METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted of consecutive diagnostic EGDs performed at a university-affiliated, teaching hospital, which has an open-access endoscopy system for doctors who work in the hospital. The main indication(s) for EGD was recorded and assessed as appropriate or inappropriate by using American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy criteria. EGD findings were recorded and classified as positive or negative. Referrals were categorized as being from endoscopists, primary care physicians, and others.
RESULTS: Of 1076 referrals for EGD, 88.3% were deemed appropriate. The group with the highest rate of appropriate referral was endoscopists (90.2%), followed by primary care physicians (89.6%) and "others" (81.9%). The rate of appropriate referrals was significantly higher for endoscopists and primary care physicians compared with "others" (respectively, p=0.001 and p=0.022). The most common appropriate indication was "upper abdominal distress that persists despite an appropriate trial of therapy" (35.4%). The most common inappropriate indication was "dyspepsia in patients aged 45 years or below without adequate empirical medical treatment" (48.4%); 42.2% with an appropriate indication had positive findings compared with only 25.6% of those with inappropriate indications (p=0.006). On multivariate analysis, the following were identified as independent predictive factors for positive findings at EGD: male gender (p=0.005), age over 45 years (p=0.011), smoking (p=0.005), none/primary education (p<0.001), and secondary education (p=0.026).
CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of patients referred for open-access EGD with an appropriate indication(s) was high for all doctor groups in a large university-affiliated medical center in Asia. EGDs performed for appropriate indications had a higher yield of positive findings. Independent predictive factors of positive findings were male gender, age over 45 years, lower education level, and referral by an endoscopist.
METHODS: A randomized, single blinded, prospective, multicenter trial at 9 high-volume tertiary-care referral centers in the Asia-Pacific region was performed. Patients with an intact papilla and conventional anatomy who did not have malignancy in the head of the pancreas or ampulla and were undergoing ERCP were recruited. ERCP was performed by using a standardized cannulation algorithm, and patients were randomized to either a 0.025-inch or 0.035-inch guidewire. The primary outcomes of the study were successful wire-guided cannulation and the incidence of PEP. Overall successful cannulation and ERCP adverse events also were studied.
RESULTS: A total of 710 patients were enrolled in the study. The primary wire-guided biliary cannulation rate was similar in 0.025-inch and 0.035-inch wire groups (80.7% vs 80.3%; P = .90). The rate of PEP between the 0.025-inch and the 0.035-inch wire groups did not differ significantly (7.8% vs 9.3%; P = .51). No differences were noted in secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Similar rates of successful cannulation and PEP were demonstrated in the use of 0.025-inch and 0.035-inch guidewires. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01408264.).
METHODS: Key endoscopic features for scars with and without recurrence were (1) dark brown color, elongated/branched pit pattern, and dense capillary pattern and (2) whitish, pale appearance, round/slightly large pits, and irregular sparse vessels. Scars were first assessed with high-definition white-light endoscopy (HD-WLE) followed by interrogation with narrow-band imaging (NBI). Scars with at least 2 concordant characteristics were diagnosed with "high confidence" for NBI for scar (NBI-SCAR) classification. The final endoscopic predictions were correlated with histopathology. The primary outcome was the difference in sensitivity between NBI-SCAR and HD-WLE predictions. Secondary outcomes included the validation of our findings in 6 different endoscopy settings (Australia, United States, Japan, Brazil, Singapore, and Malaysia). The validation took place in 2 sessions separated by 2 to 3 weeks, each with 10 one-minute videos of post-ER scars on underwater NBI with dual focus. Inter-rater and intrarater reliability were calculated with Fleiss' free-marginal kappa and Bennett et al. S score (as discussed below in a similar case) S score, respectively.
RESULTS: One hundred scars from 82 patients were included. Ninety-five scars were accurately predicted with high confidence by NBI-SCAR in the exploratory phase. NBI-SCAR sensitivity was significantly higher compared with HD-WLE (100% vs 73.7%, P < .05). In the validation phase, similar results were found for endoscopists who routinely perform colonoscopies and use NBI (sensitivity of 96.4%). The inter-rater and intrarater reliability throughout all centers were, respectively, substantial (κ = .61) and moderate (average S = .52) for this subset.
CONCLUSIONS: NBI-SCAR has a high sensitivity and negative predictive value for excluding recurrence for endoscopists experienced in colonoscopy and NBI. In this setting, this approach may help to accurately evaluate or resect scars and potentially mitigate the burden of unnecessary biopsy samples.