Search

OBJECTIVES: Rates of surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps are increasing in the United States despite evidence that most polyps can be managed endoscopically. We aimed to determine nationally representative estimates and to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality and morbidity after surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps. METHODS: Data were analyzed from the National Inpatient Sample for 2005–2014. All discharges for adult patients undergoing surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps were identified. Rates of in-hospital mortality and postoperative wound, infectious, urinary, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, or cardiovascular adverse events were calculated. Multivariable logistic regression using survey-weighted data was used to evaluate covariables associated with postoperative mortality and morbidity. RESULTS: An estimated 262,843 surgeries for nonmalignant colorectal polyps were analyzed. In-hospital mortality was 0.8% [95% confidence interval: 0.7%–0.9%] and morbidity was 25.3% [95% confidence interval: 24.2%–26.4%]. Postoperative mortality was associated with open surgical technique (vs laparoscopic), older age, black race (vs non-Hispanic white), Medicaid use, and burden of comorbidities. Female sex and private insurance were associated with lower risk. Patients developing a postoperative adverse event had a 106% increase in mean hospital length of stay (10.3 vs 5.0 days; P < 0.0001) and 91% increase in mean hospitalization cost ($77,015.24 vs $40,258.30; P < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps is associated with almost 1% mortality and common morbidity. These findings should inform risk vs benefit discussions for clinicians and patients, and although confounding by patient selection cannot be excluded, the risks associated with surgery support consideration of endoscopic resection as a potentially less invasive therapeutic option.

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) syndrome is a complex entity, which includes FAP, attenuated FAP, and MUTYH-associated polyposis. These patients are at significant risk for colorectal cancer and carry additional risks for extracolonic malignancies. In this guideline, we reviewed the most recent literature to formulate recommendations on the role of endoscopy in this patient population. Relevant clinical questions were how to identify high-risk individuals warranting genetic testing, when to start screening examinations, what are appropriate surveillance intervals, how to identify endoscopically high-risk features, and what is the role of chemoprevention. A systematic literature search from 2005 to 2018 was performed, in addition to the inclusion of seminal historical studies. Most studies were from worldwide registries, which have compiled years of data regarding the natural history and cancer risks in this cohort. Given that most studies were retrospective, recommendations were based on epidemiologic data and expert opinion. Management of colorectal polyps in FAP has not changed much in recent years, as colectomy in FAP is the standard of care. What is new, however, is the developing body of literature on the role of endoscopy in managing upper GI and small-bowel polyposis, as patients are living longer and improved endoscopic technologies have emerged.

Despite studies showing improved safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic resection for nonmalignant colorectal polyps, colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps have been increasing in the United States and Europe. Given this alarming trend, we aimed to investigate whether colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps are increasing or declining in a large, integrated, community-based healthcare system with access to advanced endoscopic resection procedures.We identified all individuals aged 50-85 years who underwent a colonoscopy between 2008 and 2018 and were diagnosed with a nonmalignant colorectal polyp(s) at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California integrated healthcare system. Among these individuals, we identified those who underwent a colectomy for nonmalignant colorectal polyps within 12 months after the colonoscopy. We calculated annual colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps and stratified rates by age, sex, and race and ethnicity. Changes in rates over time were tested by the Cochran-Armitage test for a linear trend.Among 229,730 patients who were diagnosed with nonmalignant colorectal polyps between 2008 and 2018, 1,611 patients underwent a colectomy. Colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps decreased significantly from 125 per 10,000 patients with nonmalignant polyps in 2008 to 12 per 10,000 patients with nonmalignant polyps in 2018 (P0.001 for trend). When stratified by age, sex, and race and ethnicity, colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps also significantly declined from 2008 to 2018.In a large, ethnically diverse, community-based population in the United States, we found that colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps declined significantly over the past decade likely because of the establishment of advanced endoscopy centers, improved care coordination, and an organized colorectal cancer screening program.

This clinical guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based approach for the management of patients with malignant hilar obstruction (MHO). This document was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses primary drainage modality (percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage [PTBD] vs endoscopic biliary drainage [EBD]), drainage strategy (unilateral vs bilateral), and stent selection (plastic stent [PS] vs self-expandable metal stent [SEMS]). Regarding drainage modality, in patients with MHO undergoing drainage before potential resection or transplantation, the panel suggests against routine use of PTBD as first-line therapy compared with EBD. In patients with unresectable MHO undergoing palliative drainage, the panel suggests PTBD or EBD. The final decision should be based on patient preferences, disease characteristics, and local expertise. Regarding drainage strategy, in patients with unresectable MHO undergoing palliative stent placement, the panel suggests placement of bilateral stents compared with a unilateral stent in the absence of liver atrophy. Finally, regarding type of stent, in patients with unresectable MHO undergoing palliative stent placement, the panel suggests placing SEMSs or PSs. However, in patients who have a short life expectancy and who place high value on avoiding repeated interventions, the panel suggests using SEMSs compared with PSs. If optimal drainage strategy has not been established, the panel suggests placing PSs. This document clearly outlines the process, analyses, and decision processes used to reach the final recommendations and represents the official ASGE recommendations on the above topics.

Cholangitis is a GI emergency requiring prompt recognition and treatment. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's (ASGE) Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an evidence-based approach for management of cholangitis. This document addresses the modality of drainage (endoscopic vs percutaneous), timing of intervention ( 48 hours), and extent of initial intervention (comprehensive therapy vs decompression alone). Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology was used to formulate recommendations on these topics. The ASGE suggests endoscopic rather than percutaneous drainage and biliary decompression within 48 hours. Additionally, the panel suggests that sphincterotomy and stone removal be combined with drainage rather than decompression alone, unless patients are too unstable to tolerate more extensive endoscopic treatment.

Background & Aims Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a widely accepted treatment option for superficial gastric neoplasia in Asia, but there are few data on outcomes of gastric ESD from North America. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of gastric ESD in North America. Methods We analyzed data from 347 patients who underwent gastric ESD at 25 centers, from 2010 through 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, lesion characteristics, procedure details and related adverse events, treatment outcomes, local recurrence, and vital status at the last follow up. For the 277 patients with available follow-up data, the median interval between initial ESD and last clinical or endoscopic evaluation was 364 days. The primary endpoint was the rate of en bloc and R0 resection. Secondary outcomes included curative resection, rates of adverse events and recurrence, and gastric cancer-related death. Results Ninety patients (26%) had low-grade adenomas or dysplasia, 82 patients (24%) had high-grade dysplasia, 139 patients (40%) had early gastric cancer, and 36 patients (10%) had neuroendocrine tumors. Proportions of en bloc and R0 resection for all lesions were 92%/82%, for early gastric cancers were 94%/75%, for adenomas and low-grade dysplasia were 93%/ 92%, for high-grade dysplasia were 89%/ 87%, and for neuroendocrine tumors were 92%/75%. Intraprocedural perforation occurred in 6.6% of patients; 82% of these were treated successfully with endoscopic therapy. Delayed bleeding occurred in 2.6% of patients. No delayed perforation or procedure-related deaths were observed. There were local recurrences in 3.9% of cases; all occurred after non-curative ESD resection. Metachronous lesions were identified in 14 patients (6.9%). One of 277 patients with clinical follow up died of metachronous gastric cancer that occurred 2.5 years after the initial ESD. Conclusions ESD is a highly effective treatment for superficial gastric neoplasia and should be considered as a viable option for patients in North America. The risk of local recurrence is low and occurs exclusively after non-curative resection. Careful endoscopic surveillance is necessary to identify and treat metachronous lesions.

Colonic volvulus and acute colonic pseudo-obstruction (ACPO) are 2 causes of benign large-bowel obstruction. Colonic volvulus occurs most commonly in the sigmoid colon as a result of bowel twisting along its mesenteric axis. In contrast, the exact pathophysiology of ACPO is poorly understood, with the prevailing hypothesis being altered regulation of colonic function by the autonomic nervous system resulting in colonic distention in the absence of mechanical blockage. Prompt diagnosis and intervention leads to improved outcomes for both diagnoses. Endoscopy may play a role in the evaluation and management of both entities. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an update on the evaluation and endoscopic management of sigmoid volvulus and ACPO.

Chronic radiation proctopathy is a common sequela of radiation therapy for malignancies in the pelvic region. A variety of medical and endoscopic therapies have been used for the management of bleeding from chronic radiation proctopathy. In this guideline, we reviewed the results of a systematic search of the literature from 1946 to 2017 to formulate clinical questions and recommendations on the role of endoscopy for bleeding from chronic radiation proctopathy. The following endoscopic modalities are discussed in our document: argon plasma coagulation, bipolar electrocoagulation, heater probe, radiofrequency ablation, and cryoablation. Most studies were small observational studies, and the evidence for effectiveness of endoscopic therapy for chronic radiation proctopathy was limited because of a lack of controlled trials and comparative studies. Despite this limitation, our systematic review found that argon plasma coagulation, bipolar electrocoagulation, heater probe, and radiofrequency ablation were effective in the treatment of rectal bleeding from chronic radiation proctopathy.

This American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the endoscopic management of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). We applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to address key clinical questions. These include the comparison of (1) surgical gastrojejunostomy to the placement of self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) for malignant GOO, (2) covered versus uncovered SEMS for malignant GOO, and (3) endoscopic and surgical interventions for the management of benign GOO. Recommendations provided in this document were founded on the certainty of the evidence, balance of benefits and harms, considerations of patient and caregiver preferences, resource utilization, and cost-effectiveness.

Efforts to increase patient safety and satisfaction, a critical concern for health providers, require periodic evaluation of all factors involved in the provision of GI endoscopy services. We aimed to develop guidelines on minimum staffing requirements and scope of practice of available staff for the safe and efficient performance of GI endoscopy. The recommendations in this guideline were based on a systematic review of published literature, results from a nationwide survey of endoscopy directors, along with the expert guidance of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Standards of Practice Committee members, ASGE Practice Operation Committee members, and the ASGE Governing Board.

Achalasia is a primary esophageal motor disorder of unknown etiology characterized by degeneration of the myenteric plexus, which results in impaired relaxation of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ), along with the loss of organized peristalsis in the esophageal body. The criterion standard for diagnosing achalasia is high-resolution esophageal manometry showing incomplete relaxation of the EGJ coupled with the absence of organized peristalsis. Three achalasia subtypes have been defined based on high-resolution manometry findings in the esophageal body. Treatment of patients with achalasia has evolved in recent years with the introduction of peroral endoscopic myotomy. Other treatment options include botulinum toxin injection, pneumatic dilation, and Heller myotomy. This American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of achalasia, based on an updated assessment of the individual and comparative effectiveness, adverse effects, and cost of the 4 aforementioned achalasia therapies.

Colonoscopy is the most commonly performed endoscopic procedure and overall is considered a low-risk procedure. However, adverse events (AEs) related to this routinely performed procedure for screening, diagnostic, or therapeutic purposes are an important clinical consideration. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an update on estimates of AEs related to colonoscopy in an evidence-based fashion. A systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies was conducted for the 3 most common and important serious AEs (bleeding, perforation, and mortality). In addition, this document includes an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of serious AEs (bleeding and perforation) related to EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection for large colon polyps. Finally, a narrative review of other colonoscopy-related serious AEs and those related to specific colonic interventions is included.

Each year choledocholithiasis results in biliary obstruction, cholangitis, and pancreatitis in a significant number of patients. The primary treatment, ERCP, is minimally invasive but associated with adverse events in 6% to 15%. This American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Standard of Practice (SOP) Guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the endoscopic evaluation and treatment of choledocholithiasis. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to rigorously review and synthesize the contemporary literature regarding the following topics: EUS versus MRCP for diagnosis, the role of early ERCP in gallstone pancreatitis, endoscopic papillary dilation after sphincterotomy versus sphincterotomy alone for large bile duct stones, and impact of ERCP-guided intraductal therapy for large and difficult choledocholithiasis. Comprehensive systematic reviews were also performed to assess the following: same-admission cholecystectomy for gallstone pancreatitis, clinical predictors of choledocholithiasis, optimal timing of ERCP vis-à-vis cholecystectomy, management of Mirizzi syndrome and hepatolithiasis, and biliary stent therapy for choledocholithiasis. Core clinical questions were derived using an iterative process by the ASGE SOP Committee. This body developed all recommendations founded on the certainty of the evidence, balance of risks and harms, consideration of stakeholder preferences, resource utilization, and cost-effectiveness.

Summary Endoscopic complications are rare but inevitable, occurring in fewer than 0.35% of procedures [B]. Knowledge of potential complications and their expected frequency can lead to an improved informed consent process [C]. Complications from the procedure include perforation, hemorrhage, postpolypectomy coagulation syndrome, infection, preparation-associated complications, and death, and are more likely to occur with therapeutic procedures rather than diagnostic procedures [B]. Risk factors for poylpectomy-associated complications include the location and size of the polyp, experience of the operator, polypectomy technique and possibly the type of electrocoagulation current used [B]. Use of saline solution injection under large sessile polyps decreases depth of thermal injury [A] and may decrease complications [B]. Early recognition of complications and prompt intervention may decrease patient morbidity [C]. Treatment of complications range from supportive for postpolypectomy coagulation syndrome, to repeat colonoscopy with injection or electrocoagulation for bleeding, to surgical repair for free perforation [B]. Consideration of the risks and benefits may improve clinical outcome by identifying potential complications and taking appropriate steps to minimize the risks [C].

This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed by using PubMed. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When few or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is placed on results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time the guidelines are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. The recommendations are based on reviewed studies and are graded on the quality of the supporting evidence (Table 1). The strength of individual recommendations is based on both the aggregate evidence quality and an assessment of the anticipated benefits and harms. Weaker recommendations are indicated by phrases such as "we suggest," whereas stronger recommendations are typically stated as "we recommend." This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient's condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from this guideline.