Local immune response to food antigens drives meal-induced abdominal pain.

Up to 20% of people worldwide develop gastrointestinal symptoms following a meal1, leading to decreased quality of life, substantial morbidity and high medical costs. Although the interest of both the scientific and lay communities in this issue has increased markedly in recent years, with the worldwide introduction of gluten-free and other diets, the underlying mechanisms of food-induced abdominal complaints remain largely unknown. Here we show that a bacterial infection and bacterial toxins can trigger an immune response that leads to the production of dietary-antigen-specific IgE antibodies in mice, which are limited to the intestine. Following subsequent oral ingestion of the respective dietary antigen, an IgE- and mast-cell-dependent mechanism induced increased visceral pain. This aberrant pain signalling resulted from histamine receptor H1-mediated sensitization of visceral afferents. Moreover, injection of food antigens (gluten, wheat, soy and milk) into the rectosigmoid mucosa of patients with irritable bowel syndrome induced local oedema and mast cell activation. Our results identify and characterize a peripheral mechanism that underlies food-induced abdominal pain, thereby creating new possibilities for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome and related abdominal pain disorders.

Clinical consequences of computer-aided colorectal polyp detection.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Randomised trials show improved polyp detection with computer-aided detection (CADe), mostly of small lesions. However, operator and selection bias may affect CADe's true benefit. Clinical outcomes of increased detection have not yet been fully elucidated. METHODS: In this multicentre trial, CADe combining convolutional and recurrent neural networks was used for polyp detection. Blinded endoscopists were monitored in real time by a second observer with CADe access. CADe detections prompted reinspection. Adenoma detection rates (ADR) and polyp detection rates were measured prestudy and poststudy. Histological assessments were done by independent histopathologists. The primary outcome compared polyp detection between endoscopists and CADe. RESULTS: In 946 patients (51.9% male, mean age 64), a total of 2141 polyps were identified, including 989 adenomas. CADe was not superior to human polyp detection (sensitivity 94.6% vs 96.0%) but outperformed them when restricted to adenomas. Unblinding led to an additional yield of 86 true positive polyp detections (1.1% ADR increase per patient; 73.8% were <5 mm). CADe also increased non-neoplastic polyp detection by an absolute value of 4.9% of the cases (1.8% increase of entire polyp load). Procedure time increased with 6.6±6.5 min (+42.6%). In 22/946 patients, the additional detection of adenomas changed surveillance intervals (2.3%), mostly by increasing the number of small adenomas beyond the cut-off. CONCLUSION: Even if CADe appears to be slightly more sensitive than human endoscopists, the additional gain in ADR was minimal and follow-up intervals rarely changed. Additional inspection of non-neoplastic lesions was increased, adding to the inspection and/or polypectomy workload.

The Efficacy of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy vs Pneumatic Dilation as Treatment for Patients With Achalasia Suffering From Persistent or Recurrent Symptoms After Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: For patients with achalasia experiencing persistent or recurrent symptoms after laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM), pneumatic dilation (PD) is the most frequently used treatment. Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is increasingly being investigated as rescue therapy. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of POEM vs PD for patients with persistent or recurrent symptoms after LHM. METHODS: This randomized multicenter controlled trial included patients after LHM with an Eckardt score >3 and substantial stasis (≥2 cm) on timed barium esophagogram and randomized to POEM or PD. The primary outcome was treatment success, defined as an Eckardt score of ≤3 and without unscheduled re-treatment. Secondary outcomes included the presence of reflux esophagitis, high-resolution manometry, and timed barium esophagogram findings. Follow-up duration was 1 year after initial treatment. RESULTS: Ninety patients were included. POEM had a higher success rate (28 of 45 patients [62.2%]) than PD (12 of 45 patients [26.7%]; absolute difference, 35.6%; 95% CI, 16.4%-54.7%; P = .001; odds ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.09-0.54; relative risk for success, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.37-3.99). Reflux esophagitis was not significantly different between POEM (12 of 35 [34.3%]) and PD (6 of 40 [15%]). Basal lower esophageal sphincter pressure and integrated relaxation pressure (IRP-4) were significantly lower in the POEM group (P = .034; P = .002). Barium column height after 2 and 5 minutes was significantly less in patients treated with POEM (P = .005; P = .015). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with achalasia experiencing persistent or recurrent symptoms after LHM, POEM resulted in a significantly higher success rate than PD, with a numerically higher incidence of grade A-B reflux esophagitis. NETHERLANDS TRIAL REGISTRY: NL4361 (NTR4501), https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID = NTR4501.

Artificial Intelligence Enabled Histological Prediction of Remission or Activity and Clinical Outcomes in Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Microscopic inflammation has significant prognostic value in ulcerative colitis (UC); however, its assessment is complex with high interobserver variability. We aimed to develop and validate an artificial intelligence (AI) computer-aided diagnosis system to evaluate UC biopsies and predict prognosis. METHODS: A total of 535 digitalized biopsies (273 patients) were graded according to the PICaSSO Histologic Remission Index (PHRI), Robarts, and Nancy Histological Index. A convolutional neural network classifier was trained to distinguish remission from activity on a subset of 118 biopsies, calibrated on 42 and tested on 375. The model was additionally tested to predict the corresponding endoscopic assessment and occurrence of flares at 12 months. The system output was compared with human assessment. Diagnostic performance was reported as sensitivity, specificity, prognostic prediction through Kaplan-Meier, and hazard ratios of flares between active and remission groups. We externally validated the model in 154 biopsies (58 patients) with similar characteristics but more histologically active patients. RESULTS: The system distinguished histological activity/remission with sensitivity and specificity of 89% and 85% (PHRI), 94% and 76% (Robarts Histological Index), and 89% and 79% (Nancy Histological Index). The model predicted the corresponding endoscopic remission/activity with 79% and 82% accuracy for UC endoscopic index of severity and Paddington International virtual ChromoendoScopy ScOre, respectively. The hazard ratio for disease flare-up between histological activity/remission groups according to pathologist-assessed PHRI was 3.56, and 4.64 for AI-assessed PHRI. Both histology and outcome prediction were confirmed in the external validation cohort. CONCLUSION: We developed and validated an AI model that distinguishes histologic remission/activity in biopsies of UC and predicts flare-ups. This can expedite, standardize, and enhance histologic assessment in practice and trials.

Training in basic gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement.

This ESGE Position Statement provides structured and evidence-based guidance on the essential requirements and processes involved in training in basic gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. The document outlines definitions; competencies required, and means to their assessment and maintenance; the structure and requirements of training programs; patient safety and medicolegal issues. 1: ESGE and ESGENA define basic endoscopic procedures as those procedures that are commonly indicated, generally accessible, and expected to be mastered (technically and cognitively) by the end of any core training program in gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2: ESGE and ESGENA consider the following as basic endoscopic procedures: diagnostic upper and lower GI endoscopy, as well as a limited range of interventions such as: tissue acquisition via cold biopsy forceps, polypectomy for lesions ≤ 10 mm, hemostasis techniques, enteral feeding tube placement, foreign body retrieval, dilation of simple esophageal strictures, and India ink tattooing of lesion location. 3: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that training in GI endoscopy should be subject to stringent formal requirements that ensure all ESGE key performance indicators (KPIs) are met. 4: Training in basic endoscopic procedures is a complex process and includes the development and acquisition of cognitive, technical/motor, and integrative skills. Therefore, ESGE and ESGENA recommend the use of validated tools to track the development of skills and assess competence. 5: ESGE and ESGENA recommend incorporating a multimodal approach to evaluating competence in basic GI endoscopic procedures, including procedural thresholds and the measurement and documentation of established ESGE KPIs. 7: ESGE and ESGENA recommend the continuous monitoring of ESGE KPIs during GI endoscopy training to ensure the trainee's maintenance of competence. 9: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy training units fulfil the ESGE KPIs for endoscopy units and, furthermore, be capable of providing the dedicated personnel, infrastructure, and sufficient case volume required for successful training within a structured training program. 10: ESGE and ESGENA recommend that trainers in basic GI endoscopic procedures should be endoscopists with formal educational training in the teaching of endoscopy, which allows them to successfully and safely teach trainees.

Safety and efficacy of salvage endoscopic submucosal dissection for Barrett's neoplasia recurrence after radiofrequency ablation.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of salvage endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for Barrett's neoplasia recurrence after radiofrequency ablation (RFA). METHODS: Data from patients at 16 centers were collected for a multicenter retrospective study. Patients who underwent at least one RFA treatment for Barrett's esophagus and thereafter underwent further esophageal ESD for neoplasia recurrence were included. RESULTS: Data from 56 patients who underwent salvage ESD between April 2014 and November 2022 were collected. Immediate complications included one muscular tear (1.8%) treated with stent (Agree classification: grade IIIa). Two transmural perforations (3.6%; treated with clips) and five muscular tears (8.9%; two treated with clips) had no clinical impact and were not considered as adverse events. Seven patients (12.5%) developed strictures (grade IIIa), which were treated with balloon dilation. Histological analysis showed 36 adenocarcinoma, 17 high grade dysplasia, and 3 low grade dysplasia. En bloc and R0 resection rates were 89.3% and 66.1%, respectively. Resections were curative in 33 patients (58.9%), and noncurative in 22 patients (39.3%), including 11 "local risk" (19.6%) and 11 "high risk" (19.6%) resections. At the end of follow-up with a median time of 14 (0-75) months after salvage ESD, and with further endoscopic treatment if necessary (RFA, argon plasma coagulation, endoscopic mucosal resection, ESD), neoplasia remission ratio was 37/53 (69.8%) and the median remission time was 13 (1-75) months. CONCLUSION: In expert hands, salvage ESD was a safe and effective treatment for recurrence of Barrett's neoplasia after RFA treatment.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion in gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Position Statement.

1: The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) adheres to the overarching principles of equality of opportunity, fair treatment, nondiscrimination, and diversity of health care professionals. 2: ESGE strongly supports the creation of collaborations within and between national and international endoscopy societies to disseminate the principles of diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI) in the field of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. 3: ESGE aims to reflect the diversity of its membership in all its scientific and educational activities. 4: ESGE supports the fostering of collaborative work settings that empower all members of the endoscopy team to reach their full potential. 5: ESGE supports international and national endoscopy societies in promoting equitable access to high quality endoscopy training. 6: ESGE recommends the implementation of ergonomic principles in endoscopy units to prevent injuries and to provide adapted workplace conditions for personnel with disabilities and/or special needs. 7: ESGE recommends comprehensive mentorship, that includes diverse backgrounds, and equitable sponsorship for professional development, training, and academic excellence. 8: ESGE recommends that endoscopists actively identify, discuss, and attempt to accommodate reasonable patient preferences and expectations regarding endoscopy procedures. 9: ESGE advocates for educational and awareness campaigns targeting both health care professionals and patients, as well as the adoption of cost-effective health care strategies to address disparities and enhance equity in endoscopy care. 10: ESGE is committed to increasing support for underrepresented scholars and minorities pursuing research in endoscopy. 11: ESGE identifies mentorship and sponsorship as factors that may mitigate the barriers to academic careers for underrepresented endoscopy scholars. 12: ESGE recognizes the need to increase awareness of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the field of endoscopy and supports publications on these topics.

Perspectives and awareness of endoscopy healthcare professionals on sustainable practices in gastrointestinal endoscopy: results of the LEAFGREEN survey.

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.

Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024.

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.

Can optical evaluation distinguish between t1a and t1b esophageal adenocarcinoma: an international expert inter-observer agreement study.

INTRODUCTION: While piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for T1a oesophageal adenocarcinoma is acceptable, enbloc-R0 excision is advocated for T1b disease as it may offer a potential cure and mitigate recurrence. Thus, distinguishing between T1a and T1b disease is imperative under current treatment paradigms. We sought to ascertain whether expert Barrett's endoscopists were able to make this distinction based on optical evaluation. METHODS: Sixty sets of endoscopic images of histologically confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD), T1a and T1b disease (n=20 for each) were compiled from consecutive patients at a single institution. Each set contained four images, and were standardized to include an overview, a close-up in high-definition white light, a near-focus magnification image, and a narrow-band image. Experts were invited to predict histology for each set. RESULTS: 19 experts from 8 countries (Australia, USA, Italy, Netherlands, Germany, Canada, Belgium, and Portugal) participated. The majority had been practicing for >20 years, with a median annual case volume for Barrett's EMR of 50 (IQR 18-75), and Barrett's ESD of 25 (IQR 10-45). Oesophageal adenocarcinoma (T1a/b) could be distinguished from HGD, with a pooled sensitivity of 89.1% (95% CI:84.7-93.4. When predicting T-stage for T1b adenocarcinoma cases, pooled sensitivity was 43.8% (95% CI:29.9-57.7). Fleiss' kappa was 0.421 (95% CI:0.399-0.442, P<0.001), indicating fair-to-moderate agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Expert Barrett's endoscopists can reliably differentiate T1a/T1b oesophageal adenocarcinoma from HGD. Although there is fair-to-moderate agreement for T-staging, T1b disease cannot be reliably distinguished from T1a disease. This may have implications on clinical decision making and selection of endoscopic treatment methods.

The safety and efficacy of endoscopic approaches for the management of Zenker's diverticulum: a multicentre retrospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive endoscopic options are safe and effective alternatives to surgery for the treatment of symptomatic Zenker's diverticulum (ZD). However, there is no consensus on the gold-standard approach. We compared the safety and efficacy of Zenker's peroral endoscopic myotomy (Z-POEM), flexible diverticulotomy (FD), and rigid diverticulotomy (RD) for the management of ZD. METHODS: Patients undergoing treatment for ZD at three UK tertiary referral centres were identified and analysed between 2013 and 2023. Patient demographics, procedural details, clinical success, and 30-day adverse events (AE) were recorded. The primary outcomes were technical and clinical success defined as a fall in Dakkak and Bennett dysphagia score to ≤ 1 without re-intervention. RESULTS: There was no difference in baseline characteristics amongst 126 patients undergoing intervention (50 RD, 31 FD, 45 Z-POEM). Technical success for RD, FD, and Z-POEM was 80%, 100%, and 100%, respectively (p < 0.001). Over a mean follow-up of 11.0 months (95% CI 8.2-13.9), clinical success amongst those treated was 85.3% (RD), 74.1% (FD), and 83.7% (Z-POEM; p = 0.48) with recurrence in 17.2% (RD), 20.0% (FD), and 8.3% (Z-POEM; p = 0.50). AEs were equivalent between groups (p = 0.98). During this time, 11 patients underwent surgical myotomy with low clinical success (36.4%) and high morbidity. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic options for the treatment of ZD show equivalent rates of success, but failed RD often led to open myotomy with worse outcomes. Flexible endoscopic modalities are both safe and highly effective treatments that may be considered first-line in experienced centres and should be offered before surgery.

Dysplastic Recurrence After Successful Treatment for Early Barrett's Neoplasia: Development and Validation of a Prediction Model.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The combination of endoscopic resection and radiofrequency ablation is the treatment of choice for eradication of Barrett's esophagus (BE) with dysplasia and/or early cancer. Currently, there are no evidence-based recommendations on how to survey patients after successful treatment, and most patients undergo frequent follow-up endoscopies. We aimed to develop and externally validate a prediction model for visible dysplastic recurrence, which can be used to personalize surveillance after treatment. METHODS: We collected data from the Dutch Barrett Expert Center Registry, a nationwide registry that captures outcomes from all patients with BE undergoing endoscopic treatment in the Netherlands in a centralized care setting. We used predictors related to demographics, severity of reflux, histologic status at baseline, and treatment characteristics. We built a Fine and Gray survival model with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator penalization to predict the incidence of visible dysplastic recurrence after initial successful treatment. The model was validated externally in patients with BE treated in Switzerland and Belgium. RESULTS: A total of 1154 patients with complete BE eradication were included for model building. During a mean endoscopic follow-up of 4 years, 38 patients developed recurrent disease (1.0%/person-year). The following characteristics were independently associated with recurrence (strongest to weakest predictor): a new visible lesion during treatment phase, higher number of endoscopic resection treatments, male sex, increasing BE length, high-grade dysplasia or cancer at baseline, and younger age. External validation showed a C-statistic of 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.94) with good calibration. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first externally validated model to predict visible dysplastic recurrence after successful endoscopic eradication treatment of BE with dysplasia or early cancer. On external validation, our model has good discrimination and calibration. This model can help clinicians and patients to determine a personalized follow-up strategy.

Computer-aided characterization of early cancer in Barrett's esophagus on i-scan magnification imaging: a multicenter international study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We aimed to develop a computer-aided characterization system that could support the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus (BE) on magnification endoscopy. METHODS: Videos were collected in high-definition magnification white-light and virtual chromoendoscopy with i-scan (Pentax Hoya, Japan) imaging in patients with dysplastic and nondysplastic BE (NDBE) from 4 centers. We trained a neural network with a Resnet101 architecture to classify frames as dysplastic or nondysplastic. The network was tested on 3 different scenarios: high-quality still images, all available video frames, and a selected sequence within each video. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients, each with videos of magnification areas of BE (34 dysplasia, 23 NDBE), were included. Performance was evaluated by a leave-1-patient-out cross-validation method. In all, 60,174 (39,347 dysplasia, 20,827 NDBE) magnification video frames were used to train the network. The testing set included 49,726 i-scan-3/optical enhancement magnification frames. On 350 high-quality still images, the network achieved a sensitivity of 94%, specificity of 86%, and area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) of 96%. On all 49,726 available video frames, the network achieved a sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 82%, and AUROC of 95%. On a selected sequence of frames per case (total of 11,471 frames), we used an exponentially weighted moving average of classifications on consecutive frames to characterize dysplasia. The network achieved a sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 84%, and AUROC of 96%. The mean assessment speed per frame was 0.0135 seconds (SD ± 0.006). CONCLUSION: Our network can characterize BE dysplasia with high accuracy and speed on high-quality magnification images and sequence of video frames, moving it toward real-time automated diagnosis.

Endoscopic management of patients with high-risk colorectal colitis-associated neoplasia: a Delphi study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Current guidelines recommend endoscopic resection of visible and endoscopically resectable colorectal colitis-associated neoplasia (CAN) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, patients with high-risk CAN (HR-CAN) are often not amenable to conventional resection techniques, and a consensus approach for the endoscopic management of these lesions is presently lacking. This Delphi study aims to reach consensus among experts on the endoscopic management of these lesions. METHODS: A 3-round modified Delphi process was conducted to reach consensus among worldwide IBD and/or endoscopy experts (n = 18) from 3 continents. Consensus was considered if ≥75% agreed or disagreed. Quality of evidence was assessed by the criteria of the Cochrane Collaboration group. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on all statements (n = 14). Experts agreed on a definition for CAN and HR-CAN. Consensus was reached on the examination of the colon with enhanced endoscopic imaging before resection, the endoscopic resectability of an HR-CAN lesion, and endoscopic assessment and standard report of CAN lesions. In addition, experts agreed on type of resections of HR-CAN (< 20 mm, >20 mm, with or without good lifting), endoscopic success (technical success and outcomes), histologic assessment, and follow-up in HR-CAN. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first step in developing international consensus-based recommendations for endoscopic management of CAN and HR-CAN. Although the quality of available evidence was considered low, consensus was reached on several aspects of the management of CAN and HR-CAN. The present work and proposed standardization might benefit future studies.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy devices and the European Union Medical Device Regulation: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy is largely dependent on medical devices. The European Union (EU) has recently introduced stricter rules and regulations for the approval of medical devices. This has consequences both for endoscopists and for patients. The new regulations increase the need for clinical trials and observational studies for new and current devices used in endoscopy to ensure clinical benefit and reduce patient harm. European endoscopy environments should facilitate industry-sponsored clinical trials and registry studies to meet the demand for robust data on endoscopic devices as required in the new legislation. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) will play an active role in the establishment of the new system.The EU is establishing independent expert panels for device regulation in gastroenterology and hepatology, including endoscopy, that are charged with assessing the requirements for device testing. The ESGE encourages endoscopists with expertise in the technical and clinical performance of endoscopy devices to apply for expert panel membership. The ESGE has provided information for interested endoscopists on the ESGE website. Private European companies called "notified bodies" are entitled to conduct device approval for the EU. The ESGE will actively engage with these notified bodies for topics related to the new endoscopy device approval process to ensure continued access to high quality endoscopy devices for endoscopists in Europe.

A virtual chromoendoscopy artificial intelligence system to detect endoscopic and histologic activity/remission and predict clinical outcomes in ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic and histological remission (ER, HR) are therapeutic targets in ulcerative colitis (UC). Virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE) improves endoscopic assessment and the prediction of histology; however, interobserver variability limits standardized endoscopic assessment. We aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) tool to distinguish ER/activity, and predict histology and risk of flare from white-light endoscopy (WLE) and VCE videos. METHODS: 1090 endoscopic videos (67 280 frames) from 283 patients were used to develop a convolutional neural network (CNN). UC endoscopic activity was graded by experts using the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) and Paddington International virtual ChromoendoScopy ScOre (PICaSSO). The CNN was trained to distinguish ER/activity on endoscopy videos, and retrained to predict HR/activity, defined according to multiple indices, and predict outcome; CNN and human agreement was measured. RESULTS: The AI system detected ER (UCEIS ≤ 1) in WLE videos with 72 % sensitivity, 87 % specificity, and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.85; for detection of ER in VCE videos (PICaSSO ≤ 3), the sensitivity was 79 %, specificity 95 %, and the AUROC 0.94. The prediction of HR was similar between WLE and VCE videos (accuracies ranging from 80 % to 85 %). The model's stratification of risk of flare was similar to that of physician-assessed endoscopy scores. CONCLUSIONS: Our system accurately distinguished ER/activity and predicted HR and clinical outcome from colonoscopy videos. This is the first computer model developed to detect inflammation/healing on VCE using the PICaSSO and the first computer tool to provide endoscopic, histologic, and clinical assessment.

Curriculum for bariatric endoscopy and endoscopic treatment of the complications of bariatric surgery: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

Obesity is a chronic, relapsing, degenerative, multifactorial disease that is associated with many co-morbidities. The global increasing burden of obesity has led to calls for an urgent need for additional treatment options. Given the rapid expansion of bariatric endoscopy and bariatric surgery across Europe, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has recognized the need to formalize and enhance training in bariatric endoscopy and the endoscopic treatment of bariatric surgical adverse events. This manuscript represents the outcome of a formal Delphi process resulting in an official Position Statement of the ESGE and provides a framework to develop and maintain skills in bariatric endoscopy and the endoscopic treatment of bariatric surgical adverse events. This curriculum is set out in terms of the prerequisites prior to training, minimum number of procedures, the steps for training and quality of training, and how competence should be defined and evidenced before independent practice. 1: ESGE recommends that every endoscopist should have achieved competence in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy before commencing training in bariatric endoscopy and the endoscopic treatment of bariatric surgical adverse events. 2: Trainees in bariatric endoscopy and the endoscopic treatment of the complications of bariatric surgery should have basic knowledge of the definition, classification, and social impact of obesity, its pathophysiology, and its related co-morbidities. The recognition and management of gastrointestinal diseases that are more common in patients with obesity, along with participation in multidisciplinary teams where obese patients are evaluated, are mandatory. 3 : ESGE recommends that competency in bariatric endoscopy and the endoscopic treatment of the complications of bariatric surgery can be learned by attending validated training courses on simulators initially, structured training courses, and then hands-on training in tertiary referral centers.

Curriculum for training in endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the standard of care for the complete removal of large (≥ 10 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs). Increased detection of LNPCPs owing to screening colonoscopy, plus high observed rates of incomplete resection and need for surgery call for a standardized approach to training in EMR. 1 : Trainees in EMR should have achieved basic competence in diagnostic colonoscopy, < 10-mm polypectomy, pedunculated polypectomy, and common methods of gastrointestinal endoscopic hemostasis. The role of formal training courses is emphasized. Training may then commence in vivo under the direct supervision of a trainer. 2 : Endoscopy units training endoscopists in EMR should have specific processes in place to support and facilitate training. 3: A trained EMR practitioner should have mastered theoretical knowledge including how to assess an LNPCP for risk of submucosal invasion, how to interpret the potential difficulty of a particular EMR procedure, how to decide whether to remove a particular LNPCP en bloc or piecemeal, whether the risks of electrosurgical energy can be avoided for a particular LNPCP, the different devices required for EMR, management of adverse events, and interpretation of reports provided by histopathologists. 4: Trained EMR practitioners should be familiar with the patient consent process for EMR. 5: The development of endoscopic non-technical skills (ENTS) and team interaction are important for trainees in EMR. 6: Differences in recommended technique exist between EMR performed with and without electrosurgical energy. Common to both is a standardized technique based upon dynamic injection, controlled and precise snare placement, safety checks prior to the application of tissue transection (cold snare) or electrosurgical energy (hot snare), and interpretation of the post-EMR resection defect. 7: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to manage adverse events associated with EMR including intraprocedural bleeding and perforation, and post-procedural bleeding. Delayed perforation should be avoided by correct interpretation of the post-EMR defect and treatment of deep mural injury. 8: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to communicate EMR procedural findings to patients and provide them with a plan in case of adverse events after discharge and a follow-up plan. 9: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to detect and interrogate a post-endoscopic resection scar for residual or recurrent adenoma and apply treatment if necessary. 10: Prior to independent practice, a minimum of 30 EMR procedures should be performed, culminating in a trainer-guided assessment of competency using a validated assessment tool, taking account of procedural difficulty (e. g. using the SMSA polyp score). 11: Trained practitioners should log their key performance indicators (KPIs) of polypectomy during independent practice. A guide for target KPIs is provided in this document.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection techniques and technology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review.

ESGE suggests conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD; marking and mucosal incision followed by circumferential incision and stepwise submucosal dissection) for most esophageal and gastric lesions. ESGE suggests tunneling ESD for esophageal lesions involving more than two-thirds of the esophageal circumference. ESGE recommends the pocket-creation method for colorectal ESD, at least if traction devices are not used. The use of dedicated ESD knives with size adequate to the location/thickness of the gastrointestinal wall is recommended. It is suggested that isotonic saline or viscous solutions can be used for submucosal injection. ESGE recommends traction methods in esophageal and colorectal ESD and in selected gastric lesions. After gastric ESD, coagulation of visible vessels is recommended, and post-procedural high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (or vonoprazan). ESGE recommends against routine closure of the ESD defect, except in duodenal ESD. ESGE recommends corticosteroids after resection of  > 50 % of the esophageal circumference. The use of carbon dioxide when performing ESD is recommended. ESGE recommends against the performance of second-look endoscopy after ESD. ESGE recommends endoscopy/colonoscopy in the case of significant bleeding (hemodynamic instability, drop in hemoglobin > 2 g/dL, severe ongoing bleeding) to perform endoscopic hemostasis with thermal methods or clipping; hemostatic powders represent rescue therapies. ESGE recommends closure of immediate perforations with clips (through-the-scope or cap-mounted, depending on the size and shape of the perforation), as soon as possible but ideally after securing a good plane for further dissection.

Informed consent for endoscopic procedures: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

All endoscopic procedures are invasive and carry risk. Accordingly, all endoscopists should involve the patient in the decision-making process about the most appropriate endoscopic procedure for that individual, in keeping with a patient's right to self-determination and autonomy. Recognition of this has led to detailed guidelines on informed consent for endoscopy in some countries, but in many no such guidance exists; this may lead to variations in care and exposure to risk of litigation. In this document, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) sets out a series of statements that cover best practice in informed consent for endoscopy. These statements should be seen as a minimum standard of practice, but practitioners must be aware of and adhere to the law in their own country. 1: Patients should give informed consent for all gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures for which they have capacity to do so. 2: The healthcare professional seeking consent for an endoscopic procedure should ensure that the patient has the capacity to consent to that procedure. 3: For patients who lack capacity, healthcare personnel should at all times try to engage with people close to the patient, such as family, friends, or caregivers, to achieve consensus on the appropriateness of performing the procedure. 4: Where a patient lacks capacity to provide informed consent, the best interest decision should be clearly documented in the medical record. This should include information about the capacity assessment, reason(s) that the decision cannot be delayed for capacity recovery (or if recovery is not expected), who has been consulted, and where relevant the form of authority for the decision. 5: There should be a systematic and transparent disclosure of the expected benefits and harms that may reasonably affect patient choice on whether or not to undergo any diagnostic or interventional endoscopic procedure. Information about possible alternatives, as well as the consequences of doing nothing, should also be provided when relevant. 6: The information provided on the benefit and harms of an endoscopic procedure should be adapted to the procedure and patient-specific risk factors, and the preferences of the patient should be central to the consent process. 7: The consent discussion should be undertaken by an individual who is familiar with the procedure and its risks, and is able to discuss these in the context of the individual patient. 8: Patients should confirm consent to an endoscopic procedure in a private, unrushed, and non-coercive environment. 9: If a patient requests that an endoscopic procedure be discontinued, the procedure should be paused and the patient's capacity for decision making assessed. If a competent patient continues to object to the procedure, or if a conclusive determination of capacity is not feasible, the examination should be terminated as soon as it is safe to do so. 10: Informed consent should be sufficiently detailed to cover all findings that can be reasonably anticipated during an endoscopic examination. The scope of this consent should not be expanded, nor a patient's implicit consent for additional interventions assumed, unless failure to proceed with such interventions would result in immediate and predictable harm to the patient.