Methods of granting hospital privileges to perform gastrointestinal endoscopy

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of gastrointestinal endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to these recommendations.     

Complications of upper GI endoscopy

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of gastrointestinal endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to these recommendations.     

The role of endoscopy in the evaluation and treatment of patients with pancreaticobiliary malignancy

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to these recommendations.     

Guideline for the management of ingested foreign bodies

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of gastrointestinal endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to these recommendations.     

Guidelines for conscious sedation and monitoring during gastrointestinal endoscopy

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to these recommendations.     

The role of EUS for evaluation of mediastinal adenopathy

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to these recommendations.     

Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to these recommendations.     

Role of endoscopy in enteral feeding

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of gastrointestinal endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. A previous guideline related to this topic (ASGE Publication No. 1017, Gastrointest Endosc 1998;48:699-701). Since that time, new information has become available that requires an update of this statement and its recommendations. In preparing this update, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from the recommendations of expert consultants. When inadequate data existed from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis was given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement, and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance from these recommendations.     

ASGE guideline: the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis, staging, and management of colorectal cancer

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of experts. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement and revision needed to clarify aspects of this statement and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to the recommendations.     

ASGE guideline: complications of EUS

This is one of a series of statements discussing the utilization of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a MEDLINE literature search was performed, and additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of experts. When little or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate utilization of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Further controlled clinical studies are needed to clarify aspects of this statement and revision needed to clarify aspects of this statement and revision may be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance to the recommendations.     

Guideline on the management of anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy for endoscopic procedures

This is one of a series of statements discussing the practice of gastrointestinal endoscopy in common clinical situations. It is intended to aid endoscopists in determining the appropriate use of endoscopic procedures in conjunction with anticoagulation and/or antiplatelet therapy. Guidelines for the appropriate practice of endoscopy are based on critical review of the available data and expert consensus. Controlled clinical studies would be beneficial to clarify some aspects of this statement and revision might be necessary as new data appear. Clinical consideration may justify a course of action at variance from these specific recommendations.     

Small bowel adenocarcinoma: French intergroup clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis,treatments and follow-up (SNFGE,FFCD, GERCOR,UNICANCER, SFCD,SFED, SFRO)

BackgroundThis document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of small bowel adenocarcinoma published in October 2016.MethodThis collaborative work, co-directed by most French Medical Societies, summarizes clinical practice recommendations (guidelines) on the management of small bowel adenocarcinoma. Given the lack of specific data in the literature, all references are given by analogy with colon cancer. The classification used is the AJCC (American Joint Committee on Cancer) pTNM classification (7th edition 2009).ResultsSmall bowel adenocarcinoma has a poor prognosis; less than 30% of patients survive for 5 years after the (first) diagnosis (5-year survival of less than 30%). Due to the rarity of the disease and the retrospective data, most recommendations are based on expert agreement. The initial evaluation is based on chest-abdomen-pelvis CT scan, CEA assay, GI endoscopy and colonoscopy in order detect lesions associated with a predisposing disease. Surgical treatment is currently the only curative option for stage I and II. Adjuvant chemotherapy can be discussed for Stage III and Stage II with T4 (expert agreement). With regard to metastatic tumors, treatment with fluoropyrimidine combined with platinum salts should be considered (expert agreement).ConclusionFew specific data exist in the literature on this type of tumor; most of the recommendations come from expert agreements or by analogy with colon cancer. Thus, each case must be discussed within a multidisciplinary team.     

Risks versus benefits of gastrointestinal endoscopy during pregnancy

Although gastrointestinal endoscopy is generally safe, its safety must be separately analyzed during pregnancy with regard to fetal safety. Fetal risks from endoscopic medications are minimized by avoiding FDA category D drugs, minimizing endoscopic medications, and anesthesiologist attendance at endoscopy. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy seems to be relatively safe for the fetus and may be performed when strongly indicated during pregnancy. Despite limited clinical data, endoscopic banding of esophageal varices and endoscopic hemostasis of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding seems justifiable during pregnancy. Flexible sigmoidoscopy during pregnancy also appears to be relatively safe for the fetus and may be performed when strongly indicated. Colonoscopy may be considered in pregnant patients during the second trimester if there is a strong indication. Data on colonoscopy during the other trimesters are limited. Therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography seems to be relatively safe during pregnancy and should be performed for strong indications (for example, complicated choledocholithiasis). Endoscopic safety precautions during pregnancy include the performance of endoscopy in hospital by an expert endoscopist and only when strongly indicated, deferral of endoscopy to the second trimester whenever possible, and obstetric consultation.     

Heart Rhythm Society: expert consensus statements—part 1

One of the most important roles for professional societies in medicine is assembling multiple stakeholders and experts to develop documents that can help guide and define policies and strategies for best medical care. Each year the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS ) develops several consensus documents that address critical clinical subjects that have been identified by input from HRS members and HRS committees. Over the past 5 years, HRS has produced documents with multiple professional societies from around the world, and although the topics chosen for exploration center around arrhythmia management, the reviews and recommendations made in the documents are important for clinical cardiologists and generalists who are not arrhythmia specialists. When an internist or other primary care provider identifies a patient who may be having symptoms from an arrhythmia, the referral first is made to the clinical cardiologist and only later, if necessary, does an arrhythmia specialist become involved. These expert consensus statements are developed for specific clinical questions regarding arrhythmia management where there is controversy or uncertainty, often with less data from randomized controlled trials to help guide recommendations, which must then be made by extrapolation of existing data, observational data, and expert opinion. In this 2‐part review, the consensus statements developed by the HRS over the past 5 years that pertain to adults are discussed in part 1; part 2 focuses on consensus statements that HRS has developed in conjunction with the Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society that address arrhythmia issues in children and adults with congenital heart disease.     

Heart Rhythm Society: expert consensus statements—part 2

One of the most important roles for professional societies in medicine is assembling multiple stakeholders and experts to develop documents that can help guide and define policies and strategies for best medical care. Each year the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS ) develops several consensus documents that address critical clinical subjects that have been identified by input from HRS members and HRS committees. Over the past 5 years, HRS has produced documents with multiple professional societies from around the world, and although the topics chosen for exploration center around arrhythmia management, the reviews and recommendations made in the documents are important for clinical cardiologists and generalists who are not arrhythmia specialists. When an internist or other primary care provider identifies a patient who may be having symptoms from an arrhythmia, the referral first is made to the clinical cardiologist and only later, if necessary, does an arrhythmia specialist become involved. These expert consensus statements are developed for specific clinical questions regarding arrhythmia management where there is controversy or uncertainty, often with less data from randomized controlled trials to help guide recommendations, which must then be made by extrapolation of existing data, observational data, and expert opinion. In this 2‐part review, the consensus statements developed by the HRS over the past 5 years that pertain to adults are discussed in part 1; part 2 focuses on consensus statements that HRS has developed in conjunction with the Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society that address arrhythmia issues in children and adults with congenital heart disease.     

EULAR recommendations for conducting clinical studies and/or clinical trials in systemic vasculitis: focus on anti-neutrophil cytoplasm antibody-associated vasculitis

OBJECTIVES: To develop the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for conducting clinical studies and/or clinical trials in systemic vasculitis. METHODS: An expert consensus group was formed consisting of rheumatologists, nephrologists and specialists in internal medicine representing five European countries and the USA, a clinical epidemiologist and representatives from regulatory agencies. Using an evidence-based and expert opinion-based approach in accordance with the standardised EULAR operating procedures, the group identified nine topics for a systematic literature search through a modified Delphi technique. On the basis of research questions posed by the group, recommendations were derived for conducting clinical studies and/or clinical trials in systemic vasculitis. RESULTS: Based on the results of the literature research, the expert committee concluded that sufficient evidence to formulate guidelines on conducting clinical trials was available only for anti-neutrophil cytoplasm antibody-associated vasculitides (AAV). It was therefore decided to focus the recommendations on these diseases. Recommendations for conducting clinical trials in AAV were elaborated and are presented in this summary document. It was decided to consider vasculitis-specific issues rather than general issues of trial methodology. The recommendations deal with the following areas related to clinical studies of vasculitis: definitions of disease, activity states, outcome measures, eligibility criteria, trial design including relevant end points, and biomarkers. A number of aspects of trial methodology were deemed important for future research. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of expert opinion, recommendations for conducting clinical trials in AAV were formulated. Furthermore, the expert committee identified a strong need for well-designed research in non-AAV systemic vasculitides.     

GI endoscopes

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the Committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through September 2010 for articles related to endoscopy by using the key words "gastroscope," "colonoscope," "echoendoscope," "duodenoscope," "choledochoscope," "ultraslim endoscope," "variable stiffness colonoscope," and "wide-angle colonoscope." Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.     

Recommendations for Standardizing Glucose Reporting and Analysis to Optimize Clinical Decision Making in Diabetes: The Ambulatory Glucose Profile

Underutilization of glucose data and lack of easy and standardized glucose data collection, analysis, visualization, and guided clinical decision making are key contributors to poor glycemic control among individuals with type 1 diabetes mellitus. An expert panel of diabetes specialists, facilitated by the International Diabetes Center and sponsored by the Helmsley Charitable Trust, met in 2012 to discuss recommendations for standardizing the analysis and presentation of glucose monitoring data, with the initial focus on data derived from continuous glucose monitoring systems. The panel members were introduced to a universal software report, the Ambulatory Glucose Profile, and asked to provide feedback on its content and functionality, both as a research tool and in clinical settings. This article provides a summary of the topics and issues discussed during the meeting and presents recommendations from the expert panel regarding the need to standardize glucose profile summary metrics and the value of a uniform glucose report to aid clinicians, researchers, and patients.     

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy PIVI (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations) on real-time endoscopic assessment of the histology of diminutive colorectal polyps

The PIVI (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable endoscopic Innovations) initiative is an ASGE program whose objectives are to identify important clinical questions related to endoscopy and to establish a priori diagnostic and/or therapeutic thresholds for endoscopic technologies designed to resolve these clinical questions. Additionally, PIVIs may also outline the data and or the research study design required for proving an established threshold is met. Once endoscopic technologies meet an established PIVI threshold, those technologies are appropriate to incorporate into clinical practice presuming the appropriate training in that endoscopic technology has been achieved. The ASGE encourages and supports the appropriate use of technologies that meet its established PIVI thresholds. The PIVI initiative was developed primarily to direct endoscopic technology development toward resolving important clinical issues in endoscopy. The PIVI initiative is also designed to minimize the possibility that potentially valuable innovations are prematurely abandoned due to lack of utilization and to avoid widespread use of an endoscopic technology before clinical studies documenting their effectiveness have been performed. The following document, or PIVI, is one of a series of statements defining the diagnostic or therapeutic threshold that must be met for a technique or device to become considered appropriate for incorporation into clinical practice. It is also meant to serve as a guide for researchers or those seeking to develop technologies that are designed to improve digestive health outcomes. An ad hoc committee under the auspices of the existing ASGE Technology and Standards of Practice Committees Chairs develops PIVIs. An expert in the subject area chairs the PIVI, with additional committee members chosen for their individual expertise. In preparing this document, evidence-based methodology was employed, using a MEDLINE and PubMed literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic. PIVIs are ultimately submitted to the ASGE Governing Board for approval, as is done for all Technology and Standards of Practice documents. This document is provided solely for educational and informational purposes and to support incorporating these endoscopic technologies into clinical practice. It should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care.     

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in pregnancy

Gastrointestinal endoscopy has a major diagnostic and therapeutic role in most gastrointestinal disorders; however, limited information is available about clinical efficacy and safety in pregnant patients. The major risks of endoscopy during pregnancy include potential harm to the fetus because of hypoxia, premature labor, trauma and teratogenesis. In some cases, endoscopic procedures may be postponed until after delivery. When emergency or urgent indications are present, endoscopic procedures may be considered with some precautions. United States Food and Drug Administration category B drugs may be used in low doses. Endoscopic procedures during pregnancy may include upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, enteroscopy of the small bowel or video capsule endoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasonography. All gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures in pregnant patients should be performed in hospitals by expert endoscopists and an obstetrician should be informed about all endoscopic procedures. The endoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy may be safe for the fetus and pregnant patient, and may be performed during pregnancy when strong indications are present. Colonoscopy for pregnant patients may be considered for strong indications during the second trimester. Although therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography may be considered during pregnancy, this procedure should be performed only for strong indications and attempts should be made to minimize radiation exposure.