Search

Digestive endoscopy is a highly dynamic medical discipline, with the recent adoption of new endoscopic procedures. However, comprehensive guidelines on the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in these new procedures have been lacking for many years. The Guidelines Commission of the French Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SFED) convened in 2023 to establish guidelines on antibiotic prophylaxis in digestive endoscopy for all digestive endoscopic procedures, based on literature data up to September 1, 2023. This article summarizes these new guidelines and describes the literature review that fed into them., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Competing interests in relation to the guidelines: None declared. Other competing interests: David Karsenti, MD: Consultant for Olympus, Covidien and Norgine; support for attending meetings from Alfasigma, Cook and Fujifilm. Rodica Gincul, MD: Consultant for Olympus; honoraria for lectures from Olympus; support for attending meetings from Celtrion, AbbVie. Arthur Belle, MD: Consultant for Boston Scientific; support for attending meeting from Mayoli. Geoffroy Vanbiervliet, MD-PhD: Consultant for Bostin Scientific and Ambu; honoraria for lectures, presentations and speeches from Pentax, Fujifilm, Tillots, and Norgine. Olivier Gronier, MD: Support for attending meetings from Dr Falk., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background: Endoscopy is considered the third highest generator of waste within healthcare. This is of public importance as approximately 18 million endoscopy procedures are performed yearly in the USA and 2 million in France. However, a precise measure of the carbon footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE) is lacking., Methods: This retrospective study for 2021 was conducted in an ambulatory GIE center in France where 8524 procedures were performed on 6070 patients. The annual carbon footprint of GIE was calculated using "Bilan Carbone" of the French Environment and Energy Management Agency. This multi-criteria method accounts for direct and indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from energy consumption (gas and electricity), medical gases, medical and non-medical equipment, consumables, freight, travel, and waste., Results: GHG emissions in 2021 were estimated to be 241.4 tonnes CO 2 equivalent (CO 2 e) at the center, giving a carbon footprint for one GIE procedure of 28.4 kg CO 2 e. The main GHG emission, 45 % of total emissions, was from travel by patients and center staff to and from the center. Other emission sources, in rank order, were medical and non-medical equipment (32 %), energy consumption (12 %), consumables (7 %), waste (3 %), freight (0.4 %), and medical gases (0.005 %)., Conclusions: This is the first multi-criteria analysis assessing the carbon footprint of GIE. It highlights that travel, medical equipment, and energy are major sources of impact, with waste being a minor contributor. This study provides an opportunity to raise awareness among gastroenterologists of the carbon footprint of GIE procedures., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background: Liver cirrhosis and esophageal cancer share several risk factors, such as alcohol intake and excess weight. Endoscopic resection is the gold standard treatment for superficial tumors. Portal hypertension and coagulopathy may increase the bleeding risk in these patients. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of endoscopic resection for early esophageal neoplasia in patients with cirrhosis or portal hypertension., Methods: This retrospective multicenter international study included consecutive patients with cirrhosis or portal hypertension who underwent endoscopic resection in the esophagus from January 2005 to March 2021., Results: 134 lesions in 112 patients were treated, including by endoscopic submucosal dissection in 101 cases (75 %). Most lesions (128/134, 96 %) were in patients with liver cirrhosis, with esophageal varices in 71 procedures. To prevent bleeding, 7 patients received a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, 8 underwent endoscopic band ligation (EBL) before resection, 15 received vasoactive drugs, 8 received platelet transfusion, and 9 underwent EBL during the resection procedure. Rates of complete macroscopic resection, en bloc resection, and curative resection were 92 %, 86 %, and 63 %, respectively. Adverse events included 3 perforations, 8 delayed bleedings, 8 sepsis, 6 cirrhosis decompensations within 30 days, and 22 esophageal strictures; none required surgery. In univariate analysis, cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection was associated with delayed bleeding ( P  = 0.01)., Conclusions: In patients with liver cirrhosis or portal hypertension, endoscopic resection of early esophageal neoplasia appeared to be effective and should be considered in expert centers with choice of resection technique, following European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines to avoid undertreatment., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Background and study aims  Accurate real-time characterization of colorectal neoplastic lesions (CNLs) during colonoscopy is important for deciding appropriate treatment. No studies have evaluated whether still images or video clips are better for characterization. We compared histological predictions and size estimations of CNLs between two groups of gastroenterologists: one viewing still images and the other viewing video clips. Materials and methods  Participants were shown 20 CNLs as either 3-5 still images or a video clip. Three endoscopy experts obtained the images using high-definition white light and virtual chromoendoscopy without magnification. Stratified randomization was performed according to experience. For each lesion, participants assessed the size and histological subtype according to the CONECCT classification (hyperplastic polyp [IH], sessile serrated lesion [IS], adenoma [IIA], high-risk adenoma or superficial adenocarcinoma [IIC], or deeply invasive adenocarcinoma [III]). The correct histological status and size were defined by the pathology reports or combined criteria between histology and expert opinion for high-risk adenoma or superficial adenocarcinoma (CONECCT IIC). Results  332 participants were randomized and 233 performed the characterization. Participants comprised 118 residents, 75 gastroenterologists, and 40 endoscopy experts; 47.6 % were shown still images and 52.4 % viewed video clips. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in histological prediction, our primary end point. However, the lesion size was better assessed using still images than video clips ( P  = 0.03). Conclusions  Video clips did not improve the histological prediction of CNLs compared with still images. Size was better assessed using still images., Competing Interests: Competing interests The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has majorly affected medical activity around the world. We sought to measure the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy activity in France., Methods: We performed a web-based survey, including 35 questions on the responders and their endoscopic practice, from 23 March to 27 March 2020, sent to the 3300 French gastroenterologists practicing endoscopy., Results: 694 GI endoscopists (21 %) provided analyzable data; of these, 29.4 % (204/694) were involved in the management of COVID-19 patients outside the endoscopy department. During the study period, 98.7 % (685/694) of endoscopists had had to cancel procedures. There were 89 gastroenterologists (12.8 %) who reported symptoms compatible with COVID-19 infection, and a positive PCR test was recorded in 12/197 (6.1 %) vs. 3/497 (0.6 %) endoscopists in the high vs. low prevalence areas, respectively ( P  < 0.001)., Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a major reduction in the volume of GI endoscopies performed in France in March 2020. The prolonged limited access to GI endoscopy could lead to a delay in the management of patients with GI cancers., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

A 53-year-old man was treated for hypoxic pneumonia. Alveolar lavage revealed neutrophilic alveolitis and search for an infectious agent was negative. Lung biopsy revealed discrete endo-alveolar edema and polymorphous infiltration in moderately thickened alveolar walls. After 17 days, an ineffective antibiotic regimen was replaced by corticosteroids. Clinical and radiological signs improved in a few days and pneumonia did not recur after corticosteroid withdrawal. The most likely causal agent was minocycline which the patient had received for two Years for the treatment of rhinophyma. Minocycline had been interrupted several weeks when the pulmonary disorder developed after re-introduction of minocycline. Different clinical manifestations of minocycline-induced lung disease have been described including eosinophilic pneumopathy, bronchiolitis obliterans with organized pneumonitis, and hypersensitivity pneumonitis. There has only been one report of polymorphonuclear neutrophils observed in the lavage fluid.