Vanuytsel, Tim

Abstract Introduction Despite the widespread use of telemedicine to assess patients with intestinal failure (IF) receiving home parenteral nutrition (HPN), satisfaction with remote consultation methods has not been comprehensively assessed. Here, we assessed patient and clinician attitudes to telephone and video IF consultations. Methods Telemedicine questionnaires were designed and distributed in paper form to patients with IF receiving HPN under the care of a UK national IF reference center and electronically to IF clinicians in Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand. Results Seventy‐eight patients (53 women and 25 men) and 110 clinicians agreed to complete the questionnaires. Sixty seven percent of patients who had telephone consultations and 50% of patients who had video consultations were satisfied with their consultations. Forty nine percent and 83% of patients who had telephone and video consultations, respectively, felt they were of the same standard as their face‐to‐face consultations. Despite 60% of clinicians feeling telemedicine training would be useful, 55% of clinicians stated they mostly or always met all of the needs of their patients via telephone consultations, whereas 96% of clinicians felt similarly for video consultations ( P = 0.002). A total of 33% and 57% of clinicians felt telephone and video consultations, respectively, were of the same standard as face‐to‐face consultations ( P = 0.004). Conclusion This study comprehensively assesses attitudes to IF telemedicine consultations. Our data show that a large proportion of patients and clinicians are satisfied with IF telephone and video consultations. However, there is an unmet need amongst clinicians for telemedicine training.

AbstractThe role of long‐term parenteral support in patients with underlying benign conditions who do not have intestinal failure (IF) is contentious, not least since there are clear benefits in utilising the oral or enteral route for nutritional support. Furthermore, the risks of long‐term home parenteral nutrition (HPN) are significant, with significant impacts on morbidity and mortality. There has, however, been a recent upsurge of the use of HPN in patients with conditions such as gastro‐intestinal neuromuscular disorders, opioid bowel dysfunction, disorders of gut–brain interaction and possibly eating disorders, who do not have IF. As a result, the European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN), the European Society of Neuro‐gastroenterology and Motility (ESNM) and the Rome Foundation for Disorders of Gut Brain Interaction felt that a position statement is required to clarify – and hopefully reduce the potential for harm associated with – the use of long‐term parenteral support in patients without IF. Consensus opinion is that HPN should not be prescribed for patients without IF, where the oral and/or enteral route can be utilised. On the rare occasions that PN commencement is required to treat life‐threatening malnutrition in conditions such as those listed above, it should only be prescribed for a time‐limited period to achieve nutritional safety, while the wider multi‐disciplinary team focus on more appropriate biopsychosocial holistic and rehabilitative approaches to manage the patient's primary underlying condition.

Objective Antireflux surgery can be proposed in patients with GORD, especially when proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use leads to incomplete symptom improvement. However, to date, international consensus guidelines on the clinical criteria and additional technical examinations used in patient selection for antireflux surgery are lacking. We aimed at generating key recommendations in the selection of patients for antireflux surgery. Design We included 35 international experts (gastroenterologists, surgeons and physiologists) in a Delphi process and developed 37 statements that were revised by the Consensus Group, to start the Delphi process. Three voting rounds followed where each statement was presented with the evidence summary. The panel indicated the degree of agreement for the statement. When 80% of the Consensus Group agreed (A+/A) with a statement, this was defined as consensus. All votes were mutually anonymous. Results Patients with heartburn with a satisfactory response to PPIs, patients with a hiatal hernia (HH), patients with oesophagitis Los Angeles (LA) grade B or higher and patients with Barrett’s oesophagus are good candidates for antireflux surgery. An endoscopy prior to antireflux surgery is mandatory and a barium swallow should be performed in patients with suspicion of a HH or short oesophagus. Oesophageal manometry is mandatory to rule out major motility disorders. Finally, oesophageal pH (±impedance) monitoring of PPI is mandatory to select patients for antireflux surgery, if endoscopy is negative for unequivocal reflux oesophagitis. Conclusion With the ICARUS guidelines, we generated key recommendations for selection of patients for antireflux surgery.