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 evidence The 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.

/pdf/small-bowel-capsule-endoscopy-and-device-assisted-4dltzyt3z1.pdf

Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline.

Adverse events associated with ERCP

When patients receiving anticoagulation therapy undergo invasive procedures, management requires an individualized assessment of the risk of bleeding versus the risk of thrombosis. This review explains management, including bridging anticoagulation for patients receiving warfarin.

/pdf/management-of-antithrombotic-therapy-in-patients-undergoing-486zy1r89g.pdf

Management of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing invasive procedures.

Prophylaxis 1 ESGE recommends routine rectal administration of 100 mg of diclofenac or indomethacin immediately before endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in all patients without contraindications to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug administration. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends prophylactic pancreatic stenting in selected patients at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis (inadvertent guidewire insertion/opacification of the pancreatic duct, double-guidewire cannulation). Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE suggests against routine endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy before the insertion of a single plastic stent or an uncovered/partially covered self-expandable metal stent for relief of biliary obstruction. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends against the routine use of antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5 ESGE suggests antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP in the case of anticipated incomplete biliary drainage, for severely immunocompromised patients, and when performing cholangioscopy. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6 ESGE suggests tests of coagulation are not routinely required prior to ERCP for patients who are not on anticoagulants and not jaundiced. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. Treatment
 7 ESGE suggests against salvage pancreatic stenting in patients with post-ERCP pancreatitis. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE suggests temporary placement of a biliary fully covered self-expandable metal stent for post-sphincterotomy bleeding refractory to standard hemostatic modalities. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 9 ESGE suggests to evaluate patients with post-ERCP cholangitis by abdominal ultrasonography or computed tomography (CT) scan and, in the absence of improvement with conservative therapy, to consider repeat ERCP. A bile sample should be collected for microbiological examination during repeat ERCP. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

/pdf/ercp-related-adverse-events-european-society-of-1fcjadtbx8.pdf

ERCP-related adverse events: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

Objectives Colonoscopy is central to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Success of CRC screening is dependent on colonoscopy quality. The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) offers biennial faecal occult blood (FOB) testing to 60–74 year olds and colonoscopy to those with positive FOB tests. All colonoscopists in the screening programme are required to meet predetermined standards before starting screening and are subject to ongoing quality assurance. In this study, the authors examine the quality of colonoscopy in the NHS BCSP and describe new and established measures to assess and maintain quality. Design The NHS BCSP database collects detailed data on all screening colonoscopies. Prospectively collected data from the first 3 years of the programme (August 2006 to August 2009) were analysed. Colonoscopy quality indicators (adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate, colonoscopy withdrawal time, caecal intubation rate, rectal retroversion rate, polyp retrieval rate, mean sedation doses, patient comfort scores, bowel preparation quality and adverse event incidence) were calculated along with measures of total adenoma detection. Results 2 269 983 individuals returned FOB tests leading to 36 460 colonoscopies. Mean unadjusted caecal intubation rate was 95.2%, and mean withdrawal time for normal procedures was 9.2 min. The mean ADR per colonoscopist was 46.5%. The mean number of adenomas per procedure (MAP) was 0.91; the mean number of adenomas per positive procedure (MAP+) was 1.94. Perforation occurred after 0.09% of procedures. There were no procedure-related deaths. Conclusions The NHS BCSP provides high-quality colonoscopy, as demonstrated by high caecal intubation rate, ADR and comfort scores, and low adverse event rates. Quality is achieved by ensuring BCSP colonoscopists meet a high standard before starting screening and through ongoing quality assurance. Measuring total adenoma detection (MAP and MAP+) as adjuncts to ADR may further enhance quality assurance.

https://gut.bmj.com/content/gutjnl/61/7/1050.full.pdf?61%2F7%2F1050=

Irving M. Pike

Papers

A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop.