Search

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colonoscopy is the current reference standard for the detection of colorectal neoplasia, but nevertheless adenomas remain undetected. The Endocuff, an endoscopic cap with plastic projections, may improve colonic visualisation and adenoma detection. The aim of this study was to compare the mean number of adenomas per patient (MAP) and the adenoma detection rate (ADR) between Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and conventional colonoscopy (CC). METHODS: We performed a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in five hospitals and included fecal immonochemical test (FIT)-positive screening participants as well as symptomatic patients (>45 years). Consenting patients were randomised 1:1 to EAC or CC. All colonoscopies were performed by experienced colonoscopists (>/=500 colonoscopies) who were trained in EAC. All colonoscopy quality indicators were prospectively recorded. FINDINGS: Of the 1063 included patients (52% male, median age 65 years), 530 were allocated to EAC and 533 to CC. More adenomas were detected with EAC, 722 vs 621, but the gain in MAP was not significant: on average 1.36 per patient in the EAC group versus 1.17 in the CC group (p=0.08). In a per-protocol analysis, the gain was 1.44 vs 1.19 (p=0.02), respectively. In the EAC group, 275 patients (52%) had one or more adenomas detected versus 278 in the CC group (52%; p=0.92). For advanced adenomas these numbers were 109 (21%) vs 117 (22%). The adjusted caecal intubation rate was lower with EAC (94% vs 99%; p<0.001), however when allowing crossover from EAC to CC, they were similar in both groups (98% vs 99%; p value=0.25). INTERPRETATION: Though more adenomas are detected with EAC, the routine use of Endocuff does not translate in a higher number of patients with one or more adenomas detected. Whether increased detection ultimately results in a lower rate of interval carcinomas is not yet known. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: http://www.trialregister.nl Dutch Trial Register: NTR3962.

Contains fulltext : 175667.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)

It is important to adequately and timely identify individuals with cancer worries amongst participants in a pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) surveillance program, because they could benefit from psychosocial support to decrease distress. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess both psychosocial and clinical factors associated with cancer worries. High-risk individuals participating in PDAC-surveillance were invited to annually complete a cancer worry scale (CWS) questionnaire which was sent after counseling by the clinical geneticist (T0), after intake for participation in PDAC-surveillance (T1), and then annually after every MRI and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) (T2 and furthe

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

Contains fulltext : 177888.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), Acute pancreatitis is one of the most common GI conditions requiring acute hospitalisation and has a rising incidence. In recent years, important insights on the management of acute pancreatitis have been obtained through numerous randomised controlled trials. Based on this evidence, the treatment of acute pancreatitis has gradually developed towards a tailored, multidisciplinary effort, with distinctive roles for gastroenterologists, radiologists and surgeons. This review summarises how to diagnose, classify and manage patients with acute pancreatitis, emphasising the evidence obtained through randomised controlled trials.

Contains fulltext : 172389.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Acute pancreatitis is mostly caused by gallstones or sludge. Early decompression of the biliary tree by endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) with sphincterotomy may improve outcome in these patients. Whereas current guidelines recommend early ERC in patients with concomitant cholangitis, early ERC is not recommended in patients with mild biliary pancreatitis. Evidence on the role of routine early ERC with endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients without cholangitis but with biliary pancreatitis at high risk for complications is lacking. We hypothesize that early ERC with sphincterotomy improves outcome in these patients. METHODS/DESIGN: The APEC trial is a randomized controlled, parallel group, superiority multicenter trial. Within 24 hours after presentation to the emergency department, patients with biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis and at high risk for complications, based on an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE-II) score of 8 or greater, Modified Glasgow score of 3 or greater, or serum C-reactive protein above 150 mg/L, will be randomized. In 27 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group, 232 patients will be allocated to early ERC with sphincterotomy or to conservative treatment. The primary endpoint is a composite of major complications (that is, organ failure, pancreatic necrosis, pneumonia, bacteremia, cholangitis, pancreatic endocrine, or exocrine insufficiency) or death within 180 days after randomization. Secondary endpoints include ERC-related complications, infected necrotizing pancreatitis, length of hospital stay and an economical evaluation. DISCUSSION: The APEC trial investigates whether an early ERC with sphincterotomy reduces the composite endpoint of major complications or death compared with conservative treatment in patients with biliary pancreatitis at high risk of complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN97372133 (date registration: 17-12-2012).

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: The optimal diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis is subject to debate. We performed a survey on these topics amongst a group of international expert pancreatologists. METHODS: An online survey including case vignettes was sent to 118 international pancreatologists. We evaluated the use and timing of fine needle aspiration (FNA), antibiotics, catheter drainage and (minimally invasive) necrosectomy. RESULTS: The response rate was 74% (N = 87). None of the respondents use FNA routinely, 85% selectively and 15% never. Most respondents (87%) use a step-up approach in patients with infected necrosis. Walled-off necrosis (WON) is considered a prerequisite for endoscopic drainage and percutaneous drainage by 66% and 12%, respectively. After diagnosing infected necrosis, 55% routinely postpone invasive interventions, whereas 45% proceed immediately to intervention. Lack of consensus about timing of intervention was apparent on day 14 with proven infected necrosis (58% intervention vs. 42% non-invasive) as well as on day 20 with only clinically suspected infected necrosis (59% intervention vs. 41% non-invasive). DISCUSSION: The step-up approach is the preferred treatment strategy in infected necrotizing pancreatitis amongst expert pancreatologists. There is no uniformity regarding the use of FNA and timing of intervention in the first 2-3 weeks of infected necrotizing pancreatitis.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: With an overall incidence of 3.5%, pancreatitis is the most frequent complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Periprocedural hydration may prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis by maintaining pancreatic microperfusion, thereby inhibiting the pancreatic inflammatory response. However, the evidence for periprocedural hydration as a preventive measure is unclear. AIM: To conduct a systematic review to assess the evidence regarding periprocedural hydration as a preventive measure for post-ERCP pancreatitis. METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE databases and adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. We included studies addressing periprocedural hydration as a preventive measure to reduce frequency and severity of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Study quality was assessed by using the MINORS and Cochrane Collaboration's tool. RESULTS: Six studies with a total of 1102 patients were included. Two randomised controlled trials reported a decreased incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis after hydration: 0% vs. 17% (P = 0.016) and 5.3% vs. 22.7% (P = 0.002). A third trial and two case-controls studies did not report significant differences. Two retrospective studies found that patients with mild post-ERCP pancreatitis had received significantly more fluids during (mean 940 mL vs. 810 mL; P = 0.031) or after ERCP (median 2834 mL vs. 2044 mL; P < 0.02) compared to patients with moderate/severe disease. Adverse events of periprocedural hydration were not reported in any of the included studies. The different methodologies of the included studies precluded a formal data synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence to suggest that hydration affords protection against post-ERCP pancreatitis, but study heterogeneity precludes firm conclusions. Adequately powered randomised trials are needed to evaluate the preventive effect of periprocedural hydration.

Item does not contain fulltext, Background and study aim: Gastrointestinal endoscopy is a rapidly evolving research field. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) plays a key role in shaping opinion and endoscopy activity throughout Europe and further afield. Establishing key unanswered questions within the field of endoscopy and prioritizing those that are important enables researchers and funders to appropriately allocate resources. Methods: Over 2 years, the ESGE Research Committee gathered information on research priorities and refined them through a modified Delphi approach. Consultations were held with the ESGE Governing Board and Quality Improvement Committee to identify important unanswered questions. Research workshops were held at the 21st United European Gastroenterology Week. Research questions were refined by the ESGE Research Committee and Governing Board, compiled into an online survey, and distributed to all ESGE members, who were invited to rank each question by priority. Results: The final questionnaire yielded 291 responses from over 60 countries. The three countries with the highest response rates were Spain, Italy, and United Kingdom. Most responders were from teaching hospitals (62 %) and were specialist endoscopists (51 %). Responses were analyzed with weighted rankings, resulting in prioritization of 26 key unanswered questions. The top ranked generic questions were: 1) How do we define the correct surveillance interval following endoscopic diagnosis? 2) How do we correctly utilize advanced endoscopic imaging? 3) What are the best markers of endoscopy quality? Conclusion: Following this comprehensive process, the ESGE has identified and ranked the key unanswered questions within the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy. Researchers, funders, and journals should prioritize studies that seek to answer these important questions.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided FNA or biopsy sampling is widely practiced. Optimal sonographic visualization of the needle is critical for image-guided interventions. Of the several commercially available needles, bench-top testing and direct comparison of these needles have not been done to reveal their inherent echogenicity. The aims are to provide bench-top data that can be used to guide clinical applications and to promote future device research and development. METHODS: Descriptive bench-top testing and comparison of 8 commonly used EUS-FNA needles (all size 22 gauge): SonoTip Pro Control (Medi-Globe); Expect Slimline (Boston Scientific); EchoTip, EchoTip Ultra, EchoTip ProCore High Definition (Cook Medical); ClearView (Conmed); EZ Shot 2 (Olympus); and BNX (Beacon Endoscopic), and 2 new prototype needles, SonoCoat (Medi-Globe), coated by echogenic polymers made by Encapson. Blinded evaluation of standardized and unedited videos by 43 EUS endoscopists and 17 radiologists specialized in GI US examination who were unfamiliar with EUS needle devices. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the ratings and rankings of these needles between endosonographers and radiologists. Overall, 1 prototype needle was rated as the best, ranking 10% to 40% higher than all other needles (P < .01). Among the commercially available needles, the EchoTip Ultra needle and the ClearView needle were top choices. The EZ Shot 2 needle was ranked statistically lower than other needles (30%-75% worse, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: All FNA needles have their inherent and different echogenicities, and these differences are similarly recognized by EUS endoscopists and radiologists. Needles with polymeric coating from the entire shaft to the needle tip may offer better echogenicity.

Background The optimal diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis is subject to debate. We performed a survey on these topics amongst a group of international expert pancreatologists. Methods An online survey including case vignettes was sent to 118 international pancreatologists. We evaluated the use and timing of fine needle aspiration (FNA), antibiotics, catheter drainage and (minimally invasive) necrosectomy. Results The response rate was 74% (N = 87). None of the respondents use FNA routinely, 85% selectively and 15% never. Most respondents (87%) use a step-up approach in patients with infected necrosis. Walled-off necrosis (WON) is considered a prerequisite for endoscopic drainage and percutaneous drainage by 66% and 12%, respectively. After diagnosing infected necrosis, 55% routinely postpone invasive interventions, whereas 45% proceed immediately to intervention. Lack of consensus about timing of intervention was apparent on day 14 with proven infected necrosis (58% intervention vs. 42% non-invasive) as well as on day 20 with only clinically suspected infected necrosis (59% intervention vs. 41% non-invasive). Discussion The step-up approach is the preferred treatment strategy in infected necrotizing pancreatitis amongst expert pancreatologists. There is no uniformity regarding the use of FNA and timing of intervention in the first 2–3 weeks of infected necrotizing pancreatitis.

Background: The separate value of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), multidetector computed tomography (CT), and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in the optimal sequence in staging esophageal cancer has not been investigated adequately. Methods: The staging records of 216 consecutive operable patients with esophageal cancer were reviewed blindly. Different staging st

Background: Acute pancreatitis is mostly caused by gallstones or sludge. Early decompression of the biliary tree by endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) with sphincterotomy may improve outcome in these patients. Whereas current guidelines recommend early ERC in patients with concomitant cholangitis, early ERC is not recommended in patients with mild biliary pancreatitis. Evidence on the role of routine early ERC with endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients without cholangitis but with biliary pancreatitis at high risk for complications is lacking. We hypothesize that early ERC with sphincterotomy improves outcome in these patients. Methods/Design: The APEC trial is a randomized controlled, parallel group, superiority multicenter trial. Within 24 hours after presentation to the emergency department, patients with biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis and at high risk for complications, based on an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE-II) score of 8 or greater, Modified Glasgow score of 3 or greater, or serum C-reactive protein above 150 mg/L, will be randomized. In 27 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group, 232 patients will be allocated to early ERC with sphincterotomy or to conservative treatment. The primary endpoint is a composite of major complications (that is, organ failure, pancreatic necrosis, pneumonia, bacteremia, cholangitis, pancreatic endocrine, or exocrine insufficiency) or death within 180 days after randomization. Secondary endpoints include ERC-related complications, infected necrotizing pancreatitis, length of hospital stay and an economical evaluation. Discussion: The APEC trial investigates whether an early ERC with sphincterotomy reduces the composite endpoint of major complications or death compared with conservative treatment in patients with biliary pancreatitis at high risk of complications. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN97372133(date registration: 17-12-2012)

Background and study aim: Gastrointestinal endoscopy is a rapidly evolving research field. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) plays a key role in shaping opinion and endoscopy activity throughout Europe and further afield. Establishing key unanswered questions within the field of endoscopy and prioritizing those that are important enables researchers and funders to appropriately allocate resources. Methods: Over 2 years, the ESGE Research Committee gathered information on research priorities and refined them through a modified Delphi approach. Consultations were held with the ESGE Governing Board and Quality Improvement Committee to identify important unanswered questions. Research workshops were held at the 21st United European Gastroenterology Week. Research questions were refined by the ESGE Research Committee and Governing Board, compiled into an online survey, and distributed to all ESGE members, who were invited to rank each question by priority. Results: The final questionnaire yielded 291 responses from over 60 countries. The three countries with the highest response rates were Spain, Italy, and United Kingdom. Most responders were from teaching hospitals (62%) and were specialist endoscopists (51%). Responses were analyzed with weighted rankings, resulting in prioritization of 26 key unanswered questions. The top ranked generic questions were: 1) How do we define the correct surveillance interval following endoscopic diagnosis? 2) How do we correctly utilize advanced endoscopic imaging? 3) What are the best markers of endoscopy quality? Conclusion: Following this comprehensive process, the ESGE has identified and ranked the key unanswered questions within the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy. Researchers, funders, and journals should prioritize studies that seek to answer these important questions.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) have a vision to create a thriving community of endoscopy services across Europe, collaborating with each other to provide high quality, safe, accurate, patient-centered and accessible endoscopic care. Whilst the boundaries of what can be achieved by advanced endoscopy are continually expanding, we believe that one of the most fundamental steps to achieving our goal is to raise the quality of everyday endoscopy. The development of robust, consensus- and evidence-based key performance measures is the first step in this vision. ESGE and UEG have identified quality of endoscopy as a major priority. This paper explains the rationale behind the ESGE Quality Improvement Initiative and describes the processes that were followed. We recommend that all units develop mechanisms for audit and feedback of endoscopist and service performance using the ESGE performance measures that will be published in future issues of this journal over the next year. We urge all endoscopists and endoscopy services to prioritize quality and to ensure that these performance measures are implemented and monitored at a local level, so that we can provide the highest possible care for our patients.

Background: Acute pancreatitis is mostly caused by gallstones or sludge. Early decompression of the biliary tree by endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) with sphincterotomy may improve outcome in these patients. Whereas current guidelines recommend early ERC in patients with concomitant cholangitis, early ERC is not recommended in patients with mild biliary pancreatitis. Evidence on the role of routine early ERC with endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients without cholangitis but with biliary pancreatitis at high risk for complications is lacking. We hypothesize that early ERC with sphincterotomy improves outcome in these patients. Methods/Design: The APEC trial is a randomized controlled, parallel group, superiority multicenter trial. Within 24 hours after presentation to the emergency department, patients with biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis and at high risk for complications, based on an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE-II) score of 8 or greater, Modified Glasgow score of 3 or greater, or serum C-reactive protein above 150 mg/L, will be randomized. In 27 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group, 232 patients will be allocated to early ERC with sphincterotomy or to conservative treatment. The primary endpoint is a composite of major complications (that is, organ failure, pancreatic necrosis, pneumonia, bacteremia, cholangitis, pancreatic endocrine, or exocrine insufficiency) or death within 180 days after randomization. Secondary endpoints include ERC-related complications, infected necrotizing pancreatitis, length of hospital stay and an economical evaluation. Discussion: The APEC trial investigates whether an early ERC with sphincterotomy reduces the composite endpoint of major complications or death compared with conservative treatment in patients with biliary pancreatitis at high risk of complications.