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.

The diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound vs. contrast-enhanced computed tomography in local staging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a bi-national multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Identification of pancreatic cancer (PC) local invasion is crucial to optimize patients' selection for surgery. AIMS: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in local staging of PC. METHODS: We performed a multicenter study including all patients with PC who underwent surgery. RESULTS: One hundred twelve patients were included. Surgical findings of peri-pancreatic lymph nodes (LN), vascular and adjacent organ involvement were seen in 67 (59.8%), 33 (29.5%) and 19 patients (17%), respectively. The diagnostic performance of EUS was better than CECT in peri-pancreatic LN. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive (NPV) of CECT vs. EUS were 28.4%, 80%, 67.9% and 42.9% vs. 70.2%, 75.6%, 81% and 63%, respectively. For vascular and adjacent organ involvement, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 45.5%, 93.7%, 75%, 80.4% and 31.6%, 89.2%, 37.5% and 86.5% for CECT, respectively, vs. 63.6%, 93.7%, 80.8%, 86.1% and 36.8%, 94.6%, 58.3% and 88% for EUS, respectively. Combining both CECT and EUS, the sensitivity for peri-pancreatic LN, vascular and adjacent organ involvement improved (76.1%, 78.8% and 42%), respectively. CONCLUSION: EUS was superior to CECT in local staging. Combined EUS and CECT had a higher sensitivity than either alone.

Intravenous paracetamol for persistent pain after endoscopic mucosal resection discriminates patients at risk of adverse events and those who can be safely discharged.

INTRODUCTION: The frequency and severity of abdominal pain after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of colonic laterally spreading lesions (LSLs) of ≥ 20 mm is unknown, as are the risk factors to predict its occurrence. We aimed to prospectively characterize pain after colonic EMR , determine the rapidity and frequency of its resolution after analgesia, and estimate the frequency of needing further intervention. METHODS: Procedural and lesion data on consecutive patients with LSLs who underwent EMR at a single tertiary referral center were prospectively collected. If pain after colonic EMR, graded using a visual analogue scale (VAS), lasted > 5 minutes, 1 g of paracetamol was administered. Pain lasting > 30 minutes lead to clinical review and upgrade to opiate analgesics. Investigations and interventions for pain were recorded. RESULTS: 67/336 patients (19.9 %, 95 %CI 16.0 %-24.5 %) experienced pain after colonic EMR (median VAS 5, interquartile range 3-7). Multivariable predictors of pain were: lesion size ≥ 40 mm, odds ratio [OR] 2.15 (95 %CI 1.22-3.80); female sex, OR 1.99 (95 %CI 1.14-3.48); and intraprocedural bleeding requiring endoscopic control, OR 1.77 (95 %CI 0.99-3.16). Of 67 patients with pain, 51 (76.1 %, 95 %CI 64.7 %-84.7 %) had resolution of their "mild pain" after paracetamol and were discharged without sequelae. The remaining 16 (23.9 %) required opiate analgesia (fentanyl), after which 11/16 patients (68.8 %; "moderate pain") could be discharged. The 5/67 patients (7.5 %) with "severe pain" had no resolution despite fentanyl; all settled during hospital admission (median duration 2 days), intravenous analgesia, and antibiotics. CONCLUSION: Pain after colonic EMR occurs in approximately 20 % of patients and resolves rapidly and completely in the majority with administration of intravenous paracetamol. Pain despite opiates heralds a more serious scenario and further investigation should be considered.

Impact of margin ablation after EMR of large nonpedunculated colonic polyps in routine clinical practice.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Owing to its simplicity, effectiveness, and safety, EMR is the preferred treatment for the majority of large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colonic polyps (LNPCPs); however, residual and recurrent adenomas (RRAs) encountered during surveillance constitute a major limitation. Thermal ablation of the post-EMR mucosal defect margin has been shown to be highly efficacious in reducing RRA in a randomized trial setting, but data on effectiveness in clinical practice are scarce. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of this technique for reducing RRAs in routine clinical practice. METHODS: We analyzed data collected in 3 hospitals in Israel: Prospective data were available in 2 hospitals where margin thermal ablation with snare-tip soft coagulation (STSC) is routinely performed after EMR of LNPCP (TA-EMR). Only retrospective data were available from the third center, which exclusively did not perform STSC (standard EMR] [S-EMR]), during the study period. Surveillance was performed 4 to 6 months after resection. RRA was assessed endoscopically with high-definition white light and optical chromoendoscopy. The primary endpoint was RRA at first surveillance colonoscopy. RESULTS: Data from 764 patients with 824 LNPCPs were analyzed. The patient and lesion characteristics were similar between the groups. Four hundred sixty-four LNPCPs were treated by TA-EMR and 360 LNPCPs by S-EMR. RRA at first surveillance colonoscopy was detected in 14 (3.6%) of lesions in the TA-EMR group compared with 96 (31.6%) in the S-EMR group (P < .001; RR = .14; 95% CI, .07-.29). Adverse events were comparable between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: TA-EMR leads to a significant reduction in post-EMR recurrence in routine clinical practice.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of esophagogastric variceal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE recommends that patients with compensated advanced chronic liver disease (ACLD; due to viruses, alcohol, and/or nonobese [BMI < 30 kg/m2] nonalcoholic steatohepatitis) and clinically significant portal hypertension (hepatic venous pressure gradient [HVPG] > 10 mmHg and/or liver stiffness by transient elastography > 25 kPa) should receive, if no contraindications, nonselective beta blocker (NSBB) therapy (preferably carvedilol) to prevent the development of variceal bleeding.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in those patients unable to receive NSBB therapy with a screening upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy that demonstrates high risk esophageal varices, endoscopic band ligation (EBL) is the endoscopic prophylactic treatment of choice. EBL should be repeated every 2-4 weeks until variceal eradication is achieved. Thereafter, surveillance EGD should be performed every 3-6 months in the first year following eradication.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute upper GI hemorrhage (UGIH) and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 70 g/L prompting RBC transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin of 70-90 g/L is desired.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 : ESGE recommends that patients with ACLD presenting with suspected acute variceal bleeding be risk stratified according to the Child-Pugh score and MELD score, and by documentation of active/inactive bleeding at the time of upper GI endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5 : ESGE recommends the vasoactive agents terlipressin, octreotide, or somatostatin be initiated at the time of presentation in patients with suspected acute variceal bleeding and be continued for a duration of up to 5 days.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6 : ESGE recommends antibiotic prophylaxis using ceftriaxone 1 g/day for up to 7 days for all patients with ACLD presenting with acute variceal hemorrhage, or in accordance with local antibiotic resistance and patient allergies.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE recommends, in the absence of contraindications, intravenous erythromycin 250 mg be given 30-120 minutes prior to upper GI endoscopy in patients with suspected acute variceal hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8 : ESGE recommends that, in patients with suspected variceal hemorrhage, endoscopic evaluation should take place within 12 hours from the time of patient presentation provided the patient has been hemodynamically resuscitated.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9 : ESGE recommends EBL for the treatment of acute esophageal variceal hemorrhage (EVH).Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10 : ESGE recommends that, in patients at high risk for recurrent esophageal variceal bleeding following successful endoscopic hemostasis (Child-Pugh C  ≤ 13 or Child-Pugh B > 7 with active EVH at the time of endoscopy despite vasoactive agents, or HVPG > 20 mmHg), pre-emptive transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) within 72 hours (preferably within 24 hours) must be considered.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 11 : ESGE recommends that, for persistent esophageal variceal bleeding despite vasoactive pharmacological and endoscopic hemostasis therapy, urgent rescue TIPS should be considered (where available).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 12 : ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection for acute gastric (cardiofundal) variceal (GOV2, IGV1) hemorrhage.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 13: ESGE recommends endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection or EBL in patients with GOV1-specific bleeding.Strong recommendations, moderate quality evidence. 14: ESGE suggests urgent rescue TIPS or balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) for gastric variceal bleeding when there is a failure of endoscopic hemostasis or early recurrent bleeding.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 15: ESGE recommends that patients who have undergone EBL for acute EVH should be scheduled for follow-up EBLs at 1- to 4-weekly intervals to eradicate esophageal varices (secondary prophylaxis).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 16: ESGE recommends the use of NSBBs (propranolol or carvedilol) in combination with endoscopic therapy for secondary prophylaxis in EVH in patients with ACLD.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

Obscure-overt gastrointestinal bleeding: a review.

Obscure gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (OGIB) is defined as small bowel bleeding of unknown etiology after negative endoscopic evaluation including esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy with endoscopic evaluation of the terminal ileum. The presentation of OGIB may be either overt or occult. The former refers to persistent or recurrent visible GI bleeding (eg, melena and / or hematochezia, and rarely hematemesis), while the latter indicates the presence of persistently positive results of fecal oc-cult blood testing, iron deficiency anemia, or both, without evidence of visible GI bleeding. This review focuses exclusively on obscure­overt GI bleeding and presents entities that should be considered as part of the differential diagnosis in patients with this type of bleeding, as well as details the role of endoscopic and radiographic techniques in the evaluation and treatment.

Intermittent Appearance of Antibodies to Infliximab Is Not Associated With Reduced Efficacy in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases.

GOALS: To assess the clinical significance of antibodies to infliximab (ATI) formation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). BACKGROUND: Infliximab therapy in patients with IBD is highly effective though up to 50% of patients lose response to infliximab. ATI formation occurs in 6% to 60% of patients on scheduled infliximab maintenance therapy. METHODS: Infliximab trough levels and ATI at trough were prospectively determined in patients with IBD on maintenance infliximab therapy. Patients on infliximab maintenance therapy with at least 3 ATI measurements were included. Patients were divided into 2 groups: sustained negative (<1 µg/mL) ATI levels, and fluctuating ATI levels (at least 1 sample with ATI <1 and at least one >1 µg/mL). RESULTS: Forty-eight patients with IBD with available clinical data and serum samples were included. 25 patients had sustained low ATI levels and 23 patients had fluctuating ATI levels. Both groups were similar in IBD subtype distribution (Crohn's disease in 73.9% and 60%), mean serum albumin levels (4.2 vs. 3.9 g/dL), and mean trough serum infliximab levels (3.3 vs. 4.6 µg/mL) in fluctuating ATI and low ATI groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in the rate of clinical response (64% vs. 76%) and mean serum C-reactive protein levels (9.4 vs. 8.5 mg/dL, ULN=5) in the fluctuating ATI and low ATI groups. Similar rates of clinical response in the fluctuating ATI and low ATI groups were observed in ulcerative colitis (33% vs. 40%) and Crohn's disease (76% vs. 100%). CONCLUSIONS: The fluctuating pattern of appearance of ATI in patients with IBD was not associated with loss of clinical response or a rise in C-reactive protein. The authors suggest that in clinical decision making, only sustained appearance of ATI should be considered as an adverse therapeutic factor.

Achalasia in the Elderly: Diagnostic Approach and a Proposed Treatment Algorithm Based on a Comprehensive Literature Review.

Achalasia is not uncommonly diagnosed in elderly patients and its incidence and prevalence are growing in this population. However, a scarcity of studies has assessed the typical pathophysiological and clinical features of the disease as well as the effectiveness and safety of the various therapeutic options in elderly populations. Botulinum toxin injection has been used for achalasia treatment since 1994 and is traditionally considered the preferred treatment for fragile elder patients. However, recently more evidence has become available regarding the safety and effectiveness of pneumatic balloon dilation (BD), laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) and per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) in elderly patients with achalasia. In the current review we present the current literature on this topic with a focus on the clinical presentation of achalasia in the elderly and manometric features thereof, as well as summarize the effectiveness and safety of the various therapeutic options. Furthermore, we propose a practical management algorithm as a means to guide the treatment of future cases. We recommend that a conservative/BTI approach should be adopted in the fragile unfit patient. In the elderly fit patient, the treatment decision should be based on the achalasia type, patient preference and the available expertise, similar to the approach adopted for the non-elderly population.

Diagnosis and management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE recommends that the initial assessment of patients presenting with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding should include: a history of co-morbidities and medications that promote bleeding; hemodynamic parameters; physical examination (including digital rectal examination); and laboratory markers. A risk score can be used to aid, but should not replace, clinician judgment.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 : ESGE recommends that, in patients presenting with a self-limited bleed and no adverse clinical features, an Oakland score of ≤ 8 points can be used to guide the clinician decision to discharge the patient for outpatient investigation.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 : ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 7 g/dL prompting red blood cell transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin concentration of 7-9 g/dL is desirable.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 : ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding and a history of acute or chronic cardiovascular disease, a more liberal red blood cell transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 8 g/dL prompting red blood cell transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin concentration of ≥ 10 g/dL is desirable.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that, in patients with major acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding, colonoscopy should be performed sometime during their hospital stay because there is no high quality evidence that early colonoscopy influences patient outcomes.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 6 : ESGE recommends that patients with hemodynamic instability and suspected ongoing bleeding undergo computed tomography angiography before endoscopic or radiologic treatment to locate the site of bleeding.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 : ESGE recommends withholding vitamin K antagonists in patients with major lower gastrointestinal bleeding and correcting their coagulopathy according to the severity of bleeding and their thrombotic risk. In patients with hemodynamic instability, we recommend administering intravenous vitamin K and four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC), or fresh frozen plasma if PCC is not available.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 : ESGE recommends temporarily withholding direct oral anticoagulants at presentation in patients with major lower gastrointestinal bleeding.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE does not recommend withholding aspirin in patients taking low dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prevention. If withheld, low dose aspirin should be resumed, preferably within 5 days or even earlier if hemostasis is achieved or there is no further evidence of bleeding.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 10: ESGE does not recommend routinely discontinuing dual antiplatelet therapy (low dose aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor antagonist) before cardiology consultation. Continuation of the aspirin is recommended, whereas the P2Y12 receptor antagonist can be continued or temporarily interrupted according to the severity of bleeding and the ischemic risk. If interrupted, the P2Y12 receptor antagonist should be restarted within 5 days, if still indicated.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2021.

1: ESGE recommends in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) the use of the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Patients with GBS ≤ 1 are at very low risk of rebleeding, mortality within 30 days, or needing hospital-based intervention and can be safely managed as outpatients with outpatient endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends that in patients with acute UGIH who are taking low-dose aspirin as monotherapy for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis, aspirin should not be interrupted. If for any reason it is interrupted, aspirin should be re-started as soon as possible, preferably within 3-5 days.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that following hemodynamic resuscitation, early (≤ 24 hours) upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy should be performed. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4: ESGE does not recommend urgent (≤ 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy since as compared to early endoscopy, patient outcomes are not improved. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends for patients with actively bleeding ulcers (FIa, FIb), combination therapy using epinephrine injection plus a second hemostasis modality (contact thermal or mechanical therapy). Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends for patients with an ulcer with a nonbleeding visible vessel (FIIa), contact or noncontact thermal therapy, mechanical therapy, or injection of a sclerosing agent, each as monotherapy or in combination with epinephrine injection. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 : ESGE suggests that in patients with persistent bleeding refractory to standard hemostasis modalities, the use of a topical hemostatic spray/powder or cap-mounted clip should be considered. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that for patients with clinical evidence of recurrent peptic ulcer hemorrhage, use of a cap-mounted clip should be considered. In the case of failure of this second attempt at endoscopic hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) should be considered. Surgery is indicated when TAE is not locally available or after failed TAE. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with FIIb ulcer stigmata (adherent clot) not treated endoscopically. (A): PPI therapy should be administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (e. g., 80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy. (B): High dose PPI therapies given as intravenous bolus dosing (twice-daily) or in oral formulation (twice-daily) can be considered as alternative regimens.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10: ESGE recommends that in patients who require ongoing anticoagulation therapy following acute NVUGIH (e. g., peptic ulcer hemorrhage), anticoagulation should be resumed as soon as the bleeding has been controlled, preferably within or soon after 7 days of the bleeding event, based on thromboembolic risk. The rapid onset of action of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACS), as compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), must be considered in this context.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

The prevalence of small-bowel polyps on video capsule endoscopy in patients with sporadic duodenal or ampullary adenomas.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although sporadic duodenal and/or ampullary adenomas (DAs) are uncommon, they are increasingly diagnosed during upper endoscopy. These patients have a 3- to 7-fold increased risk of colonic neoplasia compared with the normal population. It is unknown, however, whether they also have an increased risk of additional small-bowel (SB) polyps. Our aim was to establish the prevalence of SB polyps in patients with DA. METHODS: In a single-center, prospective study, we used video capsule endoscopy (VCE) to investigate the prevalence of SB polyps in patients with a DA compared with patients undergoing VCE for obscure GI bleeding or iron deficiency anemia. RESULTS: Over 25 months, 201 patients were enrolled in the study; the mean age was 65 years and 47% were male. There were 101 control patients and 100 cases of DA cases (mean size, 30 mm (range, 10-80 mm)). We did not identify any SB polyps in either group. Colonic polyps were found more frequently in the DA group compared with controls (61% versus 37%, respectively (P =.002)). Advanced colonic adenoma (high-grade dysplasia, >10 mm, villous histology) were found in 18% of the DA group and 5% of the control group (P =.018). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that patients with a DA are not at risk for additional SB polyps and hence do not support screening with VCE. However, colonoscopy is mandatory due to the significantly higher risk of colonic polyps including advanced adenomas. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02470416.).

Clinical implications of decision making in colorectal polypectomy: an international survey of Western endoscopists suggests priorities for change.

Introduction Colonoscopy prevents colorectal cancer via the detection and resection of premalignant polyps. This effect may be attenuated by variations in polypectomy, with multiple techniques available and a wide range of experience amongst endoscopists. We assessed current practice against the best available contemporary evidence. Methods An online survey was distributed to members of the gastroenterological and surgical societies of seven countries during July 2017. Images of colorectal polyps were presented and respondents requested to provide the polypectomy technique they would employ in their daily practice. Responses were compared to the evidence-based techniques in the 2017 ESGE Colorectal Polypectomy Guideline. Results In total, 707 endoscopists (627 physicians, 71 surgeons, 9 nurse endoscopists, median practice duration 18 years) completed the survey. Of these, 3.1 % selected hot biopsy forceps and 5.2 % hot snare polypectomy (without submucosal lifting) to remove a 3 mm ascending colon polyp. Only 43.3 % selected cold snare polypectomy (CSP) to remove an 8 mm ascending colon polyp. Surgical referral was selected by 16.7 % of respondents for a 45 mm transverse colon polyp without endoscopic evidence of submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC). Endoscopic resection was selected by 12.0 % for an 80 mm sigmoid polyp with imaging consistent with deep SMIC, and a further 26.4 % selected tertiary endoscopist referral, suggesting they had not appreciated that it was endoscopically unresectable. Conclusion CSP is underutilized for small polyp resection despite its favorable safety and efficacy. Benign polyps are commonly referred for surgery and overt SMIC is underappreciated using endoscopic imaging. Addressing these issues may reduce diathermy-related adverse events, surgery, and unnecessary colonoscopic procedures for patients and reduce rates of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer.

Long-term Follow-up of Severe Eosinophilic Hepatitis: A Rare Presentation of Hypereosinophilic Syndrome.

Idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) is a rare, heterogeneous disorder characterized by a strikingly high eosinophil count (>1,500 cells/µL), over a long period of time (>6 months), with end organ damage. We present a 60-year-old patient with idiopathic HES with isolated liver involvement, a rare systemic disease and a rare solid organ involvement. The patient had a thorough investigational work up until HES was established, including liver biopsy. He needed intensive immunosuppressive treatment at first with steroids, then with azathioprine in conjunction with a low dose of steroids. After 16 years of follow-up, the patient showed no evidence of liver dysfunction. To the best of our knowledge, this is the longest follow-up for a patient with HES-associated chronic hepatitis. Our observation suggests that, with appropriate treatment, liver involvement in HES may be well controlled without deterioration to advanced liver failure.

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 submucosal dissection for suspected early gastric cancer: absolute versus expanded criteria in a large Western cohort (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an effective, minimally invasive, surgery-sparing technique for the treatment of early gastric cancer (EGC). It is not well established whether EGC within the Japanese expanded criteria can be safely and effectively treated using ESD in the West. We describe the outcomes of ESD for endoscopically suspected, biopsy specimen-confirmed EGC and its adenomatous precursor lesions (pEGC) using the Vienna classification of dysplasia in a Western cohort. METHODS: Prospective data were collected on all pEGCs undergoing ESD at a single expert endoscopy center. Outcomes were compared among pEGC, satisfying the Japanese absolute and expanded criteria, those outside criteria, and those specimens that contained low-grade dysplasia (LGD) only. Specialist GI pathologists reviewed and classified all ESD specimens. Patients were followed up at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Over 71 months, 135 pEGCs in 121 patients (mean age, 72.0 years; 61.2% men) underwent ESD. Median pEGC size was 20 mm (interquartile range, 15-30), and 62 (45.9%) satisfied the expanded clinical criteria. Perforation occurred in 1.5% and postprocedural bleeding in 5.2%. Forty-two pEGCs (31.1%) contained LGD only. Rates of en bloc and R0 resection were 94.8% and 86.7%, respectively. One hundred seven pEGCs (79.2%) met the absolute or expanded criteria for endoscopic cure. Two pEGCs recurred during follow-up. Ten of 26 patients with pEGC (38.5%) outside criteria for cure underwent surgery after ESD with residual tumor detected in 3 specimens. Fifteen patients with outside criteria for pEGCs did not undergo surgery because of frailty or their expressed wish. Eleven of 15 patients have so far undergone first surveillance with 1 of 11 experiencing endoscopic and histologic recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: ESD is a safe and effective treatment for pEGCs in a Western context. Patients who either decline or are too frail for surgery, with outside criteria resections, may benefit from ESD for local disease control. Large Western studies of ESD for pEGCs are required to define long-term patient outcomes and surveillance guidelines, particularly where pathology shows LGD or high-grade dysplasia only. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02306707.).

Management of colorectal laterally spreading tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective and study aims To evaluate the efficacy and safety of different endoscopic resection techniques for laterally spreading colorectal tumors (LST). Methods Relevant studies were identified in three electronic databases (PubMed, ISI and Cochrane Central Register). We considered all clinical studies in which colorectal LST were treated with endoscopic resection (endoscopic mucosal resection [EMR] and/or endoscopic submucosal dissection [ESD]) and/or transanal minimally invasive surgery (TEMS). Rates of en-bloc/piecemeal resection, complete endoscopic resection, R0 resection, curative resection, adverse events (AEs) or recurrence, were extracted. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and a meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Results Forty-nine studies were included. Complete resection was similar between techniques (EMR 99.5 % [95 % CI 98.6 %-100 %] vs. ESD 97.9 % [95 % CI 96.1 - 99.2 %]), being curative in 1685/1895 (13 studies, pooled curative resection 90 %, 95 % CI 86.6 - 92.9 %, I 2  = 79 %) with non-significantly higher curative resection rates with ESD (93.6 %, 95 % CI 91.3 - 95.5 %, vs. 84 % 95 % CI 78.1 - 89.3 % with EMR). ESD was also associated with a significantly higher perforation risk (pooled incidence 5.9 %, 95 % CI 4.3 - 7.9 %, vs. EMR 1.2 %, 95 % CI 0.5 - 2.3 %) while bleeding was significantly more frequent with EMR (9.6 %, 95 % CI 6.5 - 13.2 %; vs. ESD 2.8 %, 95 % CI 1.9 - 4.0 %). Procedure-related mortality was 0.1 %. Recurrence occurred in 5.5 %, more often with EMR (12.6 %, 95 % CI 9.1 - 16.6 % vs. ESD 1.1 %, 95 % CI 0.3 - 2.5 %), with most amenable to successful endoscopic treatment (87.7 %, 95 % CI 81.1 - 93.1 %). Surgery was limited to 2.7 % of the lesions, 0.5 % due to AEs. No data of TEMS were available for LST. Conclusions EMR and ESD are both effective and safe and are associated with a very low risk of procedure related mortality.

A systematic description of the post-EMR defect to identify risk factors for clinically significant post-EMR bleeding in the colon.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB) is the most-frequent serious adverse event after EMR of large laterally spreading colonic lesions (LSLs). There is no proven prophylactic therapy, and it remains a significant drawback of EMR. We aimed to systematically describe and evaluate the features of the post-EMR mucosal defect (PED) and their relationship to CSPEB. METHODS: A prospective study of LSLs referred for EMR at a tertiary center was performed. PEDs without visible features were recorded as bland blue. Nonbland blue (NBB) PED features included size, number, and herniation of submucosal vessels and presence of submucosal hemorrhage, fibrosis, fat, and exposed muscle. NBB PEDs were analyzed for association with CSPEB, defined as bleeding occurring after completion of the procedure necessitating readmission or reintervention. RESULTS: From April 2012 to May 2017, 501 lesions in 501 patients were eligible for analysis. The frequency of CSPEB was 30 of 501 (6.0%). More than or equal to 3 visible vessels was a significant predictor of CSPEB (P = .016). None of the following showed a significant correlation with CSPEB: presence of visible vessels, their diameter, herniation, or other nonvascular PED features. Submucosal vessels were more common in the left-sided colon segment (88.6% vs 78.3%, P = .004) and were significantly larger (20.8% vs 12.1% ≥1 mm, P = .037), more numerous (median 4 vessels [interquartile range, 2-7] vs 2 vessels [interquartile range, 1-4], P < .001), and more often herniated (32% vs 22.2%, P = .022). CONCLUSIONS: More than or equal to 3 visible vessels within the PED may be predictive for CSPEB and may define a target group for real-time prophylactic intervention. No other endoscopically visible features of the PEDs were predictive of CSPEB. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03117400.).