← Issue №10/ week of Sep 6, 2026/ the whole section, in full

Endoscopy, in full.

All 15 Endoscopy papers in this issue, as full cards, ranked by clinical utility. The issue page carries the strongest few; this is the section, whole.

Sections this issue
Filter

All 15, in full

most clinically useful first · the 1 the issue led with is ruled in green
Endoscopy guideline · Sep 3, 2026 · Endoscopy · IF 11.8

Biliary stricture management: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

Guideline / reviewbiliary strictureERCPguideline
Clinical takeawayFollow ESGE guidelines for stent selection and management in biliary strictures: use MPS for postcholecystectomy strictures, FCSEMS for chronic pancreatitis strictures (6-12 months) when >2 cm from hepatic confluence, and balloon dilation alone for PSC strictures (avoid stenting). Avoid USEMS for unconfirmed etiology. For hilar malignant obstruction, use ERCP for Bismuth types I-II and ERCP/EUS-BD for Bismuth III-IV over PTBD.
What it foundESGE provides specific stent and dilation recommendations for benign and malignant biliary strictures, including MPS for postcholecystectomy strictures, FCSEMS for chronic pancreatitis strictures (6-12 months) when located >2 cm distally from the main hepatic confluence, and balloon dilation alone for PSC strictures (no added benefit of stenting, which may increase adverse events). Avoid USEMS for unconfirmed etiology and prefer ERCP over PTBD for hilar malignant obstruction (Bismuth types I-II). For Bismuth III-IV, ERCP or combined ERCP/EUS-BD is preferable over primary PTBD.
ContextRefines and standardizes current practice with evidence-based recommendations for stent use and drainage strategies across various biliary stricture etiologies, including location-specific and population-specific guidance.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), "Endoscopic biliary stenting: indications, choice of stents, and results: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline, Updated October 2017", Endoscopy 2018;50(9):910-930

Decision at stakethe management of benign biliary strictures with multiple plastic stents or FCSEMS

Manage benign anastomotic and chronic-pancreatitis strictures with a fully-covered self-expanding metal stent for 6-12 months (multiple plastic stents when FCSEMS is contraindicated, hepaticojejunostomy if refractory).

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Distinguish benign from malignant biliary strictures using cross-sectional imaging (MRI/MRCP preferred over contrast-enhanced CT) plus laboratory tests, interpreting CA19-9 after biliary decompression and never relying on tumor markers alone; check serum IgG4 when IgG4-related sclerosing cholangitis is suspected (HISORt criteria). Per the ESGE 2024 diagnostic work-up guideline, tissue-acquisition strategy now branches by stricture location rather than following one linear sequence: for DISTAL extrahepatic strictures with jaundice and no pancreatic mass, combined same-session EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA, end-cutting FNB needle) plus ERCP-based tissue acquisition (standard brush cytology plus fluoroscopy-guided biopsy) is the strongly preferred first-line approach; for PERIHILAR strictures, obtain brush cytology plus fluoroscopy-guided biopsy at index ERCP, escalate indeterminate strictures to cholangioscopy-guided biopsy (with intraductal ultrasound/confocal laser endomicroscopy selectively), and reserve EUS-TA for cases where ERCP-based sampling is insufficient and curative resection is not feasible and/or extraluminal disease is accessible; escalate any positive or indeterminate feature to multidisciplinary tumor board. Manage benign anastomotic and chronic-pancreatitis strictures with a fully-covered self-expanding metal stent for 6-12 months (multiple plastic stents when FCSEMS is contraindicated, hepaticojejunostomy if refractory). Treat cholangitis with biliary obstruction as an indication for urgent biliary drainage, but do not instrument every obstructed sector: for hilar or multisegmental strictures (Bismuth II-IV), ESGE suggests draining ≥50% of the liver volume and avoiding opacification of biliary ducts that will not be drained (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence), because post-ERCP cholangitis frequently complicates injection of obstructed ducts that are not subsequently drained, whereas drainage of >50% of liver volume is associated with less cholangitis and longer survival; ESGE suggests antibiotic prophylaxis before biliary stenting in selected patients (e.g., immunocompromised patients, expected incomplete biliary drainage; weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence), with a full antibiotic course if adequate drainage is not achieved during the procedure. Direct etiology-specific care for Strasberg bile-duct injuries, post-transplant strictures (ASGE 2023: ERCP preferred over PTBD, covered SEMS preferred over multiple plastic stents), IgG4-sclerosing cholangitis, Mirizzi syndrome, and choledochal cysts.

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), "Endoscopic biliary stenting: indications, choice of stents, and results: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline, Updated October 2017", Endoscopy 2018;50(9):910-930 · reviewed 2026-07-20 ↗
Lemmers A … Triantafyllou K · Endoscopy · IF 11.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy rct · n=813 · Sep 1, 2026 · UEG Journal · IF 5.6

Acetate- Versus Lactate-Buffered Crystalloids for Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis in Patients Without Access to Rectal NSAIDs: A Multicentre Double-Blind Randomized Trial.

New evidenceERCPacute pancreatitisendoscopy quality
Clinical takeawayContinue using lactated Ringer's solution as the first-line crystalloid for aggressive hydration in patients at moderate-to-high PEP risk when rectal NSAIDs are unavailable.
What it foundPEP occurred in 12.4% of the LR group and 11.5% of the AC group (RR 0.93; 95% CI, 0.64-1.35; P=0.70), with no severe PEP or fluid overload.
ContextConfirms current practice: lactated Ringer's remains the preferred crystalloid for PEP prevention in settings without rectal NSAIDs.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology, "American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis" (Tenner S, Vege SS, Sheth SG, et al.), Am J Gastroenterol 2024;119(3):419-437

Decision at stakeusing lactated Ringer's solution for aggressive hydration to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis

Give moderately aggressive lactated Ringer's, most important in the first 6-12 hours, reassessing volume status/BUN/HCT at 6 hours (further aggressive hydration has little added benefit after 24-48h).

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Diagnose acute pancreatitis (AP) by the Atlanta criteria (2 of 3: characteristic epigastric/LUQ pain, lipase or amylase >3x ULN [lipase preferred for specificity/duration], or characteristic imaging). ACG 2024 stratifies severity risk using SIRS on admission plus bedside risk factors, rising/elevated BUN, rising/elevated hematocrit (>44), obesity (BMI>30), extrapancreatic fluid collections/pleural effusion/infiltrates, altered mental status, and older age/comorbidities, rather than mandating a formal BISAP or APACHE II composite score. Give moderately aggressive lactated Ringer's, most important in the first 6-12 hours, reassessing volume status/BUN/HCT at 6 hours (further aggressive hydration has little added benefit after 24-48h). Start oral low-fat solid food within 24-48h as tolerated in mild disease; if enteral feeding is needed for moderately severe/severe disease, prefer nasogastric over nasojejunal with small-peptide/medium-chain-triglyceride formula and continuous (not bolus/cyclic) feeding; avoid parenteral nutrition if possible. Do not give prophylactic antibiotics, even in severe disease or sterile necrosis; reserve antibiotics for suspected infected necrosis (typically arising 10-14 days in), and choose agents that penetrate pancreatic necrosis while together covering both gut-derived gram-negative enterics and anaerobes, a carbapenem supplies this as monotherapy, whereas a fluoroquinolone or a third-or-higher-generation cephalosporin must be combined with metronidazole; metronidazole alone (anaerobic cover only), or a cephalosporin or a quinolone alone, does not adequately treat infected necrosis. Perform cholecystectomy preferably before discharge for mild acute biliary pancreatitis, and after a second unexplained AP episode even without identified gallstones; reserve ERCP within 24h for AP complicated by cholangitis, with rectal indomethacin +/- pancreatic duct stent and periprocedural hydration to reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis risk. Check triglycerides when gallstones/alcohol are absent (>1000 mg/dL supports a hypertriglyceridemia etiology). For stable pancreatic necrosis, defer surgical, radiological, or endoscopic intervention 4-6 weeks to allow walling-off (step-up approach).

American College of Gastroenterology, "American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis" (Tenner S, Vege SS, Sheth SG, et al.), Am J Gastroenterol 2024;119(3):419-437 · reviewed 2026-07-20 ↗
Paik WH … Park DH · United European Gastroenterology Journal · IF 5.6 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=1,143 · Sep 1, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Endoscopic Grading of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia for Detecting Extensive Disease: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

New evidencesystematic reviewmeta-analysisbiomarkerendoscopy quality
Clinical takeawayConsider using EGGIM ≥5 during NBI/BLI endoscopy in adults undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy to identify patients with extensive GIM (OLGIM III-IV) who may benefit from surveillance.
What it foundEGGIM cutoff ≥5 had 90% sensitivity and 92% specificity for detecting extensive GIM (OLGIM III-IV) compared to histological OLGIM staging, with a diagnostic odds ratio of 105.93 and AUC 0.96.
ContextConfirms EGGIM as a valid real-time endoscopic tool for risk stratification in gastric precancerous conditions, aligning with current interest in endoscopic staging over biopsy alone.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG) and European Society of Pathology (ESP), "Management of epithelial precancerous conditions and early neoplasia of the stomach (MAPS III): Guideline update 2025", Endoscopy, 2025 (Recommendations 31 and 34)

Decision at stakeusing the Endoscopic Grading of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia (EGGIM) score to risk-stratify patients

Stage with validated endoscopic classifications of atrophy (e.g. Kimura-Takemoto) or intestinal metaplasia (e.g. EGGIM) to stratify gastric cancer risk (suggestion, weaker than the biopsy recommendation).

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Perform individual gastric risk assessment and staging of precancerous conditions at first-time gastroscopy, irrespective of the patient's country of origin. Use high quality endoscopy with virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE), after proper training, for screening, diagnosis and staging of atrophy and intestinal metaplasia and after endoscopic therapy; VCE guides the biopsy site, with random biopsies taken only when there are no endoscopically suspected changes. Take biopsies from at least two topographic sites, 2 from the antrum/incisura and 2 from the corpus, VCE-guided, in two separate, clearly labeled vials; an additional incisura biopsy is optional, not required. Stage with validated endoscopic classifications of atrophy (e.g. Kimura-Takemoto) or intestinal metaplasia (e.g. EGGIM) to stratify gastric cancer risk (suggestion, weaker than the biopsy recommendation). Follow up patients with extensive endoscopic changes (Kimura C3+ or EGGIM 5+) OR an advanced histological stage that reaches OLGA/OLGIM III/IV, severe atrophy or intestinal metaplasia and/or significant changes in both antrum and corpus rising to stage III/IV, not any intestinal metaplasia or any antrum-plus-corpus involvement on its own, with high quality endoscopy every 3 years, irrespective of country of origin (strong recommendation, moderate quality). Propose NO surveillance for patients with mild to moderate atrophy or intestinal metaplasia restricted to the antrum, in the absence of endoscopic signs of extensive lesions or other risk factors (family history of gastric cancer, incomplete intestinal metaplasia, persistent H. pylori infection), the guideline states this group constitutes most individuals found in clinical practice. Eradicate H. pylori in all patients with precancerous conditions and after endoscopic or surgical therapy. Discontinue or do not start gastric cancer screening or surveillance in asymptomatic individuals over 80, and weigh comorbidities when planning treatment of superficial lesions. Advise smoking cessation; low-dose daily aspirin may be considered for gastric cancer prevention only in selected individuals already at high cardiovascular risk. For visible neoplasia, use ESD for differentiated lesions clinically staged as dysplastic (low or high grade) or intramucosal carcinoma (any size if not ulcerated, or ≤30 mm if ulcerated), with EMR an alternative for Paris 0-IIa lesions ≤10 mm with low likelihood of malignancy. At the population level, endoscopic screening is suggested every 2-3 years in high-risk regions (age-standardized rate >20 per 100,000 person-years), every 5 years in intermediate-risk regions (ASR 10-20) only if cost-effectiveness has been proven, and not at all in low-risk regions (ASR <10).

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG) and European Society of Pathology (ESP), "Management of epithelial precancerous conditions and early neoplasia of the stomach (MAPS III): Guideline update 2025", Endoscopy, 2025 (Recommendations 31 and 34) · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Luu MN … Quach DT · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=2,013 · Sep 1, 2026 · UEG Journal · IF 5.6

Dedicated Endoscopy for Barrett's Oesophagus With Higher Dysplasia Yield May Reduce Seattle Protocol Biopsies: Results From UK Multicentre Study.

New evidenceBarrett's esophagusendoscopy qualitysedation
Clinical takeawayConsider advocating for dedicated Barrett's surveillance services in your institution, as they demonstrated superior dysplasia detection (6.9% vs 2.8%) and lower complications compared to conventional services. Prioritize lesion recognition and targeted biopsies over strict Seattle protocol adherence when advanced imaging (NBI/AAC) identifies visible lesions.
What it foundDedicated Barrett's surveillance services (N=1037) detected dysplasia in 6.9% vs 2.8% in conventional services (N=976; p < 0.001), with higher use of NBI, AAC, and sedation, and significantly lower complication rates.
ContextMulticenter retrospective cohort (N=2013; mean age 64.4, mean BO length 4.1cm) challenges the necessity of rigid Seattle protocol adherence when advanced imaging is available in dedicated settings with higher lesion detection. Sedation use was high but complication rates were lower in the dedicated service.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology (ACG); Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG, Souza RF, Yadlapati RH, Sauer BG, Wani S. "Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus: An Updated ACG Guideline." American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2022;117(4):559-587.

Decision at stakethe use of structured biopsy protocols like the Seattle protocol in Barrett's esophagus surveillance

SURVEILLANCE: Use both high-definition white-light endoscopy AND chromoendoscopy (STRONG, moderate) with a structured biopsy protocol (STRONG, low). Intervals are dictated by degree of dysplasia (conditional, very-low) and by segment length (STRONG, moderate): nondysplastic BE <3 cm - EGD every 5 years; nondysplastic BE >=3 cm - EGD every 3 years. Indefinite for dysplasia (confirmed by a second pathologist), any length - escalate to twice-daily PPI and repeat EGD within 6 months; if still indefinite, EGD annually; if downgraded/upgraded, follow the NDBE or LGD algorithm. Confirmed LGD opting for surveillance - EGD at 6 months, at 12 months from diagnosis, then annually, sampling with 4-quadrant biopsies every 1 cm.

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text. The rest of this standard includes DIAGNOSIS, MEDICAL, ENDOSCOPIC THERAPY and 1 more.

Our full summary of this standard

DIAGNOSIS: Diagnosis of BE requires intestinal metaplasia in the tubular esophagus (conditional, very-low certainty) AND columnar mucosa of at least 1 cm (conditional, low). Patients with a normal-appearing Z line, or a Z line with <1 cm proximal displacement from the top of the gastric folds and no visible lesion, should NOT undergo routine biopsy. At screening endoscopy with findings consistent with possible BE, obtain at least 8 biopsies, following the Seattle protocol (4-quadrant biopsies every 1-2 cm plus targeted sampling of any visible lesion) for segments longer than 4 cm (conditional, low). The at-least-8-biopsy minimum applies to all screening exams regardless of segment length and is NOT waived for shorter (<=4 cm) segments; when a short segment - typically 1-2 cm, e.g. a single tongue - will not physically support 8 biopsies, obtain at least 4 biopsies per cm of circumferential BE and 1 biopsy per cm of tongues of BE, so that short segments are still adequately sampled and dysplasia or cancer is not missed. Dysplasia of any grade must be confirmed by a SECOND pathologist with expertise in GI pathology (STRONG, low). SURVEILLANCE: Use both high-definition white-light endoscopy AND chromoendoscopy (STRONG, moderate) with a structured biopsy protocol (STRONG, low). Intervals are dictated by degree of dysplasia (conditional, very-low) and by segment length (STRONG, moderate): nondysplastic BE <3 cm - EGD every 5 years; nondysplastic BE >=3 cm - EGD every 3 years. Indefinite for dysplasia (confirmed by a second pathologist), any length - escalate to twice-daily PPI and repeat EGD within 6 months; if still indefinite, EGD annually; if downgraded/upgraded, follow the NDBE or LGD algorithm. Confirmed LGD opting for surveillance - EGD at 6 months, at 12 months from diagnosis, then annually, sampling with 4-quadrant biopsies every 1 cm. MEDICAL: At least once-daily PPI in patients with BE without allergy or other contraindication to PPI use (conditional, VERY-LOW certainty); higher/twice-daily dosing is reserved for those who need it for symptom control, as the incremental antineoplastic benefit of dose escalation is unclear. Suggest AGAINST antireflux surgery as an antineoplastic measure (conditional, low). No recommendation could be made on aspirin plus PPI chemoprevention, on WATS-3D, or on p53 IHC/TissueCypher. ENDOSCOPIC THERAPY: For BE with HGD or intramucosal carcinoma (T1a), EET is recommended over ESOPHAGECTOMY (STRONG, moderate). For confirmed LGD, endoscopic therapy is SUGGESTED to reduce progression to HGD/EAC, with endoscopic surveillance of confirmed LGD explicitly retained as an ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE (conditional, moderate) - this is a shared-decision-making choice, not a mandate. Resect all visible lesions endoscopically BEFORE ablation of the residual segment (conditional, very-low); RFA is the preferred ablative modality; goal is complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia. EET should be performed at high-volume centers (conditional, very-low). T1b (submucosal) cancer: the default is surgical referral for esophagectomy, BUT EET may be considered for sm1 disease (invasion into the upper third of the submucosa, depth <500 micrometers) with low-risk features - well differentiated, <2 cm, no lymphovascular invasion, negative deep margin. Patients with high-risk histology are best treated with esophagectomy unless they are poor surgical candidates, for whom multidisciplinary discussion of alternatives such as ADJUVANT chemoradiation may be appropriate. POST-EET: An endoscopic surveillance program is recommended after successful EET (STRONG, moderate), with intervals set by the BASELINE degree of dysplasia: baseline LGD - 1 year, 3 years, then every 2 years; baseline HGD or T1a - 3, 6, and 12 months, then annually.

American College of Gastroenterology (ACG); Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG, Souza RF, Yadlapati RH, Sauer BG, Wani S. "Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus: An Updated ACG Guideline." American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2022;117(4):559-587. · reviewed 2026-07-20 ↗
Gamakaranage C … DEBO group · United European Gastroenterology Journal · IF 5.6 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=710 · Sep 1, 2026 · J Clin Gastro · IF 2.9

The Safety and Efficacy of Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the Elderly: A Large Western Analysis of 710 Lesions.

New evidenceESDcolorectal cancerendoscopy quality
Clinical takeawayConsider colorectal ESD for Western elderly patients (≥75) with laterally spreading lesions, as it is safe and effective compared to younger cohorts despite higher comorbidities, antithrombotic use, and a slightly higher length of stay.
What it foundEn-bloc resection rates (87.4%, 80.9%, 80.2%) and R0 resection rates (69.6%, 68%, 61.5%) were comparable across age groups (<65, 65-75, ≥75), with no significant difference in adverse events (6.7%, 8.5%, 6.3%).
ContextConfirms safety and efficacy of ESD in Western elderly patients, extending prior Eastern data to a Western cohort with different patient and lesion characteristics.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al.), "Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer," Gastroenterology, 2017

Decision at stakethe safety and efficacy of colorectal ESD in elderly patients

Begin average-risk colorectal cancer screening at age 45 using a patient-centered shared-decision modality choice, colonoscopy every 10 years (preferred) or annual FIT as Tier 1 options, with multi-target stool DNA every 3 years, CT colonography every 5 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 to 10 years as Tier 2 alternatives. A positive stool-based test requires diagnostic colonoscopy, and stool tests should not be ordered for patients who would decline follow-up colonoscopy. Generally stop at age 75 with individualized decisions for ages 76-85 and no screening beyond 85.

U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al.), "Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer," Gastroenterology, 2017 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Ayoub F … Othman M · Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology · IF 2.9 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=1,322 · Sep 1, 2026 · J Clin Gastro · IF 2.9

Performance, Efficacy, and Safety of Lubiprostone in Bowel Preparation Regimens: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

New evidencecolonoscopysystematic reviewmeta-analysis
Clinical takeawayConsider lubiprostone adjunct for patients undergoing colonoscopy, given its higher excellent prep rates without added risk, though it does not improve polyp detection.
What it foundLubiprostone adjunct bowel prep doubled excellent prep rates (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.52-3.33) and reduced poor prep (P=0.009) compared to standard prep alone, with no difference in polyp detection, duration, or adverse events.
ContextConfirms lubiprostone's role in improving prep quality, a known challenge in colonoscopy, without altering detection or safety compared to standard prep.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Wu Y … Han A · Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology · IF 2.9 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=616 · Sep 1, 2026 · UEG Journal · IF 5.6

Immediate Versus On-Demand Direct Endoscopic Necrosectomy for Necrotizing Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

New evidencemeta-analysisacute pancreatitisERCP
Clinical takeawayContinue current practice of on-demand DEN for necrotizing pancreatitis; no evidence supports switching to immediate DEN as a default strategy.
What it foundImmediate DEN did not significantly improve clinical success (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.01-3.63) or other outcomes (technical success, need for drainage/surgery, adverse events, mortality) vs on-demand DEN in necrotizing pancreatitis.
ContextConfirms equipoise in DEN timing: prior evidence was mixed, but this meta-analysis (including 4 RCTs) finds no clear advantage to immediate intervention.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology, "American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis" (Tenner S, Vege SS, Sheth SG, et al.), Am J Gastroenterol 2024;119(3):419-437

Decision at stakethe timing of direct endoscopic necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

Diagnose acute pancreatitis (AP) by the Atlanta criteria (2 of 3: characteristic epigastric/LUQ pain, lipase or amylase >3x ULN [lipase preferred for specificity/duration], or characteristic imaging). ACG 2024 stratifies severity risk using SIRS on admission plus bedside risk factors, rising/elevated BUN, rising/elevated hematocrit (>44), obesity (BMI>30), extrapancreatic fluid collections/pleural effusion/infiltrates, altered mental status, and older age/comorbidities, rather than mandating a formal BISAP or APACHE II composite score. Give moderately aggressive lactated Ringer's, most important in the first 6-12 hours, reassessing volume status/BUN/HCT at 6 hours (further aggressive hydration has little added benefit after 24-48h). Start oral low-fat solid food within 24-48h as tolerated in mild disease; if enteral feeding is needed for moderately severe/severe disease, prefer nasogastric over nasojejunal with small-peptide/medium-chain-triglyceride formula and continuous (not bolus/cyclic) feeding; avoid parenteral nutrition if possible. Do not give prophylactic antibiotics, even in severe disease or sterile necrosis; reserve antibiotics for suspected infected necrosis (typically arising 10-14 days in), and choose agents that penetrate pancreatic necrosis while together covering both gut-derived gram-negative enterics and anaerobes, a carbapenem supplies this as monotherapy, whereas a fluoroquinolone or a third-or-higher-generation cephalosporin must be combined with metronidazole; metronidazole alone (anaerobic cover only), or a cephalosporin or a quinolone alone, does not adequately treat infected necrosis. Perform cholecystectomy preferably before discharge for mild acute biliary pancreatitis, and after a second unexplained AP episode even without identified gallstones; reserve ERCP within 24h for AP complicated by cholangitis, with rectal indomethacin +/- pancreatic duct stent and periprocedural hydration to reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis risk. Check triglycerides when gallstones/alcohol are absent (>1000 mg/dL supports a hypertriglyceridemia etiology). For stable pancreatic necrosis, defer surgical, radiological, or endoscopic intervention 4-6 weeks to allow walling-off (step-up approach).

American College of Gastroenterology, "American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis" (Tenner S, Vege SS, Sheth SG, et al.), Am J Gastroenterol 2024;119(3):419-437 · reviewed 2026-07-20 ↗
Wang R … Li Z · United European Gastroenterology Journal · IF 5.6 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy guideline · Sep 1, 2026 · UEG Journal · IF 5.6

EUS-Guided Choledochoduodenostomy With Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents: A Recommendation From an Expert Delphi Consensus.

Guideline / reviewguidelinebiliary strictureEUS
Clinical takeawayConsider EUS-CDS-L as a preferred option for distal malignant biliary obstruction without gastric outlet obstruction, and as a therapeutic option for benign biliary obstruction. Adhere to expert-recommended procedural steps, including CBD diameter cutoff considerations (specific cutoff not stated in abstract), but note no evidence supports routine antibiotic prophylaxis.
What it foundExpert consensus (92.3% agreement, ≥80% agreement, median ≥4, IQR ≤1) recommends EUS-CDS-L for distal malignant biliary obstruction without gastric outlet obstruction, includes it as an option for benign obstruction, and supports use in patients scheduled for upfront surgery. Consensus also established a preferred common bile duct (CBD) diameter cutoff for safe EUS-CDS-L (specific cutoff not stated in abstract) and noted lack of evidence for routine antibiotic prophylaxis.
ContextRefines current practice by consolidating expert consensus on indications, procedural details, and safety considerations for EUS-CDS-L, an emerging but variably adopted technique.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), "Endoscopic biliary stenting: indications, choice of stents, and results: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline, Updated October 2017", Endoscopy 2018;50(9):910-930

Decision at stakethe choice of biliary drainage method for distal malignant biliary obstruction without gastric outlet obstruction

Treat cholangitis with biliary obstruction as an indication for urgent biliary drainage, but do not instrument every obstructed sector: for hilar or multisegmental strictures (Bismuth II-IV), ESGE suggests draining ≥50% of the liver volume and avoiding opacification of biliary ducts that will not be drained (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence), because post-ERCP cholangitis frequently complicates injection of obstructed ducts that are not subsequently drained, whereas drainage of >50% of liver volume is associated with less cholangitis and longer survival; ESGE suggests antibiotic prophylaxis before biliary stenting in selected patients (e.g., immunocompromised patients, expected incomplete biliary drainage; weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence), with a full antibiotic course if adequate drainage is not achieved during the procedure.

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Distinguish benign from malignant biliary strictures using cross-sectional imaging (MRI/MRCP preferred over contrast-enhanced CT) plus laboratory tests, interpreting CA19-9 after biliary decompression and never relying on tumor markers alone; check serum IgG4 when IgG4-related sclerosing cholangitis is suspected (HISORt criteria). Per the ESGE 2024 diagnostic work-up guideline, tissue-acquisition strategy now branches by stricture location rather than following one linear sequence: for DISTAL extrahepatic strictures with jaundice and no pancreatic mass, combined same-session EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA, end-cutting FNB needle) plus ERCP-based tissue acquisition (standard brush cytology plus fluoroscopy-guided biopsy) is the strongly preferred first-line approach; for PERIHILAR strictures, obtain brush cytology plus fluoroscopy-guided biopsy at index ERCP, escalate indeterminate strictures to cholangioscopy-guided biopsy (with intraductal ultrasound/confocal laser endomicroscopy selectively), and reserve EUS-TA for cases where ERCP-based sampling is insufficient and curative resection is not feasible and/or extraluminal disease is accessible; escalate any positive or indeterminate feature to multidisciplinary tumor board. Manage benign anastomotic and chronic-pancreatitis strictures with a fully-covered self-expanding metal stent for 6-12 months (multiple plastic stents when FCSEMS is contraindicated, hepaticojejunostomy if refractory). Treat cholangitis with biliary obstruction as an indication for urgent biliary drainage, but do not instrument every obstructed sector: for hilar or multisegmental strictures (Bismuth II-IV), ESGE suggests draining ≥50% of the liver volume and avoiding opacification of biliary ducts that will not be drained (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence), because post-ERCP cholangitis frequently complicates injection of obstructed ducts that are not subsequently drained, whereas drainage of >50% of liver volume is associated with less cholangitis and longer survival; ESGE suggests antibiotic prophylaxis before biliary stenting in selected patients (e.g., immunocompromised patients, expected incomplete biliary drainage; weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence), with a full antibiotic course if adequate drainage is not achieved during the procedure. Direct etiology-specific care for Strasberg bile-duct injuries, post-transplant strictures (ASGE 2023: ERCP preferred over PTBD, covered SEMS preferred over multiple plastic stents), IgG4-sclerosing cholangitis, Mirizzi syndrome, and choledochal cysts.

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), "Endoscopic biliary stenting: indications, choice of stents, and results: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline, Updated October 2017", Endoscopy 2018;50(9):910-930 · reviewed 2026-07-20 ↗
Khoury T … Napoléon B · United European Gastroenterology Journal · IF 5.6 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=496 · Sep 1, 2026 · UEG Journal · IF 5.6

EUS-Guided Gallbladder Drainage for Acute Cholecystitis in the Western World: Heterogeneity in Current Practice and the Relation With Patient Outcome.

New evidenceEUSERCPbiliary strictureendoscopy quality
Clinical takeawayFor EUS-GBD in AC patients unfit for surgery, prefer transduodenal access and LAMS >10mm when feasible; monitor for recurrent biliary disease (18.8% rate) and LAMS-related AEs (11.1%). Note 6.5% conversion to laparotomy risk if bridging to cholecystectomy.
What it foundTransduodenal EUS-GBD access had fewer LAMS-related AEs (SHR 0.42, 95% CI 0.23-0.76) and lower recurrent biliary disease vs transgastric access; LAMS >10mm reduced recurrent cholecystitis and mortality in patients unfit for surgery.
ContextRefines EUS-GBD technique: confirms transduodenal access safety from smaller studies and adds LAMS size data, though retrospective.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology, 'Diagnosis and Management of Choledocholithiasis', 2019

Decision at stakethe choice of gallbladder drainage method for acute cholecystitis in patients unfit for immediate surgery

Obtain labs (CBC, CMP with LFTs, lipase, urinalysis, pregnancy test in reproductive-age women) and RUQ ultrasound as first imaging, then direct further workup by ultrasound findings, cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis, MRCP for suspected choledocholithiasis based on risk stratification (e.g., high-risk criteria including CBD dilation >6 mm, bilirubin >4 mg/dL, or gallstone pancreatitis), CCK-HIDA/GBEF for acalculous functional gallbladder disorder, and cross-sectional imaging for liver masses or other pathology.

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

For right upper quadrant pain, characterize the pattern (acute vs chronic, post-meal vs unrelated, with vs without fever/jaundice) and triage acute red-flag presentations (Murphy sign, Charcot's triad, painless jaundice with weight loss, pregnancy with LFT/coagulation derangement) to the ED. Obtain labs (CBC, CMP with LFTs, lipase, urinalysis, pregnancy test in reproductive-age women) and RUQ ultrasound as first imaging, then direct further workup by ultrasound findings, cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis, MRCP for suspected choledocholithiasis based on risk stratification (e.g., high-risk criteria including CBD dilation >6 mm, bilirubin >4 mg/dL, or gallstone pancreatitis), CCK-HIDA/GBEF for acalculous functional gallbladder disorder, and cross-sectional imaging for liver masses or other pathology.

American College of Gastroenterology, 'Diagnosis and Management of Choledocholithiasis', 2019 · reviewed 2026-07-21 ↗
De Wispelaere L … Hindryckx P · United European Gastroenterology Journal · IF 5.6 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy rct · n=110 · Sep 1, 2026 · Dig Endosc · IF 5.2

Submucosal Lidocaine Injection in Colonic Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Single-Center, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial.

New evidenceESDcolorectal cancerendoscopy qualitysedation
Clinical takeawayConsider adding 1% lidocaine with 0.6% sodium alginate to submucosal injection fluid during colonic ESD to reduce spasms and antispasmodic use, particularly in cases with anticipated technical difficulty.
What it foundSubmucosal lidocaine injection (1% lidocaine with 0.6% sodium alginate) reduced severe spasms during colonic ESD compared to saline with 0.6% sodium alginate (34.6% vs 74.1%) and cut median antispasmodic doses from 2 to 1, without increasing adverse events.
ContextConfirms prior small studies suggesting lidocaine's antispasmodic effect in ESD, though without significant procedure time reduction in this adequately powered trial.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Ueda T … Seno H · Digestive Endoscopy : Official Journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · IF 5.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy prospective cohort · n=43 · Sep 4, 2026 · Dig Dis Sci · IF 2.5

Predictors of Progression to Villous Atrophy in Children with Type 1 Diabetes and Potential Celiac Disease.

New evidencepediatricbiomarkerbasic science
Clinical takeawayIn children with type 1 diabetes and positive celiac serology but a normal initial biopsy, reconsider initiating a gluten-free diet based solely on a TTG >10x ULN, as this study found only 26% of such patients progressed to villous atrophy at 1 year compared to watchful waiting with repeat serology and biopsy, which may be more appropriate. Monitor for potential risks of delayed diagnosis or progression.
What it foundIn children with type 1 diabetes and potential celiac disease, only 23% progressed to villous atrophy over a median of 12 months; a baseline γδ T cell/CD3 T cell ratio was the strongest predictor of progression (AUROC 0.918), while only 26% of those with TTG ≥10x ULN at baseline developed atrophy.
ContextChallenges the practice of initiating a gluten-free diet based on high TTG titers (>10x ULN) alone in children with type 1 diabetes and potential celiac disease, suggesting this threshold has low positive predictive value for villous atrophy in this specific population, where spontaneous seroreversion is common.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), "American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines Update: Diagnosis and Management of Celiac Disease" (Rubio-Tapia A, Hill ID, Semrad C, Kelly CP, Greer KB, Limketkai BN, Lebwohl B), Am J Gastroenterol 2023;118(1):59-76, 2023

Decision at stakewhether to perform a biopsy in children with T1DM and potential celiac disease

REFRACTORY CD (RCD) is a separate, rarer entity (<1% of patients outside referral centers): ongoing malabsorptive symptoms and signs with villous atrophy despite strict adherence to a GFD for MORE THAN 12 months and absence of other disorders including overt lymphoma; initial assessment centers on distinguishing RCD type 1 from type 2 by CD3/CD8 immunostains, T-cell receptor clonality by PCR, and/or flow cytometry of duodenal biopsies.

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text. The rest of this standard includes VACCINATION.

Our full summary of this standard

DIAGNOSIS (patient must be on a gluten-containing diet). Serologic testing consists of TTG-IgA plus, if IgA deficiency has not previously been excluded, concurrent total IgA; if IgA deficiency is present, measure an IgG-based serology (DGP-IgG and/or TTG-IgG). This algorithm, previously restricted to those >=2 years, now applies to adults and children at ANY age. An elevated TTG-IgA should proceed to EGD with duodenal biopsy. A negative TTG-IgA in a non-IgA-deficient patient adequately rules out CD only when pretest probability is low or moderate; in symptomatic patients whose pretest suspicion is high (>5%), EGD with duodenal biopsy should be performed irrespective of serologic result. ACG recommends EGD with multiple duodenal biopsies to confirm the diagnosis in both children and adults with suspicion of CD (STRONG recommendation, moderate quality; 1 dissent); sampling should be 1 or 2 biopsies from the bulb (9-o'clock or 12-o'clock position) and at least 4 from the distal duodenum. Lymphocytic duodenosis (>=25 IELs/100 epithelial cells) without villous atrophy is NOT specific for CD. NONBIOPSY PATHWAY (CONDITIONAL recommendation, moderate quality): a combination of high-level TTG-IgA (>10x ULN) with a positive EMA in a SECOND blood sample is suggested as reliable for diagnosis in CHILDREN, and only if the family agrees with the no-biopsy strategy; in SYMPTOMATIC ADULTS unwilling or unable to undergo upper GI endoscopy the same criteria may be considered AFTER THE FACT, as a diagnosis of 'likely CD', ACG does not endorse a prospective no-biopsy pathway in adults, noting a >=10-fold TTG-IgA elevation carries a PPV of only ~95% in adults, which may be unacceptably low given lifelong treatment implications. HLA-DQ2/DQ8 is not required for diagnosis but is useful for serology-histology discrepancy or in patients already on a GFD; if negative, CD is ruled out. TREATMENT AND MONITORING. Strict lifelong GFD. A visit with a dietitian after diagnosis is MANDATORY, with subsequent visits as needed to reinforce education and adherence encouraged; interview with a dietitian experienced in the GFD is the standard of care for assessing adherence. ACG RECOMMENDS consumption of gluten-free oats (STRONG recommendation, moderate quality), with the qualifier that gluten contamination of oats, variable toxicity across oat varieties, and a small risk of immune reaction to avenin require monitoring for oat tolerance (monitoring intervals are not known). ACG suggests AGAINST routine use of gluten detection devices in food or biospecimens (conditional, low quality; 1 dissent), and finds INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to recommend for or against probiotics (evidence gap). ACG suggests setting a goal of intestinal healing as an end point of GFD therapy, advocating individualized discussion of goals beyond clinical and serological remission (CONDITIONAL recommendation, low quality). Follow-up may require multiple visits in the first year (e.g. 3, 6, and 12 months) and regular visits (e.g. twice a year or yearly) thereafter, tracking symptoms and TTG or DGP serology; other tests may include CBC, ALT, AST, vitamins A/D/E/B12, copper, zinc, folic acid, ferritin, and iron, with follow-up bloodwork individualized to verify correction of values abnormal at baseline. Preventive care includes vaccines and DXA. Symptoms improve within days of strict adherence (diarrhea improved in 80% within 60 days), but mucosal healing lags: median time from GFD onset to mucosal healing in adults is 3 years, so it is reasonable to consider a follow-up biopsy in adults after 2 years of starting a GFD, in the ABSENCE of symptoms, after shared decision-making; children heal faster (95% within 2 years), altering the risk-benefit calculus. Repeat biopsy is the only reliable method to document mucosal healing, seroconversion correlates poorly. Upper endoscopy with biopsies is also indicated for lack of clinical response or relapse of symptoms despite a GFD. VACCINATION: ACG suggests vaccination to prevent pneumococcal disease in patients with CD (CONDITIONAL recommendation, low quality), because increased pneumococcal risk is attributed to hyposplenism (frequently subclinical) present in roughly one-third of patients. The regimen follows CDC recommendations by age, immunization record, and comorbidity: for an adult with CD and functional asplenia not previously vaccinated or with unknown history, 1 dose of PCV15 (followed by PPSV23 at least 1 year later) or 1 dose of PCV20 (no PPSV23 indicated); for an adult with CD and no other condition carrying a specific CDC recommendation, ACG suggests 1 dose of PCV20 alone, or 1 dose of PCV15 first and then consider PPSV23 at least 1 year later. NONRESPONSIVE CD (NRCD): defined as persistent symptoms, signs, or laboratory abnormalities typical of CD despite 6-12 MONTHS of dietary gluten avoidance. Evaluation should review and confirm the initial diagnosis of CD, assess for inadvertent gluten exposure (via expert dietitian assessment and serology, positive serologies despite 12 months of GFD suggest ongoing gluten ingestion), assess for a coexisting functional disorder, and selectively test based on clinical suspicion for food intolerances (e.g. lactose, fructose), pancreatic insufficiency, microscopic colitis, and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, among others. REFRACTORY CD (RCD) is a separate, rarer entity (<1% of patients outside referral centers): ongoing malabsorptive symptoms and signs with villous atrophy despite strict adherence to a GFD for MORE THAN 12 months and absence of other disorders including overt lymphoma; initial assessment centers on distinguishing RCD type 1 from type 2 by CD3/CD8 immunostains, T-cell receptor clonality by PCR, and/or flow cytometry of duodenal biopsies.

American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), "American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines Update: Diagnosis and Management of Celiac Disease" (Rubio-Tapia A, Hill ID, Semrad C, Kelly CP, Greer KB, Limketkai BN, Lebwohl B), Am J Gastroenterol 2023;118(1):59-76, 2023 · reviewed 2026-07-19 ↗
Neelamegam M … Thunga C · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=3,197 · Sep 1, 2026 · J Clin Gastro · IF 2.9

Proficiency in Esophageal Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy: A Meta-Analysis of Learning Curves.

New evidencemeta-analysisendoscopy qualitycomputer-aided detection
Clinical takeawayTraining programs can use these metrics to set benchmarks for POEM proficiency, aiming for procedure times around 80 minutes and myotomy speeds of approximately 7.71 minutes per cm after 33 procedures.
What it foundPOEM learners achieved proficiency in procedure speed after 33 procedures, with plateau procedure time at 80.25 minutes and myotomy speed at 7.71 minutes per cm, compared to earlier phases of learning (0-20 procedures).
ContextThis meta-analysis confirms prior evidence on POEM learning curves, providing precise metrics for proficiency and plateau performance in gastroenterologists undergoing POEM training.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), Vaezi MF, Pandolfino JE, Yadlapati RH, Greer KB, Kavitt RT. "ACG Clinical Guidelines: Diagnosis and Management of Achalasia." Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Sep;115(9):1393-1411. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000000731

Decision at stakethe choice of POEM as a treatment option for achalasia

SURVEILLANCE: ACG recommends AGAINST routine endoscopic surveillance for esophageal carcinoma in patients with achalasia (strong, low), although risk is elevated (~1 cancer per 300 patient-years), absolute numbers are low, an estimated >400 endoscopies would be needed to detect one cancer, and surveillance has not demonstrated improved survival.

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text. The rest of this standard includes TREATMENT, FOLLOW-UP, RETREATMENT.

Our full summary of this standard

Evaluate for achalasia any patient with dysphagia to solids and liquids, regurgitation, or chest pain, and specifically consider it in patients presumed to have GERD who do not respond to acid suppression (strong recommendation, very low quality). Diagnose with high-resolution manometry using esophageal pressure topography rather than conventional line tracings (strong, high). Subtype by Chicago Classification (I, II, III), this is a conditional recommendation (low quality): subtyping may inform prognosis and treatment choice, with type II having the most favorable outcomes and type III requiring a longer/tailored myotomy; ACG does not make subtyping mandatory for diagnosis. Always perform upper endoscopy in suspected achalasia to exclude pseudoachalasia from an obstructing mass; use cross-sectional imaging and/or endoscopic ultrasound in difficult cases (ACG states this as narrative guidance, not a numbered recommendation, and specifies no biopsy protocol). FLIP is described as complementary, useful in patients who cannot tolerate manometry and as an arbiter in difficult cases where manometry fails to diagnose achalasia despite high clinical suspicion, not as a required confirmatory test. TREATMENT: pneumatic dilation is superior to medical therapy for symptom relief and esophageal emptying (strong, very low). PD and laparoscopic Heller myotomy are both effective and equivalent short- and long-term for patients who are candidates for definitive therapy (strong, high). POEM and LHM give comparable symptomatic improvement (strong, moderate). POEM and PD give comparable symptomatic improvement in type I or II (conditional, low). For type III, tailored POEM or LHM is recommended as a more efficacious disruptive LES therapy than PD (strong, moderate), ACG does NOT single out POEM over LHM for type III. When surgical myotomy is performed, add fundoplication: myotomy with fundoplication is superior to myotomy alone for controlling distal esophageal acid exposure (strong, moderate), using either Dor or Toupet (conditional, moderate). Botulinum toxin injection is first-line therapy for patients unfit for definitive therapy (strong, moderate), and prior botulinum toxin does not significantly compromise subsequent myotomy performance or outcomes (strong, low). POEM carries a higher incidence of GERD than LHM with fundoplication or PD (strong, moderate). Do not place stents for long-term dysphagia (strong, low). Reserve esophagectomy for surgically fit patients with megaesophagus who have failed other interventions (strong, low), and consider Heller myotomy before esophagectomy in patients who failed PD and POEM when the anatomy is conducive and there is evidence of incomplete myotomy (strong, very low). FOLLOW-UP: use timed barium esophagram as the first-line test to evaluate continued or recurrent symptoms after definitive therapy (strong, very low); the Eckardt score alone or HRM alone should not be used to define treatment failure. Do not obtain routine gastrografin esophagram after dilation, reserve it for clinical suspicion of perforation (strong, low). RETREATMENT: PD is appropriate and safe after failed surgical myotomy or POEM (strong, moderate), and POEM is safe in patients who previously underwent PD or LHM (strong, low). SURVEILLANCE: ACG recommends AGAINST routine endoscopic surveillance for esophageal carcinoma in patients with achalasia (strong, low), although risk is elevated (~1 cancer per 300 patient-years), absolute numbers are low, an estimated >400 endoscopies would be needed to detect one cancer, and surveillance has not demonstrated improved survival.

American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), Vaezi MF, Pandolfino JE, Yadlapati RH, Greer KB, Kavitt RT. "ACG Clinical Guidelines: Diagnosis and Management of Achalasia." Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Sep;115(9):1393-1411. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000000731 · reviewed 2026-07-19 ↗
Wu Y … Ramai D · Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology · IF 2.9 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=145 · Sep 5, 2026 · Dig Dis Sci · IF 2.5

Association Between Arterial Calcification and Small Bowel Vascular Lesions: A Comparative Study of Angioectasia and Dieulafoy's Lesions.

New evidencecapsule endoscopyhemostasis
Clinical takeawayConsider assessing arterial calcification (e.g., via CT-based Agatston score) in patients with Type 1 small-bowel vascular lesions to identify those at higher rebleeding risk, though further evidence is needed to guide clinical action based on these findings.
What it foundType 1 small-bowel vascular lesions had higher superior mesenteric artery calcification (61% vs. 33%, P=0.033) and median modified Agatston scores (8154 vs. 377, P=0.039), with scores ≥7502 associated with increased rebleeding risk (P=0.028).
ContextThis study refines understanding of small-bowel vascular lesions in 145 patients diagnosed via double-balloon enteroscopy, linking Type 1 lesions to systemic arteriosclerosis and rebleeding risk, contrasting with Type 2 lesions' association with acute bleeding.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), "Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline, Update 2022", Endoscopy 2023;55(1):58-95, 2022/2023

Decision at stakethe management of small bowel vascular lesions identified during device assisted enteroscopy

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

Suspected small-bowel bleeding (SSBB), bleeding between the ampulla of Vater and the ileocecal valve, suspected when GI bleeding persists after negative upper and lower endoscopy. Small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is recommended as the FIRST-LINE examination, before other endoscopic and radiological tests (strong, moderate). ESGE does NOT recommend routine second-look endoscopy prior to SBCE in suspected small-bowel bleeding or iron-deficiency anemia (strong, low). In OVERT suspected small-bowel bleeding, perform SBCE as soon as possible after the bleeding episode, ideally within 48 hours, to maximize diagnostic and therapeutic yield (strong, high). Device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) is recommended to confirm and possibly treat lesions identified by SBCE (strong, high); in overt suspected small-bowel bleeding, DAE should optimally be performed within 48-72 hours of the bleeding episode (strong, high). Where SBCE is unavailable or contraindicated, DAE and/or dedicated small-bowel cross-sectional imaging may be considered first, depending on availability, expertise and clinical suspicion (weak, low). After a HIGH-QUALITY NEGATIVE SBCE, ESGE recommends conservative management (strong, moderate), the 2015 wording qualified this as patients without ongoing bleeding evidenced by overt bleeding or continued transfusion requirement, and the 2022 update carries this qualifier as a separate companion recommendation: for patients with a high-quality negative SBCE who have ONGOING overt bleeding or a continued need for blood transfusions, ESGE recommends further investigation using repeat SBCE, DAE, or dedicated small-bowel cross-sectional imaging (strong, moderate). SBCE is also recommended first-line in iron-deficiency anemia when small-bowel evaluation is indicated (strong, high), and after unremarkable or nondiagnostic dedicated small-bowel cross-sectional imaging if likely to influence management (strong, low). CROHN'S DISEASE: in SUSPECTED Crohn's with negative ileocolonoscopy, SBCE is the initial small-bowel modality ONLY in the absence of obstructive symptoms or known bowel stenosis (strong, high); in that group ESGE explicitly does NOT recommend routine cross-sectional imaging or a patency capsule before SBCE (strong, HIGH quality). With obstructive symptoms or known stenosis, dedicated cross-sectional imaging (MRE/MR-enteroclysis or CTE/CT-enteroclysis) is used FIRST (strong, moderate), and a patency capsule is recommended before SBCE in suspected Crohn's with obstructive symptoms (strong, low), even when cross-sectional imaging is negative. In ESTABLISHED Crohn's, a patency capsule before SBCE is recommended to decrease the retention rate (strong, moderate). SMALL-BOWEL TUMORS: SBCE is recommended where there is increased risk of a small-bowel tumor (strong, moderate); ESGE does NOT recommend specific investigations before SBCE in suspected small-bowel tumor UNLESS the patient is considered at risk of capsule retention (strong, low). If imaging has ALREADY demonstrated a suspected small-bowel tumor, DAE is preferred over SBCE (strong, low). Cross-sectional imaging is recommended for staging and operability when SBCE shows a tumor with high diagnostic certainty (strong, low); where the capsule diagnosis is uncertain, biopsy sampling AND tattooing of the location by DAE is recommended (strong, low); for a subepithelial mass, confirm by DAE and/or cross-sectional imaging per local availability/expertise (strong, low). SBCE is NOT recommended for follow-up of treated small-bowel tumors, for lack of data (strong, low). PATENCY/RETENTION generally: GI obstruction is an absolute contraindication to SBCE. If the patency capsule is egested intact, retention of a real capsule is unlikely; if not egested within 30 hours, cross-sectional imaging (not plain abdominal radiography) is favored to localize it. In Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, routine patency capsule use is NOT recommended and should be considered case-by-case.

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), "Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline, Update 2022", Endoscopy 2023;55(1):58-95, 2022/2023 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Shigenobu S … Oka S · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy rct · n=40 · Sep 1, 2026 · Pancreas · IF 1.9

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Transluminal Drainage of Walled-Off Necrosis Using Naso-Cystic Drain With Metal Stent Versus Metal Stent Alone: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.

New evidenceEUSendoscopy quality
Clinical takeawayDo not routinely add nasocystic drainage to EUS-guided LAMS for WON; LAMS alone is non-inferior and may shorten hospitalization. However, these findings are exploratory and require confirmation in larger trials.
What it foundAdding nasocystic drainage (NCD) to EUS-guided LAMS for walled-off necrosis (WON) did not improve clinical success compared to LAMS alone (55% vs 45% at day 3, P=0.527) and prolonged median hospital stay (specific duration not provided, P=0.038).
ContextChallenges the uncertain role of NCD as an adjunct to LAMS, suggesting it adds no benefit in WON drainage. Findings are exploratory due to small sample size and baseline imbalance.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Kar N … Gautam V · Pancreas · IF 1.9 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=3,298 · Sep 1, 2026 · UEG Journal · IF 5.6

Evolution of Endoscopic and Histologic Assessment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Europe and Evolution of the Diagnostic Delay: Data From the EUREOS EoE CONNECT Registry.

New evidenceeosinophilic esophagitisendoscopy qualityepidemiologybiomarker
Clinical takeawayObtain biopsies from at least two esophageal segments (distal and middle) when evaluating for EoE to maximize diagnostic sensitivity, as recommended by current guidelines.
What it foundDistal esophageal biopsies had the highest diagnostic sensitivity for EoE, and sampling that included the distal segment achieved sensitivity above 97%, particularly when combined with middle esophageal biopsies, compared to single-segment sampling.
ContextConfirms and refines current guideline recommendations for multi-segment biopsy sampling in EoE, showing improved diagnostic yield and reduced diagnostic delay with adherence in a European multicenter cohort.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology (Dellon ES, Muir AB, Katzka DA, et al.), "ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis," American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2025 (120(1):31-59)

Decision at stakeobtaining at least 6 esophageal biopsies from at least 2 esophageal levels for EoE diagnosis

DIAGNOSIS: EoE is diagnosed by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction plus at least 15 eos/hpf in at least 1 hpf on esophageal biopsy, after evaluating for non-EoE disorders that cause or potentially contribute to esophageal eosinophilia (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence). Obtain at least 6 esophageal biopsies from at least 2 esophageal levels (e.g., proximal/mid and distal), targeting endoscopic findings if possible (strong, low).

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text. The rest of this standard includes BIOLOGICS, DILATION, MAINTENANCE and 2 more.

Our full summary of this standard

ACG 2025 makes 19 GRADE-rated statements plus non-graded key concepts. DIAGNOSIS: EoE is diagnosed by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction plus at least 15 eos/hpf in at least 1 hpf on esophageal biopsy, after evaluating for non-EoE disorders that cause or potentially contribute to esophageal eosinophilia (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence). A PPI trial is NOT a diagnostic criterion and the term PPI-REE is abandoned; PPIs are positioned purely as a treatment. Obtain at least 6 esophageal biopsies from at least 2 esophageal levels (e.g., proximal/mid and distal), targeting endoscopic findings if possible (strong, low). Use a systematic endoscopic scoring system such as the EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS) at every endoscopy (strong, low). Quantify eosinophil counts, not merely report them as above threshold, on biopsies from every endoscopy performed for EoE (strong, low), since serial counts gauge anti-inflammatory effect; the guideline notes eosinophil density (~60 eos/mm2) may be preferable for cross-setting comparison but that this has not yet been adopted in practice. Key concept: perform the diagnostic endoscopy off treatment (no dietary restriction and no PPI) to maximize diagnostic sensitivity. TREATMENT, the three anti-inflammatory options do NOT carry equal recommendation strength: swallowed topical steroids are recommended (STRONG, moderate evidence); PPIs are suggested (CONDITIONAL, low); empiric food elimination diet is suggested (CONDITIONAL, low). Because the field lacks comparative efficacy trials, the guideline states the choice among them is individualized to disease characteristics and patient preference within a shared decision-making framework, and advises that a single anti-inflammatory therapy be selected initially. Either fluticasone propionate or budesonide is a reasonable initial topical steroid (conditional, low); options include the FDA-approved budesonide oral suspension, the EMA-approved budesonide orodispersible tablet, and off-label asthma preparations adapted for esophageal delivery. Administer topical steroids after meals or at bedtime with nothing to eat or drink for 30-60 minutes to maximize esophageal dwell time; in young children prefer a slurry/suspension over an inhaler device. Dosing (Table 6): high-dose PPI, adults, double the approved reflux dose per day (e.g., omeprazole 20 mg twice daily or 40 mg daily or PPI equivalent); children, 2 mg/kg/day (or 1 mg/kg twice daily). Budesonide, adults 2-4 mg/day, divisible twice daily (approved budesonide oral suspension dosing is 2 mg twice daily); children 1-2 mg/day by age/height/weight. Fluticasone, adults 1,760 mcg/day in divided doses; children 110-880 mcg/day in divided doses. Currently available allergy testing (skin prick, patch, or serum Ig panels) is NOT suggested to direct elimination diets (conditional, very low). Providers MAY consider starting with a less-restrictive empiric elimination (1FED or 2FED) as the initial diet choice, incorporating patient preference through shared decision-making, and should collaborate with a dietician or nutritionist; after an initial dietary response a structured food reintroduction process is advised, with endoscopy and biopsy after each food reintroduced, because symptoms alone must not be used to determine food triggers. BIOLOGICS: dupilumab is suggested for EoE in individuals 12 years of age or older who are nonresponsive to PPI therapy (conditional, moderate) and, as a separate statement, for pediatric patients aged 1-11 years weighing at least 15 kg who are nonresponsive to PPI therapy (conditional, low). Dosing: 15 to <30 kg, 200 mg subcutaneously every other week; 30 to <40 kg, 300 mg subcutaneously every other week; >=40 kg, 300 mg subcutaneously weekly. Key concept: use dupilumab as step-up therapy in difficult-to-treat patients, and consider it in patients with multiple atopic conditions that would independently meet requirements for its use; the guideline explicitly states its position in the treatment algorithm is still being determined. No recommendation can be made for or against cendakimab, benralizumab, lirentelimab, mepolizumab, or reslizumab. Omalizumab is suggested AGAINST (conditional, low), as are cromolyn and montelukast (conditional, very low). DILATION: endoscopic dilation is suggested as an ADJUNCT to medical therapy for esophageal strictures causing dysphagia (conditional, low). Dilation alone does not affect underlying inflammatory disease activity, so in fibrostenotic EoE it should occur in conjunction with effective medical or dietary anti-inflammatory therapy. Use a start-low-and-go-slow approach: begin with a dilator size that may underestimate esophageal caliber, relook after dilation, and work to larger sizes until a mucosal disruption ('dilation effect') or the target diameter is reached. In adults and adolescents, a goal luminal diameter that relieves dysphagia and food impaction, typically at least 16 mm, should be achieved over one or more sessions, depending on initial luminal caliber and the effect observed during dilation. Dilation technique may be chosen by stricture characteristics and endoscopist preference. MAINTENANCE: continuation of EFFECTIVE dietary or pharmacologic therapy is advised to prevent recurrence of symptoms, histologic inflammation, and endoscopic abnormalities, notably graded STRONG despite low-quality evidence, because disease activity almost universally recurs when treatment is stopped. For patients on pharmacologic treatment, providers should consider identifying the lowest effective dose for long-term use, with any dose-reduction decision individualized. MONITORING AND RESPONSE: evaluate treatment response with symptomatic AND endoscopic AND histologic outcomes (strong, low); providers are advised NOT to monitor symptoms alone, since symptoms do not strongly correlate with endoscopic or histologic disease activity. Perform endoscopy to assess response 8-12 weeks after starting a new therapy such as PPI, topical steroid, or food elimination diet; for dupilumab the assessment interval may range from 12 to 24 weeks based on clinical trial findings. Providers MAY consider using a histologic response threshold of <15 eos/hpf, with the improvement in eosinophil count interpreted in the context of other histologic features, endoscopic findings, and symptoms, the guideline frames this as a 'may consider' key concept rather than a fixed target. Follow-up should be individualized and at shorter intervals for patients with complications (food impaction, perforation, strictures requiring dilation, malnutrition); repeat endoscopy after any treatment change such as dose reduction; care gaps of 2 years or more are associated with progression to fibrostenosis. PEDIATRIC-SPECIFIC: in children with EoE and dysphagia, an esophagram is suggested to evaluate fibrostenotic disease (conditional, very low); evaluation by a feeding therapist and/or dietician is suggested as an adjunctive intervention in children with feeding dysfunction (conditional, very low); growth, development including eating skills, and nutrition are treatment goals in children in addition to symptomatic, endoscopic, and histologic goals.

American College of Gastroenterology (Dellon ES, Muir AB, Katzka DA, et al.), "ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis," American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2025 (120(1):31-59) · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Grueso-Navarro E … Lucendo AJ · United European Gastroenterology Journal · IF 5.6 · PubMed ↗Permalink
← Back to issue №10 Every section of this issue is one click away, at the top of this page. Follow Endoscopy by RSS