No abstract

INTRODUCTION: Delayed bleeding (DB) is the most common major complication of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Two randomized clinical trials recently demonstrated that clip closure after EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) reduces the risk of DB. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of this prophylactic measure. METHODS: EMRs of LNCPCPs were consecutively registered in the ongoing prospective multicenter database of the Spanish EMR Group from May 2013 until July 2017. Patients were classified according to the Spanish Endoscopy Society EMR group (GSEED-RE2) DB risk score. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for both Spanish and US economic contexts. The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) thresholds were set at 54,000 € or $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. RESULTS: We registered 2,263 EMRs in 2,130 patients. Applying their respective DB relative risk reductions after clip closure (51% and 59%), the DB rate decreased from 4.5% to 2.2% in the total cohort and from 13.7% to 5.7% in the high risk of the DB GSEED-RE2 subgroup. The ICERs for the universal clipping strategy in Spain and the United States, 469,706 € and $1,258,641, respectively, were not cost effective. By contrast, selective clipping in the high-risk of DB GSEED-RE2 subgroup was cost saving, with a negative ICER of −2,194 € in the Spanish context and cost effective with an ICER of $87,796 in the United States. DISCUSSION: Clip closure after EMR of large colorectal lesions is cost effective in patients with a high risk of bleeding. The GSEED-RE2 DB risk score may be a useful tool to identify that high-risk population. JOURNAL/ajgast/04.03/00000434-202102000-00022/inline-graphic1/v/2023-07-18T070738Z/r/image-tiff

Introduction: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become the treatment of choice for early gastric malignancies. In recent years, the ESD technique has been implemented in Western countries with increasing use. Objectives:To describe the results of gastric ESD in a Western country with a low incidence of gastric cancer. Patients and Methods:The prospective national registry was conducted over 4 years in 23 hospitals, including 30 endoscopists. Epithelial and subepithelial lesions (SEL) qualified to complete removal with ESD were assessed. The technique, instruments, and solution for submucosal injection varied at the endoscopist's discretion. ESD was defined as difficult when: en-bloc resection was not achieved, had to be converted to a hybrid resection, lasted more than 2 h or an intraprocedural perforation occurred. Additionally, independent risk factors for difficult ESD were analyzed.Results: Two hundred and thirty gastric ESD in 225 patients were performed from January 2016 to December 2019 (196 epithelial and 34 SEL). Most lesions were located in the lower stomach (111; 48.3%). One hundred and twenty-eight (55.6%) ESD were considered difficult. The median procedure time was 105 min (interquartile range [IQR]: 60-150). The procedure time for SEL was shorter than for epithelial lesions (90 min [45-121] vs. 110 min [62-160]; p = 0.038). En-bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were 91.3%, 75.2%, and 70.9%, respectively. Difficult ESD had lower R0 resection rates than ESD that did not meet the difficulty criteria (64.8% and 87.6%; p = 0.000, respectively). Fibrosis and poor maneuverability wereThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 has become an unprecedented global health and societal problem. The rapid spreading of this pandemic, together with the absence of effective treatments or vaccines, has led governments around the world to take drastic actions, including limiting the free movement of citizens, establishing maximum capacities and enforcing social distancing measures, among others. Consequently, major medical congresses, meetings, conferences, and workshops have been either cancelled or delayed. This situation has forced rapid changes in how the medical and scientific communities interact, and they now mainly meet using online technology. While political leaders have closed the borders of their countries as a logical public health measure, we have witnessed medical societies, clinicians, and scientists breaking other barriers and creating a new reality of global technological collaboration unlike anything seen before. An immense variety of webinars, online conferences, podcasts, courses, and many other forms of uploaded content can be seen from the comfort of one's own workplace or home at any time, and this has exponentially increased our reach; however, this great number of possibilities can be overwhelming, and it is more important than ever to separate wheat from chaff when deciding what online event to attend. The purpose of this article is to describe the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on congresses and meetings, to examine how GI physicians feel about the emerging trend of online initiatives and to offer suggestions on how to balance web-based meetings and daily work.

No abstract