This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It addresses the diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH). Main Recommendations MR1. ESGE recommends immediate assessment of hemodynamic status in patients who present with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH), with prompt intravascular volume replacement initially using crystalloid fluids if hemodynamic instability exists (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR2. ESGE recommends a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy that aims for a target hemoglobin between 7 g/dL and 9 g/dL. A higher target hemoglobin should be considered in patients with significant co-morbidity (e. g., ischemic cardiovascular disease) (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR3. ESGE recommends the use of the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Outpatients determined to be at very low risk, based upon a GBS score of 0 – 1, do not require early endoscopy nor hospital admission. Discharged patients should be informed of the risk of recurrent bleeding and be advised to maintain contact with the discharging hospital (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR4. ESGE recommends initiating high dose intravenous proton pump inhibitors (PPI), intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (80 mg then 8 mg/hour), in patients presenting with acute UGIH awaiting upper endoscopy. However, PPI infusion should not delay the performance of early endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR5. ESGE does not recommend the routine use of nasogastric or orogastric aspiration/lavage in patients presenting with acute UGIH (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR6. ESGE recommends intravenous erythromycin (single dose, 250 mg given 30 – 120 minutes prior to upper gastrointestinal [GI] endoscopy) in patients with clinically severe or ongoing active UGIH. In selected patients, pre-endoscopic infusion of erythromycin significantly improves endoscopic visualization, reduces the need for second-look endoscopy, decreases the number of units of blood transfused, and reduces duration of hospital stay (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR7. Following hemodynamic resuscitation, ESGE recommends early (≤ 24 hours) upper GI endoscopy. Very early (< 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy may be considered in patients with high risk clinical features, namely: hemodynamic instability (tachycardia, hypotension) that persists despite ongoing attempts at volume resuscitation; in-hospital bloody emesis/nasogastric aspirate; or contraindication to the interruption of anticoagulation (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR8. ESGE recommends that peptic ulcers with spurting or oozing bleeding (Forrest classification Ia and Ib, respectively) or with a nonbleeding visible vessel (Forrest classification IIa) receive endoscopic hemostasis because these lesions are at high risk for persistent bleeding or rebleeding (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR9. ESGE recommends that peptic ulcers with an adherent clot (Forrest classification IIb) be considered for endoscopic clot removal. Once the clot is removed, any identified underlying active bleeding (Forrest classification Ia or Ib) or nonbleeding visible vessel (Forrest classification IIa) should receive endoscopic hemostasis (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR10. In patients with peptic ulcers having a flat pigmented spot (Forrest classification IIc) or clean base (Forrest classification III), ESGE does not recommend endoscopic hemostasis as these stigmata present a low risk of recurrent bleeding. In selected clinical settings, these patients may be discharged to home on standard PPI therapy, e. g., oral PPI once-daily (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). MR11. ESGE recommends that epinephrine injection therapy not be used as endoscopic monotherapy. If used, it should be combined with a second endoscopic hemostasis modality (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR12. ESGE recommends PPI therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with adherent clot not receiving endoscopic hemostasis. PPI therapy should be high dose and administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR13. ESGE does not recommend routine second-look endoscopy as part of the management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH). However, in patients with clinical evidence of rebleeding following successful initial endoscopic hemostasis, ESGE recommends repeat upper endoscopy with hemostasis if indicated. In the case of failure of this second attempt at hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) or surgery should be considered (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR14. In patients with NVUGIH secondary to peptic ulcer, ESGE recommends investigating for the presence of Helicobacter pylori in the acute setting with initiation of appropriate antibiotic therapy when H. pylori is detected. Re-testing for H. pylori should be performed in those patients with a negative test in the acute setting. Documentation of successful H. pylori eradication is recommended (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). MR15. In patients receiving low dose aspirin for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis who develop peptic ulcer bleeding, ESGE recommends aspirin be resumed immediately following index endoscopy if the risk of rebleeding is low (e. g., FIIc, FIII). In patients with high risk peptic ulcer (FIa, FIb, FIIa, FIIb), early reintroduction of aspirin by day 3 after index endoscopy is recommended, provided that adequate hemostasis has been established (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

Main Recommendations: The following recommendations should only be applied after a thorough diagnostic evaluation including a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan. 1 ESGE recommends colonic stenting to be reserved for patients with clinical symptoms and radiological signs of malignant large-bowel obstruction, without signs of perforation. ESGE does not recommend prophylactic stent placement.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends stenting as a bridge to surgery to be discussed, within a shared decision-making process, as a treatment option in patients with potentially curable left-sided obstructing colon cancer as an alternative to emergency resection.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends colonic stenting as the preferred treatment for palliation of malignant colonic obstruction.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4 ESGE suggests consideration of colonic stenting for malignant obstruction of the proximal colon either as a bridge to surgery or in a palliative setting.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE suggests a time interval of approximately 2 weeks until resection when colonic stenting is performed as a bridge to elective surgery in patients with curable left-sided colon cancer.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends that colonic stenting should be performed or directly supervised by an operator who can demonstrate competence in both colonoscopy and fluoroscopic techniques and who performs colonic stenting on a regular basis.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 ESGE suggests that a decompressing stoma as a bridge to elective surgery is a valid option if the patient is not a candidate for colonic stenting or when stenting expertise is not available.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Background and study aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been proposed for large colorectal lesions, due to the high risk of recurrence following endoscopic mucosal resection. However, data on the efficacy and safety of colorectal ESD are still controversial. The aim of the current systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of colorectal ESD. Methods: A detailed Medline search of papers published during the period 1999 – 2010 was performed, using the search terms “Endoscopic submucosal dissection,” “Colorectal neoplasia,” “Colon,” or “Rectum.” Published studies that evaluated ESD for colorectal lesions were assessed using well-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria, including histological confirmation and surgery for complications. The process was independently performed by two authors. Forest plots on primary (i. e. histologically verified R0 resection and surgery for ESD complications) and secondary end-points were produced based on random-effect models. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic. Risk for within-study bias was also ascertained. Results: A total of 22 studies (20 Asian, two European) provided data on 2841 ESD-treated lesions. The per-lesion summary estimate of R0 resection rate was 88 % (95 %CI 82 % – 92 %; I² = 91 %). At meta-regression, carcinoid vs. non-carcinoid series (R0 93 % vs. 87 %; P = 0.04) and Asian vs. European series (R0 88 % vs. 65 %; P = 0.03) appeared to explain the detected heterogeneity. The per-lesion summary estimate of surgery for ESD complications was 1 % (95 %CI 0 % – 1 %) with a moderate degree of heterogeneity (I² = 49 %). However, subgrouping of these results according to histological tumor types was not available in the reviewed studies. Conclusions: ESD appeared to be an extremely effective technique to achieve R0 resection of large colorectal lesions. The very low rate of surgery for complications also shows the potential safety of this approach.

Background Acute diverticulitis (AD) presents a unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for general surgeons. This collaborative project between EAES and SAGES aimed to summarize recent evidence and draw statements of recommendation to guide our members on comprehensive AD management. Methods Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted across six AD topics by an international steering group including experts from both societies. Topics encompassed the epidemiology, diagnosis, management of non-complicated and complicated AD as well as emergency and elective operative AD management. Consensus statements and recommendations were generated, and the quality of the evidence and recommendation strength rated with the GRADE system. Modified Delphi methodology was used to reach consensus among experts prior to surveying the EAES and SAGES membership on the recommendations and likelihood to impact their practice. Results were presented at both EAES and SAGES annual meetings with live re-voting carried out for recommendations with < 70% agreement. Results A total of 51 consensus statements and 41 recommendations across all six topics were agreed upon by the experts and submitted for members’ online voting. Based on 1004 complete surveys and over 300 live votes at the SAGES and EAES Diverticulitis Consensus Conference (DCC), consensus was achieved for 97.6% (40/41) of recommendations with 92% (38/41) agreement on the likelihood that these recommendations would change practice if not already applied. Areas of persistent disagreement included the selective use of imaging to guide AD diagnosis, recommendations against antibiotics in non-complicated AD, and routine colonic evaluation after resolution of non-complicated diverticulitis. Conclusion This joint EAES and SAGES consensus conference updates clinicians on the current evidence and provides a set of recommendations that can guide clinical AD management practice.