Background and study aims With newer imaging modalities, indications for use of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) have changed in the last decade. Despite advances in ERCP, paucity in recent literature regarding utilization and outcomes of ERCP exists. Thus, the aim of this study was to assess the inpatient use of ERCP, outcomes, and most common indications. Patients and methods Retrospective-cohort study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2007–2016. All patients with ICD9–10CM procedural codes for ERCP were included. The primary outcome was the use of ERCP. Secondary outcomes included determining procedural specifics (stenting, sphincterotomy and dilation), complications (post-ERCP pancreatitis [PEP], bile duct perforation), hospital length of stay, total hospital costs and charges. Multivariate regression analysis was used to adjust for confounders. Results A total of 1,606,850 patients underwent inpatient ERCP. The mean age was 59 years (60 % female). The total number of ERCPs increased over the last decade. Patients undergoing ERCP in 2016 had greater odds of undergoing bile duct stent placement, pancreatic duct (PD) stenting, biliary dilation, pancreatic sphincterotomy, PEP and biliary perforation. Inpatient mortality decreased. Hospital charges increased, while length of stay (LOS) decreased. Conclusions The number of ERCPs increased in the past decade. Odds of therapeutic interventions and complications increased. The most common principal diagnoses were choledocholithiasis and gallstone-related AP. Hence, physicians must be aware to promptly diagnose and treat complications. These findings may reflect the increased case complexity and fact that ERCP continues to evolve into an increasingly interventional tool, contrasting from its former role as a predominantly diagnostic and gallstone extraction tool.

Background and study aims There is a consensus among gastroenterology organizations that elective endoscopic procedures should be deferred during the COVID-19 pandemic. While the decision to perform urgent procedures and to defer entirely elective procedures is mostly evident, there is a wide “middle ground” of time-sensitive but not technically urgent or emergent endoscopic interventions. We aimed to survey gastroenterologists worldwide using Twitter to help elucidate these definitions using commonly encountered clinical scenarios during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A 16-question survey was designed by the authors to include common clinical scenarios that do not have clear guidelines regarding the timing or urgency of endoscopic evaluation. This survey was posted on Twitter. The survey remained open to polling for 48 hours. During this time, multiple gastroenterologists and fellows with prominent social media presence were tagged to disseminate the survey. Results The initial tweet had 38,795 impressions with a total of 2855 engagements. There was significant variation in responses from gastroenterologists regarding timing of endoscopy in these semi-urgent scenarios. There were only three of 16 scenarios for which more than 70 % of gastroenterologists agreed on procedure-timing. For example, significant variation was noted in regard to timing of upper endoscopy in patients with melena, with 44.5 % of respondents believing that everyone with melena should undergo endoscopic evaluation at this time. Similarly, about 35 % of respondents thought that endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography should only be performed in patients with choledocholithiasis with abdominal pain or jaundice. Conclusion Our analysis shows that there is currently lack of consensus among gastroenterologists in regards to timing of semi-urgent or non-life-threatening procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic. These results support the need for the ongoing development of societal guidance for these “semi-urgent” scenarios to help gastroenterologists in making difficult triage decisions.

Hepatitis B is a serious public health problem all around the world. It is a blood-borne and sexually transmitted DNA virus in adults, but mother to child transmission of hepatitis B virus also occurs in infants born to hepatitis B surface antigen positive mothers.

No abstract

Background and aimsWith expanding available treatment options and evolving understanding of the risks and benefits of medical therapies for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), there is the possibility of significant variations in treatment and outcomes. Little is known about the variation in treatment between IBD specialists and other gastroenterology (GI) physicians. Evaluating possible variations is an important first step to help address standardized care and optimize treatment. We studied the differences in use of biologics and immunomodulators in the management of IBD patients at a tertiary care hospital between IBD-trained physicians and other gastroenterologists.MethodsA total of 325 IBD patients were included in the analysis. Of these, 216 patients received care with an IBD physician and 109 had other GI/non-IBD physicians as their main caregivers.ResultsThe unadjusted use of immunomodulators (35.6% vs 16.5%, p = 0.001), biologics (45.8% vs 22.9%, p =0.001) and dual therapy (biologics and immunomodulator) (14.4% vs 3.7%, p =0.001) was significantly higher in the IBD-physician group. These differences in therapy between the two groups remained after adjusting for patient and disease characteristics.ConclusionThere are significant variations in the treatment of patients with IBD by GI physicians. The use of biologics and immunomodulators is higher in GI physicians with dedicated IBD interest and training.