Development and validation of a web-based electronic application in managing antithrombotic agents in patients undergoing GI endoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Antithrombotic therapy among patients undergoing GI procedures is frequently encountered and can impact the procedure and patient outcomes. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines help to manage these medications before endoscopy depending on the patient\u27s clinical status and the type of GI procedure. However, currently there is no readily available electronic tool that can assist in decision making regarding preprocedural management of these agents. Our aim was to develop an electronic application (ENDOAID) to help manage antithrombotic agents before endoscopy and to perform a validation study to test its accuracy. METHODS: ENDOAID, a web-based application, was developed using JavaScript software based on an algorithm to categorize patients and procedures into low and high risk as outlined in the updated ASGE guidelines published in 2016. Once pertinent information regarding a patient\u27s clinical status and the procedure are entered, the application generates recommendations for the management of antithrombotic agents based on their cardiovascular risk and published ASGE guidelines. We performed a validation study with 52 patients who were referred to endoscopy and were taking antithrombotic agents. The patients were divided into groups of 5, and in the simulation, each patient had 4 procedures. Different GI procedures were used in the simulation for each group of patients to ensure the entire spectrum of procedures were covered for analysis. Every simulation was then run through ENDOAID. The results from ENDOAID were compared with recommendations based on ASGE guidelines. The latter was derived by consensus between 2 endoscopists (the criterion standard). The personnel using the ENDOAID and those using the ASGE guidelines were different to avoid bias. Any clinical scenario that was unclear or not clearly outlined in ASGE guidelines was discussed with expert endoscopists for a final decision. We evaluated ASGE recommendations and calculated concordance rates between guidelines and ENDOAID results. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was calculated to assess the correlation between ENDOAID results to guidelines. RESULTS: There was a total of 208 simulated encounters, including 26 procedures. Initial concordance between ENDOAID recommendations and the criterion standard was seen in 206 encounters (99.03%). The 2 encounters that needed further review occurred among patients with Factor V Leiden mutation and DVT from APLA syndrome, and who were undergoing high-risk procedures that had ambiguous guidelines. ENDOAID suggested consultations with an expert before the elective procedure. This suggestion was agreed upon by expert endoscopist consensus. Thus, ENDOAID showed a 100% concordance with the ASGE guideline for managing antithrombotics. There was a high degree of correlation (r = 0.996, p \u3c 0.01) between ENDOAID results with ASGE. CONCLUSION: We have developed and validated an easy-to-use web-based application that can help in periprocedural management of antithrombotics. Such an application has the potential to simplify the management of these agents and potentially prevent procedural delays, cancellations, or unnecessary consults

Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Cancer Related Mortality After Detection of Low-risk or High-risk Adenomas, Compared With No Adenoma, at Index Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) among patients with no adenomas, low-risk adenomas (LRAs), or high-risk adenomas (HRAs), detected at index colonoscopy, is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare incidence rates of metachronous CRC and CRC-related mortality after a baseline colonoscopy for each group. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases for studies that reported the incidence of CRC and adenoma characteristics after colonoscopy. The primary outcome was odds of metachronous CRC and CRC-related mortality per 10,000 person-years of follow-up after baseline colonoscopy for all the groups. RESULTS: Our final analysis included 12 studies with 510,019 patients (mean age, 59.2 ± 2.6 years; 55% male; mean duration of follow up, 8.5 ± 3.3 years). The incidence of CRC per 10,000 person-years was marginally higher for patients with LRAs compared to those with no adenomas (4.5 vs 3.4; odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% CI, 1.06-1.51; I(2)=0), but significantly higher for patients with HRAs compared to those with no adenoma ( 13.8 vs 3.4; odds ratio [OR], 2.92; 95% CI, 2.31-3.69; I(2)=0 ) and patients with HRAs compared to LRAs (13.81 vs 4.5; OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.72-3.20; I(2)=55%). However, the CRC-related mortality per 10,000 person-years did not differ significantly for patients with LRAs compared to no adenomas (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.76-1.74; I(2)=0) but was significantly higher in persons with HRAs compared with LRAs (OR, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.30-4.75; I(2)=38%) and no adenomas (OR, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.87-3.87; I(2)=0). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that the risk of metachronous CRC and mortality is significantly higher for patients with HRAs, but this risk is very low in patients with LRAs, comparable to patients with no adenomas. Follow-up of patients with LRAs detected at index colonoscopy should be the same as for persons with no adenomas

Impact of COVID-19 on gastroenterology fellowship training: a multicenter analysis of endoscopy volumes

Abstract Background and study aims The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on gastroenterology training programs. We aimed to objectively evaluate procedural training volume and impact of COVID-19 on gastroenterology fellowship programs in the United States. Methods This was a retrospective, multicenter study. Procedure volume data on upper and lower endoscopies performed by gastroenterology fellows was abstracted directly from the electronic medical record. The study period was stratified into 2 time periods: Study Period 1, SP1 (03/15/2020 to 06/30/2020) and Study Period 2, SP2 (07/01/2020 to 12/15/2020). Procedure volumes during SP1 and SP2 were compared to Historic Period 1 (HP1) (03/15/2019 to 06/30/2019) and Historic Period 2 (HP2) (07/01/2019 to 12/15/2019) as historical reference. Results Data from 23 gastroenterology fellowship programs (total procedures = 127,958) with a median of 284 fellows (range 273–289; representing 17.8 % of all trainees in the United States) were collected. Compared to HP1, fellows performed 53.6 % less procedures in SP1 (total volume: 28,808 vs 13,378; mean 105.52 ± 71.94 vs 47.61 ± 41.43 per fellow; P < 0.0001). This reduction was significant across all three training years and for both lower and upper endoscopies (P < 0.0001). However, the reduction in volume was more pronounced for lower endoscopy compared to upper endoscopy [59.03 % (95 % CI: 58.2–59.86) vs 48.75 % (95 % CI: 47.96–49.54); P < 0.0001]. The procedure volume in SP2 returned to near baseline of HP2 (total volume: 42,497 vs 43,275; mean 147.05 ± 96.36 vs 150.78 ± 99.67; P = 0.65). Conclusions Although there was a significant reduction in fellows’ endoscopy volume in the initial stages of the pandemic, adaptive mechanisms have resulted in a return of procedure volume to near baseline without ongoing impact on endoscopy training