Search

BackgroundAcute gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) remains a common cause of hospitalisation. However, interpretation and comparisons of published studies in GIB have been hampered by disparate study methodology.AimsTo make recommendations about outcome measures to be used in future randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with acute bleeding from any GI source (nonvariceal UGI, variceal, small bowel, or colon) and suggest new RCTs in acute GIB for future peer-reviewed funding.MethodsAs part of a National Institutes of Health conference entitled "Hemostatic Outcomes in Clinical Trials", a group of GIB experts performed targeted critical reviews of available evidence with the goal of proposing a bleeding outcome that could potentially be applied to different disciplines. In addition, the panel sought to develop a clinically meaningful primary endpoint specifically for acute GIB, potentially allowing a more contemporary regrouping of clinically relevant outcomes.ResultsThe primary endpoint proposed was a composite outcome of further bleeding within 30 days after randomisation leading to red blood cell transfusion, urgent intervention (repeat endoscopy; interventional radiology or surgery), or death. Secondary outcomes may include the individual components of the primary outcome, length of hospitalisation, serious adverse events, and health care resource utilisation.ConclusionThe proposed endpoint may help move the GIB field forward by focusing on the most clinically relevant outcomes for patients with acute GIB of all types and informing study design and importance of sample size determination for future RCTs in GIB.

DescriptionThis update of the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) refines previous important statements and presents new clinically relevant recommendations.MethodsAn international multidisciplinary group of experts developed the recommendations. Data sources included evidence summarized in previous recommendations, as well as systematic reviews and trials identified from a series of literature searches of several electronic bibliographic databases from inception to April 2018. Using an iterative process, group members formulated key questions. Two methodologists prepared evidence profiles and assessed quality (certainty) of evidence relevant to the key questions according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Group members reviewed the evidence profiles and, using a consensus process, voted on recommendations and determined the strength of recommendations as strong or conditional.RecommendationsPreendoscopic management: The group suggests using a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less to identify patients at very low risk for rebleeding, who may not require hospitalization. In patients without cardiovascular disease, the suggested hemoglobin threshold for blood transfusion is less than 80 g/L, with a higher threshold for those with cardiovascular disease. Endoscopic management: The group suggests that patients with acute UGIB undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. Thermocoagulation and sclerosant injection are recommended, and clips are suggested, for endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk stigmata. Use of TC-325 (hemostatic powder) was suggested as temporizing therapy, but not as sole treatment, in patients with actively bleeding ulcers. Pharmacologic management: The group recommends that patients with bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata who have had successful endoscopic therapy receive high-dose proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (intravenous loading dose followed by continuous infusion) for 3 days. For these high-risk patients, continued oral PPI therapy is suggested twice daily through 14 days, then once daily for a total duration that depends on the nature of the bleeding lesion. Secondary prophylaxis: The group suggests PPI therapy for patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy for cardiovascular prophylaxis.

The correct time to perform an upper endoscopy is decisive in acutely GI bleeding patients. However, patients' physical status may affect mortality. We speculated that the physical status and procedural time could be the principal factors accountable for death-risk. The primary aim was to verify the interaction between physical status and time to endoscopy on mortality; the secondary aim was to verify the interaction of the physical status and time to endoscopy on the length of stay (LOS). Consecutive patients admitted to 50 Italian hospitals were included. Clinical and endoscopic data were recorded. A multiple logistic regression analysis was performed and the interaction of adjusted clinical physical status and time to endoscopy on mortality was calculated. Complete data were available for 3.190 patients. The time frames did not interfere with outcomes but influenced LOS. Conversely, the ASA score correlated with mortality, LOS, need for transfusions and rebleeding risk. Endoscopy time should be tailored to the patient's physical. In our experience, ASA 1–2–3 patients can be safely submitted to endoscopy to reduce the LOS; on the contrary, keen attention should be paid to ASA4 patients, following the 'not too early-not too late' rule (12–24 h from admission). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is one of healthcare's main contributors to climate change. We aimed to assess healthcare professionals' attitudes and the perceived barriers to implementation of sustainable GI endoscopy. Methods The LEAFGREEN web-based survey was a cross-sectional study conducted by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Green Endoscopy Working Group. The questionnaire comprised 39 questions divided into five sections (respondent demographics; climate change and sustainability beliefs; waste and resource management; single-use endoscopes and accessories; education and research). The survey was available via email to all active members of the ESGE and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) in March 2023. Results 407 respondents participated in the survey (11% response rate). Most participants (86%) agreed climate change is real and anthropogenic, but one-third did not consider GI endoscopy to be a significant contributor to climate change. Improvement in the appropriateness of endoscopic procedures (41%) and reduction in single-use accessories (34%) were considered the most important strategies to reduce the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. Respondents deemed lack of institutional support and knowledge from staff to be the main barriers to sustainable endoscopy. Strategies to reduce unnecessary GI endoscopic procedures and comparative studies of single-use versus reusable accessories were identified as research priorities. Conclusions In this survey, ESGE and ESGENA members acknowledge climate change as a major threat to humanity. Further improvement in sustainability beliefs and professional attitudes, reduction in inappropriate GI endoscopy, and rational use of single-use accessories and endoscopes are critically required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Main Statements: This ESGE Position Statement provides structured and evidence-based guidance on the essential requirements and processes involved in training in basic gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. The document outlines definitions; competencies required, and means to their assessment and maintenance; the structure and requirements of training programs; patient safety and medicolegal issues. 1 ESGE and ESGENA define basic endoscopic procedures as those procedures that are commonly indicated, generally accessible, and expected to be mastered (technically and cognitively) by the end of any core training program in gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2 ESGE and ESGENA consider the following as basic endoscopic procedures: diagnostic upper and lower GI endoscopy, as well as a limited range of interventions such as: tissue acquisition via cold biopsy forceps, polypectomy for lesions ≤ 10 mm, hemostasis techniques, enteral feeding tube placement, foreign body retrieval, dilation of simple esophageal strictures, and India ink tattooing of lesion location. 3 ESGE and ESGENA recommend that training in GI endoscopy should be subject to stringent formal requirements that ensure all ESGE key performance indicators (KPIs) are met. 4 Training in basic endoscopic procedures is a complex process and includes the development and acquisition of cognitive, technical/motor, and integrative skills. Therefore, ESGE and ESGENA recommend the use of validated tools to track the development of skills and assess competence. 5 ESGE and ESGENA recommend incorporating a multimodal approach to evaluating competence in basic GI endoscopic procedures, including procedural thresholds and the measurement and documentation of established ESGE KPIs. 7 ESGE and ESGENA recommend the continuous monitoring of ESGE KPIs during GI endoscopy training to ensure the trainee's maintenance of competence. 9 ESGE and ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy training units fulfil the ESGE KPIs for endoscopy units and, furthermore, be capable of providing the dedicated personnel, infrastructure, and sufficient case volume required for successful training within a structured training program. 10 ESGE and ESGENA recommend that trainers in basic GI endoscopic procedures should be endoscopists with formal educational training in the teaching of endoscopy, which allows them to successfully and safely teach trainees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]