scholarly journals Endoscopic biliary stenting: indications, choice of stents, and results: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline – Updated October 2017

Endoscopy ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (09) ◽  
pp. 910-930 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Marc Dumonceau ◽  
Andrea Tringali ◽  
Ioannis Papanikolaou ◽  
Daniel Blero ◽  
Benedetto Mangiavillano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bile Duct ◽  
Biliary Drainage ◽  
Biliary Obstruction ◽  
Preoperative Biliary Drainage ◽  
Strong Recommendation ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Extrahepatic Biliary Obstruction ◽  
Malignant Hilar Obstruction ◽  
Endoscopic Placement ◽  
Quality Evidence

Main RecommendationsESGE recommends against routine preoperative biliary drainage in patients with malignant extrahepatic biliary obstruction; preoperative biliary drainage should be reserved for patients with cholangitis, severe symptomatic jaundice (e. g., intense pruritus), or delayed surgery, or for before neoadjuvant chemotherapy in jaundiced patients. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends the endoscopic placement of a 10-mm diameter self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) for preoperative biliary drainage of malignant extrahepatic biliary obstruction. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends SEMS insertion for palliative drainage of of extrahepatic malignant biliary obstruction. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE recommends against the insertion of uncovered SEMS for the drainage of extrahepatic biliary obstruction of unconfirmed etiology. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE suggests against routine preoperative biliary drainage in patients with malignant hilar obstruction. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends uncovered SEMSs for palliative drainage of malignant hilar obstruction. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends temporary insertion of multiple plastic stents or of a fully covered SEMS for treatment of benign biliary strictures. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends endoscopic placement of plastic stent(s) to treat bile duct leaks that are not due to transection of the common bile duct or common hepatic duct. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

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

Endoscopy ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline

Endoscopy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (05) ◽  
pp. 472-491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianpiero Manes ◽  
Gregorios Paspatis ◽  
Lars Aabakken ◽  
Andrea Anderloni ◽  
Marianna Arvanitakis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bile Duct ◽  
Common Bile Duct ◽  
Biliary Drainage ◽  
Acute Cholangitis ◽  
Common Bile Duct Stones ◽  
Bile Duct Stones ◽  
Abdominal Ultrasonography ◽  
Strong Recommendation ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Quality Evidence

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

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

Endoscopy ◽  
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.

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

Endoscopy ◽  
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.

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

Endoscopy ◽  
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.

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

Endoscopy ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 49 (10) ◽  
pp. 989-1006 ◽  
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).

scholarly journals Duodenal peripapillary adenocarcinoma causing extrahepatic biliary obstruction and icterus in a cat

2020 ◽  
Vol 89 (5) ◽  
pp. 273-277
Author(s):  
T. Rick ◽  
E. Stock ◽  
I. Van de Maele ◽  
E. Kammergruber ◽  
J. Saunders
Keyword(s):  
Bile Duct ◽  
Common Bile Duct ◽  
Biliary Obstruction ◽  
Ultrasound Examination ◽  
Duodenal Wall ◽  
Abdominal Ultrasonography ◽  
Extrahepatic Biliary Obstruction ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Common ◽  
Distal Aspect

A six-year-old, female, neutered domestic shorthair cat was presented with chronic weight loss and a two-day history of partial anorexia and lethargy. Abdominal ultrasonography revealed a regional thickening of the duodenal wall with loss of normal layering, a normally walled segmentally dilated distal aspect of the common bile duct containing slightly hyperechoic bile, and a mild to moderately enlarged major duodenal papilla. Based on the ultrasound examination, the primary differential diagnosis was a peripapillary duodenal neoplastic or less likely, an inflammatory or infectious process with secondary extrahepatic biliary obstruction. Postmortem examination revealed a duodenal, peripapillary adenocarcinoma with metastasis into the liver and lymph nodes, and external compressive obstruction of cystic- and common bile duct.

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

Endoscopy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (12) ◽  
pp. 1155-1179 ◽  
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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document