Search

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles, and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations., Competing Interests: Dr Radaelli has received speaker fees from Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Alikhan has received fees from Alexion, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Daiichi, Pfizer and Portola. Dr Lester has received speaker fees from Sanofi Aventis and Leo Pharma, speaker fees and advisory board fees from Bayer, Daichii Sankyo, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim, and support to attend a scientific meeting from Boehringer Ingelheim. Prof Van- Hooft has received departmental research grant support from Cook Medical and Abbott, lecture fees from Medtronics and Cook Medical, and consultancy fees from Boston Scientific and Olympus. None of the remaining authors have competing interests to declare., (European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, British Society of Gastroenterology, the Author(s) or their employer(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme and BMJ Publishing Group Ltd under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).)

1:  ESGE recommends that each center implements a written policy regarding the management of iatrogenic perforations, including the definition of procedures that carry a higher risk of this complication. This policy should be shared with the radiologists and surgeons at each center. 2 : ESGE recommends that in the case of an endoscopically identified perforation, the endoscopist reports its size and location, with an image, and statement of the endoscopic treatment that has been applied. 3:  ESGE recommends that symptoms or signs suggestive of iatrogenic perforation after an endoscopic procedure should be rapidly and carefully evaluated and documented with a computed tomography (CT) scan. 4 : ESGE recommends that endoscopic closure should be considered depending on the type of the iatrogenic perforation, its size, and the endoscopist expertise available at the center. Switch to carbon dioxide (CO2) endoscopic insufflation, diversion of digestive luminal content, and decompression of tension pneumoperitoneum or pneumothorax should also be performed. 5 : ESGE recommends that after endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, further management should be based on the estimated success of the endoscopic closure and on the general clinical condition of the patient. In the case of no or failed endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, and in patients whose clinical condition is deteriorating, hospitalization and surgical consultation are recommended., Competing Interests: M. Barthet’s department has received a research grant from Boston Scientific. G. Paspatis has received consultancy fees from Boston Scientific (2019). A. Repici has received consultancy fees from Boston Scientific (2019 – 2020); his department has received a research grant from Boston Scientific (2018 – 2020). B. Saunders’ department has received a research grant and loan of equipment from Olympus (2019 to present). J.E. van Hooft has received lecture fees from Medtronics (2014 – 2015, 2019) and Cook Medical (2019), and consultancy fees from Boston Scientific (2014 – 2017); her department has received research grants from Cook Medical (2014 – 2018) and Abbott (2014 – 2017). M. Arvanitakis, A. Dhillon, J.M. Dumonceau, M. Fragaki, J.M. Gonzalez, S.Y. Turino, and R.L.J. van Wanrooij have no competing interests., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

The 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 < 10 mm adenomas with low grade dysplasia, irrespective of villous components, or any serrated polyp < 10 mm without dysplasia, do not require endoscopic surveillance and should be returned to screening.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)., Competing Interests: M. Bretthauer’s department has received support and cooperation from the EndoBRAIN study from Olympus Europa SE (from 2019 ongoing). E. Dekker has received consultancy honoraria from Fujifilm, Olympus, Tillots, GI Supply, and CPP-FAP, and speakers’ fees from Olympus, Roche and GI Supply; she has endoscopic equipment on loan and receives a research grant from Fujifilm. L.M. Helsingen’s department has received support and cooperation from the EndoBRAIN study from Olympus Europa SE (from 2019 ongoing). J.E. van Hooft has received lecture fees from Medtronics (from 2014 to 2015 and 2019) and Cook Medical (2019), and consultancy fees from Boston Scientific (2014 – 2017); her department has received research grants from Cook Medical (2014 – 2019) and Abbott (2014 – 2017). M. Pellisé has received consultancy and speaker’s fees from Norgine Iberia (2015 – 2019), a consultancy fee from GI Supply (2019), speaker’s fees from Casen Recordati (2016 – 2019), Olympus (2018), and Jansen (2018), and research funding from Fujifilm Spain (2019), Fujifilm Europe (2020), and Casen Recordati (2020); her department has received loan material from Fujifilm Spain (from 2017 ongoing), a research grant from Olympus Europe (2005 – 2019), and loan material and a research grant from Fujifilm Europe (2020 – 2021); she is a Board member of ESGE and SEED; and receives a fee from Thieme as an Endoscopy Co-Editor. J. Regula has received sponsorship and lecture fees from Ipsen Pharma and Alfasigma (2017 – 2020). M. Rutter is a member of the British Society of Gastroenterology. G. Antonelli, A. Bleijenberg, S. Chaussade, M. Dinis-Ribeiro, J.-M. Dumonceau, M. Ferlitsch, A. Gimeno-Garcia, C. Hassan, R. Jover, M. Kalager, C. Pox, E. Quintero, and L. Ricciardello, and C. Senore have no competing interests., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

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., Competing Interests: T. Beyna receives consultancy fees from Olympus, Boston Scientific, and Cook (ongoing), and lecture fees from Olympus, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic (ongoing). M. Dinis-Ribeiro receives a fee as Co-Editor-in-Chief of Endoscopy journal. I. Hritz has provided consultancy and training for Olympus (2017 to present), and consultancy for Pentax Medical (2018). I. Papanikolaou has provided consultancy for Boston Scientific (25 April and 21 March, 2018). A. Tringali provided consultancy for Boston Scientific (3 April 2019); he has received publication fees from UpToDate. J.E. van Hooft has received lecture fees from Medtronics (2014 – 2015) and consultancy fees from Boston Scientific (2014 – 2017); her department has received research grants from Cook Medical (2014 – 2018) and Abbott (2014 – 2017). G. Vanbiervliet has provided consultancy to Boston Scientific (2016 to present) and Cook Medical (2019 to present). L. Aabakken, C. Kapral, J.M. Dumonceau, S. Lakhtakia, A. Mariani, G. Paspatis, F. Radaelli, and A. Veitch have no competing interests., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

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., Competing Interests: R. Benamouzig has provided consultancy to Alfasigma. R. Bisschops has received speaker’s fees from Norgine (1 January 2017 to present); he is Co-Editor of Endoscopy. E. Dekker is Co-Editor of Endoscopy. M. Dinis-Ribeiro is Co-Editor-in-Chief of Endoscopy. J. East received a speaker fee from Falk (January 2018); his department received support from Boston Scientific (March 2018 to March 2019). I. Gralnek declares consultancy, MAB, and share ownership in Motus GI (2014 to present). C. Hassan provides consultancy to Norgine; his department receives support from Alfasigma. R. Jover has received travel grants from Norgine (2015 to 2019); he has provided advisory services to Norgine (2015 to 2019), Alfasigma (2017 to 2018), GI Supply (2018 to 2019), and CPP Pharmaceuticals (2019); his department has received research grants from MSD (2010 to 2019). M.F. Kaminski has provided speaking and teaching services to Olympus, Alfasigma, and Norgine (2017 to present) and Fujinon (2018 to present), consultancy to Olympus (2017 to present), and advisory services to Alfasigma (2017 to present). M. Pellisé has received consultancy fees from Norgine Iberia (2012 to 2017, 2019 to present), and speaker’s fees from Casen Recordati (2018) and Olympus (2017); her department has been loaned equipment from Fujifilm (2017 to present); she is on the Endoscopy Board. F. Radaelli has received consultancy fees from Norgine (January 2018 to December 2018). C. Spada has received consultancy fees from Norgina and Alfasigma (2016 to 2019). J.E. van Hooft has received lecture fees from Medtronics (2014 to 2015) and Cook Medical (2019), and consultancy fees from Boston Scientific (2014 to 2017); her department has received research grants from Cook Medical (2014 to 2018) and Abbott (2014 to 2017). H. Awadie, M. Bretthauer, J.-M. Dumonceau, M. Ferlitsch, L. Frazzoni, L. Fuccio, C. Mangas-Sanjuan, K. Triantafyllou, and G. Vanella have no competing interests., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

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., Competing Interests: A. Anderloni has provided consultancy to Boston Scientific (2016 – 2018) and Olympus (2018). M. Barthet’s department received a research grant (2016 – 2018). D. Domagk’s department has received workshop, consultancy, and speaker’s fees from Hitachi (2016 to present), and speaker’s fees and symposia support from Dr. Falk Foundation and Olympus (both 2015 to present). I. Hritz has provided consultancy and training for Olympus (2017 to present) and consultancy to Pentax Medical (2018 to present). G. Paspatis has received sponsorship for invited speeches from Boston Scientific (2014 – 2018). T. Ponchon has been on the advisory board of Olympus (2018) and his department has received clinical research funding from Fujifilm (2018). J. E. van Hooft received lecture fees from Medtronics (2014 – 2015) and provided consultancy to Boston Scientific (2014 – 2016), her department has received research grants from Cook Medical (2014 – 2018) and Abbott (2014 – 2017). E. J. Williams was chair of the British Society of Gastroenterology writing group for guidelines on common bile duct stones (2014 – 2017). L. Aabakken, P. Ah-Soune, M. Arvanitakis, J.-M. Dumonceau, J.-F. Gigot, G. Karamanolis, A. Laghi, G. Manes, A. Mariani, K. Paraskeva, J. Pohl, F. Swahn, R. ter Steege, A. Tringali, and A. Vezakis have no competing interests., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Patients with chronic atrophic gastritis or intestinal metaplasia (IM) are at risk for gastric adenocarcinoma. This underscores the importance of diagnosis and risk stratification for these patients. High definition endoscopy with chromoendoscopy (CE) is better than high definition white-light endoscopy alone for this purpose. Virtual CE can guide biopsies for staging atrophic and metaplastic changes and can target neoplastic lesions. Biopsies should be taken from at least two topographic sites (antrum and corpus) and labelled in two separate vials. For patients with mild to moderate atrophy restricted to the antrum there is no evidence to recommend surveillance. In patients with IM at a single location but with a family history of gastric cancer, incomplete IM, or persistent Helicobacter pylori gastritis, endoscopic surveillance with CE and guided biopsies may be considered in 3 years. Patients with advanced stages of atrophic gastritis should be followed up with a high quality endoscopy every 3 years. In patients with dysplasia, in the absence of an endoscopically defined lesion, immediate high quality endoscopic reassessment with CE is recommended. Patients with an endoscopically visible lesion harboring low or high grade dysplasia or carcinoma should undergo staging and treatment. H. pylori eradication heals nonatrophic chronic gastritis, may lead to regression of atrophic gastritis, and reduces the risk of gastric cancer in patients with these conditions, and it is recommended. H. pylori eradication is also recommended for patients with neoplasia after endoscopic therapy. In intermediate to high risk regions, identification and surveillance of patients with precancerous gastric conditions is cost-effective., Competing Interests: M. Leja has shares in and receives a salary from the Digestive Diseases Centre GASTRO, SIA (from approximately 2000 to present); his department receives research support with a special offer for reagents (including for pepsinogen detection) from Eiken Chemical (2013 to present); he is a Board member of the Latvian Association of Gastroenterology (from approximately 2000 to present), F. Megraud’s department has received a grant from Allergan (2014 to February 2019). J. E. van Hooft has received lecture fees from Medtronic (2014 – 2015) and consultancy fees from Boston Scientific (2014 – 2016); her department has received research grants from Cook Medical (2014 – 2018) and Abbott (2014 – 2017). B. Annibale, M. Areia, R. Barros, F. Carneiro, M. Dinis-Ribeiro, J.-M. Dumonceau, G. Esposito, J.-F. Fléjou, M. Garrido, I. Kikuste, E. J. Kuipers, D. Libânio, R. Marcos-Pinto, T. Matysiak-Budnik, and P. Pimentel-Nunes have no competing interests., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

ESGE suggests endoscopic therapy and/or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) as the first-line therapy for painful uncomplicated chronic pancreatitis (CP) with an obstructed main pancreatic duct (MPD) in the head/body of the pancreas. The clinical response should be evaluated at 6 - 8 weeks; if it appears unsatisfactory, the patient's case should be discussed again in a multidisciplinary team and surgical options should be considered.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE suggests, for the selection of patients for initial or continued endoscopic therapy and/or ESWL, taking into consideration predictive factors associated with a good long-term outcome. These include, at initial work-up, absence of MPD stricture, a short disease duration, non-severe pain, absence or cessation of cigarette smoking and of alcohol intake, and, after initial treatment, complete removal of obstructive pancreatic stones and resolution of pancreatic duct stricture with stenting.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends ESWL for the clearance of radiopaque obstructive MPD stones larger than 5 mm located in the head/body of the pancreas and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for MPD stones that are radiolucent or smaller than 5 mm. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests restricting the use of endoscopic therapy after ESWL to patients with no spontaneous clearance of pancreatic stones after adequate fragmentation by ESWL.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests treating painful dominant MPD strictures with a single 10-Fr plastic stent for one uninterrupted year if symptoms improve after initial successful MPD drainage. The stent should be exchanged if necessary, based on symptoms or signs of stent dysfunction at regular pancreas imaging at least every 6 months. ESGE suggests consideration of surgery or multiple side-by-side plastic stents for symptomatic MPD strictures persisting beyond 1 year after the initial single plastic stenting, following multidisciplinary discussion. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends endoscopic drainage over percutaneous or surgical treatment for uncomplicated chronic pancreatitis (CP)-related pseudocysts that are within endoscopic reach.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends retrieval of transmural plastic stents at least 6 weeks after pancreatic pseudocyst regression if MPD disruption has been excluded, and long-term indwelling of transmural double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE suggests the temporary insertion of multiple side-by-side plastic stents or of a fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) for treating CP-related benign biliary strictures.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends maintaining a registry of patients with biliary stents and recalling them for stent removal or exchange.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence., Competing Interests: G. P. Aithal receives consultancy fees from Shire (September 2015 to present), Pfizer (July 2018 to present), and GSK and Agios (February 2018 to present). A. Anderloni has provided consultancy to Boston Scientific (2017 – 2018). M. J. Bruno has received lecturing and consultancy fees from Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, and Pentax Medical (ongoing) and consultancy fees from Mylan (ongoing); his department is involved in investigator- and industry-initiated studies with Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, and Pentax Medical (ongoing); he is a member (no financial benefit) of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group J. Devière receives research support from Olympus for institutional review board-approved studies (ongoing); his department receives research support from Boston Scientific for institutional review board-approved studies (ongoing). J. E. Domínguez-Muñoz has received speaker’s honoraria from Boston Scientific (2018); his department has received financial support for educational activities from Pentax and Boston Scientific (2017 – 2018) and Medtronic (2018). J.-W. Poley receives speaker’s fees and travel expenses from Pentax, Boston Scientific, and Cook Endoscopy (ongoing), and consultancy fees from Boston Scientific and Cook Endoscopy (ongoing). A. Sanchez-Yague has provided paid consultancy to Boston Scientific (2015 – 2018). J. E. van Hooft has received lecture fees from Medtronic (2014 – 2015) and consultancy fees from Boston Scientific (2014 – 2016); her department has received research grants from Cook Medical (2014 – 2018) and Abbott (2014 – 2017). M. Arvanitakis, P. Cantú, M. Delhaye, J.-M. Dumonceau, S. Lekkerkerker, M. Ramchandani, N. Reddy, A. Tringali, and T. Vaysse have no competing interests., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

This Position Statement from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) sets standards for the reprocessing of flexible endoscopes and endoscopic devices used in gastroenterology. An expert working group of gastroenterologists, endoscopy nurses, chemists, microbiologists, and industry representatives provides updated recommendations on all aspects of reprocessing in order to maintain hygiene and infection control., Competing Interests: U. Beilenhoff has provided consultancy to Boston Scientific since July 2017. H. Biering has done customer presentations and trainings, moderated workshops, and provided consultancy to Richard Wolf GmbH, Olympus Europa, Dr. Weigert, and Ecolab. R. Blum is employed by Olympus Europa, who hold patents on endoscopes in general; he is a member of the DIN/CEN/ISO TC/198/WG13 standards group for safe reprocessing of endoscopes. M. Cimbro has been employed by CBC Europe since 2002; she has been a consultant since 2011 to ANOTE-ANIGEA (Italian Association of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses). M. Jung’s hospital has received sponsorship from Olympus Optical and other companies for an EUS/endoscopy course (22nd September 2017). B. Kampf is employed by Olympus Europa, who hold patents on endoscopes in general. M. Pietsch’s department has received third-party funding from Olympus for a research project, from 2015 to 2017. L. Pineau has provided training on hygiene and medical device evaluation for Pentax, Olympus, and Fujifilm, from 1999 to 2017. T. Ponchon has served on an advisory board for Fujifilm (January 2015 to October 2017). J. Brljak, J.-M. Dumonceau, C. Hassan, C. Neumann, S. Rejchrt, J.-F. Rey, V. Schmidt, J. Tillett, and J. van Hooft have no competing interests., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

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., Competing Interests: G. Costamagna has provided research support to Cook Medical and Taewoong; his department has received research support from Boston Scientific. J. Devière’s department has received research support for institutional review board-approved studies, from Olympus (ongoing), Boston Scientific (ongoing), and Cook Medical (from 2015 to 2016). F. Prat has provided consultancy to Olympus (2016 to 2018, continuing) and Boston Scientific (2015 to 2018, continuing). P.D. Siersema has provided research support to Ella-CS (from June 2016 to present). J. van Hooft has received lecture fees from Medtronic (from 2014 to 2015) and consultancy fees from Boston Scientific (from 2014 to 2016); her department has received research grants from Cook Medical (from 2014 to 2017) and Abbott (from 2014 to 2017). G. Vanbiervliet has provided consultancy to Boston Scientific (from 2016 to present). D. Blero, J.-M. Dumonceau, J. García-Cano, T. Gyökeres, C. Hassan, B. Mangiavillano, I.S. Papanikolaou, A. Schmidt, and A. Tringali have no competing interests., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

1:  ESGE suggests using contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) as the first-line imaging modality on admission when indicated and up to the 4th week from onset in the absence of contraindications. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be used instead of CT in patients with contraindications to contrast-enhanced CT, and after the 4th week from onset when invasive intervention is considered because the contents (liquid vs. solid) of pancreatic collections are better characterized by MRI and evaluation of pancreatic duct integrity is possible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends against routine percutaneous fine needle aspiration (FNA) of (peri)pancreatic collections. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. FNA should be performed only if there is suspicion of infection and clinical/imaging signs are unclear. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends initial goal-directed intravenous fluid therapy with Ringer's lactate (e. g. 5 - 10 mL/kg/h) at onset. Fluid requirements should be patient-tailored and reassessed at frequent intervals. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends against antibiotic or probiotic prophylaxis of infectious complications in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 5:  ESGE recommends invasive intervention for patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis and clinically suspected or proven infected necrosis. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE suggests that the first intervention for infected necrosis should be delayed for 4 weeks if tolerated by the patient. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6:  ESGE recommends performing endoscopic or percutaneous drainage of (suspected) infected walled-off necrosis as the first interventional method, taking into account the location of the walled-off necrosis and local expertise. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7:  ESGE suggests that, in the absence of improvement following endoscopic transmural drainage of walled-off necrosis, endoscopic necrosectomy or minimally invasive surgery (if percutaneous drainage has already been performed) is to be preferred over open surgery as the next therapeutic step, taking into account the location of the walled-off necrosis and local expertise. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE recommends long-term indwelling of transluminal plastic stents in patients with disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. Lumen-apposing metal stents should be retrieved within 4 weeks to avoid stent-related adverse effects.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence., Competing Interests: J. Albert has received speaker’s honoraria from Fujifilm (2015 – 2016), Falk foundation, and Covidien/Medtronic (2015 – 2017), and both research and speaker’s honoraria from Olympus Europe (2015 – 2017). A. Badaoui received a travel grant from Boston Scientific (2016). M. Barthet is a consultant for and receives research support from Boston Scientific (2016 to present). J. Devière has received research support from Cook Medical (until 2016) and from Boston Scientific (ongoing); his department is receiving research support from Olympus (ongoing). I. Hritz is a consultant (speaker/tutor) for Olympus Europe (ongoing). I. Papanikolaou is co-editor for social media with the Endoscopy journal. J.-W. Poley has received consultancy, travel, and speaker’s fees from Cook Endoscopy and Boston Scientific (ongoing). S. Seewald has received consultancy fees from Boston Scientific (until 2016), and from Olympus and Cook Medical (ongoing). J. van Hooft received lecture fees from Medtronics (2014 – 2015) and a consultancy fee from Boston Scientific (2014 – 2016); her department received research grants from Cook Medical and Abbott (2014 – 2017). K. van Lienden is receiving consultancy and speaker’s fees from Cook Medical (ongoing). M. Arvanitakis, M. A. Bali, M. Besselink, M. Delhaye, J.-M. Dumonceau, A. Ferreira, T. Gyökeres, T. Hucl, M. Milashka, H. van Santvoort, G. Vanbiervliet, and R. Voermans have no competing interests., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

1 Prerequisites. The clinical service provider should obtain confirmation from the endoscope washer-disinfector (EWD) manufacturer that all endoscopes intended to be used can be reprocessed in the EWD. 2 Installation qualification. This can be performed by different parties but national guidelines should define who has the responsibilities, taking into account legal requirements. 3 Operational qualification. This should include parametric tests to verify that the EWD is working according to its specifications. 4 Performance qualification. Testing of cleaning performance, microbiological testing of routinely used endoscopes, and the quality of the final rinse water should be considered in all local guidelines. The extent of these tests depends on local requirements. According to the results of type testing performed during EWD development, other parameters can be tested if local regulatory authorities accept this. Chemical residues on endoscope surfaces should be searched for, if acceptable test methods are available. 5 Routine inspections. National guidelines should consider both technical and performance criteria. Individual risk analyses performed in the validation and requalification processes are helpful for defining appropriate test frequencies for routine inspections., Competing Interests: Competing interests: U. Beilenhoff has provided consultancy to Boston Scientific since July 2017. H. Biering has done customer presentations and trainings, moderated workshops, and provided consultancy to Richard Wolf GmbH, Olympus Europa, Dr. Weigert, and Ecolab. R. Blum is employed by Olympus Europa, who hold patents on endoscopes in general; he is a member of the DIN/CEN/ISO TC/198 /WG13 standards group for safe reprocessing of endoscopes. M. Cimbro has been employed by CBC Europe since 2002; she has been a consultant since 2011 to ANOTE-ANIGEA (Italian Association of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses). M. Jung’s hospital has received sponsorship from Olympus Optical and other companies for an EUS/endoscopy course (22nd September 2017). M. Pietsch’s department has received third-party funding from Olympus for a research project, from 2015 to 2017. L. Pineau has provided training on hygiene and medical device evaluation for Pentax, Olympus, and Fujifilm, from 1999 to 2017. T. Ponchon has served on an advisory board for Fujifilm (January 2015 to October 2017). J. Brljak, J.-M. Dumonceau, C. Hassan, C. Neumann, S. Rejchrt, J.-F. Rey, V. Schmidt, J. Tillett, and J. van Hooft have no competing interests., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Patients should be informed about the benefits and risks of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)Only specially trained and competent personnel should carry out endoscope reprocessing.Manufacturers of duodenoscopes should provide detailed instructions on how to use and reprocess their equipment.In the case of modifications to their equipment, manufacturers should provide updated instructions for use.Detailed reprocessing protocols based on the manufacturer's instructions for use should clearly lay out the different reprocessing steps necessary for each endoscope model.Appropriate cleaning equipment should be used for duodenoscopes in compliance with the manufacturer's instructions for use. Only purpose-designed, endoscope type-specific, single-use cleaning brushes should be used, to ensure optimal cleaning. As soon as the endoscope is withdrawn from the patient, bedside cleaning should be performed, followed by leak testing, thorough manual cleaning steps, and automated reprocessing, in order to: · Remove debris from external and internal surfaces;. · Prevent any drying of body fluids, blood, or debris;. · Prevent any formation of biofilms.. In addition to the leak test, visual inspection of the distal end as well as regular maintenance of duodenoscopes should be performed according to the manufacturer's instructions for use, in order to detect any damage at an early stage.The entire reprocessing procedure in endoscope washer-disinfectors (EWDs) should be validated according to the European and International Standard, EN ISO 15883. Routine technical tests of EWDs should be performed according to the validation reports.Microbiological surveillance of a proportion of the department's endoscopes should be performed every 3 months, with the requirement that all endoscopes used in the unit are tested at least once a year.In the case of suspected endoscopy-related infection, the relevant device (e. g., endoscope, EWD) should be taken out of service until adequate corrective actions have been taken. Outbreaks should be managed by a multidisciplinary team, including endoscopy, hygiene, and microbiology experts, manufacturers, and regulatory bodies, according to national standards and/or laws. In the case of suspected multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) outbreaks, close cooperation between the endoscopy unit and the clinical health provider is essential (including infection control departments and hospital hygienists)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: U. Beilenhoff has provided consultancy to Boston Scientific since July 2017. H. Biering has done customer presentations and trainings, moderated workshops, and provided consultancy to Richard Wolf GmbH, Olympus Europa, Dr. Weigert, and Ecolab. Reinhard Blum is employed by Olympus Europa, who hold patents on endoscopes in general; he is a member of the DIN/CEN/ISO TC/198/WG13 standards group for safe reprocessing of endoscopes. M. Cimbro has been employed by CBC Europe since 2002; she has been a consultant since 2011 to ANOTE-ANIGEA (Italian Association of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses). M. Jung's hospital has received sponsorship from Olympus Optical and other companies for an EUS/endoscopy course (22nd September 2017). M. Pietsch's department has received third-party funding from Olympus for a research project, from 2015 to 2017. L. Pineau has provided training on hygiene and medical device evaluation for Pentax, Olympus, and Fujifilm, from 1999 to 2017. T. Ponchon has served on an Advisory board for Fujifilm (January 2015 to October 2017). J. Brljak, J.-M. Dumonceau, C. Hassan, C. Neumann, S. Rejchrt, J.-F. Rey, V. Schmidt, J. Tillett, and J. van Hooft have no competing interests., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

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)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: M. Barthet has provided consultancy and research support to Boston Scientific (from September 2015). S. Carrara has provided a paid lecture/course for Boston Scientific and for Olympus (2016). P. Deprez is providing paid consultancy to Boston Scientific and to Cook (January 2016 to December 2017, for both); his department is receiving sponsorship from Boston Scientific, Olympus, and Cook (January 2016 to December 2017, for all). J. Iglesias-Garcia has been a speaker and provided teaching activities for Boston Scientific (from 2016). B. Napoleon has received fees from Boston Scientific for educational workshops (2014 to present), and fees from Olympus for organisation of EUS 2016; his department has received support from Olympus for the organization of a meeting on contrast EUS (2015). J.E. van Hooft’s department is currently receiving research grants from Cook Medical, Boston Scientific, and Olympus; since 2015 she has been a member of EUS platform, a national network of professionals. G.P. Aithal, P.G. Arcidiacono, P. Bastos, J.-M. Dumonceau, P. Eisendrath, G. Fernández-Esparrach, A. Fornelli, A. Gines, C. Hassan, C. Jenssen, P. Kaye, A. Larghi, M. Polkowski, and A. Seicean have no competing interests., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

For 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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: S. Carrara has provided consultancy to Boston Scientific (since 2016) and to Olympus (since 2015). L. Czakó has received honoraria from Olympus (2014 to 2016). P. H. Deprez has provided consultancy to Boston Scientific and Olympus (both 2015 to 2017). P. Fockens has provided consultancy to Fujifilm, Olympus, Medtronic, Cook, and Boston Scientific (from 2016/2017). R. F. Havre has been provided by Samsung Medison with the use of an ultrasound scanner for research, from March to December 2017; he is a member of the Norwegian Society of Gastroenterology (since 2006). C. Jenssen’s department received a research grant of 4000 € from Novartis (2012 to 2015). A. Larghi has provided consultancy to Boston Scientific (2016 to 2017). J. E. van Hooft has received lecture fees from Medtronic (2014 to 2015) and consultancy fees from Boston Scientific (2014 to 2016); her department has received research grants from Cook Medical and Abbott (both 2014 to 2017). P. Vilmann provides consultancy to MediGlobe (from 1991 to 2019). G. P. Aithal, P. G. Arcidiacono, P. Bastos, J.-M. Dumonceau, G. Fernández-Esparrach, A. Ginès, C. Hassan, J. Iglesias-Garcia, M. Polkowski, and G. Vanbiervliet have no competing interests., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

1  ESGE/EASL recommend that, as the primary diagnostic modality for PSC, magnetic resonance cholangiography (MRC) should be preferred over endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).Moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation. 2  ESGE/EASL suggest that ERCP can be considered if MRC plus liver biopsy is equivocal or contraindicated in patients with persisting clinical suspicion of PSC. The risks of ERCP have to be weighed against the potential benefit with regard to surveillance and treatment recommendations.Low quality evidence, weak recommendation. 6  ESGE/EASL suggest that, in patients with an established diagnosis of PSC, MRC should be considered before therapeutic ERCP.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 7  ESGE/EASL suggest performing endoscopic treatment with concomitant ductal sampling (brush cytology, endobiliary biopsies) of suspected significant strictures identified at MRC in PSC patients who present with symptoms likely to improve following endoscopic treatment.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9  ESGE/EASL recommend weighing the anticipated benefits of biliary papillotomy/sphincterotomy against its risks on a case-by-case basis.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.Biliary papillotomy/sphincterotomy should be considered especially after difficult cannulation.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 16  ESGE/EASL suggest routine administration of prophylactic antibiotics before ERCP in patients with PSC.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 17  EASL/ESGE recommend that cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) should be suspected in any patient with worsening cholestasis, weight loss, raised serum CA19-9, and/or new or progressive dominant stricture, particularly with an associated enhancing mass lesion.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 19  ESGE/EASL recommend ductal sampling (brush cytology, endobiliary biopsies) as part of the initial investigation for the diagnosis and staging of suspected CCA in patients with PSC.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence., Competing Interests: Competing interests: J. Albert has received (from 2015 to 2016) speaker’s honoraria from Fujifilm, the Falk Foundation, Covidien/Medtronic, and Olympus Europe, an honorarium from Covidien/Medtronic for advisory services, and research support from Olympus Europe. P. Fickert has served on advisory boards for Dr. Falk Pharma and Intercept; his department has received unrestricted research grants from the Falk Foundation (since 2010) and Gilead (since 2012); he is listed as co-inventor in two patents filed by the Medical University of Graz for the use of norUDCA in the treatment of liver diseases and arteriosclerosis (publication numbers WO2006119803 and WO20099013334). A. Laghi has received a speaker fee from GE Healthcare (October 2016). J.-W. Poley receives consultancy, travel, and speaker fees from Cook Endoscopy; his department receives financial support for consultancy, travel, and speaking from Boston Scientific; he receives travel and consultancy fees from Pentax. C. Ponsioen’s department is receiving research support from Olympus and Fujifilm. C. Schramm has served on an advisory board for Intercept Pharmaceuticals (2016), and has given lectures sponsored by Intercept and the Falk Foundation. F. Swahn has served on a scientific advisory board for Rhenman & Partners, and has given lectures sponsored by Cook Medical Sweden and Boston Scientific Nordic. L. Aabakken, M. Arvanitakis, O. Chazouilleres, J.-M. Dumonceau, M. Färrkkilä, C. Hassan, G. Hirschfield, T. Karlsen, M. Marzioni, M. Fernandez, S. Pereira, J. Pohl, and A. Tringali have no competing interests., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

1  ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP) as the preferred technique for removal of diminutive polyps (size ≤ 5 mm). This technique has high rates of complete resection, adequate tissue sampling for histology, and low complication rates. (High quality evidence, strong recommendation.) 2  ESGE suggests CSP for sessile polyps 6 - 9 mm in size because of its superior safety profile, although evidence comparing efficacy with hot snare polypectomy (HSP) is lacking. (Moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation.) 3  ESGE suggests HSP (with or without submucosal injection) for removal of sessile polyps 10 - 19 mm in size. In most cases deep thermal injury is a potential risk and thus submucosal injection prior to HSP should be considered. (Low quality evidence, strong recommendation.) 4  ESGE recommends HSP for pedunculated polyps. To prevent bleeding in pedunculated colorectal polyps with head ≥ 20 mm or a stalk ≥ 10 mm in diameter, ESGE recommends pretreatment of the stalk with injection of dilute adrenaline and/or mechanical hemostasis. (Moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation.) 5  ESGE recommends that the goals of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are to achieve a completely snare-resected lesion in the safest minimum number of pieces, with adequate margins and without need for adjunctive ablative techniques. (Low quality evidence; strong recommendation.) 6  ESGE recommends careful lesion assessment prior to EMR to identify features suggestive of poor outcome. Features associated with incomplete resection or recurrence include lesion size > 40 mm, ileocecal valve location, prior failed attempts at resection, and size, morphology, site, and access (SMSA) level 4. (Moderate quality evidence; strong recommendation.) 7  For intraprocedural bleeding, ESGE recommends endoscopic coagulation (snare-tip soft coagulation or coagulating forceps) or mechanical therapy, with or without the combined use of dilute adrenaline injection. (Low quality evidence, strong recommendation.)An algorithm of polypectomy recommendations according to shape and size of polyps is given (Fig. 1)., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Current practices for the management of Barrett's esophagus (BE) vary across Europe, as several national European guidelines exist. This Position Statement from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is an attempt to homogenize recommendations and, hence, patient management according to the best scientific evidence and other considerations (e.g. health policy). A Working Group developed consensus statements, using the existing national guidelines as a starting point and considering new evidence in the literature. The Position Statement wishes to contribute to a more cost-effective approach to the care of patients with BE by reducing the number of surveillance endoscopies for patients with a low risk of malignant progression and centralizing care in expert centers for those with high progression rates.Main statements MS1  The diagnosis of BE is made if the distal esophagus is lined with columnar epithelium with a minimum length of 1 cm (tongues or circular) containing specialized intestinal metaplasia at histopathological examination. MS2  The ESGE recommends varying surveillance intervals for different BE lengths. For patients with an irregular Z-line/columnar-lined esophagus of < 1 cm, no routine biopsies or endoscopic surveillance is advised. For BE ≥ 1 cm and < 3 cm, BE surveillance should be repeated every 5 years. For BE ≥ 3 cm and < 10 cm, the interval for endoscopic surveillance should be 3 years. Patients with BE with a maximum extent ≥ 10 cm should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance endoscopies. Patients with limited life expectancy and advanced age should be discharged from endoscopic surveillance. MS3  The diagnosis of any degree of dysplasia (including "indefinite for dysplasia") in BE requires confirmation by an expert gastrointestinal pathologist. MS4  Patients with visible lesions in BE diagnosed as dysplasia or early cancer should be referred to a BE expert center. All visible abnormalities, regardless of the degree of dysplasia, should be removed by means of endoscopic resection techniques in order to obtain optimal histopathological staging MS5  All patients with a BE ≥ 10 cm, a confirmed diagnosis of low grade dysplasia, high grade dysplasia (HGD), or early cancer should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance and/or treatment. BE expert centers should meet the following criteria: annual case load of ≥10 new patients undergoing endoscopic treatment for HGD or early carcinoma per BE expert endoscopist; endoscopic and histological care provided by endoscopists and pathologists who have followed additional training; at least 30 supervised endoscopic resection and 30 endoscopic ablation procedures to acquire competence in technical skills, management pathways, and complications; multidisciplinary meetings with gastroenterologists, surgeons, oncologists, and pathologists to discuss patients with Barrett's neoplasia; access to experienced esophageal surgery; and all BE patients registered prospectively in a database., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

This Executive summary of the Guideline on pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) refers to infants, children, and adolescents aged 0 - 18 years. The areas covered include: indications for diagnostic and therapeutic esophagogastroduodenoscopy and ileocolonoscopy; endoscopy for foreign body ingestion; endoscopic management of corrosive ingestion and stricture/stenosis; upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and endoscopic ultrasonography. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and endoscopy specific to inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have been dealt with in other Guidelines and are therefore not mentioned in this Guideline. Training and ongoing skill maintenance will be addressed in an imminent sister publication., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background and aim: This technical review is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the utilization of advanced endoscopic imaging in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. Methods: This technical review is based on a systematic literature search to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of advanced endoscopic imaging throughout the GI tract. Technologies considered include narrowed-spectrum endoscopy (narrow band imaging [NBI]; flexible spectral imaging color enhancement [FICE]; i-Scan digital contrast [I-SCAN]), autofluorescence imaging (AFI), and confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendation and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations: 1. We suggest advanced endoscopic imaging technologies improve mucosal visualization and enhance fine structural and microvascular detail. Expert endoscopic diagnosis may be improved by advanced imaging, but as yet in community-based practice no technology has been shown consistently to be diagnostically superior to current practice with high definition white light. (Low quality evidence.) 2. We recommend the use of validated classification systems to support the use of optical diagnosis with advanced endoscopic imaging in the upper and lower GI tracts (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3. We suggest that training improves performance in the use of advanced endoscopic imaging techniques and that it is a prerequisite for use in clinical practice. A learning curve exists and training alone does not guarantee sustained high performances in clinical practice. (Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.) Conclusion: Advanced endoscopic imaging can improve mucosal visualization and endoscopic diagnosis; however it requires training and the use of validated classification systems., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), the European Society of Digestive Endoscopy (ESDO), and the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN). 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 for malignant disease 1 ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) for palliative treatment of malignant dysphagia over laser therapy, photodynamic therapy, and esophageal bypass (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 2 For patients with longer life expectancy, ESGE recommends brachytherapy as a valid alternative or in addition to stenting in esophageal cancer patients with malignant dysphagia. Brachytherapy may provide a survival advantage and possibly a better quality of life compared to SEMS placement alone. (Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.) 3 ESGE recommends esophageal SEMS placement as the preferred treatment for sealing malignant tracheoesophageal or bronchoesophageal fistula (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 ESGE does not recommend the use of concurrent external radiotherapy and esophageal stent treatment. SEMS placement is also not recommended as a bridge to surgery or prior to preoperative chemoradiotherapy. It is associated with a high incidence of adverse events and alternative satisfactory options such as placement of a feeding tube are available. (Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.) Main recommendations for benign disease 1 ESGE recommends against the use of self-expandable stents (SEMSs) as first-line therapy for the management of benign esophageal strictures because of the potential for adverse events, the availability of alternative therapies, and costs (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 2 ESGE suggests consideration of temporary placement of SEMSs as therapy for refractory benign esophageal strictures (weak recommendation, moderate evidence). Stents should usually be removed at a maximum of 3 months (strong recommendation, weak quality evidence). 3 ESGE suggests that fully covered SEMSs be preferred over partially covered SEMSs for the treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures, because of their lack of embedment and ease of removability (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 For the removal of partially covered esophageal SEMSs that are embedded, ESGE recommends the stent-in-stent technique (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 5 ESGE recommends that temporary stent placement can be considered for treating esophageal leaks, fistulas, and perforations. The optimal stenting duration remains unclear and should be individualized. (Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.) 6 ESGE recommends placement of a SEMS for the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding refractory to medical, endoscopic, and/or radiological therapy, or as initial therapy for patients with massive esophageal variceal bleeding (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence)., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

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 < 8 mm in patients without anatomical or clinical contraindications, especially in the presence of coagulopathy or altered anatomy (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). 8 ESGE does not recommend routine biliary sphincterotomy for patients undergoing pancreatic sphincterotomy, and suggests that it is reserved for patients in whom there is evidence of coexisting bile duct obstruction or biliary sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation). 9 In patients with periampullary diverticulum (PAD) and difficult cannulation, ESGE suggests that pancreatic duct stent placement followed by precut sphincterotomy or needle-knife fistulotomy are suitable options to achieve cannulation (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE suggests that EST is safe in patients with PAD. In cases where EST is technically difficult to complete as a result of a PAD, large stone removal can be facilitated by a small EST combined with EPBD or use of EPBD alone (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). 10 For cannulation of the minor papilla, ESGE suggests using wire-guided cannulation, with or without contrast, and sphincterotomy with a pull-type sphincterotome or a needle-knife over a plastic stent (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).When cannulation of the minor papilla is difficult, ESGE suggests secretin injection, which can be preceded by methylene blue spray in the duodenum (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). 11 In patients with choledocholithiasis who are scheduled for elective cholecystectomy, ESGE suggests intraoperative ERCP with laparoendoscopic rendezvous (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation). ESGE suggests that when biliary cannulation is unsuccessful with a standard retrograde approach, anterograde guidewire insertion either by a percutaneous or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided approach can be used to achieve biliary access (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). 12 ESGE suggests that in patients with Billroth II gastrectomy ERCP should be performed in referral centers, with the side-viewing endoscope as a first option; forward-viewing endoscopes are the second choice in cases of failure (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). A straight standard ERCP catheter or an inverted sphincterotome, with or without the guidewire, is recommended by ESGE for biliopancreatic cannulation in patients who have undergone Billroth II gastrectomy (low quality evidence, strong recommendation). Endoscopic papillary ballon dilation (EPBD) is suggested as an alternative to sphincterotomy for stone extraction in the setting of patients with Billroth II gastrectomy (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).In patients with complex post-surgical anatomy ESGE suggests referral to a center where device-assisted enteroscopy techniques are available (very low quality evidence, weak recommendation)., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

The risk of endoscopy in patients on antithrombotics depends on the risks of procedural haemorrhage vs. thrombosis due to discontinuation of therapy. P2Y12 receptor antagonists (clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor): For low-risk endoscopic procedures we recommend continuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists as single or dual antiplatelet therapy (low quality evidence, strong recommendation);For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at low thrombotic risk, we recommend discontinuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists five days before the procedure (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). In patients on dual antiplatelet therapy, we suggest continuing aspirin (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at high thrombotic risk, we recommend continuing aspirin and liaising with a cardiologist about the risk/benefit of discontinuation of P2Y12 receptor antagonists (high quality evidence, strong recommendation). Warfarin: The advice for warfarin is fundamentally unchanged from BSG 2008 guidance. Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOAC): For low-risk endoscopic procedures we suggest omitting the morning dose of DOAC on the day of the procedure (very low quality evidence, weak recommendation). For high-risk endoscopic procedures, we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken ≥ 48 hours before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). For patients on dabigatran with CrCl (or estimated glomerular filtration rate, eGFR) of 30 - 50 mL/min we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken 72 hours before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). In any patient with rapidly deteriorating renal function a haematologist should be consulted (low quality evidence, strong recommendation)., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH). Main Recommendations MR1. ESGE recommends immediate assessment of hemodynamic status in patients who present with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH), with prompt intravascular volume replacement initially using crystalloid fluids if hemodynamic instability exists (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR2. ESGE recommends a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy that aims for a target hemoglobin between 7 g/dL and 9 g/dL. A higher target hemoglobin should be considered in patients with significant co-morbidity (e. g., ischemic cardiovascular disease) (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR3. ESGE recommends the use of the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Outpatients determined to be at very low risk, based upon a GBS score of 0 - 1, do not require early endoscopy nor hospital admission. Discharged patients should be informed of the risk of recurrent bleeding and be advised to maintain contact with the discharging hospital (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR4. ESGE recommends initiating high dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPI), intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (80 mg then 8 mg/hour), in patients presenting with acute UGIH awaiting upper endoscopy. However, PPI infusion should not delay the performance of early endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR5. ESGE does not recommend the routine use of nasogastric or orogastric aspiration/lavage in patients presenting with acute UGIH (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR6. ESGE recommends intravenous erythromycin (single dose, 250 mg given 30 - 120 minutes prior to upper gastrointestinal [GI] endoscopy) in patients with clinically severe or ongoing active UGIH. In selected patients, pre-endoscopic infusion of erythromycin significantly improves endoscopic visualization, reduces the need for second-look endoscopy, decreases the number of units of blood transfused, and reduces duration of hospital stay (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR7. Following hemodynamic resuscitation, ESGE recommends early (≤ 24 hours) upper GI endoscopy. Very early (< 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy may be considered in patients with high risk clinical features, namely: hemodynamic instability (tachycardia, hypotension) that persists despite ongoing attempts at volume resuscitation; in-hospital bloody emesis/nasogastric aspirate; or contraindication to the interruption of anticoagulation (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR8. ESGE recommends that peptic ulcers with spurting or oozing bleeding (Forrest classification Ia and Ib, respectively) or with a nonbleeding visible vessel (Forrest classification IIa) receive endoscopic hemostasis because these lesions are at high risk for persistent bleeding or rebleeding (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR9. ESGE recommends that peptic ulcers with an adherent clot (Forrest classification IIb) be considered for endoscopic clot removal. Once the clot is removed, any identified underlying active bleeding (Forrest classification Ia or Ib) or nonbleeding visible vessel (Forrest classification IIa) should receive endoscopic hemostasis (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR10. In patients with peptic ulcers having a flat pigmented spot (Forrest classification IIc) or clean base (Forrest classification III), ESGE does not recommend endoscopic hemostasis as these stigmata present a low risk of recurrent bleeding. In selected clinical settings, these patients may be discharged to home on standard PPI therapy, e. g., oral PPI once-daily (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR11. ESGE recommends that epinephrine injection therapy not be used as endoscopic monotherapy. If used, it should be combined with a second endoscopic hemostasis modality (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR12. ESGE recommends PPI therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with adherent clot not receiving endoscopic hemostasis. PPI therapy should be high dose and administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR13. ESGE does not recommend routine second-look endoscopy as part of the management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH). However, in patients with clinical evidence of rebleeding following successful initial endoscopic hemostasis, ESGE recommends repeat upper endoscopy with hemostasis if indicated. In the case of failure of this second attempt at hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) or surgery should be considered (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR14. In patients with NVUGIH secondary to peptic ulcer, ESGE recommends investigating for the presence of Helicobacter pylori in the acute setting with initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy when H. pylori is detected. Re-testing for H. pylori should be performed in those patients with a negative test in the acute setting. Documentation of successful H. pylori eradication is recommended (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR15. In patients receiving low dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis who develop peptic ulcer bleeding, ESGE recommends aspirin be resumed immediately following index endoscopy if the risk of rebleeding is low (e. g., FIIc, FIII). In patients with high risk peptic ulcer (FIa, FIb, FIIa, FIIb), early reintroduction of aspirin by day 3 after index endoscopy is recommended, provided that adequate hemostasis has been established (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence)., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Unlabelled: This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system 1 2 was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence., Main Recommendations: 1 ESGE recommends endoscopic en bloc resection for superficial esophageal squamous cell cancers (SCCs), excluding those with obvious submucosal involvement (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) may be considered in such lesions when they are smaller than 10 mm if en bloc resection can be assured. However, ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the first option, mainly to provide an en bloc resection with accurate pathology staging and to avoid missing important histological features (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 2 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection with a curative intent for visible lesions in Barrett's esophagus (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). ESD has not been shown to be superior to EMR for excision of mucosal cancer, and for that reason EMR should be preferred. ESD may be considered in selected cases, such as lesions larger than 15 mm, poorly lifting tumors, and lesions at risk for submucosal invasion (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for the treatment of gastric superficial neoplastic lesions that possess a very low risk of lymph node metastasis (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). EMR is an acceptable option for lesions smaller than 10 - 15 mm with a very low probability of advanced histology (Paris 0-IIa). However, ESGE recommends ESD as treatment of choice for most gastric superficial neoplastic lesions (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 4 ESGE states that the majority of colonic and rectal superficial lesions can be effectively removed in a curative way by standard polypectomy and/or by EMR (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). ESD can be considered for removal of colonic and rectal lesions with high suspicion of limited submucosal invasion that is based on two main criteria of depressed morphology and irregular or nongranular surface pattern, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm; or ESD can be considered for colorectal lesions that otherwise cannot be optimally and radically removed by snare-based techniques (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence)., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

This technology review expresses the current view of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) on the available techniques for intraductal biliopancreatic imaging. The three cholangioscopy techniques are described: the "dual-operator" and " single-operator" mother-baby approaches using dedicated instruments, and the "direct" technique using currently available ultrathin gastroscopes. The mother-baby method is standardized and reproducible, while direct cholangioscopy is technically demanding and its safety requires further evaluation. As well as direct visualization of the bile ducts, cholangioscopy has the further advantage of allowing targeted biopsy. Image quality is still suboptimal for single-operator cholangioscopy, while the other techniques have achieved adequately detailed imaging. The costs of mother-baby cholangioscopy are high and its application in clinical practice should be restricted to selected cases (i.e. indeterminate biliary strictures/intraluminal lesions, difficult biliary stones) and to the setting of tertiary care centers. Peroral pancreatoscopy may find an indication in situations where other imaging modalities (mainly EUS) are inconclusive (i.e. delineation of main duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia extension, sampling of indeterminate main pancreatic duct strictures). Intraductal ultrasonography (IDUS) has a poorer performance than EUS in the staging of pancreatic malignancies and can increase the risk of pancreatitis. A promising indication for IDUS could be the evaluation of indeterminate biliary strictures and ampullary tumors. Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) of the bile ducts is a difficult and expensive technique. Appropriate training needs to be established, since interpretation of images is challenging. pCLE can be an important diagnostic tool in the setting of indeterminate biliary strictures., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). The Guideline was also reviewed and endorsed by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG). It addresses the roles of small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders. Main recommendations 1 ESGE recommends small-bowel video capsule endoscopy as the first-line investigation in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 2 In patients with overt obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, ESGE recommends performing small-bowel capsule endoscopy as soon as possible after the bleeding episode, optimally within 14 days, in order to maximize the diagnostic yield (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 ESGE does not recommend the routine performance of second-look endoscopy prior to small-bowel capsule endoscopy; however whether to perform second-look endoscopy before capsule endoscopy in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding or iron-deficiency anaemia should be decided on a case-by-case basis (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 In patients with positive findings at small-bowel capsule endoscopy, ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy to confirm and possibly treat lesions identified by capsule endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 5 ESGE recommends ileocolonoscopy as the first endoscopic examination for investigating patients with suspected Crohn's disease (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). In patients with suspected Crohn's disease and negative ileocolonoscopy findings, ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy as the initial diagnostic modality for investigating the small bowel, in the absence of obstructive symptoms or known stenosis (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).ESGE does not recommend routine small-bowel imaging or the use of the PillCam patency capsule prior to capsule endoscopy in these patients (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). In the presence of obstructive symptoms or known stenosis, ESGE recommends that dedicated small bowel cross-sectional imaging modalities such as magnetic resonance enterography/enteroclysis or computed tomography enterography/enteroclysis should be used first (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 6 In patients with established Crohn's disease, based on ileocolonoscopy findings, ESGE recommends dedicated cross-sectional imaging for small-bowel evaluation since this has the potential to assess extent and location of any Crohn's disease lesions, to identify strictures, and to assess for extraluminal disease (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). In patients with unremarkable or nondiagnostic findings from such cross-sectional imaging of the small bowel, ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a subsequent investigation, if deemed to influence patient management (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). When capsule endoscopy is indicated, ESGE recommends use of the PillCam patency capsule to confirm functional patency of the small bowel (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 7 ESGE strongly recommends against the use of small-bowel capsule endoscopy for suspected coeliac disease but suggests that capsule endoscopy could be used in patients unwilling or unable to undergo conventional endoscopy (strong recommendation, low quality evidence)., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). This Guideline was also reviewed and endorsed by the Governing Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE). 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 The following recommendations should only be applied after a thorough diagnostic evaluation including a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan. 1 Prophylactic colonic stent placement is not recommended. Colonic stenting should be reserved for patients with clinical symptoms and imaging evidence of malignant large-bowel obstruction, without signs of perforation (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 2 Colonic self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement as a bridge to elective surgery is not recommended as a standard treatment of symptomatic left-sided malignant colonic obstruction (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 3 For patients with potentially curable but obstructing left-sided colonic cancer, stent placement may be considered as an alternative to emergency surgery in those who have an increased risk of postoperative mortality, I. e. American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status ≥ III and/or age > 70 years (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 SEMS placement is recommended as the preferred treatment for palliation of malignant colonic obstruction (strong recommendation, high quality evidence), except in patients treated or considered for treatment with antiangiogenic drugs (e. g. bevacizumab) (strong recommendation, low quality evidence)., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

This is an official guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC). A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of CTC. 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/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 2 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. Delay of CTC should be considered following endoscopic resection. In the case of obstructing colorectal cancer, preoperative contrast-enhanced CTC may also allow location or staging of malignant lesions (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 When endoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 4 ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp  ≥  6  mm in diameter detected at CTC. CTC surveillance may be clinically considered if patients do not undergo polypectomy (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 5 ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CTC as a primary test for population screening or in individuals with a positive first-degree family history of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, it may be proposed as a CRC screening test on an individual basis providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence)., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the prophylaxis of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (post-ERCP) pancreatitis. Main recommendations 1 ESGE recommends routine rectal administration of 100 mg of diclofenac or indomethacin immediately before or after ERCP in all patients without contraindication. In addition to this, in the case of high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), the placement of a 5-Fr prophylactic pancreatic stent should be strongly considered. Sublingually administered glyceryl trinitrate or 250 µg somatostatin given in bolus injection might be considered as an option in high risk cases if nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are contraindicated and if prophylactic pancreatic stenting is not possible or successful. 2 ESGE recommends keeping the number of cannulation attempts as low as possible. 3 ESGE suggests restricting the use of a pancreatic guidewire as a backup technique for biliary cannulation to cases with repeated inadvertent cannulation of the pancreatic duct; if this method is used, deep biliary cannulation should be attempted using a guidewire rather than the contrast-assisted method and a prophylactic pancreatic stent should be placed. 4 ESGE suggests that needle-knife fistulotomy should be the preferred precut technique in patients with a bile duct dilated down to the papilla. Conventional precut and transpancreatic sphincterotomy present similar success and complication rates; if conventional precut is selected and pancreatic cannulation is easily obtained, ESGE suggests attempting to place a small-diameter (3-Fr or 5-Fr) pancreatic stent to guide the cut and leaving the pancreatic stent in place at the end of ERCP for a minimum of 12 - 24 hours. 4 ESGE does not recommend endoscopic papillary balloon dilation as an alternative to sphincterotomy in routine ERCP, but it may be advantageous in selected patients; if this technique is used, the duration of dilation should be longer than 1 minute., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

This Position Paper is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the diagnosis and management of iatrogenic perforation occurring during diagnostic or therapeutic digestive endoscopic procedures. Main recommendations 1 ESGE recommends that each center implements a written policy regarding the management of iatrogenic perforation, including the definition of procedures that carry a high risk of this complication. This policy should be shared with the radiologists and surgeons at each center. 2 In the case of an endoscopically identified perforation, ESGE recommends that the endoscopist reports: its size and location with a picture; endoscopic treatment that might have been possible; whether carbon dioxide or air was used for insufflation; and the standard report information. 3 ESGE recommends that symptoms or signs suggestive of iatrogenic perforation after an endoscopic procedure should be carefully evaluated and documented, possibly with a computed tomography (CT) scan, in order to prevent any diagnostic delay. 4 ESGE recommends that endoscopic closure should be considered depending on the type of perforation, its size, and the endoscopist expertise available at the center. A switch to carbon dioxide insufflation, the diversion of luminal content, and decompression of tension pneumoperitoneum or tension pneumothorax should also be done. 5 After closure of an iatrogenic perforation using an endoscopic method, ESGE recommends that further management should be based on the estimated success of the endoscopic closure and on the general clinical condition of the patient. In the case of no or failed endoscopic closure of the iatrogenic perforation, and in patients whose clinical condition is deteriorating, hospitalization and surgical consultation are recommended., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Main Recommendations: 1 ESGE suggests the routine use of high definition white-light endoscopy systems for detecting colorectal neoplasia in average risk populations (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 2 ESGE recommends the routine use of high definition systems and pancolonic conventional or virtual (narrow band imaging [NBI], i-SCAN) chromoendoscopy in patients with known or suspected Lynch syndrome (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 2b ESGE recommends the routine use of high definition systems and pancolonic conventional or virtual (NBI) chromoendoscopy in patients with known or suspected serrated polyposis syndrome (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 3 ESGE recommends the routine use of 0.1 % methylene blue or 0.1 % - 0.5 % indigo carmine pancolonic chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsies for neoplasia surveillance in patients with long-standing colitis. In appropriately trained hands, in the situation of quiescent disease activity and adequate bowel preparation, nontargeted, four-quadrant biopsies can be abandoned (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 4 ESGE suggests that virtual chromoendoscopy (NBI, FICE, i-SCAN) and conventional chromoendoscopy can be used, under strictly controlled conditions, for real-time optical diagnosis of diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps to replace histopathological diagnosis. The optical diagnosis has to be reported using validated scales, must be adequately photodocumented, and can be performed only by experienced endoscopists who are adequately trained and audited (weak recommendation, high quality evidence). 5 ESGE suggests the use of conventional or virtual (NBI) magnified chromoendoscopy to predict the risk of invasive cancer and deep submucosal invasion in lesions such as those with a depressed component (0-IIc according to the Paris classification) or nongranular or mixed-type laterally spreading tumors (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence)., Conclusion: Advanced imaging techniques will need to be applied in specific patient groups in routine clinical practice and to be taught in endoscopic training programs., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Main Recommendations: The following recommendations for post-polypectomy endoscopic surveillance should be applied only after a high quality baseline colonoscopy with complete removal of all detected neoplastic lesions.1 In the low risk group (patients with 1 - 2 tubular adenomas < 10 mm with low grade dysplasia), the ESGE recommends participation in existing national screening programmes 10 years after the index colonoscopy. If no screening programme is available, repetition of colonoscopy 10 years after the index colonoscopy is recommended (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 2 In the high risk group (patients with adenomas with villous histology or high grade dysplasia or ≥10 mm in size, or ≥ 3 adenomas), the ESGE recommends surveillance colonoscopy 3 years after the index colonoscopy (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). Patients with 10 or more adenomas should be referred for genetic counselling (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 In the high risk group, if no high risk adenomas are detected at the first surveillance examination, the ESGE suggests a 5-year interval before a second surveillance colonoscopy (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). If high risk adenomas are detected at first or subsequent surveillance examinations, a 3-year repetition of surveillance colonoscopy is recommended (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).4 The ESGE recommends that patients with serrated polyps < 10 mm in size with no dysplasia should be classified as low risk (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). The ESGE suggests that patients with large serrated polyps (≥ 10 mm) or those with dysplasia should be classified as high risk (weak recommendation, low quality evidence).5 The ESGE recommends that the endoscopist is responsible for providing a written recommendation for the post-polypectomy surveillance schedule (strong recommendation, low quality evidence)., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)