Introduction

The optimal bowel preparation for small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) has not been standardized.

Aims & Methods

Compare the rate of complete examinations, quality of bowel preparation, diagnostic yield and tolerability, using three protocols for intestinal preparation for SBCE.
A prospective, multicentre, randomized clinical trial including consecutive patients submitted to SBCE was conducted. All patients were instructed to comply with a clear liquid diet and 12-hour fasting before the exam. After ingesting water and 100 mg of simethicone and swallowing the capsule, once it reached the small bowel, patients ingested a booster, randomized into one of three protocols: 1) 1 liter of polyethylene glycol (PEG), 2) 1 liter of PEG and ascorbic acid, 3) 1 liter of water. The patients’ bowel preparation was evaluated with SB-CLEAR. Each patient responded to a questionnaire about their tolerability.

Results

A total of 261 patients were included, 96 patients (36.8%) in protocol 1, 93 (35.6%) in protocol 2 and 72 (27.6%) in protocol 3. The rate of complete examinations, adequate bowel preparation and diagnostic yield were comparable among the groups (p=0.655, p=0.193 and p=0.589, respectively). The overall SB-CLEAR score was similar among the protocols (p=0.236). Although the preparation of the third tertile had a lower score using protocol 3 (protocol 1: 2.5±0.1 vs 2: 2.6±0.1 vs 3: 2.3±0.1, p=0.021), it did not compromise the mucosal visualization, maintaining a mean score above 2 and similar diagnostic yield among the protocols (p=0.850). The patients’ reported tolerability was higher in protocol 3 (protocol 1: 2.8±0.1 vs 2: 3.0±0.2 vs 3: 0.6±0.1, p<0.001).

Conclusion

Using 1 liter of water as a booster in SBCE was better tolerated and associated with comparable rates of complete examinations, adequate bowel preparation and diagnostic yield versus PEG with or without ascorbic acid.

Introduction

The prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) among gastroenterologists is estimated between 39 to 89%. Factors associated with MSDs among endoscopists include a high number of procedures (over 20/week), prolonged procedure times (over 16 hours/week), the age of the endoscopist (> 40 years vs ≤ 40 years), and female sex.
This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of MSD among French gastroenterologists and identify risk factors of MSD

Aims & Methods

A computerized, anonymized questionnaire was e-mailed to all members of French society of endoscopy (SFED) over a one-month period. Demographic data were collected, as well as the level of endoscopic activity performed, the quantity and volume of endoscopies performed per week, the presence of pain associated with the practice of endoscopy, and an assessment of stress.

Results

485 gastroenterologists responded to the questionnaires, the majority were male (55%), with a median age of 48 years (IQR 37–60), and 45.6% practiced endoscopy for more than 20 years. 74.3% of respondents worked full-time, mostly in private practice (47% in private practice, 13% in mixed public-private practice). Endoscopy was performed for a median of 15 hours per week (IQR 10–18.8), with 24 procedures per week (IQR 15–30).
76.3% of participants had already experienced joint and/or musculoskeletal pain related to work. Pain complaints mainly concerned the lower back (55%), shoulders (36% left, 37% right%), neck (50%), and wrists (30% both side). More than half of the participants (55.9%) reported that the pain persisted after procedures, with 17.8% experiencing nocturnal pain and about a quarter reporting pain lasting more than 3 months.
The impact of MSD on workload was evaluated. 5.1% of the gastroenterologists reported loss of efficiency, 3,8% adapted their job, 2.4% decreased their activity, and 2.1% had work stoppage. 35% declared to have management of their MSD (28.1% painkiller, 23.2% reeducation, 3.5% surgery). To reduce discomfort, 74.7% of respondents reported using an adjustable-height examination table, and half adjusted the height and distance of the screen.
In multivariate analysis, factors associated with MSD were, femal sexe (OR 1.85 (1.15-3.01) p = 0.012, number of endoscopy (OR 1.05 (1.01-1.11) p=0.03, activity > 20 years (OR 2.42 (0.89, 6.47) p=0.079.) The risk of MSD was higher after 16.5 hours of endoscopy/ week (Se 35%, Sp 83%).

Conclusion

Musculoskeletal pain among French gastroenterologists is common and concerning. Therefore, it is essential to develop preventive programs to support their health and ensure the quality and safety of care.

Introduction

Oesophageal food bolus impaction [OFBI] is a common presentation to emergency room [ER] and often requires endoscopic intervention. We aimed to describe the incidence of OFBI in Canterbury, New Zealand and examine factors predicting the need for endoscopic intervention and complications in the population-based cohort.

Aims & Methods

All ER presentations of OFBI in Canterbury between October 2018 and August 2023 were included. Population data for the Canterbury population was obtained from Statistics NZ. Ethnicity was defined according to hospital records based on patients’ self-identification. Endoscopic intervention was defined as the presence of bolus during the endoscopy requiring any endoscopic manoeuvre for clearance. Complications were defined as unsuccessful attempts requiring a repeat procedure or procedure-related injuries.

	Total (n = 187)
Age (years)	Mean 55 Median 54.9
Gender - Male (%) : Female (%)	113 (60.4) : 74 (39.6)
Ethnicity - European (%) : Non-European (%)	163 (87.2) : 24 (12.8)
Cause of oesophageal impaction (%)	EoE 42 (22.5) Stricture 43 (23)£ Other 15 (8)* Idiopathic/unknown 87 (46.5)¥
Food type (%)	Meat 141 (86.5) Non-meat 46 (24.5)
Spontaneous clearance of food bolus clinically, without endoscopy performed (inpatient or outpatient) (%)	42 (22.5)
Spontaneous clearance of food bolus diagnosed on endoscopy as an inpatient (%)	37 (19.8)
Inpatient endoscopic intervention required (%)	92 (49.2)
Total complications (%)	8 (4.3)

£ cause of impaction from Schatzi ring or benign esophageal stricture
* cause of impaction from severe reflux oesophagitis (Los Angeles Grade C or D), esophageal dysmotility, malignant stricture, or esophageal candidiasis
¥ no cause for impaction found; either no endoscopy performed as an inpatient or outpatient or no pathology found on endoscopy

Results

There were 187 ER presentations of OFBI between October 2018 and August 2023. Clinical characteristics of the population-based cohort are presented in Table 1.
The average annual incidence of ER presentations of OFBI in Canterbury region between 2019 – 2022 was 5.82 per 100,000 population (95% CI 3.96-7.68/100,000). The incidence of ER presentations of OFBI in Europeans and non-Europeans over the same period was 8 per 100,000 European population (95% CI 5.27-10.73/100,000) and 1.94 per 100,000 non-European population (95% CI 0.15-3.73/100,000).
A total of 92 cases (49%) required endoscopic intervention. Factors predicting the need for endoscopic intervention were meat bolus [p= 0.01], stricture [p<0.01], and early endoscopy performed <12hrs [p<0.01]. There were only 8 complications. Predictors with a trend associated with complications were after-hours presentation [p=0.06] and early endoscopy performed <6hrs [p=0.06].

Conclusion

Our population-based cohort showed a significantly higher incidence of ER presentations of OFBI in Europeans than in non-European ethnic groups. Factors predicting the need for endoscopic intervention were meat bolus, stricture and early endoscopy. After-hours presentation and early endoscopy <6hrs showed a trend towards a higher risk of complications. The results suggest that a delayed approach may be associated with a higher chance of spontaneous clearance and a lower risk of complications, although further study is needed.

Disclosure

Not applicable

Introduction

The risk of colorectal advanced adenomas (CAAs) and colorectal cancer (CRC) in siblings aged ≤ 50 years of patients diagnosed with early-onset CAAs (E-CAAs), defined as having CAA at or below the age of 50 years​, is poorly understood.

Aims & Methods

This study aimed to compare the risks of adenomas, CAA, and CRC in siblings aged ≤ 50 years of patients diagnosed with E-CAA to those in individuals aged ≤ 50 without such a family history.
This case-control study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Vietnam. The participants included 96 cases who were siblings aged ≤ 50 years of patients diagnosed with E-CAA. Controls were randomly selected from consecutive patients aged ≤ 50 years who did not have siblings diagnosed with E-CAA. The absence of a family history of CAA in the control group was confirmed through comprehensive history taking. ​The controls were matched to cases in a 2:1 ratio for age (±3 years), sex, and smoking status. Individuals with alarming features of CRC or a family history of CRC were excluded. All the participants underwent standard bowel preparation and colonoscopy.

Results

The mean age was similar between cases (40.9 ± 6.0 years) and controls (41.1 ± 6.0 years). Except for the indications for colonoscopy, there were no significant differences in the baseline demographics between the two groups. A higher risk of CAA was documented in cases compared with controls (odds ratio [OR] = 6.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43–43.8; P = 0.018). This increased risk of CAA was more pronounced among male participants (OR = 13.7; 95% CI, 1.23–262; P = 0.006). Higher risks of colorectal adenomas (OR = 2.43; 95% CI, 1.27–4.67; P = 0.009) and colorectal neoplasia (OR = 2.23; 95% CI, 1.24–4.40; P = 0.011) were also found in cases compared with controls. CRC was found in one case and two controls.

Conclusion

Siblings aged ≤ 50 years of patients diagnosed with E-CAA have an increased risk of adenomas, CAA, and colorectal neoplasia. CRC screening should be initiated early in high-risk individuals.

Table 1. Risk of Colorectal Neoplasia among Siblings of Patients Diagnosed with Advanced Adenomas (n = 288)

Colorectal neoplasiaa	Cases (n = 96)	Matched controls (n = 192)	P valueb	OR (95% CI)
All colorectal neoplasia	24 (25.0)	24 (12.5)	0.011	2.23 (1.24 – 4.40)
Adenomas	23 (24.0)	22 (11.5)	0.009	2.43 (1.27 – 4.67)
Multiple adenomasc	5 (5.2)	0	0.004	-
Advanced adenomad	6 (6.3)	2 (1.0)	0.018	6.33 (1.43 – 43.8)
Adenomas ≥ 10 mm	6 (6.3)	2 (1)	0.018	6.33 (1.43 – 43.8)
Tubulovillous or villous	0	1 (0.5)	1	-
High-grade dysplasia	0	1 (0.5)	1	-
Colorectal cancer	1 (1.0)	2 (1.0)	1	1.00 (0.05 - 10.6)
Advanced colorectal neoplasiae	7 (7.3)	4 (2.1)	0.046	3.70 (1.09 – 14.4)

^aData are presented as No. (%).
^bFisher's exact test.
^cMultiple adenomas: ≥ 3 adenomas.
^dAdvanced adenoma: Adenomas ≥1 cm, adenomas with villous elements ≥ 25% or high-grade dysplasia.
^eAdvanced colorectal neoplasia: Advanced adenoma or colorectal cancer.
Bold values: P < 0.05.

References

Ng SC, Lau JY, Chan FK, et al. Risk of Advanced Adenomas in Siblings of Individuals With Advanced Adenomas: A Cross-Sectional Study. Gastroenterology. 2016;150(3):608-e17.
Cottet V, Pariente A, Nalet B, et al. Colonoscopic screening of first-degree relatives of patients with large adenomas: increased risk of colorectal tumors. Gastroenterology. 2007;133(4):1086-1092.