Poor risk-benefit ratio of gastrointestinal endoscopy for screening prior to heart or lung transplantation

Routine pre-transplant evaluations for heart or lung recipients often include upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopies. However, given that these patients frequently have significant and multiple comorbidities, the risk-benefit ratio of endoscopy with sedation remains uncertain.

We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and/or colonoscopy as part of the pre-transplant evaluation for heart (HTX) or lung transplantation (LuTX) at our center over a 10-year period. All procedures were performed with either anesthesiologist-assisted sedation or general anesthesia (72%) or physician-assisted sedation (28%). The primary outcomes included the prevalence of pre/neoplastic lesions and the rate of adverse events, classified according to the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

A total of 315 patients (70% male, median age 55 years) were included, with ASA grades 3 (31%) and 4 (69%). Of these, 90% underwent both EGD and colonoscopy. While no neoplasia or findings relevant to transplantation were detected on EGD, a single rectal malignant pedunculated polyp was identified and curatively removed via colonoscopy (G2 pT1 L0 V0 R0). The adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy was 25%, including a 7% rate of advanced adenomas, with six additional lesions (< 10 mm) exhibiting high-grade dysplasia. Conversely, severe adverse events occurred in 2.5% of cases, involving both cardiovascular and colonoscopy-related complications. These included two cases of severe hypotension and bradyarrhythmia requiring cardiovascular resuscitation, with one resulting in death (0.3% mortality). Additionally, one splenic rupture, two colonic perforations, and two cases of severe post-polypectomy bleeding were observed.

The routine requirement for upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy as a screening measure before heart or lung transplantation should be reconsidered due to its unfavorable risk-benefit profile. An individualized approach should be taken.