Search

Background/Aim: Prevalence of gastroduodenal endoscopic and histological lesions may modify over time due to different factors. We assessed both macroscopic and histological lesions currently detected at upper endoscopy performed in routine practice. Patients and Methods: Clinical, endoscopic, and histological data of consecutive adult patients referred for upper endoscopy in the 28 participating centres were analysed. Only patients who underwent the first endoscopic examination were considered. Prevalence of erosive/ulcerative lesions, cancers and extensive precancerous lesions in the stomach, and Helicobacter pylori infection was computed. Results: A total of 1,431 patients underwent endoscopy for gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms (31.5%), dyspepsia (29.4%), or alarm symptoms (18.5%). Erosive oesophagitis or Barrett’s oesophagus was detected in 210 (14.7%) cases, peptic ulcer in 49 (3.4%), and a neoplastic lesion in 17 (1.2%). H. pylori was present in 201 (22.6%) cases, and extensive precancerous lesions on gastric mucosa in 46 (5.6%) patients. Gastric lesions were more prevalent in patients aged ≥50 years (26% vs. 18%; p = 0.001), and peptic ulcers were more frequently detected in patients with H. pylori (9.4% vs. 2.3%; p = 0.001) and in males (5.8% vs. 1.6%; p = 0.001), while neoplastic lesions in patients with alarm symptoms (3.8% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.001). Conclusions: The overall endoscopic lesions were more prevalent in patients aged ≥50 years, peptic ulcer and erosions were more frequent in H. pylori-infected patients, and extensive gastric precancerous lesions were present in less than 6% of cases.

Background and study aims Endoscope reprocessing has been associated with a variable failure rate. Our aim was to present an overview on current practices for reprocessing in Italian facilities and discuss the principle critical points. Methods In 2014 the Italian Society for Digestive Diseases implemented an accreditation program in collaboration with an independent organization for certification and with the Italian Association for Endoscopy Technical Operators. During a 1-day site visit of the endoscopy center, two endoscopists, one nurse, and the representative of the certification body evaluated the endoscope reprocessing. Results As of July 1, 2020, 28 endoscopy centers had been accredited. Ten centers are completing the measures to correct deficiencies found at the visit. Three centers withdrew from the program. The accreditation program has found variations between the various centers, confirming the poor compliance with guidelines. Major deviations from the standards, established by the model before the site visit according to national and international guidelines, concerned instrument cleaning (44.7 % of the centers), instrument storage (23.7 %), and microbiological tests (31.6 %). Conclusions Our overview demonstrated the lack of many reprocessing phases, which are important to prevent endoscopy-associated infections. Accreditation can achieve a transformation in quality and safety of reprocessing with the Italian centrally-led approach.

Background and study aims Accreditation of endoscopy services, using valid quality indicators, may address failures to comply with quality standards between endoscopy services. The aim of this work was to present the Italian Society for Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) accreditation model and its effectiveness. Methods A team of eight endoscopists identified quality indicators derived from international guidelines and assessed them in each center voluntarily requesting accreditation. During a 1-day site visit, two expert endoscopists, the representative of the independent and international administrative certification body and a professional nurse evaluated the endoscopy center, by direct observation of the endoscopy team and examination of the medical records Results In all centers we noted shortcomings in instrument reprocessing. In 30 of 40 centers (75 %) the information in the nursing charts was incomplete. Sampling for Helicobacter pylori had not been done in 12 of 40 centers (30 %). In six of 40 centers (15 %) the adenoma detection rate for each endoscopist had not been evaluated. Post-polypectomy intervals were inappropriate in 12 of 40 centers (30 %). We noted a statistically significant difference (P