An interdisciplinary group of European experts summarizes the value of gastrointestinal ultrasound (GIUS) in the management of three time-critical causes of acute abdomen: bowel obstruction, gastrointestinal perforation and acute ischemic bowel disease. Based on an extensive literature review, statements for a targeted diagnostic strategy in these intestinal emergencies are presented. GIUS is best established in case of small bowel obstruction. Metanalyses and prospective studies showed a sensitivity and specificity comparable to that of computed tomography (CT) and superior to plain X-ray. GIUS may save time and radiation exposure and has the advantage of displaying bowel function directly. Gastrointestinal perforation is more challenging for less experienced investigators. Although GIUS in experienced hands has a relatively high sensitivity to establish a correct diagnosis, CT is the most sensitive method in this situation. The spectrum of intestinal ischemia ranges from self-limited ischemic colitis to fatal intestinal infarction. In acute arterial mesenteric ischemia, GIUS may provide information, but prompt CT angiography is the gold standard. On the other end of the spectrum, ischemic colitis shows typical ultrasound features that allow correct diagnosis. GIUS here has a diagnostic performance similar to CT and helps to differentiate mild from severe ischemic colitis.

Keywords: ultrasound - ischemic bowel disease - gastrointestinal tract - bowel obstruction - perforation

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has developed performance measures and established a framework for quality assessment for gastrointestinal endoscopy in Europe. Most national societies actively undertake initiatives to implement and explicitly endorse these quality indicators. Given this, the ESGE proposes that, at a national level, strong leadership should exist to disseminate and implement quality parameters. Thus, understanding the potential barriers that may vary locally is of paramount importance. The ESGE suggests that each national society should prioritise quality and standards of care in gastrointestinal endoscopy in their activities and should survey/understand which measures area local priority to their members and make measuring quality intrinsic to daily endoscopy practice.

Keywords: Endoscopy service; Patient outcome; Performance measures; Quality; Quality indicator; Underperformance

This guideline will inform physicians, nurses, dieticians, pharmacists, caregivers and other home parenteral nutrition (HPN) providers, as well as healthcare administrators and policy makers, about appropriate and safe HPN provision. This guideline will also inform patients requiring HPN. The guideline is based on previous published guidelines and provides an update of current evidence and expert opinion; it consists of 71 recommendations that address the indications for HPN, central venous access device (CVAD) and infusion pump, infusion line and CVAD site care, nutritional admixtures, program monitoring and management. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews and single clinical trials based on clinical questions were searched according to the PICO format. The evidence was evaluated and used to develop clinical recommendations implementing Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology. The guideline was commissioned and financially supported by ESPEN and members of the guideline group were selected by ESPEN.

Keywords: Central venous access device, Intestinal failure, Multidisciplinary team, Parenteral nutrition admixture, Patient training

1 ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

2 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors.
Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

3 When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.
Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation.
Very low quality evidence.

ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.
In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

4 Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors.
Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.

ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

5 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs.
Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability.
Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

6 ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasible
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting.
Very low quality evidence.

7 ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible.
Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance.
Very low quality evidence.

8 ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation.

Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

9 ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp >= 6 mm detected at CTC or CCE.
Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6 – 9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia.

Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.