Online content viewable at: https://www.thieme-connect.com/

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: 1 Rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90?%); 2?Cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90?%); 3 Adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25?%); 4 Appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80?%); 5 Complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 Patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 Appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations: The following recommendations for post-polypectomy endoscopic surveillance should be applied only after a high quality baseline colonoscopy with complete removal of all detected neoplastic lesions. 1 In the low risk group (patients with 1???2 tubular adenomas?

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.

Main RecommendationsThe following recommendations for post-polypectomy colonoscopic surveillance apply to all patients who had one or more polyps that were completely removed during a high quality baseline colonoscopy. 1 ESGE recommends that patients with complete removal of 1 – 4 < 10 mm adenomas with low grade dysplasia, irrespective of villous components, or any serrated polyp < 10 mm without dysplasia, do not require endoscopic surveillance and should be returned to screening.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.If organized screening is not available, repetition of colonoscopy 10 years after the index procedure is recommended.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends surveillance colonoscopy after 3 years for patients with complete removal of at least 1 adenoma ≥ 10 mm or with high grade dysplasia, or ≥ 5 adenomas, or any serrated polyp ≥ 10 mm or with dysplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends a 3 – 6-month early repeat colonoscopy following piecemeal endoscopic resection of polyps ≥ 20 mm.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. A first surveillance colonoscopy 12 months after the repeat colonoscopy is recommended to detect late recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4 If no polyps requiring surveillance are detected at the first surveillance colonoscopy, ESGE suggests to perform a second surveillance colonoscopy after 5 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.After that, if no polyps requiring surveillance are detected, patients can be returned to screening. 5 ESGE suggests that, if polyps requiring surveillance are detected at first or subsequent surveillance examinations, surveillance colonoscopy may be performed at 3 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.A flowchart showing the recommended surveillance intervals is provided (Fig. 1).

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90%); cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90%); adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25%); appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80%); complication rate (minimum standard not set); patient experience (minimum standard not set); appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.

Among a cohort of Austrian individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy, the prevalence and NNS of AAs were comparable between men aged 45 to 49 years and women aged 55 to 59 years.

von Willebrand factor antigen (vWF-Ag) is elevated in patients with liver cirrhosis, but the clinical significance is unclear. We hypothesized that vWF-Ag levels may correlate with portal pressure, measured by hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), and predict clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH; HVPG !10 mmHg), decompensation and mortality. Portal hemodynamics were assessed by HVPG measurement, whereas vWF-Ag levels were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. During follow-up, complications of liver cirrhosis, death or transplantation were recorded. Two hundred and eighty-six patients (205 male and 81 female; mean age, 56 years) with liver cirrhosis were included. vWF-Ag correlated with HVPG (r 5 0.69; P < 0.0001) and predicted CSPH independently of Child Pugh score. Higher vWF-Ag levels were associated with varices (odds ratio [OR] 5 3.27; P < 0.001), ascites (OR 5 3.93; P < 0.001) and mortality (hazard ratio: 4.41; P < 0.001). Using a vWF-Ag cut-off value of !241%, the AUC for detection of CSPH in compensated patients was 0.85, with a positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 87% and 80%, respectively. Compensated patients had 25% mortality after 53 months if the vWF-Ag was <315% compared to 15 months in patients with vWF-Ag >315% (P < 0.001). Decompensated patients had a mortality of 25% after 37 and 7 months if their vWF-Ag was <315% and >315%, respectively (P 5 0.002). In compensated patients with a vWF-Ag >315% median time to decompensation or death was 32 months compared with 59 months in patients with vWF-Ag <315%. vWF-Ag equals Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) in mortality prediction (area under the curve [AUC] 5 0.71 for vWF-Ag versus AUC 5 0.65 for MELD; P 5 0.2). Conclusion: vWF-Ag is a new, simple and noninvasive predictor of CSPH. A vWF-Ag cut-off value at 315% can clearly stratify patients with compensated and decompensated liver cirrhosis in two groups with completely different survival. vWF-Ag may become a valuable marker for the prediction of mortality in patients with liver cirrhosis in clinical practice.