No abstract

Background and aims Restructuring activities have been necessary during the lockdown phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Few data are available on the post-lockdown phase in terms of health-care procedures in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care, and no data are available specifically from IBD units. We aimed to investigate how IBD management was restructured during the lockdown phase, the impact of the restructuring on standards of care and how Italian IBD units have managed post-lockdown activities. Methods A web-based online survey was conducted in two phases (April and June 2020) among the Italian Group for IBD affiliated units within the entire country. We investigated preventive measures, the possibility of continuing scheduled visits/procedures/therapies because of COVID-19 and how units resumed activities in the post-lockdown phase. Results Forty-two referral centres participated from all over Italy. During the COVID-19 lockdown, 36% of first visits and 7% of follow-up visits were regularly done, while >70% of follow-up scheduled visits and 5% of first visits were done virtually. About 25% of scheduled endoscopies and bowel ultrasound scans were done. More than 80% of biological therapies were done as scheduled. Compared to the pre-lockdown situation, 95% of centres modified management of outpatient activity, 93% of endoscopies, 59% of gastrointestinal ultrasounds and 33% of biological therapies. Resumption of activities after the lockdown phase may take three to six months to normalize. Virtual clinics, implementation of IBD pathways and facilities seem to be the main factors to improve care in the future. Conclusion Italian IBD unit restructuring allowed quality standards of care during the COVID-19 pandemic to be maintained. A return to normal appears to be feasible and achievable relatively quickly. Some approaches, such as virtual clinics and identified IBD pathways, represent a valid starting point to improve IBD care in the post-COVID-19 era.

No abstract

Walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) is one of the local complications of acute pancreatitis (AP). Several interventional techniques have been developed over the last few years. The purpose of this narrative review is to explore such methodologies, with specific focus on endoscopic drainage and direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN), through evaluation of their indications and timing for intervention. Findings indicated how, after the introduction of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), DEN is becoming the favorite technique to treat WOPN, especially when large solid debris or infection are present. Additionally, DEN is associated with a lower adverse events rate and hospital stay, and with improved clinical outcome.

Background and aims The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a deep reorganization of hospital services including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) units. In this situation, conversion of in-person routine follow-up visits into phone consultations might be necessary. Here we explored the feasibility of using the validated Crohn’s Disease (CD) or Ulcerative Colitis (UC) Patient-Reported Outcomes Signs and Symptoms (CD- and UC-PRO/SS) to collect data about abdominal symptoms (abdominal/S) and bowel signs and symptoms (bowel/SS) remotely. Methods CD- and UC-PRO/SS were collected during phone consultations and compared among patients with active and inactive disease. The effectiveness of therapeutic intervention in patients with active disease was assessed by PRO/SS variation. Results Twenty-one CD and 56 UC patients were evaluated by phone. Six (28.6%) CD and 15 (26.8%) UC patients were considered to have active disease. In CD the bowel/SS but not the abdominal/S module was significantly higher in active patients (mean bowel/SS 2.50 [SE ± 0.44] active vs 0.76 [SE ± 0.18] remission, p = 0.008, AUC 0.87; mean abdominal/S 1.11 [SE ± 0.38] active vs 0.24 [SE ± 0.13] remission, p = 0.066). UC-PRO/SS measures were significantly higher in active patients as compared to patients in remission (median bowel/SS 1.63 [SE ± 0.24] active vs 0.33 [SE ± 0.04] remission; p < 0.0001, AUC 0.91; mean abdominal/S 1.03 [SE ± 0.24] vs 0.37 [SE ± 0.12]; p = 0.009, AUC 0.71). Therapy was escalated in 12 patients (3 CD and 9 UC) due to disease relapse. Therapy escalation resulted in the reduction of PRO/SS as evaluated at the subsequent phone consultation. Conclusions PRO/SS might represent a feasible tool to evaluate disease activity and therapy outcome in IBD patients during periods of limited access to outpatient clinics.