Pre-endoscopy SARS-CoV-2 testing strategy during COVID-19 pandemic: the care must go on

  1. M. Casper
  2. M. C. Reichert
  3. J. Rissland
  4. S. Smola
  5. F. Lammert
  6. M. Krawczyk

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, endoscopic societies initially recommended reduction of endoscopic procedures. In particular non-urgent endoscopies should be postponed. However, this might lead to unnecessary delay in diagnosing gastrointestinal conditions.

Methods

Retrospectively we analysed the gastrointestinal endoscopies performed at the Central Endoscopy Unit of Saarland University Medical Center during seven weeks from 23 March to 10 May 2020 and present our real-world single-centre experience with an individualized rtPCR-based pre-endoscopy SARS-CoV-2 testing strategy. We also present our experience with this strategy in 2021.

Results

Altogether 359 gastrointestinal endoscopies were performed in the initial period. The testing strategy enabled us to conservatively handle endoscopy programme reduction (44% reduction as compared 2019) during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The results of COVID-19 rtPCR from nasopharyngeal swabs were available in 89% of patients prior to endoscopies. Apart from six patients with known COVID-19, all other tested patients were negative. The frequencies of endoscopic therapies and clinically significant findings did not differ between patients with or without SARS-CoV-2 tests. In 2021 we were able to unrestrictedly perform all requested endoscopic procedures (> 5000 procedures) by applying the rtPCR-based pre-endoscopy SARS-CoV-2 testing strategy, regardless of next waves of COVID-19. Only two out-patients (1893 out-patient procedures) were tested positive in the year 2021.

Conclusion

A structured pre-endoscopy SARS-CoV-2 testing strategy is feasible in the clinical routine of an endoscopy unit. rtPCR-based pre-endoscopy SARS-CoV-2 testing safely allowed unrestricted continuation of endoscopic procedures even in the presence of high incidence rates of COVID-19. Given the low frequency of positive tests, the absolute effect of pre-endoscopy testing on viral transmission may be low when FFP-2 masks are regularly used.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1186/s40001-022-00672-5
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.10.22.20217885: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.10.22.20217885v1 on medRxiv