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.

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.

No abstract

Monotherapy with azathioprine before behavior change as well as combination therapy with azathioprine and anti-TNFα before behavior change delays phenotype progression of CD, whereas upper gastrointestinal tract involvement, male gender, and steroid use with or without criteria of steroid dependence are associated with a higher risk for disease progression.

CRP levels at week 14 were associated with SR in patients treated with IFX, independently of baseline CRP serum levels. High inflammatory burden at beginning of IFX treatment was correlated with a worse response.

TB may still occur in those with negative testing, some of them probably representing new infections instead of reactivations. Three out of 25 patients had TB in spite of previously treated LTB, although, the outcome of TB was not worse than in the general population.

Background and study aims Previous studies have suggested a high prevalence of musculoskeletal injuries (MI) in endoscopists. Little evidence has come from European countries. Our main aim was to evaluate the prevalence, type, and impact of MI among Portuguese endoscopists. We also sought to identify risk factors for the development, severity and number of endoscopy-related MI. Material and methods A 48-question electronic survey was developed by a multidisciplinary group. The electronic survey was sent to all members of Portuguese Society of Gastroenterology (n = 705) during May 2019. Study data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at SPG – CEREGA. Results The survey was completed by 171 endoscopists (response rate of 24.3 %), 55.0 % female with a median age of 36 years (range 26–78). The prevalence of at least one MI related to endoscopy was 69.6 % (n = 119), the most frequent being neck pain (30.4 %) and thumb pain (29.2 %). The median time for MI development was 6 years (range 2 months-30 years). Severe pain was reported by 19.3 %. Change in endoscopic technique was undertaken by 61.3 % and reduction in endoscopic caseload was undertaken by 22.7 %. Missing work was reported by 10.1 %, with the median time off from work being 30 days (range 1–90). Female gender and ≥ 15 years in practice were independently associated with MI and severe pain. Years in practice, weekly-time performing endoscopy, and gender were significant predictors of the number of MI. Conclusions Prevalence of MI was significant among Portuguese endoscopists and had a relevant impact on regular and professional activities.

Background and study aims A variety of endoscopic techniques are currently available for treatment of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) anastomotic leaks; however, no definite consensus exists on the most appropriate therapeutic approach. Our aim was to explore current management of UGI anastomotic leaks. Methods A survey questionnaire was distributed among international expert therapeutic endoscopists regarding management of UGI anastomotic leaks. Results A total of 44 % of 163 surveys were returned; 69 % were from gastroenterologists and 56 % had > 10 years of experience. A third of respondents treat between 10 and 19 patients annually. Fifty-six percent use fully-covered self-expandable metal stents as their usual first option; 80% use techniques to minimize migration; 4 weeks was the most common reported stent dwell time. Sixty percent perform epithelial ablation prior to over-the-scope-clip placement or suturing. Regarding endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT), 56 % perform balloon dilation and intracavitary EVT in patients with large cavities but small leak defects. Regarding endoscopic septotomy, 56 % consider a minimal interval of 4 weeks from surgery and 90 % consider the need to perform further sessions. Regarding endoscopic internal drainage (EID), placement of two stents and shorter stents is preferred. Persistent inflammation with clinical sepsis was the definition most commonly reported for endoscopic failure. EVT/stent placement and EVT/EID were the therapeutic options most often chosen in patients with previous oncologic surgery and previous bariatric surgery, respectively. Conclusions There is a wide variation in the management of patients with UGI anastomotic leaks. Future prospective studies are needed to move from an expert- to evidence- and personalization-based care.