Main Recommendations 1 ESGE recommends that the initial assessment of patients presenting with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding should include: a history of co-morbidities and medications that promote bleeding; hemodynamic parameters; physical examination (including digital rectal examination); and laboratory markers. A risk score can be used to aid, but should not replace, clinician judgment.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends that, in patients presenting with a self-limited bleed and no adverse clinical features, an Oakland score of ≤ 8 points can be used to guide the clinician decision to discharge the patient for outpatient investigation.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding and no history of cardiovascular disease, a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 7 g/dL prompting red blood cell transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin concentration of 7–9 g/dL is desirable.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends, in hemodynamically stable patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding and a history of acute or chronic cardiovascular disease, a more liberal red blood cell transfusion strategy, with a hemoglobin threshold of ≤ 8 g/dL prompting red blood cell transfusion. A post-transfusion target hemoglobin concentration of ≥ 10 g/dL is desirable.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE recommends that, in patients with major acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding, colonoscopy should be performed sometime during their hospital stay because there is no high quality evidence that early colonoscopy influences patient outcomes.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 6 ESGE recommends that patients with hemodynamic instability and suspected ongoing bleeding undergo computed tomography angiography before endoscopic or radiologic treatment to locate the site of bleeding.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 ESGE recommends withholding vitamin K antagonists in patients with major lower gastrointestinal bleeding and correcting their coagulopathy according to the severity of bleeding and their thrombotic risk. In patients with hemodynamic instability, we recommend administering intravenous vitamin K and four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC), or fresh frozen plasma if PCC is not available.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE recommends temporarily withholding direct oral anticoagulants at presentation in patients with major lower gastrointestinal bleeding.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9 ESGE does not recommend withholding aspirin in patients taking low dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prevention. If withheld, low dose aspirin should be resumed, preferably within 5 days or even earlier if hemostasis is achieved or there is no further evidence of bleeding.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 10 ESGE does not recommend routinely discontinuing dual antiplatelet therapy (low dose aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor antagonist) before cardiology consultation. Continuation of the aspirin is recommended, whereas the P2Y12 receptor antagonist can be continued or temporarily interrupted according to the severity of bleeding and the ischemic risk. If interrupted, the P2Y12 receptor antagonist should be restarted within 5 days, if still indicated.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Main recommendationsESGE recommends the “pull” technique as the standard method for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the direct percutaneous introducer (“push”) technique for PEG placement in cases where the “pull” method is contraindicated, for example in severe esophageal stenosis or in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) or esophageal cancer.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the intravenous administration of a prophylactic single dose of a beta-lactam antibiotic (or appropriate alternative antibiotic, in the case of allergy) to decrease the risk of post-procedural wound infection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends that inadvertent insertion of a nasogastric tube (NGT) into the respiratory tract should be considered a serious but avoidable adverse event (AE).Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that each institution should have a dedicated protocol to confirm correct positioning of NGTs placed “blindly” at the patient’s bedside; this should include: radiography, pH testing of the aspirate, and end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring, but not auscultation alone.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends confirmation of correct NGT placement by radiography in high-risk patients (intensive care unit [ICU] patients or those with altered consciousness or absent gag/cough reflex).Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that EN may be started within 3 – 4 hours after uncomplicated placement of a PEG or PEG-J.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends that daily tube mobilization (pushing inward) along with a loose position of the external PEG bumper (1 – 2 cm from the abdominal wall) could mitigate the risk of development of buried bumper syndrome.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Main recommendationsESGE recommends considering the following indications for enteral tube insertion: (i) clinical conditions that make oral intake impossible (neurological conditions, obstructive causes); (ii) acute and/or chronic diseases that result in a catabolic state where oral intake becomes insufficient; and (iii) chronic small-bowel obstruction requiring a decompression gastrostomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of temporary feeding tubes placed through a natural orifice (either nostril) in patients expected to require enteral nutrition (EN) for less than 4 weeks. If it is anticipated that EN will be required for more than 4 weeks, percutaneous access should be considered, depending on the clinical setting.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the gastric route as the primary option in patients in need of EN support. Only in patients with altered/unfavorable gastric anatomy (e. g. after previous surgery), impaired gastric emptying, intolerance to gastric feeding, or with a high risk of aspiration, should the jejunal route be chosen.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests that recent gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding due to peptic ulcer disease with risk of rebleeding should be considered to be a relative contraindication to percutaneous enteral access procedures, as should hemodynamic or respiratory instability.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE suggests that the presence of ascites and ventriculoperitoneal shunts should be considered to be additional risk factors for infection and, therefore, further preventive precautions must be taken in these cases.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that percutaneous tube placement (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy [PEG], percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension [PEG-J], or direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy [D-PEJ]) should be considered to be a procedure with high hemorrhagic risk, and that in order to reduce this risk, specific guidelines for antiplatelet or anticoagulant use should be followed strictly.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends refraining from PEG placement in patients with advanced dementia.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends refraining from PEG placement in patients with a life expectancy shorter than 30 days.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence*.

Background and Aims. Inpatients’ bowel preparation before colonoscopy is frequently inadequate, and various interventions have been investigated to improve it, so far. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of various interventions to improve inpatients’ colon preparation quality. Methods. We systematically reviewed the literature for publications on interventions aiming to improve the quality of inpatients’ colon preparation until June, 2018. Significant heterogeneity—measured with I2—was detected at the level of P<0.1. Adequacy rates were measured using inverse variance, and the size effect of different interventions was calculated using random effects model and expressed as odds ratio (OR). Results. Seventeen studies enrolling 2733 inpatients were included. Overall, 67% (60-75%) of the participants achieved adequate colon cleansing (I2=97%; P<0.001). In six studies assessing the impact of educational interventions to patient/physician/nurse vs. no intervention, adequate bowel preparation was achieved in 77% (62-91%) vs. 50% (32-68%) of the patients (OR 95%CI=3.49 (1.67-7.28), P=0.0009; I2=74%; P=0.002). Ten studies examined variations (qualitative and/or quantitative) in bowel preparation regimens with adequate preparation detected in 71% (60-81%) of the participants, and a single study examined the administration of preparation through an esophagogastroduodenoscope, resulting in adequate prep in 71% of the patients. Conclusions. Despite several interventions, only two-thirds of inpatients achieve adequate colon preparation before colonoscopy. Educational interventions significantly improve inpatients’ bowel preparation quality.

The Endocuff (ARC Medical Design, Leeds, UK) is a device that, when mounted on the tip of an endoscope, may assist with inspection of a greater surface of the colonic mucosa by pulling backwards, flattening, and stretching the colonic folds as the endoscope is gradually withdrawn. We aimed to compare the adenoma miss rates of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy with those of conventional colonoscopy. The included patients underwent same-day, back-to-back, (Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy as the index procedure followed by conventional colonoscopy or vice versa, randomly assigned 1:1) colonoscopies, performed by six endoscopists with documented adenoma detection rates> 35 %, in four tertiary endoscopy facilities. We randomized 200 patients (mean age 61.2 years [standard deviation 9.8]; 86.5 % colorectal cancer screening surveillance cases). Overall, there were seven incomplete examinations using Endocuff and one with conventional colonoscopy ( = 0.03). Times for endoscope insertion (5.0 minutes [0.8 - 21.0] vs. 5.0 minutes [1.0 - 16.0]; = 0.49) and withdrawal (6.0 minutes [3.2 - 29.0] vs. 6.0 minutes [3.1 - 17.0]; = 0.06) were similar for Endocuff-assisted and conventional colonoscopy. We detected one cancer and 195 adenomas; 84 in the proximal colon. Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy showed significantly lower overall and proximal colon adenoma miss rates compared with conventional colonoscopy (14.7 % [8.0 % - 21.0 %] vs. 38.4 % [28.1 % - 48.6 %] and 10.4 % [1.8 % - 19.1 %] vs. 38.9 % [23.0 % - 54.8 %], respectively). No difference between the two arms was shown regarding advanced adenoma miss rates, either overall or in the proximal colon. There were no serious adverse events related to the procedures. In comparison with conventional colonoscopy, Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy has a significantly lower adenoma miss rate when performed by high-detector endoscopists. However, the incomplete colonoscopy rate with Endocuff is higher.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02340065.

Our analysis challenges the usefulness of purgative preparation for improving the diagnostic yield of small-bowel video capsule endoscopy and the quality of small-bowel mucosal visualization.

No abstract

No abstract