Search

Your search keyword '"Kohli DR"' showing total 111 results
Start Over Author "Kohli DR"
111 results on '"Kohli DR"'

3. 'CRANIO-VERTEBRAL JUNCTION ANOMALIES- SPECTRUM ON MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING'

Author

Sonia Sandip, Neera Kohli Dr, and Yashvant Singh Dr

Subjects
Physics, Nuclear magnetic resonance, medicine.diagnostic_test, Spectrum (functional analysis), medicine, Magnetic resonance imaging
Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This prospective study was done in the Department of Radiodiagnosis, King George Medical University, Lucknow, over the period of one year from September 2007 to July 2008. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the spectrum of cranio-vertebral junction anomalies on Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Fourty patients for whom MRI of cervical spine inc METHODS: luding cranio-vertebral junction was done for varying symptoms and showed imaging features of cranio-vertebral junction anomalies were selected for the study. Results were presented in numerical and percentage forms. There were 34 males and 6 female patients i RESULTS: n the age range of 3-60 years. Maximum number of patients were in the age group between 11-20 years (18 patients-45%) followed by age group of 21-30 years (7 patients-17.5%). Most common presenting symptom was weakness of both upper & lower limbs seen in 16 patients (40 %) followed by neck pain & stiffness in 15 patients (37.5%) and sensory symptoms in 11 patients (27.5%). Weakness of lower limbs, lower cranial nerve dysfunction & bladder bowel symptoms were the least common presenting symptoms seen only in 1 patient (2.5%). Atlanto-axial instability was the most common abnormality present in 30 patients (75%). Occipitilisation of atlas was the second most common abnormality seen in 20 patients (50%) and basilar invagination; third most common abnormality seen in 14 patients (35%). Other less commonly found abnormalities were ossiculum terminale (in 6 patients-15%), platybasia (in 5 patients-12.5%), aplasia of atlas arches(in 3 patients-7.5%), os odontoideum(in 3 patients-7.5%), segmentation failure of C2-C3 (in 3 patients7.5%), clivus segmentation (in 2 patients-5%). Atlanto-axial fusion(in 1 patient 2.5%) & hypoplasia of dens (in 1 patient 2.5%). Most common associated feature was syrinx formation found in 9 patients (22.5%). Out of 40 patients, 34 patient had developmental anomalies (85%) while 6 patients had acquired causes, including tubercular in 5 patients-12.5% & rheumatoid arthritis in 1 patient -2.5%. Myelopathic changes were found in 28 patients (70%) out of which motor symptoms were present in 25 patients (89.29%) .

Published
2021

4. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF ANTIMICROBIAL ACTIVITY OF CALCIUM HYDROXIDE AND SILVER NANOPARTICLES AS INTRACANAL MEDICAMENT: AN IN-VIVO STUDY

Author

Rakesh Mittal Dr, Monika Tandan Dr, and Aditi Kohli Dr

Subjects
0301 basic medicine, 03 medical and health sciences, chemistry.chemical_compound, 030104 developmental biology, 0302 clinical medicine, Calcium hydroxide, chemistry, In vivo, 030206 dentistry, Antimicrobial, Silver nanoparticle, Comparative evaluation, Nuclear chemistry
Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the antimicrobial activity of calcium hydroxide and silver nanoparticles as an intracanal medicament in patients with necrotic/infected pulp. Materials And Methods– 30 single rooted permanent teeth diagnosed clinically and radiographically with necrotic/infected pulp were included. After complete disinfection, access opening was done and working length was determined. The rst microbiological pre-treatment sample (S1) was collected by paper points. After completion of instrumentation, a post-instrumentation sample (S2) was taken and the teeth were divided into two groups: Group 1: calcium hydroxide, Group 2: Silver nanoparticles. The intracanal medicaments were left in place for 7 days. Post 1 week, S3 was taken. Samples collected were cultured on BHI agar and colony forming units were counted after 24 hours. Results- Intergroup comparison was done using Mann Whitney U test & intragroup comparison was done using Friedman test & Wilcoxon test. It was observed that the percentage reduction was better with Group 2 (Silver nanoparticles), however, it was not statistically signicant when compared to Group 1 (Calcium hydroxide). Conclusion – It was concluded that silver nanoparticles showed signicant antimicrobial activity and can be used as an effective root canal medicament as an alternative to calcium hydroxide dressing.

Published
2021

13. DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS OF COFFEE CONSUMPTION ON AMNIOTIC FLUID VOLUME AND FETAL RENAL ARTERY BLOOD FLOW IN PREGNANCY

Author

Dr. Fatima Khizar Kohli, Dr. Afshan Batool

Abstract

Objective: Coffee is frequently (one or two cups/day) consumed throughout pregnancy. Although there are a few studies evaluating caffeine effects on pregnancy; however, a diuretic effect of caffeine on fetal kidneys has not been reported. Therefore, after drinking coffee whether changing of amniotic fluid index (AFI) and fetal renal artery blood flow (FRABF, RI, Resistive index; PI, Pulsatility index) were evaluated in this study. Methods: This clinical study was performed with two groups. For the study group, 63 participants with isolated borderline oligohydramnios who agreed to drink one cup of instant coffee were included in this study while 63 participants with isolated borderline oligohydramnios who did not drink one cup of instant coffee formed the control group. AFI, RI and PI were evaluated both before and after coffee intake. Results: Maternal characteristics of all study population were homogenous. FRABF indices were similar in both before and after coffee consumption. AFI was increased significantly six hours after drinking coffee (p Conclusions: The coffee consumption increased the amniotic fluid volume. However it does not seem to affect on FRABF. According to our study findings, coffee consumption may offer a new opportunity to improve amniotic fluid volume for pregnant women with oligohydramnios.

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

18. Big Data and Natural Language Processing for Analysing Railway Safety

Author

Kohli, Dr. Shruti, Kumar, Dr. A.V. Senthil, Easton, Dr. J.M., Roberts, Prof. C., Syeda, Kanza Noor, Shirazi, Syed Noor Ul Hassan, Naqvi, Syed Asad Ali, Parkinson, Howard J., Bamford, Gary, Kohli, Dr. Shruti, Kumar, Dr. A.V. Senthil, Easton, Dr. J.M., Roberts, Prof. C., Syeda, Kanza Noor, Shirazi, Syed Noor Ul Hassan, Naqvi, Syed Asad Ali, Parkinson, Howard J., and Bamford, Gary

Abstract

In this work, we focus on accident causation for the railway industry by exploiting text analysis approaches mainly Natural Language Processing (NLP). We review and analyse investigation reports of railway accidents in the UK, published by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB), aiming to reveal the presence of entities which are informative of causes and failures such as human, technical and external. We give an overview of a framework based on NLP and machine learning to analyse the raw text from RAIB reports which would assist risk and incident analysis experts to study causal relationship between causes and failures towards the overall safety in rail industry. The approach can also be generalized to other safety critical domains such as aviation etc.

Published
2017

25. PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP IN EDUCATION AN IMPACTFUL MEANS OF PROMOTING SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND INCLUSIVE GROWTH IN INDIA

Author

Kohli, Dr. Sangeeta, Bandhopadhyay, Mr. Ranjan, Kohli, Mr. Kamlesh, Kohli, Dr. Sangeeta, Bandhopadhyay, Mr. Ranjan, and Kohli, Mr. Kamlesh

Abstract

“The country needs a large number of centers of higher learning which are world class,” said Arun Jaitley, the Indian Union Minister of Finance of the Bhartiya Janata Party led government, in his maiden budget presentation for 2014, where he committed increased funds for higher education. This view conflicts with the 12th Five-Year Plan -- proposed by the earlier government -- that had advocated a halt to government-funded higher education. The new government proposed to add to the existing elite institutions of management and technology, medical colleges, new Humanities centers as well as programs for training teachers. Despite this increased outlay and commitment to the cause of education, K.R. Sekar, who oversees the education practice at Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, a consulting company, was concerned about the lack of clarity on the question of private investment in education or an outline of a path of education reforms.The paper also projects that such digital re-imagining can only come for a healthy and cooperative partnership between the private and the public structure, where the private structure can bring in the technology and the state of the art instructional design and the public structure can help foster the mindset for such a transformative venture.

Published
2015

29. What factors are associated with the difficult-to-sedate endoscopy patient?

Author

Bal BS, Crowell MD, Kohli DR, Menendez J, Rashti F, Kumar AS, Olden KW, Bal, Bikram S, Crowell, Michael D, Kohli, Divyanshoo R, Menendez, Jiana, Rashti, Farzin, Kumar, Anjali S, and Olden, Kevin W

Abstract

Background: Difficult sedation during endoscopy results in inadequate examinations and aborted procedures. We hypothesized that gender, alcohol abuse, physical/sexual abuse, and anxiety are predictors of difficult-to-sedate endoscopy patients.Methods: This is a prospective cohort study. At the time of enrollment, subjects completed the following three validated questionnaires: state-trait anxiety inventory, self-report version of alcohol use disorder inventory, and Drossman questionnaire for physical/sexual abuse. Conscious sedation was administered for the endoscopic procedures at the discretion of the endoscopist and was graded in accordance with the Richmond agitation sedation scale (RASS). Subjects' perceptions of sedation were documented on a four-point Likert scale 24 h after their procedure.Results: One-hundred and forty-three (79 %) of the 180 subjects enrolled completed the study. On the basis of the RASS score, 56 (39 %) subjects were found to be difficult to sedate of which only five were dissatisfied with their sedation experience. State (n = 39; p = 0.003) and trait (n = 41; p = 0.008) anxiety and chronic psychotropic use (p = 0.040) were associated with difficult sedation. No association was found between difficult sedation and gender (p = 0.77), alcohol abuse (p = 0.11), sexual abuse (p = 0.15), physical abuse (p = 0.72), chronic opioid use (p = 0.16), or benzodiazepines (BDZ) use (p = 0.10).Conclusion: Pre-procedural state or trait anxiety is associated with difficult sedation during endoscopy. In this study neither alcohol abuse nor chronic opiate/BDZ use was associated with difficult sedation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2012

30. Cell phones and tumor: still in no man's land.

Author

Kohli DR, Sachdev A, Vats HS, Kohli, D R, Sachdev, A, and Vats, H S

Abstract

The use of cell phones is increasing worldwide at a phenomenal pace. While cellular communication has dramatically influenced our lifestyle, its impact on human health has not been completely assessed. Widespread concern continues in the community about the deleterious effects of radiofrequency radiations (with which cell phones operate) on human tissues and the subsequent potential for carcinogenesis. A detailed survey of published studies researching this question was done in preparation of this manuscript. Included in the survey were case reports, in vitro studies, population based retrospective studies and other investigations. The database of indexed journals was searched for key words like 'cell phone', 'radiation', 'cancer' and 'radio waves'. Guidelines issued by the World Health Organization, federal and technical authorities, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers and the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection were reviewed. The evaluation of current evidence provided by various studies to suggest the possible carcinogenic potential of radiofrequency radiation is inconclusive. This risk assumes significance in light of the burgeoning number of people who are continually exposed to the high frequency radiation from cell phones and towers that serve as receiving and transmitting stations. The aim of this review is to identify limitations in past studies, present available data for consideration, and identify gaps in the current knowledge base. This will provide impetus and direction for further research and allow informed decisions pertaining to cell phone use to be made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2009

32. Today toddlers Bounce Back from CHD.

Author

Kohli, Dr Vikas

Subjects
CONGENITAL heart disease in children, CHILD mortality, CHILDREN'S health, MATERNAL health, CORPORATE directors
Abstract

An interview with Vikas Kohli, director of pediatric cardiology in BLK Super Speciality Hospital is presented. He discusses the prevalence of congenital heart defects (CHD) in infants and newborns in India. He highlights the impact of several factors to CHD including Down's syndrome, infections in pregnancy and diabetes in pregnancy. He cites two types of heart disease such as blue baby and hole in the heart.

Published
2014

33. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and management of solid pancreatic masses: summary and recommendations.

Author

Machicado JD, Sheth SG, Chalhoub JM, Forbes N, Desai M, Ngamruengphong S, Papachristou GI, Sahai V, Nassour I, Abidi W, Alipour O, Amateau SK, Coelho-Prabhu N, Cosgrove N, Elhanafi SE, Fujii-Lau LL, Kohli DR, Marya NB, Pawa S, Ruan W, Thiruvengadam NR, Thosani NC, and Qumseya BJ

Subjects
Humans, Stents, Pain Management methods, Needles, Nerve Block methods, Celiac Plexus, Self Expandable Metallic Stents, Endosonography, Societies, Medical, Pancreatic Neoplasms diagnosis, Pancreatic Neoplasms pathology, Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration
Abstract

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic masses. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses needle selection (fine-needle biopsy [FNB] needle vs FNA needle), needle caliber (22-gauge vs 25-gauge needles), FNB needle type (novel or contemporary [fork-tip and Franseen] vs alternative FNB needle designs), and sample processing (rapid on-site evaluation [ROSE] vs no ROSE). In addition, this guideline addresses stent selection (self-expandable metal stents [SEMS] vs plastic stents), SEMS type (covered [cSEMS] vs uncovered [uSEMS]), and pain management (celiac plexus neurolysis [CPN] vs medical analgesic therapy). In patients with solid pancreatic masses undergoing EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA), the ASGE recommends FNB needles over FNA needles. With regard to needle caliber, the ASGE suggests 22-gauge over 25-gauge needles. When an FNB needle is used, the ASGE recommends using either a fork-tip or a Franseen needle over alternative FNB needle designs. After a sample has been obtained, the ASGE suggests against the routine use of ROSE in patients undergoing an initial EUS-TA of a solid pancreatic mass. In patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction undergoing drainage with ERCP, the ASGE suggests using SEMS over plastic stents. In patients with proven malignancy undergoing SEMS placement, the ASGE suggests using cSEMS over uSEMS. If malignancy has not been histopathologically confirmed, the ASGE recommends against the use of uSEMS. Finally, in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer and abdominal pain, the ASGE suggests the use of CPN as an adjunct for the treatment of abdominal pain. This document outlines the process, analyses, and decision approaches used to reach the final recommendations and represents the official ASGE recommendations on the above topics., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: J. D. Machicado: Consultant for Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc; food and beverage compensation from Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. S. G. Sheth: Consultant for Janssen Research & Development, LLC. J. M. Chalhoub: Travel compensation from Olympus Corporation of the Americas; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation. N. Forbes: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, AstraZeneca, and Pendopharm Inc; speaker for Pentax of America, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation; research support from Pentax of America, Inc. S. Ngamruengphong: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, and Ambu Inc. G. I. Papachristou: Research support from AbbVie Inc. V. Sahai: Consultant and advisor for AstraZeneca, Autem, Cornerstone, Delcath Systems, GlaxoSmithKline, Helsinn, Histosonics, Ipsen, Incyte, Kinnate, Lynx Group, Servier, and Taiho; research support from Actuate, Agios, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Clovis, Cornerstone, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Medimmune, NCI, Relay, Repare, Syros, and Beigene; travel compensation from ASCO, Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation, and Lynx Group. W. Abidi: Consultant for Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, and ConMed Corporation; research support from GI Dynamics; food and beverage compensation from Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, ConMed Corporation, Olympus America Inc, AbbVie Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, RedHill Biopharma Inc, and Salix Pharmaceuticals. S. K. Amateau: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Merit Medical, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, MTEndoscopy, US Endoscopy, Heraeus Medical Components, LLC, and Cook Medical LLC; travel compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, and Cook Medical LLC; advisory board for Merit Medical. N. Coelho-Prabhu: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation and Alexion Pharma; research support from Cook Endoscopy and Fujifilm; food and beverage compensation from Olympus America Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. N. Cosgrove: Consultant for Olympus Corporation of the Americas and Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Ambu Inc. S. E. Elhanafi: Food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Nestle HealthCare Nutrition Inc, Ambu Inc, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, and Merit Medical Systems Inc. L. L. Fujii-Lau: Food and beverage compensation from Pfizer Inc and AbbVie Inc. D. R. Kohli: Research grant from Olympus Corporation of the Americas. N. B. Marya: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Apollo Endosurgery US Inc. S. Pawa: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation. N. R. Thiruvengadam: Received support from Boston Scientific Corporation. N. C. Thosani: Consultant for Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and Ambu Inc; travel compensation Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and AbbVie Inc; food and beverage compensation from Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and AbbVie Inc; speaker for AbbVie Inc. B. J. Qumseya: Consultant for Medtronic, Inc and Assertio Management, LLC; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Fujifilm Healthcare Americas Corporation, and Boston Scientific Corporation; speaker for Castle Biosciences., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

34. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and management of solid pancreatic masses: methodology and review of evidence.

Author

Machicado JD, Sheth SG, Chalhoub JM, Forbes N, Desai M, Ngamruengphong S, Papachristou GI, Sahai V, Nassour I, Abidi W, Alipour O, Amateau SK, Coelho-Prabhu N, Cosgrove N, Elhanafi SE, Fujii-Lau LL, Kohli DR, Marya NB, Pawa S, Ruan W, Thiruvengadam NR, Thosani NC, and Qumseya BJ

Abstract

Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: J. D. Machicado: Consultant for Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc; food and beverage compensation from Mauna Kea Technologies and Boston Scientific Corporation. S. G. Sheth: Consultant for Janssen Research & Development, LLC. J. M. Chalhoub: Travel compensation from Olympus Corporation of the Americas; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation. N. Forbes: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, AstraZeneca, and Pendopharm Inc; speaker for Pentax of America, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation; research support from Pentax of America, Inc. S. Ngamruengphong: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, and Ambu Inc. G. I. Papachristou: Research support from AbbVie Inc. V. Sahai: Consultant and advisor for AstraZeneca, Autem, Cornerstone, Delcath Systems, GlaxoSmithKline, Helsinn, Histosonics, Ipsen, Incyte, Kinnate, Lynx Group, Servier, and Taiho; research support from Actuate, Agios, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Clovis, Cornerstone, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Medimmune, NCI, Relay, Repare, Syros, and Beigene; travel compensation from ASCO, Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation, and Lynx Group. W. Abidi: Consultant for Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, and ConMed Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, ConMed Corporation, Olympus America Inc, AbbVie Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, RedHill Biopharma Inc, and Salix Pharmaceuticals; research support from GI Dynamics. S. K. Amateau: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Merit Medical, MTEndoscopy, US Endoscopy, Heraeus Medical Components, LLC, and Cook Medical LLC; travel compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation, Cook Medical LLC, and Olympus Corporation of the Americas; advisory board for Merit Medical. N. Coelho-Prabhu: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation and Alexion Pharma; research support from Cook Endoscopy and Fujifilm; food and beverage compensation from Olympus America Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. N. Cosgrove: Consultant for Olympus Corporation of the Americas and Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Ambu Inc. S. E. Elhanafi: Food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Nestle HealthCare Nutrition Inc, Ambu Inc, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, and Merit Medical Systems Inc. L. L. Fujii-Lau: Food and beverage compensation from Pfizer Inc. and AbbVie Inc. D. R. Kohli: Research support from Olympus Corporation of the Americas. N. B. Marya: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Apollo Endosurgery US Inc. S. Pawa: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation. N. R. Thiruvengadam: Research support from Boston Scientific Corporation. N. C. Thosani: Consultant for Pentax of America, Inc, Ambu Inc, and Boston Scientific Corporation; travel compensation and food and beverage compensation from Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and AbbVie Inc; speaker for AbbVie Inc. B. J. Qumseya: Consultant for Medtronic, Inc and Assertio Management, LLC; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Fujifilm Healthcare Americas Corporation, and Boston Scientific Corporation; speaker for Castle Biosciences. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships.

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

35. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of therapeutic EUS in the management of biliary tract disorders: methodology and review of evidence.

Author

Marya NB, Pawa S, Thiruvengadam NR, Ngamruengphong S, Baron TH, Bun Teoh AY, Bent CK, Abidi W, Alipour O, Amateau SK, Desai M, Chalhoub JM, Coelho-Prabhu N, Cosgrove N, Elhanafi SE, Forbes N, Fujii-Lau LL, Kohli DR, Machicado JD, Navaneethan U, Ruan W, Sheth SG, Thosani NC, and Qumseya BJ

Abstract

Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: N. B. Marya: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Apollo Endosurgery US Inc. S. Pawa: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation. N. R. Thiruvengadam: Research support from Boston Scientific Corporation. S. Ngamruengphong: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus, and Neptune Medical. T. H. Baron: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus Corporation, Medtronic, Inc, WL Gore & Associates, Inc, Cook Endoscopy, and CONMED Corporation; speaker for Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus Corporation, Medtronic, Inc, and WL Gore & Associates; travel compensation from CONMED Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Olympus Corporation of the Americas, Ambu, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and Cook Medical LLC. A. Y. B. Teoh: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Cook Medical LLC, Taewoong and Microtech, MI Tech, and CMR Medical Corporations. W. Abidi: Consultant for Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, and CONMED Corporation; research support from GI Dynamics; food and beverage compensation from Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, CONMED Corporation, Olympus America Inc, AbbVie Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, RedHill Biopharma Inc, and Salix Pharmaceuticals. S. K. Amateau: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Merit Medical, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, MTEndoscopy, US Endoscopy, Heraeus Medical Components, LLC, and Cook Medical LLC; travel compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, and Cook Medical LLC; advisory board for Merit Medical. J. M. Chalhoub: Travel compensation from Olympus Corporation of the Americas; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation. N. Coelho-Prabhu: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation and Alexion Pharma; research support from Cook Endoscopy and FujiFilm; food and beverage compensation from Olympus America Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. N. Cosgrove: Consultant for Olympus Corporation of the Americas and Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Ambu Inc. S. E. Elhanafi: Food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Nestle HealthCare Nutrition Inc, Ambu Inc, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, and Merit Medical Systems Inc. N. Forbes: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, AstraZeneca, and Pendopharm Inc; speaker for Pentax of America, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation; research support from Pentax of America, Inc. L. L. Fujii-Lau: Food and beverage compensation from Pfizer Inc and AbbVie Inc; consultant for Boston Scientific. D. R. Kohli: Research support from Olympus Corporation of the Americas. J. D. Machicado: Consultant for Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc; food and beverage compensation from Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. U. Navaneethan: Consultant for ER Squibb & Sons, LLC; travel compensation from ER Squibb & Sons, LLC, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, and AbbVie Inc; food and beverage compensation from ER Squibb & Sons, LLC, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, AbbVie Inc, Pfizer Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, Celgene Corporation, and Olympus America Inc; speaker for Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, AbbVie Inc, and Pfizer Inc. S. G. Sheth: Consulted for Janssen Research & Development, LLC. N. C. Thosani: Consultant for Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and Ambu Inc; travel compensation and food and beverage compensation from Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and AbbVie Inc; speaker for AbbVie Inc. B. J. Qumseya: Consultant for Medtronic, Inc and Assertio Management, LLC; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Fujifilm Healthcare Americas Corporation, and Boston Scientific Corporation; speaker for Castle Biosciences. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships.

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

36. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of endoscopy in the management of chronic pancreatitis: summary and recommendations.

Author

Sheth SG, Machicado JD, Chalhoub JM, Forsmark C, Zyromski N, Thosani NC, Thiruvengadam NR, Ruan W, Pawa S, Ngamruengphong S, Marya NB, Kohli DR, Fujii-Lau LL, Forbes N, Elhanafi SE, Desai M, Cosgrove N, Coelho-Prabhu N, Amateau SK, Alipour O, Abidi W, and Qumseya BJ

Subjects
Humans, Constriction, Pathologic therapy, Lithotripsy methods, Pancreatic Ducts diagnostic imaging, Pancreatic Pseudocyst therapy, Pancreatic Pseudocyst diagnostic imaging, Celiac Plexus diagnostic imaging, Stents, Calculi therapy, Calculi diagnostic imaging, Cholestasis therapy, Cholestasis etiology, Cholestasis diagnostic imaging, Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal methods, Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal standards, Pancreatitis, Chronic therapy, Pancreatitis, Chronic complications, Pancreatitis, Chronic diagnostic imaging, Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde methods, Endosonography, Nerve Block methods
Abstract

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for the role of endoscopy in the management of chronic pancreatitis (CP). This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses effectiveness of endoscopic therapies for the management of pain in CP, including celiac plexus block, endoscopic management of pancreatic duct (PD) stones and strictures, and adverse events such as benign biliary strictures (BBSs) and pseudocysts. In patients with painful CP and an obstructed PD, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation in patients without contraindication to surgery before initiation of endoscopic management. In patients who have contraindications to surgery or who prefer a less-invasive approach, the ASGE suggests an endoscopic approach as the initial treatment over surgery, if complete ductal clearance is likely. When a decision is made to proceed with a celiac plexus block, the ASGE suggests an EUS-guided approach over a percutaneous approach. The ASGE suggests indications for when to consider ERCP alone or with pancreatoscopy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy alone or followed by ERCP for treating obstructing PD stones based on size, location, and radiopacity. For the initial management of PD strictures, the ASGE suggests using a single plastic stent of the largest caliber that is feasible. For symptomatic BBSs caused by CP, the ASGE suggests the use of covered metal stents over multiple plastic stents. For symptomatic pseudocysts, the ASGE suggests endoscopic therapy over surgery. This document clearly outlines the process, analyses, and decision processes used to reach the final recommendations and represents the official ASGE recommendations on the above topics., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: S. G. Sheth: Consultant for Janssen Research & Development, LLC. J. D. Machicado: Consultant for Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc; food and beverage compensation from Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. J. M. Chalhoub: Travel compensation from Olympus Corporation of the Americas;food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation. C. Forsmark: Consultant for Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. N. C. Thosani: Consultant for Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, AbbVie Inc, and Ambu Inc; travel and food and beverage compensation from Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and AbbVie Inc; speaker for AbbVie Inc. N. R. Thiruvengadam: Research support from Boston Scientific Corporation. S. Pawa: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation. S. Ngamruengphong: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, and Ambu Inc. N. B. Marya: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Apollo Endosurgery US Inc. D. R. Kohli: Research support from Olympus Corporation of the Americas. L. L. Fujii-Lau: Food and beverage compensation from Pfizer Inc. and AbbVie Inc. N. Forbes: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, AstraZeneca, and Pendopharm Inc; speaker for Pentax of America, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation; research support from Pentax of America, Inc. S. E. Elhanafi: Food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Nestle HealthCare Nutrition Inc, Ambu Inc, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, and Merit Medical Systems Inc. N. Cosgrove: Consultant for Olympus Corporation of the Americas and Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Ambu Inc. N. Coelho-Prabhu: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation and Alexion Pharma; research support from Cook Endoscopy and FujiFilm; food and beverage compensation from Olympus America Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. S. K. Amateau: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Merit Medical, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, MTEndoscopy, US Endoscopy, Heraeus Medical Components, LLC, and Cook Medical LLC; travel compensation Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, and Cook Medical LLC; advisory board for Merit Medical. W. Abidi: Consultant for Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, and ConMed Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, ConMed Corporation, Olympus America Inc, AbbVie Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, RedHill Biopharma Inc, and Salix Pharmaceuticals; research support from GI Dynamics. B. J. Qumseya: Consultant for Medtronic, Inc and Assertio Management, LLC; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Fujifilm Healthcare Americas Corporation, and Boston Scientific Corporation; speaker for Castle Biosciences. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

37. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of endoscopy in the management of chronic pancreatitis: methodology and review of evidence.

Author

Sheth SG, Machicado JD, Chhoda A, Chalhoub JM, Forsmark C, Zyromski N, Sadeghirad B, Morgan RL, Thosani NC, Thiruvengadam NR, Ruan W, Pawa S, Ngamruengphong S, Marya NB, Kohli DR, Fujii-Lau LL, Forbes N, Elhanafi SE, Desai M, Cosgrove N, Coelho-Prabhu N, Amateau SK, Alipour O, Abidi W, and Qumseya BJ

Abstract

Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: S. G. Sheth: Consultant for Janssen Research & Development, LLC. J. D. Machicado: Consultant for Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc; food and beverage compensation from Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. J. M. Chalhoub: Travel compensation from Olympus Corporation of the Americas; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation. C. Forsmark: Consultant for Nestle Healthcare Nutrition, Inc. N. C. Thosani: Consultant for Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and Ambu Inc; travel compensation Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and AbbVie Inc; food and beverage compensation from Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and AbbVie Inc; speaker for AbbVie Inc. N. R. Thiruvengadam: Research support from Boston Scientific Corporation. S. Pawa: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation. S. Ngamruengphong: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, and Ambu Inc. N. B. Marya: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Apollo Endosurgery US Inc. D. R. Kohli: Research grant from Olympus Corporation of the Americas. L. L. Fujii-Lau: Food and beverage compensation from Pfizer Inc and AbbVie Inc. N. Forbes: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, AstraZeneca, and Pendopharm Inc; speaker for Pentax of America, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation; research support from Pentax of America, Inc. S. E. Elhanafi: Food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Nestle HealthCare Nutrition Inc, Ambu Inc, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, and Merit Medical Systems Inc. N. Cosgrove: Consultant for Olympus Corporation of the Americas and Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Ambu Inc. N. Coelho-Prabhu: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation and Alexion Pharma; research support from Cook Endoscopy and Fujifilm; food and beverage compensation from Olympus America Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. S. K. Amateau: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Merit Medical, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, MTEndoscopy, US Endoscopy, Heraeus Medical Components, LLC, and Cook Medical LLC; travel compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, and Cook Medical LLC; advisory board for Merit Medical. W. Abidi: Consultant for Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, and ConMed Corporation; research support from GI Dynamics; food and beverage compensation from Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, ConMed Corporation, Olympus America Inc, AbbVie Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, RedHill Biopharma Inc, and Salix Pharmaceuticals. B. J. Qumseya: Consultant for Medtronic, Inc and Assertio Management, LLC; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Fujifilm Healthcare Americas Corporation, and Boston Scientific Corporation; speaker for Castle Biosciences. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships.

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

38. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of therapeutic EUS in the management of biliary tract disorders: summary and recommendations.

Author

Pawa S, Marya NB, Thiruvengadam NR, Ngamruengphong S, Baron TH, Bun Teoh AY, Bent CK, Abidi W, Alipour O, Amateau SK, Desai M, Chalhoub JM, Coelho-Prabhu N, Cosgrove N, Elhanafi SE, Forbes N, Fujii-Lau LL, Kohli DR, Machicado JD, Navaneethan U, Ruan W, Sheth SG, Thosani NC, and Qumseya BJ

Abstract

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for the role of therapeutic EUS in the management of biliary tract disorders. This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses the following: 1: The role of EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in resolving biliary obstruction in patients after failed ERCP. 2: The role of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy versus EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy in resolving distal malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP. 3: The role of EUS-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) versus laparoscopic-assisted ERCP and enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (E-ERCP) in resolving biliary obstruction in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) anatomy. 4: The role of EUS-BD versus E-ERCP and PTBD in resolving biliary obstruction in patients with surgically altered anatomy other than RYGB. 5: The role of EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) versus percutaneous gallbladder drainage and endoscopic transpapillary transcystic gallbladder drainage in resolving acute cholecystitis in patients who are not candidates for cholecystectomy., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: S. Pawa: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation. N. B. Marya: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Apollo Endosurgery US Inc. N. R. Thiruvengadam: Research support from Boston Scientific Corporation. S. Ngamruengphong: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus, and Neptune Medical. T. H. Baron: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus Corporation, Medtronic, Inc, WL Gore & Associates, Inc, Cook Endoscopy, and CONMED Corporation; speaker for Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus Corporation, Medtronic, Inc, and WL Gore & Associates; travel compensation from CONMED Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Olympus Corporation of the Americas, Ambu, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and Cook Medical LLC. A. Y. B. Teoh: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Cook Medical LLC, Taewoong and Microtech, MI Tech, and CMR Medical Corporations. W. Abidi: Consultant for Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, and CONMED Corporation; research support from GI Dynamics; food and beverage compensation from Ambu Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, CONMED Corporation, Olympus America Inc, AbbVie Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, RedHill Biopharma Inc, and Salix Pharmaceuticals. S. K. Amateau: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Merit Medical, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, MTEndoscopy, US Endoscopy, Heraeus Medical Components, LLC, and Cook Medical LLC; travel compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus Corporation of the Americas, and Cook Medical LLC; advisory board for Merit Medical. J. M. Chalhoub: Travel compensation from Olympus Corporation of the Americas; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation. N. Coelho-Prabhu: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation and Alexion Pharma; research support from Cook Endoscopy and FujiFilm; food and beverage compensation from Olympus America Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. N. Cosgrove: Consultant for Olympus Corporation of the Americas and Boston Scientific Corporation; food and beverage compensation from Boston Scientific Corporation and Ambu Inc. S. E. Elhanafi: Food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Nestle HealthCare Nutrition Inc, Ambu Inc, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, and Merit Medical Systems Inc. N. Forbes: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Pentax of America, Inc, AstraZeneca, and Pendopharm Inc; speaker for Pentax of America, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation; research support from Pentax of America, Inc. L. L. Fujii-Lau: Food and beverage compensation from Pfizer Inc and AbbVie Inc; consultant for Boston Scientific. D. R. Kohli: Research support from Olympus Corporation of the Americas. J. D. Machicado: Consultant for Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc; food and beverage compensation from Mauna Kea Technologies, Inc and Boston Scientific Corporation. U. Navaneethan: Consultant for ER Squibb & Sons, LLC; travel compensation from ER Squibb & Sons, LLC, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, and AbbVie Inc; food and beverage compensation from ER Squibb & Sons, LLC, Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, AbbVie Inc, Pfizer Inc, Apollo Endosurgery US Inc, Celgene Corporation, and Olympus America Inc; speaker for Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc, AbbVie Inc, and Pfizer Inc. S. G. Sheth: Consulted for Janssen Research & Development, LLC. N. C. Thosani: Consultant for Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and Ambu Inc; travel compensation and food and beverage compensation from Pentax of America, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, and AbbVie Inc; speaker for AbbVie Inc. B. J. Qumseya: Consultant for Medtronic, Inc and Assertio Management, LLC; food and beverage compensation from Medtronic, Inc, Fujifilm Healthcare Americas Corporation, and Boston Scientific Corporation; speaker for Castle Biosciences. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

39. Response.

Author

Kohli DR and Siddiqui MS

Abstract

Competing Interests: Disclosure D. R. Kohli is the recipient of grant support from Olympus. The other author disclosed no financial relationships.

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

40. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on role of endoscopy in the diagnosis of malignancy in biliary strictures of undetermined etiology: methodology and review of evidence.

Author

Fujii-Lau LL, Thosani NC, Al-Haddad M, Acoba J, Wray CJ, Zvavanjanja R, Amateau SK, Buxbaum JL, Wani S, Calderwood AH, Chalhoub JM, Coelho-Prabhu N, Desai M, Elhanafi SE, Fishman DS, Forbes N, Jamil LH, Jue TL, Kohli DR, Kwon RS, Law JK, Lee JK, Machicado JD, Marya NB, Pawa S, Ruan W, Sawhney MS, Sheth SG, Storm A, Thiruvengadam NR, and Qumseya BJ

Abstract

Biliary strictures of undetermined etiology pose a diagnostic challenge for endoscopists. Despite advances in technology, diagnosing malignancy in biliary strictures often requires multiple procedures. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to rigorously review and synthesize the available literature on strategies used to diagnose undetermined biliary strictures. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis of each diagnostic modality, including fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS-guided FNA or fine-needle biopsy sampling, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Committee provides this guideline on modalities used to diagnose biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document summarizes the methods used in the GRADE analysis to make recommendations, whereas the accompanying article subtitled "Summary and Recommendations" contains a concise summary of our findings and final recommendations., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

41. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis of malignancy in biliary strictures of undetermined etiology: summary and recommendations.

Author

Fujii-Lau LL, Thosani NC, Al-Haddad M, Acoba J, Wray CJ, Zvavanjanja R, Amateau SK, Buxbaum JL, Calderwood AH, Chalhoub JM, Coelho-Prabhu N, Desai M, Elhanafi SE, Fishman DS, Forbes N, Jamil LH, Jue TL, Kohli DR, Kwon RS, Law JK, Lee JK, Machicado JD, Marya NB, Pawa S, Ruan W, Sawhney MS, Sheth SG, Storm A, Thiruvengadam NR, and Qumseya BJ

Subjects
Humans, Constriction, Pathologic etiology, Bile Duct Neoplasms diagnosis, Bile Duct Neoplasms pathology, Bile Duct Neoplasms diagnostic imaging, Endoscopy, Digestive System methods, Fluoroscopy, Cholangiocarcinoma diagnosis, Cholangiocarcinoma diagnostic imaging, Image-Guided Biopsy methods, Endosonography, Cholestasis etiology, Cholestasis diagnosis
Abstract

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses the role of fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and EUS in the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures. In the endoscopic workup of these patients, we suggest the use of fluoroscopic-guided biopsy sampling in addition to brush cytology over brush cytology alone, especially for hilar strictures. We suggest the use of cholangioscopic and EUS-guided biopsy sampling especially for patients who undergo nondiagnostic sampling, cholangioscopic biopsy sampling for nondistal strictures and EUS-guided biopsy sampling distal strictures or those with suspected spread to surrounding lymph nodes and other structures., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

42. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of ergonomics for prevention of endoscopy-related injury: summary and recommendations.

Author

Pawa S, Kwon RS, Fishman DS, Thosani NC, Shergill A, Grover SC, Al-Haddad M, Amateau SK, Buxbaum JL, Calderwood AH, Chalhoub JM, Coelho-Prabhu N, Desai M, Elhanafi SE, Forbes N, Fujii-Lau LL, Kohli DR, Machicado JD, Marya NB, Ruan W, Sheth SG, Storm AC, Thiruvengadam NR, and Qumseya BJ

Subjects
Humans, Posture, Risk Factors, Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal, Ergonomics
Abstract

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach to strategies to prevent endoscopy-related injury (ERI) in GI endoscopists. It is accompanied by the article subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline estimates the rates, sites, and predictors of ERI. Additionally, it addresses the role of ergonomics training, microbreaks and macrobreaks, monitor and table positions, antifatigue mats, and use of ancillary devices in decreasing the risk of ERI. We recommend formal ergonomics education and neutral posture during the performance of endoscopy, achieved through adjustable monitor and optimal procedure table position, to reduce the risk of ERI. We suggest taking microbreaks and scheduled macrobreaks and using antifatigue mats during procedures to prevent ERI. We suggest the use of ancillary devices in those with risk factors predisposing them to ERI., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

43. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of ergonomics for prevention of endoscopy-related injury: methodology and review of evidence.

Author

Pawa S, Kwon RS, Fishman DS, Thosani NC, Shergill A, Grover SC, Al-Haddad M, Amateau SK, Buxbaum JL, Calderwood AH, Chalhoub JM, Coelho-Prabhu N, Desai M, Elhanafi SE, Forbes N, Fujii-Lau LL, Kohli DR, Machicado JD, Marya NB, Ruan W, Sheth SG, Storm AC, Thiruvengadam NR, Wani S, and Qumseya BJ

Subjects
Humans, Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal, Ergonomics
Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

44. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: methodology and review of evidence.

Author

Al-Haddad MA, Elhanafi SE, Forbes N, Thosani NC, Draganov PV, Othman MO, Ceppa EP, Kaul V, Feely MM, Sahin I, Ruan Y, Sadeghirad B, Morgan RL, Buxbaum JL, Calderwood AH, Chalhoub JM, Coelho-Prabhu N, Desai M, Fujii-Lau LL, Kohli DR, Kwon RS, Machicado JD, Marya NB, Pawa S, Ruan W, Sheth SG, Storm AC, Thiruvengadam NR, and Qumseya BJ

Subjects
Humans, Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal methods, Retrospective Studies, Treatment Outcome, Adenocarcinoma surgery, Adenocarcinoma pathology, Endoscopic Mucosal Resection methods, Esophageal Neoplasms surgery, Esophageal Neoplasms pathology, Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma, Stomach Neoplasms surgery, Stomach Neoplasms pathology
Abstract

This document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides a full description of the methodology used in the review of the evidence used to inform the final guidance outlined in the accompanying Summary and Recommendations document regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. This guideline used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation over endosic approaches., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

45. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: summary and recommendations.

Author

Forbes N, Elhanafi SE, Al-Haddad MA, Thosani NC, Draganov PV, Othman MO, Ceppa EP, Kaul V, Feely MM, Sahin I, Buxbaum JL, Calderwood AH, Chalhoub JM, Coelho-Prabhu N, Desai M, Fujii-Lau LL, Kohli DR, Kwon RS, Machicado JD, Marya NB, Pawa S, Ruan W, Sheth SG, Storm AC, Thiruvengadam NR, and Qumseya BJ

Subjects
Humans, Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal, Treatment Outcome, Retrospective Studies, Esophageal Neoplasms surgery, Esophageal Neoplasms pathology, Stomach Neoplasms surgery, Stomach Neoplasms pathology, Endoscopic Mucosal Resection methods, Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma, Adenocarcinoma surgery, Adenocarcinoma pathology
Abstract

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. It is accompanied by the document subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well- or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, we suggest surgical evaluation over endoscopic approaches., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

46. Baseline Features and Reasons for Nonparticipation in the Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) Study, a Colorectal Cancer Screening Trial.

Author

Robertson DJ, Dominitz JA, Beed A, Boardman KD, Del Curto BJ, Guarino PD, Imperiale TF, LaCasse A, Larson MF, Gupta S, Lieberman D, Planeta B, Shaukat A, Sultan S, Menees SB, Saini SD, Schoenfeld P, Goebel S, von Rosenvinge EC, Baffy G, Halasz I, Pedrosa MC, Kahng LS, Cassim R, Greer KB, Kinnard MF, Bhatt DB, Dunbar KB, Harford WV Jr, Mengshol JA, Olson JE, Patel SG, Antaki F, Fisher DA, Sullivan BA, Lenza C, Prajapati DN, Wong H, Beyth R, Lieb JG 2nd, Manlolo J, Ona FV, Cole RA, Khalaf N, Kahi CJ, Kohli DR, Rai T, Sharma P, Anastasiou J, Hagedorn C, Fernando RS, Jackson CS, Jamal MM, Lee RH, Merchant F, May FP, Pisegna JR, Omer E, Parajuli D, Said A, Nguyen TD, Tombazzi CR, Feldman PA, Jacob L, Koppelman RN, Lehenbauer KP, Desai DS, Madhoun MF, Tierney WM, Ho MQ, Hockman HJ, Lopez C, Carter Paulson E, Tobi M, Pinillos HL, Young M, Ho NC, Mascarenhas R, Promrat K, Mutha PR, Pandak WM Jr, Shah T, Schubert M, Pancotto FS, Gawron AJ, Underwood AE, Ho SB, Magno-Pagatzaurtundua P, Toro DH, Beymer CH, Kaz AM, Elwing J, Gill JA, Goldsmith SF, Yao MD, Protiva P, Pohl H, and Kyriakides T

Subjects
Adult, Humans, Female, Male, Middle Aged, Occult Blood, Cross-Sectional Studies, Colonoscopy, Early Detection of Cancer, Neoplasms
Abstract

Importance: The Colonoscopy Versus Fecal Immunochemical Test in Reducing Mortality From Colorectal Cancer (CONFIRM) randomized clinical trial sought to recruit 50 000 adults into a study comparing colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality outcomes after randomization to either an annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or colonoscopy., Objective: To (1) describe study participant characteristics and (2) examine who declined participation because of a preference for colonoscopy or stool testing (ie, fecal occult blood test [FOBT]/FIT) and assess that preference's association with geographic and temporal factors., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study within CONFIRM, which completed enrollment through 46 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers between May 22, 2012, and December 1, 2017, with follow-up planned through 2028, comprised veterans aged 50 to 75 years with an average CRC risk and due for screening. Data were analyzed between March 7 and December 5, 2022., Exposure: Case report forms were used to capture enrolled participant data and reasons for declining participation among otherwise eligible individuals., Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the cohort overall and by intervention. Among individuals declining participation, logistic regression was used to compare preference for FOBT/FIT or colonoscopy by recruitment region and year., Results: A total of 50 126 participants were recruited (mean [SD] age, 59.1 [6.9] years; 46 618 [93.0%] male and 3508 [7.0%] female). The cohort was racially and ethnically diverse, with 748 (1.5%) identifying as Asian, 12 021 (24.0%) as Black, 415 (0.8%) as Native American or Alaska Native, 34 629 (69.1%) as White, and 1877 (3.7%) as other race, including multiracial; and 5734 (11.4%) as having Hispanic ethnicity. Of the 11 109 eligible individuals who declined participation (18.0%), 4824 (43.4%) declined due to a stated preference for a specific screening test, with FOBT/FIT being the most preferred method (2820 [58.5%]) vs colonoscopy (1958 [40.6%]; P < .001) or other screening tests (46 [1.0%] P < .001). Preference for FOBT/FIT was strongest in the West (963 of 1472 [65.4%]) and modest elsewhere, ranging from 199 of 371 (53.6%) in the Northeast to 884 of 1543 (57.3%) in the Midwest (P = .001). Adjusting for region, the preference for FOBT/FIT increased by 19% per recruitment year (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.25)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional analysis of veterans choosing nonenrollment in the CONFIRM study, those who declined participation more often preferred FOBT or FIT over colonoscopy. This preference increased over time and was strongest in the western US and may provide insight into trends in CRC screening preferences.

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

47. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on management of post-liver transplant biliary strictures: summary and recommendations.

Author

Kohli DR, Amateau SK, Desai M, Chinnakotla S, Harrison ME, Chalhoub JM, Coelho-Prabhu N, Elhanafi SE, Forbes N, Fujii-Lau LL, Kwon RS, Machicado JD, Marya NB, Pawa S, Ruan W, Sheth SG, Thiruvengadam NR, Thosani NC, and Qumseya BJ

Subjects
Humans, United States, Constriction, Pathologic etiology, Constriction, Pathologic therapy, Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde, Stents, Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal, Liver Transplantation adverse effects, Cholestasis etiology, Cholestasis surgery
Abstract

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for strategies to manage biliary strictures in liver transplant recipients. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses the role of ERCP versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and covered self-expandable metal stents (cSEMSs) versus multiple plastic stents for therapy of post-transplant strictures, use of MRCP for diagnosing post-transplant biliary strictures, and administration of antibiotics versus no antibiotics during ERCP. In patients with post-transplant biliary strictures, we suggest ERCP as the initial intervention and cSEMSs as the preferred stent for extrahepatic strictures. In patients with unclear diagnoses or intermediate probability of a stricture, we suggest MRCP as the diagnostic modality. We suggest that antibiotics should be administered during ERCP when biliary drainage cannot be ensured., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

48. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on management of post-liver transplant biliary strictures: methodology and review of evidence.

Author

Amateau SK, Kohli DR, Desai M, Chinnakotla S, Harrison ME, Chalhoub JM, Coelho-Prabhu N, Elhanafi SE, Forbes N, Fujii-Lau LL, Kwon RS, Machicado JD, Marya NB, Pawa S, Ruan W, Sheth SG, Thiruvengadam NR, Thosani NC, and Qumseya BJ

Subjects
Humans, Constriction, Pathologic etiology, Constriction, Pathologic therapy, Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde methods, Stents, Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal, Liver Transplantation adverse effects, Cholestasis etiology, Cholestasis surgery
Abstract

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for strategies to manage biliary strictures in liver transplant recipients. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline addresses the role of ERCP versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and covered self-expandable metal stents (cSEMSs) versus multiple plastic stents for therapy of strictures, use of MRCP for diagnosing post-transplant biliary strictures, and administration of antibiotics versus no antibiotics during ERCP. In patients with post-transplant biliary strictures, we suggest ERCP as the initial intervention and cSEMSs as the preferred stent. In patients with unclear diagnosis or intermediate probability of a stricture, we suggest MRCP as the diagnostic modality. We suggest that antibiotics should be administered during ERCP when biliary drainage cannot be assured., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

49. Direct Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Versus Radiological Gastrostomy in Patients Unable to Undergo Transoral Endoscopic Pull Gastrostomy.

Author

Kohli DR, Smith C, Chaudhry O, Desai M, DePaolis D, and Sharma P

Subjects
Humans, Pilot Projects, Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal adverse effects, Radiography, Retrospective Studies, Gastrostomy adverse effects, Gastrostomy methods, Surgical Stomas
Abstract

Background and Aims: A subset of patients needing long-term enteral access are unable to undergo a conventional transoral "pull" percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). We assessed the safety and efficacy of an introducer-style endoscopic direct PEG (DPEG) and an interventional radiologist guided gastrostomy (IRG) among patients unable to undergo a pull PEG., Methods: In this single center, non-randomized, pilot study, patients unable to undergo a transoral Pull PEG were prospectively recruited for a DPEG during the index endoscopy. IRG procedures performed at our center served as the comparison group. The primary outcome was technical success and secondary outcomes included 30-day and 90-day all-cause mortality, procedure duration, dosage of medications, adverse events, and 30-day all-cause hospitalization. The Charlson comorbidity index was used to compare comorbidities., Results: A total of 47 patients (68.3 ± 7.13 years) underwent DPEG and 45 patients (68.6 ± 8.23 years) underwent IRG. The respective Charlson comorbidity scores were 6.37 ± 2 and 6.16 ± 1.72 (P = 0.59). Malignancies of the upper aerodigestive tract were the most common indications for DPEG and IRG (42 vs. 37; P = 0.38). The outcomes for DPEG and IRG were as follows: technical success: 96 vs. 98%; P = 1; 30-day all-cause mortality: 0 vs 15%, P < 0.01; 90-day all-cause mortality: 0 vs. 31%, P < 0.001; 30-day hospitalization: 19 vs. 38%; P = 0.06; procedure duration: 23.8 ± 1.39 vs. 29.5 ± 2.03 min, P = 0.02; midazolam dose: 4.5 ± 1.6 vs. 1.23 ± 0.6 mg; P < 0.001, and opiate dose: 105.6 ± 38.2 vs. 70.7 ± 34.5 µg, P < 0.001, respectively. Perforation of the colon during IRG was the sole serious adverse event., Conclusion: DPEG is a safe and effective alternative to IRG in patients unable to undergo a conventional transoral pull PEG and may be considered as a primary modality for enteral support., Clinicaltrials: gov Identifier: NCT04151030., (© 2022. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

50. Impact of withdrawal time on adenoma detection rate: results from a prospective multicenter trial.

Author

Desai M, Rex DK, Bohm ME, Davitkov P, DeWitt JM, Fischer M, Faulx G, Heath R, Imler TD, James-Stevenson TN, Kahi CJ, Kessler WR, Kohli DR, McHenry L, Rai T, Rogers NA, Sagi SV, Sathyamurthy A, Vennalaganti P, Sundaram S, Patel H, Higbee A, Kennedy K, Lahr R, Stojadinovikj G, Campbell C, Dasari C, Parasa S, Faulx A, and Sharma P

Subjects
Male, Humans, Middle Aged, Aged, Female, Prospective Studies, Time Factors, Colonoscopy methods, Early Detection of Cancer, Colorectal Neoplasms diagnosis, Adenoma diagnosis, Colonic Polyps diagnosis
Abstract

Background and Aims: Performing a high-quality colonoscopy is critical for optimizing the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Colonoscopy withdrawal time (a surrogate measure) of ≥6 minutes is recommended; however, a threshold of a high-quality withdrawal and its impact on ADR are not known., Methods: We examined withdrawal time (excluding polyp resection and bowel cleaning time) of subjects undergoing screening and/or surveillance colonoscopy in a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. We examined the relationship of withdrawal time in 1-minute increments on ADR and reported odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Linear regression analysis was performed to assess the maximal inspection time threshold that impacts the ADR., Results: A total of 1142 subjects (age, 62.3 ± 8.9 years; 80.5% men) underwent screening (45.9%) or surveillance (53.6%) colonoscopy. The screening group had a median withdrawal time of 9.0 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 3.3) with an ADR of 49.6%, whereas the surveillance group had a median withdrawal time of 9.3 minutes (IQR, 4.3) with an ADR of 63.9%. ADR correspondingly increased for a withdrawal time of 6 minutes to 13 minutes, beyond which ADR did not increase (50.4% vs 76.6%, P < .01). For every 1-minute increase in withdrawal time, there was 6% higher odds of detecting an additional subject with an adenoma (OR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.10; P = .004)., Conclusions: Results from this multicenter, randomized controlled trial underscore the importance of a high-quality examination and efforts required to achieve this with an incremental yield in ADR based on withdrawal time. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03952611.)., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results