Search

Introduction: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses a challenge to healthcare. Staff and patients are at increased risk during an examination or intervention, so certain restrictions ought to be introduced. Hence, we aimed to measure the effect of the pandemic on endoscopy units in real-life settings. Methods: This was an observational, cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study, carried out between 7 April and 15 June 2020. Responds came from many countries, and the participation was voluntary. The survey contained 40 questions, which evaluated the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the endoscopy units and assessed the infection control. Results: A total of 312 questionnaires were filled, 120 from Hungary, and 192 internationally, and 54 questionnaires (17.3%) were sent from high-risk countries; 84.9% of the gastroenterologists declared that they read the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) statement, while only 32.1% participated in any advanced training at their workplace. Overall, 92.1% of gastroenterologists realized risk stratification, and 72.1% claimed to have enough protective equipment. In 52.6% of the endoscopy units, at least one endoscopist had to discontinue the work due to any risk factor, while 40.6% reported that the reduced staff did not affect the workflow. Gastroenterologists considered that the five most important examinations both in low and high-risk patients are the following: lower/upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding with hemodynamic instability, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in obstructive jaundice, foreign body in the esophagus, ERCP in acute biliary pancreatitis, and iron deficiency anemia with hemodynamic instability, which correlates well with the ESGE recommendation. Significant correlation was found in the usage of the necessary protective equipment in high-risk patients depending on the countries (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The survey found weak correlation in preliminary training depending on countries; nevertheless, in Hungary during the examined period, endoscopists considered the recommendations more strictly than in other countries. Although many physicians left the endoscopy lab, the workflow was not affected, probably due to the reduced number of examinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses a challenge to healthcare. Staff and patients are at increased risk during an examination or intervention, so certain restrictions ought to be introduced. Hence, we aimed to measure the effect of the pandemic on endoscopy units in real-life settings. Methods: This was an observational, cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study, carried out between 7 April and 15 June 2020. Responds came from many countries, and the participation was voluntary. The survey contained 40 questions, which evaluated the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the endoscopy units and assessed the infection control. Results: A total of 312 questionnaires were filled, 120 from Hungary, and 192 internationally, and 54 questionnaires (17.3%) were sent from high-risk countries; 84.9% of the gastroenterologists declared that they read the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) statement, while only 32.1% participated in any advanced training at their workplace. Overall, 92.1% of gastroenterologists realized risk stratification, and 72.1% claimed to have enough protective equipment. In 52.6% of the endoscopy units, at least one endoscopist had to discontinue the work due to any risk factor, while 40.6% reported that the reduced staff did not affect the workflow. Gastroenterologists considered that the five most important examinations both in low and high-risk patients are the following: lower/upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding with hemodynamic instability, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in obstructive jaundice, foreign body in the esophagus, ERCP in acute biliary pancreatitis, and iron deficiency anemia with hemodynamic instability, which correlates well with the ESGE recommendation. Significant correlation was found in the usage of the necessary protective equipment in high-risk patients depending on the countries (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The survey found weak correlation in preliminary training depending on countries; nevertheless, in Hungary during the examined period, endoscopists considered the recommendations more strictly than in other countries. Although many physicians left the endoscopy lab, the workflow was not affected, probably due to the reduced number of examinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) is a leading radiological modality in Crohn's disease (CD) and is used together with laboratory findings and endoscopic examinations for the evaluation of patients during initial diagnosis and follow up. Over the years, there has been great progress in the understanding of CD and there is a continuous strive to achieve better monitoring of patients and to develop new modalities which will predict disease course and thus help in clinical decisions making. An objective evaluation of CD using a quantification score is not a new concept and there are different clinical, endoscopies, radiological and combined indices which are used in clinical practice. Such scores are a necessity in clinical trials on CD for evaluation of disease response, however, there is no consensus of the preferred MRE score and they are not routinely used. This review presents MRE-based indices in use in the last decade: the Magnetic Resonance Index of Activity (MaRIA), the Clermont score, the Crohn's Disease Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Index (CDMI), the Magnetic Resonance Enterography Global Score (MEGS) and the Lemann index. We compare the different indices and evaluate the clinical research that utilized them. The aim of this review is to provide a reference guide for researchers and clinicians who incorporate MRE indices in their work. When devising future indices, accumulated data of the existing indices must be taken into account, as each of the current indices has its own strengths and weakness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]