Green endoscopy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), Joint Accreditation Group (JAG) and Centre for Sustainable Health (CSH) joint consensus on practical measures for environmental sustainability in endoscopy

The use of faecal microbiota transplant as treatment for recurrent or refractory Clostridioides difficile infection and other potential indications: second edition of joint British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and Healthcare Infection Society (HIS) guidelines

The first British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and Healthcare Infection Society (HIS)-endorsed faecal microbiota transplant (FMT) guidelines were published in 2018. Over the past 5 years, there has been considerable growth in the evidence base (including publication of outcomes from large national FMT registries), necessitating an updated critical review of the literature and a second edition of the BSG/HIS FMT guidelines. These have been produced in accordance with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-accredited methodology, thus have particular relevance for UK-based clinicians, but are intended to be of pertinence internationally. This second edition of the guidelines have been divided into recommendations, good practice points and recommendations against certain practices. With respect to FMT for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), key focus areas centred around timing of administration, increasing clinical experience of encapsulated FMT preparations and optimising donor screening. The latter topic is of particular relevance given the COVID-19 pandemic, and cases of patient morbidity and mortality resulting from FMT-related pathogen transmission. The guidelines also considered emergent literature on the use of FMT in non-CDI settings (including both gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal indications), reviewing relevant randomised controlled trials. Recommendations are provided regarding special areas (including compassionate FMT use), and considerations regarding the evolving landscape of FMT and microbiome therapeutics.

Advanced trainee perceptions of disposable duodenoscopes and disposable endcaps: results of a nationwide survey

INTRODUCTION

Disposable duodenoscopes and duodenoscopes with disposable endcaps are being used in clinical practice to reduce or eliminate the risk of transmitting infections. The study aim was to assess perceptions and experiences regarding the use of these duodenoscopes among advanced endoscopy fellows in a nationally representative sample.

METHODS

A 17-item electronic survey was sent to 74 advanced endoscopy training programs. The survey was completed by 50 participants and their responses were included for analysis.

RESULTS

Most participants were from academic training programs (82.7%) and identified as being in their 7th year of post graduate training (92%; PGY-7). Participants performed an average of 414 ERCPs. 29% reported difficulty with cannulation using disposable duodenoscopes versus 15.7% with duodenoscopes with disposable endcaps (vs. standard duodenoscope). 96% of trainees perceived disposable duodenoscopes as not cost effective and 92% stated they would not use this device during independent practice. 100% of trainees stated that they would use duodenoscopes with disposable endcaps during independent practice. For their most challenging cases, 90% of trainees preferred using standard reprocessable duodenoscopes while no trainee indicated they would prefer using a disposable duodenoscope in this scenario. 82% of participants stated that disposable duodenoscopes and disposable endcaps should be used exclusively or preferentially for high-risk patients citing cost, functionality, and concerns regarding environmental impact.

DISCUSSION

Advanced endoscopy fellows perceive disposable duodenoscopes as impacting technical maneuverability. Concerns about functionality, cost effectiveness and environmental impact are barriers to adoption.

Perspectives and awareness of endoscopy healthcare professionals on sustainable practices in gastrointestinal endoscopy: results of the LEAFGREEN survey

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is one of healthcare's main contributors to climate change. We aimed to assess healthcare professionals' attitudes and the perceived barriers to implementation of sustainable GI endoscopy.

METHODS

The LEAFGREEN web-based survey was a cross-sectional study conducted by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Green Endoscopy Working Group. The questionnaire comprised 39 questions divided into five sections (respondent demographics; climate change and sustainability beliefs; waste and resource management; single-use endoscopes and accessories; education and research). The survey was available via email to all active members of the ESGE and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) in March 2023.

RESULTS

407 respondents participated in the survey (11% response rate). Most participants (86%) agreed climate change is real and anthropogenic, but one-third did not consider GI endoscopy to be a significant contributor to climate change. Improvement in the appropriateness of endoscopic procedures (41%) and reduction in single-use accessories (34%) were considered the most important strategies to reduce the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. Respondents deemed lack of institutional support and knowledge from staff to be the main barriers to sustainable endoscopy. Strategies to reduce unnecessary GI endoscopic procedures and comparative studies of single-use versus reusable accessories were identified as research priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

In this survey, ESGE and ESGENA members acknowledge climate change as a major threat to humanity. Further improvement in sustainability beliefs and professional attitudes, reduction in inappropriate GI endoscopy, and rational use of single-use accessories and endoscopes are critically required.

Pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy as first-line procedure in patients with suspected mid or lower gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Pan-intestinal capsule endoscopy (PCE) evaluates the small bowel and colon noninvasively. This study evaluated diagnostic accuracy and safety of PCE vs. colonoscopy as first-line examination in suspected mid-lower gastrointestinal bleeding (MLGIB).

METHODS

In this prospective, single-center, single-blinded cohort study, consecutive patients with suspected MLGIB underwent PCE followed by same-day colonoscopy. Diagnostic accuracy for potentially hemorrhagic lesions (PHLs; combined diagnosis by PCE + colonoscopy) and incidence of adverse events were assessed.

RESULTS

100 patients were included (median age 70 [range 18-92] years; 65% female). PHLs were diagnosed in 46 patients, including small-bowel and/or colon angioectasias in 32. PCE correctly identified 54 individuals without PHLs, and 95.7% (44/46) of those with PHLs vs. 50.0% (23/46) for colonoscopy (P<0.01). PHLs were detected by PCE alone in 65.2% (30/46), both examinations in 28.3% (13/46), and colonoscopy alone in 6.5% (3/46). PHLs were diagnosed at the ileocolonic region in 28% of patients, with PCE diagnosing 25/28 cases (89.3%) and colonoscopy diagnosing 23/28 (82.1%; P=0.13). Interventional procedures were performed at colonoscopy in 13/81 patients with iron-deficiency anemia (16.0%) vs. 6/19 patients with overt bleeding (31.6%; P<0.01). No significant adverse events occurred with PCE vs. 2% with colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with MLGIB, PCE avoided further invasive procedures in >50% of patients. PCE was safe and more effective than colonoscopy in identifying PHL both in the small bowel and colon. These results support the potential use of PCE as first-line examination in patients with suspected MLGIB.

One-device colonoscopy: feasibility, cost savings, and plastic waste reduction by procedure indication, when performed by a high detecting colonoscopist

BACKGROUND

Cold forceps and snares are each effective for removing polyps of 1-3 mm, while snares are more effective for polyps of 4-10 mm in size. If, in the same patient, polyps of 1-3 mm are removed with forceps and those of 4-10 mm with snares, two devices are used. If cold snares are used to resect all lesions of 1-10 mm (one-device colonoscopy), there is a potential for lower costs and less plastic waste.

METHODS

A single high detecting colonoscopist prospectively measured the feasibility of cold snaring all colorectal lesions of ≤10 mm in size, along with the associated costs and plastic waste reduction.

RESULTS

677 consecutive lower gastrointestinal endoscopies (not for inflammatory bowel disease) were assessed. Of 1430 lesions of 1-3 mm and 1685 lesions of 4-10 mm in size, 1428 (99.9%, 95%CI 99.5%-100%) and 1674 (99.3%, 95%CI 98.8%-99.7%), respectively, were successfully resected using cold snaring. Among 379 screening and surveillance patients, universal cold snaring of lesions ≤10 mm saved 35 and 47 cold forceps per 100 screening and surveillance patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Cold snare resection of all lesions ≤10 mm (one-device colonoscopy) was feasible, and reduced costs and plastic waste.

[Green endoscopy - strategy for more sustainablility in endoscopy]

Climate protection, ecology and CO2 neutrality have been discussed intensively and increasingly in society for years. This is also becoming increasingly important in hospitals and other medical facilities. The health care sector is responsible for 5.6% of all CO2 emissions in Germany, particularly due to high energy consumption and a daily waste production of 6kg per patient. The following article summarizes the options for endoscopy to contribute to ecological sustainability, with a special focus on measures that can be easily implemented today.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

Cost-benefits and environmental impact of the no-biopsy approach for the diagnosis of coeliac disease in adults

Objective

Recent evidence suggests that adult patients with IgA tissue transglutaminase levels of ≥10× the upper limit of normal could be accurately diagnosed with coeliac disease without undergoing endoscopy and biopsy. We aimed to evaluate the cost-benefits and the environmental impact of implementing the no-biopsy approach for diagnosing coeliac disease in clinical practice.

Design

We calculated the overall direct and indirect costs of the conventional serology-biopsy approach and the no-biopsy approach for the diagnosis of coeliac disease based on the national average unit costs and the Office of National Statistics data. We further estimated the environmental impact of avoiding endoscopy based on the estimated greenhouse gas emissions from endoscopy.

Results

Approximately 3000 endoscopies for suspected coeliac disease could be avoided each year in the UK. Implementing the no-biopsy approach for the diagnosis of coeliac disease in adults could save the National Health Service over £2.5 million in direct and indirect costs per annum and reduce endoscopy carbon footprint by 87 tonnes of CO2 per year, equivalent to greenhouse gas emissions from driving 222 875 miles, carbon emissions from charging over 10 million smartphones and the carbon sequestrated by 1438 trees grown for 10 years.

Conclusion

The implementation of this non-invasive green approach could be an essential first step in the 'Reduce' strategy advocated by the British Society of Gastroenterology and other international endoscopy societies for sustainable endoscopy practice.

Life cycle assessment of routinely used endoscopic instruments and simple intervention to reduce our environmental impact

OBJECTIVES

GI endoscopy units represent the third largest producers of medical waste. We aimed to determine endoscopic instrument composition and life cycle assessment (LCA) and to assess a sustainability proposal based on a mark on the instruments that identifies parts can be safely recycled or 'green mark'.

DESIGN

Material composition analysis and LCA of forceps, snares and clips from four different manufacturers (A-D) were performed with four different methods. Carbon footprint from production, transportation and end of life of these instruments was calculated. In 30 consecutive procedures, we marked the contact point with the working channel. 5 cm away from that point was considered as green mark. One-week prospective study was conducted with 184 procedures evaluating 143 instruments (75 forceps, 49 snares and 19 haemoclips) to assess the efficacy of this recyclable mark.

RESULTS

Composition from different manufacturers varied widely. Most common materials were high global warming potential (GWP) waste (polyethylene, polypropylene and acrylonitrile) and low GWP waste (stainless steel). Significant differences were found for the forceps (0.31-0.47 kg of CO2 equivalent (CO2-eq)) and haemoclips (0.41-0.57 kg CO2-eq) between the manufacturers. Green mark was established 131.26 cm for gastroscope and 195.32 cm for colonoscope. One-week activity produced 67.74 kg CO2-eq. Applying our sustainability intervention, we could reduce up to 27.44% (18.26 kg CO2-eq). This allows the recycling of 61.7% of the instrument total weight (4.69 kg).

CONCLUSION

Knowledge of carbon footprint is crucial to select the most sustainable alternatives because there are large variations between brands. A mark to identify recyclable parts could reduce our environmental impact significantly.