Search

Background: Information on the management of Helicobacter (H.) pylori infection by gastroenterologists and gastroenterology fellows are scarce. We aimed to assess practice of gastroenterologists and gastroenterology fellows and their adherence to guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of H. pylori infection in Italy., Materials and Methods: All gastroenterologists and gastroenterology fellows attending the National Congress of Digestive Diseases - FISMAD were invited to fill-in an on-line questionnaire. The questionnaire included questions on the diagnosis and treatment of H. pylori infection., Results: A total of 279 gastroenterologists and 61 gastroenterology fellows participated to the study. The 13 C-urea breath test was the most preferred method among gastroenterologists and fellows for the diagnosis of H. pylori infection (40.4% and 57.6%, respectively) and the confirmation of eradication (61.3% and 70%, respectively). Sequential therapy was the most preferred first-line treatment of H. pylori for both gastroenterologists and gastroenterology fellows (31.8% and 44%, respectively), followed by bismuth quadruple therapy (31% and 27.6%, respectively) and clarithromycin triple therapy (26.8% and 22.4%, respectively). Only 30% of gastroenterologists and 38.5% of fellows used the clarithromycin triple therapy for the recommended duration of 14 days. Bismuth quadruple therapy was the most preferred second-line therapy for both gastroenterologists and fellows. The majority of gastroenterologists and fellows would prefer an empirical therapy at third line (72.6% and 62.5%, respectively) and a susceptibility-guided therapy at fourth line (46.7% and 71.4%, respectively)., Conclusions: Practices of gastroenterologists and gastroenterology fellows are in line with guidelines' recommendations, apart for the first-line treatment of H. pylori infection. Targeted educational interventions to improve adherence to guidelines are needed., (© 2021 The Authors. Helicobacter published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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/).)

Background: The provision of high-quality colonoscopy can be assessed by evaluating technical aspects of the procedure and, at individual center level, by comparing structural indicators and institutional policies for managing peri-procedural issues with guideline recommendations., Aim: To assess the colonoscopy quality (CQ) in Italy at center level., Methods: Gastroenterologists participating in a nationwide colonoscopy education initiative provided information on structural indicators of their centers and on institutional policies by answering 10 multiple-choice clinical scenarios. Practice variation across centers and compliance with guidelines were analyzed., Results: Data from 282 Italian centers were evaluated. Overall, a significant proportion of centers did not meet CQ standards as concerns endoscopy facilities and equipments (e.g., dedicated recovery room, dirty-to-clean path, reporting software). CQ assurance programs were implemented in only 25% of centers. Concerning peri-procedural issues, main discrepancies with guidelines were recorded in the underuse of split-dose preparation (routinely adopted by 18% of centers), the routine request of coagulation tests prior to colonoscopy (30%), the routine interruption of aspirin for polypectomy (18%), and the adoption of 3-year surveillance for low-risk adenoma (49%)., Conclusions: Present survey shows a significant variation in the CQ of endoscopy centers in Italy on many items of colonoscopy practice that should be targeted for future interventions., (Copyright © 2016 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Background: Best strategy of sedation/analgesia in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is still debated., Aims of the Study: To evaluate sedation and monitoring practice among Italian gastroenterologists and to assess their opinion about non-anaesthesiologist propofol administration., Methods: A 19-item survey was mailed to all 1192 members of the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED). For each respondent were recorded demographic data, medical specialty, years of practise and practise setting., Results: A total of 494 SIED members returned questionnaires, representing a response rate of 41.4%. The most employed sedation pattern was benzodiazepines for oesophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDS) in 50.8% of procedures, benzodiazepines plus opioids for colonoscopy and enteroscopy in 39.5% and 35.3% of procedures, respectively, propofol for endoscopic retrograde colangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in 42.3% and 35.6% of procedures, respectively. With regard to propofol use, 66% respondents stated that propofol was exclusively administered by anaesthesiologists. However, 76.9% respondents would consider non-anaesthesiologist propofol administration after appropriate training. Pulse oximetry is the most employed system for procedural monitoring. Supplemental O(2) is routinely administered by 39.3% respondents., Conclusions: Use of sedation has become a standard practise during GI endoscopy in Italy. Pattern varies for each type of procedure. Pulse oximetry is the most employed system of monitoring. Administration of propofol is still directed by anaesthesiologists., (Copyright © 2011 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Examining the current practice is important for the benchmarking of quality of colonoscopy and the comparison with the standards and recommendations expected by professional societies., Aim: To describe colonoscopy practice in Italy, on the basis of prospective analysis of a large number of examinations performed by operators with different levels of expertise in a wide range of unselected centres., Design and Setting: Cross-sectional, prospective and multicentre study., Methods: The main features of each endoscopy centre (structure indicators) were collected through the use of a standardised questionnaire. A second questionnaire was used to prospectively record details of all the consecutive colonoscopies performed in a 2-week study period., Results: Data from 278 centres and 12,835 consecutive colonoscopies were evaluated. Centres were uniformly distributed throughout Italy - north, centre and south - as was their organizational complexity and workload. Overall, adequate facilities (i.e. cleaning area for disinfection/reprocessing, equipped recovery room), and safety equipment (i.e. pulse oximetry, equipment for emergency cardiopulmonary resuscitation) were lacking in a considerable amount of centres, especially in those with a lower degree of organizational complexity. Written informed consent was routinely required in 87% of the centres, but a specific consent for colonoscopy, including detailed information on adverse events, was adopted by 66%. Regular programs for recording some quality indicators (i.e. cecal intubation, quality of bowel cleansing, patients' satisfaction and complications) were implemented in a minority of centres. About 93% of the colonoscopies were performed for diagnostic purpose; screening and surveillance accounted for 13.7% and 25.3% of the indications, respectively. Sedation and/or analgesia was administered in about half of the patients. Overall, colonoscopies were completed to the cecum in 80.7% of cases, and only 22.1% of the centres reported a cecal intubation rate >or=90%; this figure was reported in 33.1% of centres with high-organizational complexity and in 14.4% of outpatient units. The overall incidence of immediate complications was low (2 perforations, 26 bleedings and 32 serious cardiorespiratory complications)., Conclusions: This study documented a wide variation in colonoscopy practice between centres and highlighted problem areas where interventions are needed to improve performance and safety of the examinations.