Andrew Veitch

Guidelines for the management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing endoscopic procedures

This guideline deals primarily with elective endoscopic procedures. In the emergency situation of acute gastrointestinal haemorrhage, the immediate risk to the patient from haemorrhage may outweigh the risk of thrombosis as a result of discontinuing anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. If clopidogrel therapy for coronary artery stents needs to be discontinued in this context, then this should be limited to 5 days as the risk of stent thrombosis increases after this interval.

Endoscopy and antiplatelet agents. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

With the increasing use of antiplatelet agents (APA), their management during the periendoscopic period has become a more common and more difficult problem. The increase in use is due to the availability of new drugs and the widespread use of drug-eluting coronary stents. Acute coronary syndromes can occur when APA therapy is withheld for noncardiovascular interventions. Guidelines about APA management during the periendoscopic period are traditionally based on assessments of the procedure-related risk of bleeding and the risk of thrombosis if APA are stopped. New data allow better assessment of these risks, of the necessary duration of APA discontinuation before endoscopy, of the use of alternative procedures (mostly for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography [ERCP]), and of endoscopic methods that can be used to prevent bleeding (following colonic polypectomy). This guideline makes graded, evidence-based, recommendations for the management of APA for all currently performed endoscopic procedures. A short summary and two tables are included for quick reference.

Diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH). Main Recommendations MR1. ESGE recommends immediate assessment of hemodynamic status in patients who present with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH), with prompt intravascular volume replacement initially using crystalloid fluids if hemodynamic instability exists (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR2. ESGE recommends a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy that aims for a target hemoglobin between 7 g/dL and 9 g/dL. A higher target hemoglobin should be considered in patients with significant co-morbidity (e. g., ischemic cardiovascular disease) (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR3. ESGE recommends the use of the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Outpatients determined to be at very low risk, based upon a GBS score of 0 - 1, do not require early endoscopy nor hospital admission. Discharged patients should be informed of the risk of recurrent bleeding and be advised to maintain contact with the discharging hospital (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR4. ESGE recommends initiating high dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPI), intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (80 mg then 8 mg/hour), in patients presenting with acute UGIH awaiting upper endoscopy. However, PPI infusion should not delay the performance of early endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR5. ESGE does not recommend the routine use of nasogastric or orogastric aspiration/lavage in patients presenting with acute UGIH (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR6. ESGE recommends intravenous erythromycin (single dose, 250 mg given 30 - 120 minutes prior to upper gastrointestinal [GI] endoscopy) in patients with clinically severe or ongoing active UGIH. In selected patients, pre-endoscopic infusion of erythromycin significantly improves endoscopic visualization, reduces the need for second-look endoscopy, decreases the number of units of blood transfused, and reduces duration of hospital stay (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR7. Following hemodynamic resuscitation, ESGE recommends early (≤ 24 hours) upper GI endoscopy. Very early (< 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy may be considered in patients with high risk clinical features, namely: hemodynamic instability (tachycardia, hypotension) that persists despite ongoing attempts at volume resuscitation; in-hospital bloody emesis/nasogastric aspirate; or contraindication to the interruption of anticoagulation (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR8. ESGE recommends that peptic ulcers with spurting or oozing bleeding (Forrest classification Ia and Ib, respectively) or with a nonbleeding visible vessel (Forrest classification IIa) receive endoscopic hemostasis because these lesions are at high risk for persistent bleeding or rebleeding (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR9. ESGE recommends that peptic ulcers with an adherent clot (Forrest classification IIb) be considered for endoscopic clot removal. Once the clot is removed, any identified underlying active bleeding (Forrest classification Ia or Ib) or nonbleeding visible vessel (Forrest classification IIa) should receive endoscopic hemostasis (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR10. In patients with peptic ulcers having a flat pigmented spot (Forrest classification IIc) or clean base (Forrest classification III), ESGE does not recommend endoscopic hemostasis as these stigmata present a low risk of recurrent bleeding. In selected clinical settings, these patients may be discharged to home on standard PPI therapy, e. g., oral PPI once-daily (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR11. ESGE recommends that epinephrine injection therapy not be used as endoscopic monotherapy. If used, it should be combined with a second endoscopic hemostasis modality (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR12. ESGE recommends PPI therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with adherent clot not receiving endoscopic hemostasis. PPI therapy should be high dose and administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR13. ESGE does not recommend routine second-look endoscopy as part of the management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH). However, in patients with clinical evidence of rebleeding following successful initial endoscopic hemostasis, ESGE recommends repeat upper endoscopy with hemostasis if indicated. In the case of failure of this second attempt at hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) or surgery should be considered (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR14. In patients with NVUGIH secondary to peptic ulcer, ESGE recommends investigating for the presence of Helicobacter pylori in the acute setting with initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy when H. pylori is detected. Re-testing for H. pylori should be performed in those patients with a negative test in the acute setting. Documentation of successful H. pylori eradication is recommended (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR15. In patients receiving low dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis who develop peptic ulcer bleeding, ESGE recommends aspirin be resumed immediately following index endoscopy if the risk of rebleeding is low (e. g., FIIc, FIII). In patients with high risk peptic ulcer (FIa, FIb, FIIa, FIIb), early reintroduction of aspirin by day 3 after index endoscopy is recommended, provided that adequate hemostasis has been established (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, including direct oral anticoagulants: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines

The risk of endoscopy in patients on antithrombotics depends on the risks of procedural haemorrhage vs. thrombosis due to discontinuation of therapy. P2Y12 receptor antagonists (clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor): For low-risk endoscopic procedures we recommend continuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists as single or dual antiplatelet therapy (low quality evidence, strong recommendation);For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at low thrombotic risk, we recommend discontinuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists five days before the procedure (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). In patients on dual antiplatelet therapy, we suggest continuing aspirin (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at high thrombotic risk, we recommend continuing aspirin and liaising with a cardiologist about the risk/benefit of discontinuation of P2Y12 receptor antagonists (high quality evidence, strong recommendation). Warfarin: The advice for warfarin is fundamentally unchanged from BSG 2008 guidance. Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOAC): For low-risk endoscopic procedures we suggest omitting the morning dose of DOAC on the day of the procedure (very low quality evidence, weak recommendation). For high-risk endoscopic procedures, we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken ≥ 48 hours before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). For patients on dabigatran with CrCl (or estimated glomerular filtration rate, eGFR) of 30 - 50 mL/min we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken 72 hours before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). In any patient with rapidly deteriorating renal function a haematologist should be consulted (low quality evidence, strong recommendation).

Polymorphisms near TBX5 and GDF7 are associated with increased risk for Barrett's esophagus.

Background & Aims Barretts esophagus (BE) increases the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We found the risk to be BE has been associated with single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on chromosome 6p21 (within the HLA region) and on 16q23, where the closest protein-coding gene is FOXF1. Subsequently, the Barretts and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Consortium (BEACON) identified risk loci for BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma near CRTC1 and BARX1, and within 100 kb of FOXP1. We aimed to identify further SNPs that increased BE risk and to validate previously reported associations. Methods We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) to identify variants associated with BE and further analyzed promising variants identified by BEACON by genotyping 10,158 patients with BE and 21,062 controls. Results We identified 2 SNPs not previously associated with BE: rs3072 (2p24.1; odds ratio [OR] = 1.14; 95% CI: 1.09–1.18; P = 1.8 × 10−11) and rs2701108 (12q24.21; OR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.86–0.93; P = 7.5 × 10−9). The closest protein-coding genes were respectively GDF7 (rs3072), which encodes a ligand in the bone morphogenetic protein pathway, and TBX5 (rs2701108), which encodes a transcription factor that regulates esophageal and cardiac development. Our data also supported in BE cases 3 risk SNPs identified by BEACON (rs2687201, rs11789015, and rs10423674). Meta-analysis of all data identified another SNP associated with BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma: rs3784262, within ALDH1A2 (OR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.87–0.93; P = 3.72 × 10−9). Conclusions We identified 2 loci associated with risk of BE and provided data to support a further locus. The genes we found to be associated with risk for BE encode transcription factors involved in thoracic, diaphragmatic, and esophageal development or proteins involved in the inflammatory response.

A role for human endogenous retrovirus‐K (HML‐2) in rheumatoid arthritis: investigating mechanisms of pathogenesis

Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) are remnants of ancient retroviral infections within the human genome. These molecular fossils draw parallels with present‐day exogenous retroviruses and have been linked previously with immunopathology within rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Mechanisms of pathogenesis for HERV‐K in RA such as molecular mimicry were investigated. To clarify a role for HERVs in RA, potential autoantigens implicated in autoimmunity were scanned for sequence identity with retroviral epitopes. Short retroviral peptides modelling shared epitopes were synthesized, to survey anti‐serum of RA patients and disease controls. A novel real‐time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay was also developed to quantify accurately levels of HERV‐K (HML‐2) gag expression, relative to normalized housekeeping gene expression. Both serological and molecular assays showed significant increases in HERV‐K (HML‐2) gag activity in RA patients, compared to disease controls. The real‐time PCR assay identified significant up‐regulation in HERV‐K mRNA levels in RA patients compared to inflammatory and healthy controls. Exogenous viral protein expression and proinflammatory cytokines were also shown to exert modulatory effects over HERV‐K (HML‐2) transcription. From our data, it can be concluded that RA patients exhibited significantly elevated levels of HERV‐K (HML‐2) gag activity compared to controls. Additional factors influencing HERV activity within the synovium were also identified. The significant variation in RA patients, both serologically and transcriptionally, may be an indication that RA is an umbrella term for a number of separate disease entities, of which particular HERV polymorphisms may play a role in development.

Improvement over time in outcomes for patients undergoing endoscopic therapy for Barrett's oesophagus-related neoplasia: 6-year experience from the first 500 patients treated in the UK patient registry

Background Barretts oesophagus (BE) is a pre-malignant condition leading to oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC). Treatment of neoplasia at an early stage is desirable. Combined endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) followed by radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is an alternative to surgery for patients with BE-related neoplasia. Methods We examined prospective data from the UK registry of patients undergoing RFA/EMR for BE-related neoplasia from 2008 to 2013. Before RFA, visible lesions were removed by EMR. Thereafter, patients had RFA 3-monthly until all BE was ablated or cancer developed (endpoints). End of treatment biopsies were recommended at around 12 months from first RFA treatment or when endpoints were reached. Outcomes for clearance of dysplasia (CR-D) and BE (CR-IM) at end of treatment were assessed over two time periods (2008–2010 and 2011–2013). Durability of successful treatment and progression to OAC were also evaluated. Results 508 patients have completed treatment. CR-D and CR-IM improved significantly between the former and later time periods, from 77% and 56% to 92% and 83%, respectively (p<0.0001). EMR for visible lesions prior to RFA increased from 48% to 60% (p=0.013). Rescue EMR after RFA decreased from 13% to 2% (p<0.0001). Progression to OAC at 12 months is not significantly different (3.6% vs 2.1%, p=0.51). Conclusions Clinical outcomes for BE neoplasia have improved significantly over the past 6 years with improved lesion recognition and aggressive resection of visible lesions before RFA. Despite advances in technique, the rate of cancer progression remains 2–4% at 1 year in these high-risk patients. Trial registration number ISRCTN93069556.

British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctologists of Great Britain and Ireland guidelines for the management of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps

These guidelines provide an evidence-based framework for the management of patients with large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs), in addition to identifying key performance indicators (KPIs) that permit the audit of quality outcomes. These are areas not previously covered by British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Guidelines. A National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant BSG guideline development process was used throughout and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to structure the guideline development process. A systematic review of literature was conducted for English language articles up to May 2014 concerning the assessment and management of LNPCPs. Quality of evaluated studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) Methodology Checklist System. Proposed recommendation statements were evaluated by each member of the Guideline Development Group (GDG) on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) with >80% agreement required for consensus to be reached. Where consensus was not reached a modified Delphi process was used to re-evaluate and modify proposed statements until consensus was reached or the statement discarded. A round table meeting was subsequently held to finalise recommendations and to evaluate the strength of evidence discussed. The GRADE tool was used to assess the strength of evidence and strength of recommendation for finalised statements. KPIs, a training framework and potential research questions for the management of LNPCPs were also developed. It is hoped that these guidelines will improve the assessment and management of LNPCPs.

Downstaging of colorectal cancer by the national bowel cancer screening programme in England: first round data from the first centre

Objective  Data from randomized controlled trials of Colorectal Cancer (CRC) screening in Nottingham, UK and Funen, Denmark and pilot data from the English and Scottish arms of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (NBCSP) have demonstrated predominantly early‐stage disease amongst the screened population. The aim of this study was to investigate whether downstaging of cancers occurred in the NBCSP in Wolverhampton.

Adenoma surveillance and colorectal cancer incidence: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study.

Summary Background Removal of adenomas reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality; however, the benefit of surveillance colonoscopy on colorectal cancer risk remains unclear. We examined heterogeneity in colorectal cancer incidence in intermediate-risk patients and the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer incidence. Methods We did this retrospective, multicentre, cohort study using routine lower gastrointestinal endoscopy and pathology data from patients who, after baseline colonoscopy and polypectomy, were diagnosed with intermediate-risk adenomas mostly (>99%) between Jan 1, 1990, and Dec 31, 2010, at 17 hospitals in the UK. These patients are currently offered surveillance colonoscopy at intervals of 3 years. Patients were followed up through to Dec 31, 2014.We assessed the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer incidence using Cox regression with adjustment for patient, procedural, and polyp characteristics. We defined lower-risk and higher-risk subgroups on the basis of polyp and procedural characteristics identified as colorectal cancer risk factors. We estimated colorectal cancer incidence and standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) using as standard the general population of England in 2007. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN15213649. Findings 253 798 patients who underwent colonic endoscopy were identified, of whom 11 944 with intermediate-risk adenomas were included in this analysis. After a median follow-up of 7·9 years (IQR 5·6–11·1), 210 colorectal cancers were diagnosed. 5019 (42%) patients did not attend surveillance and 6925 (58%) attended one or more surveillance visits. Compared to no surveillance, one or two surveillance visits were associated with a significant reduction in colorectal cancer incidence rate (adjusted hazard ratio 0·57, 95% CI 0·40–0·80 for one visit; 0·51, 0·31–0·84 for two visits). Without surveillance, colorectal cancer incidence in patients with a suboptimal quality colonoscopy, proximal polyps, or a high-grade or large adenoma (≥20 mm) at baseline (8865 [74%] patients) was significantly higher than in the general population (SIR 1·30, 95% CI 1·06–1·57). By contrast, in patients without these features, colorectal cancer incidence was lower than that of the general population (SIR 0·51, 95% CI 0·29–0·84). Interpretation Colonoscopy surveillance benefits most patients with intermediate-risk adenomas. However, some patients are already at low risk after baseline colonoscopy and the value of surveillance for them is unclear. Funding National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment, Cancer Research UK.