National Survey Regarding the Timing of Endoscopic Procedures during the Covid-19 Pandemic [post]

José Daniel Marroquín-Reyes, Sergio Zepeda-Gómez, Alejandra Tepox-Padrón, Mariana Quintanar-Martínez, Omar Edel Trujillo-Benavides, Félix I. Téllez-Avila
2020 unpublished
Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, several questions have arisen about which endoscopic procedures (EPs) must be performed and which ones can be postponed. The aim of this study was to conduct a nationwide survey regarding the appropriate timing of EPs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This prospective study was performed through a nationwide electronic survey. The survey consisted of 15 questions divided into three sections. The first evaluated the agreement for EPs classified as
more » ... EPs classified as "time sensitive" and "not time sensitive". Two other sections assessed "high-priority" and "low-priority" scenarios. Agreement was considered when >75% of respondents answered a question in the same direction. Results: The response rate was 27.2% (214/784). Among the respondents, agreement for the need to perform EP in <72 hours was only reached for variceal bleeding (93.4%). Dysphagia with alarm symptoms was the scenario in which the highest percentage of physicians (95.9%) agreed that an EP needed to be performed within a month. Less than 30% of endoscopists would perform an EP within the first 72 hours for patients with mild cholangitis, non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding without hemodynamic instability, or severe anaemia without overt bleeding. In time-sensitive clinical scenarios suggestive of benign disease, none of the scenarios reached agreement in any sense. Among the time-sensitive clinical scenarios suggestive of malignancy, >90% of the surveyed respondents considered that EP could not be postponed for >8 weeks. Conclusions: There was no consensus among endoscopists about the timing of EPs in patients with pathologies considered time sensitive or in those with high-priority pathologies. Agreement was only reached in five (17%) of the evaluated clinical scenarios.
doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-118352/v1 fatcat:npzdwtbpnvbj3ilnj5yiventki