Endoscopy

Like diners saving on drinks, endoscopists can safely forgo sterile water in favor of tap, reducing both environmental and financial costs, according to a recent narrative review.

“No direct evidence supports the recommendation and widespread use of sterile water during gastrointestinal endosco-py procedures,” lead author Deepak Agrawal, MD, chief of gastroenterology & hepatology at the Dell Medical School, University Texas at Austin, and colleagues, wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “Guidelines recommending sterile water during endoscopy are based on limited evidence and mostly expert opinions.”

After reviewing the literature back to 1975, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues considered the use of sterile water in endoscopy via three frameworks: medical evidence and guidelines, environmental and broader health effects, and financial costs.

Only 2 studies – both from the 1990s – directly compared sterile and tap water use in endoscopy. Neither showed an increased risk of infection from tap water. In fact, some cultures from allegedly sterile water bottles grew pathogenic bacteria, while no patient complications were reported in either study.

“The recommendations for sterile water contradict observations in other medical care scenarios, for example, for the irrigation of open wounds,” Dr. Agrawal and colleagues noted. “Similarly, there is no benefit in using sterile water for enteral feeds in immunosuppressed patients, and tap water enemas are routinely acceptable for colon cleansing before sigmoidoscopies in all patients, irrespective of immune status.”

Current guidelines, including the 2021 US multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes and accessories, recommend sterile water for procedures involving mucosal penetration but acknowledge low-quality supporting evidence. These recommendations are based on outdated studies, some unrelated to GI endoscopy, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues pointed out, and rely heavily on cross-referenced opinion statements rather than clinical data.

They went on to suggest a concerning possibility: all those plastic bottles may actually cause more health problems than prevent them. The review estimates that the production and transportation of sterile water bottles contributes over 6,000 metric tons of emissions per year from US endoscopy units alone. What’s more, as discarded bottles break down, they release greenhouse gases and microplastics, the latter of which have been linked to cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and endocrine disruption.

Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also underscored the financial toxicity of sterile water bottles. Considering a 1-liter bottle of sterile water costs $3-10, an endoscopy unit performing 30 procedures per day spends approximately $1,000-3,000 per month on bottled water alone. Scaled nationally, the routine use of sterile water costs tens of millions of dollars each year, not counting indirect expenses associated with stocking and waste disposal.

Considering the dubious clinical upside against the apparent environmental and financial downsides, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues urged endoscopy units to rethink routine sterile water use. 

They proposed a pragmatic model: start the day with a new sterile or reusable bottle, refill with tap water for subsequent cases, and recycle the bottle at day’s end. Institutions should ensure their tap water meets safety standards, they added, such as those outlined in the Joint Commission’s 2022 R3 Report on standards for water management.

Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also called on GI societies to revise existing guidance to reflect today’s clinical and environmental realities. Until strong evidence supports the need for sterile water, they wrote, the smarter, safer, and more sustainable option may be simply turning on the tap.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Guardant, Exact Sciences, Freenome, and others.
 

Like diners saving on drinks, endoscopists can safely forgo sterile water in favor of tap, reducing both environmental and financial costs, according to a recent narrative review.

“No direct evidence supports the recommendation and widespread use of sterile water during gastrointestinal endosco-py procedures,” lead author Deepak Agrawal, MD, chief of gastroenterology & hepatology at the Dell Medical School, University Texas at Austin, and colleagues, wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “Guidelines recommending sterile water during endoscopy are based on limited evidence and mostly expert opinions.”

After reviewing the literature back to 1975, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues considered the use of sterile water in endoscopy via three frameworks: medical evidence and guidelines, environmental and broader health effects, and financial costs.

Only 2 studies – both from the 1990s – directly compared sterile and tap water use in endoscopy. Neither showed an increased risk of infection from tap water. In fact, some cultures from allegedly sterile water bottles grew pathogenic bacteria, while no patient complications were reported in either study.

“The recommendations for sterile water contradict observations in other medical care scenarios, for example, for the irrigation of open wounds,” Dr. Agrawal and colleagues noted. “Similarly, there is no benefit in using sterile water for enteral feeds in immunosuppressed patients, and tap water enemas are routinely acceptable for colon cleansing before sigmoidoscopies in all patients, irrespective of immune status.”

Current guidelines, including the 2021 US multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes and accessories, recommend sterile water for procedures involving mucosal penetration but acknowledge low-quality supporting evidence. These recommendations are based on outdated studies, some unrelated to GI endoscopy, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues pointed out, and rely heavily on cross-referenced opinion statements rather than clinical data.

They went on to suggest a concerning possibility: all those plastic bottles may actually cause more health problems than prevent them. The review estimates that the production and transportation of sterile water bottles contributes over 6,000 metric tons of emissions per year from US endoscopy units alone. What’s more, as discarded bottles break down, they release greenhouse gases and microplastics, the latter of which have been linked to cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and endocrine disruption.

Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also underscored the financial toxicity of sterile water bottles. Considering a 1-liter bottle of sterile water costs $3-10, an endoscopy unit performing 30 procedures per day spends approximately $1,000-3,000 per month on bottled water alone. Scaled nationally, the routine use of sterile water costs tens of millions of dollars each year, not counting indirect expenses associated with stocking and waste disposal.

Considering the dubious clinical upside against the apparent environmental and financial downsides, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues urged endoscopy units to rethink routine sterile water use. 

They proposed a pragmatic model: start the day with a new sterile or reusable bottle, refill with tap water for subsequent cases, and recycle the bottle at day’s end. Institutions should ensure their tap water meets safety standards, they added, such as those outlined in the Joint Commission’s 2022 R3 Report on standards for water management.

Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also called on GI societies to revise existing guidance to reflect today’s clinical and environmental realities. Until strong evidence supports the need for sterile water, they wrote, the smarter, safer, and more sustainable option may be simply turning on the tap.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Guardant, Exact Sciences, Freenome, and others.
 

Like diners saving on drinks, endoscopists can safely forgo sterile water in favor of tap, reducing both environmental and financial costs, according to a recent narrative review.

“No direct evidence supports the recommendation and widespread use of sterile water during gastrointestinal endosco-py procedures,” lead author Deepak Agrawal, MD, chief of gastroenterology & hepatology at the Dell Medical School, University Texas at Austin, and colleagues, wrote in Gastro Hep Advances. “Guidelines recommending sterile water during endoscopy are based on limited evidence and mostly expert opinions.”

After reviewing the literature back to 1975, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues considered the use of sterile water in endoscopy via three frameworks: medical evidence and guidelines, environmental and broader health effects, and financial costs.

Only 2 studies – both from the 1990s – directly compared sterile and tap water use in endoscopy. Neither showed an increased risk of infection from tap water. In fact, some cultures from allegedly sterile water bottles grew pathogenic bacteria, while no patient complications were reported in either study.

“The recommendations for sterile water contradict observations in other medical care scenarios, for example, for the irrigation of open wounds,” Dr. Agrawal and colleagues noted. “Similarly, there is no benefit in using sterile water for enteral feeds in immunosuppressed patients, and tap water enemas are routinely acceptable for colon cleansing before sigmoidoscopies in all patients, irrespective of immune status.”

Current guidelines, including the 2021 US multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes and accessories, recommend sterile water for procedures involving mucosal penetration but acknowledge low-quality supporting evidence. These recommendations are based on outdated studies, some unrelated to GI endoscopy, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues pointed out, and rely heavily on cross-referenced opinion statements rather than clinical data.

They went on to suggest a concerning possibility: all those plastic bottles may actually cause more health problems than prevent them. The review estimates that the production and transportation of sterile water bottles contributes over 6,000 metric tons of emissions per year from US endoscopy units alone. What’s more, as discarded bottles break down, they release greenhouse gases and microplastics, the latter of which have been linked to cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, and endocrine disruption.

Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also underscored the financial toxicity of sterile water bottles. Considering a 1-liter bottle of sterile water costs $3-10, an endoscopy unit performing 30 procedures per day spends approximately $1,000-3,000 per month on bottled water alone. Scaled nationally, the routine use of sterile water costs tens of millions of dollars each year, not counting indirect expenses associated with stocking and waste disposal.

Considering the dubious clinical upside against the apparent environmental and financial downsides, Dr. Agrawal and colleagues urged endoscopy units to rethink routine sterile water use. 

They proposed a pragmatic model: start the day with a new sterile or reusable bottle, refill with tap water for subsequent cases, and recycle the bottle at day’s end. Institutions should ensure their tap water meets safety standards, they added, such as those outlined in the Joint Commission’s 2022 R3 Report on standards for water management.

Dr. Agrawal and colleagues also called on GI societies to revise existing guidance to reflect today’s clinical and environmental realities. Until strong evidence supports the need for sterile water, they wrote, the smarter, safer, and more sustainable option may be simply turning on the tap.

The investigators disclosed relationships with Guardant, Exact Sciences, Freenome, and others.
 

Private equity (PE) acquisition of gastroenterology (GI) practices led to higher colonoscopy prices, utilization, and spending with no commensurate effect on quality, an economic analysis found. Price increases ranged from about 5% to about 7%.

In view of the growing trend to such acquisitions, policy makers should monitor the impact of PE investment in medical practices, according to researchers led by health economist Daniel R. Arnold, PhD, of the Department of Health Services, Policy & Practice in the School of Public Health at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. “In a previous study of ours, gastroenterology stood out as a particularly attractive specialty to private equity,” Arnold told GI & Hepatology News.

Published in JAMA Health Forum, the economic evaluation of more than 1.1 million patients and 1.3 million colonoscopies concluded that PE acquisitions of GI sites are difficult to justify.

 

The Study

This difference-in-differences event study and economic evaluation analyzed data from US GI practices acquired by PE firms from 2015 to 2021. Commercial insurance claims covering more than 50 million enrollees were used to calculate price, spending, utilization, and quality measures from 2012 to 2021, with all data analyzed from April to September 2024.

The main outcomes were price, spending per physician, number of colonoscopies per physician, number of unique patients per physician, and quality, as defined by polyp detection, incomplete colonoscopies, and four adverse event measures: cardiovascular, serious and nonserious GI events, and any other adverse events.

The mean age of patients was 47.1 years, and 47.8% were men. The sample included 718, 851 colonoscopies conducted by 1494 physicians in 590, 900 patients across 1240 PE-acquired practice sites and 637, 990 control colonoscopies conducted by 2550 physicians in 527,380 patients across 2657 independent practice sites.

Among the findings:

• Colonoscopy prices at PE-acquired sites increased by 4.5% (95% CI, 2.5-6.6; P < .001) vs independent practices. That increase was much lower than that reported by Singh and colleagues for  .
• The estimated price increase was 6.7% (95% CI, 4.2-9.3; P < .001) when only colonoscopies at PE practices with market shares above the 75th percentile (24.4%) in 2021 were considered. Both increases were in line with other research, Arnold said.
• Colonoscopy spending per physician increased by 16.0% (95% CI, 8.4%-24.0%; P < .001), while the number of colonoscopies and the number of unique patients per physician increased by 12.1% (95% CI, 5.3-19.4; P < .001) and 11.3% (95% CI, 4.4%-18.5%; P < .001), respectively. These measures, however, were already increasing before PE acquisition.
• No statistically significant associations were detected for the six quality measures analyzed.

Could such cost-raising acquisitions potentially be blocked by concerned regulators? 

“No. Generally the purchases are at prices below what would require notification to federal authorities,” Arnold said. “The Department of Justice/Federal Trade Commission hinted at being willing to look at serial acquisitions in their 2023 Merger Guidelines, but until that happens, these will likely continue to fly under the radar.”

Still, as evidence of PE-associated poorer quality outcomes as well as clinician burnout continues to emerge, Arnold added, “I would advise physicians who get buyout offers from PE to educate themselves on what could happen to patients and staff if they choose to sell.”

Offering an outsider’s perspective on the study, health economist Atul Gupta, PhD, an assistant professor of healthcare management in the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, called it an “excellent addition to the developing literature examining the effects of private equity ownership of healthcare providers.” Very few studies have examined the effects on prices and quality for the same set of deals and providers. “This is important because we want to be able to do an apples-to-apples comparison of the effects on both outcomes before judging PE ownership,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

In an accompanying editorial , primary care physician Jane M. Zhu, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Oregon, and not involved in the commercial-insurance-based study, said one interpretation of the findings may be that PE acquisition focuses on reducing inefficiencies, improving access by expanding practice capacity, and increasing throughput. “Another interpretation may be that PE acquisition is focused on the strategic exploitation of market and pricing power. The latter may have less of an impact on clinical measures like quality of care, but potentially, both strategies could be at play.” 

Since this analysis focused on the commercial population, understanding how patient demographics may change after PE acquisition is a future avenue for exploration. “For instance, a potential explanation for both the price and utilization shifts might be if payer mix shifted toward more commercially insured patients at the expense of Medicaid or Medicare patients,” she wrote.

Zhu added that the impact of PE on prices and spending, by now replicated across different settings and specialties, is far clearer than the effect of PE on access and quality. “The analysis by Arnold et al is a welcome addition to the literature, generating important questions for future study and transparent monitoring as investor-owners become increasingly influential in healthcare.”

Going forward, said Gupta, an open question is whether the harmful effects of PE ownership of practices are differentially worse than those of other corporate entities such as insurers and hospital systems.

“There are reasons to believe that PE could be worse in theory. For example, their short-term investment horizon may force them to take measures that others will not as well as avoid investing into capital improvements that have a long-run payoff,” he said. “Their uniquely high dependence on debt and unbundling of real estate can severely hurt financial solvency of providers.” But high-quality evidence is lacking to compare the effects from these two distinct forms of corporatization.

The trend away from individual private practice is a reality, Arnold said. “The administrative burden on solo docs is becoming too much and physicians just seem to want to treat patients and not deal with it. So the options at this point really become selling to a hospital system or private equity.”

This study was funded by a grant from the philanthropic foundation Arnold Ventures (no family relation to Daniel Arnold). 

Arnold reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures during the conduct of the study. Gupta had no competing interests to declare. Zhu reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the submitted work and from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, and American Psychological Association, as well as personal fees from Cambia outside the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Private equity (PE) acquisition of gastroenterology (GI) practices led to higher colonoscopy prices, utilization, and spending with no commensurate effect on quality, an economic analysis found. Price increases ranged from about 5% to about 7%.

In view of the growing trend to such acquisitions, policy makers should monitor the impact of PE investment in medical practices, according to researchers led by health economist Daniel R. Arnold, PhD, of the Department of Health Services, Policy & Practice in the School of Public Health at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. “In a previous study of ours, gastroenterology stood out as a particularly attractive specialty to private equity,” Arnold told GI & Hepatology News.

Published in JAMA Health Forum, the economic evaluation of more than 1.1 million patients and 1.3 million colonoscopies concluded that PE acquisitions of GI sites are difficult to justify.

 

The Study

This difference-in-differences event study and economic evaluation analyzed data from US GI practices acquired by PE firms from 2015 to 2021. Commercial insurance claims covering more than 50 million enrollees were used to calculate price, spending, utilization, and quality measures from 2012 to 2021, with all data analyzed from April to September 2024.

The main outcomes were price, spending per physician, number of colonoscopies per physician, number of unique patients per physician, and quality, as defined by polyp detection, incomplete colonoscopies, and four adverse event measures: cardiovascular, serious and nonserious GI events, and any other adverse events.

The mean age of patients was 47.1 years, and 47.8% were men. The sample included 718, 851 colonoscopies conducted by 1494 physicians in 590, 900 patients across 1240 PE-acquired practice sites and 637, 990 control colonoscopies conducted by 2550 physicians in 527,380 patients across 2657 independent practice sites.

Among the findings:

• Colonoscopy prices at PE-acquired sites increased by 4.5% (95% CI, 2.5-6.6; P < .001) vs independent practices. That increase was much lower than that reported by Singh and colleagues for  .
• The estimated price increase was 6.7% (95% CI, 4.2-9.3; P < .001) when only colonoscopies at PE practices with market shares above the 75th percentile (24.4%) in 2021 were considered. Both increases were in line with other research, Arnold said.
• Colonoscopy spending per physician increased by 16.0% (95% CI, 8.4%-24.0%; P < .001), while the number of colonoscopies and the number of unique patients per physician increased by 12.1% (95% CI, 5.3-19.4; P < .001) and 11.3% (95% CI, 4.4%-18.5%; P < .001), respectively. These measures, however, were already increasing before PE acquisition.
• No statistically significant associations were detected for the six quality measures analyzed.

Could such cost-raising acquisitions potentially be blocked by concerned regulators? 

“No. Generally the purchases are at prices below what would require notification to federal authorities,” Arnold said. “The Department of Justice/Federal Trade Commission hinted at being willing to look at serial acquisitions in their 2023 Merger Guidelines, but until that happens, these will likely continue to fly under the radar.”

Still, as evidence of PE-associated poorer quality outcomes as well as clinician burnout continues to emerge, Arnold added, “I would advise physicians who get buyout offers from PE to educate themselves on what could happen to patients and staff if they choose to sell.”

Offering an outsider’s perspective on the study, health economist Atul Gupta, PhD, an assistant professor of healthcare management in the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, called it an “excellent addition to the developing literature examining the effects of private equity ownership of healthcare providers.” Very few studies have examined the effects on prices and quality for the same set of deals and providers. “This is important because we want to be able to do an apples-to-apples comparison of the effects on both outcomes before judging PE ownership,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

In an accompanying editorial , primary care physician Jane M. Zhu, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Oregon, and not involved in the commercial-insurance-based study, said one interpretation of the findings may be that PE acquisition focuses on reducing inefficiencies, improving access by expanding practice capacity, and increasing throughput. “Another interpretation may be that PE acquisition is focused on the strategic exploitation of market and pricing power. The latter may have less of an impact on clinical measures like quality of care, but potentially, both strategies could be at play.” 

Since this analysis focused on the commercial population, understanding how patient demographics may change after PE acquisition is a future avenue for exploration. “For instance, a potential explanation for both the price and utilization shifts might be if payer mix shifted toward more commercially insured patients at the expense of Medicaid or Medicare patients,” she wrote.

Zhu added that the impact of PE on prices and spending, by now replicated across different settings and specialties, is far clearer than the effect of PE on access and quality. “The analysis by Arnold et al is a welcome addition to the literature, generating important questions for future study and transparent monitoring as investor-owners become increasingly influential in healthcare.”

Going forward, said Gupta, an open question is whether the harmful effects of PE ownership of practices are differentially worse than those of other corporate entities such as insurers and hospital systems.

“There are reasons to believe that PE could be worse in theory. For example, their short-term investment horizon may force them to take measures that others will not as well as avoid investing into capital improvements that have a long-run payoff,” he said. “Their uniquely high dependence on debt and unbundling of real estate can severely hurt financial solvency of providers.” But high-quality evidence is lacking to compare the effects from these two distinct forms of corporatization.

The trend away from individual private practice is a reality, Arnold said. “The administrative burden on solo docs is becoming too much and physicians just seem to want to treat patients and not deal with it. So the options at this point really become selling to a hospital system or private equity.”

This study was funded by a grant from the philanthropic foundation Arnold Ventures (no family relation to Daniel Arnold). 

Arnold reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures during the conduct of the study. Gupta had no competing interests to declare. Zhu reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the submitted work and from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, and American Psychological Association, as well as personal fees from Cambia outside the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Private equity (PE) acquisition of gastroenterology (GI) practices led to higher colonoscopy prices, utilization, and spending with no commensurate effect on quality, an economic analysis found. Price increases ranged from about 5% to about 7%.

In view of the growing trend to such acquisitions, policy makers should monitor the impact of PE investment in medical practices, according to researchers led by health economist Daniel R. Arnold, PhD, of the Department of Health Services, Policy & Practice in the School of Public Health at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. “In a previous study of ours, gastroenterology stood out as a particularly attractive specialty to private equity,” Arnold told GI & Hepatology News.

Published in JAMA Health Forum, the economic evaluation of more than 1.1 million patients and 1.3 million colonoscopies concluded that PE acquisitions of GI sites are difficult to justify.

 

The Study

This difference-in-differences event study and economic evaluation analyzed data from US GI practices acquired by PE firms from 2015 to 2021. Commercial insurance claims covering more than 50 million enrollees were used to calculate price, spending, utilization, and quality measures from 2012 to 2021, with all data analyzed from April to September 2024.

The main outcomes were price, spending per physician, number of colonoscopies per physician, number of unique patients per physician, and quality, as defined by polyp detection, incomplete colonoscopies, and four adverse event measures: cardiovascular, serious and nonserious GI events, and any other adverse events.

The mean age of patients was 47.1 years, and 47.8% were men. The sample included 718, 851 colonoscopies conducted by 1494 physicians in 590, 900 patients across 1240 PE-acquired practice sites and 637, 990 control colonoscopies conducted by 2550 physicians in 527,380 patients across 2657 independent practice sites.

Among the findings:

• Colonoscopy prices at PE-acquired sites increased by 4.5% (95% CI, 2.5-6.6; P < .001) vs independent practices. That increase was much lower than that reported by Singh and colleagues for  .
• The estimated price increase was 6.7% (95% CI, 4.2-9.3; P < .001) when only colonoscopies at PE practices with market shares above the 75th percentile (24.4%) in 2021 were considered. Both increases were in line with other research, Arnold said.
• Colonoscopy spending per physician increased by 16.0% (95% CI, 8.4%-24.0%; P < .001), while the number of colonoscopies and the number of unique patients per physician increased by 12.1% (95% CI, 5.3-19.4; P < .001) and 11.3% (95% CI, 4.4%-18.5%; P < .001), respectively. These measures, however, were already increasing before PE acquisition.
• No statistically significant associations were detected for the six quality measures analyzed.

Could such cost-raising acquisitions potentially be blocked by concerned regulators? 

“No. Generally the purchases are at prices below what would require notification to federal authorities,” Arnold said. “The Department of Justice/Federal Trade Commission hinted at being willing to look at serial acquisitions in their 2023 Merger Guidelines, but until that happens, these will likely continue to fly under the radar.”

Still, as evidence of PE-associated poorer quality outcomes as well as clinician burnout continues to emerge, Arnold added, “I would advise physicians who get buyout offers from PE to educate themselves on what could happen to patients and staff if they choose to sell.”

Offering an outsider’s perspective on the study, health economist Atul Gupta, PhD, an assistant professor of healthcare management in the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, called it an “excellent addition to the developing literature examining the effects of private equity ownership of healthcare providers.” Very few studies have examined the effects on prices and quality for the same set of deals and providers. “This is important because we want to be able to do an apples-to-apples comparison of the effects on both outcomes before judging PE ownership,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

In an accompanying editorial , primary care physician Jane M. Zhu, MD, an associate professor of medicine at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Oregon, and not involved in the commercial-insurance-based study, said one interpretation of the findings may be that PE acquisition focuses on reducing inefficiencies, improving access by expanding practice capacity, and increasing throughput. “Another interpretation may be that PE acquisition is focused on the strategic exploitation of market and pricing power. The latter may have less of an impact on clinical measures like quality of care, but potentially, both strategies could be at play.” 

Since this analysis focused on the commercial population, understanding how patient demographics may change after PE acquisition is a future avenue for exploration. “For instance, a potential explanation for both the price and utilization shifts might be if payer mix shifted toward more commercially insured patients at the expense of Medicaid or Medicare patients,” she wrote.

Zhu added that the impact of PE on prices and spending, by now replicated across different settings and specialties, is far clearer than the effect of PE on access and quality. “The analysis by Arnold et al is a welcome addition to the literature, generating important questions for future study and transparent monitoring as investor-owners become increasingly influential in healthcare.”

Going forward, said Gupta, an open question is whether the harmful effects of PE ownership of practices are differentially worse than those of other corporate entities such as insurers and hospital systems.

“There are reasons to believe that PE could be worse in theory. For example, their short-term investment horizon may force them to take measures that others will not as well as avoid investing into capital improvements that have a long-run payoff,” he said. “Their uniquely high dependence on debt and unbundling of real estate can severely hurt financial solvency of providers.” But high-quality evidence is lacking to compare the effects from these two distinct forms of corporatization.

The trend away from individual private practice is a reality, Arnold said. “The administrative burden on solo docs is becoming too much and physicians just seem to want to treat patients and not deal with it. So the options at this point really become selling to a hospital system or private equity.”

This study was funded by a grant from the philanthropic foundation Arnold Ventures (no family relation to Daniel Arnold). 

Arnold reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures during the conduct of the study. Gupta had no competing interests to declare. Zhu reported receiving grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality during the submitted work and from the National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, and American Psychological Association, as well as personal fees from Cambia outside the submitted work.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Capsule sponge-based surveillance could be used in lieu of endoscopy for low-risk Barrett’s esophagus (BE) surveillance, a prospective multisite UK study found. The biomarker risk panel collected by the panesophageal Cytosponge-on-a-string in more than 900 UK patients helped identify those at highest risk for dysplasia or cancer and needing endoscopy. It was found safe for following low-risk patients who did not need endoscopy. 

Endoscopic surveillance is the clinical standard for BE, but its effectiveness is inconsistent, wrote Rebecca C. Fitzgerald, MD, AGAF, professor in the Early Cancer Institute at the University of Cambridge in Cambridge, England, and colleagues in The Lancet. 

“It is often performed by nonspecialists, and recent trials show that around 10% of cases of dysplasia and cancer are missed, which means some patients re-present within a year of their surveillance procedure with a symptomatic cancer that should have been diagnosed earlier,” Fitzgerald told GI & Hepatology News.

Moreover, repeated endoscopy monitoring is stressful. “A simple nonendoscopic capsule sponge test done nearer to home is less scary and could be less operator-dependent. By reducing the burden of endoscopy in patients at very low risk we can focus more on the patients at higher risk,” she said.

In 2022, her research group had reported that the capsule sponge test, coupled with a centralized lab test for p53 and atypia, can risk-stratify patients into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups. “In the current study, we wanted to check this risk stratification capsule sponge test in the real world. Our main aim was to see if we could conform the 2022 results with the hypothesis that the low-risk patients — more than 50% of patients in surveillance — would have a risk of high-grade dysplasia or cancer that was sufficiently low — that is, less than from 3% — and could therefore have follow-up with the capsule sponge without requiring endoscopy.”

The investigators hypothesized that the 15% at high risk would have a significant chance of dysplasia warranting endoscopy in a specialist center.

“Our results showed that in the low-risk group the risk of high-grade dysplasia or cancer was 0.4%, suggesting these patients could be offered follow-up with the capsule sponge test,” Fitzgerald said.

The high-risk group with a double biomarker positive (p53 and atypia) had an 85% risk for dysplasia or cancer. “We call this a tier 1 or ultra-high risk, and this suggests these cases merit a specialist endoscopy in a center that could treat the dysplasia/cancer,” she said.

 

Study Details

Adult participants (n = 910) were recruited from August 2020 to December 2024 in two multicenter, prospective, pragmatic implementation studies from 13 hospitals. Patients with nondysplastic BE on last endoscopy had a capsule sponge test.

Patient risk was assigned as low (clinical and capsule sponge biomarkers negative), moderate (negative for capsule sponge biomarkers, positive clinical biomarkers: age, sex, and segment length), or high risk (p53 abnormality, glandular atypia regardless of clinical biomarkers, or both). The primary outcome was a diagnosis of high-grade dysplasia or cancer necessitating treatment, according to the risk group.

In the cohort, 138 (15%) were classified as having high risk, 283 (31%) had moderate risk, and 489 (54%) had low risk.

The positive predictive value for any dysplasia or worse in the high-risk group was 37.7% (95% CI, 29.7-46.4). Patients with both atypia and aberrant p53 had the highest risk for high-grade dysplasia or cancer with a relative risk of 135.8 (95% CI, 32.7-564.0) vs the low-risk group. 

The prevalence of high-grade dysplasia or cancer in the low-risk group was, as mentioned, just 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1-1.6), while the negative predictive value for any dysplasia or cancer was 97.8% (95% CI, 95.9-98.8). Applying a machine learning algorithm reduced the proportion needing p53 pathology review to 32% without missing any positive cases.

Offering a US perspective on the study, Nicholas J. Shaheen, MD, MPH, AGAF, professor of medicine and director of the NC Translational & Clinical Sciences Institute at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, called the findings “very provocative.”

“We have known for some time that nonendoscopic techniques could be used to screen for Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal cancer, allowing us to screen larger groups of patients in a more cost-effective manner compared to traditional upper endoscopy,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “This study suggests that, in addition to case-finding for Barrett’s [esophagus], a nonendoscopic sponge-based technique can also help us stratify risk, finding cases that either already harbor cancer or are at high risk to do so.”

Shaheen said these cases deserve immediate attention since they are most likely to benefit from timely endoscopic intervention. “The study also suggests that a nonendoscopic result could someday be used to decide subsequent follow-up, with low-risk patients undergoing further nonendoscopic surveillance, while higher-risk patients would move on to endoscopy. Such a paradigm could unburden our endoscopy units from low-risk patients unlikely to benefit from endoscopy as well as increase the numbers of patients who are able to be screened.”

Fitzgerald added, “The GI community is realizing that we need a better approach to managing patients with Barrett’s [esophagus]. In the UK this evidence is being considered by our guideline committee, and it would influence the upcoming guidelines in 2025 with a requirement to continue to audit the results. Outside of the UK we hope this will pave the way for nonendoscopic approaches to Barrett’s [esophagus] surveillance.”

One ongoing goal is to optimize the biomarkers, Fitzgerald said. “For patients with longer segments we would like to add additional genomic biomarkers to refine the risk predictions,” she said. “We need a more operator-independent, consistent method for monitoring Barrett’s [esophagus]. This large real-world study is highly encouraging for a more personalized and patient-friendly approach to Barrett’s [esophagus] surveillance.”

This study was funded by Innovate UK, Cancer Research UK, National Health Service England Cancer Alliance. Cytosponge technology is licensed by the Medical Research Council to Medtronic. Fitzgerald declared holding patents related to this test. Fitzgerald reported being a shareholder in Cyted Health. 

Shaheen reported receiving research funding from Lucid Diagnostics and Cyted Health, both of which are manufacturers of nonendoscopic screening devices for BE.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Capsule sponge-based surveillance could be used in lieu of endoscopy for low-risk Barrett’s esophagus (BE) surveillance, a prospective multisite UK study found. The biomarker risk panel collected by the panesophageal Cytosponge-on-a-string in more than 900 UK patients helped identify those at highest risk for dysplasia or cancer and needing endoscopy. It was found safe for following low-risk patients who did not need endoscopy. 

Endoscopic surveillance is the clinical standard for BE, but its effectiveness is inconsistent, wrote Rebecca C. Fitzgerald, MD, AGAF, professor in the Early Cancer Institute at the University of Cambridge in Cambridge, England, and colleagues in The Lancet. 

“It is often performed by nonspecialists, and recent trials show that around 10% of cases of dysplasia and cancer are missed, which means some patients re-present within a year of their surveillance procedure with a symptomatic cancer that should have been diagnosed earlier,” Fitzgerald told GI & Hepatology News.

Moreover, repeated endoscopy monitoring is stressful. “A simple nonendoscopic capsule sponge test done nearer to home is less scary and could be less operator-dependent. By reducing the burden of endoscopy in patients at very low risk we can focus more on the patients at higher risk,” she said.

In 2022, her research group had reported that the capsule sponge test, coupled with a centralized lab test for p53 and atypia, can risk-stratify patients into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups. “In the current study, we wanted to check this risk stratification capsule sponge test in the real world. Our main aim was to see if we could conform the 2022 results with the hypothesis that the low-risk patients — more than 50% of patients in surveillance — would have a risk of high-grade dysplasia or cancer that was sufficiently low — that is, less than from 3% — and could therefore have follow-up with the capsule sponge without requiring endoscopy.”

The investigators hypothesized that the 15% at high risk would have a significant chance of dysplasia warranting endoscopy in a specialist center.

“Our results showed that in the low-risk group the risk of high-grade dysplasia or cancer was 0.4%, suggesting these patients could be offered follow-up with the capsule sponge test,” Fitzgerald said.

The high-risk group with a double biomarker positive (p53 and atypia) had an 85% risk for dysplasia or cancer. “We call this a tier 1 or ultra-high risk, and this suggests these cases merit a specialist endoscopy in a center that could treat the dysplasia/cancer,” she said.

 

Study Details

Adult participants (n = 910) were recruited from August 2020 to December 2024 in two multicenter, prospective, pragmatic implementation studies from 13 hospitals. Patients with nondysplastic BE on last endoscopy had a capsule sponge test.

Patient risk was assigned as low (clinical and capsule sponge biomarkers negative), moderate (negative for capsule sponge biomarkers, positive clinical biomarkers: age, sex, and segment length), or high risk (p53 abnormality, glandular atypia regardless of clinical biomarkers, or both). The primary outcome was a diagnosis of high-grade dysplasia or cancer necessitating treatment, according to the risk group.

In the cohort, 138 (15%) were classified as having high risk, 283 (31%) had moderate risk, and 489 (54%) had low risk.

The positive predictive value for any dysplasia or worse in the high-risk group was 37.7% (95% CI, 29.7-46.4). Patients with both atypia and aberrant p53 had the highest risk for high-grade dysplasia or cancer with a relative risk of 135.8 (95% CI, 32.7-564.0) vs the low-risk group. 

The prevalence of high-grade dysplasia or cancer in the low-risk group was, as mentioned, just 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1-1.6), while the negative predictive value for any dysplasia or cancer was 97.8% (95% CI, 95.9-98.8). Applying a machine learning algorithm reduced the proportion needing p53 pathology review to 32% without missing any positive cases.

Offering a US perspective on the study, Nicholas J. Shaheen, MD, MPH, AGAF, professor of medicine and director of the NC Translational & Clinical Sciences Institute at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, called the findings “very provocative.”

“We have known for some time that nonendoscopic techniques could be used to screen for Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal cancer, allowing us to screen larger groups of patients in a more cost-effective manner compared to traditional upper endoscopy,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “This study suggests that, in addition to case-finding for Barrett’s [esophagus], a nonendoscopic sponge-based technique can also help us stratify risk, finding cases that either already harbor cancer or are at high risk to do so.”

Shaheen said these cases deserve immediate attention since they are most likely to benefit from timely endoscopic intervention. “The study also suggests that a nonendoscopic result could someday be used to decide subsequent follow-up, with low-risk patients undergoing further nonendoscopic surveillance, while higher-risk patients would move on to endoscopy. Such a paradigm could unburden our endoscopy units from low-risk patients unlikely to benefit from endoscopy as well as increase the numbers of patients who are able to be screened.”

Fitzgerald added, “The GI community is realizing that we need a better approach to managing patients with Barrett’s [esophagus]. In the UK this evidence is being considered by our guideline committee, and it would influence the upcoming guidelines in 2025 with a requirement to continue to audit the results. Outside of the UK we hope this will pave the way for nonendoscopic approaches to Barrett’s [esophagus] surveillance.”

One ongoing goal is to optimize the biomarkers, Fitzgerald said. “For patients with longer segments we would like to add additional genomic biomarkers to refine the risk predictions,” she said. “We need a more operator-independent, consistent method for monitoring Barrett’s [esophagus]. This large real-world study is highly encouraging for a more personalized and patient-friendly approach to Barrett’s [esophagus] surveillance.”

This study was funded by Innovate UK, Cancer Research UK, National Health Service England Cancer Alliance. Cytosponge technology is licensed by the Medical Research Council to Medtronic. Fitzgerald declared holding patents related to this test. Fitzgerald reported being a shareholder in Cyted Health. 

Shaheen reported receiving research funding from Lucid Diagnostics and Cyted Health, both of which are manufacturers of nonendoscopic screening devices for BE.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Capsule sponge-based surveillance could be used in lieu of endoscopy for low-risk Barrett’s esophagus (BE) surveillance, a prospective multisite UK study found. The biomarker risk panel collected by the panesophageal Cytosponge-on-a-string in more than 900 UK patients helped identify those at highest risk for dysplasia or cancer and needing endoscopy. It was found safe for following low-risk patients who did not need endoscopy. 

Endoscopic surveillance is the clinical standard for BE, but its effectiveness is inconsistent, wrote Rebecca C. Fitzgerald, MD, AGAF, professor in the Early Cancer Institute at the University of Cambridge in Cambridge, England, and colleagues in The Lancet. 

“It is often performed by nonspecialists, and recent trials show that around 10% of cases of dysplasia and cancer are missed, which means some patients re-present within a year of their surveillance procedure with a symptomatic cancer that should have been diagnosed earlier,” Fitzgerald told GI & Hepatology News.

Moreover, repeated endoscopy monitoring is stressful. “A simple nonendoscopic capsule sponge test done nearer to home is less scary and could be less operator-dependent. By reducing the burden of endoscopy in patients at very low risk we can focus more on the patients at higher risk,” she said.

In 2022, her research group had reported that the capsule sponge test, coupled with a centralized lab test for p53 and atypia, can risk-stratify patients into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups. “In the current study, we wanted to check this risk stratification capsule sponge test in the real world. Our main aim was to see if we could conform the 2022 results with the hypothesis that the low-risk patients — more than 50% of patients in surveillance — would have a risk of high-grade dysplasia or cancer that was sufficiently low — that is, less than from 3% — and could therefore have follow-up with the capsule sponge without requiring endoscopy.”

The investigators hypothesized that the 15% at high risk would have a significant chance of dysplasia warranting endoscopy in a specialist center.

“Our results showed that in the low-risk group the risk of high-grade dysplasia or cancer was 0.4%, suggesting these patients could be offered follow-up with the capsule sponge test,” Fitzgerald said.

The high-risk group with a double biomarker positive (p53 and atypia) had an 85% risk for dysplasia or cancer. “We call this a tier 1 or ultra-high risk, and this suggests these cases merit a specialist endoscopy in a center that could treat the dysplasia/cancer,” she said.

 

Study Details

Adult participants (n = 910) were recruited from August 2020 to December 2024 in two multicenter, prospective, pragmatic implementation studies from 13 hospitals. Patients with nondysplastic BE on last endoscopy had a capsule sponge test.

Patient risk was assigned as low (clinical and capsule sponge biomarkers negative), moderate (negative for capsule sponge biomarkers, positive clinical biomarkers: age, sex, and segment length), or high risk (p53 abnormality, glandular atypia regardless of clinical biomarkers, or both). The primary outcome was a diagnosis of high-grade dysplasia or cancer necessitating treatment, according to the risk group.

In the cohort, 138 (15%) were classified as having high risk, 283 (31%) had moderate risk, and 489 (54%) had low risk.

The positive predictive value for any dysplasia or worse in the high-risk group was 37.7% (95% CI, 29.7-46.4). Patients with both atypia and aberrant p53 had the highest risk for high-grade dysplasia or cancer with a relative risk of 135.8 (95% CI, 32.7-564.0) vs the low-risk group. 

The prevalence of high-grade dysplasia or cancer in the low-risk group was, as mentioned, just 0.4% (95% CI, 0.1-1.6), while the negative predictive value for any dysplasia or cancer was 97.8% (95% CI, 95.9-98.8). Applying a machine learning algorithm reduced the proportion needing p53 pathology review to 32% without missing any positive cases.

Offering a US perspective on the study, Nicholas J. Shaheen, MD, MPH, AGAF, professor of medicine and director of the NC Translational & Clinical Sciences Institute at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill, called the findings “very provocative.”

“We have known for some time that nonendoscopic techniques could be used to screen for Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal cancer, allowing us to screen larger groups of patients in a more cost-effective manner compared to traditional upper endoscopy,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “This study suggests that, in addition to case-finding for Barrett’s [esophagus], a nonendoscopic sponge-based technique can also help us stratify risk, finding cases that either already harbor cancer or are at high risk to do so.”

Shaheen said these cases deserve immediate attention since they are most likely to benefit from timely endoscopic intervention. “The study also suggests that a nonendoscopic result could someday be used to decide subsequent follow-up, with low-risk patients undergoing further nonendoscopic surveillance, while higher-risk patients would move on to endoscopy. Such a paradigm could unburden our endoscopy units from low-risk patients unlikely to benefit from endoscopy as well as increase the numbers of patients who are able to be screened.”

Fitzgerald added, “The GI community is realizing that we need a better approach to managing patients with Barrett’s [esophagus]. In the UK this evidence is being considered by our guideline committee, and it would influence the upcoming guidelines in 2025 with a requirement to continue to audit the results. Outside of the UK we hope this will pave the way for nonendoscopic approaches to Barrett’s [esophagus] surveillance.”

One ongoing goal is to optimize the biomarkers, Fitzgerald said. “For patients with longer segments we would like to add additional genomic biomarkers to refine the risk predictions,” she said. “We need a more operator-independent, consistent method for monitoring Barrett’s [esophagus]. This large real-world study is highly encouraging for a more personalized and patient-friendly approach to Barrett’s [esophagus] surveillance.”

This study was funded by Innovate UK, Cancer Research UK, National Health Service England Cancer Alliance. Cytosponge technology is licensed by the Medical Research Council to Medtronic. Fitzgerald declared holding patents related to this test. Fitzgerald reported being a shareholder in Cyted Health. 

Shaheen reported receiving research funding from Lucid Diagnostics and Cyted Health, both of which are manufacturers of nonendoscopic screening devices for BE.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Low rates of retained gastric contents were seen in endoscopy patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists ( RAs), a retrospective multicenter cross-sectional analysis reported in The American Journal of Gastroenterology. Moreover, most instances occurred in patients using the drugs for type 2 diabetes (T2D) rather than for weight loss alone.

The findings suggest adopting an individualized approach rather than universal preoperative withholding of GLP-1 RAs before endoscopy, concluded Jennifer Phan, MD, medical director of the Hoag Advanced Endoscopy Center in Newport Beach, California, and colleagues. These agents are associated with slowed gastric emptying, possibly raising the risk for pulmonary aspiration. The study identified comorbid uncontrolled T2D as a risk factor for retained gastric contents.

Recommendations from gastroenterological societies and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) differ regarding pre-endoscopic holding of these ubiquitous agents used for obesity and T2D. “Many patients undergo routine endoscopic procedures, and there was concern from the anesthesia safety perspective for retained gastric contents,” Phan told GI & Hepatology News. “At first these events were seen in a handful of cases; however, out of precaution this resulted in a statement from the ASA recommending that patients hold their GLP-1 medications for at least 1 week prior to a routine endoscopic procedure.”

That guidance resulted in protocol changes within endoscopy units, cancelled procedures, and potential delays in patient care. “We wanted to study whether this concern was clinically valid and to help identify which subgroup of patients are at highest risk in order to best inform anesthesia and endoscopy practices,” Phan added.

The ASA updated its guidance in 2023.

The current study aligns with other research showing that rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents are < 10%, Phan said. For instance, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) published a rapid clinical practice update in November 2023 that found insufficient evidence to support patients stopping the medications before endoscopic procedures. AGA guidance suggests an individual approach for each patient on a GLP-1 RA rather than a blanket statement on how to manage all patients taking the medications.

“Our initial hypothesis was that the rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents in patients on GLP-1 RA medications would be low,” Phan noted. “This was born out of anecdotal experience of the limited number of aborted procedures we experienced before the ASA statement.” 

Her group also hypothesized that the indication for which the GLP-1 RA was prescribed would be important, with patients taking GLP-1 RA medications for diabetes potentially having a higher likelihood of retained contents given the concomitant propensity for delayed gastric motility related to uncontrolled hyperglycemia.

 

The Study

The investigators identified 815 patients on confirmed GLP-1 RA medications of various types receiving endoscopy from 2021 to 2023 at four centers. Demographics, prescribing practices, and procedure outcomes were captured. GLP-1 RA management of preoperative holding was retroactively classified per ASA guidance.

Of the 815 patients (mean age, 67.7 years; 57.7% women; 53.9% White individuals), 70 (8.7%) exhibited retained gastric contents on endoscopy. Of these 65 (93%) had T2D with a median A1c of 6.5%. Among those with retained contents, most had a minimal (10, 14.3%) or moderate (31, 44.3%) amount of food retained, although 29 (41.4%) had a large quantity. Only one patient required unplanned intubation because of a large quantity of residual content, and none had aspiration events.

In multivariate analysis, the odds ratio of retention in those with diabetes was 4.1. “Given the predominance of diabetes in those with retained gastric contents, we highlight the potential to risk-stratify patients who require further preprocedural consideration,” the authors wrote.

Those with GLP-1 RA held per ASA guidance (406, 49.8%) were less likely to have retained contents (4.4% vs 12.7%; P < .001), but no significant differences for intubation (0% vs 2%; P = .53) or aborting procedure rates (28% vs 18%; P = .40) due to gastric retention were observed.

On multivariable analysis, the likelihood of food retention increased by 36% (95% CI, 1.15-1.60) for every 1% increase in glycosylated hemoglobin after adjusting for GLP-1 RA type and preoperative medication hold.

“Our study can help to differentiate which patients can be at largest risk for retained gastric contents,” Phan said, noting the impact of increasing percentages of A1C. “There’s a 36% increased likelihood of food retention in patients on GLP-1 medications, so a blanket policy to hold GLP-1s in patients who are nondiabetic and taking the medication for obesity may not be the best approach. But if patients have uncontrolled hyperglycemia, then an approach of caution is clinically valid.” In that context, holding the GLP-1 RA injection or lengthening the preoperative clear-liquid diet policy should be considered.

She noted that the study results are generalizable because the study was conducted across multiple types of hospital systems, both university and county, and included all types of GLP-1 RA.

Offering an anesthesiologist’s perspective on the study, Paul Potnuru, MD, an assistant professor in the Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine at UTHealth Houston and not involved in the study, called the findings “somewhat reassuring” but said the risk for aspiration was still a consideration.

A recent review, however, reported that the risk for GLP-1 RA-associated pulmonary aspiration was low.

Potnuru acknowledged that the original ASA guidance on preoperative GLP-1 RA cessation led to some confusion. “There were not a lot of data on the issue, but some studies found that even with stopping GLP-1s 2 weeks preoperatively some patients still retained gastric content,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

A study at his center recently reported that 56% of GLP-1 RA users had increased pre-anesthesia residual gastric content compared with 19% of nonusers.

From the anesthesiologist’s clinical vantage point, the margin of safety is an issue even if aspiration risk is low. “If there’s a 1 in 1000 chance or even a 1 in 3000 chance, that can be considered too high,” Potnuru said.

He further noted that the current study included only 815 patients, not nearly enough for definitive data. In addition, a retrospective study based on medical records can’t really capture all the real-world procedural changes made in the operating room. “It’s common for anesthesiologists not to document all cases of intubation, for example,” he said.

While the ideal is a completely empty stomach, he agreed that a practical alternative to stopping GLP-1 RA therapy, especially that prescribed for diabetes, would be a 24-hour liquid diet, which would clear the stomach quickly. “If you stop these drugs in patients taking them for diabetes, you get a worsening of their glycemic control,” he said.

He noted that patients have different risk tolerances, with some willing to go ahead even if ultrasound shows gastric retention, while some opt to cancel.

Prospective studies are needed, Potnuru added, “because you find more if you know what you’re looking for.” His center is starting a clinical trial in 150 patients to assess the impact of a 24-hour, liquids-only diet on gastric retention.

According to Phan, other research is following GLP-1 RA users undergoing colonoscopy. “Future studies can look at the added value of point-of-care abdominal ultrasound to see if it increases precision preoperative management in these patients on GLP-1 medications.”

Other groups are examining the safety of these agents in the general context of sedation. “It’s worth noting that the studies are being done on currently available medications and may not apply to future medications such as triple agonists or anti-amylins that may come on the market in the near future,” Phan said.

This study received no financial support. Neither the study authors nor Potnuru had any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Low rates of retained gastric contents were seen in endoscopy patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists ( RAs), a retrospective multicenter cross-sectional analysis reported in The American Journal of Gastroenterology. Moreover, most instances occurred in patients using the drugs for type 2 diabetes (T2D) rather than for weight loss alone.

The findings suggest adopting an individualized approach rather than universal preoperative withholding of GLP-1 RAs before endoscopy, concluded Jennifer Phan, MD, medical director of the Hoag Advanced Endoscopy Center in Newport Beach, California, and colleagues. These agents are associated with slowed gastric emptying, possibly raising the risk for pulmonary aspiration. The study identified comorbid uncontrolled T2D as a risk factor for retained gastric contents.

Recommendations from gastroenterological societies and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) differ regarding pre-endoscopic holding of these ubiquitous agents used for obesity and T2D. “Many patients undergo routine endoscopic procedures, and there was concern from the anesthesia safety perspective for retained gastric contents,” Phan told GI & Hepatology News. “At first these events were seen in a handful of cases; however, out of precaution this resulted in a statement from the ASA recommending that patients hold their GLP-1 medications for at least 1 week prior to a routine endoscopic procedure.”

That guidance resulted in protocol changes within endoscopy units, cancelled procedures, and potential delays in patient care. “We wanted to study whether this concern was clinically valid and to help identify which subgroup of patients are at highest risk in order to best inform anesthesia and endoscopy practices,” Phan added.

The ASA updated its guidance in 2023.

The current study aligns with other research showing that rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents are < 10%, Phan said. For instance, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) published a rapid clinical practice update in November 2023 that found insufficient evidence to support patients stopping the medications before endoscopic procedures. AGA guidance suggests an individual approach for each patient on a GLP-1 RA rather than a blanket statement on how to manage all patients taking the medications.

“Our initial hypothesis was that the rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents in patients on GLP-1 RA medications would be low,” Phan noted. “This was born out of anecdotal experience of the limited number of aborted procedures we experienced before the ASA statement.” 

Her group also hypothesized that the indication for which the GLP-1 RA was prescribed would be important, with patients taking GLP-1 RA medications for diabetes potentially having a higher likelihood of retained contents given the concomitant propensity for delayed gastric motility related to uncontrolled hyperglycemia.

 

The Study

The investigators identified 815 patients on confirmed GLP-1 RA medications of various types receiving endoscopy from 2021 to 2023 at four centers. Demographics, prescribing practices, and procedure outcomes were captured. GLP-1 RA management of preoperative holding was retroactively classified per ASA guidance.

Of the 815 patients (mean age, 67.7 years; 57.7% women; 53.9% White individuals), 70 (8.7%) exhibited retained gastric contents on endoscopy. Of these 65 (93%) had T2D with a median A1c of 6.5%. Among those with retained contents, most had a minimal (10, 14.3%) or moderate (31, 44.3%) amount of food retained, although 29 (41.4%) had a large quantity. Only one patient required unplanned intubation because of a large quantity of residual content, and none had aspiration events.

In multivariate analysis, the odds ratio of retention in those with diabetes was 4.1. “Given the predominance of diabetes in those with retained gastric contents, we highlight the potential to risk-stratify patients who require further preprocedural consideration,” the authors wrote.

Those with GLP-1 RA held per ASA guidance (406, 49.8%) were less likely to have retained contents (4.4% vs 12.7%; P < .001), but no significant differences for intubation (0% vs 2%; P = .53) or aborting procedure rates (28% vs 18%; P = .40) due to gastric retention were observed.

On multivariable analysis, the likelihood of food retention increased by 36% (95% CI, 1.15-1.60) for every 1% increase in glycosylated hemoglobin after adjusting for GLP-1 RA type and preoperative medication hold.

“Our study can help to differentiate which patients can be at largest risk for retained gastric contents,” Phan said, noting the impact of increasing percentages of A1C. “There’s a 36% increased likelihood of food retention in patients on GLP-1 medications, so a blanket policy to hold GLP-1s in patients who are nondiabetic and taking the medication for obesity may not be the best approach. But if patients have uncontrolled hyperglycemia, then an approach of caution is clinically valid.” In that context, holding the GLP-1 RA injection or lengthening the preoperative clear-liquid diet policy should be considered.

She noted that the study results are generalizable because the study was conducted across multiple types of hospital systems, both university and county, and included all types of GLP-1 RA.

Offering an anesthesiologist’s perspective on the study, Paul Potnuru, MD, an assistant professor in the Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine at UTHealth Houston and not involved in the study, called the findings “somewhat reassuring” but said the risk for aspiration was still a consideration.

A recent review, however, reported that the risk for GLP-1 RA-associated pulmonary aspiration was low.

Potnuru acknowledged that the original ASA guidance on preoperative GLP-1 RA cessation led to some confusion. “There were not a lot of data on the issue, but some studies found that even with stopping GLP-1s 2 weeks preoperatively some patients still retained gastric content,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

A study at his center recently reported that 56% of GLP-1 RA users had increased pre-anesthesia residual gastric content compared with 19% of nonusers.

From the anesthesiologist’s clinical vantage point, the margin of safety is an issue even if aspiration risk is low. “If there’s a 1 in 1000 chance or even a 1 in 3000 chance, that can be considered too high,” Potnuru said.

He further noted that the current study included only 815 patients, not nearly enough for definitive data. In addition, a retrospective study based on medical records can’t really capture all the real-world procedural changes made in the operating room. “It’s common for anesthesiologists not to document all cases of intubation, for example,” he said.

While the ideal is a completely empty stomach, he agreed that a practical alternative to stopping GLP-1 RA therapy, especially that prescribed for diabetes, would be a 24-hour liquid diet, which would clear the stomach quickly. “If you stop these drugs in patients taking them for diabetes, you get a worsening of their glycemic control,” he said.

He noted that patients have different risk tolerances, with some willing to go ahead even if ultrasound shows gastric retention, while some opt to cancel.

Prospective studies are needed, Potnuru added, “because you find more if you know what you’re looking for.” His center is starting a clinical trial in 150 patients to assess the impact of a 24-hour, liquids-only diet on gastric retention.

According to Phan, other research is following GLP-1 RA users undergoing colonoscopy. “Future studies can look at the added value of point-of-care abdominal ultrasound to see if it increases precision preoperative management in these patients on GLP-1 medications.”

Other groups are examining the safety of these agents in the general context of sedation. “It’s worth noting that the studies are being done on currently available medications and may not apply to future medications such as triple agonists or anti-amylins that may come on the market in the near future,” Phan said.

This study received no financial support. Neither the study authors nor Potnuru had any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Low rates of retained gastric contents were seen in endoscopy patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists ( RAs), a retrospective multicenter cross-sectional analysis reported in The American Journal of Gastroenterology. Moreover, most instances occurred in patients using the drugs for type 2 diabetes (T2D) rather than for weight loss alone.

The findings suggest adopting an individualized approach rather than universal preoperative withholding of GLP-1 RAs before endoscopy, concluded Jennifer Phan, MD, medical director of the Hoag Advanced Endoscopy Center in Newport Beach, California, and colleagues. These agents are associated with slowed gastric emptying, possibly raising the risk for pulmonary aspiration. The study identified comorbid uncontrolled T2D as a risk factor for retained gastric contents.

Recommendations from gastroenterological societies and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) differ regarding pre-endoscopic holding of these ubiquitous agents used for obesity and T2D. “Many patients undergo routine endoscopic procedures, and there was concern from the anesthesia safety perspective for retained gastric contents,” Phan told GI & Hepatology News. “At first these events were seen in a handful of cases; however, out of precaution this resulted in a statement from the ASA recommending that patients hold their GLP-1 medications for at least 1 week prior to a routine endoscopic procedure.”

That guidance resulted in protocol changes within endoscopy units, cancelled procedures, and potential delays in patient care. “We wanted to study whether this concern was clinically valid and to help identify which subgroup of patients are at highest risk in order to best inform anesthesia and endoscopy practices,” Phan added.

The ASA updated its guidance in 2023.

The current study aligns with other research showing that rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents are < 10%, Phan said. For instance, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) published a rapid clinical practice update in November 2023 that found insufficient evidence to support patients stopping the medications before endoscopic procedures. AGA guidance suggests an individual approach for each patient on a GLP-1 RA rather than a blanket statement on how to manage all patients taking the medications.

“Our initial hypothesis was that the rates of clinically relevant retained gastric contents in patients on GLP-1 RA medications would be low,” Phan noted. “This was born out of anecdotal experience of the limited number of aborted procedures we experienced before the ASA statement.” 

Her group also hypothesized that the indication for which the GLP-1 RA was prescribed would be important, with patients taking GLP-1 RA medications for diabetes potentially having a higher likelihood of retained contents given the concomitant propensity for delayed gastric motility related to uncontrolled hyperglycemia.

 

The Study

The investigators identified 815 patients on confirmed GLP-1 RA medications of various types receiving endoscopy from 2021 to 2023 at four centers. Demographics, prescribing practices, and procedure outcomes were captured. GLP-1 RA management of preoperative holding was retroactively classified per ASA guidance.

Of the 815 patients (mean age, 67.7 years; 57.7% women; 53.9% White individuals), 70 (8.7%) exhibited retained gastric contents on endoscopy. Of these 65 (93%) had T2D with a median A1c of 6.5%. Among those with retained contents, most had a minimal (10, 14.3%) or moderate (31, 44.3%) amount of food retained, although 29 (41.4%) had a large quantity. Only one patient required unplanned intubation because of a large quantity of residual content, and none had aspiration events.

In multivariate analysis, the odds ratio of retention in those with diabetes was 4.1. “Given the predominance of diabetes in those with retained gastric contents, we highlight the potential to risk-stratify patients who require further preprocedural consideration,” the authors wrote.

Those with GLP-1 RA held per ASA guidance (406, 49.8%) were less likely to have retained contents (4.4% vs 12.7%; P < .001), but no significant differences for intubation (0% vs 2%; P = .53) or aborting procedure rates (28% vs 18%; P = .40) due to gastric retention were observed.

On multivariable analysis, the likelihood of food retention increased by 36% (95% CI, 1.15-1.60) for every 1% increase in glycosylated hemoglobin after adjusting for GLP-1 RA type and preoperative medication hold.

“Our study can help to differentiate which patients can be at largest risk for retained gastric contents,” Phan said, noting the impact of increasing percentages of A1C. “There’s a 36% increased likelihood of food retention in patients on GLP-1 medications, so a blanket policy to hold GLP-1s in patients who are nondiabetic and taking the medication for obesity may not be the best approach. But if patients have uncontrolled hyperglycemia, then an approach of caution is clinically valid.” In that context, holding the GLP-1 RA injection or lengthening the preoperative clear-liquid diet policy should be considered.

She noted that the study results are generalizable because the study was conducted across multiple types of hospital systems, both university and county, and included all types of GLP-1 RA.

Offering an anesthesiologist’s perspective on the study, Paul Potnuru, MD, an assistant professor in the Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine at UTHealth Houston and not involved in the study, called the findings “somewhat reassuring” but said the risk for aspiration was still a consideration.

A recent review, however, reported that the risk for GLP-1 RA-associated pulmonary aspiration was low.

Potnuru acknowledged that the original ASA guidance on preoperative GLP-1 RA cessation led to some confusion. “There were not a lot of data on the issue, but some studies found that even with stopping GLP-1s 2 weeks preoperatively some patients still retained gastric content,” he told GI & Hepatology News.

A study at his center recently reported that 56% of GLP-1 RA users had increased pre-anesthesia residual gastric content compared with 19% of nonusers.

From the anesthesiologist’s clinical vantage point, the margin of safety is an issue even if aspiration risk is low. “If there’s a 1 in 1000 chance or even a 1 in 3000 chance, that can be considered too high,” Potnuru said.

He further noted that the current study included only 815 patients, not nearly enough for definitive data. In addition, a retrospective study based on medical records can’t really capture all the real-world procedural changes made in the operating room. “It’s common for anesthesiologists not to document all cases of intubation, for example,” he said.

While the ideal is a completely empty stomach, he agreed that a practical alternative to stopping GLP-1 RA therapy, especially that prescribed for diabetes, would be a 24-hour liquid diet, which would clear the stomach quickly. “If you stop these drugs in patients taking them for diabetes, you get a worsening of their glycemic control,” he said.

He noted that patients have different risk tolerances, with some willing to go ahead even if ultrasound shows gastric retention, while some opt to cancel.

Prospective studies are needed, Potnuru added, “because you find more if you know what you’re looking for.” His center is starting a clinical trial in 150 patients to assess the impact of a 24-hour, liquids-only diet on gastric retention.

According to Phan, other research is following GLP-1 RA users undergoing colonoscopy. “Future studies can look at the added value of point-of-care abdominal ultrasound to see if it increases precision preoperative management in these patients on GLP-1 medications.”

Other groups are examining the safety of these agents in the general context of sedation. “It’s worth noting that the studies are being done on currently available medications and may not apply to future medications such as triple agonists or anti-amylins that may come on the market in the near future,” Phan said.

This study received no financial support. Neither the study authors nor Potnuru had any conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has released a comprehensive clinical practice update on lifting agents for endoscopic surgery.

Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the commentary reviews available agents and provides clinically relevant commentary on their indications and use — with the caveat that it is not a formal systematic review but rather empirical advice for endoscopists. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations was performed.

Led by Tobias Zuchelli, MD, a clinical associate professor at Michigan State University and a gastroenterologist at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, the expert panel noted that endoscopists are increasingly resecting precancerous lesions and early cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.

“Although new endoscopic procedures have been developed, there had not been much in terms of high-quality guidance on lifting agents,” panelist Amit V. Patel, MD, a professor of medicine at Duke University and director of Endoscopy at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. “With our better understanding and use of techniques, this commentary was timely. It summarizes the available data on the topic and includes our clinical experiences.”

Filling that knowledge gap, the document reviews in detail the timing and methods of agent injection according to procedure type, including the dynamic needle approach, the empirical merits of different agents such as saline (with or without blue contrast) and viscous agents, as well as lift-enhancing assistive devices — for example, the ERBEJET 2 high-pressure water jet, an adjustable hydrosurgical device to facilitate lifting. A chart provides an at-a-glance summary of agents and their pros and cons.

“The feedback from gastroenterologists so far has been quite positive on social media and on GI channels,” Patel said.

Endoscopic resection has evolved from snare polypectomy to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and now, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The primary benefit of submucosal lifting is the creation of a separating submucosal cushion between the lesion and muscularis propria (MP), which reduces the risk for immediate or delayed perforation of the muscle. Adding a contrast agent also demarcates lesion margins and stains the submucosa, which is fundamental to ESD and allows for assessment of MP injury during EMR.

For decades, homemade solutions were used to lift lesions before removal, with the sentinel agent being normal saline, later mixed with a blue contrast agent, usually indigo carmine or methylene blue. The authors noted that some endoscopists performing ESD start the submucosal injection and incision using a prepackaged viscous solution. “The endoscopist may continue with the viscous fluid or transition to saline or another less expensive solution,” they wrote.

Saline tends to dissipate more quickly than viscous solutions, however. In 2015, the polymer compound SIC-8000 became the first FDA-approved submucosal injection agent. Since then, several other fluids have come on the market, although homemade agents remain available.

Among the update’s recommendations, the fluid selected for EMR should be determined by lesion size, predicted histology, and endoscopist preference. Based on the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer, submucosal injection is optional for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRLs) of intermediate size (10-19 mm).

Cold snare polypectomy without submucosal injection was later found to be non-inferior to other resection methods utilizing submucosal injection for NPCRLs ≤ 15 mm. 

The update noted that the USMSTF considers EMR first-line therapy for most NPCRLs ≥ 20 mm and advocates viscous solutions as preferred, while the use of lifting agents for pedunculated polyps is generally at the discretion of the endoscopist.

For Patel, the main “clinical pearls” in the update are adding a contrast agent to normal saline, using a viscous agent for cold EMR, and manipulating the injection needle first tangentially and then dynamically toward the lumen to maximize separation of the lesion.

In terms of the ideal, an optimal lifting solution would be readily available, inexpensive, and premixed, providing a sustained submucosal cushion. “However, this ideal solution currently does not exist. Injection fluids should, therefore, be selected based on planned resection method, predicted histology, local expertise and preferences, and cost,” the panelists wrote.

Added Patel, “A lot of the agents out there check most of these boxes, but we’re hoping for further development toward the ideal.”

Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the overview, Wasseem Skef, MD, a gastroenterologist at UTHealth Houston, found the update very useful. “It always helps to have the literature summarized,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “It’s a pretty balanced review that pulls together the various options but allows people to stick to their preferred practice.”

In his practice, the lifting agent selected depends on the type of resection. “Viscous agents are generally more popular for EMR-type resections,” Skef said. One unanswered question, he noted, is whether adding a hemostatic agent would be superior to a viscous agent alone. “But overall, this is a nice summary of available agents. Gastroenterologists should consider these different options if doing procedures like EMR.”

This review was sponsored by the AGA Institute. 

Zuchelli is a consultant for Boston Scientific. Patel consults for Medpace, Renexxion, and Sanofi. Skef reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com . 

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has released a comprehensive clinical practice update on lifting agents for endoscopic surgery.

Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the commentary reviews available agents and provides clinically relevant commentary on their indications and use — with the caveat that it is not a formal systematic review but rather empirical advice for endoscopists. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations was performed.

Led by Tobias Zuchelli, MD, a clinical associate professor at Michigan State University and a gastroenterologist at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, the expert panel noted that endoscopists are increasingly resecting precancerous lesions and early cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.

“Although new endoscopic procedures have been developed, there had not been much in terms of high-quality guidance on lifting agents,” panelist Amit V. Patel, MD, a professor of medicine at Duke University and director of Endoscopy at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. “With our better understanding and use of techniques, this commentary was timely. It summarizes the available data on the topic and includes our clinical experiences.”

Filling that knowledge gap, the document reviews in detail the timing and methods of agent injection according to procedure type, including the dynamic needle approach, the empirical merits of different agents such as saline (with or without blue contrast) and viscous agents, as well as lift-enhancing assistive devices — for example, the ERBEJET 2 high-pressure water jet, an adjustable hydrosurgical device to facilitate lifting. A chart provides an at-a-glance summary of agents and their pros and cons.

“The feedback from gastroenterologists so far has been quite positive on social media and on GI channels,” Patel said.

Endoscopic resection has evolved from snare polypectomy to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and now, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The primary benefit of submucosal lifting is the creation of a separating submucosal cushion between the lesion and muscularis propria (MP), which reduces the risk for immediate or delayed perforation of the muscle. Adding a contrast agent also demarcates lesion margins and stains the submucosa, which is fundamental to ESD and allows for assessment of MP injury during EMR.

For decades, homemade solutions were used to lift lesions before removal, with the sentinel agent being normal saline, later mixed with a blue contrast agent, usually indigo carmine or methylene blue. The authors noted that some endoscopists performing ESD start the submucosal injection and incision using a prepackaged viscous solution. “The endoscopist may continue with the viscous fluid or transition to saline or another less expensive solution,” they wrote.

Saline tends to dissipate more quickly than viscous solutions, however. In 2015, the polymer compound SIC-8000 became the first FDA-approved submucosal injection agent. Since then, several other fluids have come on the market, although homemade agents remain available.

Among the update’s recommendations, the fluid selected for EMR should be determined by lesion size, predicted histology, and endoscopist preference. Based on the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer, submucosal injection is optional for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRLs) of intermediate size (10-19 mm).

Cold snare polypectomy without submucosal injection was later found to be non-inferior to other resection methods utilizing submucosal injection for NPCRLs ≤ 15 mm. 

The update noted that the USMSTF considers EMR first-line therapy for most NPCRLs ≥ 20 mm and advocates viscous solutions as preferred, while the use of lifting agents for pedunculated polyps is generally at the discretion of the endoscopist.

For Patel, the main “clinical pearls” in the update are adding a contrast agent to normal saline, using a viscous agent for cold EMR, and manipulating the injection needle first tangentially and then dynamically toward the lumen to maximize separation of the lesion.

In terms of the ideal, an optimal lifting solution would be readily available, inexpensive, and premixed, providing a sustained submucosal cushion. “However, this ideal solution currently does not exist. Injection fluids should, therefore, be selected based on planned resection method, predicted histology, local expertise and preferences, and cost,” the panelists wrote.

Added Patel, “A lot of the agents out there check most of these boxes, but we’re hoping for further development toward the ideal.”

Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the overview, Wasseem Skef, MD, a gastroenterologist at UTHealth Houston, found the update very useful. “It always helps to have the literature summarized,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “It’s a pretty balanced review that pulls together the various options but allows people to stick to their preferred practice.”

In his practice, the lifting agent selected depends on the type of resection. “Viscous agents are generally more popular for EMR-type resections,” Skef said. One unanswered question, he noted, is whether adding a hemostatic agent would be superior to a viscous agent alone. “But overall, this is a nice summary of available agents. Gastroenterologists should consider these different options if doing procedures like EMR.”

This review was sponsored by the AGA Institute. 

Zuchelli is a consultant for Boston Scientific. Patel consults for Medpace, Renexxion, and Sanofi. Skef reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com . 

The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) has released a comprehensive clinical practice update on lifting agents for endoscopic surgery.

Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the commentary reviews available agents and provides clinically relevant commentary on their indications and use — with the caveat that it is not a formal systematic review but rather empirical advice for endoscopists. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendations was performed.

Led by Tobias Zuchelli, MD, a clinical associate professor at Michigan State University and a gastroenterologist at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, the expert panel noted that endoscopists are increasingly resecting precancerous lesions and early cancers of the gastrointestinal tract.

“Although new endoscopic procedures have been developed, there had not been much in terms of high-quality guidance on lifting agents,” panelist Amit V. Patel, MD, a professor of medicine at Duke University and director of Endoscopy at Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, told GI & Hepatology News. “With our better understanding and use of techniques, this commentary was timely. It summarizes the available data on the topic and includes our clinical experiences.”

Filling that knowledge gap, the document reviews in detail the timing and methods of agent injection according to procedure type, including the dynamic needle approach, the empirical merits of different agents such as saline (with or without blue contrast) and viscous agents, as well as lift-enhancing assistive devices — for example, the ERBEJET 2 high-pressure water jet, an adjustable hydrosurgical device to facilitate lifting. A chart provides an at-a-glance summary of agents and their pros and cons.

“The feedback from gastroenterologists so far has been quite positive on social media and on GI channels,” Patel said.

Endoscopic resection has evolved from snare polypectomy to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and now, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The primary benefit of submucosal lifting is the creation of a separating submucosal cushion between the lesion and muscularis propria (MP), which reduces the risk for immediate or delayed perforation of the muscle. Adding a contrast agent also demarcates lesion margins and stains the submucosa, which is fundamental to ESD and allows for assessment of MP injury during EMR.

For decades, homemade solutions were used to lift lesions before removal, with the sentinel agent being normal saline, later mixed with a blue contrast agent, usually indigo carmine or methylene blue. The authors noted that some endoscopists performing ESD start the submucosal injection and incision using a prepackaged viscous solution. “The endoscopist may continue with the viscous fluid or transition to saline or another less expensive solution,” they wrote.

Saline tends to dissipate more quickly than viscous solutions, however. In 2015, the polymer compound SIC-8000 became the first FDA-approved submucosal injection agent. Since then, several other fluids have come on the market, although homemade agents remain available.

Among the update’s recommendations, the fluid selected for EMR should be determined by lesion size, predicted histology, and endoscopist preference. Based on the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) on Colorectal Cancer, submucosal injection is optional for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRLs) of intermediate size (10-19 mm).

Cold snare polypectomy without submucosal injection was later found to be non-inferior to other resection methods utilizing submucosal injection for NPCRLs ≤ 15 mm. 

The update noted that the USMSTF considers EMR first-line therapy for most NPCRLs ≥ 20 mm and advocates viscous solutions as preferred, while the use of lifting agents for pedunculated polyps is generally at the discretion of the endoscopist.

For Patel, the main “clinical pearls” in the update are adding a contrast agent to normal saline, using a viscous agent for cold EMR, and manipulating the injection needle first tangentially and then dynamically toward the lumen to maximize separation of the lesion.

In terms of the ideal, an optimal lifting solution would be readily available, inexpensive, and premixed, providing a sustained submucosal cushion. “However, this ideal solution currently does not exist. Injection fluids should, therefore, be selected based on planned resection method, predicted histology, local expertise and preferences, and cost,” the panelists wrote.

Added Patel, “A lot of the agents out there check most of these boxes, but we’re hoping for further development toward the ideal.”

Offering a nonparticipant’s perspective on the overview, Wasseem Skef, MD, a gastroenterologist at UTHealth Houston, found the update very useful. “It always helps to have the literature summarized,” he told GI & Hepatology News. “It’s a pretty balanced review that pulls together the various options but allows people to stick to their preferred practice.”

In his practice, the lifting agent selected depends on the type of resection. “Viscous agents are generally more popular for EMR-type resections,” Skef said. One unanswered question, he noted, is whether adding a hemostatic agent would be superior to a viscous agent alone. “But overall, this is a nice summary of available agents. Gastroenterologists should consider these different options if doing procedures like EMR.”

This review was sponsored by the AGA Institute. 

Zuchelli is a consultant for Boston Scientific. Patel consults for Medpace, Renexxion, and Sanofi. Skef reported having no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .