles were included, involving a total of 27,770 children. In all, 15 articles were included, involving a total of 27,770 children. The risk ratio (RR) value of adverse respiratory events after digestive endoscopy in children was 1.31 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17 to 1.47, P<0.00001]; the odds ratio (OR) value of the incidence of myoclonus was 1.21 (95% CI: 1.01 to 1.46, P=0.04); the incidence of abdominal pain was 1.18 (95% CI: 1.11 to 1.27, P<0.00001); the incidence of fever was 1.09 (95% CI: 1.06 to 1.12, P<0.00001); the incidence of bleeding was 1.24 (95% CI: 0.94 to 1.64, P=0.13); the incidence of chest pain was 1.06 (95% CI: 1.03 to 1.09, P<0.0001); incidence of sore throat was 1.11 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.18, P=0.0004); incidence of vomiting was 1.13 (95% CI: 1.06 to 1.21, P=0.0001); and the incidence of delayed capsule expulsion was 1.18 (95% CI: 1.00 to 1.40, P=0.05).

DISCUSSION

The incidence of AEs after digestive endoscopy in children was low, which can be used in the diagnosis and therapy of digestive system diseases in children.

Nationwide survey of pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy in Japan

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The implementation rates of pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy are increasing with advancements in the devices used and pediatricians' skills. As part of the Japan Pediatric Endoscopy Study Group, we aimed to investigate the rates of pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy use and the associated adverse events through a nationwide survey.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to 630 institutions in Japan. The numbers of pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy cases and adverse events occurring during endoscopy, from April 2011 to March 2016, were investigated.

RESULTS

Responses were obtained from 445 facilities. The total number of pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopies was 37 447 and that of endoscopic examinations was 32 219 (86.0%), with esophagogastroduodenoscopy accounting for 18 484 cases; ileal colonoscopy, 11 936; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, 389; wireless capsule endoscopy, 897; and balloon-assisted enteroscopy, 513. The number of endoscopic treatments was 5228, followed by balloon dilatation (1703), foreign body removal (989), and polypectomy (822); 201 adverse events (0.54%) occurred, 79 of which presented during endoscopic examination (0.25%). Eight serious perforations were noted in 0.0054% and 0.025% of those undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy, respectively. Overall, 122 adverse events (2.33%) occurred in association with endoscopic treatment. One case of cardiopulmonary arrest occurred because of accidental extubation. However, no deaths occurred.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic examinations had a slightly higher adverse event rate, because of an increase in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and small intestine enteroscopy, than that reported in previous studies, but the adverse event rate of endoscopic treatment did not increase.

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.

Can a transition clinic bridge the gap between paediatric and adult inflammatory bowel disease care models?

Transition care in inflammatory bowel disease is increasingly recognized as challenging given the inherent differences between paediatric and adult health care models, disease characteristics and treatment strategies. Transition is a dynamic process involving adolescents and young adults that are moving from a paediatric to an adult health care setting, and it should be flexible, continually updated and tailored to each patient. The implementation of a transition clinic is essential given the increasing incidence of the paediatric population with inflammatory bowel disease and the lifelong impact of this disease. The key question is when and how to structure transition according to the adolescent's clinical, psycho-social, educational needs and expectations to ensure continuity of care. In the attempt to improve the management of transition in inflammatory bowel disease and address the wide gap between adult and child care, we provide an update of the transition clinic and we propose a "treat to target" approach in transition to facilitate an effective and successful transition programme. In the changing landscape of the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease, further studies are necessary to determine the role of the transition clinic in determining the choice and strategy of therapy and its monitoring and the adoption of newer strategies such as biomarkers guided treating to target.

A Treat to Target Strategy Using Panenteric Capsule Endoscopy in Pediatric Patients With Crohn's Disease

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Pan-enteric capsule endoscopy (PCE) is effective for assessment of small intestinal and colonic Crohn's disease (CD) in pediatric patients. We aimed to determine whether PCE can be used to monitor mucosal healing and deep remission, in a treat to target strategy for pediatric patients with CD.

METHODS

We performed a prospective study of 48 children with a diagnosis of CD at a tertiary care pediatric gastroenterology unit; 46 patients were included in the final analysis. Biomarker, imaging, and PCE analyses were performed at baseline and after 24 and 52 weeks. Small bowel and colonic mucosal healing were defined by Lewis scores <135 and simple endoscopic score for CD ≤1, respectively. Clinical remission was defined as defined as a pediatric CD activity index score <10 and biomarker-based remission based on normal levels of biomarkers; deep remission was defined as a combination of clinical remission, biomarker-based remission, and mucosal healing. Treatments were adjusted based on findings from PCE (imaging was considered only for patients with negative findings from PCE). Therapies were introduced, optimized, switched, or combined at the discretion of treating clinicians. The primary outcome was the ability of PCE to assess mucosal healing and deep remission at 3 timepoints and to guide a treat to target strategy.

RESULTS

PCE detected inflammation in 34 patients (71%) at baseline, 22 patients (46%) at week 24, and 18 patients (39%) at week 52 (P for comparison among timepoints <.05). Findings from PCE led to a change in therapy for 34 patients (71%) at baseline and 11 patients (23%) at 24 weeks, whereas only 2 patients with negative results from PCE (4%) changed therapies based on findings from imaging. When the treat to target strategy was applied, proportions of patients with mucosal healing and deep remission increased from 21% at baseline, to 54% at week 24, to 58% at week 52 (P for comparison among timepoints <.05); 2 patients (4%) did not respond to treatment.

CONCLUSION

In a prospective study of 48 children with CD, we found a treat to target strategy, based on findings from PCE, to significantly increase the proportions of patients with mucosal healing and deep remission.

CLINICAL TRIAL

gov no: NCT03161886.

Endoscopy in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Position Paper on Behalf of the Porto IBD Group of the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition

Endoscopy is a central tool for the evaluation and management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In the last few decades, gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has undergone significant technological developments including availability of pediatric-size equipment, enabling comprehensive investigation of the GI tract in children. Simultaneously, professional organization of GI experts have developed guidelines and training programs in pediatric GI endoscopy. This prompted the Porto Group on Pediatric IBD of the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition to develop updated guidelines on the role of GI endoscopy in pediatric IBD, specifically taking into considerations of recent advances in the diagnosis, disease stratification, and novel therapeutic targets in these patients.

New technologies improve adenoma detection rate, adenoma miss rate, and polyp detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The need to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR) for colorectal cancer screening has ushered in devices that mechanically or optically improve conventional colonoscopy. Recently, new technology devices (NTDs) have become available. We aimed to compare the ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), and adenoma miss rate (AMR) between NTDs and conventional colonoscopy and between mechanical and optical NTDs.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception through September 2017 for articles or abstracts reporting ADR, PDR, and AMR with NTDs. Randomized controlled trials and case-control studies with >10 subjects were included. Primary outcomes included ADR, PDR, and AMR odds ratio (OR) between conventional colonoscopy and NTDs. Secondary outcomes included cecal intubation rates, adverse events, cecal intubation time, and total colonoscopy time.

RESULTS

From 141 citations, 45 studies with 20,887 subjects were eligible for ≥1 analyses. Overall, the ORs for ADR (1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-1.47; P < .01) and PDR (1.51; 95% CI, 1.37-1.67; P < .01) were higher with NTDs. Higher ADR (OR, 1.52 vs 1.25; P = .035) and PDR (OR, 1.63 vs 1.10; P ≤ .01) were observed with mechanical NTDs. The overall AMR with NTDs was lower compared with conventional colonoscopy (OR, .19; 95% CI, .14-.26; P < .01). Mechanical NTDs had lower AMRs compared with optical NTDs (OR, .10 vs .33; P < .01). No differences in cecal intubation rates, cecal intubation time, or total colonoscopy time were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Newer endoscopic technologies are an effective option to improve ADR and PDR and decrease AMR, particularly with mechanical NTDs. No differences in operability and safety were found.