Lukas Degen

Universitätsspital Basel, Bâle, Basel-City, Switzerland

Are you Lukas Degen?

Claim your profile

Publications (67)

  • Source
    Stephan R Vavricka · Michael C Sulz · Lukas Degen · [...] · Alain M Schoepfer
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The recommended minimum withdrawal time for screening colonoscopy is 6 minutes. Adenoma detection rates (ADRs) increase with longer withdrawal times. We aimed to compare withdrawal times and ADRs of endoscopists unaware of being monitored vs. aware. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seven experienced gastroenterologists prospectively performed 558 screening colonoscopies during a 9-month period in a Swiss University hospital. Colonoscopy withdrawal times were first measured without the gastroenterologists’ knowledge of being monitored (n = 355 colonoscopies) and then with their knowledge (n = 203 colonoscopies). RESULTS: The median withdrawal time when gastroenterologists were unaware of being monitored was 4.5 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 4 – 5.5 minutes) without intervention and 6 minutes (IQR 4 – 9 minutes) with intervention, increasing significantly to 7.3 minutes (IQR 6.5 – 9 minutes) and 8 minutes (IQR 7 – 11 minutes), respectively, when they were aware of being monitored (P < 0.001 both for colonoscopies with and without intervention). The ADR increased from 21.4 % when the gastroenterologists were unaware of being monitored to 36.0 % when they were aware (P < 0.001). In the multivariate regression model, the endoscopists knowing they were being monitored was the strongest factor associated with ADR (odds ratio 4.417; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.241 – 8.705; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy withdrawal time in unmonitored gastroenterologists is shorter than recommended and increases with awareness of monitoring. ADR significantly increases when gastroenterologists are aware of being monitored. Implementation of systematic monitoring, and analysis of withdrawal time and ADR for each endoscopist may help to increase the ADR.
    Full-text available · Article · Jan 2016 · Endoscopy
  • Stephan R. Vavricka · Lukas Degen · Roman Rechner · [...] · Alain Schoepfer
    Article · May 2014 · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
  • Ludwig T. Heuss · S P Sugandha · Lukas P. Degen
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY / PRINCIPLES: Colonoscopies are complex procedures that depend greatly on the patient's cooperation and on the correct judgment of a tolerable amount of discomfort by the endoscopy team, even in sedated patients. Little is known regarding the accuracy of the patient comfort level assessments made by medical staff. We prospectively evaluated the degree of agreement between the assessments made by the endoscopists and endoscopy nurses and the assessments made by patients regarding their comfort level during the procedure. A total of 222 patients scheduled for routine colonoscopies assessed their preprocedural anxiety and the tolerability of the procedure. Endoscopists and nurses assessed the difficulty of the examination and the patient's level of discomfort. Assessments were performed using a 100-mm VAS. Overall, patients rated the procedure as tolerable. For 12% (27/222) of the patients, the examination was less tolerable (VAS >50 mm). The patients' judgment of tolerability was not related to the initial level of anxiety (r = 0.15). The scores of the endoscopists and nurses were better correlated with each other (r = 0.58) than with the patients' self-assessments (r = 0.37 and 0.35, respectively). Both endoscopists and nurses tended to overestimate the patients' discomfort. However, in 9% (19/222) of cases, the level of patient discomfort was considerably underestimated by at least one member of the team. Our study shows that the estimation of a patient's discomfort during a colonoscopy is difficult and that the comfort level may not be accurately determined in a considerable number of patients, including sedated patients.
    Article · Nov 2012 · Schweizerische medizinische Wochenschrift
  • Source
    Ludwig T Heuss · Andreas Hanhart · Salome Dell-Kuster · [...] · Lukas Degen
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: In patients undergoing routine upper EGD, propofol is increasingly used without pharyngeal anesthesia because of its excellent sedative properties. It is unclear whether this practice is non-inferior in regard to ease of endoscopic intubation and patient comfort. To assess the relevance of local pharyngeal anesthesia regarding the ease of EGD performance in patients sedated with propofol as monotherapy. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial. One community hospital and one university hospital in Switzerland. We enrolled 300 consecutive adult patients undergoing elective EGD. Pharyngeal anesthesia with 4 squirts of lidocaine spray versus placebo spray immediately before propofol sedation. Number of gag reflexes (primary endpoint), number of intubation attempts, and degree of salivation during intubation (secondary endpoints) assessed by the endoscopists and staff. In the lidocaine group, 122 patients (82%) had no gag events, and 25 patients had a total of 39 gag events, whereas in the placebo group 104 patients (71%) had no gag events, and 43 patients had a total of 111 gag events. The rate ratio of gagging with quasi-likelihood estimation of placebo compared with lidocaine was 2.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-6.19; P = .005). In adjusted logistic regression analysis, the odds ratio for gagging for placebo pharyngeal anesthesia compared with lidocaine was 1.9 (95% CI, 1.03-3.54). The number of intubation attempts and the degree of salivation were similar in both groups. Two patients in the placebo group experienced oxygen desaturation and needed short-term mask ventilation. The level of sedation and possible long-term side effects of pharyngeal anesthesia were not assessed. Topical pharyngeal anesthesia reduces the gag reflex in patients sedated with propofol even though it does not seem to have an influence on the ease of the procedure and on patient or endoscopist satisfaction in adequately sedated patients.
    Full-text available · Article · Dec 2011 · Gastrointestinal endoscopy
  • Franziska Piccoli · Gaëlle Ory · Antoine Hadengue · [...] · Lukas Degen
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effect on intragastric acidity over 24 h on days 1 and 3 following treatment with intravenous (i.v.) esomeprazole 40 mg (CAS for esomeprazole sodium: 161796-78-7) and pantoprazole 40 mg (CAS for pantoprazole sodium: 138786-67-1). Methods: In an open, randomised, two-way cross-over study, 36 healthy volunteers received esomeprazole (Nexium (R)) 40 mg or pantoprazole 40 mg, both administered once daily as an i.v. bolus injection for 3 consecutive days. Continuous 24-h pH recordings were made under standardised conditions at baseline and on days I and 3 of each treatment period. The primary variable was the percentage of time with intragastric pH > 4 during a 24-h period. Results: Time with intragastric pH > 4 was significantly greater with esomeprazole than with pantoprazole during the first 4 h (47.8 % vs. 18.9 %), as well as for the 24-h period of day 1 and day 3 (day 1: 38.8% vs. 23.7%; day 3: 55.0% vs. 35.2%, p < 0.0001 for all times examined). Mean of median intragastric pH with esomeprazole was significantly higher than with pantoprazole during the 24-h period (day 1:3.2 vs. 2.2, p < 0.0001; day 3:4.3 vs. 3.1, P < 0.00001). Conclusion: Esomeprazole administered as a 40 mg i.v. bolus injection provided faster and more effective control of intragastric acidity than a 40 mg i.v. bolus injection of pantoprazole, and also maintained pH > 4 longer both during the first 4 h on day I and during the 24-h period of day I and day 3 of dosing.
    Article · Oct 2011 · Arzneimittel-Forschung
  • Alex Straumann · Sebastien Conus · Lukas Degen · [...] · Hans-Uwe Simon
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: BACKROUND & AIMS: Topical corticosteroids are effective in inducing clinical and histologic remission in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). However, the best long-term management strategy for this chronic inflammatory disease has not been determined. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 50-week trial, we evaluated in 28 patients the efficacy of twice-daily swallowed budesonide (0.25 mg each) to maintain quiescent EoE in remission. Pretreatment and posttreatment activity was assessed clinically, endoscopically, histologically, immunohistologically, and by endosonography. The primary end point was the therapy's ability to maintain EoE in histologic remission. Secondary end points were efficacy in symptom control, prevention of tissue remodeling, and safety. In patients given low-dose budesonide, the load of esophageal eosinophils increased from 0.4 to 31.8 eosinophils/high-power field (P = .017). In patients given placebo, the load increased from 0.7 to 65.0 eosinophils/high-power field (P = .0001); this increase was significantly greater than in patients given budesonide (P = .024). The symptom scores developed in a similar manner in the 2 groups. Budesonide, but not placebo, reduced noneosinophilic markers of inflammation, epithelial cell apoptosis, and remodeling events. Compared with control individuals, patients had significantly thickened esophageal walls, based on endosonography (3.05 vs 2.18 mm; P < .0001). Budesonide therapy was associated with a significant reduction in mucosal thickness (0.75-0.45 mm; P = .025), but epithelial thickness remained stable (261.22 vs 277.23 μm; P = .576). No serious adverse events occurred. Low-dose budesonide is more effective than placebo in maintaining EoE in histologic and clinical remission. Signs of esophageal remodeling showed a trend toward normalization. Long-term administration of topical corticosteroids was well tolerated without induction of epithelial atrophy.
    Article · May 2011 · Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology: the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association
  • Alex Straumann · Sebastien Conus · Lukas Degen · [...] · Hans-Uwe Simon
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the esophagus characterized by dense tissue eosinophilia; it is refractory to proton pump inhibitor therapy. EoE affects all age groups but most frequently individuals between 20 and 50 years of age. Topical corticosteroids are effective in pediatric patients with EoE, but no controlled studies of corticosteroids have been reported in adult patients. We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the effect of oral budesonide (1 mg twice daily for 15 days) in adolescent and adult patients with active EoE. Pretreatment and posttreatment disease activity was assessed clinically, endoscopically, and histologically. The primary end point was reduced mean numbers of eosinophils in the esophageal epithelium (number per high-power field [hpf] = esophageal eosinophil load). Esophageal biopsy and blood samples were analyzed using immunofluorescence and immunoassays, respectively, for biomarkers of inflammation and treatment response. A 15-day course of therapy significantly decreased the number of eosinophils in the esophageal epithelium in patients given budesonide (from 68.2 to 5.5 eosinophils/hpf; P < .0001) but not in the placebo group (from 62.3 to 56.5 eosinophils/hpf; P = .48). Dysphagia scores significantly improved among patients given budesonide compared with those given placebo (5.61 vs 2.22; P < .0001). White exudates and red furrows were reversed in patients given budesonide, based on endoscopy examination. Budesonide, but not placebo, also reduced apoptosis of epithelial cells and molecular remodeling events in the esophagus; no serious adverse events were observed. A 15-day course of treatment with budesonide is well tolerated and highly effective in inducing a histologic and clinical remission in adolescent and adult patients with active EoE.
    Article · Nov 2010 · Gastroenterology
  • Alex Straumann · Sebastien Conus · Lukas Degen · [...] · Hans-Uwe Simon
    Article · Sep 2010 · Swiss medical weekly: official journal of the Swiss Society of Infectious Diseases, the Swiss Society of Internal Medicine, the Swiss Society of Pneumology
  • Source
    Julia B Pilz · Susanne Portmann · Shajan Peter · [...] · Lukas Degen
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Colonoscopy (CSPY) for colorectal cancer screening has several limitations. Colon Capsule Endoscopy (PillCam Colon, CCE) was compared to CSPY under routine screening conditions. We performed a prospective, single-center pilot study at a University Hospital. Data were obtained from November 2007 until May 2008. Patients underwent CCE on Day 1 and CSPY on Day 2. Outcomes were evaluated regarding sensitivity and specificity of polyp detection rate, with a significance level set at >5 mm. 59 individuals were included in this study, the results were evaluable in 56 patients (males 34, females 22; median age 59). CCE was complete in 36 subjects. Polyp detection rate for significant polyps was 11% on CSPY and 27% on CCE.6/56 (11%) patients had polyps on CSPY not detected on CCE (miss rate).Overall sensitivity was 79% (95% confidence interval [CI], 61 to 90), specificity was 54% (95% CI, 35 to 70), positive predictive value (PPV) was 63% and negative predictive value (NPV) was 71%. Adjusted to significance of findings, sensitivity was 50% (95% CI, 19 to 81), specificity was 76% (95% CI, 63 to 86), PPV was 20% and NPV was 93%. In comparison to the gold standard, the sensitivity of CCE for detection of relevant polyps is low, however, the high NPV supports its role as a possible screening tool. NCT00991003.
    Full-text available · Article · Jun 2010 · BMC Gastroenterology
  • Source
    Julia B Pilz · Susanne Portmann · Shajan Peter · [...] · Lukas Degen
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Table S6: A detailed anaylsis regarding number, size, location and histology of polyps.
    File available · Dataset · Jun 2010
  • Source
    Julia B Pilz · Susanne Portmann · Shajan Peter · [...] · Lukas Degen
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Table S1. 5-Item Questionnaire
    File available · Dataset · Jun 2010
  • Alex Straumann · Lukas Degen · Christian Bussmann · [...] · Hans-Uwe Simon
    Article · May 2010 · Gastroenterology
  • Conference Paper · Sep 2009
  • Stephan R. Vavricka · Michael Manz · Christoph Beglinger · Lukas Degen
    Article · May 2009 · Gastroenterology
  • Source
    Stephan R Vavricka · Emanuel Burri · Christoph Beglinger · [...] · Michael Manz
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Serum protein electrophoresis is used in clinical practice to identify patients with multiple myeloma and other serum protein disorders. It is an inexpensive and easy-to-perform screening procedure. Electrophoresis separates serum proteins based on their physical properties and identifies morphologic patterns in response to acute and chronic inflammation, various malignancies, liver or renal failure, and hereditary protein disorders. For gastroenterologists, the use of serum protein electrophoresis may be helpful in the diagnosis of both common diseases with unusual presentations and rare disorders with typical presentations. Therefore, it represents an ideal screening tool.
    Full-text available · Article · May 2009 · Digestion
  • A. Straumann · L. Degen · S. Felder · [...] · H. Simon
    Article · Feb 2009 · Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
  • Shajan Peter · Lukas Degen
    Article · Aug 2008 · Gastrointestinal endoscopy
  • Lukas Degen · Christoph Beglinger
    Article · Jun 2008 · Gastroenterologie up2date
  • Alex Straumann · Lukas Degen · Stephanie Felder · [...] · Hans-Uwe Simon
    Article · Apr 2008 · Gastroenterology
  • Article · Apr 2008 · Gastroenterology

Publication Stats

2k Citations


  • 2000-2014
    • Universitätsspital Basel
      • Institut für Pathologie
      Bâle, Basel-City, Switzerland