Jason A. Dominitz

Guideline for the management of ingested foreign bodies.

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of gastrointestinal endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to these recommendations.

Management of antithrombotic agents for endoscopic procedures

This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) prepared this text. This guideline combines and updates 2 previously issued guidelines, ‘‘Guideline on the management of antithrombotic and antiplatelet therapy for endoscopic procedures’’ and ‘‘ASGE guideline: the management of lowmolecular-weight heparin and nonaspirin antiplatelet agents for endoscopic procedures.’’ To prepare this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed using PubMed. Studies or reports that described fewer than 10 patients were excluded from analysis if multiple series with more than 10 patients addressing the same issue were available. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time the guidelines are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. The recommendations are based on reviewed studies and were graded on the strength of the supporting evidence (Table 1). The strength of individual recommendations is based on both the aggregate evidence quality and an assessment of the anticipated benefits and harms. Weaker recommendations are indicated by phrases such as ‘‘we suggest,’’ whereas stronger recommendations are typically stated as ‘‘we recommend.’’ This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient’s condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from this guideline.

Complications of ERCP

d ( t s f t c s n d i a s a This is one of a series of position statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. This document is an update of a previous ASGE publication.1 In preparing this document, a search of the medical iterature was performed using PubMed. Additional refernces were obtained from the bibliographies of the identied articles and from recommendations of expert consulants. When limited or no data exist from well-designed rospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large eries and reports from recognized experts. Position stateents are based on a critical review of the available data nd expert consensus at the time that the document was rafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed o clarify aspects of this document, which may be revised s necessary to account for changes in technology, new ata, or other aspects of clinical practice. This document is intended to be an educational device o provide information that may assist endoscopists in roviding care to patients. This position statement is not a ule and should not be construed as establishing a legal tandard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requirng, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical ecisions in any particular case involve a complex analsis of the patient’s condition and available courses of ction. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an ndoscopist to take a course of action that varies from this osition statement. Since its introduction in 1968, ERCP has become a comonly performed endoscopic procedure.2 The diagnostic nd therapeutic utility of ERCP has been well demonstrated or a variety of disorders, including the management of choedocholithiasis, the diagnosis and management of biliary nd pancreatic neoplasms, and the postoperative manageent of biliary perioperative complications.3-5 The evolution of the role of ERCP has occurred simultaneously with that of other diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, most notably magnetic resonance imaging/MRCP, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (with or without intraoperative cholangiography), and EUS. For endoscopists to accurately assess the clinical appropriateness of ERCP, it is important to have a thorough

Guideline on the management of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy for endoscopic procedures

This is one of a series of statements discussing the practice of gastrointestinal endoscopy in common clinical situations. It is intended to aid endoscopists in determining the appropriate use of endoscopic procedures in conjunction with anticoagulation and/or antiplatelet therapy. Guidelines for the appropriate practice of endoscopy are based on critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Controlled clinical studies would be beneficial to clarify some aspects of this statement and revision might be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance from these specific recommendations.

Complications of colonoscopy

Summary Endoscopic complications are rare but inevitable, occurring in fewer than 0.35% of procedures [B]. Knowledge of potential complications and their expected frequency can lead to an improved informed consent process [C]. Complications from the procedure include perforation, hemorrhage, postpolypectomy coagulation syndrome, infection, preparation-associated complications, and death, and are more likely to occur with therapeutic procedures rather than diagnostic procedures [B]. Risk factors for poylpectomy-associated complications include the location and size of the polyp, experience of the operator, polypectomy technique and possibly the type of electrocoagulation current used [B]. Use of saline solution injection under large sessile polyps decreases depth of thermal injury [A] and may decrease complications [B]. Early recognition of complications and prompt intervention may decrease patient morbidity [C]. Treatment of complications range from supportive for postpolypectomy coagulation syndrome, to repeat colonoscopy with injection or electrocoagulation for bleeding, to surgical repair for free perforation [B]. Consideration of the risks and benefits may improve clinical outcome by identifying potential complications and taking appropriate steps to minimize the risks [C].

Predictors of colorectal cancer screening participation in the United States

OBJECTIVE:Our aim was to identify predictors of colorectal cancer screening in the United States and subgroups with particularly low rates of screening.METHODS:The responses to a telephone-administered questionnaire of a nationally representative sample of 61,068 persons aged ≥50 yr were analyzed. Current screening was defined as either sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy in the preceding 5 years or fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) in the preceding year, or both.RESULTS:Overall, current colorectal cancer screening was reported by 43.4% (sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy by 22.8%, FOBT by 9.9%, and both by 10.7%). The lowest rates of screening were reported by the following subgroups: those aged 50–54 yr (31.2%), Hispanics (31.2%), Asian/Pacific Islanders (34.8%), those with education less than the ninth grade (34.4%), no health care coverage (20.4%), or coverage by Medicaid (29.2%), those who had no routine doctors visit in the last year (20.3%), and every-day smokers (32.1%). The most important modifiable predictors of current colorectal cancer screening were health care coverage (OR = 1.7, 95% CI = 1.5–1.9) and a routine doctors visit in the last year (OR = 3.5, 95% CI = 3.2–3.8). FOBT was more common in women than in men (OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.6–2.0); sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy was more common in Hispanics (OR = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.1–1.7) and Asian/Pacific Islanders (OR = 2.4, 95%= CI 1.5–3.9) relative to whites, in persons without routine doctors visits in the preceding year (OR = 3.3, 95% CI = 2.8–4), and in persons with poor self-reported health (OR = 1.3, 95% CI = 1.2–1.5).CONCLUSION:Interventions should be developed to improve screening for the subgroups who reported the lowest screening rates. Such interventions may incorporate individual screening strategy preferences.

The role of endoscopy in the evaluation of suspected choledocholithiasis

This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed by using PubMed. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When few or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results of large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time that the guidelines are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. The recommendations were based on reviewed studies and were graded on the strength of the supporting evidence (Table 1). This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient’s condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from these guidelines. Gallstone disease affects more than 20 million American adults at an annual cost of

Management of ingested foreign bodies and food impactions

6.2 billion. A subset of these patients will also have choledocholithiasis, including 5% to 10% of those undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic cholelithiasis and 18% to 33% of patients with acute biliary pancreatitis. The approach to patients with suspected choledocholithiasis requires careful consideration because missed common bile duct (CBD) stones pose a risk of recurrent symptoms, pancreatitis, and cholangitis. However, the morbidity and cost

Outcomes of infants born to mothers with inflammatory bowel disease: a population-based cohort study

i d t i i t i t f o This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed by using PubMed. Studies or reports that described fewer than 10 patients were excluded from analysis if multiple series with more than 10 patients addressing the same issue were available. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time that the guidelines are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. The original guideline was published in 1995 and last updated in 2002. The recommendations are based on reviewed studies and are graded on the strength of the supporting evidence (Table 1).1 The strength of individual recommendations is based both on the aggregate evidence quality and an assessment of the anticipated benefits and harms. Weaker recommendations are indicated by phrases such as “we suggest,” whereas stronger recommendations are typically stated as “we recommend.” This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient’s condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from these guidelines.

The role of endoscopy in Barrett's esophagus and other premalignant conditions of the esophagus

OBJECTIVE:Limited population-based data on inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and pregnancy outcomes exist. The purpose of this study is to determine the association between maternal IBD status and adverse pregnancy outcomes.METHODS:Using computerized birth records of infants born to mothers with Crohns disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) and mothers without diagnoses of IBD (no-IBD) in Washington State, we performed a cross-sectional retrospective study to determine gestational age, birth weight, and congenital malformations.RESULTS:Preterm delivery was seen in 15.2% of CD births, 10.4% of UC births, and 7.2% of no-IBD births. Low birth weight was found in 16.8% of CD births, 7.6% of UC births, and 5.3% of no-IBD births. Smallness for gestational age was present in 15.2% of CD births, 10.5% of UC births, and 6.9% of no-IBD births. Only CD births were at significantly increased risk of preterm delivery (p < 0.0025), low birth weight (p < 0.001), and smallness for gestational age (p < 0.001). Congenital malformations were more commonly recorded in UC births than in controls (7.9% vs 1.7%, p < 0.001), whereas 3.4% of CD births had malformations recorded. Using multivariable logistic regression, CD births were more likely to be preterm (odds ratio [OR] = 2.3, 95% CI = 1.4–3.8) and have low birth weights (OR = 3.6, CI = 2.2–5.9) and smallness for gestational age (OR = 2.3, CI = 1.3–3.9). UC births were more likely to have congenital malformations reported (OR = 3.8, CI = 1.5–9.8).CONCLUSIONS:Maternal IBD is associated with increased odds of preterm delivery, low birth weight, smallness for gestational age (CD), and reporting of congenital malformations (UC).