Sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy has become an important medical option in routine clinical care. Here, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society and the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists together provide the revised “Guidelines for sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy” as a second edition to address on‐site clinical questions and issues raised for safe examination and treatment using sedated endoscopy. Twenty clinical questions were determined and the strength of recommendation and evidence quality (strength) were expressed according to the “MINDS Manual for Guideline Development 2017.” We were able to release up‐to‐date statements related to clinical questions and current issues relevant to sedation in gastroenterological endoscopy (henceforth, “endoscopy”). There are few reports from Japan in this field (e.g., meta‐analyses), and many aspects have been based only on a specialist consensus. In the current scenario, benzodiazepine drugs primarily used for sedation during gastroenterological endoscopy are not approved by national health insurance in Japan, and investigations regarding expense‐related disadvantages have not been conducted. Furthermore, including the perspective of beneficiaries (i.e., patients and citizens) during the creation of clinical guidelines should be considered. These guidelines are standardized based on up‐to‐date evidence quality (strength) and supports on‐site clinical decision‐making by patients and medical staff. Therefore, these guidelines need to be flexible with regard to the wishes, age, complications, and social conditions of the patient, as well as the conditions of the facility and discretion of the physician.

Distal biliary strictures (DBS) are common and may be caused by both malignant and benign pathologies. While endoscopic procedures play a major role in their management, a comprehensive review of the subject is still lacking. Our consensus statements were formulated by a group of expert Asian pancreatico‐biliary interventional endoscopists, following a proposal from the Digestive Endoscopy Society of Taiwan, the Thai Association for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Tokyo Conference of Asian Pancreato‐biliary Interventional Endoscopy. Based on a literature review utilizing Medline, Cochrane library, and Embase databases, a total of 19 consensus statements on DBS were made on diagnosis, endoscopic drainage, benign biliary stricture, malignant biliary stricture, and management of recurrent biliary obstruction and other complications. Our consensus statements provide comprehensive guidance for the endoscopic management of DBS.

The consensus‐based TOKYO criteria were proposed as a standardized reporting system for endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage. The primary objective was to address issues arising from the inconsistent reporting of stent outcomes across studies, which has complicated the comparability and interpretation of study results. However, the original TOKYO criteria were not readily applicable to recent modalities of endoscopic biliary drainage such as biliary drainage based on endoscopic ultrasound or device‐assisted endoscopy. There are increasing opportunities for managing hilar biliary obstruction and benign biliary strictures through endoscopic drainage. Biliary ablation has been introduced to manage benign and malignant biliary strictures. In addition, the prolonged survival times of cancer patients have increased the importance of evaluating overall outcomes during the period requiring endoscopic biliary drainage rather than solely focusing on the patency of the initial stent. Recognizing these unmet needs, a committee has been established within the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society to revise the TOKYO criteria for current clinical practice. The revised criteria propose not only common reporting items for endoscopic biliary drainage overall, but also items specific to various conditions and interventions. The term “stent‐demanding time” has been defined to encompass the entire duration of endoscopic biliary drainage, during which the overall stent‐related outcomes are evaluated. The revised TOKYO criteria 2024 are expected to facilitate the design and reporting of clinical studies, providing a goal‐oriented approach to the evaluation of endoscopic biliary drainage.

Patients with periampullary cancer or gastric cancer often develop malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) and gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), and combined MBO and GOO is not rare in these patients. Combined MBO and GOO is classified by its location and sequence, and treatment strategy can be affected by this classification. Historically, palliative surgery, hepaticojejunostomy and gastrojejunostomy were carried out, but the current standard treatment is combined transpapillary stent and duodenal stent placement. Although a high technical success rate is reported, the procedure can be technically difficult and duodenobiliary reflux with subsequent cholangitis is common after double stenting. Recent development of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)‐guided procedures enables the management of MBO as well as GOO under EUS guidance. EUS‐guided biliary drainage is now increasingly reported as an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and GOO is one of the major reasons for failed ERCP. In addition to EUS‐guided biliary drainage, the feasibility of EUS‐guided double‐balloon‐occluded gastrojejunostomy bypass for MBO was recently reported, and EUS‐guided double stenting can potentially become the treatment of choice in the future. However, as each procedure has its advantages and disadvantages, treatment strategy should be selected based on the type of obstruction and the prognosis and performance status of the patient.