BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality. Colonoscopy is the diagnostic gold standard, although its performance in symptomatic patients is limited. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the AEG-SEED societies proposed a clinical prioritization system. The aim of this study was to validate its diagnostic performance in detecting clinically relevant lesions (CRLs), including CRC, and to compare it with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). PATIENTS AND METHODS:A national multicenter retrospective study was conducted in 12 Spanish hospitals. A total of 1078 adult patients with digestive symptoms attended between April and December 2020 were included. Colonoscopies were prospectively classified according to priority levels (P1, P2, P3). RESULTS:CRLs were identified in 18% of patients, including 36 cases of CRC (3%). The diagnostic yield was highest in P1 (PPV 27%, AUC 0.57 for CRLs; PPV 7%, AUC 0.64 for CRC), and decreased in P2 and P3. FIT was performed in 26% of patients based on the referring physician's clinical judgment, showing higher sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) for CRC (100%) and a higher AUC (0.69) compared to clinical criteria. CONCLUSIONS:The AEG-SEED clinical criteria offer moderate value for prioritizing colonoscopies in the absence of FIT. However, FIT demonstrates superior diagnostic performance and should be systematically incorporated. The combination of symptoms improves accuracy compared to isolated symptoms.

Introduction: The Colonoscopy Satisfaction and Safety Questionnaire based on Patient experi-ence (CSSQP) was recently developed and validated within a Bowel Cancer Screening Program. We aimed to identify factor related to patient experience through the CSSQP, including all indi-cations for colonoscopy. Indicators of satisfaction and perceived safety with colonoscopy were also assessed to compare the different centers.Methods: Multicenter study in nine Spanish hospitals. Consecutive patients who had undergone a colonoscopy completed the CSSQP adding a novel item on bowel preparation. Factors related to patient experiences and data from non-respondents were analyzed. Results: Of 2200 patients, 1753 filled out the questionnaire (response rate 79.7%, sample error 2%). Patients whose colonoscopy indication was a primary colorectal cancer screening (OR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.15-2.44, p = 0.007) or due to a +FIT (OR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.18-2.53) reported higher satisfaction than patients with gastrointestinal symptoms. In addition, college-educated patients (OR: 2.11, 95% CI: 1.25--3.56) were more likely to report better overall satisfaction than patients with lower education level. Significant differences were observed in the majority of the CSSQP items between centers. Safety incidents were reported by 35 (2%) patients, and 176 (10%) patients reported that they received insufficient information.Conclusion: The CSSQP identifies several significant factors on satisfaction and perceived safety in patients referred for colonoscopy for any reason. The CSSQP also allows comparison of patient-identified colonoscopy quality indicators between centers.(c) 2023 Elsevier Espan similar to a, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

Background and Study AimsOur aim was to determine the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on the diagnosis and prognosis of colorectal cancer (CRC).Patients and MethodsThis prospective cohort study included individuals diagnosed with CRC between March 13, 2019 and June 20, 2021 across 21 Spanish hospitals. Two time periods were compared: prepandemic (from March 13, 2019 to March 13, 2020) and pandemic (from March 14, 2020 to June 20, 2021, lockdown period and 1 year after lockdown).ResultsWe observed a 46.9% decrease in the number of CRC diagnoses (95% confidence interval (CI): 45.1%-48.7%) during the lockdown and 29.7% decrease (95% CI: 28.1%-31.4%) in the year after the lockdown. The proportion of patients diagnosed at stage I significantly decreased during the pandemic (21.7% vs. 19.0%; p = 0.025). Centers that applied universal preprocedure SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing experienced a higher reduction in the number of colonoscopies performed during the pandemic post-lockdown (34.0% reduction; 95% CI: 33.6%-34.4% vs. 13.7; 95% CI: 13.4%-13.9%) and in the number of CRCs diagnosed (34.1% reduction; 95% CI: 31.4%-36.8% vs. 26.7%; 95% CI: 24.6%-28.8%). Curative treatment was received by 87.5% of patients diagnosed with rectal cancer prepandemic and 80.7% of patients during the pandemic post-lockdown period (p = 0.002).ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic has led to a decrease in the number of diagnosed CRC cases and in the proportion of stage I CRC. The reduction in the number of colonoscopies and CRC diagnoses was higher in centers that applied universal SARS-CoV-2 PCR screening before colonoscopy. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected curative treatment of rectal cancers.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) is a novel technique for closing upper gastrointestinal (UGI) defects. Available literature includes single-center retrospective cohort studies with small sample sizes. Furthermore, evidence about factors associated with EVT failure is scarce. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of EVT for the resolution of UGI defects in a multicenter study and to investigate the factors associated with EVT failure and in-hospital mortality. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study in which consecutive EVT procedures for the treatment of UGI defects from 19 Spanish hospitals were recorded in the national registry between November 2018 and March 2022. RESULTS: We included 102 patients: 89 with anastomotic leaks and 13 with perforations. Closure of the defect was achieved in 84 cases (82%). A total of 6 patients (5.9%) had adverse events related to the EVT. The in-hospital mortality rate was 12.7%. A total of 6 patients (5.9%) died because of EVT failure and 1 case (0.9%) due to a fatal adverse event. Time from diagnosis of the defect to initiation of EVT was the only independent predictor for EVT failure (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–1.05, P = 0.005). EVT failure (OR 24.5, 95% CI 4.5–133, P = 0.001) and development of pneumonia after EVT (OR 246.97, 95% CI 11.15–5,472.58, P = 0.0001) were independent predictors of in-hospital mortality. DISCUSSION: EVT is safe and effective in cases of anastomotic leak and perforations of the upper digestive tract. The early use of EVT improves the efficacy of this technique.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:There are few scales with prospective validation for the assessment of the upper gastrointestinal mucosal cleanliness during an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). The aim of this study was to develop a valid and reproducible cleanliness scale for use during an EGD. METHODS:We developed a cleanliness scale (Barcelona scale) with a score (0-2 points) of five segments of the upper gastrointestinal tract with thorough cleaning techniques (esophagus, fundus, body, antrum, and duodenum). First, 125 photos (25 of each area) were assessed, and a score was assigned to each image by consensus among 7 experts endoscopists. Subsequently, 100 of the 125 images were selected and the inter- and intra-observer variability of 15 previously trained endoscopists was evaluated using the same images at two different times. RESULTS:In total, 1500 assessments were performed. In 1336/1500 observations (89%) there was agreement with the consensus score, with a mean kappa value of 0.83 (0.45-0.96). In the second evaluation, in 1330/1500 observations (89%) there was agreement with the consensus score, with a mean kappa value of 0.82 (0.45-0.93). The intra-observer variability was 0.89 (0.76-0.99). CONCLUSIONS:The Barcelona cleanliness scale is a valid measure and reproducible with minimal training. Its application in clinical practice is a significant step to standardize the quality of the EGD.

AbstractBackground and objectiveDifferent factors may influence colonoscopy performance measures. We aimed to analyze procedure‐ and endoscopist‐related factors associated with detection of colorectal lesions and whether these factors have a similar influence in the context of different colonoscopy indications: positive fecal immunochemical test (+FIT) and post‐polypectomy surveillance colonoscopies.MethodsThis multicenter cross‐sectional study included adults aged 40–80 years. Endoscopists (N = 96) who had performed ≥50 examinations were assessed for physician‐related factors. Adenoma detection rate (ADR), adenomas per colonoscopy rate (APCR), advanced ADR, serrated polyp detection (SDR), and serrated polyps per colonoscopy rate (SPPCR) were calculated.ResultsWe included 12,932 procedures, with 4810 carried out after a positive FIT and 1967 for surveillance. Of the 96 endoscopists evaluated, 43.8% were women, and the mean age was 41.9 years. The ADR, advanced ADR, and SDR were 39.7%, 17.7%, and 12.8%, respectively. Adenoma detection rate was higher in colonoscopies after a +FIT (50.3%) with a more than doubled advanced ADR compared to non‐FIT procedures (27.6% vs. 13.0%) and similar results in serrated lesions (14.7% vs. 13.5%). Among all the detection indicators analyzed, withdrawal time was the only factor independently related to improvement (p < 0.001). Regarding FIT‐positive and surveillance procedures, for both indications, withdrawal time was also the only factor associated with a higher detection of adenomas and serrated polyps (p < 0.001). Endoscopist‐related factors (i.e., weekly hours dedicated to endoscopy, annual colonoscopy volume and lifetime number of colonoscopies performed) had also impact on lesion detection (APCR, advanced ADR and SPPCR).ConclusionsWithdrawal time was the factor most commonly associated with improved detection of colonic lesions globally and in endoscopies for + FIT and post‐polypectomy surveillance. Physician‐related factors may help to address strategies to support training and service provision. Our results can be used for establishing future benchmarking and quality improvement in different colonoscopy indications.

ObjectivesWhen bowel preparation (BP) is inadequate, international guidelines recommend repeating the colonoscopy within 1 year to avoid missing clinically relevant lesions. We aimed to determine the rate of missed lesions in patients with inadequate BP through a very early repeat colonoscopy with adequate BP.MethodsPost hoc analysis was conducted using data collected from a prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial including patients with inadequate BP and then repeat colonoscopy. Inadequate BP was defined as the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score <2 points in any segment. We included patients with any indication for colonoscopy. The adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced ADR (AADR), and serrated polyp detection rate (SPDR) were calculated for index and repeat colonoscopies.ResultsOf the 651 patients with inadequate BP from the original trial, 413 (63.4%) achieved adequate BP on repeat colonoscopy. The median interval between index and repeat colonoscopies was 28 days. On repeat colonoscopy, the ADR was 45.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 40.5–50.1%), the AADR was 10.9% (95% CI 8.1–14.3%), and the SPDR was 14.3% (95% CI 10.9–17.7%). Cancer was discovered in four patients (1%; 95% CI 0.2–2.5%). A total of 60.2% of all advanced adenoma (AA) were discovered on repeat colonoscopy. A colon segment scored BBPS = 0 had most AA (66.1%) and all four cancers.ConclusionPatients with inadequate BP present a high rate of AAs on repeat colonoscopy. When a colonoscopy has a colon segment score BBPS = 0, we recommend repeating the colonoscopy as soon as possible.