Browsing by Author "Desai, Madhav"

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    ASGE Guideline on role of endoscopy in the diagnosis of malignancy in biliary strictures of undetermined etiology: Methodology and Review of Evidence
    (Elsevier, 2023) Fujii-Lau, Larissa L.; Thosani, Nirav C.; Al-Haddad, Mohammad; Acoba, Jared; Wray, Curtis J.; Zvavanjanja, Rodrick; Amateau, Stuart K.; Buxbaum, James L.; Wani, Sachin; Calderwood, Audrey H.; Chalhoub, Jean M.; Coelho-Prabhu, Nayantara; Desai, Madhav; Elhanafi, Sherif E.; Fishman, Douglas S.; Forbes, Nauzer; Jamil, Laith H.; Jue, Terry L.; Kohli, Divyanshoo R.; Kwon, Richard S.; Law, Joanna K.; Lee, Jeffrey K.; Machicado, Jorge D.; Marya, Neil B.; Pawa, Swati; Ruan, Wenly; Sawhney, Mandeep S.; Sheth, Sunil G.; Storm, Andrew; Thiruvengadam, Nikhil R.; Qumseya, Bashar J.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Biliary strictures of undetermined etiology pose a diagnostic challenge for endoscopists. Despite advances in technology, diagnosing malignancy in biliary strictures often requires multiple procedures. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to rigorously review and synthesize the available literature on strategies used to diagnose undetermined biliary strictures. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis of each diagnostic modality, including fluoroscopic-guided biopsies, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration or biopsy, the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Standards of Practice committee provides this guideline on modalities used to diagnose biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document summarizes the methods used in the GRADE analysis to make recommendations, while the "Summary and Recommendations" document contains a concise summary of our findings and final recommendations.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    ASGE Guideline on the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis of malignancy in biliary strictures of undetermined etiology: Summary and Recommendations
    (Elsevier, 2023) Fujii-Lau, Larissa L.; Thosani, Nirav C.; Al-Haddad, Mohammad; Acoba, Jared; Wray, Curtis J.; Zvavanjanja, Rodrick; Amateau, Stuart K.; Buxbaum, James L.; Calderwood, Audrey H.; Chalhoub, Jean M.; Coelho-Prabhu, Nayantara; Desai, Madhav; Elhanafi, Sherif E.; Fishman, Douglas S.; Forbes, Nauzer; Jamil, Laith H.; Jue, Terry L.; Kohli, Divyanshoo R.; Kwon, Richard S.; Law, Joanna K.; Lee, Jeffrey K.; Machicado, Jorge D.; Marya, Neil B.; Pawa, Swati; Ruan, Wenly; Sawhney, Mandeep S.; Sheth, Sunil G.; Storm, Andrew; Thiruvengadam, Nikhil R.; Qumseya, Bashar J.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures of undetermined etiology. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework and addresses the role of fluoroscopic-guided biopsies, brush cytology, cholangioscopy, and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the diagnosis of malignancy in patients with biliary strictures. In the endoscopic work-up of these patients, we suggest the use of fluoroscopic-guided biopsies in addition to brush cytology over brush cytology alone, especially for hilar strictures. Especially for patients with, non-diagnostic sampling we suggest the use of cholangioscopic and EUS-guided biopsies; the former for non-distal and the latter for distal strictures or those with suspected spread to surrounding lymph nodes and other structures.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    ASGE Guideline on the Role of Ergonomics for Prevention of Endoscopy-related Injury (ERI): Methodology and Review of Evidence
    (ASGE, 2023-10) Pawa, Swati; Kwon, Richard S.; Fishman, Douglas S.; Thosani, Nirav C.; Shergill, Amandeep; Grover , Samir C.; Al-Haddad , Mohammad; Amateau, Stuart K.; Buxbaum , James L.; Calderwood , Audrey H.; Chalhoub, Jean M.; Coelho-Prabhu, Nayantara; Desai, Madhav; Elhanafi, Sherif E.; Forbes, Nauzer; Fujii-Lau, Larissa L.; Kohli, Divyanshoo R.; Machicado , Jorge D.; Marya, Neil B.; Ruan, Wenly; Sheth, Sunil G.; Storm, Andrew C.; Thiruvengadam, Nikhil R.; Wani, Sachin; Qumseya, Bashar J.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    This guideline document was prepared by the Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy using the best available scientific evidence and considering a multitude of variables including but not limited to adverse events, patient values, and cost implications. The purpose of these guidelines is to provide the best practice recommendations, which may help standardize patient care, improve patient outcomes, and reduce variability in practice. We recognize that clinical decision-making is complex. Guidelines, therefore, are not a substitute for a clinician’s judgment. Such judgements may at times seem contradictory to our guidance because of many factors that are impossible to fully consider by guideline developers. Any clinical decisions should be based on the clinician’s experience, local expertise, resource availability, and patient values and preferences. This document is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating for, mandating, or discouraging any particular treatment. Our guidelines should not be used in support of medical complaints, legal proceedings, and/or litigation, as they were not designed for this purpose.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    ASGE Guideline on the Role of Ergonomics for Prevention of Endoscopy-related Injury (ERI): Summary and Recommendations
    (ASGE, 2023-10) Pawa, Swati; Kwon, Richard S.; Fishman, Douglas S.; Thosani, Nirav C.; Shergill, Amandeep; Grover , Samir C.; Al-Haddad, Mohammad; Amateau, Stuart K.; Buxbaum, James L.; Calderwood , Audrey H.; Chalhoub, Jean M.; Coelho-Prabhu, Nayantara; Desai, Madhav; Elhanafi, Sherif E.; Forbes , Nauzer; Fujii-Lau, Larissa L.; Kohli , Divyanshoo R.; Machicado, Jorge D.; Marya, Neil B.; Ruan, Wenly; Sheth, Sunil G.; Storm, Andrew C.; Thiruvengadam, Nikhil R.; Qumseya, Bashar J.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach to strategies to prevent endoscopy-related injury (ERI) in GI endoscopists. It is accompanied by the article subtitled “Methodology and Review of Evidence,” which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. The guideline estimates the rates, sites, and predictors of ERI. Additionally, it addresses the role of ergonomics training, microbreaks and macrobreaks, monitor and table positions, antifatigue mats, and use of ancillary devices in decreasing the risk of ERI. We recommend formal ergonomics education and neutral posture during the performance of endoscopy, achieved through adjustable monitor and optimal procedure table position, to reduce the risk of ERI. We suggest taking microbreaks and scheduled macrobreaks and using antifatigue mats during procedures to prevent ERI. We suggest the use of ancillary devices in those with risk factors predisposing them to ERI.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Real-world evidence of safety and effectiveness of Barrett's endoscopic therapy
    (Elsevier, 2023-08) Singh, Ritu R.; Desai, Madhav; Bourke, Michael; Falk, Gary; Konda, Vani; Siddiqui, Uzma; Repici, Alessandro; Hassan, Cesare; Sharma, Prateek; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background and Aims Real-world data on the adverse events and the survival benefit of Barrett’s endoscopic therapy (BET) are limited. The aim of this study was to examine the safety and effectiveness (survival benefit) of BET in patients with neoplastic Barrett’s esophagus (BE). Methods An electronic health record–based database (TriNetX) was used to select patients with BE with dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) from 2016 to 2020. Primary outcome was 3-year mortality among patients with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or EAC who underwent BET versus 2 comparison cohorts: patients with HGD or EAC who had not undergone BET and patients with GERD but no BE/EAC. Secondary outcome was adverse events (esophageal perforation, upper GI bleeding, chest pain, and esophageal stricture) after BET. To control for confounding variables, 1:1 propensity score matching was performed. Results We identified 27,556 patients with BE and dysplasia, of whom 5295 underwent BET. After propensity score matching, patients with HGD and EAC who underwent BET had significantly lower 3-year mortality (HGD risk ratio [RR], .59; 95% CI, .49-.71; EAC RR, .53; 95% CI, .44-.65) compared with corresponding cohorts who did not undergo BET (P < .001). There was no difference in median 3-year mortality between control subjects (GERD without BE/EAC) compared with patients with HGD (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, .84-1.27) who underwent BET. Finally, there was no difference in median 3-year mortality between patients who underwent BET compared with patients who underwent esophagectomy among both HGD (RR, .67; 95% CI, .39-1.14; P =.14) and EAC (RR, .73; 95% CI, .47-1.13; P = .14). Esophageal stricture was the most common adverse event (6.5%) after BET. Conclusions Real-world, population-based evidence from this large database shows that endoscopic therapy is safe and effective for patients with BE. Endoscopic therapy is associated with a significantly lower 3-year mortality; however, it leads to esophageal strictures in 6.5% of treated patients.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Environmental Impact of Gastrointestinal Procedures: A Prospective study of Waste Generation, Energy Consumption and Auditing in an Endoscopy Unit
    (Elsevier, 2023) Desai, Madhav; Campbell, Carlissa; Perisetti, Abhilash; Srinivasan, Sachin; Radadiya, Dhruvil; Patel, Harsh; Melquist, Stephanie; Rex, Douglas K.; Sharma, Prateek; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background & Aims Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy procedures are critical for screening, diagnosis, and treatment of a variety of GI disorders. However, like the procedures in other medical disciplines, they are a source of environmental waste generation and energy consumption. Methods We prospectively collected data on total waste generation, energy consumption, and the role of intraprocedural inventory audit of a single tertiary care academic endoscopy unit over a 2-month period (May–June 2022). Detailed data on items used were collected, including procedure type (esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy), accessories, intravenous tubing, biopsy jars, linen, and personal protective equipment use. Data on endoscope reprocessing-related waste generation and energy use in the endoscopy unit (equipment, lights, and computers) were also collected. We used an endoscopy staff-guided auditing and review of the items used during procedures to determine potentially recyclable items going to landfill waste. The waste generated was stratified into biohazardous, nonbiohazardous, or potentially recyclable items. Results A total of 450 consecutive procedures were analyzed for total waste management (generation and reprocessing) and energy consumption. The total waste generated during the study period was 1398.6 kg (61.6% directly going to landfill, 33.3% biohazard waste, and 5.1% sharps), averaging 3.03 kg/procedure. The average waste directly going to landfill was 219 kg per 100 procedures. The estimated total annual waste generation approximated the size of 2 football fields (1-foot-high layered waste). Endoscope reprocessing generated 194 gallons of liquid waste per day, averaging 13.85 gallons per procedure. Total energy consumption in the endoscopy unit was 277.1 kW·h energy per day; for every 100 procedures, amounting to 1200 miles of distance traveled by an average fuel efficiency car. The estimated carbon footprint for every 100 GI procedures was 1501 kg carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent (= 1680 lbs of coal burned), which would require 1.8 acres of forests to sequester. The recyclable waste audit and review demonstrated that 20% of total waste consisted of potentially recyclable items (8.6 kg/d) that could be avoided by appropriate waste segregation of these items. Conclusions On average, every 100 GI endoscopy procedures (esophagogastroduodenoscopy/colonoscopy) are associated with 303 kg of solid waste and 1385 gallons of liquid waste generation, and 1980 kW·h energy consumption. Potentially recyclable materials account for 20% of the total waste. These data could serve as an actionable model for health systems to reduce total waste generation and decrease landfill waste and water waste toward environmentally sustainable endoscopy units.