Search

Main statements: All endoscopic procedures are invasive and carry risk. Accordingly, all endoscopists should involve the patient in the decision-making process about the most appropriate endoscopic procedure for that individual, in keeping with a patient's right to self-determination and autonomy. Recognition of this has led to detailed guidelines on informed consent for endoscopy in some countries, but in many no such guidance exists; this may lead to variations in care and exposure to risk of litigation. In this document, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) sets out a series of statements that cover best practice in informed consent for endoscopy. These statements should be seen as a minimum standard of practice, but practitioners must be aware of and adhere to the law in their own country. 1 Patients should give informed consent for all gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures for which they have capacity to do so. 2 The healthcare professional seeking consent for an endoscopic procedure should ensure that the patient has the capacity to consent to that procedure. 3 For patients who lack capacity, healthcare personnel should at all times try to engage with people close to the patient, such as family, friends, or caregivers, to achieve consensus on the appropriateness of performing the procedure. 4 Where a patient lacks capacity to provide informed consent, the best interest decision should be clearly documented in the medical record. This should include information about the capacity assessment, reason(s) that the decision cannot be delayed for capacity recovery (or if recovery is not expected), who has been consulted, and where relevant the form of authority for the decision. 5 There should be a systematic and transparent disclosure of the expected benefits and harms that may reasonably affect patient choice on whether or not to undergo any diagnostic or interventional endoscopic procedure. Information about possible alternatives, as well as the consequences of doing nothing, should also be provided when relevant. 6 The information provided on the benefit and harms of an endoscopic procedure should be adapted to the procedure and patient-specific risk factors, and the preferences of the patient should be central to the consent process. 7 The consent discussion should be undertaken by an individual who is familiar with the procedure and its risks, and is able to discuss these in the context of the individual patient. 8 Patients should confirm consent to an endoscopic procedure in a private, unrushed, and non-coercive environment. 9 If a patient requests that an endoscopic procedure be discontinued, the procedure should be paused and the patient's capacity for decision making assessed. If a competent patient continues to object to the procedure, or if a conclusive determination of capacity is not feasible, the examination should be terminated as soon as it is safe to do so. 10 Informed consent should be sufficiently detailed to cover all findings that can be reasonably anticipated during an endoscopic examination. The scope of this consent should not be expanded, nor a patient's implicit consent for additional interventions assumed, unless failure to proceed with such interventions would result in immediate and predictable harm to the patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1: ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as the best tool to characterize subepithelial lesion (SEL) features (size, location, originating layer, echogenicity, shape), but EUS alone is not able to distinguish among all types of SEL.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests providing tissue diagnosis for all SELs with features suggestive of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) if they are of size > 20 mm, or have high risk stigmata, or require surgical resection or oncological treatment.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) equally for tissue diagnosis of SELs ≥ 20 mm in size.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends against surveillance of asymptomatic gastrointestinal (GI) tract leiomyomas, lipomas, heterotopic pancreas, granular cell tumors, schwannomas, and glomus tumors, if the diagnosis is clear.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests surveillance of asymptomatic esophageal and gastric SELs without definite diagnosis, with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at 3-6 months, and then at 2-3-year intervals for lesions < 10 mm in size, and at 1-2-year intervals for lesions 10-20 mm in size. For asymptomatic SELs > 20 mm in size that are not resected, ESGE suggests surveillance with EGD plus EUS at 6 months and then at 6-12-month intervals.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for type 1 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (g-NENs) if they grow larger than 10 mm. The choice of resection technique should depend on size, depth of invasion, and location in the stomach.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE suggests considering removal of histologically proven gastric GISTs smaller than 20 mm as an alternative to surveillance. The decision to resect should be discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting. The choice of technique should depend on size, location, and local expertise.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests that, to avoid unnecessary follow-up, endoscopic resection is an option for gastric SELs smaller than 20 mm and of unknown histology after failure of attempts to obtain diagnosis.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends basing the surveillance strategy on the type and completeness of resection. After curative resection of benign SELs no follow-up is advised, except for type 1 gastric NEN for which surveillance at 1-2 years is advised.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 10: For lower or upper GI NEN with a positive or indeterminate margin at resection, ESGE recommends repeating endoscopy at 3-6 months and another attempt at endoscopic resection in the case of residual disease.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For routine EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and lymph nodes (LNs) ESGE recommends 25G or 22G needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation); fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles are equally recommended (high quality evidence, strong recommendation).When the primary aim of sampling is to obtain a core tissue specimen, ESGE suggests using 19G FNA or FNB needles or 22G FNB needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE recommends using 10-mL syringe suction for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and LNs with 25G or 22G FNA needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation) and other types of needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). ESGE suggests neutralizing residual negative pressure in the needle before withdrawing the needle from the target lesion (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE does not recommend for or against using the needle stylet for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and LNs with FNA needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation) and suggests using the needle stylet for EUS-guided sampling with FNB needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE suggests fanning the needle throughout the lesion when sampling solid masses and LNs (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE equally recommends EUS-guided sampling with or without on-site cytologic evaluation (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). When on-site cytologic evaluation is unavailable, ESGE suggests performance of three to four needle passes with an FNA needle or two to three passes with an FNB needle (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).For diagnostic sampling of pancreatic cystic lesions without a solid component, ESGE suggests emptying the cyst with a single pass of a 22G or 19G needle (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). For pancreatic cystic lesions with a solid component, ESGE suggests sampling of the solid component using the same technique as in the case of other solid lesions (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE does not recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses or LNs (low quality evidence, strong recommendation), and suggests antibiotic prophylaxis with fluoroquinolones or beta-lactam antibiotics for EUS-guided sampling of cystic lesions (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). ESGE suggests that evaluation of tissue obtained by EUS-guided sampling should include histologic preparations (e. g., cell blocks and/or formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue fragments) and should not be limited to smear cytology (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Endoscopic therapy in chronic pancreatitis (CP) aims to provide pain relief and to treat local complications, by using the decompression of the pancreatic duct and the drainage of pseudocysts and biliary strictures, respectively. This is the reason for using it as first-line therapy for painful uncomplicated CP. The clinical response has to be evaluated at 6-8 weeks, when surgery may be chosen. This article reviews the main possibilities of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) therapies. Endotherapy for pancreatic ductal stones uses ultrasound wave lithotripsy and sometimes additional stone extractions. The treatment of pancreatic duct strictures consists of a single large stenting for 1 year. If the stricture persists, simultaneous multiple stents are applied. In case of unsuccessful ERCP, the EUS-guided drainage of the main pancreatic duct (MPD) or a rendezvous technique can solve the ductal strictures. EUS-guided celiac plexus block has limited efficiency in CP. The drainage of symptomatic or complicated pancreatic pseudocysts can be performed transpapillarily or transgastrically/transduodenally, preferably by EUS guidance. When the biliary stricture is symptomatic or progressive, multiple plastic stents are indicated. In conclusion, as in many fields of symptomatic treatment, endoscopy remains the first choice, either by using ERCP or EUS-guided procedures, after consideration of a multidisciplinary team with endoscopists, surgeons, and radiologists. However, what is crucial is establishing the right timing for surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anastomotic leakage (AL) constitutes a prominent cause of significant morbidity following gastrectomy for gastric cancer. The manifestation of AL typically occurs within 7 to 10 days post-surgery, with reported incidence rates of 5.8-6.7% for open gastrectomy and 3.3-4.1% for laparoscopic gastrectomy. Various predisposing risk factors have been identified, including the individual nutritional status (excluding obesity) and preoperative corticotherapy. Interestingly, the administration of neoadjuvant therapies appears to reduce the AL occurrence. In the context of distal gastrectomies, the rates of AL are comparable between laparoscopic, robotic, and open approaches. The total gastrectomies have higher AL rate compared to distal gastrectomies, which are considered the preferred approach. Prophylactic drainage measures have not demonstrated efficacy in preventing AL. As for postoperative management, conservative treatment is indicated for patients presenting with mild clinical symptoms and increased inflammatory blood tests. This approach involves fasting, enteral or parenteral nutrition, administration of antibiotics, and percutaneous drainage. For small AL, endoscopic therapies such as stents, vacuum therapy, clips, suturing devices, and injections are appropriate treatment options. In cases of high-volume fistulas, severe sepsis or failure of previous therapies, surgical reoperation becomes the ultimate solution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension (PEG/J) was first described in 1998 and has become the standard technique for fixing the tube in place for levodopa carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG) infusion. The Romanian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (RSDE) decided to create a consensus paper to meet the needs in medical training and practice. After reviewing the available published data and existing recommendations, a consensus process was carried out involving the leaders of opinion in this field. The resulting text and recommendations were approved, after reaching expert consensus, and reflects the views of the RSDE for the best practice of PEG/J tube placement. The pull through method ("pull technique") is the prevailing PEG-tube placement procedure in Romania. The procedure can be performed with intravenous sedation combined with local anesthesia. Although minor complications are common, serious complications are infrequent, and the tube insertion procedures have a good safety record. Redo procedures are sometimes necessary and clinicians should be aware of these situations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & Aim: Novel biological therapies in Crohn's disease (CD) or Ulcerative colitis (UC) require a proper follow-up for the assessment of bowel inflammation. While endoscopy is the standard method, the imaging techniques using contrast, particularly contrast enhanced ultrasonography (CUES), are better tolerated by the patients and can be used more frequently. Our aim was to find the usefulness of dynamic CEUS quantification as compared to endoscopy in the assessment of disease activity and in the follow-up under therapy of the patients suffering from either CD or UC. Method: We have prospectively evaluated 67 patients with UC and 46 with CD, diagnosed by ileo-colonoscopy and biopsy, comparing the endoscopic scores with clinical scores, C reactive protein (CRP), intestinal wall thickness, layer scores after CEUS and TIC parameters (using SonoLiver* software - Imax, RT, TTP, mTT and AUC). For 25 patients with UC and 13 with CD we performed comparisons of the parameters before and after 3 months of treatment and correlated them with the changes in the endoscopic scores. Results: For UC, time-intensity curves (TIC) volume parameters (AUC) correlated better with endoscopy (p=0.64) than the clinical score (p =0.62). Other parameters such as CRP and thickness showed significant but less strong correlation, while TIC flow parameters (RT, TTP and mTT) did not show a significant correlation. Results were similar for CD (p=0.64 for Imax vs p=0.58 for CDAI). The best predictor for endoscopic improvement in both UC and CD was ln(AUC), with a Wilcoxon Z score of 3.76 and 2.61, respectively. There was also a good correlation between the difference of its values and the difference in endoscopic scores before and after the treatment (rho is 0.68 in UC and 0.73 in CD). Conclusion: CEUS is a useful technique to monitor activity in IBD patiens during therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]