Ruben D. Acosta

The management of antithrombotic agents for patients undergoing GI endoscopy.

Ruben D. Acosta, MD, Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSCE, FASGE (invited content expert, ad-hoc member), Vinay Chandrasekhara, MD, Krishnavel V. Chathadi, MD, Dayna S. Early, MD, FASGE, Mohamad A. Eloubeidi, MD, MHS, FASGE, John A. Evans, MD, Ashley L. Faulx, MD, FASGE, Deborah A. Fisher, MD, MHS, FASGE, Lisa Fonkalsrud, BSN, RN, CGRN, Joo Ha Hwang, MD, PhD, FASGE, Mouen A. Khashab, MD, Jenifer R. Lightdale, MD, MPH, FASGE, V. Raman Muthusamy, MD, FASGE, Shabana F. Pasha, MD, John R. Saltzman, MD, FASGE, Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, FASGE, Amandeep K. Shergill, MD, Amy Wang, MD, Brooks D. Cash, MD, FASGE, previous Committee Chair, John M. DeWitt, MD, FASGE, Chair

Bowel preparation before colonoscopy

This is one of a series of documents discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this document that updates a previously issued consensus statement and a technology status evaluation report on this topic. In preparing this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed by using PubMed between January 1975 and March 2014 by using the search terms “colonoscopy,” “bowel preparation,” “intestines,” and “preparation.” Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When limited or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Recommendations for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time that the documents are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of recommendations contained in this document. This document 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). 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. It 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 recommendations and suggestions.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Does Not Accurately Stage Early Adenocarcinoma or High-Grade Dysplasia of the Esophagus

BACKGROUND & AIMS Patients with esophageal high-grade dysplasia or mucosal esophageal cancer can be successfully treated by endoscopy. We performed a systematic review of the literature to determine whether endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) correctly predicts the T-stage of early esophageal cancers, compared with pathology specimens obtained by using endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or surgery. METHODS Standard systematic review methods were used to perform reference searches, determine eligibility, abstract data, and analyze data. When possible, individual patient-level data were abstracted, in addition to publication-level aggregate data. RESULTS Twelve studies had sufficient information to abstract and review for quality; 8 had individual patient-level data (n = 132). Compared with surgical or EMR pathology staging, EUS had T-stage concordance of 65%, including all studies (n = 12), but only 56% concordance when limited to individual patient-level data. Factors such as initial biopsy pathology (high-grade dysplasia vs early-stage cancer) did not appear to affect the concordance of staging between EUS and EMR/surgical staging. CONCLUSIONS EUS is not sufficiently accurate in determining the T-stage of high-grade dysplasias or superficial adenocarcinomas; other means of staging, such as EMR, should be used.

Adverse events associated with EUS and EUS with FNA

c w g g v u 0 w 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 document, 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. This document is based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time that the document was drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this document. This document may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. This document is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This document 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 document.

The role of endoscopy in the management of variceal hemorrhage

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 document, 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 limited or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Recommendations 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 document. This document 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 document is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. It 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 recommendations.

The role of endoscopy in the patient with lower GI bleeding.

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 document, a search of the medical literature pertaining to this topic published between January 1990–March 2013 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 from large series and reports from recognized experts. Recommendations for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time that the documents are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this document. This document represents an updated review of previous ASGE guidance on this topic. This document 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 are 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 document is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. It 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 recommendations.

The role of ERCP in benign diseases of the biliary tract

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 from January 1980 through December 2013 by using the keyword(s) “choledocholithiasis,” “biliary stricture,” “primary sclerosing cholangitis,” “cholangiopathy,” “sphincter of Oddi dysfunction,” “biliary leak,” ”choledochal cyst,” “choledochocele,” AND “gastrointestinal endoscopy,” ”ERCP,” “endoscopy,” and “endoscopic procedures.” The search was supplemented by accessing the “related articles” feature of PubMed, with articles identified on PubMed as the references. Pertinent studies published in English were reviewed. 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 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 were based on reviewed studies and were graded on the strength of the supporting evidence using the GRADE criteria (Table 1).

Guidelines for privileging, credentialing, and proctoring to perform GI endoscopy

Ashley L. Faulx, MD, FASGE, Jenifer R. Lightdale, MD, MPH, FASGE, NASPGHAN representative, Ruben D. Acosta, MD, Deepak Agrawal, MD, MPH, David H. Bruining, MD, Vinay Chandrasekhara, MD, Mohamad A. Eloubeidi, MD, MHS, FASGE, Suryakanth R. Gurudu, MD, FASGE, Loralee Kelsey, BSN, RN, CGRN, SGNA representative, Mouen A. Khashab, MD, Shivangi Kothari, MD, V. Raman Muthusamy, MD, FASGE, Bashar J. Qumseya, MD, MPH, Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, FASGE, Amy Wang, MD, FASGE, Sachin B. Wani, MD, Julie Yang, MD, John M. DeWitt, MD, FASGE, Chair

The role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of dysphagia

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 update of a previous ASGE guideline. In preparing this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed by using PubMed for the period 1990-2013. 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 from 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 are based on reviewed studies and are 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 these guidelines.

Association Between Circulating Levels of Sex Steroid Hormones and Barrett’s Esophagus in Men: A Case–Control Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS Esophageal adenocarcinoma is believed to result from the progression of gastroesophageal reflux disease to erosive esophagitis and re-epithelialization of the esophagus with a columnar cell population termed Barretts esophagus (BE). Men develop BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma more frequently than women, yet little is known about the mechanisms of this difference. We assessed whether sex steroid hormones were associated with BE in a male population. METHODS We analyzed data from the Barretts Esophagus Early Detection Case Control Study, based at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Blood samples were collected from 174 men with BE and 213 men without BE (controls, based on endoscopic analysis); 13 sex steroid hormones were measured by mass spectrometry and sex hormone binding globulin was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. We also calculated free estradiol, free testosterone, and free dihydrotestosterone (DHT). We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for age, race, smoking status, alcohol consumption, body mass index, heartburn, regurgitation, and gastroesophageal symptom score (excluding heartburn and regurgitation). RESULTS Levels of free testosterone and free DHT were associated positively with BE risk; patients in the highest quartile for these hormones were most likely to have BE (free testosterone: OR, 5.36; 95% CI, 2.21-13.03; P = .0002; free DHT: OR, 4.25; 95% CI, 1.87-9.66; P = .001). Level of estrone sulfate was associated inversely with BE risk (P for trend = .02). No other hormone was associated with BE risk. Relationships were not modified by age or BMI. CONCLUSIONS In an analysis of men, levels of free testosterone and free DHT were significantly associated with BE.