Italy recorded its first case of confirmed acute respiratory case due to Coronavirus on February 18, 2020, soon after the initial reports in China. Since that time, Italy and nations throughout the world have adopted very stringent and severe measures to protect populations from spread of infection.Despite these measures, the number of infected people is growing exponentially with a significant number of patients developing acute respiratory insufficiency. Endoscopy departments face significant risk for diffusion of respiratory diseases that can be spread via an airborne route, including aspiration of oral and fecal material via endoscopes. The purpose of this article is to discuss the measures, with specific focus on personal protection equipment and dressing code modalities, which have been implemented in our hospital to prevent further dissemination of COVID-19 infection.

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.

No abstract

Main RecommendationsESGE suggests endoscopic therapy and/or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) as the first-line therapy for painful uncomplicated chronic pancreatitis (CP) with an obstructed main pancreatic duct (MPD) in the head/body of the pancreas. The clinical response should be evaluated at 6 – 8 weeks; if it appears unsatisfactory, the patient’s case should be discussed again in a multidisciplinary team and surgical options should be considered.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE suggests, for the selection of patients for initial or continued endoscopic therapy and/or ESWL, taking into consideration predictive factors associated with a good long-term outcome. These include, at initial work-up, absence of MPD stricture, a short disease duration, non-severe pain, absence or cessation of cigarette smoking and of alcohol intake, and, after initial treatment, complete removal of obstructive pancreatic stones and resolution of pancreatic duct stricture with stenting.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends ESWL for the clearance of radiopaque obstructive MPD stones larger than 5 mm located in the head/body of the pancreas and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for MPD stones that are radiolucent or smaller than 5 mm. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests restricting the use of endoscopic therapy after ESWL to patients with no spontaneous clearance of pancreatic stones after adequate fragmentation by ESWL.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests treating painful dominant MPD strictures with a single 10-Fr plastic stent for one uninterrupted year if symptoms improve after initial successful MPD drainage. The stent should be exchanged if necessary, based on symptoms or signs of stent dysfunction at regular pancreas imaging at least every 6 months. ESGE suggests consideration of surgery or multiple side-by-side plastic stents for symptomatic MPD strictures persisting beyond 1 year after the initial single plastic stenting, following multidisciplinary discussion. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends endoscopic drainage over percutaneous or surgical treatment for uncomplicated chronic pancreatitis (CP)-related pseudocysts that are within endoscopic reach.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends retrieval of transmural plastic stents at least 6 weeks after pancreatic pseudocyst regression if MPD disruption has been excluded, and long-term indwelling of transmural double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE suggests the temporary insertion of multiple side-by-side plastic stents or of a fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) for treating CP-related benign biliary strictures.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends maintaining a registry of patients with biliary stents and recalling them for stent removal or exchange.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

No abstract

Background/Aim: Although ultrasound (US) has proved to be useful in intestinal diseases, barium enteroclysis (BE) remains the gold standard technique for assessing patients with small bowel Crohn's disease (CD). The ingestion of anechoic non-absorbable solutions has been recently proposed in order to distend intestinal loops and improve small bowel visualisation. The authors' aim was to evaluate the accuracy of oral contrast US in finding CD lesions, assessing their extent within the bowel, and detecting luminal complications, compared with BE and ileocolonoscopy. Methods: 102 consecutive patients with proven CD, having undergone complete x ray and endoscopic evaluation, were enrolled in the study. Each US examination, before and after the ingestion of a polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution (500-800 ml), was performed independently by two sonographers unaware of the results of other diagnostic procedures. The accuracy of conventional and contrast enhanced US in detecting CD lesions and luminal complications, as well as the extent of bowel involvement, were determined. Interobserver agreement between sonographers with both US techniques was also estimated. Results: After oral contrast, satisfactory distension of the intestinal lumen was obtained in all patients, with a mean time to reach the terminal ileum of 31.4 (SD 10.9) minutes. Overall sensitivity of conventional and oral contrast US in detecting CD lesions were 91.4% and 96.1%, respectively. The correlation coefficient between US and x ray extent of ileal disease was r 1 = 0.83 (p,0.001) before and r 2 = 0.94 (p,0.001) after PEG ingestion; r 1 versus r 2 p,0.01. Sensitivity in detecting strictures was 74% for conventional US and 89% for contrast US. Overall interobserver agreement for bowel wall thickness and disease location within the small bowel was already good before but significantly improved after PEG ingestion. Conclusions: Oral contrast bowel US is comparable with BE in defining anatomic location and extension of CD and superior to conventional US in detecting luminal complications, as well as reducing interobserver variability between sonographers. It may be therefore regarded as the first imaging procedure in the diagnostic work up and follow up of small intestine CD.

No abstract

U p to 20% of health care personnel (HCP) were found to be infected with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) 1 in the outbreak in northern Italy. 2 Recommendations on patient and HCP protection have been made, such as postponing procedures, triage, use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and creation of differentiated in-hospital pathways. 3,4 However, several barriers against the adoption of these strategies exist, including cultural factors and shortages of medical resources; therefore, there are few reports of real-world experiences and outcomes with their adoption. 5 The aim of this survey was to investigate the burden of COVID-19 on endoscopic activity in a high-risk area of COVID-19 outbreak, approaches to evaluating patients, adoption and compliance of HCP with protective measures, and initial possible viral transmission outcomes from endoscopy units within a large, community-based setting (both between patients and HCP and between HCP). MethodsThe study was conducted as a survey between March 16 and March 21, 2020. Directors of emergency departments in highrisk areas of northern Italy (Supplementary Figure 1) were invited by e-mail to complete a questionnaire (Figure 1 and Supplementary Table 1). Participation was voluntary. Additional methodology is provided in the Supplementary Material. Results Characteristics of the Endoscopy UnitsA total of 42 endoscopy units were invited, of which 41 participated (97.6%). Most respondents (n ¼ 37, 90.2%) were from high-volume endoscopy units, for a total of 968 endoscopy personnel, including 323 endoscopists, 496 nurses, and 149 health care assistants. Changes in Endoscopy Activity Related to Coronavirus Disease 2019All endoscopy units had patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in their hospital. All but 1 center (40/41, 97.6%) reduced Infection Prevention and Control Measures for Coronavirus Disease 2019Regarding the preventive measures taken after the first Italian case (February 18, 2020), 5 (12.2%) endoscopy units did not take any measures, 29 (70.7%) endoscopy units adopted a triage for risk stratification of COVID-19 infection, 7 (17.1%) endoscopy units decreased endoscopic See editorial on page 36.