No abstract

Background and study aims Gastrointestinal endoscopy, being an aerosol-generating procedure, has the potential to transmit Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Corona Virus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) during the current pandemic. Adequate knowledge is the key to prevention. A survey, perhaps the first, was conducted among Indian endoscopists to assess the impact of Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19 on gastroinestinal endoscopy practice in the country. Methods From April 24 to 28, 2020, an electronic survey (using Google Form) was conducted with 23 questions (single or multiple answers) on: (1) endoscopy practice before the pandemic; (2) knowledge about COVID-19; and (3) its impact on endoscopy practice. Results Responses were received from 375 of 1205 (31.1 %) endoscopists. Most (35.7 %) were young (31–40 years), practicing in corporate multi-speciality hospitals (44.6 %) or independent practice set-up (17.7 %) in metropolitan cities (55.6 %) and urban areas (42.3 %). In most units (75.4 %), fewer than 10 % of procedures performed are endoscopies, as compared to before the pandemic. A reduction in volume of endoscopy related to restriction of the routine procedures by the latest guideline was reported by 86.9 % of respondents. Most are using N95 masks (74.7 %) and/or complete personal protective equipment (PPE, 49.2 %) during endoscopic procedures. Only 18.3 % of respondents had access to negative pressure rooms either within (5.4 %) or outside (12.9 %) the usual endoscopy suite. Conclusion Endoscopy units in India are performing fewer than 10 % of their usual volumes due to current restrictions. Resources to follow current international guidelines, including use of negative pressure rooms and PPE, are limited. Alternate measures are needed to keep up the services.

Background/Aims: Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) for tissue acquisition (TA) from subepithelial lesions (SELs) is emerging as an alternative to endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided TA. Only a limited number of studies compared the diagnostic utility of MIAB and EUS for upper gastrointestinal (GI) SELs; therefore, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods: A comprehensive literature search from January 2020 to January 2022 was performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy and safety of MIAB and EUS-guided TA for upper GI SELs.Results: Seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled technical success rate (risk ratio [RR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89–1.04) and procedural time (mean difference=–4.53 seconds; 95% CI, –22.38 to 13.31] were comparable between both the groups. The overall chance of obtaining a positive diagnostic yield was lower with EUS than with MIAB for all lesions (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71–0.98) but comparable when using a fine-needle biopsy needle (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83–1.04). The positive diagnostic yield of MIAB was higher for lesions <20 mm (RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63–0.89). Six studies reported no adverse events.Conclusions: MIAB can be considered an effective alternative to EUS-guided TA for upper GI SELs without an increased risk of adverse events.

No abstract

Background and Aim: In the present coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) era, health-care workers (HCWs) warrant special attention because of their higher risk and potential to transmit the disease. Gastroenterology services include emergency and critical care along with the endoscopy procedures, which have aerosol-generating potential. This study was aimed at auditing the COVID-19 impact on HCWs working in the Gastroenterology department of our hospital. Methods: The COVID-19 status of 117 HCWs was collected using either polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or Immunoglobulin G (IgG) seroassay. COVID-19 positivity was correlated with demographic characteristics, job profile, area of work, and medical history. Results: Thirty-eight HCWs (32.48%) showed evidence of COVID-19 using PCR (23.93%) or only IgG assay (8.55%). Endoscopy technicians (68.75%) exhibited significantly higher (P = 0.003) COVID-19 incidence compared to doctors (20.69%). Those working in the critical care units exhibited a trend toward higher COVID-19 incidence (42.86%). None of the six HCWs who received adequate hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis developed evidence of COVID-19. All the HCWs with COVID-19 disease recovered. However, there was a considerable loss of "man-days." Conclusions: In our setting, we observed a high COVID-19 risk for HCWs working in the Gastroenterology department, with the highest risk among the endoscopy technicians. A more stringent triaging and pretesting of patients, as well as HCWs, might decrease the risk of COVID-19. Further multicenter studies are needed to evaluate the risk and related parameters. Methods Study population. This cross-sectional study was performed in August 2020. The department of Gastroenterology at the Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals, Kolkata, India, has 117 HCWs.

Objective This study was aimed to determine the relationship between static and dynamic intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) with the mortality and outcome of acute pancreatitis. Methods From July 2017 to December 2018, 150 patients admitted at the Institute of Gastrosciences and Liver and diagnosed as acute pancreatitis were included in the study. Intra-abdominal pressure was measured for the first few days, and mean value of day 1 (static IAP) and highest value on day 2 and day 3 (dynamic IAP) were calculated and categorized into intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome. Results A statistical relationship was observed between static and dynamic IAP with the severity and mortality of acute pancreatitis. Both static and dynamic IAPs tended to be higher in nonsurvivors (83.33% and 88.88%, respectively) compared with survivors (51.51% and 63.63%, respectively). Higher IAP had more severe disease. However, IAP did not correlate with the evidence of sepsis or serum procalcitonin levels. Conclusion Determination of static IAP is an easy, useful, and inexpensive method to determine and predict the mortality of acute pancreatitis. Prevention and/or early detection of intra-abdominal hypertension helps in reducing the mortality in acute pancreatitis.

Background/Aims: Fully covered self-expanding metal stents (FCSEMSs) are a relatively novel option for treating painful main pancreatic duct refractory strictures in patients with chronic pancreatitis. Herein, we aimed to assess the efficacy, feasibility, and safety of FCSEMSs in this patient group.Methods: This prospective single-center study included patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde pancreatography with FCSEMS placement. The primary endpoints were the technical and clinical success rates. A reduction in visual analog scale pain score of >50% compared with that before stent placement was defined as clinical success. Secondary endpoints were resolution of pancreatic strictures on fluoroscopy during endoscopic retrograde pancreatography and the development of stent-related adverse events.Results: Thirty-six patients were included in the analysis. The technical success rate was 100% (n=36) and the clinical success rate was 86.1% (n=31). There was a significant increase in stricture diameter from 1.7 mm to 3.5 mm (p<0.001) after stent removal. The mean visual analog scale pain score showed statistically significant improvement. At 19 months of follow-up, 55.6% of the patients were asymptomatic. Stent migration (16.7%), intolerable abdominal pain (8.3%), development of de novo strictures (8.3%), and mild pancreatitis (2.8%) were the most common adverse events.Conclusions: FCSEMS placement showed good technical and clinical success rates for achieving pain relief in patients with refractory main pancreatic duct strictures.

No abstract