Green endoscopy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), Joint Accreditation Group (JAG) and Centre for Sustainable Health (CSH) joint consensus on practical measures for environmental sustainability in endoscopy.

GI endoscopy is highly resource-intensive with a significant contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and waste generation. Sustainable endoscopy in the context of climate change is now the focus of mainstream discussions between endoscopy providers, units and professional societies. In addition to broader global challenges, there are some specific measures relevant to endoscopy units and their practices, which could significantly reduce environmental impact. Awareness of these issues and guidance on practical interventions to mitigate the carbon footprint of GI endoscopy are lacking. In this consensus, we discuss practical measures to reduce the impact of endoscopy on the environment applicable to endoscopy units and practitioners. Adoption of these measures will facilitate and promote new practices and the evolution of a more sustainable specialty.

Expected value of artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

This ESGE Position Statement defines the expected value of artificial intelligence (AI) for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal neoplasia within the framework of the performance measures already defined by ESGE. This is based on the clinical relevance of the expected task and the preliminary evidence regarding artificial intelligence in artificial or clinical settings. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS:: (1) For acceptance of AI in assessment of completeness of upper GI endoscopy, the adequate level of mucosal inspection with AI should be comparable to that assessed by experienced endoscopists. (2) For acceptance of AI in assessment of completeness of upper GI endoscopy, automated recognition and photodocumentation of relevant anatomical landmarks should be obtained in ≥90% of the procedures. (3) For acceptance of AI in the detection of Barrett's high grade intraepithelial neoplasia or cancer, the AI-assisted detection rate for suspicious lesions for targeted biopsies should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists with or without advanced imaging techniques. (4) For acceptance of AI in the management of Barrett's neoplasia, AI-assisted selection of lesions amenable to endoscopic resection should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists. (5) For acceptance of AI in the diagnosis of gastric precancerous conditions, AI-assisted diagnosis of atrophy and intestinal metaplasia should be comparable to that provided by the established biopsy protocol, including the estimation of extent, and consequent allocation to the correct endoscopic surveillance interval. (6) For acceptance of artificial intelligence for automated lesion detection in small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), the performance of AI-assisted reading should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists for lesion detection, without increasing but possibly reducing the reading time of the operator. (7) For acceptance of AI in the detection of colorectal polyps, the AI-assisted adenoma detection rate should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists. (8) For acceptance of AI optical diagnosis (computer-aided diagnosis [CADx]) of diminutive polyps (≤5 mm), AI-assisted characterization should match performance standards for implementing resect-and-discard and diagnose-and-leave strategies. (9) For acceptance of AI in the management of polyps ≥ 6 mm, AI-assisted characterization should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists in selecting lesions amenable to endoscopic resection.

Greener gastroenterology and hepatology: the British Society of Gastroenterology Strategy for Climate Change and Sustainability.

There is a global climate emergency, and also a global health concern related to climate change. The British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) acknowledges these issues, and supports the concerns of its members to address them. Climate change has adverse effects on gastroenterological and liver disease, and on healthcare systems. The healthcare industry, itself, is also a major contributor to greenhouse gases. BSG has developed a strategy on Climate Change and Sustainability, which encompasses all of the activities of the society, and its members: personal, professional, organisational, political, international and research.

Reducing the environmental footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement.

Climate change and the destruction of ecosystems by human activities are among the greatest challenges of the 21st century and require urgent action. Health care activities significantly contribute to the emission of greenhouse gases and waste production, with gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy being one of the largest contributors. This Position Statement aims to raise awareness of the ecological footprint of GI endoscopy and provides guidance to reduce its environmental impact. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) outline suggestions and recommendations for health care providers, patients, governments, and industry. MAIN STATEMENTS 1: GI endoscopy is a resource-intensive activity with a significant yet poorly assessed environmental impact. 2: ESGE-ESGENA recommend adopting immediate actions to reduce the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 3: ESGE-ESGENA recommend adherence to guidelines and implementation of audit strategies on the appropriateness of GI endoscopy to avoid the environmental impact of unnecessary procedures. 4: ESGE-ESGENA recommend the embedding of reduce, reuse, and recycle programs in the GI endoscopy unit. 5: ESGE-ESGENA suggest that there is an urgent need to reassess and reduce the environmental and economic impact of single-use GI endoscopic devices. 6: ESGE-ESGENA suggest against routine use of single-use GI endoscopes. However, their use could be considered in highly selected patients on a case-by-case basis. 7: ESGE-ESGENA recommend inclusion of sustainability in the training curricula of GI endoscopy and as a quality domain. 8: ESGE-ESGENA recommend conducting high quality research to quantify and minimize the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 9: ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy companies assess, disclose, and audit the environmental impact of their value chain. 10:  ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy should become a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions practice by 2050.

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in oesophagogastroduodenoscopy.

Introduction: Training and quality assurance in oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) is important to ensure competent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update and develop standards and recommendations for OGD training and certification. Methods: Under the oversight of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG), a modified Delphi process was conducted with stakeholder representation from British Society of Gastroenterology, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, trainees and trainers. Recommendations on OGD training and certification were formulated following literature review and appraised using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. These were subjected to electronic voting to achieve consensus. Accepted statements were incorporated into the updated certification pathway. Results: In total, 32 recommendation statements were generated for the following domains: definition of competence (4 statements), acquisition of competence (12 statements), assessment of competence (10 statements) and post-certification support (6 statements). The consensus process led to following certification criteria: (1) performing ≥250 hands-on procedures; (2) attending a JAG-accredited basic skills course; (3) attainment of relevant minimal performance standards defined by British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, (4) achieving physically unassisted D2 intubation and J-manoeuvre in ≥95% of recent procedures, (5) satisfactory performance in formative and summative direct observation of procedural skills assessments. Conclusion: The JAG standards for diagnostic OGD have been updated following evidence-based consensus. These standards are intended to support training, improve competency assessment to uphold standards of practice and provide support to the newly-independent practitioner.

Colonoscopy surveillance following adenoma removal to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy surveillance is recommended for some patients post polypectomy. The 2002 UK surveillance guidelines classify post-polypectomy patients into low, intermediate and high risk, and recommend different strategies for each classification. Limited evidence supports these guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To examine, for each risk group, long-term colorectal cancer incidence by baseline characteristics and the number of surveillance visits; the effects of interval length on detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance; and the cost-effectiveness of surveillance compared with no surveillance. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study and economic evaluation. SETTING: Seventeen NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a colonoscopy and at least one adenoma at baseline. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Long-term colorectal cancer incidence after baseline and detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance. DATA SOURCES: Hospital databases, NHS Digital, the Office for National Statistics, National Services Scotland and Public Health England. METHODS: Cox regression was used to compare colorectal cancer incidence in the presence and absence of surveillance and to identify colorectal cancer risk factors. Risk factors were used to stratify risk groups into higher- and lower-risk subgroups. We examined detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance by interval length. Cost-effectiveness of surveillance compared with no surveillance was evaluated in terms of incremental costs per colorectal cancer prevented and per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RESULTS: Our study included 28,972 patients, of whom 14,401 (50%), 11,852 (41%) and 2719 (9%) were classed as low, intermediate and high risk, respectively. The median follow-up time was 9.3 years. Colorectal cancer incidence was 140, 221 and 366 per 100,000 person-years among low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients, respectively. Attendance at one surveillance visit was associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence among low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients [hazard ratios were 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.80), 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.81) and 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.82), respectively]. Compared with the general population, colorectal cancer incidence without surveillance was similar among low-risk patients and higher among high-risk patients [standardised incidence ratios were 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.02) and 1.91 (95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.56), respectively]. For intermediate-risk patients, standardised incidence ratios differed for the lower- (0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.99) and higher-risk (1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.78) subgroups. In each risk group, incremental costs per colorectal cancer prevented and per quality-adjusted life-year gained with surveillance were lower for the higher-risk subgroup than for the lower-risk subgroup. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained were lowest for the higher-risk subgroup of high-risk patients at £7821. LIMITATIONS: The observational design means that we cannot assume that surveillance caused the reductions in cancer incidence. The fact that some cancer staging data were missing places uncertainty on our cost-effectiveness estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance was associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence in all risk groups. However, in low-risk patients and the lower-risk subgroup of intermediate-risk patients, colorectal cancer incidence was no higher than in the general population without surveillance, indicating that surveillance might not be necessary. Surveillance was most cost-effective for the higher-risk subgroup of high-risk patients. FUTURE WORK: Studies should examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of post-polypectomy surveillance without prior classification of patients into risk groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN15213649. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Bowel cancers develop from polyps, also called adenomas, which are growths on the lining of the bowel. Removal of adenomas, therefore, helps prevent bowel cancer. Adenomas can be detected and removed during colonoscopy, when a thin tube with a camera on one end is used to examine the bowel lining. In the UK, patients with adenomas are divided into three risk groups. Low-risk patients (i.e. those with one or two adenomas that are < 10 mm in size) are thought to be unlikely to develop bowel cancer after adenoma removal and follow-up colonoscopy is not recommended in this group. Intermediate-risk patients (i.e. those with three or four adenomas that are < 10 mm in size, or one or two adenomas with at least one ≥ 10 mm in size) are recommended to have another colonoscopy 3 years after adenoma removal. High-risk patients (i.e. those with five or more adenomas that are < 10 mm in size, or three or more adenomas with at least one ≥ 10 mm in size) are recommended to have another colonoscopy after 1 year and then usually again after 3 years. The number of follow-up colonoscopies carried out is stretching health-care resources and each procedure carries a small risk of complications for patients. It is possible that too many follow-up colonoscopies are being carried out. This study aimed to determine which patients require follow-up colonoscopies and how many are required to detect adenomas and prevent bowel cancer, while also being resource-efficient, cost-effective and not exposing patients to unnecessary risks. The study used data from 17 hospitals and cancer registries in the UK. In each risk group, one follow-up colonoscopy after adenoma removal was associated with a 40­50% reduction in bowel cancer risk. However, even without any follow-up, bowel cancer risk was no higher in some low- and intermediate-risk patients than in the general population. These patients may not need as many follow-up colonoscopies as recommended. In the case of higher-risk patients, who even after adenoma removal have a higher bowel cancer risk than the general population, follow-up colonoscopies are necessary and cost-effective.

Performance measures for the SACRED team-centered approach to advanced gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology have defined performance measures for upper and lower gastrointestinal, pancreaticobiliary, and small-bowel endoscopy. Quality indicators to guide endoscopists in the growing field of advanced endoscopy are also underway. We propose that equal attention is given to developing the entire advanced endoscopy team and not the individual endoscopist alone.We suggest that the practice of teams intending to deliver high quality advanced endoscopy is underpinned by six crucial principles concerning: selection, acceptance, complications, reconnaissance, envelopment, and documentation (SACRED).

Post-polypectomy surveillance interval and advanced neoplasia detection rates: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Longer post-polypectomy surveillance intervals are associated with increased colorectal neoplasia detection at surveillance in some studies. We investigated this association to inform optimal surveillance intervals. METHODS: Patients who underwent colonoscopy and post-polypectomy surveillance at 17 UK hospitals were classified as low/high risk by baseline findings. We compared detection rates of advanced adenomas (≥ 10 mm, tubulovillous/villous, high grade dysplasia), high risk findings (HRFs: ≥ 2 serrated polyps/[adenomas] of which ≥ 1 is ≥ 10 mm or has [high grade] dysplasia; ≥ 5 serrated polyps/adenomas; or ≥ 1 nonpedunculated polyp ≥ 20 mm), or colorectal cancer (CRC) at surveillance colonoscopy by surveillance interval (< 18 months, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 years). Risk ratios (RRs) were estimated using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Of 11 214 patients, 7216 (64 %) were low risk and 3998 (36 %) were high risk. Among low risk patients, advanced adenoma, HRF, and CRC detection rates at first surveillance were 7.8 %, 3.7 %, and 1.1 %, respectively. Advanced adenoma detection increased with increasing surveillance interval, reaching 9.8 % with a 6-year interval (P trend < 0.001). Among high risk patients, advanced adenoma, HRF, and CRC detection rates at first surveillance were 15.3 %, 10.0 %, and 1.5 %, respectively. Advanced adenoma and CRC detection rates (P trends < 0.001) increased with increasing surveillance interval; RRs (95 % confidence intervals) for CRC were 1.54 (0.68-3.48), 4.44 (1.95-10.08), and 5.80 (2.51-13.40) with 3-, 4-, and 5-year intervals, respectively, versus an interval of < 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: Metachronous neoplasia was uncommon among low risk patients, even with long surveillance intervals, supporting recommendations for no surveillance in these patients. For high risk patients, a 3-year surveillance interval would ensure timely CRC detection.

Bowel cancer screening workforce survey: developing the endoscopy workforce for 2025 and beyond.

AIM: The demand for bowel cancer screening (BCS) is expected to increase significantly within the next decade. Little is known about the intentions of the workforce required to meet this demand. The Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG), the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) developed the first BCS workforce survey. The aim was to assess endoscopist career intentions to aid in future workforce planning to meet the anticipated increase in BCS colonoscopy. METHODS: A survey was developed by JAG, BSG and ACPGBI and disseminated to consultant, clinical and trainee endoscopists between February and April 2020. Descriptive and comparative analyses were undertaken, supported with BCS data. RESULTS: There were 578 respondents. Screening consultants have a median of one programmed activity (PA) per week for screening, accounting for 40% of their current endoscopy workload. 38% of current screening consultants are considering giving up colonoscopy in the next 2-5 years. Retirement (58%) and pension issues (23%) are the principle reasons for this. Consultants would increase their screening PAs by 70% if able to do so. The top three activities that endoscopists would relinquish to further support screening were outpatient clinics, acute medical/surgical on call and ward cover. An extra 155 colonoscopists would be needed to fulfil increased demand and planned retirement at current PAs. CONCLUSION: This survey has identified a serious potential shortfall in screening colonoscopists in the next 5-10 years due to an ageing workforce and job plan pressures of aspirant BCS colonoscopists. We have outlined potential mitigations including reviewing job plans, improving workforce resources and supporting accreditation and training.

Uniting the Global Gastroenterology Community to Meet the Challenge of Climate Change and Nonrecyclable Waste.

Climate change has been described as the greatest public health threat of the 21st century. It has significant implications for digestive health. A multinational team with representation from all continents, excluding Antarctica and covering 18 countries, has formulated a commentary which outlines both the implications for digestive health and ways in which this challenge can be faced.

A high-dose 24-hour tranexamic acid infusion for the treatment of significant gastrointestinal bleeding: HALT-IT RCT.

BACKGROUND: Tranexamic acid reduces blood loss in surgery and the risk of death in trauma patients. Meta-analyses of small trials suggest that tranexamic acid decreases the number of deaths from gastrointestinal bleeding, but these meta-analyses are prone to selection bias. OBJECTIVE: The trial provides reliable evidence of the effect of tranexamic acid on mortality, rebleeding and complications in significant acute gastrointestinal bleeding. DESIGN: A multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial and economic analysis. Patients were assigned by selecting one treatment pack from a box of eight, which were identical apart from the pack number. Patients, caregivers and outcome assessors were masked to allocation. The main analyses were by intention to treat. SETTING: The setting was 164 hospitals in 15 countries, co-ordinated from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with significant upper or lower gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 12,009) were eligible if the responsible clinician was substantially uncertain about whether or not to use tranexamic acid. The clinical diagnosis of significant bleeding implied a risk of bleeding to death, including hypotension, tachycardia or signs of shock, or urgent transfusion, endoscopy or surgery. INTERVENTION: Tranexamic acid (a 1-g loading dose over 10 minutes, then a 3-g maintenance dose over 24 hours) or matching placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes were all-cause and cause-specific mortality; rebleeding; need for endoscopy, surgery or radiological intervention; blood product transfusion; complications; disability; and days spent in intensive care or a high-dependency unit. RESULTS: A total of 12,009 patients were allocated to receive tranexamic acid (n = 5994, 49.9%) or the matching placebo (n = 6015, 50.1%), of whom 11,952 (99.5%) received the first dose. Death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation occurred in 222 (3.7%) patients in the tranexamic acid group and in 226 (3.8%) patients in the placebo group (risk ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.18). Thromboembolic events occurred in 86 (1.4%) patients in the tranexamic acid group and 72 (1.2%) patients in the placebo group (risk ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.64). The risk of arterial thromboembolic events (myocardial infarction or stroke) was similar in both groups (0.7% in the tranexamic acid group vs. 0.8% in the placebo group; risk ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.39), but the risk of venous thromboembolic events (deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) was higher in tranexamic acid-treated patients than in placebo-treated patients (0.8% vs. 0.4%; risk ratio 1.85, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.98). Seizures occurred in 38 patients who received tranexamic acid and in 22 patients who received placebo (0.6% vs. 0.4%, respectively; risk ratio 1.73, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.93). In the base-case economic analysis, tranexamic acid was not cost-effective and resulted in slightly poorer health outcomes than no tranexamic acid. CONCLUSIONS: Tranexamic acid did not reduce death from gastrointestinal bleeding and, although inexpensive, it is not cost-effective in adults with acute gastrointestinal bleeding. FUTURE WORK: These results caution against a uniform approach to the management of patients with major haemorrhage and highlight the need for randomised trials targeted at specific pathophysiological processes. LIMITATIONS: Although this is one of the largest randomised trials in gastrointestinal bleeding, we cannot rule out a modest increase or decrease in death due to bleeding with tranexamic acid. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11225767, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01658124 and EudraCT 2012-003192-19. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 58. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Acute gastrointestinal bleeding (bleeding from the gut) is a common emergency and an important cause of death and illness worldwide. In the UK, more than 65,000 people each year are admitted to hospital because of acute gastrointestinal bleeding; approximately 10% of them die within 30 days. Gastrointestinal bleeding is also common in low- and middle-income countries. The care of patients with gastrointestinal bleeding has improved in recent decades, but death rates remain high. Gastrointestinal bleeding is often caused by stomach ulcers, but also by liver damage owing to alcohol or hepatitis C infection. An effective and affordable treatment for gastrointestinal bleeding could save many lives and may reduce the need for blood transfusions, which is important because blood is a scarce resource in some health-care settings. Tranexamic acid, also known as TXA, is a cheap drug that reduces bleeding in other conditions. It helps blood to clot, thereby decreasing bleeding. A trial in bleeding accident victims found that tranexamic acid reduced the chances of bleeding to death, without any increase in side effects. We wanted to find out if tranexamic acid safely improves outcomes in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, particularly to prevent deaths. To investigate this, the HALT-IT (Haemorrhage ALleviation with Tranexamic acid ­ Intestinal system) trial studied 12,009 patients with significant gastrointestinal bleeding in 164 hospitals across 15 countries. Half of the patients received tranexamic acid and the other half received a dummy drug, called a placebo. The treatments were assigned randomly and given in addition to all other treatments needed. Neither the patient nor the doctor knew which treatment a patient received. The trial showed that tranexamic acid did not reduce deaths from gastrointestinal bleeding. Instead, tranexamic acid was linked to an increased risk of complications, including unwanted blood clots (such as deep-vein thrombosis) and seizures. The economic analysis indicated that giving tranexamic acid to patients with gastrointestinal bleeding does not represent value for money for the NHS.

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.