Search

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Background: Infection outbreaks associated with contaminated reusable duodenoscopes (RUDs) have induced the development of novel single-use duodenoscopes (SUDs). This study aimed to analyze the material composition and life cycle assessment (LCA) of RUDs and SUDs to assess the sustainability of global and partial SUD implementation., Methods: A single-center study evaluated material composition analysis and LCA of one RUD and two SUDs from different manufacturers (A/B). Material composition analysis was performed to evaluate the thermochemical properties of the duodenoscope components. The carbon footprint was calculated using environmental software. We compared the sustainability strategies of universal use of RUDs, frequent use of RUDs with occasional SUDs, and universal use of SUDs over the lifetime of one RUD., Results: RUDs were substantially heavier (3489 g) than both SUD-A (943 g) and SUD-B (716 g). RUDs were mainly metal alloys (95%), whereas SUDs were mainly plastic polymers and resins (70%-81%). The LCA demonstrated the sustainability of RUDs, with a life cycle carbon footprint 62-82 times lower than universal use of SUDs (152 vs. 10 512-12 640 kg CO 2 eq) and 10 times lower than occasional use of SUDs (152 vs. 1417-1677 kg CO 2 eq). Differences were observed between SUD-A and SUD-B (7.9 vs. 6.6 kg CO 2 eq per endoscope). End-of-life incineration emissions for SUDs were the greatest environmental contributors., Conclusions: Widespread adoption of SUDs has greater environmental challenges; it requires a balance between infection control and environmental responsibility. Carbon footprint labelling can help healthcare institutions make sustainable choices and promote environmentally responsible healthcare practices., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

1:  ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5:  ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6:  ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7:  Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9:  ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10:  ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11:  ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence., Competing Interests: R. Bisschops has been on the advisory boards of Pentax, Medtronic, Fujifilm, Cook, Boston Scientific, and Olympus, and has received speaker’s fees from Pentax, Medtronic, and Fujifilm; his department has received research grants, and organizational support for events from Pentax and Medtronic, and further organizational support for events from Erbe, Ovesco, and Olympus (all within the last 3 years). M.J. Bourke has received research support from Cook Medical and Olympus (2014 to date). E. Dekker has provided consultancy to Olympus and GI supply (several occasions in recent years). M. Dinis-Ribeiro has provided consultancy to Medtronic and Roche (2021 to 2022) and received a research grant from Fujifilm (2021 to 2022). H. Messmann has provided consultancy to Ambu, Boston Scientific, and Olympus (2022 to date); his department has received research support from Olympus and Satisfai (2022 to date). L. Moons has provided consultancy to Boston Scientific and Pentax (2024 to date) and is a member of the Colorectal cancer guideline committee and chair of the Dutch Guideline group on polypectomy in the rectum and colon. M. Pellisé has provided consultancy to Norgine Iberia (2015 to 2019), GI supply (2019), Fujifilm Europe (2021 to date), and Olympus (2022 to date), and received research support from Fujifilm Spain (2019), Fujifilm Europe (2020 to 2021), Casen recordati (2020), and ZuiZ (2021); her department has also received equipment on loan from Fujifilm Europe (2019 to date); she was on the Endoscopy editorial board (2015 to 2021), was ESGE Equity and diversity working group chair (2021 to 2022), councillor for SEED (2016 to 2022), and is president of AEG (2022 to date). G. Rahmi has provided consultancy to Fujifilm and Medtronic (2023 to date). A. Repici has received consultancy fees and research funding from ERBE (2020 to date) and Fujifilm (2018 to date), and speaker’s and consultancy fees, and research funding from Boston Scientific (2019 to date). M. Rutter is a member of the British Society of Gastroenterology and is the current Chair of the Joint Advisory Group for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Y. Takeuchi has provided consultancy to Boston Scientific Japan (2012 to 2022) and has received speaker’s fees from Olympus, Daiichi-Sankyo, Miyarisan Pharmaceutical, Asuka Pharmaceutical, AstraZeneca, EA Pharma, Zeria Pharmaceutical, Fujifilm, Kaneka Medix, Kyorin Pharmaceutical, and the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society. H. Uchima Koecklin has received proctorship and speaker’s fees from ERBE Spain and Olympus Iberia (2022 to 2023). E. Albeniz, A. Amato, H. Awadie, P. Bhandari, M. Ferlitsch, I. Gralnek, C. Hassan R. Jover, D. Libanio, V. Lorenzo-Zuniga, A. Moss, G. Paspatis, A. Probst, M. Risio, L.-M. Rockenbauer, K. Triantafyllou, A. Voiosu, and E. Waldmann declare that they have no conflict of interest., (European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.)

Background: Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is one of healthcare's main contributors to climate change. We aimed to assess healthcare professionals' attitudes and the perceived barriers to implementation of sustainable GI endoscopy., Methods: The LEAFGREEN web-based survey was a cross-sectional study conducted by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Green Endoscopy Working Group. The questionnaire comprised 39 questions divided into five sections (respondent demographics; climate change and sustainability beliefs; waste and resource management; single-use endoscopes and accessories; education and research). The survey was available via email to all active members of the ESGE and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) in March 2023., Results: 407 respondents participated in the survey (11% response rate). Most participants (86%) agreed climate change is real and anthropogenic, but one-third did not consider GI endoscopy to be a significant contributor to climate change. Improvement in the appropriateness of endoscopic procedures (41%) and reduction in single-use accessories (34%) were considered the most important strategies to reduce the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. Respondents deemed lack of institutional support and knowledge from staff to be the main barriers to sustainable endoscopy. Strategies to reduce unnecessary GI endoscopic procedures and comparative studies of single-use versus reusable accessories were identified as research priorities., Conclusions: In this survey, ESGE and ESGENA members acknowledge climate change as a major threat to humanity. Further improvement in sustainability beliefs and professional attitudes, reduction in inappropriate GI endoscopy, and rational use of single-use accessories and endoscopes are critically required., Competing Interests: E. Rodríguez de Santiago has received fees from Olympus (educational and advisory roles), Apollo Endosurgery (educational activities), Norgine (congress fee) and Casen Recordati (congress fee). I.M. Gralnek has received fees from Motus GI, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, CheckCap, Clexio Biosciences, Astra-Zeneca, and Vifor Pharma. M. Dinis-Ribeiro has received fees for consultancy (Roche and Medtronic). J.A. Cunha Neves, H. Pohl, V. Lorenzo-Zuñiga, M.F. Cunha, A.M. Voiosu, C. Römmele, D. Penman, E. Albeniz Arbizu, K. Siau, L. Donnelly, L. Elli, M. Pioche, U. Beilenhoff, M. Arvanitakis, B.L.A.M. Weusten, R. Bisschops, C. Hassan, and H. Messmann declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Climate change and the destruction of ecosystems by human activities are among the greatest challenges of the 21st century and require urgent action. Health care activities significantly contribute to the emission of greenhouse gases and waste production, with gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy being one of the largest contributors. This Position Statement aims to raise awareness of the ecological footprint of GI endoscopy and provides guidance to reduce its environmental impact. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) outline suggestions and recommendations for health care providers, patients, governments, and industry. MAIN STATEMENTS 1: GI endoscopy is a resource-intensive activity with a significant yet poorly assessed environmental impact. 2: ESGE-ESGENA recommend adopting immediate actions to reduce the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 3: ESGE-ESGENA recommend adherence to guidelines and implementation of audit strategies on the appropriateness of GI endoscopy to avoid the environmental impact of unnecessary procedures. 4: ESGE-ESGENA recommend the embedding of reduce, reuse, and recycle programs in the GI endoscopy unit. 5: ESGE-ESGENA suggest that there is an urgent need to reassess and reduce the environmental and economic impact of single-use GI endoscopic devices. 6: ESGE-ESGENA suggest against routine use of single-use GI endoscopes. However, their use could be considered in highly selected patients on a case-by-case basis. 7: ESGE-ESGENA recommend inclusion of sustainability in the training curricula of GI endoscopy and as a quality domain. 8: ESGE-ESGENA recommend conducting high quality research to quantify and minimize the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 9: ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy companies assess, disclose, and audit the environmental impact of their value chain. 10:  ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy should become a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions practice by 2050., Competing Interests: M. Arvanitakis is providing consultancy to Ambu (September 2021 to September 2022). E. Bak is Chair of the Polish Society of Endoscopic Nurses and Assistants (from 2019, ongoing). M. Dinis-Ribeiro has provided consultancy to Medtronic (from 2021 and Roche (from 2022); his department has received a research grant (loan) from Fujifilm (2021–2022); he is Co-Editor-in-Chief of Endoscopy journal. A. Eickhoff has provided consultancy to Ambu Medical (2012–2020). L. Donnelly is an elected member of the British Society of Gastroenterology – Nurses Association (2022, ongoing). C. Hassan has provided consultancy to and/or received research grants from Alfasigma, Fujifilm, Medtronic, Norgine, Olympus, and Pentax. B.H. Hayee is receiving grant support for sustainability research from Boston Scientific (from April 2022 for 24 months). M.F. Kaminski has provided consultancy to Olympus and Erbe (from 2021), and lectured for Boston Scientific (from 2016) and Recordati (from 2020). H. Messmann has received consultation fees from Ambu, Boston Scientific, and Olympus (in the past 3 years); his department has received financial support from Olympus and Satisfai. M. Pellisé has provided consultancy to Norgine Iberia (2015–2019), CI Supply (2019), and Fujifilm Europe (from 2021, ongoing); her department has received research support from Fujifilm Spain (2019), Fujifilm Europe (from 2020, ongoing), Casen Recordati (2020), ZiuZ (2021), and 3D-Matrix (2022); she is Chair of the ESGE Diversity and Equity Working Group (2021–2022) and a Councillor for SEED (Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva) (2016–2022). H. Pohl is Co-Editor-in-Chief of Endoscopy journal. E. Rodríguez de Santiago receives support for academic and educational activities with Olympus (from 2021, ongoing); his department receives support for academic and educational activities with Olympus, Boston Scientific, Casen Recordati, and Norgine (from 2016, ongoing). P.D. Siersema receives research support from Pentax, Japan (from 2019), The E-Nose Company, Netherlands (from 2018), Lucid Diagnostics, US (from 2021), MicroTech, China (from 2019), and Magentiq Eye, Israel (from 2021); he receives research support from and advises Motus GI, US (from 2018), and support from Endo Tools Therapeutics, Belgium (2022); he is Editor-in-Chief of Endoscopy journal. A. Veitch has received speaker’s fees from Olympus (March 2022). G.J. Webster has received honoraria for teaching from Boston Scientific (2010–2022). D. Agrawal, R. Baddeley, U. Beilenhoff, P. Bhandari, R. Bisschops, M. Bretthauer, P. Burga, I.M. Gralnek, K. Karlović, V. Lorenzo-Zuniga, M. Pioche, K. Siau, W. Stableforth, T.C. Tham, K. Triantafyllou, A. Tringali, A. Vienne, and A. Voiosu have no competing interests., (European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: M. Dinis-Ribeiro has provided teaching consultancy to Boston Scientific (2019) and consultancy to Medtronic (2020); his department receives an educational grant from Olympus (ongoing) and a research grant from Fujifilm (ongoing); he is Co-Editor-in-Chief of Endoscopy. B. Fehrke has received a lecture fee from Olympus (2021) and a presenter's fee from Ambu (2021). C. Hassan has received research support from Medtronic, Fujifilm, AlfaSigma, and Norgine (all 2020–2021). M.F. Kaminski has provided consultancy to Olympus (from 2016) and Erbe (from 2021), and lectures for Boston Scientific (from 2016) and Recordati (from 2020). H. Messman, in the past 3 years, has received benefits from the following endoscopy companies: Apollo Endosurgery, Biogen, Boston Scientific, CDx Diagnostic, Cook Medical, CSL Behring, Dr. Falk Pharma, Endo Tools Therapeutics, Erbe, Fujifilm, Hitachi, Janssen-Cilag, Medwork, Norgine, Nutricia, Olympus, Ovesco Endoscopy, Servier Deutschland, and US Endoscopy; he has received grants from Amgen, Bayer, Dr. Falk Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Olympus and Roche; he has received honoraria from Covidien, Dr. Falk Pharma, and Olympus, and consultancy fees from Boston Scientific, CDx Diagnostics, Covidien, Erbe, Lumendi, Norgine, and Olympus; he has received research support from Olympus (ESD-Register) and Satisfai. E. Rodriguez de Santiago has received a speaker’s fee from, and engaged in educational activities for, Olympus (2020–2021). P. Siersema has received or is receiving research support from Pentax (2019–2021), The E-Nose Company (2018–2021), Lucid Diagnostics (2021–2022), MicroTech (2019–2022), Magnetiq Eye (2021–2022), and receives research support from and is advising Motus GI (2018–2022); he is Editor-in-Chief of Endoscopy. G. Antonelli, M. Arvanitakis, U. Beilenhoff, P. Bhandari, R. Bisschops, M. Bretthauer, A. Ebigbo, A. Fuchs, M. Gazic, T. Gjergek, V. Lorenzo-Zuniga, S. Maasen, M. de Pater, T.C. Tham, K. Triantafyllou, A. Tringali, A. Voiosu, W. Waagenes, and G. Webster have no competing interests to declare.

Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

ESGE suggests flexible endoscopic treatment over open surgical treatment as first-line therapy for patients with a symptomatic Zenker's diverticulum of any size.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence, level of agreement 100 %.ESGE recommends that emerging treatments for Zenker's diverticulum, such as Zenker's peroral endoscopic myotomy (Z-POEM) and tunneling, be considered as experimental; these treatments should be offered in a research setting only.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence, level of agreement 100 %.ESGE recommends against the widespread clinical use of transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) as an alternative to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy or antireflux surgery in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), because of the lack of data on the long-term outcomes, the inferiority of TIF to fundoplication, and its modest efficacy in only highly selected patients. TIF may have a role for patients with mild GERD who are not willing to take PPIs or undergo antireflux surgery.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence, level of agreement 92.8 %.ESGE recommends against the use of the Medigus ultrasonic surgical endostapler (MUSE) in clinical practice because of insufficient data showing its effectiveness and safety in patients with GERD. MUSE should be used in clinical trials only.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %.ESGE recommends against the use of antireflux mucosectomy (ARMS) in routine clinical practice in the treatment of GERD because of the lack of data and its potential complications.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %.ESGE recommends endoscopic cecostomy only after conservative management with medical therapies or retrograde lavage has failed.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence, level of agreement 93.3 %.ESGE recommends fixing the cecum to the abdominal wall at three points (using T-anchors, a double-needle suturing device, or laparoscopic fixation) to prevent leaks and infectious adverse events, whatever percutaneous endoscopic cecostomy method is used.Strong recommendation, very low quality evidence, level of agreement 86.7 %.ESGE recommends considering endoscopic decompression of the colon in patients with Ogilvie's syndrome that is not improving with conservative treatment.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence, level of agreement 93.8 %.ESGE recommends prompt endoscopic decompression if the cecal diameter is > 12 cm and if the Ogilvie's syndrome exists for a duration of longer than 4 - 6 days.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence, level of agreement 87.5 %., Competing Interests: A.J. Bredenoord has received speaker’s fees from MMS, Diversatek, and Medtronics (ongoing). P. Familiari received speaker’s fees from Olympus (October 2019). H. Neumann has provided consultancy services to Fujifilm, Pentax, Motus GI, Boston Scientific, and Cook Medical (2012 to present). D. Pohl has provided consultancy services to Medtronic (2018 to present). R. Tutuian has provided consultancy services and educational programs to Laborie/MMS (2010 to present). 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). D. von Renteln has received research funding from Pendopharm (2016 – 2019), Ventage and Pentax (2018 – 2019), ERBE (2019 to present), and Boston Scientific (2020), and speaker’s fees from Boston Scientific (2018 – 2020) and ERBE (2020). M. Barret, J.-M. Gonzalez, S. Ishaq, V. Lorenzo-Zúñiga, H. Louis, J. Martinek, F. Prat, E. Savarino, R. Sweis, J. Tack, S. van Meer, and B.L.A.M. Weusten declare that they have no conflict of interest., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

ESGE recommends the use of a graded pneumatic dilation protocol in achalasia, starting with a 30-mm dilation and followed by a 35-mm dilation at a planned interval of 2 - 4 weeks, with a subsequent 40-mm dilation when there is insufficient relief, over both a single balloon dilation procedure or the use of a larger balloon from the outset.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence, level of agreement 100 %.ESGE recommends being cautious in treating spastic motility disorders other than achalasia with peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM).Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence, level of agreement 87.5 %.ESGE recommends against the routine use of botulinum toxin injections to treat patients with non-achalasia hypercontractile esophageal motility disorders (Jackhammer esophagus, distal esophageal spasm). However, if, in individual patients, endoscopic injection of botulinum toxin is chosen, ESGE recommends performing injections into four quadrants of the lower esophageal sphincter and in the lower third of the esophagus.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence, level of agreement 78.6 %.ESGE recommends that endoscopic pylorus-directed therapy should be considered only in patients with symptoms suggestive of gastroparesis in combination with objective proof of delayed gastric emptying using a validated test, and only when medical therapy has failed.Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence, level of agreement 100 %.ESGE recommends against the use of botulinum toxin injection in the treatment of unselected patients with gastroparesis. Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence, level of agreement 92.9 %.ESGE recommends consideration of gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy (G-POEM) in carefully selected patients only, because it is an emerging procedure with limited data on effectiveness, safety, and durability. G-POEM should be performed in expert centers only, preferably in the context of a clinical trial.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence, level of agreement 100 %., Competing Interests: A.J. Bredenoord has received speaker’s fees from MMS, Diversatek, and Medtronics (ongoing). P. Familiari received speaker’s fees from Olympus (October 2019). H. Neumann has provided consultancy services to Fujifilm, Pentax, Motus GI, Boston Scientific, and Cook Medical (2012 to present). D. Pohl has provided consultancy services to Medtronic (2018 to present). R. Tutuian has provided consultancy services and educational programs to Laborie/MMS (2010 to present). 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). D. von Renteln has received research funding from Pendopharm (2016 – 2019), Ventage and Pentax (2018 – 2019), ERBE (2019 to present), and Boston Scientific (2020), and speaker’s fees from Boston Scientific (2018 – 2020) and ERBE (2020).M. Barret, J.-M. Gonzalez, S. Ishaq, V. Lorenzo-Zúñiga, H. Louis, J. Martinek, F. Prat, E. Savarino, R. Sweis, J. Tack, S. van Meer, and B.L.A.M. Weusten declare that they have no conflict of interest., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Background and study aims: Previous studies have reported that diabetes mellitus is an independent risk factor for inadequate bowel preparation. Current guidelines do not recommend a specific preparation for this patient population. The aims of this study were to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of an adapted preparation protocol for colon cleansing in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patients and methods: This randomized, single-blind, parallel group, superiority trial compared a conventional bowel preparation protocol (CBP) with a diabetes-specific preparation protocol (DSP). The CBP included a low-fiber diet for 3 days followed by a clear liquid diet for 24 hours before colonoscopy. The DSP included a multifactorial strategy combining an educational intervention, a low-fiber diet, and adjustment of blood glucose-lowering agents. All patients received 4 L of a polyethylene glycol solution in a split-dose regimen. The endoscopists were blinded to the preparation protocol. The primary outcome measure was inadequate bowel preparation according to the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Secondary outcome measures included hypoglycemic events, tolerability, and acceptability. Results: A total of 150 patients were included in the study (74 CBP and 76 DSP). Both groups were comparable in terms of baseline characteristics. Inadequate bowel cleansing was more frequent following CBP than DSP (20 % vs. 7 %, P  = 0.014; risk ratio 3.1, 95 % confidence interval 1.2 - 8). Only CBP and performance status were independently associated with inadequate bowel preparation. Both preparations were equally tolerated and accepted by patients, and side-effects were similar between the groups. Conclusions: A multifactorial strategy for bowel preparation in patients with diabetes undergoing colonoscopy showed a threefold reduction in the rate of inadequate bowel preparation, with no differences in safety and tolerability compared with conventional preparation., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02300779)., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background and Study Aims: To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for the investigation of functional bowel symptoms, and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II., Methods: A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews and primary studies regarding the evaluation and management of functional bowel symptoms was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy for these conditions., Results: Much of the evidence for use of colonoscopy in evaluation of chronic abdominal pain, and/or constipation and/or abdominal bloating is modest. Major limitations include small numbers of patients and lack of adequate characterization of these patients. Large community-based follow-up studies are needed to enable better definition of the natural history of patients with functional bowel disorders. Guidelines stress that alarm features ("red flags"), such as rectal bleeding, anemia, weight loss, nocturnal symptoms, family history of colon cancer, age of onset > 50 years, and recent onset of symptoms should all lead to careful evaluation before a diagnosis of functional bowel disorder is made. EPAGE II assessed these symptoms by means of 12 clinical scenarios, rating colonoscopy as appropriate, uncertain and inappropriate in 42 % (5/12), 25 % (3/12), and 33 % (4/12) of these, respectively., Conclusions: Evidence to support the use of colonoscopy in the evaluation of patients with functional bowel disorders and no alarm features is lacking. These patients have no increased risk of colon cancer and thus advice on screening for this is not different from that for the general population. EPAGE II criteria, available online (http://www.epage.ch), consider colonoscopy appropriate in patients of > 50 years with chronic or new-onset bowel disturbances, but not in patients with isolated chronic abdominal pain.