3 research outputs found

    Feasibility of Continuous Monitoring of Endoscopy Performance and Adverse Events: A Single-Center Experience

    No full text
    Background: We integrated a standardized questionnaire focusing on adverse events and performance measures in gastrointestinal endoscopy as a mandatory component of the electronical medical record. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted using prospectively collected data on quality parameters and adverse events (AEPM) for all diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic procedures at our center between 2018 and 2020. Results: A total of 7532 consecutive endoscopic procedures were performed in 5035 patients. The proportion of high-risk examinations and high-risk patients was 20% and 23%, respectively. Severe adverse events (AEs, n = 21) occurred in 0.3% of procedures and significantly more often in patients with an ASA score > II (0.6%, p n = 2). Following screening colonoscopy (n = 242), four endoscopists documented AEPM in more than 98% of the examinations. The cecal intubation rate was 97%, and the mean adenoma detection rate 60%. The quality of lavage was documented in 97% (rated as good in 70% and moderate in 24%). Conclusions: The risk of adverse events is significantly increased in patients with an ASA score > II, which should be considered when choosing treatment methods and precautionary measures. Continuous recording of AEPM can be effectively integrated into the clinical reporting process, enabling analysis of the data and feedback to be provided to endoscopists

    Feasibility of Continuous Monitoring of Endoscopy Performance and Adverse Events: A Single-Center Experience

    No full text
    Background: We integrated a standardized questionnaire focusing on adverse events and performance measures in gastrointestinal endoscopy as a mandatory component of the electronical medical record. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted using prospectively collected data on quality parameters and adverse events (AEPM) for all diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic procedures at our center between 2018 and 2020. Results: A total of 7532 consecutive endoscopic procedures were performed in 5035 patients. The proportion of high-risk examinations and high-risk patients was 20% and 23%, respectively. Severe adverse events (AEs, n = 21) occurred in 0.3% of procedures and significantly more often in patients with an ASA score > II (0.6%, p < 0.01). We observed no long-term morbidity after severe AEs. Mortality was 0.03% (n = 2). Following screening colonoscopy (n = 242), four endoscopists documented AEPM in more than 98% of the examinations. The cecal intubation rate was 97%, and the mean adenoma detection rate 60%. The quality of lavage was documented in 97% (rated as good in 70% and moderate in 24%). Conclusions: The risk of adverse events is significantly increased in patients with an ASA score > II, which should be considered when choosing treatment methods and precautionary measures. Continuous recording of AEPM can be effectively integrated into the clinical reporting process, enabling analysis of the data and feedback to be provided to endoscopists

    Impact of PD-L1 Scores and Changes on Clinical Outcome in Rectal Cancer Patients Undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy

    No full text
    International audienceReports on the prognostic role of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression in rectal cancer are controversial. We investigated expression patterns and changes of PD-L1 in rectal cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Seventy-two patients diagnosed with rectal cancer and/or treated with fluorouracil-based neoadjuvant CRT at the Department of Internal Medicine III of the Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg (Austria) between January 2003 and October 2012 were included. PD-L1 scoring was performed according to the tumor proportion score (TPS), combined positive score (CPS), and immune cell score (IC). PD-L1 TPS prior to neoadjuvant CRT had a statistically significant impact on survival (median: ≤1%: 95.4 months (95% CI: 51.8-not reached) vs. >1%: not reached, p = 0.03, log-rank). Patients with a PD-L1 TPS ≤1% prior to and after CRT showed an inferior survival compared to all other patients (median: 56.7 months (95% CI: 51.4-not reached) vs. not reached, p = 0.005, log-rank). In multivariate analysis, PD-L1 TPS prior to neoadjuvant CRT (>1% vs. ≤1%, hazard ratio: 0.29 (95% CI: 0.11-0.76), p = 0.01) remained independently associated with survival. In conclusion, low PD-L1 TPS was associated with inferior survival in rectal cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant CRT. A prospective validation of the prognostic value of PD-L1 expression in rectal cancer patients within a clinical trial is necessitated
    corecore