Explore the vast range of titles available.

This is a collaboration between the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and is a scheduled update of their 2016 guideline on endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. The guideline development committee included representatives from the British Society of Haematology, the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society, and two patient representatives from the charities Anticoagulation UK and Thrombosis UK, as well as gastroenterologists. The process conformed to AGREE II principles and the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were derived using GRADE methodology. Prior to submission for publication, consultation was made with all member societies of ESGE, including BSG. Evidence-based revisions have been made to the risk categories for endoscopic procedures, and to the categories for risks of thrombosis. In particular a more detailed risk analysis for atrial fibrillation has been employed, and the recommendations for direct oral anticoagulants have been strengthened in light of trial data published since the previous version. A section has been added on the management of patients presenting with acute GI haemorrhage. Important patient considerations are highlighted. Recommendations are based on the risk balance between thrombosis and haemorrhage in given situations.

Colonoscopy is a valuable screening tool for colorectal cancer. However, patients experience anxiety when faced with attending a first colonoscopy, and negative attitudes may contribute to non-attendance. Few studies in Europe have explored these attitudes, despite increasing colorectal cancer incidence. We conducted an online survey of the public in five European Union countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK), with the aim of understanding public knowledge of, perceptions of, and attitudes towards, colonoscopy and bowel preparation, amongst colonoscopy-naïve respondents. Attitudes towards colonoscopy were also gathered from colonoscopy-experienced patients. Survey answers were gathered from 2,500 colonoscopy-naïve respondents and 500 colonoscopy-experienced patients, divided equally between countries. Across Europe, 72% of colonoscopy-naïve respondents showed receptiveness to colonoscopy if advised by their doctor to receive one, but only 45% understood its use to prevent colorectal cancer. Forty-three percent of colonoscopy-experienced respondents would still be embarrassed about having another colonoscopy, although 59% said that the experience had been better than expected. Colonoscopy-experienced respondents had greater aversion to bowel preparation than colonoscopy-naïve respondents (47% vs 26%), and 67% of colonoscopy-naïve respondents thought that only 1 litre of bowel preparation or less is required. Italians and the Spanish wanted more information than on average in Europe, while Germans had more realistic expectations of bowel preparation. There are perceptual gaps amongst the public around the purpose of colonoscopies, the subjective experience of the colonoscopy procedure, and the quantity of bowel preparation needed. These concerns could be mitigated by better education and using lower-volume bowel preparation techniques. Europeans would have a colonoscopy, but its preventive medical purpose is poorly understood and there are misconceptions around the process. Further education about the procedure, its benefits and bowel preparation is vital to improve understanding and compliance.

The risk of endoscopy in patients on antithrombotics depends on the risks of procedural haemorrhage versus thrombosis due to discontinuation of therapy.P2Y12 receptor antagonists (clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor)For low-risk endoscopic procedures we recommend continuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists as single or dual antiplatelet therapy (low quality evidence, strong recommendation); For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at low thrombotic risk, we recommend discontinuing P2Y12 receptor antagonists five days before the procedure (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). In patients on dual antiplatelet therapy, we suggest continuing aspirin (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). For high-risk endoscopic procedures in patients at high thrombotic risk, we recommend continuing aspirin and liaising with a cardiologist about the risk/benefit of discontinuation of P2Y12 receptor antagonists (high quality evidence, strong recommendation).WarfarinThe advice for warfarin is fundamentally unchanged from British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) 2008 guidance.Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOAC)For low-risk endoscopic procedures we suggest omitting the morning dose of DOAC on the day of the procedure (very low quality evidence, weak recommendation); For high-risk endoscopic procedures, we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken ≥48 h before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). For patients on dabigatran with CrCl (or estimated glomerular filtration rate, eGFR) of 30–50 mL/min we recommend that the last dose of DOAC be taken 72 h before the procedure (very low quality evidence, strong recommendation). In any patient with rapidly deteriorating renal function a haematologist should be consulted (low quality evidence, strong recommendation).

It is essential to identify the factors in clinical practice that influence the technical performance of colonoscopy as a basis for quality improvement programs. To assess the factors linked to two key indicators of colonoscopy performance, i.e., cecal intubation and polyp diagnosis. Consecutives colonoscopies performed over a 2-wk period in 278 unselected practice sites throughout Italy were prospectively evaluated. A multivariate model was developed to identify determinants of the performance indicators of colonoscopy. In total, 12,835 patients (mean age 60.5 yr, standard deviation [SD] 15.1, 53% men) were studied. Sedation and/or analgesia was administered in 55.3% of procedures: 28.8% of patients received intravenous (IV) benzodiazepines, 15.4% received benzodiazepines in combination with narcotics, 3.1% received propofol, and 7.5% received other sedation regimens. Overall, cecal intubation was achieved in 80.7% of procedures, and the polyp detection rate was 27.3%. Multivariate analysis showed that the strongest predictors of cecal intubation were the quality of bowel preparation (inadequate vs excellent: odds ratio [OR] 0.013, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.009-0.018; fair vs excellent: OR 0.246, 95% CI 0.209-0.290; and good vs excellent: OR 0.586, 95% CI 0.514-0.667) and the use of sedation (IV benzodiazepines vs no sedation: OR 1.460, 95% CI 1.282-1.663; IV benzodiazepines and narcotics vs no sedation: OR 2.128, 95% CI 1.776-2.565; and propofol vs no sedation: OR 2.355, 95% CI 1.590-3.488). The colonoscopy setting (workload and organizational complexity of the center) and the endoscopist colonoscopy volume were other factors independently correlated with completion of the procedure. Detection of polyps partially depended on the quality of bowel cleansing (inadequate vs excellent: OR 0.511, 95% CI 0.404-0.647) and use of sedation (OR 1.172, 95% CI 1.074-1.286). In usual clinical practice, the use of sedation/analgesia, the colon-cleansing quality, the endoscopist experience, and some features related to the colonscopy setting decisively influence the quality of colonoscopy. These factors indicate the targets of future corrective measures to boost the quality of this examination.

Background: Diverticular disease (DD) represents a common gastrointestinal condition that poses a heavy burden on healthcare systems worldwide. A high degree of uncertainty surrounds the therapeutic approaches for the control of symptoms in patients with symptomatic uncomplicated diverticular disease (SUDD) and primary and secondary prevention of diverticulitis and its consequences. Objectives: To review the current knowledge and discuss the unmet needs regarding the management of SUDD and the prevention of acute diverticulitis. Eligibility criteria: Randomized trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews on lifestyle/dietary interventions and medical treatment (rifaximin, mesalazine, and probiotics) of SUDD or prevention of acute diverticulitis. Sources of evidence: The literature search was performed from inception to April 2023, without language restriction, following the modified Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. References of the papers selected were checked to identify additional papers of potential interest. The final list of references was evaluated by a panel of experts, who were asked to check for any lack of relevant studies. Charting methods: Information on patient population, study design, intervention, control group, duration of the observation, and outcomes assessed was collected by two authors independently. Results: The review shows a high degree of uncertainty about therapeutic interventions, both dietary/lifestyle and pharmacological, in patients with SUDD, because of the scarcity and weakness of existing evidence. Available studies are generally of low quality, heterogeneous, and outdated, precluding the possibility to draw robust conclusions. Similarly, acute diverticulitis prevention has been seldom investigated, and there is a substantial lack of evidence supporting the role of dietary/lifestyle or pharmacological approaches to reduce the risk of diverticulitis. Conclusion: The lack of robust evidence regarding therapeutic options for gastrointestinal symptoms in SUDD patients and for primary and secondary prevention of acute diverticulitis remains an important unmet need in the management of DD.

Colonic diverticular bleeding is the most common cause of lower gastrointestinal bleeding in adults and carries a significant risk of recurrence. However, there are many uncertainties regarding the management of the prevention of diverticular rebleeding. To review the current evidence on the potential role of lifestyle, pharmacological and endoscopic treatments and to discuss the unmet needs in the prevention of colonic diverticular rebleeding. A systematic review. Based on the identified Patients-Interventions-Comparators-Outcomes questions, a detailed and comprehensive literature search was conducted, from inception to 12 January 2024, without language restriction, according to the modified Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines. We did not find any dietary or lifestyle interventions (fibre intake, smoking, physical activity, alcohol consumption, BMI) to prevent colonic diverticular rebleeding. We also did not find any interventional studies of specific pharmacological treatments (such as rifaximin, mesalazine or probiotics) to prevent diverticular rebleeding. Data comparing endoscopic and conservative approaches used during the index episode come from observational studies and show conflicting results. Finally, there is a paucity of data regarding the timing of resumption of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy after an episode of colonic diverticular bleeding, and this remains to be determined. This review highlights the paucity of data on the possible role of lifestyle, pharmacological and endoscopic treatments in the prevention of colonic diverticular rebleeding and advocates future studies aimed at finding effective therapeutic strategies.

Cholangioscopy has improved the management of complex biliary diseases; however, digital single‐operator cholangioscopy (DSOC) still faces key limitations, especially in treating intrahepatic disease like hepatolithiasis and strictures, which often require surgery with significant mortality risk. This video case report illustrates the successful endoscopic treatment of an elderly woman with multiple left intrahepatic duct stones and a benign stricture. A next‐generation 11‐Fr high‐definition cholangioscope (VedVision) was employed, offering enhanced imaging, improved maneuverability, and a dual‐channel system enabling simultaneous guidewire and lithotripsy probe use. Electrohydraulic lithotripsy achieved complete stone clearance. A balloon‐expandable biodegradable stent (UNITY‐B), composed of magnesium alloy with polymer coating, was placed across the stricture to reshape it. Subsequent cholangioscopy confirmed correct positioning. This approach highlights a promising, non‐surgical strategy for managing benign intrahepatic biliary disease. The biodegradable stent eliminates the need for removal, reducing the need for further interventions. However, long‐term data and larger studies are necessary to confirm its safety and efficacy.

Colonoscopy is a valuable screening tool for colorectal cancer. However, patients experience anxiety when faced with attending a first colonoscopy, and negative attitudes may contribute to non-attendance. Few studies in Europe have explored these attitudes, despite increasing colorectal cancer incidence. Across Europe, 72% of colonoscopy-naïve respondents showed receptiveness to colonoscopy if advised by their doctor to receive one, but only 45% understood its use to prevent colorectal cancer. Forty-three percent of colonoscopy-experienced respondents would still be embarrassed about having another colonoscopy, although 59% said that the experience had been better than expected. Colonoscopy-experienced respondents had greater aversion to bowel preparation than colonoscopy-naïve respondents (47% vs 26%), and 67% of colonoscopy-naïve respondents thought that only 1 litre of bowel preparation or less is required. Italians and the Spanish wanted more information than on average in Europe, while Germans had more realistic expectations of bowel preparation. There are perceptual gaps amongst the public around the purpose of colonoscopies, the subjective experience of the colonoscopy procedure, and the quantity of bowel preparation needed. These concerns could be mitigated by better education and using lower-volume bowel preparation techniques. Europeans would have a colonoscopy, but its preventive medical purpose is poorly understood and there are misconceptions around the process. Further education about the procedure, its benefits and bowel preparation is vital to improve understanding and compliance.

Colonoscopy is a valuable screening tool for colorectal cancer. However, patients experience anxiety when faced with attending a first colonoscopy, and negative attitudes may contribute to non-attendance. Few studies in Europe have explored these attitudes, despite increasing colorectal cancer incidence. Across Europe, 72% of colonoscopy-naïve respondents showed receptiveness to colonoscopy if advised by their doctor to receive one, but only 45% understood its use to prevent colorectal cancer. Forty-three percent of colonoscopy-experienced respondents would still be embarrassed about having another colonoscopy, although 59% said that the experience had been better than expected. Colonoscopy-experienced respondents had greater aversion to bowel preparation than colonoscopy-naïve respondents (47% vs 26%), and 67% of colonoscopy-naïve respondents thought that only 1 litre of bowel preparation or less is required. Italians and the Spanish wanted more information than on average in Europe, while Germans had more realistic expectations of bowel preparation. There are perceptual gaps amongst the public around the purpose of colonoscopies, the subjective experience of the colonoscopy procedure, and the quantity of bowel preparation needed. These concerns could be mitigated by better education and using lower-volume bowel preparation techniques. Europeans would have a colonoscopy, but its preventive medical purpose is poorly understood and there are misconceptions around the process. Further education about the procedure, its benefits and bowel preparation is vital to improve understanding and compliance.