Search

BACKGROUND: Although polyp size dictates surveillance intervals, endoscopists often estimate polyp size inaccurately. We hypothesized that an intervention providing didactic instruction and real-time feedback could significantly improve polyp size classification. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of different components of an online educational module on polyp sizing. Participants were randomized to control (no video, no feedback), video only, feedback only, or video + feedback. The primary outcome was accuracy of polyp size classification into clinically relevant categories (diminutive [1-5mm], small [6-9mm], large [≥10mm]). Secondary outcomes included accuracy of exact polyp size (inmm), learning curves, and directionality of inaccuracy (over- vs. underestimation). RESULTS: 36 trainees from five training programs provided 1360 polyp size assessments. The feedback only (80.1%, P=0.01) and video + feedback (78.9%, P=0.02) groups had higher accuracy of polyp size classification compared with controls (71.6%). There was no significant difference in accuracy between the video only group (74.4%) and controls (P=0.42). Groups receiving feedback had higher accuracy of exact polyp size (inmm) and higher peak learning curves. Polyps were more likely to be overestimated than underestimated, and 29.3% of size inaccuracies impacted recommended surveillance intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Our online educational module significantly improved polyp size classification. Real-time feedback appeared to be a critical component in improving accuracy. This scalable and no-cost educational module could significantly decrease under- and overutilization of colonoscopy, improving patient outcomes while increasing colonoscopy access.

Background and study aims The Bethesda ERCP Skill Assessment Tool (BESAT) is a video-based assessment tool of technical endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) skill with previously established validity evidence. We aimed to assess the discriminative validity of the BESAT in differentiating ERCP skill levels. Methods Twelve experienced ERCP practitioners from tertiary academic centers were asked to blindly rate 43 ERCP videos using the BESAT. ERCP videos consisted of native biliary cannulation and sphincterotomy and were recorded from 10 unique endoscopists of various ERCP experience (from advanced endoscopy fellow to > 10 years of ERCP experience). Inter-rater reliability, discriminative validity, and internal structure validity were subsequently assessed. Results The BESAT was found to reliably differentiate between endoscopists of varying levels of ERCP experience with experienced ERCPists scoring higher than novice ERCPists in 11 of 13 (85%) instrument items. Inter-rater reliability for BESAT items ranged from good to excellent (intraclass correlation range: 0.86 to 0.93). Internal structure validity was assessed with item-total correlations ranging from 0.53 to 0.83. Conclusions Study findings demonstrate that the BESAT, a video-based ERCP skill assessment tool, has high inter-rater reliability and has discriminative validity in differentiating novice from expert ERCP skill. Further investigations are needed to determine the role of video-based assessment in improving trainee learning curves and patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Novel, less-invasive technologies to screen for Barretts esophagus (BE) may enable a paradigm shift in early detection strategies for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Understanding professionals perspectives on screening is important to determine how to proceed. We aimed to explore and compare professionals perceptions of screening for BE and EAC screening in three countries. METHODS: In this study, 29 Dutch, 20 British and 18 American health care professionals (clinicians, researchers and policy makers) participated in concept mapping: a mixed-methods consensus building methodology. Statements on perceived barriers, facilitators, advantages, disadvantages, implications or worries associated with screening for BE and EAC were collected in asynchronous digital brainstorm sessions. Subsequently, participants sorted the statements into groups according to thematic similarity and assessed the relevance of each statement in evaluating the acceptability of BE and EAC screening. Multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis were used to map the associations between generated statements. RESULTS: Professionals across three countries identified eight consistent themes that relate to their perceptions of screening for BE and EAC: (1) Benefits, (2) Harms, (3) Clinical effectiveness concerns, (4) Screening population, (5) Screening modality, (6) Resources, (7) Ownership, and (8) Public communication. Dutch and American professionals prioritized the potential health benefits of screening but also questioned clinical impact. In contrast, British participants prioritized identification of the screening population and suitable test. CONCLUSIONS: Most professionals see potential in less-invasive screening tests for BE and EAC but underline the need to define the target screening population and determine benefits and harms before widely employing them. Successful implementation will require thoughtful consideration of the involvement of general practitioners, readiness of endoscopy and pathology services, balanced public communication, and country-specific regulations.

INTRODUCTION: Variability in adherence rates to the Seattle protocol and to surveillance interval recommendations, established quality indicators (QIs) in Barretts esophagus (BE), is unknown. METHODS: We evaluated endoscopist and site-based adherence rates to these QIs from January 2018 to May 2021 using the GI Quality Improvement Consortium national registry with matched endoscopy and pathology data. RESULTS: Across 153 practices with 572 endoscopists performing 20,155 endoscopies, adherence to the Seattle protocol varied by endoscopists (median 93.8%, IQR 18.9%) and by site (median 90.0%, IQR 20.1%). Adherence to appropriate surveillance intervals for nondysplastic BE also varied by endoscopist (median 82.4%, IQR 36.3%) and site (median 77.2%, IQR 29.8%). The overall dysplasia detection rate was 3.1% and varied among endoscopists and sites. DISCUSSION: These US population-based results can serve as a benchmark for quality initiatives and intervention trials aimed at improving outcomes for patients with BE.

INTRODUCTION: Most patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) do not have a previous diagnosis of Barretts esophagus (BE), demonstrating a failure of current screening practices. An understanding of patient attitudes and barriers is essential to develop and implement interventions to improve BE screening adherence. METHODS: We conducted a Web-based survey of patients aged >50 years with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease at 3 academic medical centers and 1 affiliated safety net health systems. Survey domains included patient characteristics, endoscopy history, familiarity with screening practices, perceived BE/EAC risk, and barriers to screening. RESULTS: We obtained a response rate of 22.6% (472/2,084) (74% men, mean age 67.9 years). Self-identified race and ethnicity of participants was 66.5% non-Hispanic White, 20.0% non-Hispanic Black, 13.4% other race, and 7.1% Hispanic. Screening for BE was recommended in only 13.2%, and only 5.3% reported previous screening. Respondents had notable gaps in knowledge about screening indications; only two-thirds correctly identified BE risk factors and only 19.5% believed BE screening was needed for gastroesophageal reflux disease. More than 1 in 5 respondents believed they would get BE (31.9%) or EAC (20.2%) but reported barriers to screening. Compared with White respondents, more Black respondents were concerned about getting BE/EAC and interested in screening but report higher barriers to screening. DISCUSSION: Patients at risk for BE, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, are worried about developing EAC but rarely undergo screening and have poor understanding of screening recommendations.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Barretts esophagus (BE), defined by the presence of intestinal metaplasia (IM) on histology, is thought to be the only identifiable precursor lesion for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Recent studies have suggested the possibility of an alternate, non-IM associated EAC that is a more aggressive form of EAC with worse survival. Among EAC patients, we aimed to compare survival of patients with and without IM at the time of diagnosis. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients with histologic confirmed EAC evaluated at a tertiary care center from 2013 to 2019. Cases were categorized according to the presence or absence of IM on histologic specimens (Group I-IM-EAC and Group II-non-IM-EAC). We compared demographic characteristics, clinical stage, therapy, and survival between the 2 groups using the Chi-square and ANOVA tests (for categorical and continuous variables, respectively). We used Cox proportional hazards regression to determine the association of IM with overall survival, adjusting for sex, age at diagnosis, tumor location, histologic grade, and clinical stage. RESULTS: A total of 475 patients were included in this analysis (mean age 64.8 years [SD 10.8], 89% white) and 109 (23.0%) had no evidence of IM. Compared with IM-EAC (Group I), individuals in the non-IM-EAC group were younger (P = .01) and had a greater proportion of patients diagnosed with advanced disease (49.5 vs 20.2% for stage 4, P < .001). These patients were less likely to undergo endoscopic therapy alone (0.92% vs 29.78%, P < .001) or surgery alone (0 vs 9.84%, P = .001). On multivariable analysis, the presence of IM-EAC was associated with improved overall survival compared to non-IM-EAC (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.96). Additional factors associated with poor survival was increasing stage of diagnosis (HR 6.49: 95% CI 3.77-11.15 for stage 4, HR 2.19: 95% CI 1.25-3.84 for stage 3, HR 2.04: 95% CI 0.98-4.25 for stage 2 compared to stage 1) and more advanced histologic stage (HR 2.00, 95% CI 1.26-3.19) for poorly/undifferentiated compared to well differentiated). CONCLUSIONS: EAC without the presence of IM on histology was associated with worse survival compared to those with IM. Future prospective studies with detailed molecular sequencing are required to clarify if 2 separate phenotypes of EAC exist (IM-EAC and non-IM-EAC). If confirmed, this may have significant implications for screening and management strategies.

DescriptionThe purpose of this best practice advice (BPA) article from the Clinical Practice Update Committee of the American Gastroenterological Association is to provide an update on advances and innovation regarding the screening and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus.MethodsThe BPA statements presented here were developed from expert review of existing literature combined with discussion and expert opinion to provide practical advice. Formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of BPAs was not the intent of this clinical practice update. This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Screening with standard upper endoscopy may be considered in individuals with at least 3 established risk factors for Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma, including individuals who are male, non-Hispanic white, age >50 years, have a history of smoking, chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease, obesity, or a family history of BE or esophageal adenocarcinoma. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Nonendoscopic cell-collection devices may be considered as an option to screen for BE. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Screening and surveillance endoscopic examination should be performed using high-definition white light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy, with endoscopists spending adequate time inspecting the Barrett's segment. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Screening and surveillance exams should define the extent of BE using a standardized grading system documenting the circumferential and maximal extent of the columnar lined esophagus (Prague classification) with a clear description of landmarks and the location and characteristics of visible lesions (nodularity, ulceration), when present. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Advanced imaging technologies such as endomicroscopy may be used as adjunctive techniques to identify dysplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Sampling during screening and surveillance exams should be performed using the Seattle biopsy protocol (4-quadrant biopsies every 1-2 cm and target biopsies from any visible lesion). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Wide-area transepithelial sampling may be used as an adjunctive technique to sample the suspected or established Barrett's segment (in addition to the Seattle biopsy protocol). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Patients with erosive esophagitis should be biopsied when concern of dysplasia or malignancy exists. A repeat endoscopy should be performed after 8 weeks of twice a day proton pump inhibitor therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Tissue systems pathology-based prediction assay may be utilized for risk stratification of patients with nondysplastic BE. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Risk stratification models may be utilized to selectively identify individuals at risk for Barrett's associated neoplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Given the significant interobserver variability among pathologists, the diagnosis of BE-related neoplasia should be confirmed by an expert pathology review. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Patients with BE-related neoplasia should be referred to endoscopists with expertise in advanced imaging, resection, and ablation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: All patients with BE should be placed on at least daily proton pump inhibitor therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Patients with nondysplastic BE should undergo surveillance endoscopy in 3 to 5 years. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: In patients undergoing surveillance after endoscopic eradication therapy, random biopsies should be taken of the esophagogastric junction, gastric cardia, and the distal 2 cm of the neosquamous epithelium as well as from all visible lesions, independent of the length of the original BE segment.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on the efficacy of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) in patients with esophageal diverticula. AIMS: This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety profile of POEM in patients with Zenker (ZD) and epiphrenic diverticula. METHODS: With a literature search through August 2020, we identified 12 studies (300 patients) assessing POEM in patients with esophageal diverticula. The primary outcome was treatment success. Results were expressed as pooled rates and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Pooled rate of technical success was 95.9% (93.4%-98.3%) in ZD patients and 95.1% (88.8%-100%) in patients with epiphrenic diverticula. Pooled rate of treatment success was similar for ZD (90.6%, 87.1%-94.1%) and epiphrenic diverticula (94.2%, 87.3%-100%). Rates of treatment success were maintained at 1 year (90%, 86.4%-97.4%) and 2 years (89.6%, 82.2%-96.9%) in ZD patients. Pooled rate of symptom recurrence was 2.6% (0.9%-4.4%) in ZD patients and 0% in patients with epiphrenic diverticula. Pooled rates of adverse events and severe adverse events were 10.6% (4.6%-16.6%) and 3.5% (0%-7.4%) in ZD and 8.4% (0%-16.8%) and 8.4% (0%-16.8%) in epiphrenic diverticula, respectively. CONCLUSION: POEM represents an effective and safe therapy for the treatment of esophageal diverticula.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Efforts to assess and improve the effectiveness of Barretts esophagus (BE) screening and surveillance are ongoing in the United States. Currently, there are limited population-based data in the United States to guide these efforts. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from large commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans in the United States from 2004 - 2019. We identified individuals with BE and analyzed the proportion who developed EAC. EACs were classified as prevalent EAC (diagnosed within 30 days of index endoscopy), post-endoscopy esophageal adenocarcinoma (PEEC, diagnosed 30 - 365 days after index endoscopy), and incident EAC (diagnosed 365 days or more after index endoscopy). Using this cohort, we performed a nested case-control study to identify factors associated with prevalent EAC at BE diagnosis and study healthcare utilization prior to BE diagnosis. RESULTS: We identified 50,817 individuals with incident BE. Of the 366 who developed EAC, 67.2%, 13.7%, and 19.1% were diagnosed with prevalent EAC, PEEC, and incident EAC respectively. Factors positively associated with prevalent EAC versus BE without prevalent EAC included male sex, dysphagia, weight loss, and Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score. In those with prevalent EAC, most patients with dysphagia or weight loss had their symptoms first recorded within three months of EAC diagnosis. Healthcare utilization rates were similar between those with and without prevalent EAC. CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of EACs among individuals with BE are diagnosed at the time of BE diagnosis. Additionally, PEEC accounts for 14% of these EACs. These results may guide future research studies that investigate novel BE diagnostic strategies that reduce the morbidity and mortality of EAC.

BackgroundThe Reflux Band, an external upper esophageal sphincter (UES) compression device, reduces esophago-pharyngeal reflux events. This study aimed to assess device efficacy as an adjunct to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR).MethodsThis two-phase prospective clinical trial enrolled adults with at least 8 weeks of laryngeal symptoms (sore throat, throat clearing, dysphonia) not using PPI therapy at two tertiary care centers over 26 months. Participants used double dose PPI for 4 weeks in Phase 1 and the external UES compression device nightly along with PPI for 4 weeks in Phase 2. Questionnaire scores and salivary pepsin concentration were measured throughout the study. The primary endpoint of symptom response was defined as reflux symptom index (RSI) score ≤ 13 and/or > 50% reduction in RSI.ResultsThirty-one participants completed the study: 52% male, mean age 47.9 years (SD 14.0), and mean body mass index (BMI) 26.2 kg/m2 (5.1). Primary endpoint was met in 11 (35%) participants after Phase 1 (PPI alone) and 17 (55%) after Phase 2 (Device + PPI). Compared to baseline, mean RSI score (24.1 (10.9)) decreased at end of Phase 1 (PPI alone) (21.9 (9.7); p = 0.06) and significantly decreased at end of Phase 2 (Device + PPI) (15.5 (10.3); p

Background & aimsAs many as one-half of all patients with suspected gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) do not derive benefit from acid suppression. This review outlines a personalized diagnostic and therapeutic approach to GERD symptoms.MethodsThe Best Practice Advice statements presented here were developed from expert review of existing literature combined with extensive discussion and expert opinion to provide practical advice. Formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations was not the intent of this clinical practice update. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Clinicians should develop a care plan for investigation of symptoms suggestive of GERD, selection of therapy (with explanation of potential risks and benefits), and long-term management, including possible de-escalation, in a shared-decision making model with the patient. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Clinicians should provide standardized educational material on GERD mechanisms, weight management, lifestyle and dietary behaviors, relaxation strategies, and awareness about the brain-gut axis relationship to patients with reflux symptoms. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Clinicians should emphasize safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for the treatment of GERD. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Clinicians should provide patients presenting with troublesome heartburn, regurgitation, and/or non-cardiac chest pain without alarm symptoms a 4- to 8-week trial of single-dose PPI therapy. With inadequate response, dosing can be increased to twice a day or switched to a more effective acid suppressive agent once a day. When there is adequate response, PPI should be tapered to the lowest effective dose. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: If PPI therapy is continued in a patient with unproven GERD, clinicians should evaluate the appropriateness and dosing within 12 months after initiation, and offer endoscopy with prolonged wireless reflux monitoring off PPI therapy to establish appropriateness of long-term PPI therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: If troublesome heartburn, regurgitation, and/or non-cardiac chest pain do not respond adequately to a PPI trial or when alarm symptoms exist, clinicians should investigate with endoscopy and, in the absence of erosive reflux disease (Los Angeles B or greater) or long-segment (≥3 cm) Barrett's esophagus, perform prolonged wireless pH monitoring off medication (96-hour preferred if available) to confirm and phenotype GERD or to rule out GERD. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Complete endoscopic evaluation of GERD symptoms includes inspection for erosive esophagitis (graded according to the Los Angeles classification when present), diaphragmatic hiatus (Hill grade of flap valve), axial hiatus hernia length, and inspection for Barrett's esophagus (graded according to the Prague classification and biopsied when present). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Clinicians should perform upfront objective reflux testing off medication (rather than an empiric PPI trial) in patients with isolated extra-esophageal symptoms and suspicion for reflux etiology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: In symptomatic patients with proven GERD, clinicians should consider ambulatory 24-hour pH-impedance monitoring on PPI as an option to determine the mechanism of persisting esophageal symptoms despite therapy (if adequate expertise exists for interpretation). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Clinicians should personalize adjunctive pharmacotherapy to the GERD phenotype, in contrast to empiric use of these agents. Adjunctive agents include alginate antacids for breakthrough symptoms, nighttime H2 receptor antagonists for nocturnal symptoms, baclofen for regurgitation or belch predominant symptoms, and prokinetics for coexistent gastroparesis. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Clinicians should provide pharmacologic neuromodulation, and/or referral to a behavioral therapist for hypnotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, diaphragmatic breathing, and relaxation strategies in patients with functional heartburn or reflux disease associated with esophageal hypervigilance reflux hypersensitivity and/or behavioral disorders. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: In patients with proven GERD, laparoscopic fundoplication and magnetic sphincter augmentation are effective surgical options, and transoral incisionless fundoplication is an effective endoscopic option in carefully selected patients. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: In patients with proven GERD, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is an effective primary anti-reflux intervention in obese patients, and a salvage option in non-obese patients, whereas sleeve gastrectomy has potential to worsen GERD. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Candidacy for invasive anti-reflux procedures includes confirmatory evidence of pathologic GERD, exclusion of achalasia, and assessment of esophageal peristaltic function.

Barretts esophagus (BE) is a common condition associated with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease. BE is the only known precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma, a highly lethal cancer with an increasing incidence over the last 5 decades. These revised guidelines implement Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to propose recommendations for the definition and diagnosis of BE, screening for BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma, surveillance of patients with known BE, and the medical and endoscopic treatment of BE and its associated early neoplasia. Important changes since the previous iteration of this guideline include a broadening of acceptable screening modalities for BE to include nonendoscopic methods, liberalized intervals for surveillance of short-segment BE, and volume criteria for endoscopic therapy centers for BE. We recommend endoscopic eradication therapy for patients with BE and high-grade dysplasia and those with BE and low-grade dysplasia. We propose structured surveillance intervals for patients with dysplastic BE after successful ablation based on the baseline degree of dysplasia. We could not make recommendations regarding chemoprevention or use of biomarkers in routine practice due to insufficient data.

Background & aimsHeterogeneous presentations and disease mechanisms among patients with laryngeal symptoms account for misdiagnosis of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), variations in testing, and suboptimal outcomes. We aimed to derive phenotypes of patients with laryngeal symptoms based on clinical and physiologic data and to compare characteristics across phenotypes.MethodsA total of 302 adult patients with chronic laryngeal symptoms were prospectively enrolled at 3 centers between January 2018 to October 2020 (age 57.2 ± 15.2 years; 30% male; body mass index 27.2 ± 6.0 kg/m2). Discriminant analysis of principal components (DAPC) was applied to 12 clinical and 11 physiologic variables collected in stable condition to derive phenotypic groups.ResultsDAPC identified 5 groups, with significant differences across symptoms, hiatal hernia size, and number of reflux events (P < .01). Group A had the greatest hiatal hernia size (3.1 ± 1.0 cm; P < .001) and reflux events (37.5 ± 51; P < .001), with frequent cough, laryngeal symptoms, heartburn, and regurgitation. Group B had the highest body mass index (28.2 ± 4.6 kg/m2; P < .001) and salivary pepsin (150 ± 157 ng/mL; P = .03), with frequent cough, laryngeal symptoms, globus, heartburn, and regurgitation. Group C frequently reported laryngeal symptoms (93%; P < .001), and had fewest esophageal symptoms (9.6%; P < .001) and reflux events (10.7 ± 11.0; P < .001). Group D commonly reported cough (88%; P < .001) and heartburn. Group E (18%) was oldest (62.9 ± 14.3 years; P < .001) and distinguished by highest integrated relaxation pressure.ConclusionsDAPC identified distinct clinicophysiologic phenotypes of patients with laryngeal symptoms referred for reflux evaluation: group A, LPR and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with hiatal hernia; group B, mild LPR/GERD; group C, no LPR/No GERD; group D, reflex cough; and group E, mixed/possible obstructive esophagogastric junction. Phenotypic differences may inform targeted clinical trials design and improve outcomes.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Identification of postendoscopy esophageal adenocarcinoma (PEEC) among Barretts esophagus (BE) patients presents an opportunity to improve survival of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We aimed to estimate the proportion of PEEC within the first year after BE diagnosis. METHODS: Multiple databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases) were searched until September 2020 for original studies with at least 1-year follow-up evaluation that reported EAC and/or high-grade dysplasia (HGD) in the first year after index endoscopy in nondysplastic BE, low-grade dysplasia, or indefinite dysplasia. The proportions of PEEC defined using EAC alone and EAC+HGD were calculated by dividing EAC or EAC+HGD in the first year over the total number of EAC or EAC+HGD, respectively. RESULTS: We included 52 studies with 145,726 patients and a median follow-up period of 4.8 years. The proportion of PEEC (EAC) was 21% (95% CI, 13-31) and PEEC (EAC+HGD) was 26% (95% CI, 19-34). Among studies with nondysplastic BE only, the PEEC (EAC) proportion was 17% (95% CI, 11-23) and PEEC (EAC+HGD) was 14% (95% CI, 8-19). Among studies with 5 or more years of follow-up evaluation, the PEEC (EAC) proportion was 10% and PEEC (EAC+HGD) was 19%. Meta-regression analysis showed a strong inverse relationship between PEEC and incident EAC (P < .001). The PEEC (EAC) proportion increased from 5% in studies published before 2000 to 30% after 2015. Substantial heterogeneity was observed for most analyses. CONCLUSIONS: PEEC accounts for a high proportion of HGD/EACs and is proportional to reduction in incident EAC. Using best endoscopic techniques now and performing future research on improving neoplasia detection through implementation of quality measures and educational tools is needed to reduce PEEC.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Barretts esophagus (BE) screening is not highly utilized in the United States, and there are few data describing providers approach to screening. To fill this gap and guide the implementation of future BE screening strategies, we studied evaluation practice patterns for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) by nongastroenterologists. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with chronic GERD using health claims data from the United States between 2005 and 2019. We used up to 5 years of data after the diagnosis of chronic GERD to determine patient factors associated with completion of a gastroenterology encounter. We also identified patient factors associated with whether the first gastroenterology encounter was a direct-access upper endoscopy or an office visit. RESULTS: We identified 484,023 patients diagnosed with chronic GERD by a nongastroenterology provider. The cumulative incidence of completing a gastroenterology encounter within 5 years was 38.7%. Gastrointestinal symptoms, such as dysphagia (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 2.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.94-2.30), abdominal pain (aHR = 1.89, 95% CI = 1.85-1.94), and melena (aHR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.65-1.82), were strongly associated with completion of a gastroenterology encounter. The patient factors strongly associated with direct-access upper endoscopy included dysphagia (aHR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.52-1.85), weight loss (aHR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.28-1.63), and melena (aHR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.28-1.56). CONCLUSION: A total of 38.7% of patients with chronic GERD complete a gastroenterology encounter within 5 years of diagnosis, and gastrointestinal alarm symptoms are the most strongly associated factors for receiving gastroenterology care. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating primary care providers in the development of new BE screening programs.

BackgroundThe Reflux Band, an external upper esophageal sphincter (UES) compression device, reduces esophago-pharyngeal reflux events. This study aimed to assess device efficacy as an adjunct to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy in patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR).MethodsThis two-phase prospective clinical trial enrolled adults with at least 8 weeks of laryngeal symptoms (sore throat, throat clearing, dysphonia) not using PPI therapy at two tertiary care centers over 26 months. Participants used double dose PPI for 4 weeks in Phase 1 and the external UES compression device nightly along with PPI for 4 weeks in Phase 2. Questionnaire scores and salivary pepsin concentration were measured throughout the study. The primary endpoint of symptom response was defined as reflux symptom index (RSI) score ≤ 13 and/or > 50% reduction in RSI.ResultsThirty-one participants completed the study: 52% male, mean age 47.9 years (SD 14.0), and mean body mass index (BMI) 26.2 kg/m2 (5.1). Primary endpoint was met in 11 (35%) participants after Phase 1 (PPI alone) and 17 (55%) after Phase 2 (Device + PPI). Compared to baseline, mean RSI score (24.1 (10.9)) decreased at end of Phase 1 (PPI alone) (21.9 (9.7); p = 0.06) and significantly decreased at end of Phase 2 (Device + PPI) (15.5 (10.3); p

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The prevalence and significance of digestive manifestations in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. We aimed to assess the prevalence, spectrum, severity, and significance of digestive manifestations in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: Consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were identified across a geographically diverse alliance of medical centers in North America. Data pertaining to baseline characteristics, symptomatology, laboratory assessment, imaging, and endoscopic findings from the time of symptom onset until discharge or death were abstracted manually from electronic health records to characterize the prevalence, spectrum, and severity of digestive manifestations. Regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between digestive manifestations and severe outcomes related to COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 1992 patients across 36 centers met eligibility criteria and were included. Overall, 53% of patients experienced at least 1 gastrointestinal symptom at any time during their illness, most commonly diarrhea (34%), nausea (27%), vomiting (16%), and abdominal pain (11%). In 74% of cases, gastrointestinal symptoms were judged to be mild. In total, 35% of patients developed an abnormal alanine aminotransferase or total bilirubin level; these were increased to less than 5 times the upper limit of normal in 77% of cases. After adjusting for potential confounders, the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms at any time (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-1.15) or liver test abnormalities on admission (odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.80-2.12) were not associated independently with mechanical ventilation or death. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, gastrointestinal symptoms and liver test abnormalities were common, but the majority were mild and their presence was not associated with a more severe clinical course.

Uncertain diagnostic performance has limited clinical adoption of salivary pepsin, a noninvasive diagnostic tool for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). This study aimed to assess diagnostic performance of salivary pepsin, and test validity of thresholds in an external cohort of patients with or without GERD. This two-phase prospective study conducted at two centers enrolled adult asymptomatic volunteers, patients with symptoms of GERD undergoing reflux monitoring, and patients with Barretts esophagus (BE). Fasting saliva samples were processed for pepsin concentration using Peptest. Phase 1 compared pepsin concentration between No GERD (volunteers/functional heartburn) and GERD (erosive reflux disease/nonerosive reflux disease (NERD)/BE). Phase 2 tested validity of the diagnostic thresholds identified from Phase 1 among external functional heartburn and NERD cohorts. Of 243 enrolled subjects, 156 met inclusion criteria. Phase 1 (n = 114): Pepsin concentrations were significantly higher in GERD (n = 84) versus No GERD (n = 30) (73.8 ng/mL vs. 21.1 ng/mL; P

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) continues to be one of the fastest rising incident cancers in the Western population with the majority of patients presenting with late stage disease and associated with a dismal 5-year survival rate. Barretts esophagus (BE) is the only identifiable precursor lesion to EAC. Strategies to screen for and survey BE are critical to detect earlier cancers and reduce morbidity and mortality related to EAC. A high-quality endoscopic examination with careful inspection of the Barretts segment and adherence to the Seattle protocol for tissue sampling are critical. Advanced imaging modalities offer the potential to improve dysplasia detection, predict histopathology in real time and guide endoscopic eradication therapy (EET). Several technologies have been studied and although most are not yet recommended for routine clinical practice, high definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) as well as chromoendoscopy (including virtual chromoendoscopy) improved dysplasia detection in numerous studies supporting their use. Future studies should evaluate the role of artificial intelligence in optimizing detection of dysplasia in BE patients.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Barretts oesophagus is the only identifiable precursor lesion to oesophageal adenocarcinoma. The stepwise progression of Barretts oesophagus to dysplasia and invasive carcinoma provides the opportunity to intervene and reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with this lethal cancer. Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) for the management of Barretts oesophagus related neoplasia. The primary goal of EET is to achieve complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) followed by enrolment of patients in surveillance protocols to detect recurrence of Barretts oesophagus and Barretts oesophagus related neoplasia. RECENT FINDINGS: EET depends on early and accurate detection and diagnosis of Barretts oesophagus related neoplasia. All visible lesions should be resected followed by ablation of the remaining Barretts epithelium. After treatment, patients should be enrolled in endoscopic surveillance programmes. For nondysplastic Barretts oesophagus, surveillance alone is recommended. For low-grade dysplasia, both surveillance and ablation are reasonable options and should be decided on an individual basis according to patient risk factors and preferences. EET is preferred for high-grade dysplasia and intramucosal carcinoma. For T1b oesophageal adenocarcinoma, esophagectomy remains the standard of care, but endoscopic therapy can be considered in select cases. SUMMARY: EET is now standard of care and endorsed by societal guidelines for the treatment of Barretts oesophagus related neoplasia. Future studies should focus on risk stratification models using a combination of clinical data and biomarkers to identify ideal candidates for EET, and to predict recurrence. Optimal therapy for T1b cancer and surveillance strategy after CE-IM are topics that require further study.

Each year choledocholithiasis results in biliary obstruction, cholangitis, and pancreatitis in a significant number of patients. The primary treatment, ERCP, is minimally invasive but associated with adverse events in 6% to 15%. This American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Standard of Practice (SOP) Guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the endoscopic evaluation and treatment of choledocholithiasis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to rigorously review and synthesize the contemporary literature regarding the following topics: EUS versus MRCP for diagnosis, the role of early ERCP in gallstone pancreatitis, endoscopic papillary dilation after sphincterotomy versus sphincterotomy alone for large bile duct stones, and impact of ERCP-guided intraductal therapy for large and difficult choledocholithiasis. Comprehensive systematic reviews were also performed to assess the following: same-admission cholecystectomy for gallstone pancreatitis, clinical predictors of choledocholithiasis, optimal timing of ERCP vis-à-vis cholecystectomy, management of Mirizzi syndrome and hepatolithiasis, and biliary stent therapy for choledocholithiasis. Core clinical questions were derived using an iterative process by the ASGE SOP Committee. This body developed all recommendations founded on the certainty of the evidence, balance of risks and harms, consideration of stakeholder preferences, resource utilization, and cost-effectiveness.