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 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.
At subgroup analysis, IPFD was associated only with an increased risk of acute biliary pancreatitis, whereas the other etiologies were not statistically significant. Whether IPFD can be considered a ...risk factor for AP, should be evaluated in a prospective study involving subjects with IPFD without any history of pancreatic disease (including genetic predisposition), evaluating the incidence of AP during a long-term follow-up compared with healthy pancreas controls. Different from the conclusions of the authors of this study, we believe that fatty replacement is not the “first hit” predisposing to pancreatic disease, but the “second hit” driving to pancreatic meta-inflammation and chronic damage (Figure 1).
This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). The Guideline was also reviewed and endorsed by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG). It ...addresses the roles of small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders.
Main recommendations
1
ESGE recommends small-bowel video capsule endoscopy as the first-line investigation in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
2
In patients with overt obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, ESGE recommends performing small-bowel capsule endoscopy as soon as possible after the bleeding episode, optimally within 14 days, in order to maximize the diagnostic yield (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
3
ESGE does not recommend the routine performance of second-look endoscopy prior to small-bowel capsule endoscopy; however whether to perform second-look endoscopy before capsule endoscopy in patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding or iron-deficiency anaemia should be decided on a case-by-case basis (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).
4
In patients with positive findings at small-bowel capsule endoscopy, ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy to confirm and possibly treat lesions identified by capsule endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence).
5
ESGE recommends ileocolonoscopy as the first endoscopic examination for investigating patients with suspected Crohn’s disease (strong recommendation, high quality evidence).
In patients with suspected Crohn’s disease and negative ileocolonoscopy findings, ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy as the initial diagnostic modality for investigating the small bowel, in the absence of obstructive symptoms or known stenosis (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
ESGE does not recommend routine small-bowel imaging or the use of the PillCam patency capsule prior to capsule endoscopy in these patients (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).
In the presence of obstructive symptoms or known stenosis, ESGE recommends that dedicated small bowel cross-sectional imaging modalities such as magnetic resonance enterography/enteroclysis or computed tomography enterography/enteroclysis should be used first (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).
6
In patients with established Crohn’s disease, based on ileocolonoscopy findings, ESGE recommends dedicated cross-sectional imaging for small-bowel evaluation since this has the potential to assess extent and location of any Crohn’s disease lesions, to identify strictures, and to assess for extraluminal disease (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).
In patients with unremarkable or nondiagnostic findings from such cross-sectional imaging of the small bowel, ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a subsequent investigation, if deemed to influence patient management (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).
When capsule endoscopy is indicated, ESGE recommends use of the PillCam patency capsule to confirm functional patency of the small bowel (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).
7
ESGE strongly recommends against the use of small-bowel capsule endoscopy for suspected coeliac disease but suggests that capsule endoscopy could be used in patients unwilling or unable to undergo conventional endoscopy (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).
Abstract
This ESGE Position Statement defines the expected value of artificial intelligence (AI) for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal neoplasia within the framework of the performance ...measures already defined by ESGE. This is based on the clinical relevance of the expected task and the preliminary evidence regarding artificial intelligence in artificial or clinical settings.
Main recommendations:
(1) For acceptance of AI in assessment of completeness of upper GI endoscopy, the adequate level of mucosal inspection with AI should be comparable to that assessed by experienced endoscopists. (2) For acceptance of AI in assessment of completeness of upper GI endoscopy, automated recognition and photodocumentation of relevant anatomical landmarks should be obtained in ≥90% of the procedures. (3) For acceptance of AI in the detection of Barrett’s high grade intraepithelial neoplasia or cancer, the AI-assisted detection rate for suspicious lesions for targeted biopsies should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists with or without advanced imaging techniques. (4) For acceptance of AI in the management of Barrett’s neoplasia, AI-assisted selection of lesions amenable to endoscopic resection should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists. (5) For acceptance of AI in the diagnosis of gastric precancerous conditions, AI-assisted diagnosis of atrophy and intestinal metaplasia should be comparable to that provided by the established biopsy protocol, including the estimation of extent, and consequent allocation to the correct endoscopic surveillance interval. (6) For acceptance of artificial intelligence for automated lesion detection in small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), the performance of AI-assisted reading should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists for lesion detection, without increasing but possibly reducing the reading time of the operator. (7) For acceptance of AI in the detection of colorectal polyps, the AI-assisted adenoma detection rate should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists. (8) For acceptance of AI optical diagnosis (computer-aided diagnosis CADx) of diminutive polyps (≤5 mm), AI-assisted characterization should match performance standards for implementing resect-and-discard and diagnose-and-leave strategies. (9) For acceptance of AI in the management of polyps ≥ 6 mm, AI-assisted characterization should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists in selecting lesions amenable to endoscopic resection.
Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a noninvasive technique used to explore the colon without sedation or air insufflation. A second-generation capsule was recently developed to improve accuracy of ...detection, and clinical use has expanded globally. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the accuracy of CCE in detecting colorectal polyps.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and other databases from 1966 through 2015 for studies that compared accuracy of colonoscopy with histologic evaluation with CCE. The risk of bias within each study was ascertained according to Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy in Systematic Reviews recommendations. Per-patient accuracy values were calculated for polyps, overall and for first-generation (CCE-1) and second-generation (CCE-2) capsules. We analyzed data by using forest plots, the I2 statistic to calculate heterogeneity, and meta-regression analyses.
Fourteen studies provided data from 2420 patients (1128 for CCE-1 and 1292 for CCE-2). CCE-2 and CCE-1 detected polyps >6 mm with 86% sensitivity (95% confidence interval CI, 82%–89%) and 58% sensitivity (95% CI, 44%–70%), respectively, and 88.1% specificity (95% CI, 74.2%–95.0%) and 85.7% specificity (95% CI, 80.2%–90.0%), respectively. CCE-2 and CCE-1 detected polyps >10 mm with 87% sensitivity (95% CI, 81%–91%) and 54% sensitivity (95% CI, 29%–77%), respectively, and 95.3% specificity (95% CI, 91.5%–97.5%) and 97.4% specificity (95% CI, 96.0%–98.3%), respectively. CCE-2 identified all 11 invasive cancers detected by colonoscopy.
The sensitivity in detection of polyps >6 mm and >10 mm increased substantially between development of first-generation and second-generation colon capsules. High specificity values for detection of polyps by CCE-2 seem to be achievable with a 10-mm cutoff and in a screening setting.
Abstract
The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) together with the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) recently developed a short list of performance measures for small-bowel ...endoscopy (i. e. small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy) with the final goal of providing endoscopy services across Europe with a tool for quality improvement. Six key performance measures for both small-bowel capsule endoscopy and for device-assisted enteroscopy were selected for inclusion, with the intention being that practice at both a service and endoscopist level should be evaluated against them. Other performance measures were considered to be less relevant, based on an assessment of their overall importance, scientific acceptability, and feasibility. Unlike lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, where performance measures had already been identified, this is the first time that small-bowel endoscopy quality measures have been proposed.
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 unfeasible. Weak 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.
Source and scope
This is an update of the 2014–15 Guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of imaging alternatives to standard colonoscopy. A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) or colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence.
Full text
Available for:
EMUNI, FIS, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, MFDPS, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, SBNM, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VKSCE, VSZLJ, ZAGLJ
Abstract
The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic ...retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key and one minor performance measures for EUS and ERCP, for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at center and endoscopist level:
1
Adequate antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP (key performance measure, at least 90 %);
2
Antibiotic prophylaxis before EUS-guided puncture of cystic lesions (key performance measure, at least 95 %);
3
Bile duct cannulation rate (key performance measure, at least 90 %);
4
Tissue sampling during EUS (key performance measure, at least 85 %);
5
Appropriate stent placement in patients with biliary obstruction below the hilum (key performance measure, at least 95 %);
6
Bile duct stone extraction (key performance measure, at least 90 %);
7
Post-ERCP pancreatitis (key performance measure, less than 10 %).
8
Adequate documentation of EUS landmarks (minor performance measure, at least 90 %).
This present list of quality performance measures for ERCP and EUS recommended by ESGE should not be considered to be exhaustive: it might be extended in future to address further clinical and scientific issues.
Main Recommendations
1
We recommend post-surgery endoscopic surveillance for CRC patients after intent-to-cure surgery and appropriate oncological treatment for both local and distant disease. ...Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
2
We recommend a high quality perioperative colonoscopy before surgery for CRC or within 6 months following surgery. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
3
We recommend performing surveillance colonoscopy 1 year after CRC surgery. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
4
We do not recommend an intensive endoscopic surveillance strategy, e. g. annual colonoscopy, because of a lack of proven benefit. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
5
After the first surveillance colonoscopy following CRC surgery, we suggest the second colonoscopy should be performed 3 years later, and the third 5 years after the second. If additional high risk neoplastic lesions are detected, subsequent surveillance examinations at shorter intervals may be considered. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
6
After the initial surveillance colonoscopy, we suggest halting post-surgery endoscopic surveillance at the age of 80 years, or earlier if life-expectancy is thought to be limited by comorbidities. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
7
In patients with a low risk pT1 CRC treated by endoscopy with an R0 resection, we suggest the same endoscopic surveillance schedule as for any CRC. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.
PDF
