Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent complication of COVID-19, so that the importance of adequate in-hospital thromboprophylaxis in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is well established. However, the incidence of VTE after discharge and whether postdischarge thromboprophylaxis is beneficial and safe are unclear. In this prospective observational single-center study, we report the incidence of VTE 6 weeks after hospitalization and the use of postdischarge thromboprophylaxis. Methods Patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 were invited to a multidisciplinary follow-up clinic 6 weeks after discharge. D-dimer and C-reactive protein were measured, and all patients were screened for deep vein thrombosis with venous duplex-ultrasound. Additionally, selected high-risk patients received computed tomography pulmonary angiogram or ventilation–perfusion (V/Q) scan to screen for incidental pulmonary embolism. Results Of 485 consecutive patients hospitalized from March through June 2020, 146 patients were analyzed, of which 39% had been admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Postdischarge thromboprophylaxis was prescribed in 28% of patients, but was used more frequently after ICU stay (61%) and in patients with higher maximal D-dimer and C-reactive protein levels during hospitalization. Six weeks after discharge, elevated D-dimer values were present in 32% of ward and 42% of ICU patients. Only one asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (0.7%) and one symptomatic pulmonary embolism (0.7%) were diagnosed with systematic screening. No bleedings were reported. Conclusion In patients who had been hospitalized with COVID-19, systematic screening for VTE 6 weeks after discharge revealed a low incidence of VTE. A strategy of selectively providing postdischarge thromboprophylaxis in high-risk patients seems safe and potentially effective.

On March 11th 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 pandemic, with subsequent profound impact on the entire health care system. During the COVID-19 outbreak, activities in the rhinology outpatient clinic and operation rooms are limited to emergency care only. Health care practitioners are faced with the need to perform rhinological and skull base emergency procedures in patients with a positive or unknown COVID-19 status. This article aims to provide recommendations and relevant information for rhinologists, based on the limited amount of (anecdotal) data, to guarantee high-quality patient care and adequate levels of infection prevention in the rhinology clinic.

On March 11, 2020 the World Health Organization declared COVID‐19 pandemic, leading to a subsequent impact on the entire world and health care system. Since the causing Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 houses in the aerodigestive tract, activities in the gastrointestinal outpatient clinic and endoscopy unit should be limited to emergencies only. Health care professionals are faced with the need to perform endoscopic or endoluminal emergency procedures in patients with a confirmed positive or unknown COVID‐19 status. With this report, we aim to provide recommendations and practical relevant information for gastroenterologists based on the limited amount of available data and local experience, to guarantee a high‐quality patient care and adequate infection prevention in the gastroenterology clinic.

This ESGE Position Statement defines the expected value of artificial intelligence (AI) for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal neoplasia within the framework of the performance measures already defined by ESGE. This is based on the clinical relevance of the expected task and the preliminary evidence regarding artificial intelligence in artificial or clinical settings. Main recommendations: (1) For acceptance of AI in assessment of completeness of upper GI endoscopy, the adequate level of mucosal inspection with AI should be comparable to that assessed by experienced endoscopists. (2) For acceptance of AI in assessment of completeness of upper GI endoscopy, automated recognition and photodocumentation of relevant anatomical landmarks should be obtained in ≥90% of the procedures. (3) For acceptance of AI in the detection of Barrett’s high grade intraepithelial neoplasia or cancer, the AI-assisted detection rate for suspicious lesions for targeted biopsies should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists with or without advanced imaging techniques. (4) For acceptance of AI in the management of Barrett’s neoplasia, AI-assisted selection of lesions amenable to endoscopic resection should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists. (5) For acceptance of AI in the diagnosis of gastric precancerous conditions, AI-assisted diagnosis of atrophy and intestinal metaplasia should be comparable to that provided by the established biopsy protocol, including the estimation of extent, and consequent allocation to the correct endoscopic surveillance interval. (6) For acceptance of artificial intelligence for automated lesion detection in small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), the performance of AI-assisted reading should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists for lesion detection, without increasing but possibly reducing the reading time of the operator. (7) For acceptance of AI in the detection of colorectal polyps, the AI-assisted adenoma detection rate should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists. (8) For acceptance of AI optical diagnosis (computer-aided diagnosis [CADx]) of diminutive polyps (≤5 mm), AI-assisted characterization should match performance standards for implementing resect-and-discard and diagnose-and-leave strategies. (9) For acceptance of AI in the management of polyps ≥ 6 mm, AI-assisted characterization should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists in selecting lesions amenable to endoscopic resection.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic, declared by WHO on March 13 th 2020, had a major global impact on the health care system and services. In the acute phase, the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the aerodigestive tract limited activities in the gastroenterology clinic and procedures to emergencies only. Motility and function testing was interrupted and as we enter the recovery phase, restarting these procedures requires a safety-focused approach with adequate infection prevention for patients and healthcare professionals.Methods: We summarized knowledge on the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the aerodigestive tract and the risk of spread with motility and functional testing. We surveyed 39 European centers documenting how the pandemic affected activities and which measures they are considering for restarting these measurements. We propose recommendations based on current knowledge as applied in our center.Results: Positioning of catheters for gastrointestinal motility tests carries a concern for aerosol-borne infection of health care workers. The risk is low with breath tests.The surveyed centers stopped almost all motility and function tests from the second half of March. The speed of restarting and the safety measures taken varied highly.Conclusions and Inferences: Based on these findings, we provided recommendations and practical relevant information for motility and function test procedures in the COVID-19 pandemic era, to guarantee a high-quality patient care with adequate infection prevention.