[Radiation protection in endoscopy]. / Protección radiológica en endoscopia.

Endoscopy has evolved from a purely diagnostic technique to a therapeutic procedure. This is possible in many cases thanks to the use of fluoroscopy, which entails exposure to ionizing radiation for both patients and the personnel involved. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), which necessarily requires fluoroscopy, is classified by the Food and Drug Administration as an examination with a potential risk of triggering radiation induced injuries. This article reviews the biological effects of radiation, the types of radiological equipment used in ERCP, as well as the magnitudes and dosimetric units, to finally address the radio protection elements in the endoscopy room. The objective is to provide the reader with the information to be able to perform these procedures with the greatest radiological safety for both patients and occupationally exposed personnel.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update.

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.

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update.

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.

Efficacy and Tolerability of High- vs Low-Volume Split-Dose Bowel Cleansing Regimens for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Efficacy of bowel preparation is an important determinant of outcomes of colonoscopy. It is not clear whether approved low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) and non-PEG regimens are as effective as high-volume PEG regimens when taken in a split dose. METHODS: In a systematic review of multiple electronic databases through January 31, 2019 with a registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019128067), we identified randomized controlled trials that compared low- vs high-volume bowel cleansing regimens, administered in a split dose, for colonoscopy. The primary efficacy outcome was rate of adequate bowel cleansing, and the secondary efficacy outcome was adenoma detection rate. Primary tolerability outcomes were compliance, tolerability, and willingness to repeat. We calculated relative risk (RR) and 95% CI values and assessed heterogeneity among studies by using the I2 statistic. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. RESULTS: In an analysis of data from 17 randomized controlled trials, comprising 7528 patients, we found no significant differences in adequacy of bowel cleansing between the low- vs high-volume split-dose regimens (86.1% vs 87.4%; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02) and there was minimal heterogeneity (I2 = 17%). There was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87-1.08) among 4 randomized controlled trials. Compared with high-volume, split-dose regimens, low-volume split-dose regimens had higher odds for compliance or completion (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), tolerability (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.74), and willingness to repeat bowel preparation (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20-1.66). The overall quality of evidence was moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a systematic review of 17 randomized controlled trials, low-volume, split-dose regimens appear to be as effective as high-volume, split-dose regimens in bowel cleansing and are better tolerated, with superior compliance.

Diagnosis and management of iatrogenic endoscopic perforations: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement - Update 2020.

1: ESGE recommends that each center implements a written policy regarding the management of iatrogenic perforations, including the definition of procedures that carry a higher risk of this complication. This policy should be shared with the radiologists and surgeons at each center. 2 : ESGE recommends that in the case of an endoscopically identified perforation, the endoscopist reports its size and location, with an image, and statement of the endoscopic treatment that has been applied. 3: ESGE recommends that symptoms or signs suggestive of iatrogenic perforation after an endoscopic procedure should be rapidly and carefully evaluated and documented with a computed tomography (CT) scan. 4 : ESGE recommends that endoscopic closure should be considered depending on the type of the iatrogenic perforation, its size, and the endoscopist expertise available at the center. Switch to carbon dioxide (CO2) endoscopic insufflation, diversion of digestive luminal content, and decompression of tension pneumoperitoneum or pneumothorax should also be performed. 5 : ESGE recommends that after endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, further management should be based on the estimated success of the endoscopic closure and on the general clinical condition of the patient. In the case of no or failed endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, and in patients whose clinical condition is deteriorating, hospitalization and surgical consultation are recommended.

Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2020.

The following recommendations for post-polypectomy colonoscopic surveillance apply to all patients who had one or more polyps that were completely removed during a high quality baseline colonoscopy. 1: ESGE recommends that patients with complete removal of 1 - 4 < 10 mm adenomas with low grade dysplasia, irrespective of villous components, or any serrated polyp < 10 mm without dysplasia, do not require endoscopic surveillance and should be returned to screening.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.If organized screening is not available, repetition of colonoscopy 10 years after the index procedure is recommended.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends surveillance colonoscopy after 3 years for patients with complete removal of at least 1 adenoma ≥ 10 mm or with high grade dysplasia, or ≥ 5 adenomas, or any serrated polyp ≥ 10 mm or with dysplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends a 3 - 6-month early repeat colonoscopy following piecemeal endoscopic resection of polyps ≥ 20 mm.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. A first surveillance colonoscopy 12 months after the repeat colonoscopy is recommended to detect late recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4: If no polyps requiring surveillance are detected at the first surveillance colonoscopy, ESGE suggests to perform a second surveillance colonoscopy after 5 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.After that, if no polyps requiring surveillance are detected, patients can be returned to screening. 5: ESGE suggests that, if polyps requiring surveillance are detected at first or subsequent surveillance examinations, surveillance colonoscopy may be performed at 3 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.A flowchart showing the recommended surveillance intervals is provided (Fig. 1).

ERCP-related adverse events: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

PROPHYLAXIS: 1:  ESGE recommends routine rectal administration of 100 mg of diclofenac or indomethacin immediately before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in all patients without contraindications to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends prophylactic pancreatic stenting in selected patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis (inadvertent guidewire insertion/opacification of the pancreatic duct, double-guidewire cannulation).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3:  ESGE suggests against routine endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy before the insertion of a single plastic stent or an uncovered/partially covered self-expandable metal stent for relief of biliary obstruction.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends against the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5:  ESGE suggests antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP in the case of anticipated incomplete biliary drainage, for severely immunocompromised patients, and when performing cholangioscopy.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6:  ESGE suggests tests of coagulation are not routinely required prior to ERCP for patients who are not on anticoagulants and not jaundiced.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. TREATMENT: 7:  ESGE suggests against salvage pancreatic stenting in patients with post-ERCP pancreatitis.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE suggests temporary placement of a biliary fully covered self-expandable metal stent for post-sphincterotomy bleeding refractory to standard hemostatic modalities.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 9:  ESGE suggests to evaluate patients with post-ERCP cholangitis by abdominal ultrasonography or computed tomography (CT) scan and, in the absence of improvement with conservative therapy, to consider repeat ERCP. A bile sample should be collected for microbiological examination during repeat ERCP.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Management of epithelial precancerous conditions and lesions in the stomach (MAPS II): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG), European Society of Pathology (ESP), and Sociedade Portuguesa de Endoscopia Digestiva (SPED) guideline update 2019.

Patients with chronic atrophic gastritis or intestinal metaplasia (IM) are at risk for gastric adenocarcinoma. This underscores the importance of diagnosis and risk stratification for these patients. High definition endoscopy with chromoendoscopy (CE) is better than high definition white-light endoscopy alone for this purpose. Virtual CE can guide biopsies for staging atrophic and metaplastic changes and can target neoplastic lesions. Biopsies should be taken from at least two topographic sites (antrum and corpus) and labelled in two separate vials. For patients with mild to moderate atrophy restricted to the antrum there is no evidence to recommend surveillance. In patients with IM at a single location but with a family history of gastric cancer, incomplete IM, or persistent Helicobacter pylori gastritis, endoscopic surveillance with CE and guided biopsies may be considered in 3 years. Patients with advanced stages of atrophic gastritis should be followed up with a high quality endoscopy every 3 years. In patients with dysplasia, in the absence of an endoscopically defined lesion, immediate high quality endoscopic reassessment with CE is recommended. Patients with an endoscopically visible lesion harboring low or high grade dysplasia or carcinoma should undergo staging and treatment. H. pylori eradication heals nonatrophic chronic gastritis, may lead to regression of atrophic gastritis, and reduces the risk of gastric cancer in patients with these conditions, and it is recommended. H. pylori eradication is also recommended for patients with neoplasia after endoscopic therapy. In intermediate to high risk regions, identification and surveillance of patients with precancerous gastric conditions is cost-effective.

Endoscopic surveillance after surgical or endoscopic resection for colorectal cancer: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Digestive Oncology (ESDO) Guideline.

1:  We recommend post-surgery endoscopic surveillance for CRC patients after intent-to-cure surgery and appropriate oncological treatment for both local and distant disease.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2:  We recommend a high quality perioperative colonoscopy before surgery for CRC or within 6 months following surgery.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3:  We recommend performing surveillance colonoscopy 1 year after CRC surgery.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4:  We do not recommend an intensive endoscopic surveillance strategy, e. g. annual colonoscopy, because of a lack of proven benefit.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5:  After the first surveillance colonoscopy following CRC surgery, we suggest the second colonoscopy should be performed 3 years later, and the third 5 years after the second. If additional high risk neoplastic lesions are detected, subsequent surveillance examinations at shorter intervals may be considered.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6:  After the initial surveillance colonoscopy, we suggest halting post-surgery endoscopic surveillance at the age of 80 years, or earlier if life-expectancy is thought to be limited by comorbidities.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 7:  In patients with a low risk pT1 CRC treated by endoscopy with an R0 resection, we suggest the same endoscopic surveillance schedule as for any CRC.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Endoscopic treatment of chronic pancreatitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Updated August 2018.

ESGE suggests endoscopic therapy and/or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) as the first-line therapy for painful uncomplicated chronic pancreatitis (CP) with an obstructed main pancreatic duct (MPD) in the head/body of the pancreas. The clinical response should be evaluated at 6 - 8 weeks; if it appears unsatisfactory, the patient's case should be discussed again in a multidisciplinary team and surgical options should be considered.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE suggests, for the selection of patients for initial or continued endoscopic therapy and/or ESWL, taking into consideration predictive factors associated with a good long-term outcome. These include, at initial work-up, absence of MPD stricture, a short disease duration, non-severe pain, absence or cessation of cigarette smoking and of alcohol intake, and, after initial treatment, complete removal of obstructive pancreatic stones and resolution of pancreatic duct stricture with stenting.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends ESWL for the clearance of radiopaque obstructive MPD stones larger than 5 mm located in the head/body of the pancreas and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for MPD stones that are radiolucent or smaller than 5 mm. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests restricting the use of endoscopic therapy after ESWL to patients with no spontaneous clearance of pancreatic stones after adequate fragmentation by ESWL.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests treating painful dominant MPD strictures with a single 10-Fr plastic stent for one uninterrupted year if symptoms improve after initial successful MPD drainage. The stent should be exchanged if necessary, based on symptoms or signs of stent dysfunction at regular pancreas imaging at least every 6 months. ESGE suggests consideration of surgery or multiple side-by-side plastic stents for symptomatic MPD strictures persisting beyond 1 year after the initial single plastic stenting, following multidisciplinary discussion. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends endoscopic drainage over percutaneous or surgical treatment for uncomplicated chronic pancreatitis (CP)-related pseudocysts that are within endoscopic reach.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends retrieval of transmural plastic stents at least 6 weeks after pancreatic pseudocyst regression if MPD disruption has been excluded, and long-term indwelling of transmural double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE suggests the temporary insertion of multiple side-by-side plastic stents or of a fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) for treating CP-related benign biliary strictures.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends maintaining a registry of patients with biliary stents and recalling them for stent removal or exchange.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2019.

ESGE recommends a low fiber diet on the day preceding colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of enhanced instructions for bowel preparation.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends split-dose bowel preparation for elective colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends, for patients undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, a same-day bowel preparation as an acceptable alternative to split dosing.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends to start the last dose of bowel preparation within 5 hours of colonoscopy, and to complete it at least 2 hours before the beginning of the procedure.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of high volume or low volume PEG-based regimens as well as that of non-PEG-based agents that have been clinically validated for routine bowel preparation. In patients at risk for hydroelectrolyte disturbances, the choice of laxative should be individualized.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline.

ESGE recommends offering stone extraction to all patients with common bile duct stones, symptomatic or not, who are fit enough to tolerate the intervention.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends liver function tests and abdominal ultrasonography as the initial diagnostic steps for suspected common bile duct stones. Combining these tests defines the probability of having common bile duct stones.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography to diagnose common bile duct stones in patients with persistent clinical suspicion but insufficient evidence of stones on abdominal ultrasonography.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the following timing for biliary drainage, preferably endoscopic, in patients with acute cholangitis, classified according to the 2018 revision of the Tokyo Guidelines:- severe, as soon as possible and within 12 hours for patients with septic shock- moderate, within 48 - 72 hours- mild, elective.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends endoscopic placement of a temporary biliary plastic stent in patients with irretrievable biliary stones that warrant biliary drainage.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.ESGE recommends limited sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation as the first-line approach to remove difficult common bile duct stones. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of cholangioscopy-assisted intraluminal lithotripsy (electrohydraulic or laser) as an effective and safe treatment of difficult bile duct stones.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 2 weeks from ERCP for patients treated for choledocholithiasis to reduce the conversion rate and the risk of recurrent biliary events. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Extracellular Vesicles in Bile as Markers of Malignant Biliary Stenoses.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Algorithms for diagnosis of malignant common bile duct (CBD) stenoses are complex and lack accuracy. Malignant tumors secrete large numbers of extracellular vesicles (EVs) into surrounding fluids; EVs might therefore serve as biomarkers for diagnosis. We investigated whether concentrations of EVs in bile could discriminate malignant from nonmalignant CBD stenoses. METHODS: We collected bile and blood samples from 50 patients undergoing therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography at university hospitals in Europe for CBD stenosis of malignant (pancreatic cancer, n = 20 or cholangiocarcinoma, n = 5) or nonmalignant (chronic pancreatitis [CP], n = 15) origin. Ten patients with CBD obstruction due to biliary stones were included as controls. EV concentrations in samples were determined by nanoparticle tracking analyses. The discovery cohort comprised the first 10 patients with a diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, based on tissue analysis, and 10 consecutive controls. Using samples from these subjects, we identified a threshold concentration of bile EVs that could best discriminate between patients with pancreatic cancer from controls. We verified the diagnostic performance of bile EV concentration by analyzing samples from the 30 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of malignant (pancreatic cancer or cholangiocarcinoma, n = 15) or nonmalignant (CP, n = 15) CBD stenosis. Samples were compared using the Mann-Whitney test and nonparametric Spearman correlation analysis. Receiver operating characteristic area under the curve was used to determine diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: In both cohorts, the median concentration of EVs was significantly higher in bile samples from patients with malignant CBD stenoses than controls or nonmalignant CBD stenoses (2.41 × 1015 vs 1.60 × 1014 nanoparticles/L in the discovery cohort; P < .0001 and 4.00 × 1015 vs 1.26 × 1014 nanoparticles/L in the verification cohort; P < .0001). A threshold of 9.46 × 1014 nanoparticles/L in bile best distinguished patients with malignant CBD from controls in the discovery cohort. In the verification cohort, this threshold discriminated malignant from nonmalignant CBD stenoses with 100% accuracy. Serum concentration of EVs distinguished patients with malignant vs patients with nonmalignant CBD stenoses with 63.3% diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Concentration of EVs in bile samples discriminates between patients with malignant vs nonmalignant CBD stenosis with 100% accuracy. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings. Clinical Trial registration no: ISRCTN66835592.

Reprocessing of flexible endoscopes and endoscopic accessories used in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Position Statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) - Update 2018.

This Position Statement from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) sets standards for the reprocessing of flexible endoscopes and endoscopic devices used in gastroenterology. An expert working group of gastroenterologists, endoscopy nurses, chemists, microbiologists, and industry representatives provides updated recommendations on all aspects of reprocessing in order to maintain hygiene and infection control.

Endoscopic biliary stenting: indications, choice of stents, and results: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline - Updated October 2017.

ESGE recommends against routine preoperative biliary drainage in patients with malignant extrahepatic biliary obstruction; preoperative biliary drainage should be reserved for patients with cholangitis, severe symptomatic jaundice (e. g., intense pruritus), or delayed surgery, or for before neoadjuvant chemotherapy in jaundiced patients. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends the endoscopic placement of a 10-mm diameter self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) for preoperative biliary drainage of malignant extrahepatic biliary obstruction. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends SEMS insertion for palliative drainage of of extrahepatic malignant biliary obstruction. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE recommends against the insertion of uncovered SEMS for the drainage of extrahepatic biliary obstruction of unconfirmed etiology. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE suggests against routine preoperative biliary drainage in patients with malignant hilar obstruction. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends uncovered SEMSs for palliative drainage of malignant hilar obstruction. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends temporary insertion of multiple plastic stents or of a fully covered SEMS for treatment of benign biliary strictures. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends endoscopic placement of plastic stent(s) to treat bile duct leaks that are not due to transection of the common bile duct or common hepatic duct. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Endoscopic management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) evidence-based multidisciplinary guidelines.

1: ESGE suggests using contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) as the first-line imaging modality on admission when indicated and up to the 4th week from onset in the absence of contraindications. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be used instead of CT in patients with contraindications to contrast-enhanced CT, and after the 4th week from onset when invasive intervention is considered because the contents (liquid vs. solid) of pancreatic collections are better characterized by MRI and evaluation of pancreatic duct integrity is possible. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends against routine percutaneous fine needle aspiration (FNA) of (peri)pancreatic collections. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. FNA should be performed only if there is suspicion of infection and clinical/imaging signs are unclear. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends initial goal-directed intravenous fluid therapy with Ringer's lactate (e. g. 5 - 10 mL/kg/h) at onset. Fluid requirements should be patient-tailored and reassessed at frequent intervals. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends against antibiotic or probiotic prophylaxis of infectious complications in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends invasive intervention for patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis and clinically suspected or proven infected necrosis. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE suggests that the first intervention for infected necrosis should be delayed for 4 weeks if tolerated by the patient. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends performing endoscopic or percutaneous drainage of (suspected) infected walled-off necrosis as the first interventional method, taking into account the location of the walled-off necrosis and local expertise. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7: ESGE suggests that, in the absence of improvement following endoscopic transmural drainage of walled-off necrosis, endoscopic necrosectomy or minimally invasive surgery (if percutaneous drainage has already been performed) is to be preferred over open surgery as the next therapeutic step, taking into account the location of the walled-off necrosis and local expertise. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends long-term indwelling of transluminal plastic stents in patients with disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. Lumen-apposing metal stents should be retrieved within 4 weeks to avoid stent-related adverse effects.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Endoscopic management of Barrett's esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

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

Prevention of multidrug-resistant infections from contaminated duodenoscopes: Position Statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates (ESGENA).

Patients should be informed about the benefits and risks of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)Only specially trained and competent personnel should carry out endoscope reprocessing.Manufacturers of duodenoscopes should provide detailed instructions on how to use and reprocess their equipment.In the case of modifications to their equipment, manufacturers should provide updated instructions for use.Detailed reprocessing protocols based on the manufacturer's instructions for use should clearly lay out the different reprocessing steps necessary for each endoscope model.Appropriate cleaning equipment should be used for duodenoscopes in compliance with the manufacturer's instructions for use. Only purpose-designed, endoscope type-specific, single-use cleaning brushes should be used, to ensure optimal cleaning. As soon as the endoscope is withdrawn from the patient, bedside cleaning should be performed, followed by leak testing, thorough manual cleaning steps, and automated reprocessing, in order to: · Remove debris from external and internal surfaces;. · Prevent any drying of body fluids, blood, or debris;. · Prevent any formation of biofilms.. In addition to the leak test, visual inspection of the distal end as well as regular maintenance of duodenoscopes should be performed according to the manufacturer's instructions for use, in order to detect any damage at an early stage.The entire reprocessing procedure in endoscope washer-disinfectors (EWDs) should be validated according to the European and International Standard, EN ISO 15883. Routine technical tests of EWDs should be performed according to the validation reports.Microbiological surveillance of a proportion of the department's endoscopes should be performed every 3 months, with the requirement that all endoscopes used in the unit are tested at least once a year.In the case of suspected endoscopy-related infection, the relevant device (e. g., endoscope, EWD) should be taken out of service until adequate corrective actions have been taken. Outbreaks should be managed by a multidisciplinary team, including endoscopy, hygiene, and microbiology experts, manufacturers, and regulatory bodies, according to national standards and/or laws. In the case of suspected multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) outbreaks, close cooperation between the endoscopy unit and the clinical health provider is essential (including infection control departments and hospital hygienists).

ESGE-ESGENA technical specification for process validation and routine testing of endoscope reprocessing in washer-disinfectors according to EN ISO 15883, parts 1, 4, and ISO/TS 15883-5.

1 Prerequisites. The clinical service provider should obtain confirmation from the endoscope washer-disinfector (EWD) manufacturer that all endoscopes intended to be used can be reprocessed in the EWD. 2 Installation qualification. This can be performed by different parties but national guidelines should define who has the responsibilities, taking into account legal requirements. 3 Operational qualification. This should include parametric tests to verify that the EWD is working according to its specifications. 4 Performance qualification. Testing of cleaning performance, microbiological testing of routinely used endoscopes, and the quality of the final rinse water should be considered in all local guidelines. The extent of these tests depends on local requirements. According to the results of type testing performed during EWD development, other parameters can be tested if local regulatory authorities accept this. Chemical residues on endoscope surfaces should be searched for, if acceptable test methods are available. 5 Routine inspections. National guidelines should consider both technical and performance criteria. Individual risk analyses performed in the validation and requalification processes are helpful for defining appropriate test frequencies for routine inspections.

Technical aspects of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Guideline - March 2017.

For routine EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and lymph nodes (LNs) ESGE recommends 25G or 22G needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation); fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles are equally recommended (high quality evidence, strong recommendation).When the primary aim of sampling is to obtain a core tissue specimen, ESGE suggests using 19G FNA or FNB needles or 22G FNB needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE recommends using 10-mL syringe suction for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and LNs with 25G or 22G FNA needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation) and other types of needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). ESGE suggests neutralizing residual negative pressure in the needle before withdrawing the needle from the target lesion (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE does not recommend for or against using the needle stylet for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and LNs with FNA needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation) and suggests using the needle stylet for EUS-guided sampling with FNB needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE suggests fanning the needle throughout the lesion when sampling solid masses and LNs (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE equally recommends EUS-guided sampling with or without on-site cytologic evaluation (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). When on-site cytologic evaluation is unavailable, ESGE suggests performance of three to four needle passes with an FNA needle or two to three passes with an FNB needle (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).For diagnostic sampling of pancreatic cystic lesions without a solid component, ESGE suggests emptying the cyst with a single pass of a 22G or 19G needle (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). For pancreatic cystic lesions with a solid component, ESGE suggests sampling of the solid component using the same technique as in the case of other solid lesions (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE does not recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses or LNs (low quality evidence, strong recommendation), and suggests antibiotic prophylaxis with fluoroquinolones or beta-lactam antibiotics for EUS-guided sampling of cystic lesions (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). ESGE suggests that evaluation of tissue obtained by EUS-guided sampling should include histologic preparations (e. g., cell blocks and/or formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue fragments) and should not be limited to smear cytology (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).