scholarly journals Esophageal stenting for benign and malignant disease: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2021

Endoscopy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manon C. W. Spaander ◽  
Ruben D. van der Bogt ◽  
Todd H. Baron ◽  
David Albers ◽  
Daniel Blero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Malignant Disease ◽  
Sems Placement ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Strong Recommendation ◽  
Malignant Dysphagia ◽  
Weak Recommendation ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Esophageal Strictures ◽  
Refractory Benign Esophageal Strictures ◽  
Quality Evidence

Main recommendations Malignant disease 1 ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) for palliation of malignant dysphagia over laser therapy, photodynamic therapy, and esophageal bypass.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends brachytherapy as a valid alternative, alone or in addition to stenting, in esophageal cancer patients with malignant dysphagia and expected longer life expectancy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends esophageal SEMS placement for sealing malignant tracheoesophageal or bronchoesophageal fistulas. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 ESGE does not recommend SEMS placement as a bridge to surgery or before preoperative chemoradiotherapy because it is associated with a high incidence of adverse events. Other options such as feeding tube placement are preferable. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. Benign disease 5 ESGE recommends against the use of SEMSs as first-line therapy for the management of benign esophageal strictures because of the potential for adverse events, the availability of alternative therapies, and their cost. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 6 ESGE suggests consideration of temporary placement of self-expandable stents for refractory benign esophageal strictures. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7 ESGE suggests that fully covered SEMSs be preferred over partially covered SEMSs for the treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures because of their very low risk of embedment and ease of removability. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE recommends the stent-in-stent technique to remove partially covered SEMSs that are embedded in the esophageal wall. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9 ESGE recommends that temporary stent placement can be considered for the treatment of leaks, fistulas, and perforations. No specific type of stent can be recommended, and the duration of stenting should be individualized. Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 10 ESGE recommends considering placement of a fully covered large-diameter SEMS for the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding refractory to medical, endoscopic, and/or radiological therapy, or as initial therapy for patients with massive bleeding. Strong recommendation, moderate 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 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.

scholarly journals Self-expandable metal stents for obstructing colonic and extracolonic cancer: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2020

Endoscopy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 52 (05) ◽  
pp. 389-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanin E. van Hooft ◽  
Joyce V. Veld ◽  
Dirk Arnold ◽  
Regina G.H. Beets-Tan ◽  
Simon Everett ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Bridge To Surgery ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Strong Recommendation ◽  
Weak Recommendation ◽  
Colonic Stenting ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Quality Evidence

Main RecommendationsThe following recommendations should only be applied after a thorough diagnostic evaluation including a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan. 1 ESGE recommends colonic stenting to be reserved for patients with clinical symptoms and radiological signs of malignant large-bowel obstruction, without signs of perforation. ESGE does not recommend prophylactic stent placement.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends stenting as a bridge to surgery to be discussed, within a shared decision-making process, as a treatment option in patients with potentially curable left-sided obstructing colon cancer as an alternative to emergency resection.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends colonic stenting as the preferred treatment for palliation of malignant colonic obstruction.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4 ESGE suggests consideration of colonic stenting for malignant obstruction of the proximal colon either as a bridge to surgery or in a palliative setting.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE suggests a time interval of approximately 2 weeks until resection when colonic stenting is performed as a bridge to elective surgery in patients with curable left-sided colon cancer.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends that colonic stenting should be performed or directly supervised by an operator who can demonstrate competence in both colonoscopy and fluoroscopic techniques and who performs colonic stenting on a regular basis.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 ESGE suggests that a decompressing stoma as a bridge to elective surgery is a valid option if the patient is not a candidate for colonic stenting or when stenting expertise is not available.Weak recommendation, low 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 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 ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Opioids in the Management of Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: An Update of American Society of the Interventional Pain Physicians’ (ASIPP) Guidelines

2008 ◽  
Vol 2s;11 (3;2s) ◽  
pp. S5-S62
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Transdermal Fentanyl ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Weak Recommendation ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Level I ◽  
American Society ◽  
Quality Evidence

Background: Opioid abuse has continued to increase at an alarming rate since our last opioid guidelines were published in 2005. Available evidence suggests a continued wide variance in the use of opioids, as documented by different medical specialties, medical boards, advocacy groups, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. Objectives: The objectives of opioid guidelines by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) are to provide guidance for the use of opioids for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, to bring consistency in opioid philosophy among the many diverse groups involved, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, and to reduce the incidence of abuse and drug diversion. Design: A broadly based policy committee of recognized experts in the field evaluated the available literature regarding opioid use in managing chronic non-cancer pain. This resulted in the formulation of the review and update of the guidelines published in 2006, a series of potential evidence linkages representing conclusions, followed by statements regarding the relationships between clinical interventions and outcomes. Methods: The elements of the guideline preparation process included literature searches, literature synthesis, consensus evaluation, open forum presentations, formal endorsement by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, and peer review. Based on the criteria of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the quality of evidence was designated as Level I, II, and III, with 3 subcategories in Level II, with Level I described as strong and Level III as indeterminate. The recommendations were provided from 1A to 2C, varying from strong recommendation with high quality evidence to weak recommendation with low-quality or very low-quality evidence. Results: After an extensive review and analysis of the literature, which included systematic reviews and all of the available literature, the evidence for the effectiveness of long-term opioids in reducing pain and improving functional status for 6 months or longer is variable. The evidence for transdermal fentanyl and sustained-release morphine is Level II-2, whereas for oxycodone the level of evidence is II-3, and the evidence for hydrocodone and methadone is Level III. There is also significant evidence of misuse and abuse of opioids. The recommendation is 2A – weak recommendation, high-quality evidence: with benefits closely balanced with risks and burdens; with evidence derived from RCTs without important limitations or overwhelming evidence from observational studies, with the implication that with a weak recommendation, best action may differ depending on circumstances or patients’ or societal values. Conclusion: Opioids are commonly prescribed for chronic non-cancer pain and may be effective for short-term pain relief. However, long-term effectiveness of 6 months or longer is variable with evidence ranging from moderate for transdermal fentanyl and sustained-release morphine with a Level II-2, to limited for oxycodone with a Level II-3, and indeterminate for hydrocodone and methadone with a Level III. These guidelines included the evaluation of the evidence for the use of opioids in the management of chronic non-cancer pain and the recommendations for that management. These guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Because of the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a “standard of care.” Key words: Chronic pain, persistent pain, non-cancer pain, controlled substances, substance abuse, prescription drug abuse, dependency, opioids, prescription monitoring, drug testing, adherence monitoring, diversion

scholarly journals Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2020

Endoscopy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 52 (08) ◽  
pp. 687-700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cesare Hassan ◽  
Giulio Antonelli ◽  
Jean-Marc Dumonceau ◽  
Jaroslaw Regula ◽  
Michael Bretthauer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Complete Removal ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Surveillance Colonoscopy ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Strong Recommendation ◽  
Weak Recommendation ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Serrated Polyp ◽  
Repeat Colonoscopy ◽  
Quality Evidence

Main RecommendationsThe following recommendations for post-polypectomy colonoscopic surveillance apply to all patients who had one or more polyps that were completely removed during a high quality baseline colonoscopy. 1 ESGE recommends that patients with complete removal of 1 – 4 < 10 mm adenomas with low grade dysplasia, irrespective of villous components, or any serrated polyp < 10 mm without dysplasia, do not require endoscopic surveillance and should be returned to screening.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.If organized screening is not available, repetition of colonoscopy 10 years after the index procedure is recommended.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends surveillance colonoscopy after 3 years for patients with complete removal of at least 1 adenoma ≥ 10 mm or with high grade dysplasia, or ≥ 5 adenomas, or any serrated polyp ≥ 10 mm or with dysplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends a 3 – 6-month early repeat colonoscopy following piecemeal endoscopic resection of polyps ≥ 20 mm.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. A first surveillance colonoscopy 12 months after the repeat colonoscopy is recommended to detect late recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4 If no polyps requiring surveillance are detected at the first surveillance colonoscopy, ESGE suggests to perform a second surveillance colonoscopy after 5 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.After that, if no polyps requiring surveillance are detected, patients can be returned to screening. 5 ESGE suggests that, if polyps requiring surveillance are detected at first or subsequent surveillance examinations, surveillance colonoscopy may be performed at 3 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.A flowchart showing the recommended surveillance intervals is provided (Fig. 1).

scholarly journals Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2019

Endoscopy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (08) ◽  
pp. 775-794 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cesare Hassan ◽  
James East ◽  
Franco Radaelli ◽  
Cristiano Spada ◽  
Robert Benamouzig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
High Volume ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Strong Recommendation ◽  
Split Dose ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Patients At Risk ◽  
Split Dosing ◽  
Quality Evidence

Main RecommendationsESGE recommends a low fiber diet on the day preceding colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of enhanced instructions for bowel preparation.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends split-dose bowel preparation for elective colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends, for patients undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, a same-day bowel preparation as an acceptable alternative to split dosing.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends to start the last dose of bowel preparation within 5 hours of colonoscopy, and to complete it at least 2 hours before the beginning of the procedure.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of high volume or low volume PEG-based regimens as well as that of non-PEG-based agents that have been clinically validated for routine bowel preparation. In patients at risk for hydroelectrolyte disturbances, the choice of laxative should be individualized.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

scholarly journals Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review

Endoscopy ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (04) ◽  
pp. 423-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emanuele Rondonotti ◽  
Cristiano Spada ◽  
Samuel Adler ◽  
Andrea May ◽  
Edward Despott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Small Bowel ◽  
Capsule Endoscopy ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Insertion Depth ◽  
Strong Recommendation ◽  
Balloon Enteroscopy ◽  
Weak Recommendation ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Quality Evidence

Main recommendations Small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) 1 ESGE recommends that prior to SBCE patients ingest a purgative (2 L of polyethylene glycol [PEG]) for better visualization.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.However, the optimal timing for taking purgatives is yet to be established. 2 ESGE recommends that SBCE should be performed as an outpatient procedure if possible, since completion rates are higher in outpatients than in inpatients.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends that patients with pacemakers can safely undergo SBCE without special precautions.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 ESGE suggests that SBCE can also be safely performed in patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillators and left ventricular assist devices.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE recommends the acceptance of qualified nurses and trained technicians as prereaders of capsule endoscopy studies as their competency in identifying pathology is similar to that of medically qualified readers. The responsibility of establishing a diagnosis must however remain with the attending physician.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends observation in cases of asymptomatic capsule retention.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.In cases where capsule retrieval is indicated, ESGE recommends the use of device-assisted enteroscopy as the method of choice.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. Device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) 1 ESGE recommends performing diagnostic DAE as a day-case procedure in patients without significant underlying co-morbidities; in patients with co-morbidities and/or those undergoing a therapeutic procedure, an inpatient stay is recommended.Strong recommendation, low quality evidenceThe choice between different settings also depends on sedation protocols.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 ESGE suggests that conscious sedation, deep sedation, and general anesthesia are all acceptable alternatives: the choice between them should be governed by procedure complexity, clinical factors, and local organizational protocols.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends that the findings of previous diagnostic investigations should guide the choice of insertion route.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.If the location of the small-bowel lesion is unknown or uncertain, ESGE recommends that the antegrade route should be generally preferred.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.In the setting of massive overt bleeding, ESGE recommends an initial antegrade approach.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends that, for balloon-assisted enteroscopy (i. e., single-balloon enteroscopy [SBE] and double-balloon enteroscopy [DBE]), small-bowel insertion depth should be estimated by counting net advancement of the enteroscope during the insertion phase, with confirmation of this estimate during withdrawal.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that, for spiral enteroscopy, insertion depth should be estimated during withdrawal.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. Since the calculated insertion depth is only a rough estimate, ESGE recommends placing a tattoo to mark the identified lesion and/or the deepest point of insertion.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE recommends that all endoscopic therapeutic procedures can be undertaken at the time of DAE.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.Moreover, when therapeutic interventions are performed, additional specific safety measures are needed to prevent complications.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

scholarly journals Working towards evidence-informed policy: Public health report Stockholm

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
V Bartelink ◽  
D Yacaman Mendez ◽  
A Lager
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Resource Allocation ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Public Health Report ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health Report ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Quality Evidence

Abstract Issue Public health problems and interventions are often addressed in sub-optimal ways by not prioritizing them based on the best available evidence. Description of the Problem The public health report 2019 for the Stockholm region aims to inform decision makers, politicians, and public health workers about the risk factors and diseases that account for the biggest part of the burden of disease with a clear focus on high quality evidence and communication of main messages. How did the public health report 2019 affect public health policy in the Stockholm region? Results The public health report 2019 influenced agenda setting, resource allocation and priority setting in the Stockholm region. Lessons We identified the following facilitating factors in the process, of which most also are supported in scientific literature, in chronological order: 1) understanding the policymaking context to be aware of windows of opportunity, 2) establishing relationships with relevant policymakers, engage with them routinely in the decision-making process, and being accessible for questions, 3) doing high-quality research by considering the latest scientific literature, multiple data sources and involving academic experts in the field, 4) communicating clear and relevant messages for generalists by translating research into easy-understandable texts and attractive figures, and 5) active dissemination of the report through multiple channels. In addition, the following barriers were identified: 1) the timeframe of the policymaking process was not in line with the research process, and 2) involving politicians in an early stage can potentially harm the objectivity of research in media messages. Key messages By focussing on major problems, high quality evidence and clear messages a public health report can contribute to more evidence-informed policy making. Engaging decision makers in the process of public health reporting is critical for the impact on agenda setting, resource allocation, and priority setting.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document