Search

This ESGE Position Statement defines the expected value of artificial intelligence (AI) for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal neoplasia within the framework of the performance measures already defined by ESGE. This is based on the clinical relevance of the expected task and the preliminary evidence regarding artificial intelligence in artificial or clinical settings. Main recommendations: (1) For acceptance of AI in assessment of completeness of upper GI endoscopy, the adequate level of mucosal inspection with AI should be comparable to that assessed by experienced endoscopists. (2) For acceptance of AI in assessment of completeness of upper GI endoscopy, automated recognition and photodocumentation of relevant anatomical landmarks should be obtained in ≥90% of the procedures. (3) For acceptance of AI in the detection of Barrett’s high grade intraepithelial neoplasia or cancer, the AI-assisted detection rate for suspicious lesions for targeted biopsies should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists with or without advanced imaging techniques. (4) For acceptance of AI in the management of Barrett’s neoplasia, AI-assisted selection of lesions amenable to endoscopic resection should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists. (5) For acceptance of AI in the diagnosis of gastric precancerous conditions, AI-assisted diagnosis of atrophy and intestinal metaplasia should be comparable to that provided by the established biopsy protocol, including the estimation of extent, and consequent allocation to the correct endoscopic surveillance interval. (6) For acceptance of artificial intelligence for automated lesion detection in small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), the performance of AI-assisted reading should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists for lesion detection, without increasing but possibly reducing the reading time of the operator. (7) For acceptance of AI in the detection of colorectal polyps, the AI-assisted adenoma detection rate should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists. (8) For acceptance of AI optical diagnosis (computer-aided diagnosis [CADx]) of diminutive polyps (≤5 mm), AI-assisted characterization should match performance standards for implementing resect-and-discard and diagnose-and-leave strategies. (9) For acceptance of AI in the management of polyps ≥ 6 mm, AI-assisted characterization should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists in selecting lesions amenable to endoscopic resection.

There is a global climate emergency, and also a global health concern related to climate change. The British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) acknowledges these issues, and supports the concerns of its members to address them. Climate change has adverse effects on gastroenterological and liver disease, and on healthcare systems. The healthcare industry, itself, is also a major contributor to greenhouse gases. BSG has developed a strategy on Climate Change and Sustainability, which encompasses all of the activities of the society, and its members: personal, professional, organisational, political, international and research.

Climate change has been described as ‘the biggest global health threat of the 21st century’.1 Medical professionals have a vital role in mitigating the impact of healthcare systems on the environment and protecting vulnerable people through the development of sustainable clinical practices. We have previously written about how gastroenterologists must act now to change our endoscopy practice and make it more aligned with core principles of environmentally sustainable healthcare. But it is clear there is a significant lack of evidence to accurately define the scope of the environmental impact of gastroenterology services, or models of best practice to shape policy and move the field in a new direction. This article aims to provide a framework for us to design and implement quality improvement projects (QIPs) in gastroenterology as a strategy to deliver a more sustainable future in line with the National Health Service (NHS) Net Zero targets.2 Mortimer et al have described the key principles required,3 4 and we aim to apply these to a gastroenterology context and specifically endoscopy services. The value of a healthcare intervention relates to the outcomes delivered against its cost, and the benchmark for cost-effectiveness set by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is £20–30 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained.5 However, economists interested in sustainability recognise that costs also need to recognise the social and environmental impact of what is consumed: the so-called ‘triple bottom line’.6 Value can thus be presented using this schematic formula as described by Mortimer et al 3: Value=outcomes for patients and populations/environmental+social+financial impacts. Considered in this way, every healthcare intervention has not only financial implications, but also a social cost on the patient and their family/carers, and environmental implications from resource use and carbon footprint, against which the clinical benefit needs …

AimThe demand for bowel cancer screening (BCS) is expected to increase significantly within the next decade. Little is known about the intentions of the workforce required to meet this demand. The Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (JAG), the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) developed the first BCS workforce survey. The aim was to assess endoscopist career intentions to aid in future workforce planning to meet the anticipated increase in BCS colonoscopy.MethodsA survey was developed by JAG, BSG and ACPGBI and disseminated to consultant, clinical and trainee endoscopists between February and April 2020. Descriptive and comparative analyses were undertaken, supported with BCS data.ResultsThere were 578 respondents. Screening consultants have a median of one programmed activity (PA) per week for screening, accounting for 40% of their current endoscopy workload. 38% of current screening consultants are considering giving up colonoscopy in the next 2–5 years. Retirement (58%) and pension issues (23%) are the principle reasons for this. Consultants would increase their screening PAs by 70% if able to do so. The top three activities that endoscopists would relinquish to further support screening were outpatient clinics, acute medical/surgical on call and ward cover. An extra 155 colonoscopists would be needed to fulfil increased demand and planned retirement at current PAs.ConclusionThis survey has identified a serious potential shortfall in screening colonoscopists in the next 5–10 years due to an ageing workforce and job plan pressures of aspirant BCS colonoscopists. We have outlined potential mitigations including reviewing job plans, improving workforce resources and supporting accreditation and training.

Climate change and the destruction of ecosystems by human activities are among the greatest challenges of the 21st century and require urgent action. Health care activities significantly contribute to the emission of greenhouse gases and waste production, with gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy being one of the largest contributors. This Position Statement aims to raise awareness of the ecological footprint of GI endoscopy and provides guidance to reduce its environmental impact. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) outline suggestions and recommendations for health care providers, patients, governments, and industry. Main statements 1 GI endoscopy is a resource-intensive activity with a significant yet poorly assessed environmental impact. 2 ESGE-ESGENA recommend adopting immediate actions to reduce the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 3 ESGE-ESGENA recommend adherence to guidelines and implementation of audit strategies on the appropriateness of GI endoscopy to avoid the environmental impact of unnecessary procedures. 4 ESGE-ESGENA recommend the embedding of reduce, reuse, and recycle programs in the GI endoscopy unit. 5 ESGE-ESGENA suggest that there is an urgent need to reassess and reduce the environmental and economic impact of single-use GI endoscopic devices. 6 ESGE-ESGENA suggest against routine use of single-use GI endoscopes. However, their use could be considered in highly selected patients on a case-by-case basis. 7 ESGE-ESGENA recommend inclusion of sustainability in the training curricula of GI endoscopy and as a quality domain. 8 ESGE-ESGENA recommend conducting high quality research to quantify and minimize the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 9 ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy companies assess, disclose, and audit the environmental impact of their value chain. 10 ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy should become a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions practice by 2050.

Performance of endoscopic procedures is associated with a risk of infection from COVID-19. This risk can be reduced by the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). However, shortage of PPE has emerged as an important issue in managing the pandemic in both traditionally high and low-resource areas. A group of clinicians and researchers from thirteen countries representing low, middle, and high-income areas has developed recommendations for optimal utilization of PPE before, during, and after gastrointestinal endoscopy with particular reference to low-resource situations. We determined that there is limited flexibility with regard to the utilization of PPE between ideal and low-resource settings. Some compromises are possible, especially with regard to PPE use, during endoscopic procedures. We have, therefore, also stressed the need to prevent transmission of COVID-19 by measures other than PPE and to conserve PPE by reduction of patient volume, limiting procedures to urgent or emergent, and reducing the number of staff and trainees involved in procedures. This guidance aims to optimize utilization of PPE and protection of health care providers.

Medical care bundles improve standards of care and patient outcomes. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a common medical emergency which has been consistently associated with suboptimal care. We aimed to develop a multisociety care bundle centred on the early management of AUGIB.Commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), a UK multisociety task force was assembled to produce an evidence-based and consensus-based care bundle detailing key interventions to be performed within 24 hours of presentation with AUGIB. A modified Delphi process was conducted with stakeholder representation from BSG, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, Society for Acute Medicine and the National Blood Transfusion Service of the UK. A formal literature search was conducted and international AUGIB guidelines reviewed. Evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool and statements were formulated and subjected to anonymous electronic voting to achieve consensus. Accepted statements were eligible for incorporation into the final bundle after a separate round of voting. The final version of the care bundle was reviewed by the BSG Clinical Services and Standards Committee and approved by all stakeholder groups.Consensus was reached on 19 statements; these culminated in 14 corresponding care bundle items, contained within 6 management domains: Recognition, Resuscitation, Risk assessment, Rx (Treatment), Refer and Review.A multisociety care bundle for AUGIB has been developed to facilitate timely delivery of evidence-based interventions and drive quality improvement and patient outcomes in AUGIB.

Background and study aims The English National Bowel Scope Screening Programme (BSSP) invites 55-year-olds for a one-off, unsedated flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG). Data from BSSP participant-reported experience studies shows 1 in 3 participants report moderate or severe discomfort. Water-assisted colonoscopy (WAS) may improve participants’ comfort. The primary objective of this study is to ascertain if post-procedural participant-assessed pain is reduced in WAS compared with carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation, in invitees undergoing FSIG in BSSP. Patients and methods This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, two-arm, single-blinded trial designed to evaluate the performance of WAS versus CO2 insufflation in BSSP. Participants will be randomized to either CO2 or WAS and will be asked to rate pain post-procedure. Key procedure-related data will be analyzed, including adenoma detection rates (ADR) and degree of sigmoid looping. A cost-effectiveness analysis of WAS versus CO2 and a discrete choice experiment exploring preferences of participants for attributes of sigmoidoscopy will also be performed. Discussion This is the first trial in the United Kingdom (UK) to investigate the effects of WAS in a screening setting. If the trial shows WAS either reduces pain or increases ADR, this may result in a practice change to implement WAS in screening and non-screening endoscopic practice directly impacting on 256,000 people a year who will undergo BSSP FSIG by 2020.Trial funding came from National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) supported by the NIHR Clinical Research Network. The trial is actively recruiting. ID: 35866 ISRCTN: 81466870

Climate change has been described as the biggest global health threat of the 21st century1 and has significant implications for gastrointestinal (GI) health and disease,2 which is the focus of this consensus commentary provided by the World Gastroenterology Organisation (WGO) Climate Change Working Group (CCWG). The CCWG has members from 18 countries representing high-income, medium-income and low-income populations. The WGO includes gastroenterology societies from 108 countries, which represent more than 60 000 medical practitioner members. The CCWG members, who have coauthored this consensus commentary, aim to review the scientific literature on climate and GI health, to encourage education and the undertaking of actionable measures including advocacy, and to further research and collaborations within the global GI community. The CCWG’s objective is to assist GI health providers worldwide to adapt to, and mitigate, the effects of climate change on health. The CCWG has partnered with three major GI journals, which are copublishing this commentary, given the timeliness and importance of the topic.3 4 ### Climate change The earth’s climate is changing because of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which has already warmed by more than 1°C compared with preindustrial times. The aim of mitigation efforts is to keep the rise in global mean surface temperature (GMST) below 2°C by 2100. An increase of 2°C might not seem like a major change, but variations of similar magnitude have been associated with profound alterations of climate in the past. It is important to note that even if this somewhat arbitrary target can be met, catastrophic changes in earth ecosystems can still occur. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988 with a mandate to assess relevant scientific literature related to climate change. It produces regular reports and updates about climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that …

Background Tranexamic acid reduces blood loss in surgery and the risk of death in trauma patients. Meta-analyses of small trials suggest that tranexamic acid decreases the number of deaths from gastrointestinal bleeding, but these meta-analyses are prone to selection bias. Objective The trial provides reliable evidence of the effect of tranexamic acid on mortality, rebleeding and complications in significant acute gastrointestinal bleeding. Design A multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial and economic analysis. Patients were assigned by selecting one treatment pack from a box of eight, which were identical apart from the pack number. Patients, caregivers and outcome assessors were masked to allocation. The main analyses were by intention to treat. Setting The setting was 164 hospitals in 15 countries, co-ordinated from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Participants Adults with significant upper or lower gastrointestinal bleeding (n = 12,009) were eligible if the responsible clinician was substantially uncertain about whether or not to use tranexamic acid. The clinical diagnosis of significant bleeding implied a risk of bleeding to death, including hypotension, tachycardia or signs of shock, or urgent transfusion, endoscopy or surgery. Intervention Tranexamic acid (a 1-g loading dose over 10 minutes, then a 3-g maintenance dose over 24 hours) or matching placebo. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes were all-cause and cause-specific mortality; rebleeding; need for endoscopy, surgery or radiological intervention; blood product transfusion; complications; disability; and days spent in intensive care or a high-dependency unit. Results A total of 12,009 patients were allocated to receive tranexamic acid (n = 5994, 49.9%) or the matching placebo (n = 6015, 50.1%), of whom 11,952 (99.5%) received the first dose. Death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation occurred in 222 (3.7%) patients in the tranexamic acid group and in 226 (3.8%) patients in the placebo group (risk ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.18). Thromboembolic events occurred in 86 (1.4%) patients in the tranexamic acid group and 72 (1.2%) patients in the placebo group (risk ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.64). The risk of arterial thromboembolic events (myocardial infarction or stroke) was similar in both groups (0.7% in the tranexamic acid group vs. 0.8% in the placebo group; risk ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.39), but the risk of venous thromboembolic events (deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) was higher in tranexamic acid-treated patients than in placebo-treated patients (0.8% vs. 0.4%; risk ratio 1.85, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.98). Seizures occurred in 38 patients who received tranexamic acid and in 22 patients who received placebo (0.6% vs. 0.4%, respectively; risk ratio 1.73, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.93). In the base-case economic analysis, tranexamic acid was not cost-effective and resulted in slightly poorer health outcomes than no tranexamic acid. Conclusions Tranexamic acid did not reduce death from gastrointestinal bleeding and, although inexpensive, it is not cost-effective in adults with acute gastrointestinal bleeding. Future work These results caution against a uniform approach to the management of patients with major haemorrhage and highlight the need for randomised trials targeted at specific pathophysiological processes. Limitations Although this is one of the largest randomised trials in gastrointestinal bleeding, we cannot rule out a modest increase or decrease in death due to bleeding with tranexamic acid. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11225767, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01658124 and EudraCT 2012-003192-19. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 58. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles, and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

Background A national colorectal cancer screening programme started in England in 2013, offering one-off flexible sigmoidoscopy to all men and women aged 55 years in addition to the biennial faecal occult blood testing programme offered to all individuals aged 60–74 years. We analysed data from six pilot flexible sigmoidoscopy screening centres to examine factors affecting the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Methods We did a retrospective analysis of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening procedures performed in individuals aged 55 years at six pilot sites in England as part of the National Health Service Bowel Scope Screening programme. ADR (number of procedures in which at least one adenoma was removed or biopsied, divided by total number of procedures) was calculated for each site and each endoscopist. Multiple regression models were used to examine the variation in ADR with withdrawal time and extent of examination, and the effect of other factors including comfort and bowel preparation on extent of examination. Findings The analysis included 8256 procedures done between May 7, 2013, and May 6, 2014. The overall ADR was 9·1% (95% CI 8·5–9·8; 755 of 8256 procedures), varying from 7·4% (6·2–8·9) to 11·0% (9·1–13·4) by screening centre. The ADR was 11·5% (95% CI 10·6–12·5; 493 of 4299 procedures) in men and 6·6% (5·9–7·4; 262 of 3957 procedures) in women (p Interpretation Key performance indicators for flexible sigmoidoscopy screening should be defined, including standards for insertion and withdrawal times, optimal depth, and bowel preparation. ADR could be improved by recommending a withdrawal time from the splenic flexure of at least 3·25 min (ideally 3·5–4·0 min).

This is the first UK national guideline to concentrate on acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) and has been commissioned by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG). The Guidelines Development Group consisted of representatives from the BSG Endoscopy Committee, the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, the British Society of Interventional Radiology, the Royal College of Radiologists, NHS Blood and Transplant and a patient representative. A systematic search of the literature was undertaken and the quality of evidence and grading of recommendations appraised according to the GRADE(Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology. These guidelines focus on the diagnosis and management of acute LGIB in adults, including methods of risk assessment and interventions to diagnose and treat bleeding (colonoscopy, computed tomography, mesenteric angiography, endoscopic therapy, embolisation and surgery). Recommendations are included on the management of patients who develop LGIB while receiving anticoagulants (including direct oral anticoagulants) or antiplatelet drugs. The appropriate use of blood transfusion is also discussed, including haemoglobin triggers and targets.

Published by BMJ. High quality gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy improves patient care. Raising standards in endoscopy improves diagnostic accuracy, management of pathology and ultimately improves outcomes. Historical identification of significant variation in colonoscopy quality led to the development of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG) on GI Endoscopy, the Global Rating Scale (GRS), JAG Endoscopy Training System (JETS) training and certification. These measures led to major improvements in UK endoscopy but significant variation in practice still exists. To improve quality further the British Society of Gastroenterology Endoscopy Quality Improvement (EQIP) has been established with the aim of raising quality and reducing variation in the quality of UK endoscopy. A multifaceted approach to quality improvement (QI) will be undertaken and is described in this manuscript. Upper GI EQIP will support adoption of standards alongside regional upskilling courses. Lower GI EQIP will focus on supporting endoscopists to achieve current standards alongside approaches to reducing postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer rates. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography EQIP will adopt a regional approach of using local data to support network-based QI. Newer areas of endoscopy practice such as small bowel endoscopy and endoscopic ultrasound will focus on identifying key performance indicators as well as standardising training and accreditation pathways. EQIP will also support QI in management of GI bleeding as well as standardising the approach to new techniques and technologies. Where evidence is lacking, approaches to gather new evidence and support the translation into clinical practice will be supported.

Received 28th January 2021. Accepted 23rd February 2021. Published online 17th March 2021. Issue published 1st April 2021.

ObjectiveColonoscopy surveillance aims to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence after polypectomy. The 2020 UK guidelines recommend surveillance at 3 years for ‘high-risk’ patients with ≥2 premalignant polyps (PMPs), of which ≥1 is ‘advanced’ (serrated polyp (or adenoma) ≥10 mm or with (high-grade) dysplasia); ≥5 PMPs; or ≥1 non-pedunculated polyp ≥20 mm; ‘low-risk’ patients without these findings are instead encouraged to participate in population-based CRC screening. We examined the appropriateness of these risk classification criteria and recommendations.DesignRetrospective analysis of patients who underwent colonoscopy and polypectomy mostly between 2000 and 2010 at 17 UK hospitals, followed-up through 2017. We examined CRC incidence by baseline characteristics, risk group and number of surveillance visits using Cox regression, and compared incidence with that in the general population using standardised incidence ratios (SIRs).ResultsAmong 21 318 patients, 368 CRCs occurred during follow-up (median: 10.1 years). Baseline CRC risk factors included age ≥55 years, ≥2 PMPs, adenomas with tubulovillous/villous/unknown histology or high-grade dysplasia, proximal polyps and a baseline visit spanning 2–90 days. Compared with the general population, CRC incidence without surveillance was higher among those with adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (SIR 1.74, 95% CI 1.21 to 2.42) or ≥2 PMPs, of which ≥1 was advanced (1.39, 1.09 to 1.75). For low-risk (71%) and high-risk (29%) patients, SIRs without surveillance were 0.75 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.88) and 1.30 (1.03 to 1.62), respectively; for high-risk patients after first surveillance, the SIR was 1.22 (0.91 to 1.60).ConclusionThese guidelines accurately classify post-polypectomy patients into those at high risk, for whom one surveillance colonoscopy appears appropriate, and those at low risk who can be managed by non-invasive screening.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has developed performance measures and established a framework for quality assessment for gastrointestinal endoscopy in Europe. Most national societies actively undertake initiatives to implement and explicitly endorse these quality indicators. Given this, the ESGE proposes that, at a national level, strong leadership should exist to disseminate and implement quality parameters. Thus, understanding the potential barriers that may vary locally is of paramount importance. The ESGE suggests that each national society should prioritise quality and standards of care in gastrointestinal endoscopy in their activities and should survey/understand which measures area local priority to their members and make measuring quality intrinsic to daily endoscopy practice. ispartof: UNITED EUROPEAN GASTROENTEROLOGY JOURNAL vol:9 issue:1 pages:120-126 ispartof: location:England status: published

In July 2019, the fecal immunochemistry test (FIT) replaced the fecal occult blood test (FOBT) in England as the Bowel Cancer Screening Program (BCSP) screening tool. We aimed to assess the impact of this on healthcare resources at our BCSP center.Two 6-month periods were initially analyzed for stool sample return and positivity rates. A subsequent comparative analysis of patient screening episodes assessed utilization of specialist screening practitioner (SSP) time, endoscopy, histology, radiology, surgical, and oncology service usage.A total of 42,234 patients received FOBT and 42,545 patients received FIT stool kits, with FIT showing higher return (61.8% vs 58.58%, FIT vs FOBT, P .001) and sample positivity rates (2.41% vs 1.45%, FIT vs FOBT, P .001). Four hundred patients commenced FOBT and 616 FIT screening episodes, a 54% increase. The FIT group had of a lower mean age (67.5 vs 69.5 years, FIT vs FOBT, P = .0001) with a lower nonattendance rate (.16% vs 1.5%, FIT vs FOBT, P = .01). With higher patient numbers, the FIT group required 69% more endoscopic procedures, 58% increased SSP time, 40% more radiologic tests, and 68% higher surgical procedures. FIT also led to a 109% increase in endoscopy-derived histology samples from an increase in the proportion of patients with polyps with FIT (54.8% vs 47.2%, P = .020) and a greater number of polyps per patient in whom polyps were found (3.00 vs 2.50 polyps, P = .017). This additional service burden equated to additional financial costs of approximately $558,000 per annum.The implementation of FIT led to notable increases in SSP time, endoscopy procedures, radiology tests, surgical procedures, and histopathology services, resulting in considerable ongoing financial implications on the organization. Findings can be used to aid workforce and service planning in National Health Service sites delivering BCSP and countries that have already adopted or are considering FIT within their national screening programs.

Summary Background Tranexamic acid reduces surgical bleeding and reduces death due to bleeding in patients with trauma. Meta-analyses of small trials show that tranexamic acid might decrease deaths from gastrointestinal bleeding. We aimed to assess the effects of tranexamic acid in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding. Methods We did an international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in 164 hospitals in 15 countries. Patients were enrolled if the responsible clinician was uncertain whether to use tranexamic acid, were aged above the minimum age considered an adult in their country (either aged 16 years and older or aged 18 years and older), and had significant (defined as at risk of bleeding to death) upper or lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Patients were randomly assigned by selection of a numbered treatment pack from a box containing eight packs that were identical apart from the pack number. Patients received either a loading dose of 1 g tranexamic acid, which was added to 100 mL infusion bag of 0·9% sodium chloride and infused by slow intravenous injection over 10 min, followed by a maintenance dose of 3 g tranexamic acid added to 1 L of any isotonic intravenous solution and infused at 125 mg/h for 24 h, or placebo (sodium chloride 0·9%). Patients, caregivers, and those assessing outcomes were masked to allocation. The primary outcome was death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation; analysis excluded patients who received neither dose of the allocated treatment and those for whom outcome data on death were unavailable. This trial was registered with Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN11225767, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01658124. Findings Between July 4, 2013, and June 21, 2019, we randomly allocated 12 009 patients to receive tranexamic acid (5994, 49·9%) or matching placebo (6015, 50·1%), of whom 11 952 (99·5%) received the first dose of the allocated treatment. Death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation occurred in 222 (4%) of 5956 patients in the tranexamic acid group and in 226 (4%) of 5981 patients in the placebo group (risk ratio [RR] 0·99, 95% CI 0·82–1·18). Arterial thromboembolic events (myocardial infarction or stroke) were similar in the tranexamic acid group and placebo group (42 [0·7%] of 5952 vs 46 [0·8%] of 5977; 0·92; 0·60 to 1·39). Venous thromboembolic events (deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) were higher in tranexamic acid group than in the placebo group (48 [0·8%] of 5952 vs 26 [0·4%] of 5977; RR 1·85; 95% CI 1·15 to 2·98). Interpretation We found that tranexamic acid did not reduce death from gastrointestinal bleeding. On the basis of our results, tranexamic acid should not be used for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding outside the context of a randomised trial. Funding UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Many non-emergency clinical services were suspended during COVID-19 pandemic peak. It is essential to develop a plan for restarting services following the peak. It is equally important to protect patients and staff and to use resources and personal protective equipment (PPE) efficiently. The British Society of Gastroenterology Endoscopy Committee and Quality Improvement Programme has produced guidance on how a restart can be safely delivered. Key recommendations include the following: all patients should have need for endoscopy assessed by senior clinicians and prioritised according to criteria we have outlined; once the need for endoscopy is confirmed, patients should undergo telephone screening for symptoms using systematic questionnaires; all outpatients should undergo RT-PCR testing for COVID-19 virus 1–3 days prior to endoscopy; and PPE should be determined by patient risk stratification, the nature of the procedure and the results of testing. While this guidance is tailored to endoscopy services, it could be adapted for any interventional medical discipline.

Main Recommendations Prophylaxis 1 ESGE recommends routine rectal administration of 100 mg of diclofenac or indomethacin immediately before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in all patients without contraindications to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends prophylactic pancreatic stenting in selected patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis (inadvertent guidewire insertion/opacification of the pancreatic duct, double-guidewire cannulation).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE suggests against routine endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy before the insertion of a single plastic stent or an uncovered/partially covered self-expandable metal stent for relief of biliary obstruction.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends against the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5 ESGE suggests antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP in the case of anticipated incomplete biliary drainage, for severely immunocompromised patients, and when performing cholangioscopy.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6 ESGE suggests tests of coagulation are not routinely required prior to ERCP for patients who are not on anticoagulants and not jaundiced.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. Treatment 7 ESGE suggests against salvage pancreatic stenting in patients with post-ERCP pancreatitis.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE suggests temporary placement of a biliary fully covered self-expandable metal stent for post-sphincterotomy bleeding refractory to standard hemostatic modalities.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 9 ESGE suggests to evaluate patients with post-ERCP cholangitis by abdominal ultrasonography or computed tomography (CT) scan and, in the absence of improvement with conservative therapy, to consider repeat ERCP. A bile sample should be collected for microbiological examination during repeat ERCP.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Endoscopic resections and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are the established treatments for Barrett's-associated dysplasia and early esophageal neoplasia. The UK RFA Registry collects patient outcomes from 24 centers treating patients in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Learning curves for treatment of Barrett's dysplasia and the impact of center caseload on patient outcomes is still unknown.We examined outcomes of 678 patients treated with RFA in the UK Registry using risk-adjusted cumulative sum control chart (RA-CUSUM) analysis to identify change points in complete resolution of intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM) and complete resolution of dysplasia (CR-D) outcomes. We compared outcomes between those treated at high-volume (100 enrolled patients), medium-volume (51-100), and low-volume (50) centers.There was no association between center volume and CR-IM and CR-D rates, but recurrence rates were lower in high-volume versus low-volume centers (log rank P = .001). There was a significant change point for outcomes at 12 cases for CR-D (reduction from 24.5% to 10.4%; P .001) and at 18 cases for CR-IM (30.7% to 18.6%; P .001) from RA-CUSUM curve analysis.Our data suggest that 18 supervised cases of endoscopic ablation may be required before competency in endoscopic treatment of Barrett's dysplasia can be achieved. The difference in outcomes between a high-volume and low-volume center does not support further centralization of services to only high-volume centers.

ObjectivePostpolypectomy colonoscopy surveillance aims to prevent colorectal cancer (CRC). The 2002 UK surveillance guidelines define low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups, recommending different strategies for each. Evidence supporting the guidelines is limited. We examined CRC incidence and effects of surveillance on incidence among each risk group.DesignRetrospective study of 33 011 patients who underwent colonoscopy with adenoma removal at 17 UK hospitals, mostly (87%) from 2000 to 2010. Patients were followed up through 2016. Cox regression with time-varying covariates was used to estimate effects of surveillance on CRC incidence adjusted for patient, procedural and polyp characteristics. Standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) compared incidence with that in the general population.ResultsAfter exclusions, 28 972 patients were available for analysis; 14 401 (50%) were classed as low-risk, 11 852 (41%) as intermediate-risk and 2719 (9%) as high-risk. Median follow-up was 9.3 years. In the low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups, CRC incidence per 100 000 person-years was 140 (95% CI 122 to 162), 221 (195 to 251) and 366 (295 to 453), respectively. CRC incidence was 40%–50% lower with a single surveillance visit than with none: hazard ratios (HRs) were 0.56 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.80), 0.59 (0.43 to 0.81) and 0.49 (0.29 to 0.82) in the low-risk, intermediate-risk and high-risk groups, respectively. Compared with the general population, CRC incidence without surveillance was similar among low-risk (SIR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.02) and intermediate-risk (1.16, 0.97 to 1.37) patients, but higher among high-risk patients (1.91, 1.39 to 2.56).ConclusionPostpolypectomy surveillance reduces CRC risk. However, even without surveillance, CRC risk in some low-risk and intermediate-risk patients is no higher than in the general population. These patients could be managed by screening rather than surveillance.

AIM In the UK Bowel Scope Screening Programme (BSSP), patients progress to colonoscopy based on high-risk features on flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS). We aim to assess the practice of colonoscopy conversion and predictors of detection of additional adenomas on colonoscopy. METHOD The Bowel Cancer Screening database was interrogated and collated with endoscopic and histological findings from patients undergoing colonoscopy following FS between August 2013 and August 2016. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of new adenomas. RESULTS FS was performed on 11 711 patients, with an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of 8.5% and conversion to colonoscopy in 421 (3.6%). The additional ADR at colonoscopy was 35.2%, with one additional malignant diagnosis (0.26%). The adenoma miss rate was 3.6%. On multivariate analysis, a polyp ≥ 10 mm was the only high-risk indication associated with additional ADR at colonoscopy (OR 3.68, 95% CI 1.51-3.65, P

1. We recommend that all registered nursing and allied healthcare professionals work within their code of conduct at all times. 2. We recommend that all patients receive care supervised by a registered nurse who is accountable for their care throughout their time in the endoscopy department. 3. We recommend that delegation of responsibilities is considered, and only delegated to an individual deemed competent to undertake the task. All staff competencies should be clearly displayed in the endoscopy unit. 4. We recommend that thorough assessments of patient health status are undertaken before, during and after endoscopy procedures by a competent registered practitioner (table 1 and figure 1). 5. We recommend that staff who assist with complex procedures, or manage the care of patients with complex needs, should demonstrate a high level of relevant competence. This should be both in the technical aspects of endoscopic procedures, and the higher levels of assessment and monitoring required in patients at greater risk of deterioration or complications (tables 1 and 2). 6. We recommend that preprocedure checklists are undertaken, and all aspects of care throughout the procedure, including any changes in health status, must be documented and reported to the endoscopist. 7. We recommend that all staff have access to education and training, in line with endoscopy national frameworks, to meet professional standards, with regular appraisals of performance and competence to support staff development and professional revalidation. 8. We recommend that all staff actively participate in their own educational and skill development (table 3). 9. We recommend that all staff have a portfolio of competencies reflecting their education and training. This includes assessments of their competencies by senior registered staff, and evidence to support to their learning and revalidation. All endoscopy services must have an education, mentorship and supervision programme for all staff. 10. We recommend that due consideration is given to the endoscopy …

This document represents the first position statement produced by the British Society of Gastroenterology and Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, setting out the minimum expected standards in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The need for this statement has arisen from the recognition that while technical competence can be rapidly acquired, in practice the performance of a high-quality examination is variable, with an unacceptably high rate of failure to diagnose cancer at endoscopy. The importance of detecting early neoplasia has taken on greater significance in this era of minimally invasive, organ-preserving endoscopic therapy. In this position statement we describe 38 recommendations to improve diagnostic endoscopy quality. Our goal is to emphasise practices that encourage mucosal inspection and lesion recognition, with the aim of optimising the early diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal disease and improving patient outcomes.

To assess the impact of the upper gastrointestinal 'Be Clear on Cancer' campaign launched by Public Health England between January and February 2015 on open-access gastroscopy referrals, incidence of target diagnoses (oesophagogastric cancer and Barrett's oesophagus), cancer staging at presentation, 1-year survival and cost per additional diagnosis.We performed a retrospective study of patients referred for 2-week-wait (2WW), open-access endoscopy 3 months following the campaign with diagnoses, endoscopic findings, staging and 12-month survival compared with data from corresponding months in 2014.Three adjacent National Health Service trusts in the West Midlands with a combined population of 1.34 million in 2015.2WW open-access referrals increased by 48% (95% CI 1.35 to 1.61, p0.001). The proportion of target diagnoses fell from 6.7% to 6.1% (p=0.62). There were no significant overall increases in target diagnoses (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.92, p=0.11) or cancer (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.07, p=0.36). There was no change in tumour, node, metastasis (TNM) staging for oesophageal or gastric cancer. Overall 1-year survival did not alter significantly (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.19, p=0.76).The 'Be Clear on Cancer' campaign led to a 48% increase in demand for 2WW gastroscopies but did not significantly affect the incidence of target diagnoses, cancer staging or 1-year survival.

Management of patients on anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy undergoing endoscopy presents a balance of risks between haemorrhage due to the procedure, and thrombosis due to discontinuation of antithrombotic therapy. Haemorrhage is usually controllable endoscopically, but thrombosis could, on occasion, result in myocardial infarction or stroke, with permanent disability or death. For elective procedures, there is adequate time to plan best management of antithrombotic therapy. International guidelines have been published, but recommendations are based on limited evidence and consultation with appropriate medical specialists, and the patient is important. Patients on dual antiplatelet therapy for coronary stents are at particularly high risk of thrombosis if therapy is interrupted. Direct oral anticoagulants have been a great advance in the management of anticoagulation but can present an increased risk of spontaneous gastrointestinal haemorrhage, as well as a difficult management situation in haemorrhage following endoscopic therapy. For elective endoscopic procedures, there may be a suitable alternative investigation, and some patients can have therapy deferred if high-risk antithrombotic therapy is temporary. Gastrointestinal haemorrhage on antithrombotic therapy can present a life-threatening situation from potential thrombosis as well as haemorrhage. Management is particularly challenging on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), but a reversal agent is available for dabigatran, and others are in development. The safest time to restart antithrombotic therapy after therapeutic procedures or haemorrhage has been little studied, and the relevant risk factors are discussed together with advice on management. Although guidelines have been produced, there remains much uncertainty in the management of antithrombotic therapy for endoscopy, particularly for newer agents, and further research is required.

BackgroundThe UK guideline recommends 3-yearly surveillance for patients with intermediate-risk (IR) adenomas. No study has examined whether or not this group has heterogeneity in surveillance needs.ObjectivesTo examine the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence; assess heterogeneity in risk; and identify the optimum frequency of surveillance, the psychological impact of surveillance, and the cost-effectiveness of alternative follow-up strategies.DesignRetrospective multicentre cohort study.SettingRoutine endoscopy and pathology data from 17 UK hospitals (n = 11,944), and a screening data set comprising three pooled cohorts (n = 2352), followed up using cancer registries.SubjectsPatients with IR adenoma(s) (three or four small adenomas or one or two large adenomas).Primary outcomesAdvanced adenoma (AA) and CRC detected at follow-up visits, and CRC incidence after baseline and first follow-up.MethodsThe effects of surveillance on long-term CRC incidence and of interval length on findings at follow-up were examined using proportional hazards and logistic regression, adjusting for patient, procedural and polyp characteristics. Lower-intermediate-risk (LIR) subgroups and higher-intermediate-risk (HIR) subgroups were defined, based on predictors of CRC risk. A model-based cost–utility analysis compared 13 surveillance strategies. Between-group analyses of variance were used to test for differences in bowel cancer worry between screening outcome groups (n = 35,700). A limitation of using routine hospital data is the potential for missed examinations and underestimation of the effect of interval and surveillance.ResultsIn the hospital data set, 168 CRCs occurred during 81,442 person-years (pys) of follow-up [206 per 100,000 pys, 95% confidence interval (CI) 177 to 240 pys]. One surveillance significantly lowered CRC incidence, both overall [hazard ratio (HR) 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77] and in the HIR subgroup (n = 9265; HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76). In the LIR subgroup (n = 2679) the benefit of surveillance was less clear (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.43). Additional surveillance lowered CRC risk in the HIR subgroup by a further 15% (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.62). The odds of detecting AA and CRC at first follow-up (FUV1) increased by 18% [odds ratio (OR) 1.18, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.24] and 32% (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.46) per year increase in interval, respectively, and the odds of advanced neoplasia at second follow-up increased by 22% (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.36), after adjustment. Detection rates of AA and CRC remained below 10% and 1%, respectively, with intervals to 3 years. In the screening data set, 32 CRCs occurred during 25,745 pys of follow-up (124 per 100,000 pys, 95% CI 88 to 176 pys). One follow-up conferred a significant 73% reduction in CRC incidence (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.71). Owing to the small number of end points in this data set, no other outcome was significant. Although post-screening bowel cancer worry was higher in people who were offered surveillance, worry was due to polyp detection rather than surveillance. The economic evaluation, using data from the hospital data set, suggested that 3-yearly colonoscopic surveillance without an age cut-off would produce the greatest health gain.ConclusionsA single surveillance benefited all IR patients by lowering their CRC risk. We identified a higher-risk subgroup that benefited from further surveillance, and a lower-risk subgroup that may require only one follow-up. A surveillance interval of 3 years seems suitable for most IR patients. These findings should be validated in other studies to confirm whether or not one surveillance visit provides adequate protection for the lower-risk subgroup of intermediate-risk patients.Study registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN15213649.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Gastrointestinal haemorrhage is a common clinical scenario and, in those using antithrombotic agents, the risk is significantly increased. Management of these patients, in terms of initial resuscitation is well established and numerous guidelines exist in this area. However, few studies have addressed the subsequent dilemma of if and when antithrombotic agents should be reintroduced. Consequently, practice is variable and not necessarily evidenced-based. Overall, for patients that are either anticoagulated or using antiplatelet drugs for secondary prophylaxis, there is a clear benefit to restarting these agents. However, there is limited data to guide when this should occur. For individuals at low risk of re-bleeding, current guidelines suggest single agent aspirin can be continued without interruption, assuming haemostatic control has been confirmed endoscopically. For those at higher bleeding risk, aspirin should be withheld, but reintroduced early (within 3 days of index endoscopy). However, randomised evidence is lacking, as are studies including more modern agents or combined anticoagulant/ antiplatelet regimens. As such, guidance statements are limited and management suggestions must be extrapolated from clinical trials, retrospective studies and data relating specifically to warfarin and aspirin. The intention of this review is to summarise what evidence is available and, where this is lacking, suggest pragmatic management options based on a risk-benefit assessment of thromboembolism and recurrent bleeding.

Aim The management of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) is complex, with widespread variation in management and outcome, even amongst experienced clinicians. Variations in the assessment and decision-making processes are likely to be a major factor in this variability. The creation of a standardized minimum dataset to aid decision-making may therefore result in improved clinical management. Method An official working group of 13 multidisciplinary specialists was appointed by the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) to develop a minimum dataset on LNPCPs. The literature review used to structure the ACPGBI/BSG guidelines for the management of LNPCPs was used by a steering subcommittee to identify various parameters pertaining to the decision-making processes in the assessment and management of LNPCPs. A modified Delphi consensus process was then used for voting on proposed parameters over multiple voting rounds with at least 80% agreement defined as consensus. The minimum dataset was used in a pilot process to ensure rigidity and usability. Results A 23-parameter minimum dataset with parameters relating to patient and lesion factors, including six parameters relating to image retrieval, was formulated over four rounds of voting with two pilot processes to test rigidity and usability. Conclusion This paper describes the development of the first reported evidence-based and expert consensus minimum dataset for the management of LNPCPs. It is anticipated that this dataset will allow comprehensive and standardized lesion assessment to improve decision-making in the assessment and management of LNPCPs.

Background Acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is an important cause of mortality worldwide. Bleeding can occur from the upper or lower GI tract, with upper GI bleeding accounting for most cases. The main causes include peptic ulcer/erosive mucosal disease, oesophageal varices and malignancy. The case fatality rate is around 10% for upper GI bleeding and 3% for lower GI bleeding. Rebleeding affects 5–40% of patients and is associated with a four-fold increased risk of death. Tranexamic acid (TXA) decreases bleeding and the need for blood transfusion in surgery and reduces death due to bleeding in patients with trauma and postpartum haemorrhage. It reduces bleeding by inhibiting the breakdown of fibrin clots by plasmin. Due to the methodological weaknesses and small size of the existing trials, the effectiveness and safety of TXA in GI bleeding is uncertain. The Haemorrhage ALleviation with Tranexamic acid – Intestinal system (HALT-IT) trial aims to provide reliable evidence about the effects of TXA in acute upper and lower GI bleeding. Methods The HALT-IT trial is an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of tranexamic acid in 12,000 adults (increased from 8000) with acute upper or lower GI bleeding. Eligible patients are randomly allocated to receive TXA (1-g loading dose followed by 3-g maintenance dose over 24 h) or matching placebo. The main analysis will compare those randomised to TXA with those randomised to placebo on an intention-to-treat basis, presenting the results as effect estimates (relative risks) and confidence intervals. The primary outcome is death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation and secondary outcomes are: rebleeding; all-cause and cause-specific mortality; thromboembolic events; complications; endoscopic, radiological and surgical interventions; blood transfusion requirements; disability (defined by a measure of patient’s self-care capacity); and number of days spent in intensive care or high-dependency units. Subgroup analyses for the primary outcome will consider time to treatment, location of bleeding, cause of bleed and clinical Rockall score. Discussion We present the statistical analysis of the HALT-IT trial. This plan was published before the treatment allocation was unblinded. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials, ID: ISRCTN11225767. Registered on 3 July 2012; Clinicaltrials.gov, ID: NCT01658124. Registered on 26 July 2012. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3561-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction Medical care bundles have been shown to improve standards of care and patient outcomes. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a common medical emergency which has been consistently associated with suboptimal care. We aimed to develop a multisociety care bundle centred on the early management of AUGIB for national implementation to improve standards of care. Methods Under the remit of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Quality Improvement Project, a UK multisociety taskforce was assembled to produce a pragmatic evidence and consensus-based care bundle detailing key ward-based interventions to be performed within the first 24 hours of presentation with AUGIB. A modified DELPHI process was conducted with expert stakeholder representation from BSG, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons (AUGIS), Society of Acute Medicine (SAM) and the National Blood Transfusion Service. A formal literature search was conducted on major databases and international guidelines reviewed. Evidence was appraised using the GRADE quality framework. Once working groups had formulated initial evidence-based statements, a face-to-face meeting with anonymised electronic voting was arranged to evaluate consensus with statements and care bundle items. Consensus was defined as reaching 80%+ agreement on each statement, with revisions and up to three rounds of voting permitted. Accepted statements were eligible for incorporation into the final bundle after a separate round of voting. The final version of the care bundle was approved by corresponding stakeholder and patient groups. Results Consensus was reached on 19 recommendation statements; these culminated into 14 corresponding care bundle items (figure 1), enveloped within 6 management domains: Recognition (to facilitate early diagnosis), Resuscitation, Risk assessment, Rx (Treatment), Refer and Review (post-endoscopy care). Conclusion A multisociety care bundle for AUGIB has been developed for adoption in acute departments to facilitate timely delivery of evidence-based interventions and drive quality improvement in AUGIB.

Background: Acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is an important cause of mortality worldwide. Bleeding can occur from the upper or lower GI tract, with upper GI bleeding accounting for most cases. The main causes include peptic ulcer / erosive mucosal disease, oesophageal varices and malignancy. The case fatality rate is around 10% for upper GI bleeding and 3% for lower GI bleeding. Rebleeding affects 5-40% of patients and is associated with a four-fold increased risk of death. Tranexamic acid (TXA) decreases bleeding and the need for blood transfusion in surgery and reduces death due to bleeding in patients with trauma and postpartum haemorrhage. It reduces bleeding by inhibiting the breakdown of fibrin clots by plasmin. Due to the methodological weaknesses and small size of the existing trials, the effectiveness and safety of TXA in GI bleeding is uncertain. The HALT-IT trial aims to provide reliable evidence about the effects of TXA in acute upper and lower GI bleeding. Methods: The HALT-IT trial is an international, randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trial of tranexamic acid in 12,000 adults (increased from 8,000) with acute upper or lower GI bleeding. Eligible patients are randomly allocated to receive tranexamic acid (1g loading dose followed by 3g maintenance dose over 24 hours) or matching placebo. The main analysis will compare those randomised to tranexamic acid with those randomised to placebo on an intention-to-treat basis, presenting the results as effect estimates (relative and absolute risks) and confidence intervals. The primary outcome is death due to bleeding within 5 days of randomisation and secondary outcomes are rebleeding, all-cause and cause-specific mortality, thromboembolic events, complications, endoscopic, radiological and surgical interventions, blood transfusion requirements, disability (defined by a measure of patient’s self-care capacity) and number of days spent in intensive care or high dependency units. Subgroup analyses for the primary outcome will consider time to treatment, location of bleeding, cause of bleed and clinical Rockall score. Discussion: We present the statistical analysis of the HALT-IT trial. This plan was prepared and submitted for publication before the treatment allocation was un-blinded. Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11225767 (3/07/2012); Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01658124 (26/07/2012). Keywords: Gastrointestinal haemorrhage, tranexamic acid, clinical trial, statistical analysis.

IntroductionEndoscopic therapy for the management of patients with Barrett’s oesophagus (BE) neoplasia has significantly developed in the past decade; however, significant variation in clinical practice exists. The aim of this project was to develop expert physician-lead quality indicators (QIs) for Barrett’s endoscopic therapy.MethodsThe RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to combine the best available scientific evidence with the collective judgement of experts to develop quality indicators for Barrett’s endotherapy in four subgroups: pre-endoscopy, intraprocedure (resection and ablation) and postendoscopy. International experts, including gastroenterologists, surgeons, BE pathologist, clinical nurse specialist and patient representative, participated in a three-round process to develop 15 QIs that fulfilled the RAND/UCLA definition of appropriateness.Results17 experts participated in round 1 and 20 in round 2. Of the 24 proposed QIs in round 1, 20 were ranked as appropriate (put through to round 2) and 4 as uncertain (discarded). At the end of round 2, a final list of 15 QIs were scored as appropriate.ConclusionsThis UK national consensus project has successfully developed QIs for patients undergoing Barrett’s endotherapy. These QIs can be used by service providers to ensure that all patients with BE neoplasia receive uniform and high-quality care.

"KDIV ligamentous injuries of the knee are frequently high-energy injuries with significant soft tissue disruption, gross knee instability, and rarely are treated nonoperatively. KDIVs frequently require external fixation, but when presenting in an isolated fashion can be reconstructed in one setting. Five presentations of KDIV injury are described: closed with multitrauma/closed head injury requiring external fixation, irreducible KDIV requiring semi-emergent open reduction and repair, isolated KDIV without arterial injury undergoing 4-ligament reconstruction after regaining motion, KDIV with varus and slight thrust undergoing medial opening osteotomy before ligament reconstruction, and KDIV with failed ligaments requiring revision and posterior tibial tendon transfer."

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology present a list of key performance measures for endoscopy services. We recommend that these performance measures be adopted by all endoscopy services across Europe. The measures include those related to the leadership, organization, and delivery of the service, as well as those associated with the patient journey. Each measure includes a recommendation for a minimum and target standard for endoscopy services to achieve. We recommend that all stakeholders in endoscopy take note of these ESGE endoscopy services performance measures to accelerate their adoption and implementation. Stakeholders include patients and their advocacy groups; service leaders; staff, including endoscopists; professional societies; payers; and regulators. ispartof: UNITED EUROPEAN GASTROENTEROLOGY JOURNAL vol:7 issue:1 pages:21-44 ispartof: location:England status: published

On 7 December 2015, the British Society of Gastroenterology and the Royal College of Physicians held a joint conference: GI cancer in the UK: can we do better? The meeting was timely as, although outcomes for patients with most gastrointestinal cancers in the UK have steadily improved in the past 10 years, survival figures remain substantially worse than in many other comparable nations. After defining the scale of the problem, the issues around early diagnosis were discussed. Screening as prevention has huge potential where there are defined premalignant conditions. Uptake into the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) is variable but in some areas remains low. It is hoped that with the National Screening Committee recommendation to replace the guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) with the faecal immunochemical test (FIT), the planned age extension and the continued roll-out of bowel scope screening by the National Health Service (NHS) will extend the value of the programme further. The view from primary care suggested that many factors affect the decision to make a referral for suspected cancer. Lack of direct access to testing was highlighted as a concern, as was the compounding issue of the many patients who delay seeking care. The Independent Cancer Force is the latest of several bodies calling for general practitioners (GPs) to be able to refer ‘direct to test’. However, a particular concern from secondary care relates to further stretching of diagnostic resources already under pressure—and how that can be addressed in times of austerity. Waiting times for endoscopy have begun to rise, yet capacity to expand is limited. Training, recruitment and retention of clinical staff were all highlighted as key issues limiting the availability of these procedures. Various practical ways to improve detection with endoscopy were proposed, as were possible ways to support and retain staff. While …

Anticoagulants are very widely prescribed for patients at risk of thromboembolic disease and stroke and for those with mechanical heart valves. Warfarin and heparin have been the mainstays of treatment for many years, but more recently, a new class of anticoagulants has been introduced: direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). DOACs have advantages compared to warfarin but pose particular challenges to therapeutic endoscopy as the level of anticoagulation cannot be simply measured by standard techniques, and there are no simple reversal measures in the event of hemorrhage. There is also an increased risk of spontaneous gastrointestinal hemorrhage compared to warfarin for some of these drugs. Many of the recommendations in international guidelines for management of endoscopy patients on anticoagulants have been made on limited evidence; this will be discussed critically in this review.

Survival rates for upper gastrointestinal cancers are poor and oesophageal cancer incidence is increasing. Upper gastrointestinal cancer is also often missed during examinations; a predicament that has not yet been sufficiently addressed. Improvements in the detection of premalignant lesions, early oesophageal and gastric cancers will enable organ-preserving endoscopic therapy, potentially reducing the number of advanced upper gastrointestinal cancers and resulting in improved prognosis. Japan is a world leader in high-quality diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and the clinical routine in this country differs substantially from Western practice. In this Perspectives article, we review lessons learnt from Japanese gastroscopy technique, training and screening for risk stratification. We suggest a key performance indicator for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with a minimum total procedure time of 8 min, and examine how quality assurance concepts in bowel cancer screening in the UK could be applied to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and improve clinical practice.