Search

Background and aims: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a mixed inflammatory and fibrostenotic disease. Unlike superficial inflammatory changes, subepithelial fibrosis is not routinely sampled in esophageal biopsies. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of deep esophageal sampling with four different types of biopsy forceps. Patients and methods: In this cross-sectional study, esophageal biopsies were taken in 30 adult patients by one expert endoscopist. Biopsies sampled from distal esophagus using a static jaw forceps (Olympus, FB-11K-1) were compared with proximal biopsies sampled with static jaw (Olympus, FB-45Q-1), alligator jaw (Olympus, FB-210K), and large-capacity forceps (Boston Scientific, Radial Jaw 4). One pathologist calculated the surface area of epithelial and subepithelial layers in hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained biopsies. Results: Subepithelial tissue was acquired in 97% (static jaw FB-11K-1), 93% (static jaw FB-45Q-1), 80% (alligator jaw), and 55% (large-capacity) of samples. Median (interquartile [IQR]) ratios of surface area of epithelial to subepithelial tissue were: static jaw FB-45Q-1, 1.07 (0.65-4.465); static jaw FB-11K-1, 1.184 (0.608-2.545); alligator jaw, 2.353 (1.312-4.465); and large-capacity, 2.71 (1.611-4.858). The static jaw models obtained a larger surface area of subepithelial tissue compared with the alligator jaw (P<0.001 and P= 0.037, for FB-11K-1 and FB-45Q-1, respectively) and the large-capacity forceps (P<0.001, for both static jaw models). No esophageal perforations occurred. Conclusions: The static jaw forceps models allowed sampling of subepithelial tissue in >90% of biopsies and appear to be superior to alligator or large-capacity forceps in sampling larger amounts of subepithelial tissue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Study Aims: The recommended minimum withdrawal time for screening colonoscopy is 6 minutes. Adenoma detection rates (ADRs) increase with longer withdrawal times. We aimed to compare withdrawal times and ADRs of endoscopists unaware of being monitored vs. aware. Patients and Methods: Seven experienced gastroenterologists prospectively performed 558 screening colonoscopies during a 9-month period in a Swiss University hospital. Colonoscopy withdrawal times were first measured without the gastroenterologists’ knowledge of being monitored (n = 355 colonoscopies) and then with their knowledge (n = 203 colonoscopies). Results: The median withdrawal time when gastroenterologists were unaware of being monitored was 4.5 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 4 – 5.5 minutes) without intervention and 6 minutes (IQR 4 – 9 minutes) with intervention, increasing significantly to 7.3 minutes (IQR 6.5 – 9 minutes) and 8 minutes (IQR 7 – 11 minutes), respectively, when they were aware of being monitored (P < 0.001 both for colonoscopies with and without intervention). The ADR increased from 21.4 % when the gastroenterologists were unaware of being monitored to 36.0 % when they were aware (P < 0.001). In the multivariate regression model, the endoscopists knowing they were being monitored was the strongest factor associated with ADR (odds ratio 4.417; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.241 – 8.705; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Colonoscopy withdrawal time in unmonitored gastroenterologists is shorter than recommended and increases with awareness of monitoring. ADR significantly increases when gastroenterologists are aware of being monitored. Implementation of systematic monitoring, and analysis of withdrawal time and ADR for each endoscopist may help to increase the ADR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]