Management and follow-up of gallbladder polyps: updated joint guidelines between the ESGAR, EAES, EFISDS and ESGE

Abstract Main recommendations Primary investigation of polypoid lesions of the gallbladder should be with abdominal ultrasound. Routine use of other imaging modalities is not recommended presently, but further research is needed. In centres with appropriate expertise and resources, alternative imaging modalities (such as contrast-enhanced and endoscopic ultrasound) may be useful to aid decision-making in difficult cases. Strong recommendation, low–moderate quality evidence. Cholecystectomy is recommended in patients with polypoid lesions of the gallbladder measuring 10 mm or more, providing the patient is fit for, and accepts, surgery. Multidisciplinary discussion may be employed to assess perceived individual risk of malignancy. Strong recommendation, low-quality evidence. Cholecystectomy is suggested for patients with a polypoid lesion and symptoms potentially attributable to the gallbladder if no alternative cause for the patient’s symptoms is demonstrated and the patient is fit for, and accepts, surgery. The patient should be counselled regarding the benefit of cholecystectomy versus the risk of persistent symptoms. Strong recommendation, low-quality evidence. If the patient has a 6–9 mm polypoid lesion of the gallbladder and one or more risk factors for malignancy, cholecystectomy is recommended if the patient is fit for, and accepts, surgery. These risk factors are as follows: age more than 60 years, history of primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), Asian ethnicity, sessile polypoid lesion (including focal gallbladder wall thickening > 4 mm). Strong recommendation, low–moderate quality evidence. If the patient has either no risk factors for malignancy and a gallbladder polypoid lesion of 6–9 mm, or risk factors for malignancy and a gallbladder polypoid lesion 5 mm or less, follow-up ultrasound of the gallbladder is recommended at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years. Follow-up should be discontinued after 2 years in the absence of growth. Moderate strength recommendation, moderate-quality evidence. If the patient has no risk factors for malignancy, and a gallbladder polypoid lesion of 5 mm or less, follow-up is not required. Strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence. If during follow-up the gallbladder polypoid lesion grows to 10 mm, then cholecystectomy is advised. If the polypoid lesion grows by 2 mm or more within the 2-year follow-up period, then the current size of the polypoid lesion should be considered along with patient risk factors. Multidisciplinary discussion may be employed to decide whether continuation of monitoring, or cholecystectomy, is necessary. Moderate strength recommendation, moderate-quality evidence. If during follow-up the gallbladder polypoid lesion disappears, then monitoring can be discontinued. Strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence. Source and scope These guidelines are an update of the 2017 recommendations developed between the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), European Association for Endoscopic Surgery and other Interventional Techniques (EAES), International Society of Digestive Surgery–European Federation (EFISDS) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). A targeted literature search was performed to discover recent evidence concerning the management and follow-up of gallbladder polyps. The changes within these updated guidelines were formulated after consideration of the latest evidence by a group of international experts. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Key Point • These recommendations update the 2017 European guidelines regarding the management and follow-up of gallbladder polyps.

Download Full-text

Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline – Update 2020

Endoscopy ◽

10.1055/a-1258-4819 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 52 (12) ◽

pp. 1127-1141

Author(s):

Cristiano Spada ◽

Cesare Hassan ◽

Davide Bellini ◽

David Burling ◽

Giovanni Cappello ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

European Society ◽

Patient Choice ◽

Insufficient Evidence ◽

High Quality ◽

Strong Recommendation ◽

Moderate Quality ◽

High Quality Evidence ◽

Colon Capsule ◽

Quality Evidence

Main recommendations 1 ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3 When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation.Very low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6 ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasibleWeak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting.Very low quality evidence. 7 ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance.Very low quality evidence. 8 ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9 ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥ 6 mm detected at CTC or CCE.Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6 – 9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Download Full-text

Endoscopic diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2021

Endoscopy ◽

10.1055/a-1369-5274 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 53 (03) ◽

pp. 300-332

Author(s):

Ian M. Gralnek ◽

Adrian J. Stanley ◽

A. John Morris ◽

Marine Camus ◽

James Lau ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Dose ◽

High Quality ◽

Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage ◽

Strong Recommendation ◽

Epinephrine Injection ◽

Moderate Quality ◽

High Quality Evidence ◽

Mechanical Therapy ◽

Upper Gastrointestinal ◽

Quality Evidence

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS 1 ESGE recommends in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) the use of the Glasgow–Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Patients with GBS ≤ 1 are at very low risk of rebleeding, mortality within 30 days, or needing hospital-based intervention and can be safely managed as outpatients with outpatient endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends that in patients with acute UGIH who are taking low-dose aspirin as monotherapy for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis, aspirin should not be interrupted. If for any reason it is interrupted, aspirin should be re-started as soon as possible, preferably within 3–5 days.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends that following hemodynamic resuscitation, early (≤ 24 hours) upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy should be performed. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4 ESGE does not recommend urgent (≤ 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy since as compared to early endoscopy, patient outcomes are not improved. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 5 ESGE recommends for patients with actively bleeding ulcers (FIa, FIb), combination therapy using epinephrine injection plus a second hemostasis modality (contact thermal or mechanical therapy). Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends for patients with an ulcer with a nonbleeding visible vessel (FIIa), contact or noncontact thermal therapy, mechanical therapy, or injection of a sclerosing agent, each as monotherapy or in combination with epinephrine injection. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 ESGE suggests that in patients with persistent bleeding refractory to standard hemostasis modalities, the use of a topical hemostatic spray/powder or cap-mounted clip should be considered. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE recommends that for patients with clinical evidence of recurrent peptic ulcer hemorrhage, use of a cap-mounted clip should be considered. In the case of failure of this second attempt at endoscopic hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) should be considered. Surgery is indicated when TAE is not locally available or after failed TAE. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9 ESGE recommends high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with FIIb ulcer stigmata (adherent clot) not treated endoscopically. (a) PPI therapy should be administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (e. g., 80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy. (b) High dose PPI therapies given as intravenous bolus dosing (twice-daily) or in oral formulation (twice-daily) can be considered as alternative regimens.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10 ESGE recommends that in patients who require ongoing anticoagulation therapy following acute NVUGIH (e. g., peptic ulcer hemorrhage), anticoagulation should be resumed as soon as the bleeding has been controlled, preferably within or soon after 7 days of the bleeding event, based on thromboembolic risk. The rapid onset of action of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACS), as compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), must be considered in this context.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Download Full-text

Endoscopic management of ampullary tumors: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

Endoscopy ◽

10.1055/a-1397-3198 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Geoffroy Vanbiervliet ◽

Marin Strijker ◽

Marianna Arvanitakis ◽

Arthur Aelvoet ◽

Urban Arnelo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Success ◽

Endoscopic Management ◽

R0 Resection ◽

En Bloc ◽

Strong Recommendation ◽

Moderate Quality ◽

Endoscopic Papillectomy ◽

Pancreatic Duct Stenting ◽

Ampullary Tumors ◽

Quality Evidence

Main Recommendations 1 ESGE recommends against diagnostic/therapeutic papillectomy when adenoma is not proven.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasound and abdominal magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for staging of ampullary tumors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends endoscopic papillectomy in patients with ampullary adenoma without intraductal extension, because of good results regarding outcome (technical and clinical success, morbidity, and recurrence).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends en bloc resection of ampullary adenomas up to 20–30 mm in diameter to achieve R0 resection, for optimizing the complete resection rate, providing optimal histopathology, and reduction of the recurrence rate after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE suggests considering surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas when endoscopic resection is not feasible for technical reasons (e. g. diverticulum, size > 4 cm), and in the case of intraductal involvement (of > 20 mm). Surveillance thereafter is still mandatory.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends direct snare resection without submucosal injection for endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7 ESGE recommends prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting to reduce the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 8 ESGE recommends long-term monitoring of patients after endoscopic papillectomy or surgical ampullectomy, based on duodenoscopy with biopsies of the scar and of any abnormal area, within the first 3 months, at 6 and 12 months, and thereafter yearly for at least 5 years.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Download Full-text

Endoscopic management of superficial nonampullary duodenal tumors: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

Endoscopy ◽

10.1055/a-1442-2395 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Geoffroy Vanbiervliet ◽

Alan Moss ◽

Marianna Arvanitakis ◽

Urban Arnelo ◽

Torsten Beyna ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Endoscopic Resection ◽

En Bloc Resection ◽

Endoscopic Management ◽

Duodenal Adenoma ◽

En Bloc ◽

Strong Recommendation ◽

Delayed Bleeding ◽

Duodenal Adenomas ◽

Moderate Quality ◽

Quality Evidence

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

Download Full-text

Technical aspects of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Guideline – March 2017

Endoscopy ◽

10.1055/s-0043-119219 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 49 (10) ◽

pp. 989-1006 ◽

Cited By ~ 84

Author(s):

Marcin Polkowski ◽

Christian Jenssen ◽

Philip Kaye ◽

Silvia Carrara ◽

Pierre Deprez ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Antibiotic Prophylaxis ◽

Solid Component ◽

Cystic Lesions ◽

High Quality ◽

Strong Recommendation ◽

Fine Needle ◽

Weak Recommendation ◽

Moderate Quality ◽

High Quality Evidence ◽

Quality Evidence

RECOMMENDATIONSFor routine EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and lymph nodes (LNs) ESGE recommends 25G or 22G needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation); fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles are equally recommended (high quality evidence, strong recommendation).When the primary aim of sampling is to obtain a core tissue specimen, ESGE suggests using 19G FNA or FNB needles or 22G FNB needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE recommends using 10-mL syringe suction for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and LNs with 25G or 22G FNA needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation) and other types of needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). ESGE suggests neutralizing residual negative pressure in the needle before withdrawing the needle from the target lesion (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE does not recommend for or against using the needle stylet for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and LNs with FNA needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation) and suggests using the needle stylet for EUS-guided sampling with FNB needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE suggests fanning the needle throughout the lesion when sampling solid masses and LNs (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE equally recommends EUS-guided sampling with or without on-site cytologic evaluation (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). When on-site cytologic evaluation is unavailable, ESGE suggests performance of three to four needle passes with an FNA needle or two to three passes with an FNB needle (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).For diagnostic sampling of pancreatic cystic lesions without a solid component, ESGE suggests emptying the cyst with a single pass of a 22G or 19G needle (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). For pancreatic cystic lesions with a solid component, ESGE suggests sampling of the solid component using the same technique as in the case of other solid lesions (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE does not recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses or LNs (low quality evidence, strong recommendation), and suggests antibiotic prophylaxis with fluoroquinolones or beta-lactam antibiotics for EUS-guided sampling of cystic lesions (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). ESGE suggests that evaluation of tissue obtained by EUS-guided sampling should include histologic preparations (e. g., cell blocks and/or formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue fragments) and should not be limited to smear cytology (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).

Download Full-text

Advanced imaging for detection and differentiation of colorectal neoplasia: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2019

Endoscopy ◽

10.1055/a-1031-7657 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 51 (12) ◽

pp. 1155-1179 ◽

Cited By ~ 38

Author(s):

Raf Bisschops ◽

James E. East ◽

Cesare Hassan ◽

Yark Hazewinkel ◽

Michał F. Kamiński ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Neoplasia ◽

Colorectal Polyps ◽

High Definition ◽

High Quality ◽

Strong Recommendation ◽

Weak Recommendation ◽

Moderate Quality ◽

High Quality Evidence ◽

Virtual Chromoendoscopy ◽

Quality Evidence

Main Recommendations 1 ESGE suggests that high definition endoscopy, and dye or virtual chromoendoscopy, as well as add-on devices, can be used in average risk patients to increase the endoscopist’s adenoma detection rate. However, their routine use must be balanced against costs and practical considerations.Weak recommendation, high quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends the routine use of high definition systems in individuals with Lynch syndrome.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends the routine use, with targeted biopsies, of dye-based pancolonic chromoendoscopy or virtual chromoendoscopy for neoplasia surveillance in patients with long-standing colitis.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 ESGE suggests that virtual chromoendoscopy and dye-based chromoendoscopy can be used, under strictly controlled conditions, for real-time optical diagnosis of diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps and can replace histopathological diagnosis. The optical diagnosis has to be reported using validated scales, must be adequately photodocumented, and can be performed only by experienced endoscopists who are adequately trained, as defined in the ESGE curriculum, and audited.Weak recommendation, high quality evidence. 5 ESGE recommends the use of high definition white-light endoscopy in combination with (virtual) chromoendoscopy to predict the presence and depth of any submucosal invasion in nonpedunculated colorectal polyps prior to any treatment. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends the use of virtual or dye-based chromoendoscopy in addition to white-light endoscopy for the detection of residual neoplasia at a piecemeal polypectomy scar site. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7 ESGE suggests the possible incorporation of computer-aided diagnosis (detection and characterization of lesions) to colonoscopy, if acceptable and reproducible accuracy for colorectal neoplasia is demonstrated in high quality multicenter in vivo clinical studies. Possible significant risks with implementation, specifically endoscopist deskilling and over-reliance on artificial intelligence, unrepresentative training datasets, and hacking, need to be considered. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Download Full-text

Short implants (≤6 mm) versus longer implants with sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029826 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (10) ◽

pp. e029826 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Qi Yan ◽

Xinyu Wu ◽

Meiying Su ◽

Fang Hua ◽

Bin Shi

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Survival Rate ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Sinus Floor Elevation ◽

Moderate Quality ◽

Short Implants ◽

Posterior Maxilla ◽

Sinus Floor ◽

Quality Evidence

ObjectivesTo compare the use of short implants (≤6 mm) in atrophic posterior maxilla versus longer implants (≥10 mm) with sinus floor elevation.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Data sourcesElectronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane CENTRAL. Retrospective and prospective hand searches were also performed.Eligibility criteriaRCTs comparing short implants (≤6 mm) and longer implants (≥10 mm) with sinus floor elevation were included. Outcome measures included implant survival (primary outcome), marginal bone loss (MBL), complications and patient satisfaction.Data extraction and synthesisRisks of bias in and across studies were evaluated. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were undertaken. Quality of evidence was assessed according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.ResultsA total of seven RCTs involving 310 participants were included. No significant difference in survival rate was found for 1–3 years follow-up (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04, p=0.74, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence) or for 3 years or longer follow-up (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04, p=0.79, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence). However, short implants (≤6 mm) showed significantly less MBL in 1–3 years follow-up (MD=−0.13 mm, 95% CI −0.21 to 0.05; p=0.001, I²=87%, low-quality evidence) and in 3 years or longer follow-up (MD=−0.25 mm, 95% CI −0.40 to 0.10; p=0.001, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence). In addition, short implant (≤6 mm) resulted in fewer postsurgery reaction (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.31, p<0.001, I²=40%, moderate-quality evidence) and sinus perforation or infection (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.63, p=0.01, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence).ConclusionsFor atrophic posterior maxilla, short implants (≤6 mm) are a promising alternative to sinus floor elevation, with comparable survival rate, less MBL and postsurgery reactions. Additional high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of short implants (≤6 mm).Trial registeration numberThe protocol has been registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018103531).

Download Full-text

Acupuncture and related techniques for obesity and cardiovascular risk factors: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis

Acupuncture in Medicine ◽

10.1136/acupmed-2018-011646 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 38 (4) ◽

pp. 227-234

Author(s):

Jianrong Chen ◽

Dongping Chen ◽

Qing Ren ◽

Weifeng Zhu ◽

Sheng Xu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Blood Pressure ◽

Body Weight ◽

Cardiovascular Risk ◽

Blood Glucose ◽

Cardiovascular Risk Factors ◽

Density Lipoprotein ◽

Moderate Quality ◽

Meta Regression ◽

Quality Evidence

Objective: To assess how acupuncture and related techniques affect weight-related indicators and cardiovascular risk factors compared with non-acupuncture interventions in overweight and obese patients. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL up to 19 April 2018 and included relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using the inverse variance method with random-effects model. Prespecified hypotheses were tested in meta-regression to investigate the source of heterogeneity. Statistical software packages used were RevMan 5.3.5 and Stata 14.0. Results: Thirty-three RCTs were included (n=2503 patients). Compared with non-acupuncture interventions, acupuncture produced a greater reduction in body weight (WMD −1.76 kg, 95% CI −2.22 to −1.30, I2=77%; moderate quality), body mass index (WMD −1.13 kg/m2, 95% CI −1.38 to −0.88, I2=85%; low quality) and waist circumference (WMD −2.42 cm, 95% CI −3.22 to −1.62, I2=75%; moderate quality). Acupuncture plus lifestyle intervention resulted in a greater reduction in body weight than acupuncture alone (MD −1.94 kg, 95% CI −3.17 to −0.70). Acupuncture also led to a greater reduction in total cholesterol (WMD −12.87 mg/dL, 95% CI −22.17 to −3.57, I2=87%; very low quality) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (WMD −13.52 mg/dL, 95% CI −21.47 to −5.58, I2=74%; low quality). The differences were not statistically significant for blood glucose or blood pressure. Conclusion: In the short term, acupuncture and related techniques may produce a small but statistically significant degree of weight loss based on moderate- to low-quality evidence, and improve serum lipid parameters based on low- to very-low-quality evidence. Their effects on blood glucose and blood pressure remain uncertain.

Download Full-text

Indications, results, and clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline – Updated January 2017

Endoscopy ◽

10.1055/s-0043-109021 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 49 (07) ◽

pp. 695-714 ◽

Cited By ~ 79

Author(s):

Jean-Marc Dumonceau ◽

Pierre Deprez ◽

Christian Jenssen ◽

Julio Iglesias-Garcia ◽

Alberto Larghi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽

Patient Management ◽

Local Treatment ◽

Endobronchial Ultrasound ◽

Left Liver Lobe ◽

Strong Recommendation ◽

Weak Recommendation ◽

Moderate Quality ◽

Pathological Result ◽

Quality Evidence

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONSFor pancreatic solid lesions, ESGE recommends performing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling as first-line procedure when a pathological diagnosis is required. Alternatively, percutaneous sampling may be considered in metastatic disease.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.In the case of negative or inconclusive results and a high degree of suspicion of malignant disease, ESGE suggests re-evaluating the pathology slides, repeating EUS-guided sampling, or surgery.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.In patients with chronic pancreatitis associated with a pancreatic mass, EUS-guided sampling results that do not confirm cancer should be interpreted with caution.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.For pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs), ESGE recommends EUS-guided sampling for biochemical analyses plus cytopathological examination if a precise diagnosis may change patient management, except for lesions ≤ 10 mm in diameter with no high risk stigmata. If the volume of PCL aspirate is small, it is recommended that carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level determination be done as the first analysis.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.For esophageal cancer, ESGE suggests performing EUS-guided sampling for the assessment of regional lymph nodes (LNs) in T1 (and, depending on local treatment policy, T2) adenocarcinoma and of lesions suspicious for metastasis such as distant LNs, left liver lobe lesions, and suspected peritoneal carcinomatosis.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.For lymphadenopathy of unknown origin, ESGE recommends performing EUS-guided (or alternatively endobronchial ultrasound [EBUS]-guided) sampling if the pathological result is likely to affect patient management and no superficial lymphadenopathy is easily accessible.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.In the case of solid liver masses suspicious for metastasis, ESGE suggests performing EUS-guided sampling if the pathological result is likely to affect patient management, and (i) the lesion is poorly accessible/not detected at percutaneous imaging, or (ii) a sample obtained via the percutaneous route repeatedly yielded an inconclusive result.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Download Full-text

Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

Endoscopy ◽

10.1055/a-1717-1391 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Schalk W. van der Merwe ◽

Roy L. J. van Wanrooij ◽

Michiel Bronswijk ◽

Simon Everett ◽

Sundeep Lakhtakia ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽

Biliary Drainage ◽

Biliary Obstruction ◽

Outlet Obstruction ◽

Strong Recommendation ◽

Gallbladder Drainage ◽

Weak Recommendation ◽

Moderate Quality ◽

Quality Evidence

Main Recommendations 1 ESGE recommends the use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) over percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in malignant distal biliary obstruction when local expertise is available.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2 ESGE suggests EUS-BD with hepaticogastrostomy only for malignant inoperable hilar biliary obstruction with a dilated left hepatic duct when inadequately drained by ERCP and/or PTBD in high volume expert centers.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends that EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be considered in symptomatic patients with an obstructed PD when retrograde endoscopic intervention fails or is not possible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends rendezvous EUS techniques over transmural PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy owing to its lower rate of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE recommends that, in patients at high surgical risk, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (GBD) should be favored over percutaneous gallbladder drainage where both techniques are available, owing to the lower rates of adverse events and need for re-interventions in EUS-GBD.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6 ESGE recommends EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), in an expert setting, for malignant gastric outlet obstruction, as an alternative to enteral stenting or surgery.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 ESGE recommends that EUS-GE may be considered in the management of afferent loop syndrome, especially in the setting of malignancy or in poor surgical candidates. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE suggests that endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) can be offered, in expert centers, to patients with a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass following multidisciplinary decision-making, with the aim of overcoming the invasiveness of laparoscopy-assisted ERCP and the limitations of enteroscopy-assisted ERCP.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Download Full-text