[Ectopic pancreas: an exceptional cause of lower intestinal bleeding with hemorrhagic shock]

International audienc

P404 Persistence of subcutaneous infliximab after switching from intravenous in a French national cohort of IBD patients in remission

International audienc

P903 Persistence, efficacy and tolerance of subcutaneous Infliximab after switch from intravenous infliximab in IBD patients in remission: one-year results from a multicenter prospective cohort

International audienc

Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline

Main Recommendations ESGE recommends offering stone extraction to all patients with common bile duct stones, symptomatic or not, who are fit enough to tolerate the intervention. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE recommends liver function tests and abdominal ultrasonography as the initial diagnostic steps for suspected common bile duct stones. Combining these tests defines the probability of having common bile duct stones. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography to diagnose common bile duct stones in patients with persistent clinical suspicion but insufficient evidence of stones on abdominal ultrasonography. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends the following timing for biliary drainage, preferably endoscopic, in patients with acute cholangitis, classified according to the 2018 revision of the Tokyo Guidelines: - severe, as soon as possible and within 12 hours for patients with septic shock - moderate, within 48-72 hours - mild, elective. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. ESGE recommends endoscopic placement of a temporary biliary plastic stent in patients with irretrievable biliary stones that warrant biliary drainage. Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. ESGE recommends limited sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation as the first-line approach to remove difficult common bile duct stones. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. ESGE recommends the use of cholangioscopy-assisted intraluminal lithotripsy (electrohydraulic or laser) as an effective and safe treatment of difficult bile duct stones. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. ESGE recommends performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 2 weeks from ERCP for patients treated for choledocholithiasis to reduce the conversion rate and the risk of recurrent biliary events. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart - New York

Efficacy, tolerability and safety of low volume bowel preparations in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: The French multicentre CLEAN study.

International audienceBACKGROUND: Standard high-volume polyethylene glycol [PEG] bowel preparations [PEG-4L] are recommended for patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] undergoing colonoscopy. However, low-volume preparations [≤2 L of active volume] are often used in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of the various bowel preparations for patients with IBD, including low-volume preparations.METHODS: We conducted a French prospective multicentre observational study over a period of 1 month. Patients aged 18-75 years with IBD with an indication of colonoscopy independent of the study were enrolled. The choice of the preparation was left to the investigators, as per their usual protocol. The patients' characteristics, disease, and colonoscopy characteristics were recorded, and they were given self-reported questionnaires.RESULTS: Twenty-five public and private hospitals enrolled 278 patients. Among them, 46 had a disease flare and 41 had bowel stenoses. Bowel preparations for colonoscopy were as follows: 42% received PEG-2L, 29% received sodium picosulfate [Pico], 15% received PEG-4L, and 14% had other preparations. The preparation did not reach the Boston's score efficacy outcome in the PEG-4L group in 51.2% of the patients [p = 0.0011]. The preparation intake was complete for 59.5% in the PEG-4L group, compared with 82.9% in the PEG-2L group and 93.8% in the Pico group [p < 0.0001]. Tolerability, as assessed by the patients' VAS, was significantly better for both Pico and PEG-2L compared with PEG-4L, and better for Pico compared with PEG-2L [p = 0.008; p = 0.0003]. In multivariate analyses, low-volume preparations were independent factors of efficacy and tolerability. Adverse events occurred in 4.3% of the patients.CONCLUSIONS: Preparations with PEG-2L and Pico were equally safe, with better efficacy and tolerability outcomes compared with PEG-4L preparations. The best efficacy/tolerance/safety profile was achieved with the Pico preparation