Wanrooij, Roy L.J. van

Main Recommendations 1 ESGE recommends a prolonged course of a prophylactic broad-spectrum antibiotic in patients with ascites who are undergoing therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents during EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy for biliary drainage in malignant disease.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be performed in high volume expert centers, owing to the complexity of this technique and the high risk of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends a stepwise approach to EUS-guided PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy, starting with rendezvous-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (RV-ERP), followed by antegrade or transmural drainage only when RV-ERP fails or is not feasible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE suggests performing transduodenal EUS-guided gallbladder drainage with a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS), rather than using the transgastric route, as this may reduce the risk of stent dysfunction.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends using saline instillation for small-bowel distension during EUS-guided gastroenterostomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 ESGE recommends the use of saline instillation with a 19G needle and an electrocautery-enhanced LAMS for EUS-directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (EDGE) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE recommends the use of either 15- or 20-mm LAMSs for EDGE, with a preference for 20-mm LAMSs when considering a same-session ERCP.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Main Recommendations 1 ESGE recommends the use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) over percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in malignant distal biliary obstruction when local expertise is available. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2 ESGE suggests EUS-BD with hepaticogastrostomy only for malignant inoperable hilar biliary obstruction with a dilated left hepatic duct when inadequately drained by ERCP and/or PTBD in high volume expert centers. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends that EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be considered in symptomatic patients with an obstructed PD when retrograde endoscopic intervention fails or is not possible. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends rendezvous EUS techniques over transmural PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy owing to its lower rate of adverse events. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE recommends that, in patients at high surgical risk, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (GBD) should be favored over percutaneous gallbladder drainage where both techniques are available, owing to the lower rates of adverse events and need for re-interventions in EUS-GBD. Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6 ESGE recommends EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), in an expert setting, for malignant gastric outlet obstruction, as an alternative to enteral stenting or surgery. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 ESGE recommends that EUS-GE may be considered in the management of afferent loop syndrome, especially in the setting of malignancy or in poor surgical candidates. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE suggests that endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) can be offered, in expert centers, to patients with a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass following multidisciplinary decision-making, with the aim of overcoming the invasiveness of laparoscopy-assisted ERCP and the limitations of enteroscopy-assisted ERCP. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

SummaryBackgroundRefractory coeliac disease is a severe complication of coeliac disease with heterogeneous outcome.AimTo create a prognostic model to estimate survival of patients with refractory coeliac disease.MethodsWe evaluated predictors of 5‐year mortality using Cox proportional hazards regression on subjects from a multinational registry. Bootstrap resampling was used to internally validate the individual factors and overall model performance. The mean of the estimated regression coefficients from 400 bootstrap models was used to derive a risk score for 5‐year mortality.ResultsThe multinational cohort was composed of 232 patients diagnosed with refractory coeliac disease across seven centres (range of 11–63 cases per centre). The median age was 53 years and 150 (64%) were women. A total of 51 subjects died during a 5‐year follow‐up (cumulative 5‐year all‐cause mortality = 30%). From a multiple variable Cox proportional hazards model, the following variables were significantly associated with 5‐year mortality: age at refractory coeliac disease diagnosis (per 20 year increase, hazard ratio = 2.21; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.38–3.55), abnormal intraepithelial lymphocytes (hazard ratio = 2.85; 95% CI: 1.22–6.62), and albumin (per 0.5 unit increase, hazard ratio = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.61–0.85). A simple weighted three‐factor risk score was created to estimate 5‐year survival.ConclusionsUsing data from a multinational registry and previously reported risk factors, we create a prognostic model to predict 5‐year mortality among patients with refractory coeliac disease. This new model may help clinicians to guide treatment and follow‐up.