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.

Propofol sedation by non-anesthesiologists is an upcoming sedation regimen in several countries throughout Europe. Numerous studies have shown the efficacy and safety of this sedation regimen in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Nevertheless, this issue remains highly controversial. The aim of this evidence- and consensus-based set of guideline is to provide non-anesthesiologists with a comprehensive framework for propofol sedation during digestive endoscopy. This guideline results from a collaborative effort from representatives of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA). These three societies have endorsed the present guideline

Propofol sedation by non-anaesthesiologists is an upcoming sedation regimen in several countries throughout Europe. Numerous studies have shown the efficacy and safety of this sedation regimen in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Nevertheless, this issue remains highly controversial. The aim of this evidence- and consensus-based set of guideline is to provide non-anaesthesiologists with a comprehensive framework for propofol sedation during digestive endoscopy. This guideline results from a collaborative effort from representatives of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA). These three societies have endorsed the present guideline.The guideline is published simultaneously in the Journals Endoscopy and European Journal of Anaesthesiology.

The assessment of the angiogenic profile of tumors may become an important tool as a guide for the inclusion of novel drugs and molecular therapies into the standard chemoradiotherapy policy. Several studies have shown the prognostic importance of microvessel density (MVD) and of angiogenic factor expression in operable gastric cancer. In the present study we investigated, with immunohistochemistry the MVD, the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and of thymidine phosphorylase (TP) expression, as well as the nuclear expression of p53 protein, in a series of patients with locally advanced inoperable gastric cancer. A strong association of VEGF with TP expression was noted (P = 0.005), and tumors coexpressing these factors had a statistically higher MVD (P = 0.0001). Nuclear p53 accumulation was also related to a high MVD (P = 0.004), and this was independent of VEGF or TP expression. Microvessel density showed a bell-shaped association with prognosis; cases with an intermediate MVD exhibit a favorable outcome (P < 0.05). A trend of nuclear TP expression to define a group of patients with poorer prognosis was noted (P = 0.06), while none of the remaining variables showed any significant association. The immunostaining results allowed the grouping of the angiogenic profile in four major categories: 1) highly vascularized tumors with VEGF and/or TP expression (about 36% of cases); 2) highly angiogenic tumors with p53 nuclear accumulation and low VEGF/TP expression (7% of cases); 3) poorly vascularized tumor with low VEGF/TP and negative nuclear p53 staining (32% of cases); 4) poorly vascularized tumors with TP expression (7% of cases). Specific therapies targeting hypoxia, VEGF, or TP expression as well as p53 gene therapy have entered clinical experimentation or are already available for clinical use. Using the suggested markers more than 80% of locally advanced gastric carcinomas can be grouped in different categories according to their angiogenic profile. Such a categorization may be useful for phase III trials on novel therapies targeting the major angiogenesis-related features studied here.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract