Jean-Marc Dumonceau

Management of precancerous conditions and lesions in the stomach (MAPS): guideline from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter Study Group (EHSG), European Society of Pathology (ESP), and the Sociedade Portuguesa de Endoscopia Digestiva (SPED)

Atrophic gastritis, intestinal metaplasia, and epithelial dysplasia of the stomach are common and are associated with an increased risk for gastric cancer. In the absence of guidelines, there is wide disparity in the management of patients with these premalignant conditions. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the European Helicobacter Study Group (EHSG), the European Society of Pathology (ESP) and the Sociedade Portuguesa de Endoscopia Digestiva (SPED) have therefore combined efforts to develop evidence-based guidelines on the management of patients with precancerous conditions and lesions of the stomach (termed MAPS). A multidisciplinary group of 63 experts from 24 countries developed these recommendations by means of repeat online voting and a meeting in June 2011 in Porto, Portugal. The recommendations emphasize the increased cancer risk in patients with gastric atrophy and metaplasia, and the need for adequate staging in the case of high grade dysplasia, and they focus on treatment and surveillance indications and methods.

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline: Prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis

Pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) are both patient-related and procedure-related. Identification of patients at high risk for PEP is important in order to target prophylactic measures. Prevention of PEP includes administration of nonsteroidal inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), use of specific cannulation techniques, and placement of temporary pancreatic stents. The aim of this guideline commissioned by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is to provide practical, graded, recommendations for the prevention of PEP.

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

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations for post-polypectomy endoscopic surveillance should be applied only after a high quality baseline colonoscopy with complete removal of all detected neoplastic lesions.1 In the low risk group (patients with 1 - 2 tubular adenomas < 10 mm with low grade dysplasia), the ESGE recommends participation in existing national screening programmes 10 years after the index colonoscopy. If no screening programme is available, repetition of colonoscopy 10 years after the index colonoscopy is recommended (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 2 In the high risk group (patients with adenomas with villous histology or high grade dysplasia or ≥10 mm in size, or ≥ 3 adenomas), the ESGE recommends surveillance colonoscopy 3 years after the index colonoscopy (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). Patients with 10 or more adenomas should be referred for genetic counselling (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 In the high risk group, if no high risk adenomas are detected at the first surveillance examination, the ESGE suggests a 5-year interval before a second surveillance colonoscopy (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). If high risk adenomas are detected at first or subsequent surveillance examinations, a 3-year repetition of surveillance colonoscopy is recommended (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).4 The ESGE recommends that patients with serrated polyps < 10 mm in size with no dysplasia should be classified as low risk (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). The ESGE suggests that patients with large serrated polyps (≥ 10 mm) or those with dysplasia should be classified as high risk (weak recommendation, low quality evidence).5 The ESGE recommends that the endoscopist is responsible for providing a written recommendation for the post-polypectomy surveillance schedule (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).

Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

BACKGROUND AND AIM This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the choice amongst regimens available for cleansing the colon in preparation for colonoscopy. METHODS This Guideline is based on a targeted literature search to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendation and the quality of evidence. RESULTS The main recommendations are as follows. (1) The ESGE recommends a low-fiber diet on the day preceding colonoscopy (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence). (2) The ESGE recommends a split regimen of 4 L of polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution (or a same-day regimen in the case of afternoon colonoscopy) for routine bowel preparation. A split regimen (or same-day regimen in the case of afternoon colonoscopy) of 2 L PEG plus ascorbate or of sodium picosulphate plus magnesium citrate may be valid alternatives, in particular for elective outpatient colonoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). In patients with renal failure, PEG is the only recommended bowel preparation. The delay between the last dose of bowel preparation and colonoscopy should be minimized and no longer than 4 hours (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). (3) The ESGE advises against the routine use of sodium phosphate for bowel preparation because of safety concerns (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).

Biliary stenting: indications, choice of stents and results: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) clinical guideline.

This article is part of a combined publication that expresses the current view of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy about endoscopic biliary stenting. The present Clinical Guideline describes short-term and long-term results of biliary stenting depending on indications and stent models; it makes recommendations on when, how, and with which stent to perform biliary drainage in most common clinical settings, including in patients with a potentially resectable malignant biliary obstruction and in those who require palliative drainage of common bile duct or hilar strictures. Treatment of benign conditions (strictures related to chronic pancreatitis, liver transplantation, or cholecystectomy, and leaks and failed biliary stone extraction) and management of complications (including stent revision) are also discussed. A two-page executive summary of evidence statements and recommendations is provided. A separate Technology Review describes the models of biliary stents available and the stenting techniques, including advanced techniques such as insertion of multiple plastic stents, drainage of hilar strictures, retrieval of migrated stents and combined stenting in malignant biliary and duodenal obstructions.The target readership for the Clinical Guideline mostly includes digestive endoscopists, gastroenterologists, oncologists, radiologists, internists, and surgeons while the Technology Review should be most useful to endoscopists who perform biliary drainage.

Endoscopic pancreatic drainage in chronic pancreatitis associated with ductal stones: long-term results

BACKGROUND In severe chronic pancreatitis associated with intraductal stones, therapeutic endoscopy aims to reduce increased intraductal pressure by pancreatic sphincterotomy and stone clearance. METHODS Results of treatment were evaluated in 70 new patients who underwent pancreatic sphincterotomy and attempted stone removal. Technical results and frequency of pain relief and recurrence are compared. RESULTS Complete ductal clearance of calculi was obtained in 50% of cases. Immediate clinical improvement occurred in 95% of patients with painful attacks. No severe complications or mortality occurred. Fifty-four percent of all patients with painful chronic pancreatitis did not experience any pain recurrence within 2 years. Associations found to be statistically significant by multivariate analysis were ductal clearance and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, pain disappearance and ductal clearance, pain recurrence and long evolution, and severe disease before treatment and presence of a ductal substenosis. CONCLUSIONS In this subset of patients our results indicate that the pain of chronic pancreatitis is mainly related to increased intraductal pressure. Endoscopic management appears to be a safe, conservative, alternative to surgery. The best results are obtained when it is performed early in the course of calcifying chronic pancreatitis.

Indications, results, and clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline

This article is part of a combined publication that expresses the current view of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) about endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology, including EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and EUS-guided trucut biopsy (EUS-TCB), of submucosal tumors, diffuse esophageal/gastric wall thickening, pancreatic solid masses and cystic-appearing lesions, mediastinal lesions unrelated to lung or esophageal cancer, cancer of the esophagus, stomach, and rectum, lymph nodes of unknown origin, adrenal gland masses, and focal liver lesions. False-positive cytopathological results and needle tract seeding are also discussed. The present Clinical Guideline describes the results of EUS-guided sampling in the different clinical settings, considers the role of this technique in patient management, and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use. A two-page executive summary of evidence statements and recommendations is provided. A separate Technical Guideline describes the general technique of EUS-guided sampling, particular techniques to maximize the diagnostic yield depending on the nature of the target lesion, and sample processing. The target readership for the Clinical Guideline mostly includes gastroenterologists, oncologists, internists, and surgeons while the Technical Guideline should be most useful to endoscopists who perform EUS-guided sampling.

Treatment for painful calcified chronic pancreatitis: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus endoscopic treatment: a randomised controlled trial

Background: In chronic pancreatitis, obstruction of the main pancreatic duct (MPD) may contribute to the pathogenesis of pain. Pilot studies suggest that extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) alone relieves pain in calcified chronic pancreatitis. Aim: To compare ESWL alone with ESWL and endoscopic drainage of the MPD for treatment of pain in chronic pancreatitis. Subjects: Patients with uncomplicated painful chronic pancreatitis and calcifications obstructing the MPD. Methods: 55 patients were randomised to ESWL alone (n = 26) or ESWL combined with endoscopy (n = 29). Results: 2 years after trial intervention, 10 (38%) and 13 (45%) patients of the ESWL alone and ESWL combined with endoscopy group, respectively, had presented pain relapse (primary outcome) (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.23 to 2.57). In both groups, a similar decrease was seen after treatment in the MPD diameter (mean decrease 1.7 mm; 95% CI 0.9 to 2.6; p<0.001), and in the number of pain episodes/year (mean decrease, 3.7; 95% CI 2.6 to 4.9; p<0.001). Treatment costs per patient were three times higher in the ESWL combined with endoscopy group compared with the ESWL alone group (p = 0.001). The median delay between the onset of chronic pancreatitis and persistent pain relief for both groups was 1.1 year (95% CI 0.7 to 1.6), as compared with 4 years (95% CI 3 to 4) for the natural history of chronic pancreatitis in a reference cohort (p<0.001). Conclusions: ESWL is a safe and effective preferred treatment for selected patients with painful calcified chronic pancreatitis. Combining systematic endoscopy with ESWL adds to the cost of patient care, without improving the outcome of pancreatic pain.

Endoscopic treatment of chronic pancreatitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline

BACKGROUND AND AIMS Clarification of the position of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) regarding the interventional options available for treating patients with chronic pancreatitis. METHODS Systematic literature search to answer explicit key questions with levels of evidence serving to determine recommendation grades. The ESGE funded development of the Guideline. SUMMARY OF SELECTED RECOMMENDATIONS For treating painful uncomplicated chronic pancreatitis, the ESGE recommends extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy/endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography as the first-line interventional option. The clinical response should be evaluated at 6 - 8 weeks; if it appears unsatisfactory, the patients case should be discussed again in a multidisciplinary team. Surgical options should be considered, in particular in patients with a predicted poor outcome following endoscopic therapy (Recommendation grade B). For treating chronic pancreatitis associated with radiopaque stones ≥ 5 mm that obstruct the main pancreatic duct, the ESGE recommends extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy as a first step, combined or not with endoscopic extraction of stone fragments depending on the expertise of the center (Recommendation grade B). For treating chronic pancreatitis associated with a dominant stricture of the main pancreatic duct, the ESGE recommends inserting a single 10-Fr plastic stent, with stent exchange planned within 1 year (Recommendation grade C). In patients with ductal strictures persisting after 12 months of single plastic stenting, the ESGE recommends that available options (e. g., endoscopic placement of multiple pancreatic stents, surgery) be discussed in a multidisciplinary team (Recommendation grade D).For treating uncomplicated chronic pancreatic pseudocysts that are within endoscopic reach, the ESGE recommends endoscopic drainage as a first-line therapy (Recommendation grade A).For treating chronic pancreatitis-related biliary strictures, the choice between endoscopic and surgical therapy should rely on local expertise, patient co-morbidities and expected patient compliance with repeat endoscopic procedures (Recommendation grade D). If endoscopy is elected, the ESGE recommends temporary placement of multiple, side-by-side, plastic biliary stents (Recommendation grade A).

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates, and the European Society of Anaesthesiology Guideline: Non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy

Propofol sedation by non-anesthesiologists is an upcoming sedation regimen in several countries throughout Europe. Numerous studies have shown the efficacy and safety of this sedation regimen in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Nevertheless, this issue remains highly controversial. The aim of this evidence- and consensus-based set of guideline is to provide non-anesthesiologists with a comprehensive framework for propofol sedation during digestive endoscopy. This guideline results from a collaborative effort from representatives of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA). These three societies have endorsed the present guideline.