Search

Background: In patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis follow‐up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is performed by many centres, particularly for the early detection of biliary malignancies and strictures. Clinically meaningful MRI‐based definitions of primary sclerosing cholangitis related complications are, however, lacking.Aim: To investigate how primary sclerosing cholangitis experts interpret follow‐up MRI/MRCP with a focus on conclusions that may impact clinical decision‐making in primary sclerosing cholangitis.Methods: Within the International Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis Study Group, an online survey on 16 real‐life primary sclerosing cholangitis cases including clinical and biochemical information as well as a T2‐weighted liver MRI/3D‐MRCP was conducted. The interpretation of images and subsequent recommendations were assessed using a multiple‐choice questionnaire. An inter‐rater reliability calculation (Fleiss′ kappa) was performed and factors potentially affecting the interpretation of magnetic resonance images were analysed using generalised linear mixed‐effect models.Results: Forty‐four members/associates of the International Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis Study Group (median experience in the care of primary sclerosing cholangitis patients: 14 years) completed the survey. The MRI interpretation significantly varied among the participants. The lowest agreement was found with respect to the indication to perform subsequent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP; Κ = 0.12, 95%CI 0.11‐0.14). Elevated total bilirubin was the variable with the strongest effect on the rate of suspected dominant strictures, cholangiocarcinoma or ERCP recommendations. Liver cirrhosis did not prevent participants from recommending ERCP. Overall, the survey participants′ recommendations contrasted the real‐life management and outcome.Conclusions: In primary sclerosing cholangitis, the interpretation of follow‐up MRI/3D‐MRCP significantly varies even among experts and seems to be primarily affected by bilirubin levels. Generally accepted MRI‐based definitions of primary sclerosing cholangitis‐related complications are urgently needed.

Main Recommendations Prophylaxis 1 ESGE recommends routine rectal administration of 100 mg of diclofenac or indomethacin immediately before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in all patients without contraindications to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends prophylactic pancreatic stenting in selected patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis (inadvertent guidewire insertion/opacification of the pancreatic duct, double-guidewire cannulation). Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE suggests against routine endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy before the insertion of a single plastic stent or an uncovered/partially covered self-expandable metal stent for relief of biliary obstruction. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends against the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5 ESGE suggests antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP in the case of anticipated incomplete biliary drainage, for severely immunocompromised patients, and when performing cholangioscopy. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6 ESGE suggests tests of coagulation are not routinely required prior to ERCP for patients who are not on anticoagulants and not jaundiced. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. Treatment 7 ESGE suggests against salvage pancreatic stenting in patients with post-ERCP pancreatitis. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE suggests temporary placement of a biliary fully covered self-expandable metal stent for post-sphincterotomy bleeding refractory to standard hemostatic modalities. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 9 ESGE suggests to evaluate patients with post-ERCP cholangitis by abdominal ultrasonography or computed tomography (CT) scan and, in the absence of improvement with conservative therapy, to consider repeat ERCP. A bile sample should be collected for microbiological examination during repeat ERCP. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart New York.

Direct oral anticoagulants are being increasingly used in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism, due to their improved efficacy/ safety ratio, a predictable anticoagulant effect without need for routine coagulation monitoring, and fewer food and drug interactions compared with vitamin K antagonists. Gastrointestinal bleeding remains a serious complication, whose management is challenging for gastroenterologists due to the lack of a standardized clinical approach. Clinical experience on periendoscopic management of these drugs is still limited and there is a paucity of clinical data supporting guidelines recommendations’, and this ultimately turns out in different, unsubstantiated and potentially harmful practices of patient management. Present study will provide a thorough revision on the risk of GI bleeding for DOAC therapy and the identification of patient risk factors to individualize treatment. Moreover, the approach to management of DOACs in case of bleeding complications is discussed, and an algorithm of different strategies in presence or not of plasma level measurement is proposed. Finally the periendoscopic management for elective procedures will be reviewed, at the light of the guideline recommendations and new evidences from observational studies.

Background & Aims: Efficacy of bowel preparation is an important determinant of outcomes of colonoscopy. It is not clear whether approved low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) and non-PEG regimens are as effective as high-volume PEG regimens when taken in a split dose. Methods: In a systematic review of multiple electronic databases through January 31, 2019 with a registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019128067), we identified randomized controlled trials that compared low- vs high-volume bowel cleansing regimens, administered in a split dose, for colonoscopy. The primary efficacy outcome was rate of adequate bowel cleansing, and the secondary efficacy outcome was adenoma detection rate. Primary tolerability outcomes were compliance, tolerability, and willingness to repeat. We calculated relative risk (RR) and 95% CI values and assessed heterogeneity among studies by using the I2 statistic. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. Results: In an analysis of data from 17 randomized controlled trials, comprising 7528 patients, we found no significant differences in adequacy of bowel cleansing between the low- vs high-volume split-dose regimens (86.1% vs 87.4%; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98–1.02) and there was minimal heterogeneity (I2 = 17%). There was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87–1.08) among 4 randomized controlled trials. Compared with high-volume, split-dose regimens, low-volume split-dose regimens had higher odds for compliance or completion (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02–1.10), tolerability (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12–1.74), and willingness to repeat bowel preparation (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20–1.66). The overall quality of evidence was moderate. Conclusions: Based on a systematic review of 17 randomized controlled trials, low-volume, split-dose regimens appear to be as effective as high-volume, split-dose regimens in bowel cleansing and are better tolerated, with superior compliance. © 2020 AGA Institute

Main Recommendations ESGE recommends offering stone extraction to all patients with common bile duct stones, symptomatic or not, who are fit enough to tolerate the intervention. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE recommends liver function tests and abdominal ultrasonography as the initial diagnostic steps for suspected common bile duct stones. Combining these tests defines the probability of having common bile duct stones. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography to diagnose common bile duct stones in patients with persistent clinical suspicion but insufficient evidence of stones on abdominal ultrasonography. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends the following timing for biliary drainage, preferably endoscopic, in patients with acute cholangitis, classified according to the 2018 revision of the Tokyo Guidelines: - severe, as soon as possible and within 12 hours for patients with septic shock - moderate, within 48-72 hours - mild, elective. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE recommends endoscopic placement of a temporary biliary plastic stent in patients with irretrievable biliary stones that warrant biliary drainage. Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. ESGE recommends limited sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation as the first-line approach to remove difficult common bile duct stones. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE recommends the use of cholangioscopy-assisted intraluminal lithotripsy (electrohydraulic or laser) as an effective and safe treatment of difficult bile duct stones. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 2 weeks from ERCP for patients treated for choledocholithiasis to reduce the conversion rate and the risk of recurrent biliary events. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart - New York.

Main Recommendations ESGE recommends a low fiber diet on the day preceding colonoscopy. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends the use of enhanced instructions for bowel preparation. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE suggests adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends split-dose bowel preparation for elective colonoscopy. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE recommends, for patients undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, a same-day bowel preparation as an acceptable alternative to split dosing. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE recommends to start the last dose of bowel preparation within 5 hours of colonoscopy, and to complete it at least 2 hours before the beginning of the procedure. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends the use of high volume or low volume PEG-based regimens as well as that of non-PEG-based agents that have been clinically validated for routine bowel preparation. In patients at risk for hydroelectrolyte disturbances, the choice of laxative should be individualized. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. © 2019 Endoscopy. All rights reserved.

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) on the management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart - New York.

Main Recommendations ESGE recommends against routine preoperative biliary drainage in patients with malignant extrahepatic biliary obstruction; preoperative biliary drainage should be reserved for patients with cholangitis, severe symptomatic jaundice (e.g., intense pruritus), or delayed surgery, or for before neoadjuvant chemotherapy in jaundiced patients. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends the endoscopic placement of a 10-mm diameter self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) for preoperative biliary drainage of malignant extrahepatic biliary obstruction. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends SEMS insertion for palliative drainage of of extrahepatic malignant biliary obstruction. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE recommends against the insertion of uncovered SEMS for the drainage of extrahepatic biliary obstruction of unconfirmed etiology. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE suggests against routine preoperative biliary drainage in patients with malignant hilar obstruction. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE recommends uncovered SEMSs for palliative drainage of malignant hilar obstruction. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends temporary insertion of multiple plastic stents or of a fully covered SEMS for treatment of benign biliary strictures. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends endoscopic placement of plastic stent(s) to treat bile duct leaks that are not due to transection of the common bile duct or common hepatic duct. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart New York.

Contains fulltext : 169869.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) BACKGROUND: There have been substantial improvements in the management of chronic pancreatitis, leading to the publication of several national guidelines during recent years. In collaboration with United European Gastroenterology, the working group on 'Harmonizing diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis across Europe' (HaPanEU) developed these European guidelines using an evidence-based approach. METHODS: Twelve multidisciplinary review groups performed systematic literature reviews to answer 101 predefined clinical questions. Recommendations were graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system and the answers were assessed by the entire group in a Delphi process online. The review groups presented their recommendations during the 2015 annual meeting of United European Gastroenterology. At this one-day, interactive conference, relevant remarks were voiced and overall agreement on each recommendation was quantified using plenary voting (Test and Evaluation Directorate). After a final round of adjustments based on these comments, a draft version was sent out to external reviewers. RESULTS: The 101 recommendations covered 12 topics related to the clinical management of chronic pancreatitis: aetiology (working party (WP)1), diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis with imaging (WP2 and WP3), diagnosis of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (WP4), surgery in chronic pancreatitis (WP5), medical therapy (WP6), endoscopic therapy (WP7), treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts (WP8), pancreatic pain (WP9), nutrition and malnutrition (WP10), diabetes mellitus (WP11) and the natural course of the disease and quality of life (WP12). Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system, 70 of the 101 (70%) recommendations were rated as 'strong' and plenary voting revealed 'strong agreement' for 99 (98%) recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The 2016 HaPanEU/United European Gastroenterology guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations concerning key aspects of the medical and surgical management of chronic pancreatitis based on current available evidence. These recommendations should serve as a reference standard for existing management of the disease and as a guide for future clinical research.

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It provides practical advice on how to achieve successful cannulation and sphincterotomy at minimum risk to the patient. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations 1 ESGE suggests that difficult biliary cannulation is defined by the presence of one or more of the following: more than 5 contacts with the papilla whilst attempting to cannulate; more than 5 minutes spent attempting to cannulate following visualization of the papilla; more than one unintended pancreatic duct cannulation or opacification (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). 2 ESGE recommends the guidewire-assisted technique for primary biliary cannulation, since it reduces the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). 3 ESGE recommends using pancreatic guidewire (PGW)-assisted biliary cannulation in patients where biliary cannulation is difficult and repeated unintentional access to the main pancreatic duct occurs (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). ESGE recommends attempting prophylactic pancreatic stenting in all patients with PGW-assisted attempts at biliary cannulation (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). 4 ESGE recommends needle-knife fistulotomy as the preferred technique for precutting (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). ESGE suggests that precutting should be used only by endoscopists who achieve selective biliary cannulation in more than 80% of cases using standard cannulation techniques (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). When access to the pancreatic duct is easy to obtain, ESGE suggests placement of a pancreatic stent prior to precutting (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation). 5 ESGE recommends that in patients with a small papilla that is difficult to cannulate, transpancreatic biliary sphincterotomy should be considered if unintentional insertion of a guidewire into the pancreatic duct occurs (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). In patients who have had transpancreatic sphincterotomy, ESGE suggests prophylactic pancreatic stenting (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). 6 ESGE recommends that mixed current is used for sphincterotomy rather than pure cut current alone, as there is a decreased risk of mild bleeding with the former (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). 7 ESGE suggests endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) as an alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) for extracting CBD stones

Main RecommendationsThe following recommendations for post-polypectomy colonoscopic surveillance apply to all patients who had one or more polyps that were completely removed during a high quality baseline colonoscopy. 1 ESGE recommends that patients with complete removal of 1 – 4 Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.If organized screening is not available, repetition of colonoscopy 10 years after the index procedure is recommended.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends surveillance colonoscopy after 3 years for patients with complete removal of at least 1 adenoma ≥ 10 mm or with high grade dysplasia, or ≥ 5 adenomas, or any serrated polyp ≥ 10 mm or with dysplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends a 3 – 6-month early repeat colonoscopy following piecemeal endoscopic resection of polyps ≥ 20 mm.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. A first surveillance colonoscopy 12 months after the repeat colonoscopy is recommended to detect late recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4 If no polyps requiring surveillance are detected at the first surveillance colonoscopy, ESGE suggests to perform a second surveillance colonoscopy after 5 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.After that, if no polyps requiring surveillance are detected, patients can be returned to screening. 5 ESGE suggests that, if polyps requiring surveillance are detected at first or subsequent surveillance examinations, surveillance colonoscopy may be performed at 3 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.A flowchart showing the recommended surveillance intervals is provided (Fig. 1).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Efficacy of bowel preparation is an important determinant of outcomes of colonoscopy. It is not clear whether approved low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) and non-PEG regimens are as effective as high-volume PEG regimens when taken in a split dose. METHODS: In a systematic review of multiple electronic databases through January 31, 2019 with a registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019128067), we identified randomized controlled trials that compared low- vs high-volume bowel cleansing regimens, administered in a split dose, for colonoscopy. The primary efficacy outcome was rate of adequate bowel cleansing, and the secondary efficacy outcome was adenoma detection rate. Primary tolerability outcomes were compliance, tolerability, and willingness to repeat. We calculated relative risk (RR) and 95% CI values and assessed heterogeneity among studies by using the I2 statistic. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. RESULTS: In an analysis of data from 17 randomized controlled trials, comprising 7528 patients, we found no significant differences in adequacy of bowel cleansing between the low- vs high-volume split-dose regimens (86.1% vs 87.4%; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02) and there was minimal heterogeneity (I2 = 17%). There was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87-1.08) among 4 randomized controlled trials. Compared with high-volume, split-dose regimens, low-volume split-dose regimens had higher odds for compliance or completion (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), tolerability (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.74), and willingness to repeat bowel preparation (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20-1.66). The overall quality of evidence was moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a systematic review of 17 randomized controlled trials, low-volume, split-dose regimens appear to be as effective as high-volume, split-dose regimens in bowel cleansing and are better tolerated, with superior compliance. ispartof: CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY vol:18 issue:7 pages:1454-+ ispartof: location:United States status: published

Main RecommendationsESGE recommends a low fiber diet on the day preceding colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of enhanced instructions for bowel preparation.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends split-dose bowel preparation for elective colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends, for patients undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, a same-day bowel preparation as an acceptable alternative to split dosing.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends to start the last dose of bowel preparation within 5 hours of colonoscopy, and to complete it at least 2 hours before the beginning of the procedure.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of high volume or low volume PEG-based regimens as well as that of non-PEG-based agents that have been clinically validated for routine bowel preparation. In patients at risk for hydroelectrolyte disturbances, the choice of laxative should be individualized.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONSFor pancreatic solid lesions, ESGE recommends performing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling as first-line procedure when a pathological diagnosis is required. Alternatively, percutaneous sampling may be considered in metastatic disease.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.In the case of negative or inconclusive results and a high degree of suspicion of malignant disease, ESGE suggests re-evaluating the pathology slides, repeating EUS-guided sampling, or surgery.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.In patients with chronic pancreatitis associated with a pancreatic mass, EUS-guided sampling results that do not confirm cancer should be interpreted with caution.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.For pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs), ESGE recommends EUS-guided sampling for biochemical analyses plus cytopathological examination if a precise diagnosis may change patient management, except for lesions ≤ 10 mm in diameter with no high risk stigmata. If the volume of PCL aspirate is small, it is recommended that carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level determination be done as the first analysis.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.For esophageal cancer, ESGE suggests performing EUS-guided sampling for the assessment of regional lymph nodes (LNs) in T1 (and, depending on local treatment policy, T2) adenocarcinoma and of lesions suspicious for metastasis such as distant LNs, left liver lobe lesions, and suspected peritoneal carcinomatosis.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.For lymphadenopathy of unknown origin, ESGE recommends performing EUS-guided (or alternatively endobronchial ultrasound [EBUS]-guided) sampling if the pathological result is likely to affect patient management and no superficial lymphadenopathy is easily accessible.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.In the case of solid liver masses suspicious for metastasis, ESGE suggests performing EUS-guided sampling if the pathological result is likely to affect patient management, and (i) the lesion is poorly accessible/not detected at percutaneous imaging, or (ii) a sample obtained via the percutaneous route repeatedly yielded an inconclusive result.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

RECOMMENDATIONSFor 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).