Table 2.

Comparison of endoscopic procedures in patients with or without known COVID-19 status

	rtPCR result available	rtPCR result not available	Historic cohort 2019
Patients (n)	313 (89%)	39 (11%)	368 (100%)
Gender (m/f)	179 (57%)/134 (43%)	26 (67%)/13 (33%)	227 (62%)/141 (38%)
Age	62 ± 18 (1–95)	64 ± 15 (30–91)	63 ± 16 (3–88)
In-patient / out-patient	231 (74%)/82 (26%)	25 (64%)/14 (36%)	262 (71%)/106 (29%)
Timing of endoscopy
< 6 h of symptom onset	26 (8%)	14 (36%)	29 (8%)
6–24 h of symptom onset	42 (13%)	3 (8%)	37 (10%)
Routine	245 (78%)	22 (56%)	302 (82%)
Endoscopic procedure
EGD	161 (51%)	23 (59%)	191 (52%)
Colonoscopy	106 (34%)	12 (31%)	134 (36%)
ERCP	38 (12%)	4 (10%)	30 (8%)
EUS	8 (3%)	0 (0%)	13 (4%)
Outcome emergency procedure	N = 68	N = 16	N = 66
Clinically significant finding	56 (82%)	12 (75%)	43 (65%)
Endoscopic haemostasis	22 (32%)	7 (44%)	21 (32%)
Biliary/pancreatic intervention	13 (19%)	3 (19%)	4 (6%)
Other endoscopic therapy	3 (4%)	1 (6%)	8 (12%)
Outcome routine procedures	N = 245	N = 23	N = 302
Clinically significant finding	60 (25%)	4 (17%)	78 (26%)
Endoscopic haemostasis	3 (1%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.5%)
Biliary/pancreatic intervention	28 (11%)	1 (4%)	20 (8%)
PEG/feeding tube	8 (3%)	2 (9%)	5 (2%)
Polypectomy	18 (7%)	2 (9%)	43 (14%)
Other endoscopic therapy	7 (3%)	0 (0%)	9 (3%)

In addition to results from the first wave of COVID-19 in Germany, results of a historic cohort (pre-COVID-19 era) are presented. The number of endoscopies performed in this 31-day period was comparable with the number of procedures in the 49-day period 1 year later

Clinically significant findings: life-threatening conditions; result that changes patient management; gastrointestinal ulcers; cancer or polyps ≥ 10 mm; reflux esophagitis ≥ Los Angeles C

EGD esophagogastroduodenoscopy, ERCP endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, EUS endoscopic ultrasound; PEG percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy