Search

Background Successful bowel preparation (BP) for colonoscopy depends on the instructions, diet, the laxative product, and patient adherence, which all affect colonoscopy quality. Nevertheless, there are no laxatives which combine effectiveness, safety, easy self-administration, good patient acceptance, and low cost. However, mannitol, a sugar alcohol, could be an attractive candidate for use in clinical practice if it is shown to demonstrate adequate efficacy and safety. Aims The present phase II dose-finding study compared three doses of mannitol (50, 100, and 150 g) to identify the best dose to be used in a subsequent phase III study. Methods The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, caecal intubation rate, adherence, acceptability, and safety profile, including measurement of potentially dangerous colonic gas concentrations (CH4, H2, O2), were considered in all patients. A weighted algorithm was used to identify the best mannitol dose for use in the subsequent study. Results The per-protocol population included 60 patients in the 50 g group, 54 in the 100 g group, and 49 in the 150 g group. The 100 g dose was the best as it afforded optimal colon cleansing efficacy (94.4% of patients had adequate BP), adherence, acceptability, and safety, including negligible gas concentrations. Conclusions The present study demonstrated that the colon cleansing efficacy and safety of mannitol were dose dependent. Conversely, gas concentrations were not dose dependent and negligible in all patients. Combined evaluation of efficacy, tolerability, and safety, using a weighted algorithm, determined that mannitol 100 g was the best dose for the phase III study.

Background The advantage of using the macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) technique during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) performed with 22G Franseen needles has not been investigated. We aimed to compare EUS-FNB with MOSE vs. EUS-FNB performed with three needle passes. Methods This randomized trial involved 10 Italian referral centers. Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNB of pancreatic or nonpancreatic solid lesions were included in the study and randomized to the two groups. MOSE was performed by gross visualization of the collected material by the endoscopists and considered adequate when a white/yellowish aggregate core longer than 10 mm was retrieved. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were specimen adequacy, number of needle passes, and safety. Results 370 patients with 234 pancreatic lesions (63.2 %) and 136 nonpancreatic lesions (36.8 %) were randomized (190 EUS-FNB with MOSE and 180 with standard EUS-FNB). No statistically significant differences were found between EUS-FNB with MOSE and conventional EUS-FNB in terms of diagnostic accuracy (90.0 % [95 %CI 84.8 %–93.9 %] vs. 87.8 % [95 %CI 82.1 %–92.2 %]; P = 0.49), sample adequacy (93.1 % [95 %CI 88.6 %–96.3 %] vs. 95.5 % [95 %CI 91.4 %–98 %]; P = 0.31), and rate of adverse events (2.6 % vs. 1.1 %; P = 0.28). The median number of passes was significantly lower in the EUS-FNB with MOSE group (1 vs. 3; P Conclusions The accuracy of EUS-FNB with MOSE is noninferior to that of EUS-FNB with three needle passes. MOSE reliably assesses sample adequacy and reduces the number of needle passes required to obtain the diagnosis with a 22G Franseen needle.

Tofacitinib is approved for several immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, but safety concerns have recently been raised. We searched PubMed (accessed on 27 February 2023) for original articles regarding tofacitinib’s cancer risk when used for rheumatoid arthritis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. Of the 2047 initial records, 22 articles describing 26 controlled studies (including 22 randomized controlled trials) were selected. In the comparison between tofacitinib and any control treatment, the relative risk (RR) for any cancer was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.86–1.31; p = 0.95). In separate comparisons between tofacitinib and either a placebo or biological therapy, no difference was found in the overall cancer risk (vs. placebo, RR = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.44–2.48; p = 0.95; vs. biological drugs, RR = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.86–1.31; p = 0.58). When tofacitinib was compared to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, the overall cancer RR was 1.40 (95% CI, 1.06–2.08; p = 0.02). Similarly, significant results were obtained for all cancers, except for non-melanoma skin cancer (RR = 1.47; 95% CI, 1.05–2.06; p = 0.03), and for this skin cancer alone (RR = 1.30; 95% CI, 0.22–5.83; p = 0.88). In conclusion, no difference in the overall cancer risk was found between tofacitinib and either a placebo or biological drugs, while a slightly higher risk was found in patients treated with tofacitinib than anti-TNF agents. Further studies are needed to better define the cancer risk of tofacitinib therapy.

Comparative trials among biological drugs for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) provided conflicting results. After patent expire of infliximab originator, adalimumab, infliximab biosimilar, golimumab and vedolizumab have been approved in Italy.We compared the efficacy of these four biologics in UC according to the concept of continuous clinical remission (CCR).In a retrospective, multicentre study, all UC patients treated with adalimumab, infliximab biosimilar, golimumab or vedolizumab between 2014 and 2019 were included. All drugs were compared to each other according to the 1-year CCR rate, defined as Mayo partial score ≤2, with bleeding subscore = 0, without any relapse or optimization with dose escalation, topical treatments or steroid use after first clinical remission.Four-hundred sixteen patients (adalimumab = 90, infliximab biosimilar = 105, golimumab = 79, vedolizumab = 142) were included. CCR was achieved in similar percentages among the groups (33%, 37%, 28%, 37%, respectively). All drugs were equivalent in biologic-naive patients, while vedolizumab was better than a second anti-TNFα in prior anti-TNFα agent failures. No differences were found according to type of adverse events or severe adverse events.Based on a strict definition of clinical remission, all biologics appear equally effective at 1 year. Changing to vedolizumab is more effective than switching to another anti-TNFα in TNFα failures.

Background Neuroendocrine gastrointestinal tumors (NETs) are rare and have different natural behaviors. Surgery is the gold standard treatment for local disease while radiotherapy has been demonstrated to be ineffective. Poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) represent only 5%-10% of digestive NETS. Due to aggressive growth and rapid metastatic diffusion, early diagnosis and a multidisciplinary approach are mandatory. The role of surgery and radiotherapy in this setting is still debated, and chemotherapy remains the treatment of choice. Case summary A 42-year-old male with an ulcerated bleeding rectal lesion was diagnosed with a NEC G3 (Ki67 index > 90%) on May 2015 and initially treated with 3 cycles of first-line chemotherapy, but showed early local progressive disease at 3 mo and underwent sphincter-sparing open anterior low rectal resection. In September 2015, the first post-surgery total-body computed tomography (CT) scan showed an early pelvic disease relapse. Therefore, systemic chemotherapy with FOLFIRI was started and the patient obtained only a partial response. This was followed by pelvic radiotherapy (50 Gy). On April 2016, a CT scan and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging showed a complete response (CR) of the pelvic lesion, but pathological abdominal inter-aortocaval lymph nodes were observed. Due to disease progression of abdominal malignant nodes, the patient received radiotherapy at 45 Gy, and finally obtained a CR. As of January 2021, the patient has no symptoms of relapse and no late toxicity after chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Conclusion This case demonstrates how a multimodal approach can be successful in obtaining long-term CR in metastatic sites in patients with high grade digestive NECs.

Background Little is known about the unmet needs of physicians caring for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Aims This study explored the practical difficulties and needs for professional updating of Italian IBD physicians. Methods A questionnaire was distributed to 600 physicians attending IG-IBD meetings. Results 280 physicians completed the questionnaire (46.7%). On a 5-point Likert scale (from 1, strongly disagree to 5, strongly agree), they identified the most problematic issues in managing IBD patients as increasing bureaucracy (3.9), lack of extra-gastroenterological IBD expertise (3.4), lack of diagnostic techniques (3.1) and budget limitations (2.9). The most lacking techniques, ranked from 1 (greatest need) to 9 (lowest need), were: anti-drug antibody and trough level assays (2.7), device-assisted enteroscopy (3.1), exploration under anaesthesia (3.2), MR enterography (3.2), and bowel ultrasonography (3.3). About professional updating, respondents indicated (on a 5-point Likert scale) that helpful topics were practical medicine (4.3), managing difficult patients (4.1), and guidelines (4.0). The most desired modality for updating was residential courses on clinical practice (4.3). Conclusion Several factors potentially limit the best management of IBD patients in Italy. Satisfying these unmet needs could improve care for IBD patients.

Background: To evaluate safety, for patients and staff, and efficacy of a protocol for the surgical treatment of patients during COVID-19 pandemic (50 days period) in a hospital located in the northern Italy. Methods: Two different pathways were adopted (non-COVID-19 and COVID-19), with dedicated OR and ICU, and PPE for personnel. A monitoring of patients and staff for COVID-19 was carried out. Results: 78 patients were included. Laparoscopy was used in 33.4% without gas filtration. COVID-19- positive patients (11.5%) were older men (0.04%), with elevated ASA score (0.002), and two or more comorbidities (0.02). They experienced longer hospitalization (0.003), more complications and more deaths (0.0001). All COVID-19 related deaths were due to severe acute respiratory syndrome. None of the patients included resulted infected, but one out of 47 staff personnel (

Background Inpatients are at risk for inadequate colon cleansing. Experts recommend 4L-polyethylene-glycol (PEG) solution. A higher colon cleansing adequacy rate for a hyperosmolar 1L-PEG plus ascorbate prep has been recently reported. Aims We aimed to determine whether 1L-PEG outperforms 4L-PEG among inpatients. Methods post-hoc analysis of a large Italian multicenter prospective observational study among inpatients (QIPS study). We performed a propensity score matching between 1L-PEG and 4L-PEG group. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate colon cleansing as assessed by unblinded endoscopists through Boston scale. Secondary outcome was the safety profile. Results Among 1,004 patients undergoing colonoscopy, 724 (72%) were prescribed 4L-PEG and 280 (28%) 1L-PEG. The overall adequate colon cleansing rate was 69.2% (n = 695). We matched 274 pairs of patients with similar distribution of confounders. The rate of patients with adequate colon cleansing was higher in 1L-PEG than in 4L-PEG group (84.3% vs. 77.4%, p = 0.039). No different shift in serum concentration of electrolytes (namely Na+, K+, Ca2+), creatinine and hematocrit were observed for both preparations. Conclusion We found a higher rate of adequate colon cleansing for colonoscopy with the 1L-PEG bowel prep vs. 4L-PEG, with apparent similar safety profile, among inpatients. A confirmatory randomized trial is needed. (ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT04310332)

Background and study aims Surgery is the mainstay therapy for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (P-NETs), but it is associated with significant adverse events (AEs). In recent years, endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) has been described for treating P-NETs. We performed a systematic literature review aimed at exploring the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of EUS-RFA in treatment of P-NETs. Methods The literature review was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS to identify all case reports of EUS-RFA for treatment of P-NETs. Results Sixyt-one patients (males 49.2 %, mean age 64.5 years) and 73 tumors (mean size 16 mm, insulinomas 30.1 %) treated with EUS-RFA were included from 12 studies. The overall effectiveness of EUS-RFA was 96 % (75 % – 100 %) without differences between functional vs. non-functional P-NETs (P = 0.3) and without relevant issues about safety (mild AEs 13.7 %). While tumor location was not predictive for incomplete/non-response to EUS-RFA, greater tumor dimensions predicted treatment failure (21.8 ± 4.71 mm in the non-response group vs 15.07 ± 7.34 mm in the response group, P = 0.048). At ROC analysis, a P-NET size cut-off value ≤18 mm predicted response to treatment, with a sensitivity of 80 % (95 % CI 28.4 % – 99.5 %), a specificity of 78.6 % (95 % CI 63.2 % – 89.7 %), a positive predictive value of 97.1 % (95 % CI 84.7 % – 99.9 %) and a negative predictive value of 30.8 % (95 % CI 9.1 % – 61.4 %), with an area under the curve of 0.81 (95 % CI 0.67 – 0.95). Conclusions EUS-RFA is safe and effective for treating P-NETs. It may be reasonable to consider EUS-RFA for small P-NETs, irrespective of the functional status.

Background Head pancreatic cancers often present with clinical challenges requiring biliary drainage for chemotherapy or palliative scope. If usual endoscopic modalities fail or if percutaneous approach is not feasible, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided biliary drainage can be considered. Here we describe and discuss an interesting clinical case in which EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) was chosen to treat acute severe cholangitis in a patient with advanced pancreatic cancer. Case summary An 84-year-old female with a previous EUS-biopsy proven diagnosis of head pancreatic cancer presented with clinical signs of acute cholangitis. In September 2018 she had positioned a biliary and duodenal stent to relieve jaundice and an initial duodenal substenosis. In the emergency ward, an abdominal computed tomography scan showed proximal biliary stent occlusion due to neoplastic progression, but endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was impossible because of worsening duodenal stenosis and the absence of a chance to reach the Vater's papilla area. EUS-guided choledocoduodenostomy was not technically feasible but because the cystic duct was free of neoplastic infiltration, an EUS-GBD using an Axios™ stent was successfully performed. The patient started to feed after 48 h and was discharged 1 wk later. No other hospitalizations due to cholangitis or symptoms of Axios™ stent occlusion/dysfunction were observed up until her death 6 mo later due to underlying disease. Conclusion This case demonstrated how different EUS therapeutic approaches could have a key role to treat critical and seemingly unsolvable situations and that they could play a more fundamental role in the next future.

Background The percutaneous approach allows for effective and safe treatment of liver lesions. But in case of subcapsular or left segments location, this approach seems to be less effective or unsafe. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA) is a new technique used to treat pancreatic and neuroendocrine tumors in patients unfit for surgery. Methods Hereby, we describe the case of a 70-year-old patient with cirrhosis with a large subcapsular hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in II-III-IVb segments, in which surgery or percutaneous therapies were not feasible, treated with EUS-RFA. The HCC was treated using an EUS-RFA (EUSRA) system, which consists of a 19G water-cooled monopolar RFA needle and a dedicated generator system. Results After a multidisciplinary discussion, the lesion was ablated in two different sessions, which resulted in destruction of about 70 % of neoplastic tissue. A second step surgery was required but initially refused by the patient. Conclusions EUS-RFA could be an effective way to treat left hepatic lesions not manageable with conventional percutaneous methods. This case report does not highlight concerns about safety of this approach and this observation needs to be validated in a larger cohort of patients with cirrhosis.

Goals The present survey from the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED-Societa Italiana di Endoscopia Digestiva) was aimed at reporting infection control practice and outcomes at Digestive Endoscopy Units in a high-incidence area. Background Lombardy was the Italian region with the highest coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) prevalence, at the end of March 2020 accounting for 20% of all worldwide deaths. Joint Gastro-Intestinal societies released recommendations for Endoscopy Units to reduce the risk of the contagion. However, there are few data from high-prevalence areas on adherence to these recommendations and on their efficacy. Methods A survey was designed by the Lombardy section of SIED to analyze (a) changes in activity and organization, (b) adherence to recommendations, (c) rate of health care professionals' (HCP) infection during the COVID-19 outbreak. Results In total, 35/61 invited centers (57.4%) participated; most modified activities were according to recommendations and had filtering face piece 2/filtering face piece 3 and water-repellent gowns available, but few had negative-pressure rooms or provided telephonic follow-up; 15% of HCPs called in sick and 6% had confirmed COVID-19. There was a trend (P=0.07) toward different confirmed COVID-19 rates among endoscopists (7.9%), nurses (6.6%), intermediate-care technicians (3.4%), and administrative personnel (2.2%). There was no correlation between the rate of sick HCPs and COVID-19 incidence in the provinces and personal protective equipment availability and use, whereas an inverse correlation with hospital volume was found. Conclusions Adherence to recommendations was rather good, though a minority were able to follow all recommendations. Confirmed COVID-19 seemed higher among endoscopists and nurses, suggesting that activities in the endoscopy rooms are at considerable viral spread risk.

BACKGROUND: Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a rare, and relatively new, form of chronic pancreatitis. The management of AIP can vary considerably among different centres in daily clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to present a picture of epidemiological, clinical characteristics, outcomes, and the real-life practice in terms of management in several academic and non-academic centres in Italy. METHODS: Data on the clinical presentation, diagnostic work-up, treatments, frequency of relapses, and long-term outcomes were retrospectively collected in a cohort of AIP patients diagnosed at 14 centres in Italy. RESULTS: One hundred and six patients were classified as type 1 AIP, 48 as type 2 AIP, and 19 as not otherwise specified. Epidemiological, clinical, radiological, and serological characteristics, and relapses were similar to those previously reported for different types of AIP. Endoscopic cytohistology was available in 46.2% of cases, and diagnostic for AIP in only 35.2%. Steroid trial to aid diagnosis was administered in 43.3% cases, and effective in 93.3%. Steroid therapy was used in 70.5% of cases, and effective in 92.6% of patients. Maintenance therapy with low dose of steroid (MST) was prescribed in 25.4% of cases at a mean dose of 5 (±1.4) mg/die, and median time of MST was 60 days. Immunosuppressive drugs were rarely used (10.9%), and rituximab in 1.7%. Faecal elastase-1 was evaluated in only 31.2% of patients, and was pathological in 59.2%. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of AIP patients, diagnosis and classification for subtype was frequently possible, confirming the different characteristics of AIP1 and AIP2 previously reported. Nevertheless, we observed a low use of histology and steroid trial for a diagnosis of AIP. Steroid treatment was the most used therapy in our cohort. Immunosuppressants and rituximab were rarely used. The evaluation of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency is underemployed considering its high prevalence.

Background and Objective: EUS-FNA sensitivity for malignancy in parenchymal masses of patients with concurrent chronic pancreatitis (CP) has been reported to be unsatisfactory. The aim of the present study was to directly compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA and EUS-fine-needle biopsy (FNB) in differentiating between inflammatory masses and malignancies in the setting of CP. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospective, multicentric databases of all patients with pancreatic masses and clinico-radiological-endosonographic features of CP who underwent EUS-FNA or FNB. Results: Among 1124 patients with CP, 210 patients (60% males, mean age: 62.7 years) with CP and pancreatic masses met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled. In the FNA group (110 patients), a correct diagnosis was obtained in all but 18 cases (diagnostic accuracy 83.6%, sensitivity 69.5%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value [PPV] 100%, and negative predictive value [NPV] 73.9%); by contrast, among 100 patients undergoing FNB, a correct diagnosis was obtained in all but seven cases (diagnostic accuracy 93%, sensitivity 86.8%, specificity 100%, PPV 100%, and NPV 87%) (P = 0.03, 0.03, 1, 1, and 0.07, respectively). At binary logistic regression, focal pancreatitis (odds of event occurrence [OR]: 4.9; P < 0.001), higher Ca19-9 (OR: 2.3; P = 0.02), and FNB (OR: 2.5; P < 0.01) were the only independent factors associated with a correct diagnosis. Conclusion: EUS-FNB is effective in the differential diagnosis between pseudotumoral masses and solid neoplasms in CP, showing higher diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity than EUS-FNA. EUS-FNB should be considered the preferred diagnostic technique for diagnosing cancer in the setting of CP.

Endoscopic evaluation with histological sampling is the gold standard for the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but in the past few years, gastrointestinal ultrasound (GIUS) has been gaining ground. Due to the transmural nature of inflammation in Crohn’s disease, GIUS has been mainly applied in this context. However, GIUS is now being reported to be accurate also for ulcerative colitis (UC). This review summarizes current knowledge on the use of GIUS in UC, with a focus on clinical practice. The review covers topics such as GIUS parameters, especially bowel wall thickness; the use of GIUS in assessing disease extent and in monitoring disease activity; GIUS indexes and scores; and the combination of GIUS with transperineal ultrasound for a better assessment of the rectum. With the always growing body of evidence supporting the accuracy of GIUS in UC, this diagnostic imaging modality can be expected to play a bigger role in disease flare evaluation, early treatment monitoring, and acute severe disease management.

Background and study aims Withdrawal time (WT) monitoring and full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) have been suggested to increase adenoma detection rate (ADR) due to more accurate evaluation of the hidden areas of the colon. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of WT monitoring and FUSE on ADR. Patients and methods This was a prospective observational study involving consecutive outpatients, aged 18 to 85 years, undergoing colonoscopy with unselected indications. In phase 1, endoscopists performed 660 colonoscopies either with standard forward-viewing endoscope (SFVE) (n = 330) or with FUSE (n = 330). In this phase, WTs were measured without endoscopist awareness of being monitored. In phase 2, endoscopists were informed of being monitored and performed additional 660 colonoscopies either with SFVE (n = 330) or with FUSE (n = 330). Results WT was lower in phase 1 compared to phase 2 (SFVE: 269 ± 83 vs. 386 ± 60 sec, P Conclusions Unmonitored endoscopists have suboptimal WT, which increases when they are monitored. WT monitoring and use of FUSE are two reliable and alternative strategies to increase ADR.

Background Reducing the morning dose of PEG solution may be a reliable strategy to improve the patient compliance of split-dose regimens without affecting efficacy of bowel cleansing. Aims to compare the efficacy for bowel cleansing of an asymmetric split-dose regimen (25% of the dose on the day of colonoscopy and 75% on the day before) with the standard split-dose regimen. Methods Outpatients were enrolled in a randomized, single-blind, non-inferiority clinical trial. All subjects received a split-dose preparation with a 2L PEG-citrate-simethicone plus Bisacodyl. Patients were randomly assigned to: group A, asymmetric split-dose regimen; group B, symmetric split-dose regimen. Primary endpoint was the proportion of adequate bowel cleansing. Results Split-dose was taken by 81 and 80 patients in group A and B. Adequate bowel cleansing was achieved in 92.6% and 92.5% patients in group A and B (p = 1.000). No differences were observed regarding Boston Bowel Preparation Scale total score, adenoma detection rate and scores of each colon segment. Conclusions The reduction of morning dose of PEG in a split-dose regimen is not inferior to the standard split-dose regimen in achieving an adequate bowel cleansing. However, further studies are needed to evaluate whether asymmetric preparation is associated to a higher tolerability compared to symmetric split-dose regimen. (NCT03146052)

Main RecommendationsESGE recommends offering stone extraction to all patients with common bile duct stones, symptomatic or not, who are fit enough to tolerate the intervention.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends liver function tests and abdominal ultrasonography as the initial diagnostic steps for suspected common bile duct stones. Combining these tests defines the probability of having common bile duct stones.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography to diagnose common bile duct stones in patients with persistent clinical suspicion but insufficient evidence of stones on abdominal ultrasonography.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the following timing for biliary drainage, preferably endoscopic, in patients with acute cholangitis, classified according to the 2018 revision of the Tokyo Guidelines:– severe, as soon as possible and within 12 hours for patients with septic shock– moderate, within 48 – 72 hours– mild, elective.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends endoscopic placement of a temporary biliary plastic stent in patients with irretrievable biliary stones that warrant biliary drainage.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.ESGE recommends limited sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation as the first-line approach to remove difficult common bile duct stones. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of cholangioscopy-assisted intraluminal lithotripsy (electrohydraulic or laser) as an effective and safe treatment of difficult bile duct stones.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 2 weeks from ERCP for patients treated for choledocholithiasis to reduce the conversion rate and the risk of recurrent biliary events. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Main Recommendations 1 ESGE recommends that the initial assessment of patients presenting with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding should include: a history of co-morbidities and medications that promote bleeding; hemodynamic parameters; physical examination (including digital rectal examination); and laboratory markers. A risk score can be used to aid, but should not replace, clinician judgment.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends that, in patients presenting with a self-limited bleed and no adverse clinical features, an Oakland score of ≤ 8 points can be used to guide the clinician decision to discharge the patient for outpatient investigation.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 7 g/dL prompting red blood cell transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin concentration of 7–9 g/dL is desirable.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding and a history of acute or chronic cardiovascular disease, a more liberal red blood cell transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 8 g/dL prompting red blood cell transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin concentration of ≥ 10 g/dL is desirable.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE recommends that, in patients with major acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding, colonoscopy should be performed sometime during their hospital stay because there is no high quality evidence that early colonoscopy influences patient outcomes.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 6 ESGE recommends that patients with hemodynamic instability and suspected ongoing bleeding undergo computed tomography angiography before endoscopic or radiologic treatment to locate the site of bleeding.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 ESGE recommends withholding vitamin K antagonists in patients with major lower gastrointestinal bleeding and correcting their coagulopathy according to the severity of bleeding and their thrombotic risk. In patients with hemodynamic instability, we recommend administering intravenous vitamin K and four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC), or fresh frozen plasma if PCC is not available.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE recommends temporarily withholding direct oral anticoagulants at presentation in patients with major lower gastrointestinal bleeding.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9 ESGE does not recommend withholding aspirin in patients taking low dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prevention. If withheld, low dose aspirin should be resumed, preferably within 5 days or even earlier if hemostasis is achieved or there is no further evidence of bleeding.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 10 ESGE does not recommend routinely discontinuing dual antiplatelet therapy (low dose aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor antagonist) before cardiology consultation. Continuation of the aspirin is recommended, whereas the P2Y12 receptor antagonist can be continued or temporarily interrupted according to the severity of bleeding and the ischemic risk. If interrupted, the P2Y12 receptor antagonist should be restarted within 5 days, if still indicated.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Main recommendations 1 ESGE recommends that all duodenal adenomas should be considered for endoscopic resection as progression to invasive carcinoma is highly likely.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends performance of a colonoscopy, if that has not yet been done, in cases of duodenal adenoma.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends the use of the cap-assisted method when the location of the minor and/or major papilla and their relationship to a duodenal adenoma is not clearly established during forward-viewing endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends the routine use of a side-viewing endoscope when a laterally spreading adenoma with extension to the minor and/or major papilla is suspected.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE suggests cold snare polypectomy for small (Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) as the first-line endoscopic resection technique for nonmalignant large nonampullary duodenal adenomas.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7 ESGE recommends that endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for duodenal adenomas is an effective resection technique only in expert hands.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE recommends using techniques that minimize adverse events such as immediate or delayed bleeding or perforation. These may include piecemeal resection, defect closure techniques, noncontact hemostasis, and other emerging techniques, and these should be considered on a case-by-case basis.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9 ESGE recommends endoscopic surveillance 3 months after the index treatment. In cases of no recurrence, a further follow-up endoscopy should be done 1 year later. Thereafter, surveillance intervals should be adapted to the lesion site, en bloc resection status, and initial histological result. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Common bile duct stones (CBDS) can spontaneously migrate through the duodenal papilla. In this case, ERCP could be unnecessary and a significant rate of complications could be avoided. In this study, we aim at retrospectively evaluating the rate of spontaneous stone passage in patients with an imaging diagnosis of CBDS and at analysing the factors associated to spontaneous stone migration.We conducted a retrospective multi-centre analysis of patients undergoing ERCP for CBDS in a 12-month period. 1016 patients with CBDS were analysed. In all patients CBDS was diagnosed with adequate imaging methods performed prior to ERCP. ERCPs with failed biliary cannulation were excluded. Data regarding patients' characteristics, imaging findings and ERCP procedure were analysed.1016 patients with CBDS undergoing ERCP were analysed (male sex 43.3%; mean age 69.9 ± 16.5 years). Diagnosis of CBDS was obtained by EUS in 415 patients (40.8%), MR in 343 (33.8%), CT in 220 (21.7%), and US in 38 (3.7%). No stones were found at ERCP in 179 patients (17.6%), in 14 (6.2%) when ERCP was performed within 6 h from imaging study, in 114 (18.5%) between 7 h and 7 days, in 32 (24.6%) between 8 and 29 days, and in 19 (43.2%) after 30 days. The rate of unnecessary ERCP occurred significantly more frequently in patients in whom imaging methods demonstrated either sludge or ≤ 5 mm CBDS (29.9 vs. 8.3%; p 0.001).Spontaneous migration of small CBDS is a frequent event, and ≤ 5 mm size and a delay in ERCP 7 days represent predictive factors for it. We suggest that CBDS ≤ 5 mm should not undergo immediate removal and this fact would allow reducing the rate of unnecessary ERCP with their related complications. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these results and demonstrate the safety of a conservative management in this setting.

Main Recommendations1 ESGE recommends against diagnostic/therapeutic papillectomy when adenoma is not proven.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.2 ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasound and abdominal magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for staging of ampullary tumors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.3 ESGE recommends endoscopic papillectomy in patients with ampullary adenoma without intraductal extension, because of good results regarding outcome (technical and clinical success, morbidity, and recurrence).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.4 ESGE recommends en bloc resection of ampullary adenomas up to 20–30 mm in diameter to achieve R0 resection, for optimizing the complete resection rate, providing optimal histopathology, and reduction of the recurrence rate after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.5 ESGE suggests considering surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas when endoscopic resection is not feasible for technical reasons (e. g. diverticulum, size > 4 cm), and in the case of intraductal involvement (of > 20 mm). Surveillance thereafter is still mandatory.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.6 ESGE recommends direct snare resection without submucosal injection for endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.7 ESGE recommends prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting to reduce the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.8 ESGE recommends long-term monitoring of patients after endoscopic papillectomy or surgical ampullectomy, based on duodenoscopy with biopsies of the scar and of any abnormal area, within the first 3 months, at 6 and 12 months, and thereafter yearly for at least 5 years.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Background & aim Although acute lower GI bleeding (LGIB) represents a significant healthcare burden, prospective real-life data on management and outcomes are scanty. Present multicentre, prospective cohort study was aimed at evaluating mortality and associated risk factors and at describing patient management. Methods Adult outpatients acutely admitted for or developing LGIB during hospitalization were consecutively enrolled in 15 high-volume referral centers. Demographics, comorbidities, medications, interventions and outcomes were recorded. Results Overall 1,198 patients (1060 new admissions;138 inpatients) were included. Most patients were elderly (mean-age 74±15 years), 31% had a Charlson-Comorbidity-Index ≥3, 58% were on antithrombotic therapy. In-hospital mortality (primary outcome) was 3.4% (95%CI 2.5–4.6). At logistic regression analysis, independent predictors of mortality were increasing age, comorbidity, inpatient status, hemodynamic instability at presentation, and ICU-admission. Colonoscopy had a 78.8% diagnostic yield, with significantly higher hemostasis rate when performed within 24-hours than later (21.3% vs.10.8%, p = 0.027). Endoscopic hemostasis was associated with neither in-hospital mortality nor rebleeding. A definite or presumptive source of bleeding was disclosed in 90.4% of investigated patients. Conclusion Mortality in LGIB patients is mainly related to age and comorbidities. Although early colonoscopy has a relevant diagnostic yield and is associated with higher therapeutic intervention rate, endoscopic hemostasis is not associated with improved clinical outcomes [ClinicalTrial.gov number: NCT 04364412].

Background and study aims COVID-19 has dramatically impacted endoscopy practice because upper endoscopy procedures can be aerosol-generating. Most elective procedures have been rescheduled. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is frequently performed in emergency or urgent settings in which rescheduling is not possible. We evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on ERCP in Italy during the SARS-CoV-2 lockdown, in areas with high incidence of COVID-19. Patients and methods We performed a retrospective survey of centers performing ERCP in high COVID-19 prevalence areas in Italy to collect information regarding clinical data from patients undergoing ERCP, staff, case-volume and organization of endoscopy units from March 8, 2020 to April 30, 2020. Results We collected data from 31 centers and 804 patients. All centers adopted a triage and/or screening protocol for SARS-CoV-2 and performed follow-up of patients 2 weeks after the procedure. ERCP case-volume was reduced by 44.1 % compared to the respective 2019 timeframe. Of the 804 patients undergoing ERCP, 22 (2.7 %) were positive for COVID-19. Adverse events occurred at a similar rate to previously published data. Of the patients, endoscopists, and nurses, 1.6 %, 11.7 %, and 4.9 %, respectively, tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at follow up. Only 38.7 % of centers had access to a negative-pressure room for ERCP. Conclusion The case-volume reduction for ERCP during lockdown was lower than for other gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures. No definitive conclusions can be drawn about the percentage of SARS-CoV-2-positive patients and healthcare workers observed after ERCP. Appropriate triage and screening of patients and adherence to society recommendations are paramount.

Background Endoscopy plays a fundamental role in the management of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the tolerability and efficacy of bowel preparation and colonoscopy in ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) patients compared to subjects participating in a colorectal cancer population screening program. Methods Consecutive enrolment of CD and UC patients and screening subjects (SS) undergoing colonoscopy. Bowel preparation was done by split dose of 2 L PEG-ELS + simethicone. We recorded endoscopic, clinical, and demographic features; cleanliness rating using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS); and sedation doses. Bowel-preparation tolerability, discomfort, and pain during colonoscopy were assessed using a Visual Analogue Scale from 0 to 100 mm. Results Sixty-three UC (mean age 49.9 ± 14.9 years), 63 CD (mean age 44.0 ± 14.0 years), and 63 SS (mean age 59.9 ± 6.3 years) patients were enrolled. Bowel preparation was similarly tolerated in UC, CD, and SS (P = 0.397). A complete colonoscopy was similarly performed in UC (59/63, 93.7%), CD (58/63, 92.1%), and SS (60/63, 95.2%) (P = 0.364). The BBPS did not show significant differences between UC (6.2 ± 1.6), CD (6.1 ± 1.3), and SS (6.2 ± 1.4) (P = 0.824). The need to increase sedation doses was significantly higher in CD (24/63, 38.1%) and UC (16/63, 25.4%) than in SS (4/63, 6.3%) (P < 0.0001). Conclusions Bowel preparation is equally tolerated and efficacious in IBD patients and in healthy SS. In IBD, higher sedation doses are needed to guarantee an equally tolerated colonoscopy.