American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on primary endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies for adults with obesity.

This joint ASGE-ESGE guideline provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic bariatric and metabolic therapies (EBMTs) in the management of obesity. The document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. It evaluates the efficacy and safety of EBMT devices and procedures that currently have CE mark or FDA-clearance/approval, or that had been approved within five years of document development. The guideline suggests the use of EBMTs plus lifestyle modification in patients with a BMI of ≥30 kg/m2, or with a BMI of 27.0-29.9 kg/m2 with at least 1 obesity-related comorbidity. Furthermore, it suggests the utilization of intragastric balloons and devices for endoscopic gastric remodeling (EGR) in conjunction with lifestyle modification for this patient population.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on High-Quality Upper Endoscopy: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this Clinical Practice Update (CPU) Expert Review is to provide clinicians with guidance on best practices for performing a high-quality upper endoscopic exam. METHODS: The best practice advice statements presented herein were developed from a combination of available evidence from published literature, guidelines, and consensus-based expert opinion. No formal rating of the strength or quality of the evidence was carried out, which aligns with standard processes for American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute CPUs. These statements are meant to provide practical, timely advice to clinicians practicing in the United States. This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates (CPU) Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology & Hepatology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Endoscopists should ensure that upper endoscopy is being performed for an appropriate indication and that informed consent clearly explaining the risks, benefits, alternatives, sedation plan, and potential diagnostic and therapeutic interventions is obtained. These elements should be documented by the endoscopist before the procedure. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Endoscopists should ensure that adequate visualization of the upper gastrointestinal mucosa, using mucosal cleansing and insufflation as necessary, is achieved and documented. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: A high-definition white-light endoscopy system should be used for upper endoscopy instead of a standard-definition white-light endoscopy system whenever possible. The endoscope used for the procedure should be documented in the procedure note. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Image enhancement technologies should be used during the upper endoscopic examination to improve the diagnostic yield for preneoplasia and neoplasia. Suspicious areas should be clearly described, photodocumented, and biopsied separately. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Endoscopists should spend sufficient time carefully inspecting the foregut mucosa in an anterograde and retroflexed view to improve the detection and characterization of abnormalities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Endoscopists should document any abnormalities noted on upper endoscopy using established classifications and standard terminology whenever possible. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Endoscopists should perform biopsies for the evaluation and management of foregut conditions using standardized biopsy protocols. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopists should provide patients with management recommendations based on the specific endoscopic findings (eg, peptic ulcer disease, erosive esophagitis), and this should be documented in the medical record. If recommendations are contingent upon histopathology results (eg, H pylori infection, Barrett's esophagus), then endoscopists should document that appropriate guidance will be provided after results are available. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Endoscopists should document whether subsequent surveillance endoscopy is indicated and, if so, provide appropriate surveillance intervals. If the determination of surveillance is contingent on histopathology results, then endoscopists should document that surveillance intervals will be suggested after results are available.

A systematic critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines of antithrombotic agents in gastrointestinal endoscopy using the AGREE II tool.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of antithrombotic agents in patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has not been systematically appraised. The goal of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of CPGs for the management of antithrombotic agents in periendoscopic period published within last 6 years. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed and Embase databases was performed to identify eligible CPGs published between January 1, 2016, and April 14, 2022, addressing the management of antithrombotic agents in the periendoscopic period. The quality of the CPG was independently assessed by six reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Domain scores were considered of sufficient quality when > 60% and of good quality when > 80%. RESULTS: The search yielded 343 citations, of which seven CPGs published by the gastroenterology associations in Asia (n = 3), Europe (n = 2), and North America (n = 2) were included for the critical appraisal. The overall median score for the AGREE II domains was 93% (interquartile range [IQR] 11%) for scope and purpose, 79% (IQR 61%) for stakeholder involvement, 79% (IQR 36%) for rigor of development, 100% (IQR 14%) for clarity of presentation, 32% (IQR 36%) for applicability, 93% (IQR 29%) for editorial independence, and 86% (IQR 29%) for overall assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The findings show that the overall methodological quality of the CPGs for the management of antithrombotic agents in the periendoscopic period varies across the domains. There is significant scope for improvement in the methodological rigor and applicability of CPGs.

Endoscopic management of subepithelial lesions including neuroendocrine neoplasms: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as the best tool to characterize subepithelial lesion (SEL) features (size, location, originating layer, echogenicity, shape), but EUS alone is not able to distinguish among all types of SEL.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests providing tissue diagnosis for all SELs with features suggestive of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) if they are of size > 20 mm, or have high risk stigmata, or require surgical resection or oncological treatment.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) equally for tissue diagnosis of SELs ≥ 20 mm in size.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends against surveillance of asymptomatic gastrointestinal (GI) tract leiomyomas, lipomas, heterotopic pancreas, granular cell tumors, schwannomas, and glomus tumors, if the diagnosis is clear.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests surveillance of asymptomatic esophageal and gastric SELs without definite diagnosis, with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at 3-6 months, and then at 2-3-year intervals for lesions < 10 mm in size, and at 1-2-year intervals for lesions 10-20 mm in size. For asymptomatic SELs > 20 mm in size that are not resected, ESGE suggests surveillance with EGD plus EUS at 6 months and then at 6-12-month intervals.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for type 1 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (g-NENs) if they grow larger than 10 mm. The choice of resection technique should depend on size, depth of invasion, and location in the stomach.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE suggests considering removal of histologically proven gastric GISTs smaller than 20 mm as an alternative to surveillance. The decision to resect should be discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting. The choice of technique should depend on size, location, and local expertise.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests that, to avoid unnecessary follow-up, endoscopic resection is an option for gastric SELs smaller than 20 mm and of unknown histology after failure of attempts to obtain diagnosis.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends basing the surveillance strategy on the type and completeness of resection. After curative resection of benign SELs no follow-up is advised, except for type 1 gastric NEN for which surveillance at 1-2 years is advised.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 10: For lower or upper GI NEN with a positive or indeterminate margin at resection, ESGE recommends repeating endoscopy at 3-6 months and another attempt at endoscopic resection in the case of residual disease.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Safety of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in Korea: A Nationwide Survey and Population-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Attention should be paid to endoscopy-related complications and safety-related accidents that may occur in the endoscopy unit. This study investigated the current status of complications associated with diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy in Korea. METHODS: A questionnaire survey on endoscopy-related complications was conducted in a total of 50 tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The results were compared to the population-level claims data from the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service (HIRA), which analyzed endoscopy procedures conducted in 2017 in Korea. RESULTS: The incidences of bleeding associated with diagnostic and therapeutic esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and with diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy were 0.224% and 3.155% and 0.198% and 0.356%, respectively, in the 2017 HIRA claims data, compared to 0.012% and 1.857%, and 0.024% and 0.717%, in the 50 hospitals surveyed. The incidences of perforation associated with diagnostic and therapeutic EGD and with diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy were 0.023% and 0.613%, and 0.007% and 0.013%, respectively, in the 2017 HIRA claims data compared to 0.001% and 0.325%, and 0.017% and 0.206%, in the 50 hospitals surveyed. In the HIRA claims data, the incidence of bleeding/perforation after diagnostic colonoscopy in clinics, community hospitals, general hospitals, and tertiary hospitals was 0.129%/0.000%, 0.088%/0.004%, 0.262%/0.009%, and 0.479%/0.030% respectively, and the corresponding incidence of bleeding/perforation after therapeutic colonoscopy was 0.258%/0.004%, 0.401%/0.007%, 0.408%/0.024%, and 0.731%/0.055%. CONCLUSION: The incidences of complications associated with diagnostic and therapeutic EGD or colonoscopy tended to increase with the hospital volume in Korea. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service Identifier: KCT0001728.

The EPAGE guidelines are not an effective strategy for managing colonoscopies during the COVID-19 pandemic. / EPAGE no es una estrategia eficaz para la gestión de colonoscopias durante la pandemia por COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has had a serious impact on the functioning of gastrointestinal endoscopy Units. The Asociación Española de Gastroenterología (AEG) and the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva (SEED) have proposed the EPAGE guidelines for managing postponed colonoscopies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the EPAGE guidelines as a management tool compared to the immunologic faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) and compared to risk score (RS) that combines age, sex and the iFOBT for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and significant bowel disease (SBD). METHODS: A prospective, single-centre study enrolling 743 symptomatic patients referred for a diagnostic colonoscopy. Each order was classified according to the EPAGE guidelines as appropriate, indeterminate or inappropriate. Patients underwent an iFOBT and had their RS calculated. RESULTS: The iFOBT (p<0.001), but not the EPAGE guidelines (p = 0.742), was an independent predictive factor of risk of CRC. The ROC AUCs for the EPAGE guidelines, the iFOBT and the RS were 0.61 (95% CI 0.49-0.75), 0.95 (0.93-0.97) and 0.90 (0.87-0.93) for CRC, and 0.55 (0.49-0.61), 0.75 (0.69-0.813) and 0.78 (0.73-0.83) for SBD, respectively. The numbers of colonoscopies needed to detect a case of CRC and a case of SBD were 38 and seven for the EPAGE guidelines, seven and two for the iFOBT, and 19 and four for a RS ≥5 points, respectively. CONCLUSION: The EPAGE guidelines, unlike the iFOBT, is not suitable for screening candidate patients for a diagnostic colonoscopy to detect CRC. The iFOBT, in combination with age and sex, is the most suitable strategy for managing demand for endoscopy in a restricted-access situation.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Surveillance After Pathologically Curative Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Early Gastrointestinal Neoplasia in the United States: Commentary.

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update was to review the available evidence and provide expert advice regarding surveillance using endoscopy and other relevant modalities after removal of dysplastic lesions and early gastrointestinal cancers with endoscopic submucosal dissection deemed to be pathologically curative. This Clinical Practice Update was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. This expert commentary incorporates important as well as recently published studies in this field, and it reflects the experiences of the authors, who are advanced endoscopists with high-level expertise in performing endoscopic submucosal dissection to treat dysplasia and early cancers in the luminal gastrointestinal tract.

ACG clinical guideline: upper gastrointestinal and ulcer bleeding

We performed systematic reviews addressing predefined clinical questions to develop recommendations with the GRADE approach regarding management of patients with overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We suggest risk assessment in the emergency department to identify very-low-risk patients (e.g., Glasgow-Blatchford score = 0-1) who may be discharged with outpatient follow-up. For patients hospitalized with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, we suggest red blood cell transfusion at a threshold of 7 g/dL. Erythromycin infusion is suggested before endoscopy, and endoscopy is suggested within 24 hours after presentation. Endoscopic therapy is recommended for ulcers with active spurting or oozing and for nonbleeding visible vessels. Endoscopic therapy with bipolar electrocoagulation, heater probe, and absolute ethanol injection is recommended, and low- to very-low-quality evidence also supports clips, argon plasma coagulation, and soft monopolar electrocoagulation; hemostatic powder spray TC-325 is suggested for actively bleeding ulcers and over-the-scope clips for recurrent ulcer bleeding after previous successful hemostasis. After endoscopic hemostasis, high-dose proton pump inhibitor therapy is recommended continuously or intermittently for 3 days, followed by twice-daily oral proton pump inhibitor for the first 2 weeks of therapy after endoscopy. Repeat endoscopy is suggested for recurrent bleeding, and if endoscopic therapy fails, transcatheter embolization is suggested.

Gastrointestinal endoscopic practice during COVID-19 pandemic: a multi-institutional survey.

Introduction. An on-going coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a challenge all over the world. Since an endoscopy unit and its staff are at potentially high risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, we conducted a survey for the management of the gastrointestinal endoscopic practice, personal protective equipment (PPE), and risk assessment for COVID-19 during the pandemic at multiple facilities.Methods. The 11-item survey questionnaire was sent to representative respondent of Department of Gastroenterology, Osaka City University Hospital, and its 19 related facilities.Results. A total of 18 facilities submitted valid responses and a total of 373 health care professionals (HCPs) participated. All facilities (18/18: 100%) were screening patients at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection before endoscopy. During the pandemic, we found that the total volume of endoscopic procedures decreased by 44%. Eleven facilities (11/18: 61%) followed recommendations of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES); consequently, about 35%-50% of esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy were canceled. Mask (surgical mask or N95 mask), face shield/goggle, gloves (one or two sets), and gown (with long or short sleeves) were being used by endoscopists, nurses, endoscopy technicians, and endoscope cleaning staff in all the facilities (18/18: 100%). SARS-CoV-2 infection risk assessment of HCPs was conducted daily in all the facilities (18/18: 100%), resulting in no subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCPs.Conclusion. COVID-19 has had a dramatic impact on the gastrointestinal endoscopic practice. The recommendations of the JGES were appropriate as preventive measures for the SARSCoV-2 infection in the endoscopy unit and its staff.

Towards personalised management for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Guidelines from national and international professional societies on upper gastrointestinal bleeding highlight the important clinical issues but do not always identify specific management strategies pertaining to individual patients. Optimal treatment should consider the personal needs of an individual patient and the pertinent resources and experience available at the point of care. This article integrates international guidelines and consensus into three stages of management: pre-endoscopic assessment and treatment, endoscopic evaluation and haemostasis and postendoscopic management. We emphasise the need for personalised management strategies based on patient characteristics, nature of bleeding lesions and the clinical setting including available resources.

Recommendations of the Spanish Working Group on Crohn's disease and Ulcerative Colitis (Grupo Español de Trabajo en Enfermedad de Crohn y Colitis Ulcerosa - GETECCU) on dysplasia screening in inflammatory bowel disease patients. / Recomendaciones del Grupo Español de Trabajo en Enfermedad de Crohn y Colitis Ulcerosa (GETECCU) sobre cribado de displasia en pacientes con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal.

Colonic inflammatory bowel diseases have a higher risk of developing colorectal cancer compared to the general population, which is why they require endoscopic screening techniques with specific follow-up intervals based on the different risk factors described on the literature. This position paper analyzes the current scientific evidence for the different endoscopic techniques available today, how their implementation should be carried out in endoscopic units and describes in detail how their implementation should be carried out, in which patients and with what interval, and finally, what should be the response to finding dysplasia, proposing a specific follow-up algorithm.

Quality in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for the detection and surveillance of gastric cancer precursor lesions: Position paper of AEG, SEED and SEAP. / Documento de posicionamiento de la AEG, la SEED y la SEAP sobre calidad de la endoscopia digestiva alta para la detección y vigilancia de las lesiones precursoras de cáncer gástrico.

This position paper, sponsored by the Asociación Española de Gastroenterología [Spanish Association of Gastroenterology], the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva [Spanish Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Society] and the Sociedad Española de Anatomía Patológica [Spanish Anatomical Pathology Society], aims to establish recommendations for performing an high quality upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for the screening of gastric cancer precursor lesions (GCPL) in low-incidence populations, such as the Spanish population. To establish the quality of the evidence and the levels of recommendation, we used the methodology based on the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We obtained a consensus among experts using a Delphi method. The document evaluates different measures to improve the quality of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in this setting and makes recommendations on how to evaluate and treat the identified lesions. We recommend that upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for surveillance of GCPL should be performed by endoscopists with adequate training, administering oral premedication and use of sedation. To improve the identification of GCPL, we recommend the use of high definition endoscopes and conventional or digital chromoendoscopy and, for biopsies, NBI should be used to target the most suspicious areas of intestinal metaplasia. Regarding the evaluation of visible lesions, the risk of submucosal invasion should be evaluated with magnifying endoscopes and endoscopic ultrasound should be reserved for those with suspected deep invasion. In lesions amenable to endoscopic resection, submucosal endoscopic dissection is considered the technique of choice.

Optimal timing of endoscopy for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is the most common indication for urgent endoscopy, but the correct timing of endoscopy in these patients is still debated. Our systematic review with meta-analysis was aimed at investigating the potential clinical benefit of very early endoscopy for UGIB patients. We performed an electronic literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library up to 23rd May 2020 and considered only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing management of UGIB patients by very early vs early endoscopy. Only five RCTs were considered eligible for quantitative analysis, with a total population of 926 cases (468 in the very early endoscopy arm and 458 in the early). The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant benefit for very early endoscopy compared to early endoscopy in terms of risk of rebleeding, mortality, ICU admission, blood transfusion, surgery and length of hospital stay. However, our results showed a significantly higher need for haemostatic treatment when very early endoscopy was performed (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.06-1.42, p < 0.01) in comparison to early endoscopy.

Esophagogastric Junction Morphology on Hill's Classification Predicts Gastroesophageal Reflux with Good Accuracy and Consistency.

INTRODUCTION: Hill's classification provides a reproducible endoscopic grading system for esophagogastric junction morphology and competence, specifically whether the gastroesophageal flap valve (GEFV) is normal (grade I/II) or abnormal (grades III/IV). However, it is not routinely used in clinical practice. We report a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine association between abnormal GEFV and gastroesophageal reflux disorder (GERD). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE and Scopus databases was conducted to identify studies that reported the association between abnormal GEFV and GERD. The search and quality assessment were performed independently by two authors. Fixed- and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted using symptomatic GERD and erosive esophagitis as outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies met inclusion criteria that included a total of 5054 patients. In the general population, patients with abnormal GEFV had greater risk of symptomatic GERD compared to patients with a normal GEFV (risk ratio [RR] 1.88, 95% CI 1.57-2.24). Further, in patients with symptomatic GERD, patients with abnormal GEFV had greater risk of erosive esophagitis compared to patients with normal GEFV (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.40-3.36). Finally, the specificity of abnormal GEFV for symptomatic GERD was 73.3% (95% CI 69.3-77.0%) and 75.7% (95% CI 65.9-83.4%) for erosive esophagitis in symptomatic GERD. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review and meta-analysis showed consistent association between abnormal GEFV indicated by Hill's classification III/IV and symptomatic GERD and erosive esophagitis. Our recommendation is to include Hill's classification in routine endoscopy reports and workup for GERD.