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.

EUS-FNTA performed in conjunction with the FV-EUS scope for sampling SELs of the gastrointestinal tract was safe and provided a very high diagnostic accuracy. Studies comparing FV-EUS with standard curved linear echoendoscopes are needed to clarify whether these results are due to the sampling technique or the type of scope utilized.

No abstract

BackgroundAlthough evidence suggests frequent gastrointestinal (GI) involvement during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), endoscopic findings are scarcely reported.AimsWe aimed at registering endoscopic abnormalities and potentially associated risk factors among patients with COVID-19.MethodsAll consecutive patients with COVID-19 undergoing endoscopy in 16 institutions from high-prevalence regions were enrolled. Mann-Whitney U, χ2 or Fisher’s exact test were used to compare patients with major abnormalities to those with negative procedures, and multivariate logistic regression to identify independent predictors.ResultsBetween February and May 2020, during the first pandemic outbreak with severely restricted endoscopy activity, 114 endoscopies on 106 patients with COVID-19 were performed in 16 institutions (men=70.8%, median age=68 (58–74); 33% admitted in intensive care unit; 44.4% reporting GI symptoms). 66.7% endoscopies were urgent, mainly for overt GI bleeding. 52 (45.6%) patients had major abnormalities, whereas 13 bled from previous conditions. The most prevalent upper GI abnormalities were ulcers (25.3%), erosive/ulcerative gastro-duodenopathy (16.1%) and petechial/haemorrhagic gastropathy (9.2%). Among lower GI endoscopies, 33.3% showed an ischaemic-like colitis.Receiver operating curve analysis identified D-dimers >1850 ng/mL as predicting major abnormalities. Only D-dimers >1850 ng/mL (OR=12.12 (1.69–86.87)) and presence of GI symptoms (OR=6.17 (1.13–33.67)) were independently associated with major abnormalities at multivariate analysis.ConclusionIn this highly selected cohort of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring endoscopy, almost half showed acute mucosal injuries and more than one-third of lower GI endoscopies had features of ischaemic colitis. Among the hospitalisation-related and patient-related variables evaluated in this study, D-dimers above 1850 ng/mL was the most useful at predicting major mucosal abnormalities at endoscopy.Trial registration numberClinicalTrial.gov (ID: NCT04318366).

Objectives Long‐term outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS‐CDS) performed with lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) have been poorly evaluated in small or retrospective series, leading to an underestimation of LAMS dysfunction. Methods All consecutive EUS‐CDS performed in three academic referral centers were included in prospectively maintained databases. Technical/clinical success, adverse events (AEs), and dysfunction during follow‐up were retrospectively analyzed. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to estimate dysfunction‐free survival (DFS), with Cox proportional hazard regression to evaluate independent predictors of dysfunction. Results Ninety‐three patients were included (male 56%; mean age, 70 years [95% confidence interval (CI) 68–72]; pancreatic cancer 81%, metastatic disease 47%). In 67% of procedures, 6 mm LAMS were used. Technical and clinical success were achieved in 97.8% and 93.4% of patients, respectively, with AEs occurring in 9.7% (78% mild/moderate). Dysfunction occurred in 31.8% of patients after a mean of 166 days (95% CI 91–241), with an estimated 6 month and 12 month DFS of 75% and 52%, respectively; mean DFS of 394 (95% CI 307–482) days. Almost all dysfunctions (96%) were successfully managed by endoscopic reintervention. Duodenal invasion (hazard ratio 2.7 [95% CI 1.1–6.8]) was the only independent predictor of dysfunction. Conclusions Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided choledochoduodenostomy shows excellent initial efficacy and safety, although stent dysfunctions occurs frequently during long‐term follow‐up. Almost all stent dysfunctions can be managed successfully by endoscopic reinterventions. We propose a comprehensive classification of the different types of dysfunction that may be encountered and rescue procedures that may be employed under these circumstances. Duodenal invasion seems to increase the risk of developing EUS‐CDS dysfunction, potentially representing a relative contraindication for this technique.

Background Endoscopic duodenal stenting is the current standard treatment for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) in patients with limited life expectancy. However, duodenal stenting is prone to stent dysfunction. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel technique with potentially superior stent patency. We compared clinical success, safety, and stent dysfunction of EUS-GE and duodenal stenting in patients with malignant GOO using propensity score matching. Methods This international, multicenter, retrospective study analyzed consecutive patients undergoing EUS-GE or duodenal stenting for GOO between 2015 and 2021 in three European centers. Primary outcomes were clinical success (GOO scoring system [GOOSS] ≥ 2) and stent dysfunction (GOOSS ≤ 1 after initial clinical success). A propensity score matching (1:1) analysis was performed using age, sex, underlying disease, disease stage, ascites, and peritoneal carcinomatosis as variables. Results 214 patients underwent EUS-GE (n = 107) or duodenal stenting (n = 107). After propensity score matching, 176 patients were matched and compared. Technical success rates for EUS-GE and duodenal stenting were 94 % (95 %CI 89 %–99 %) vs. 98 % (95 %CI 95 %–100 %), respectively (P = 0.44). Clinical success rates were 91 % (95 %CI 85 %–97 %) vs. 75 % (95 %CI 66 %–84 %; P = 0.008). Stent dysfunction occurred in 1 % (95 %CI 0–4 %) vs. 26 % (95 %CI 15 %–37 %) of patients (P < 0.001). Adverse event rate was 10 % (95 %CI 4 %–17 %) vs. 21 % (95 %CI 12 %–29 %; P = 0.09). Conclusion EUS-GE had higher clinical success and lower stent dysfunction, with similar safety, compared with duodenal stenting, suggesting that EUS-GE may be preferred over duodenal stenting in patients with malignant GOO.

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound-guided intrahepatic biliary drainage (EUS-IBD) struggles to find a place in management algorithms, especially compared to percutaneous drainage (PTBD). In the setting of hilar stenoses or postsurgical anatomy data are even more limited. Patients and methods All consecutive EUS-IBDs performed in our tertiary referral center between 2012 – 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. Rendez-vous (RVs), antegrade stenting (AS) and hepatico-gastrostomies (HGs) were compared. The predefined subgroup of EUS-IBD patients with proximal stenosis/surgically-altered anatomy was matched 1:1 with PTBD performed for the same indications. Efficacy, safety and events during follow-up were compared. Results One hundred four EUS-IBDs were included (malignancies = 87.7 %). These consisted of 16 RVs, 43 ASs and 45 HGs. Technical and clinical success rates were 89.4 % and 96.2 %, respectively. Any-degree, severe and fatal adverse events (AEs) occurred in 23.3 %, 2.9 %, and 0.9 % respectively. Benign indications were more common among RVs while proximal stenoses, surgically-altered anatomy, and disconnected left ductal system among HGs. Procedures were shorter with HGs performed with specifically designed stents (25 vs. 48 minutes, P = 0.004) and there was also a trend toward less dysfunction with those stents (6.7 % vs. 30 %, P = 0.09) compared with previous approaches. Among patients with proximal stenosis/surgically-altered anatomy, EUS-IBD vs. PTBD showed higher rates of clinical success (97.4 % vs. 79.5 %, P = 0.01), reduced post-procedural pain (17.8 % vs. 44.4 %, p = 0.004), shorter median hospital stay (7.5 vs 11.5 days, P = 0.01), lower rates of stent dysfunction (15.8 % vs. 42.9 %, P = 0.01), and the mean number of reinterventions was lower (0.4 vs. 2.8, P < 0.0001). Conclusions EUS-IBD has high technical and clinical success with an acceptable safety profile. HGs show comparable outcomes, which are likely to further improve with dedicated tools. For proximal strictures and surgically-altered anatomy, EUS-IBD seems superior to PTBD.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Efficacy of bowel preparation is an important determinant of outcomes of colonoscopy. It is not clear whether approved low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) and non-PEG regimens are as effective as high-volume PEG regimens when taken in a split dose. METHODS: In a systematic review of multiple electronic databases through January 31, 2019 with a registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019128067), we identified randomized controlled trials that compared low-vs high-volume bowel cleansing regimens, administered in a split dose, for colonoscopy. The primary efficacy outcome was rate of adequate bowel cleansing, and the secondary efficacy outcome was adenoma detection rate. Primary tolerability outcomes were compliance, tolerability, and willingness to repeat. We calculated relative risk (RR) and 95% CI values and assessed heterogeneity among studies by using the I 2 statistic. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework.