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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

ASGE guideline: the management of low-molecular-weight heparin and nonaspirin antiplatelet agents for endoscopic procedures

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 use 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.     

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.     

Trends in the utilization of diagnostic upper GI endoscopy in New South Wales,Australia, 1988 to 1998

BACKGROUND: Upper endoscopy is frequently performed, yet there are few published data regarding utilization trends. Such data provide an indication of changes in clinical practice over time and identify subpopulations who may be underexposed or overexposed to the procedure. METHODS: Time series data were analyzed for all diagnostic upper endoscopies performed on residents of an Australia state between mid 1988 and mid 1998. Endoscopy rates by age, gender, and patient status (public vs. privately insured) were calculated. RESULTS: In 1997/98 the endoscopy rate was 179 of 10,000. The majority were performed on publicly insured patients and women. Over the decade the rate increased by 128%. Rate increases were not constant across time, age, gender, or patient (insurance) status. The greatest increases occurred in the early to mid 1990s, and in patients less than 65 years of age. There was a greater increase (126%) among women 55 to 64 years of age compared with other age categories for both genders. Rates for publicly insured patients increased more than those for privately insured patients, particularly among individuals in the age range 25 to 34 years. Rates for private patients increased more for women than men (81% vs. 59%). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of utilization of endoscopy increased dramatically during the period from 1988 to 1998, particularly during the earlier part of this decade. The cause(s) of the differences in subpopulation rates warrant investigation, as do their relationship to patient management and outcomes. These data provide opportunities for international comparisons.     

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.     

The effectiveness of endoscopy in the management of dyspepsia: a qualitative systematic review

PURPOSE: Dyspepsia is a common primary care condition, yet its optimal management is poorly defined. We reviewed the literature to answer the following questions about patients with dyspepsia: 1) Does endoscopy result in improved patient outcomes? 2) Does endoscopy result in a reduction in the use of subsequent medical resources? 3) Does endoscopy result in improved medical decision making? 4) Is endoscopy cost effective? METHODS: We performed a systematic review of English-language articles in the MEDLINE, HEALTHSTAR, and EMBASE computerized bibliographic databases from January 1985 to July 1998. We included all studies, including decision analyses, with information about the effectiveness of endoscopy, as measured by its impact on patient outcomes, resource utilization, clinical decision making, or cost effectiveness. Two independent reviewers abstracted data from each study, and assessed its methodologic quality. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. For 3 of the 4 clinical questions, the weight of evidence does not support the effectiveness of endoscopy. The largest randomized clinical trial comparing endoscopy with empiric therapy demonstrates equivalent symptoms and quality of life at 1 year, with increased patient satisfaction and lower costs for initial endoscopy. Suboptimal study design, including lack of appropriate comparison groups, limit studies measuring the impact of endoscopy on resource utilization and decision-making. Decision analyses indicate that noninvasive H pylori testing followed by anti-H pylori therapy or empiric antisecretory therapy is more cost effective than initial endoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of one randomized clinical trial, the preponderance of available data does not support the effectiveness of endoscopy in the management of dyspepsia. Prospective clinical trials that evaluate patient outcomes and resource utilization, and take H pylori status into account, are needed to determine the effectiveness of endoscopy in the management of dyspepsia.     

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.     

A Canadian clinical practice algorithm for the management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

AIM: To use current evidence-based recommendations to provide a user-friendly clinical algorithm for the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding, adapted to the Canadian environment. METHODS: A multidisciplinary consensus group of 25 participants representing 11 national societies used a seven-step approach to develop recommendations according to accepted standards. Sources of data included narrative and systematic reviews as well as published and new meta-analyses. A small writing subgroup subsequently created the algorithm. RESULTS: Recommendations emphasize appropriate initial resuscitation of the patient and a multidisciplinary approach to clinical risk stratification that determines the need for early endoscopy. Early endoscopy allows safe and prompt discharge of selected patients classified as low risk. Endoscopic hemostasis is reserved for patients with high-risk endoscopic lesions. Although monotherapy with injection or thermal coagulation is effective, the combination is superior to either treatment alone. High-dose intravenous proton-pump inhibition is recommended in patients who have undergone successful endoscopic therapy. Routine second-look endoscopy is not recommended. Patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to ulcer disease should be tested and treated for Helicobacter pylori infection. CONCLUSIONS: This algorithm should facilitate appropriate risk stratification, use of endoscopic therapy and the appropriate utilization of proton-pump inhibition to optimize the care of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The algorithm should be customized to the resources of individual medical centres. Its application should be studied with appropriate outcomes recorded and validation performed.     

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.