European guidelines on achalasia: United European Gastroenterology and European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Achalasia is a primary motor disorder of the oesophagus characterised by absence of peristalsis and insufficient lower oesophageal sphincter relaxation. With new advances and developments in achalasia management, there is an increasing demand for comprehensive evidence-based guidelines to assist clinicians in achalasia patient care. METHODS: Guidelines were established by a working group of representatives from United European Gastroenterology, European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility, European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology and the European Association of Endoscopic Surgery in accordance with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. A systematic review of the literature was performed, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Recommendations were voted upon using a nominal group technique. RESULTS: These guidelines focus on the definition of achalasia, treatment aims, diagnostic tests, medical, endoscopic and surgical therapy, management of treatment failure, follow-up and oesophageal cancer risk. CONCLUSION: These multidisciplinary guidelines provide a comprehensive evidence-based framework with recommendations on the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of adult achalasia patients.

A single-step sizing and radiofrequency ablation catheter for circumferential ablation of Barrett's esophagus: Results of a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The 360 Express balloon catheter (360 Express) has the ability to self-adjust to the esophageal lumen, ensuring optimal tissue contact. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the 360 Express for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) treatment of Barrett's esophagus (BE). METHODS: BE patients with low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or early cancer (EC) were included. Visible lesions were removed by endoscopic resection (ER) prior to RFA. RFA was performed with the 360 Express using the standard ablation regimen (12J/cm2-clean-12J/cm2). Primary outcome: BE regression percentage at three months. Secondary outcomes: procedure time, adverse events, complete eradication of dysplasia (CE-D) and intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM). RESULTS: Thirty patients (median BE C4M6) were included. Eight patients underwent ER prior to RFA. Median BE regression: 90%. Median procedure time: 31 minutes. Adverse events (13%): laceration (n = 1); atrial fibrillation (n = 1); vomiting and dysphagia (n = 1); dysregulated diabetes (n = 1). After subsequent treatment CE-D and CE-IM was achieved in 97% and 87%, respectively. In 10% a stenosis developed during additional treatment requiring a median of one dilation. CONCLUSION: This study shows that circumferential RFA using the 360 Express may shorten procedure time, while maintaining efficacy compared to standard circumferential RFA.

Endoscopic management and follow-up of patients with a submucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: The risk of lymph node metastases (LNM) in submucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) patients is subject to debate. These patients might be treated endoscopically if the risk of LNM appears to be low. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to evaluate the outcome of patients who underwent an endoscopic resection (ER) and subsequent endoscopic follow-up for a submucosal EAC. METHODS: All patients who underwent ER for submucosal EAC between January 2012 and August 2016 and were subsequently managed with endoscopic follow-up were retrospectively identified. Primary outcome was the number of patients diagnosed with LNM; secondary outcomes included intraluminal recurrences. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients (median age 68 years) were included: 17 low-risk (submucosal invasion <500 microns, G1-G2, no lymphovascular invasion (LVI)), and 18 high-risk (submucosal invasion >500 microns, and/or G3-G4, and/or LVI, and/or a tumor-positive deep resection margin (R1)) EACs. After a median follow-up of 23 (IQR 15-43) months, in which patients underwent a median of six (IQR 4-8) endoscopies and a median of four (IQR 2-8) endoscopic ultrasound procedures, none of the included patients were diagnosed with LNM. Five (14%) patients developed a local intraluminal recurrence a median of 18 (IQR 11-21) months after baseline ER that were treated endoscopically. CONCLUSIONS: In 35 patients with a submucosal EAC, no LNM were found during a median follow-up of 23 months. Endoscopic therapy may be an alternative for surgery in selected patients with a submucosal EAC.

Prediction scores or gastroenterologists' Gut Feeling for triaging patients that present with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

INTRODUCTION: Several prediction scores for triaging patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding have been developed, yet these scores have never been compared to the current gold standard, which is the clinical evaluation by a gastroenterologist. The aim of this study was to assess the added value of prediction scores to gastroenterologists' Gut Feeling in patients with a suspected upper GI bleeding. METHODS: WE PROSPECTIVELY EVALUATED GUT FEELING OF SENIOR GASTROENTEROLOGISTS AND ASKED THEM TO ESTIMATE: (1) the risk that a clinical intervention is needed; (2) the risk of rebleeding; and (3) the risk of mortality in patients presenting with suspected upper GI bleeding, subdivided into low, medium, or high risk. The predictive value of the gastroenterologists' Gut Feeling was compared to the Blatchford and Rockall scores for various outcomes. RESULTS: We included 974 patients, of which 667 patients (68.8%) underwent a clinical intervention. During the 30-day follow up, 140 patients (14.4%) developed recurrent bleeding and 44 patients (4.5%) died. Gut Feeling was independently associated with all studied outcomes, except for the predicted mortality after endoscopy. Predictive power, based on the AUC of the Blatchford and Rockall prediction scores, was higher than the Gut Feeling of the gastroenterologists. However, combining both the Blatchford and Rockall scores and the Gut Feeling yielded the highest predictive power for the need of an intervention (AUC 0.88), rebleeding (AUC 0.73), and mortality (AUC 0.71 predicted before and 0.77 predicted after endoscopy, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Gut Feeling is an independent predictor for the need of a clinical intervention, rebleeding, and mortality in patients presenting with upper GI bleeding; however, the Blatchford and Rockall scores are stronger predictors for these outcomes. Combining Gut Feeling with the Blatchford and Rockall scores resulted in the most optimal prediction.