Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy. This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective ‘well’ patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years’ time.

Coeliac disease (CeD) is an immunological disease triggered by the consumption of gluten contained in food in individuals with a genetic predisposition. Diagnosis is based on the presence of small bowel mucosal atrophy and circulating autoantibodies (anti-type 2 transglutaminase antibodies). After diagnosis, patients follow a strict, life-long gluten-free diet. Although the criteria for diagnosis of this disease are well defined, the monitoring phase has been studied less and there is a lack of specific guidelines for this phase. To develop a set of clinical guidelines for CeD monitoring, we followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Statements and recommendations with the level of evidence were developed and approved by the working group, which comprised gastroenterologists, pathologists, dieticians and biostatisticians. The proposed guidelines, endorsed by the North American and European coeliac disease scientific societies, make recommendations for best practices in monitoring patients with CeD based on the available evidence. The evidence level is low for many topics, suggesting that further research in specific aspects of CeD would be valuable. In conclusion, the present guidelines support clinicians in improving CeD treatment and follow-up and highlight novel issues that should be considered in future studies.

Quality markers and patient experience are being implemented to ensure standardization of practice across gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy procedures. The set benchmarks ensure high quality procedures are delivered and linked to measurable outcomes.There has been an increase in the demand for small-bowel endoscopy. In 2019, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) embarked on setting performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy. This included major (key) and minor performance indicators for both small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) and device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE). These suggested quality indicators cover all procedure domains, from patient selection and preparation, to intraprocedural aspects such as pathology identification, appropriate management, the patient experience, and post-procedure complications. Since 2019, there has been an increase in published studies looking at different aspects of small-bowel endoscopy, including real-world data. This paper provides an update on the 2019 performance measures, considering the latest literature.

Background Device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) has become a well-established diagnostic and therapeutic tool for the management of small-bowel pathology. We aimed to evaluate the performance measures for DAE across the UK against the quality benchmarks proposed by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Methods We retrospectively collected data on patient demographics and DAE performance measures from electronic endoscopy records of consecutive patients who underwent DAE for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes across 12 enteroscopy centers in the UK between January 2017 and December 2022. Results A total of 2005 DAE procedures were performed in 1663 patients (median age 60 years; 53% men). Almost all procedures (98.1%) were performed for appropriate indications. Double-balloon enteroscopy was used for most procedures (82.0%), followed by single-balloon enteroscopy (17.2%) and spiral enteroscopy (0.7%). The estimated depth of insertion was documented in 73.4% of procedures. The overall diagnostic yield was 70.0%. Therapeutic interventions were performed in 42.6% of procedures, with a success rate of 96.6%. Overall, 78.0% of detected lesions were marked with a tattoo. Patient comfort was significantly better with the use of deep sedation compared with conscious sedation (99.7% vs. 68.5%; P<0.001). Major adverse events occurred in only 0.6% of procedures. Conclusions Performance measures for DAE in the UK meet the ESGE quality benchmarks, with high diagnostic and therapeutic yields, and a low incidence of major adverse events. However, there is room for improvement in optimizing sedation practices, standardizing the depth of insertion documentation, and adopting marking techniques to aid in the follow-up of detected lesions.

(1) Background: Villous atrophy is an indication for small bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE). However, SBCE findings are not described uniformly and atrophic features are sometimes not recognized; (2) Methods: The Delphi technique was employed to reach agreement among a panel of SBCE experts. The nomenclature and definitions of SBCE lesions suggesting the presence of atrophy were decided in a core group of 10 experts. Four images of each lesion were chosen from a large SBCE database and agreement on the correspondence between the picture and the definition was evaluated using the Delphi method in a broadened group of 36 experts. All images corresponded to histologically proven mucosal atrophy; (3) Results: Four types of atrophic lesions were identified: mosaicism, scalloping, folds reduction, and granular mucosa. The core group succeeded in reaching agreement on the nomenclature and the descriptions of these items. Consensus in matching the agreed definitions for the proposed set of images was met for mosaicism (88.9% in the first round), scalloping (97.2% in the first round), and folds reduction (94.4% in the first round), but granular mucosa failed to achieve consensus (75.0% in the third round); (4) Conclusions: Consensus among SBCE experts on atrophic lesions was met for the first time. Mosaicism, scalloping, and folds reduction are the most reliable signs, while the description of granular mucosa remains uncertain.