U p to 20% of health care personnel (HCP) were found to be infected with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) 1 in the outbreak in northern Italy. 2 Recommendations on patient and HCP protection have been made, such as postponing procedures, triage, use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and creation of differentiated in-hospital pathways. 3,4 However, several barriers against the adoption of these strategies exist, including cultural factors and shortages of medical resources; therefore, there are few reports of real-world experiences and outcomes with their adoption. 5 The aim of this survey was to investigate the burden of COVID-19 on endoscopic activity in a high-risk area of COVID-19 outbreak, approaches to evaluating patients, adoption and compliance of HCP with protective measures, and initial possible viral transmission outcomes from endoscopy units within a large, community-based setting (both between patients and HCP and between HCP). MethodsThe study was conducted as a survey between March 16 and March 21, 2020. Directors of emergency departments in highrisk areas of northern Italy (Supplementary Figure 1) were invited by e-mail to complete a questionnaire (Figure 1 and Supplementary Table 1). Participation was voluntary. Additional methodology is provided in the Supplementary Material. Results Characteristics of the Endoscopy UnitsA total of 42 endoscopy units were invited, of which 41 participated (97.6%). Most respondents (n ¼ 37, 90.2%) were from high-volume endoscopy units, for a total of 968 endoscopy personnel, including 323 endoscopists, 496 nurses, and 149 health care assistants. Changes in Endoscopy Activity Related to Coronavirus Disease 2019All endoscopy units had patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in their hospital. All but 1 center (40/41, 97.6%) reduced Infection Prevention and Control Measures for Coronavirus Disease 2019Regarding the preventive measures taken after the first Italian case (February 18, 2020), 5 (12.2%) endoscopy units did not take any measures, 29 (70.7%) endoscopy units adopted a triage for risk stratification of COVID-19 infection, 7 (17.1%) endoscopy units decreased endoscopic See editorial on page 36.
EID proved to be a valid, curative, and safe mini-invasive approach for treatment of leaks following SG. EID achieves complete drainage of perigastric collections and stimulates mucosal growth over the stent. EID is well tolerated, allows early re-alimentation, and it is burdened by fewer complications than others technique. Long-term follow-up confirms good outcomes with no motility or feeding alterations.
Gastrointestinal leaks and fistulae are serious, potentially life threatening conditions that may occur with a wide variety of clinical presentations. Leaks are mostly related to post-operative anastomotic defects and are responsible for an important share of surgical morbidity and mortality. Chronic leaks and long standing post-operative collections may evolve in a fistula between two epithelialized structures. Endoscopy has earned a pivotal role in the management of gastrointestinal defects both as first line and as rescue treatment. Endotherapy is a minimally invasive, effective approach with lower morbidity and mortality compared to revisional surgery. Clips and luminal stents are the pioneer of gastrointestinal (GI) defect endotherapy, whereas innovative endoscopic closure devices and techniques, such as endoscopic internal drainage, suturing system and vacuum therapy, has broadened the indications of endoscopy for the management of GI wall defect. Although several endoscopic options are currently used, a standardized evidence-based algorithm for management of GI defect is not available. Successful management of gastrointestinal leaks and fistulae requires a tailored and multidisciplinary approach based on clinical presentation, defect features (size, location and onset time), local expertise and the availability of devices. In this review, we analyze different endoscopic approaches, which we selected on the basis of the available literature and our own experience. Then, we evaluate the overall efficacy and procedural-specific strengths and weaknesses of each approach.
Sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSA/Ps) are the putative precursors of the ~20% of colon cancers with the CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP). To investigate the epigenetic phenotype of these precancers, we prospectively collected fresh-tissue samples of 17 SSA/Ps and 15 conventional adenomas (cADNs), each with a matched sample of normal mucosa. Their DNA was subjected to bisulfite next-generation sequencing to assess methylation levels at ~2.7 million CpGs located predominantly in gene regulatory regions and spanning 80.5Mb; RNA was sequenced to define the samples’ transcriptomes. Compared with normal mucosa, SSA/Ps and cADNs exhibited markedly remodeled methylomes. In cADNs, hypomethylated regions were far more numerous (18,417 vs 4288 in SSA/Ps) and rarely affected CpG islands/shores. SSA/Ps seemed to have escaped this wave of demethylation. Cytosine hypermethylation in SSA/Ps was more pervasive (hypermethylated regions: 22,147 vs 15,965 in cADNs; hypermethylated genes: 4938 vs 3443 in cADNs) and more extensive (region for region), and it occurred mainly within CpG islands and shores. Given its resemblance to the CIMP typical of SSA/Ps' putative descendant colon cancers, we refer to the SSA/P methylation phenotype as proto-CIMP. Verification studies of six hypermethylated regions in an independent series of precancers demonstrated DNA methylation markers’ high potential for predicting the diagnosis of SSA/Ps and cADNs. Surprisingly, proto-CIMP in SSA/Ps was associated with upregulated gene expression; downregulation was more common in cADNs. In conclusion, the epigenetic landscape of SSA/Ps differs markedly from that of cADNs. These differences are a potentially rich source of novel tissue-based and noninvasive biomarkers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.