Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update

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.Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog

Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline update

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.Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog

Diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic duct disruption or disconnection: an international expert survey and case vignette study

Background: Pancreatic duct disruption or disconnection is a potentially severe complication of necrotizing pancreatitis. With no existing treatment guidelines, it is unclear whether there is any consensus among experts in clinical practice. We evaluated current expert opinion regarding the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic duct disruption and disconnection in an international case vignette study. Methods: An online case vignette survey was sent to 110 international expert pancreatologists. Expert selection was based on publications in the last 5 years and/or participation in development of IAP/APA and ESGE guidelines on acute pancreatitis. Consensus was defined as agreement by at least 75% of the experts. Results: The response rate was 51% (n = 56). Forty-four experts (79%) obtained a MRI/MRCP and 52 experts (93%) measured amylase levels in percutaneous drain fluid to evaluate pancreatic duct integrity. The majority of experts favored endoscopic transluminal drainage for infected (peri)pancreatic necrosis and pancreatic duct disruption (84%, n = 45) or disconnection (88%, n = 43). Consensus was lacking regarding the treatment of patients with persistent percutaneous drain production, and with persistent sterile necrosis. Conclusion: This international survey of experts demonstrates that there are many areas for which no consensus existed, providing clear focus for future investigation

What gastroenterologists should know about direct oral anticoagulants: DOACs for Gastroenterologists

Direct oral anticoagulants are being increasingly used in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism, due to their improved efficacy/ safety ratio, a predictable anticoagulant effect without need for routine coagulation monitoring, and fewer food and drug interactions compared with vitamin K antagonists. Gastrointestinal bleeding remains a serious complication, whose management is challenging for gastroenterologists due to the lack of a standardized clinical approach. Clinical experience on periendoscopic management of these drugs is still limited and there is a paucity of clinical data supporting guidelines recommendations\u2019, and this ultimately turns out in different, unsubstantiated and potentially harmful practices of patient management. Present study will provide a thorough revision on the risk of GI bleeding for DOAC therapy and the identification of patient risk factors to individualize treatment. Moreover, the approach to management of DOACs in case of bleeding complications is discussed, and an algorithm of different strategies in presence or not of plasma level measurement is proposed. Finally the periendoscopic management for elective procedures will be reviewed, at the light of the guideline recommendations and new evidences from observational studies

What gastroenterologists should know about direct oral anticoagulants: DOACs for Gastroenterologists

6sinoneDirect oral anticoagulants are being increasingly used in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism, due to their improved efficacy/ safety ratio, a predictable anticoagulant effect without need for routine coagulation monitoring, and fewer food and drug interactions compared with vitamin K antagonists. Gastrointestinal bleeding remains a serious complication, whose management is challenging for gastroenterologists due to the lack of a standardized clinical approach. Clinical experience on periendoscopic management of these drugs is still limited and there is a paucity of clinical data supporting guidelines recommendations’, and this ultimately turns out in different, unsubstantiated and potentially harmful practices of patient management. Present study will provide a thorough revision on the risk of GI bleeding for DOAC therapy and the identification of patient risk factors to individualize treatment. Moreover, the approach to management of DOACs in case of bleeding complications is discussed, and an algorithm of different strategies in presence or not of plasma level measurement is proposed. Finally the periendoscopic management for elective procedures will be reviewed, at the light of the guideline recommendations and new evidences from observational studies.noneRadaelli F.; Fuccio L.; Paggi S.; Bono C.D.; Dumonceau J.M.; Dentali F.Radaelli, F.; Fuccio, L.; Paggi, S.; Bono, C. D.; Dumonceau, J. M.; Dentali, F

Diagnosis and management of iatrogenic endoscopic perforations: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement - Update 2020

The Summary of Recommendations1 ESGE recommends that each center implements a written policy regarding the management of iatrogenic perforations, including the definition of procedures that carry a higher risk of this complication. This policy should be shared with the radiologists and surgeons at each center. 2 ESGE recommends that in the case of an endoscopically identified perforation, the endoscopist reports its size and location, with an image, and statement of the endoscopic treatment that has been applied. 3 ESGE recommends that symptoms or signs suggestive of iatrogenic perforation after an endoscopic procedure should be rapidly and carefully evaluated and documented with a computed tomography (CT) scan. 4 ESGE recommends that endoscopic closure should be considered depending on the type of the iatrogenic perforation, its size, and the endoscopist expertise available at the center. Switch to carbon dioxide (CO2) endoscopic insufflation, diversion of digestive luminal content, and decompression of tension pneumoperitoneum or pneumothorax should also be performed. 5 ESGE recommends that after endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, further management should be based on the estimated success of the endoscopic closure and on the general clinical condition of the patient. In the case of no or failed endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, and in patients whose clinical condition is deteriorating, hospitalization and surgical consultation are recommended.Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog