This study aims to assess the occurrence of colonoscopy-related adverse events (AEs) in adults aged over 65 years, as there has been a significant increase in the prevalence of colonoscopies among the elderly compared to two decades ago.

A comprehensive search was conducted on 3 June 2024, using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Meta-analyses were performed using the generalized linear-mixed model, and the results were presented as pooled rates with relevant 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

We retrieved a total of 15 417 records and included 13 population-based studies. The overall rates of colonoscopy-related perforation and bleeding in the elderly population were 7.8 (95% CI 5.5-11.2; I2  = 94%) and 23.5 (95% CI 9.0-61.3; I2  = 100%) per 10 000 colonoscopies, respectively. The " > 80 years" group had a significantly higher risk of perforation (RR 2.55; 95% CI 1.15-5.66; I2  = 79%) and bleeding (RR 1.23; 95% CI 1.02-1.48; I2  = 0%) compared to the "65-80 years" group. For screening colonoscopies, the rates of perforation and bleeding were 8.5 (95% CI 7.1-10.2; I2  = 0%) and 27 (95% CI 9.0-81.0; I2  = 99%) per 10 000 colonoscopies, respectively. For diagnostic colonoscopies, the rates of perforation and bleeding were 18 (95% CI 16.2-20.0; I2  = 1%) and 16 (95% CI 8.1-31.3; I2  = 98%) per 10 000 colonoscopies, respectively. Compared to non-therapeutic colonoscopies, therapeutic procedures exhibited higher rates of both perforation (1.5 vs. 0.4 per 10 000 colonoscopies) and bleeding (7.1 vs. 0.5 per 10 000 colonoscopies). The prevalence of cardiopulmonary AEs in the elderly population is relatively high, although the definition used varies across different studies.

We conducted a comprehensive analysis on the prevalence of AEs related to colonoscopy in older adults. Overall, the AE rates remain low. However, we emphasize the importance of enhancing safety protocols to further minimize risks, ensuring that the benefits of colonoscopy continue to outweigh the risks, especially for patients over the age of 80.

Diagnostic colonoscopy plays a central role in colorectal cancer screening programs. We analyzed the risk factors for perforation during diagnostic colonoscopy and discussed the treatment outcomes.

We performed a retrospective analysis of risk factors and treatment outcomes of perforation during 74,426 diagnostic colonoscopies between 2013 and 2018 in a tertiary hospital.

A total of 19 perforations were identified after 74,426 diagnostic colonoscopies or sigmoidoscopies, resulting in a standardized incidence rate of 0.025% or 2.5 per 10,000 colonoscopies. The majority (15 out of 19, 79%) were found at the sigmoid colon and recto-sigmoid junction. Perforation occurred mostly in less than 1000 cases of colonoscopy (16 out of 19, 84%). In particular, the incidence of perforation was higher in more than 200 cases undergoing slightly advanced colonoscopy rather than beginners who had just learned colonoscopy. Old age (≥ 70 years), inpatient setting, low body mass index (BMI), and sedation status were significantly associated with increased risk of perforation. Nine (47%) of the patients underwent operative treatment and ten (53%) were managed non-operatively. Patients who underwent surgery were often diagnosed with delayed or concomitant abdominal pain. Perforations of rectum tended to be successfully treated with endoscopic clipping.

Additional precautions are required to prevent perforation in elderly patients, hospital settings, low BMI, sedated patients, or by a doctor with slight familiarity with endoscopies (but still insufficient experience). Endoscopic treatment should be actively considered if diagnosis is prompt, abdominal pain absent, and especially the rectal perforation is present.

This ESGE Position Statement provides structured and evidence-based guidance on the essential requirements and processes involved in training in basic gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures. The document outlines definitions; competencies required, and means to their assessment and maintenance; the structure and requirements of training programs; patient safety and medicolegal issues. 1:  ESGE and ESGENA define basic endoscopic procedures as those procedures that are commonly indicated, generally accessible, and expected to be mastered (technically and cognitively) by the end of any core training program in gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2:  ESGE and ESGENA consider the following as basic endoscopic procedures: diagnostic upper and lower GI endoscopy, as well as a limited range of interventions such as: tissue acquisition via cold biopsy forceps, polypectomy for lesions ≤ 10 mm, hemostasis techniques, enteral feeding tube placement, foreign body retrieval, dilation of simple esophageal strictures, and India ink tattooing of lesion location. 3:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that training in GI endoscopy should be subject to stringent formal requirements that ensure all ESGE key performance indicators (KPIs) are met. 4:  Training in basic endoscopic procedures is a complex process and includes the development and acquisition of cognitive, technical/motor, and integrative skills. Therefore, ESGE and ESGENA recommend the use of validated tools to track the development of skills and assess competence. 5:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend incorporating a multimodal approach to evaluating competence in basic GI endoscopic procedures, including procedural thresholds and the measurement and documentation of established ESGE KPIs. 7:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend the continuous monitoring of ESGE KPIs during GI endoscopy training to ensure the trainee's maintenance of competence. 9:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy training units fulfil the ESGE KPIs for endoscopy units and, furthermore, be capable of providing the dedicated personnel, infrastructure, and sufficient case volume required for successful training within a structured training program. 10:  ESGE and ESGENA recommend that trainers in basic GI endoscopic procedures should be endoscopists with formal educational training in the teaching of endoscopy, which allows them to successfully and safely teach trainees.

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.

The United States is currently facing a physician shortage crisis including a lack of specialist providers. Due to this shortage of specialists, some primary care providers offer colorectal cancer screenings in communities with few gastroenterologists, especially in under-resourced areas such as rural regions of the United States. However, discrepancies in training and procedural outcomes raise concerns regarding informed consent for patients. Because osteopathic physicians play a critical role in addressing the physician shortage in these under-resourced communities, this commentary may be especially useful because they are likely to encounter these ethical complexities in their day-to-day practice.

The incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) and associated mortality have been increasing. However, the potential benefits of CRC screening are largely unknown in young individuals. We aimed to evaluate the effect of CRC screening with colonoscopy on all-cause and CRC mortality among young (aged < 45 years) and older (aged ≥ 45 years) individuals.

This cohort study included 528,046 Korean adults free of cancer at baseline who underwent a comprehensive health examination. The colonoscopic screening group was defined as those who reported undergoing colonoscopy for CRC screening. Mortality follow-up until December 31, 2019 was ascertained based on nationwide death certificate data from the Korea National Statistical Office.

Colonoscopic screening was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality in both young and older individuals. Multivariable-adjusted time-dependent hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for all-cause mortality comparing ever- to never-screening were 0.86 (0.75-0.99) for young individuals and 0.71 (0.65-0.78) for older individuals. Colonoscopic screenings were also associated with a reduced risk of CRC mortality without significant interaction by age, although this association was significant only among participants aged ≥ 45 years, with corresponding time-dependent hazard ratios of 0.47 (0.15-1.44) for young individuals and 0.52 (0.31-0.87) for those aged ≥ 45 years.

Colonoscopic CRC screening decreased all-cause mortality among both young and older individuals, while significantly decreased CRC mortality was observed only in those aged ≥ 45 years. Screening initiation at an earlier age warrants more rigorous confirmatory studies.

Iatrogenic colorectal perforation is a rare event with a relevant mortality and the need for surgical therapy in around ¾ of cases.

In this retrospective multicentric cohort study iatrogenic colorectal perforations from 2004 to 2021 were analyzed. Primary outcome parameters were incidence and clinical success of 1st line endoscopic treatment. Comparative analysis of interventional and non-interventional perforations was performed and predictors for clinical success of endoscopic therapy were identified.

From 103,570 colonoscopies 213 (0.2%) iatrogenic perforations were identified. 68.4% were interventional (80 during polypectomy/EMR, 54 during ESD and 11 for other reasons) and 31.6% non-interventional perforations (39 by the tip, 19 by the shaft, 7 by inversion, two by biopsy and one by distension). Incidence of 1st line endoscopic therapy was 61.0% and clinical success 81.5%. Other non-surgical therapies were conducted in 8.9% with clinical success in 94.7% of cases. In interventional perforations both incidence and clinical success of 1st line endoscopic therapy were significantly higher compared to non-interventional perforations [71.7% vs. 38.2% (p < 0.01) resp. 86.5% vs. 61.5% (p < 0.01)]. Mortality was 2.3% and significantly lower in the group of interventional perforations (0.7% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.037). Multivariable analysis revealed perforation size < 5 mm as only independent predictor for clinical success of 1st line endoscopic treatment [OR 14.85 (1.57-140.69), p = 0.019].

Endoscopic therapy is treatment of choice in the majority of iatrogenic colorectal perforations. In case of interventional perforations it is highly effective but only a minority of non-interventional perforations are good candidates for endoscopic treatment.

latrogenic colon perforation (ICP) is one of the most feared complications of colonoscopy and causes unwanted morbidity and mortality. In this study, we aimed to discuss the characteristics of the cases of ICP we encountered in our endoscopy clinic, its etiology, our treatment approaches, and results in the light of the current literature.

We retrospectively evaluated the cases of ICP among 9.709 lower gastrointestinal system endoscopy procedures (colonoscopy + rectosigmoidoscopy) performed for diagnostic purposes in our endoscopy clinic during 2002-2020.

A total of seven cases of ICP were detected. The diagnosis was made during the procedure in six patients and after eight hours in one patient, and their treatment was performed urgently. Whereas surgical procedures were performed in all patients, the type of the procedure varied; laparoscopic primary repair was performed in two patients and laparotomy in five patients. In the patients who underwent laparotomy, primary repair was performed in three patients, partial colon resection and end-to-end anastomosis in one patient, and loop colostomy in one patient. The patients were hospitalized for an average of 7.14 days. The patients who did not develop complications in the postoperative follow-up were discharged with full recovery.

Prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment of ICP is crucial to prevent morbidity and mortality.

Colonoscopy quality indicators provide measurable assessments of performance, but significant provider-level variations exist. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether endoscopist specialty is associated with adenoma detection rate (ADR) - the primary outcome - or cecal intubation rate, adverse event rates, and post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rates.

We searched EMBASE, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials from inception to December 14, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Citations underwent duplicate full-text review, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Data were abstracted in duplicate. The DerSimonian and Laird random effects model was used to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk of bias was assessed using Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions.

Of 11,314 citations, 36 studies representing 3,500,832 colonoscopies were included. Compared with colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists, those by surgeons were associated with lower ADRs (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74-0.88) and lower cecal intubation rates (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92). Compared with colonoscopies performed by gastroenterologists, those by other (non-gastroenterologist, non-surgeon) endoscopists were associated with lower ADRs (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.87-0.96), higher perforation rates (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.65-5.51), and higher post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rates (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.14-1.33). Substantial to considerable heterogeneity existed for most analyses, and overall certainty in the evidence was low according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations framework.

Colonoscopies performed by surgeons or other endoscopists were associated with poorer quality metrics and outcomes compared with those performed by gastroenterologists. Targeted quality improvement efforts may be warranted.

Background and study aims  Perforations are a known adverse event of endoscopy procedures; a proposal for appropriate management should be available in each center as recommended by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The objective of this study was to establish a charter for the management of endoscopic perforations, based on local evidence. Patients and methods  Patients were included if they experienced partial or complete perforation during an endoscopic procedure between 2008 and 2018 (retrospectively until 2016, then prospectively). Perforations (size, location, closure) and management (imagery, antibiotics, surgery) were analyzed. Using these results, a panel of experts was asked to propose a consensual management charter. Results  A total of 105 patients were included. Perforations occurred mainly during therapeutic procedures (91, 86.7%). Of the perforations, 78 (74.3 %) were diagnosed immediately and managed during the procedure; 69 of 78 (88.5 %) were successfully closed. Closures were more effective during therapeutic procedures (60 of 66, 90.9 %) than during diagnostic procedures (9 of 12, 75.0 %, P  = 0.06). Endoscopic closure was effective for 37 of 38 perforations (97.4 %) < 0.5 cm, and for 26 of 34 perforations (76.5 %) ≥ 0.5 cm ( P  < 0.05). For perforations < 0.5 cm, systematic computed tomography (CT) scan, antibiotics, or surgical evaluation did not improve the outcome. Four of 105 deaths (3.8 %) occurred after perforation, one of which was attributable to the perforation itself. Conclusions  Detection and closure of perforations during endoscopic procedure had a better outcome compared to delayed perforations; perforations < 0.5 cm had a very good prognosis and CT scan, surgeon evaluation, or antibiotics are probably not necessary when the endoscopic closure is confidently performed. This work led to proposal of a local management charter.

The 2 most significant complications of colonoscopy with polypectomy are bleeding and perforation. Although the incidence rates are generally low (<1%), these can be avoided by recognizing pertinent risk factors, which can be patient, polyp, and technique/device related. Endoscopists should be equipped to manage bleeding and perforation. Currently available devices and techniques to achieve hemostasis and manage colon perforations are reviewed.

High-quality pediatric endoscopy requires reliable performance of procedures by competent individual providers who consistently uphold all standards determined to assure optimal patient outcomes. Establishing consensus expectations for ongoing monitoring and assessment of individual pediatric endoscopists is a method for confirming the highest possible quality of care for such procedures worldwide. We aim to provide guidance to define and measure quality of endoscopic care for children.

With support from the North American and European Societies of Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN), an international working group of the Pediatric Endoscopy Quality Improvement Network (PEnQuIN) used the methodological strategy of the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument to develop standards and indicators relevant for assessing the quality of endoscopists. Consensus was sought via an iterative online Delphi process and finalized at an in-person conference. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

The PEnQuIN working group achieved consensus on 6 standards that all providers who perform pediatric endoscopy should uphold and 2 standards for pediatric endoscopists in training, with 7 corresponding indicators that can be used to identify high-quality endoscopists. Additionally, these can inform continuous quality improvement at the provider level. Minimum targets for defining high-quality pediatric ileocolonoscopy were set for 2 key indicators: cecal intubation rate (≥90%) and terminal ileal intubation rate (≥85%).

It is recommended that all individual providers performing or training to perform pediatric endoscopy initiate and engage with these international endoscopist-related standards and indicators developed by PEnQuIN.

The risks associated with colonoscopy performed through the British Columbia Colon Screening Program (BCCSP) are not known. We aimed to determine the rate of colonoscopy-related serious adverse events within this program.

For this prospective observational study, we used the BCCSP database to identify participants 50 to 74 years of age who had a positive result on fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) between Nov. 15, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2017, followed by colonoscopy. Unplanned medical events were recorded at the time of colonoscopy and 14 days later. We reviewed the unplanned events and defined them as serious adverse events if they resulted in death, hospital admission or intervention; we also classified them as probably, possibly or unlikely related to the colonoscopy. The primary outcome was the overall rate of serious adverse events; the secondary outcomes were 14-day post-colonoscopy rates of perforation, bleeding and death.

During the study period, a total of 96 192 colonoscopies were performed by 308 physicians at 50 sites. The median age of patients was 62 (10th-90th percentile 52-71) years, and 56% were male. Of these, 78 831 patients were contacted after the colonoscopy. Serious adverse events were deemed to have occurred in 350 colonoscopies (44 per 10 000, 95% confidence interval [CI] 39-50 per 10 000), with a number needed to harm of 225. Of the 332 (94.9%) serious adverse events that were probably or possibly related to colonoscopy, perforation occurred in 6 (95% CI 5-8) per 10 000 colonoscopies, bleeding in 26 (95% CI 22-30) per 10 000 colonoscopies and death in 3 (95% CI 1-10) per 100 000 colonoscopies.

The rate of serious adverse events associated with colonoscopy in the BCCSP was in keeping with previous publications and met accepted benchmarks. The findings of this study inform stakeholders of the risks associated with colonoscopy in an FIT-based colon screening program.

In Japan, screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer is expected to reduce colorectal cancer mortality, although its complication rate has not been sufficiently examined. The aim of this study is to analyze severe complications due to colonoscopy.

As a study population, we retrospectively used commercially anonymized health insurance claims data covering 5.71 million patients from January 2005 to August 2018. We extracted patients who received colonoscopy with lesions resection or without treatment. Main outcomes were rates of hemorrhage, perforation, fatal events, and their risk factors.

Among 341 852 colonoscopy without treatment in 260 128 patients (mean age: 49.6 ± 11.7 years), the rates of hemorrhage, perforation, and fatal events were 0.0059% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0031-0.0085), 0.0032% (95% CI 0.0011-0.0052), and 0.00029% (95% CI 0-0.0012), respectively. Regarding hemorrhage, compared with the rate for patients <50 years old (0.0050%), the rates for those 50-59, 60-69, and ≥70 years old were 0.0095% (P = 0.17), 0.0031% (P = 0.17), and 0%, respectively. Regarding perforation, compared with patients <50 years old (0.0056%), the rates for those 50-59, 60-69, and ≥70 years old were 0%, 0.0015% (P = 0.99), and 0.0102% (P = 0.99), respectively. A multivariate analysis for risk factors showed no significant findings for hemorrhage and perforation without treatment. Among 123 087 colonoscopy with lesions resection in 102 058 patients (mean age: 53.7 ± 9.3 years), the rates of hemorrhage, perforation, and fatal events were 0.136% (95% CI 0.1157-0.1572), 0.033% (95% CI 0.0228-0.0437), and 0.00081% (95% CI 0-0.0035), respectively.

The analysis using health insurance claims data demonstrated the safety of colonoscopy.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the US.

To systematically review the effectiveness, test accuracy, and harms of screening for CRC to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant studies published from January 1, 2015, to December 4, 2019; surveillance through March 26, 2021.

English-language studies conducted in asymptomatic populations at general risk of CRC.

Two reviewers independently appraised the articles and extracted relevant study data from fair- or good-quality studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.

Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, test accuracy in detecting cancers or adenomas, and serious adverse events.

The review included 33 studies (n = 10 776 276) on the effectiveness of screening, 59 (n = 3 491 045) on the test performance of screening tests, and 131 (n = 26 987 366) on the harms of screening. In randomized clinical trials (4 trials, n = 458 002), intention to screen with 1- or 2-time flexible sigmoidoscopy vs no screening was associated with a decrease in CRC-specific mortality (incidence rate ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.68-0.80]). Annual or biennial guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) vs no screening (5 trials, n = 419 966) was associated with a reduction of CRC-specific mortality after 2 to 9 rounds of screening (relative risk at 19.5 years, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84-0.98]; relative risk at 30 years, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.65-0.93]). In observational studies, receipt of screening colonoscopy (2 studies, n = 436 927) or fecal immunochemical test (FIT) (1 study, n = 5.4 million) vs no screening was associated with lower risk of CRC incidence or mortality. Nine studies (n = 6497) evaluated the test accuracy of screening computed tomography (CT) colonography, 4 of which also reported the test accuracy of colonoscopy; pooled sensitivity to detect adenomas 6 mm or larger was similar between CT colonography with bowel prep (0.86) and colonoscopy (0.89). In pooled values, commonly evaluated FITs (14 studies, n = 45 403) (sensitivity, 0.74; specificity, 0.94) and stool DNA with FIT (4 studies, n = 12 424) (sensitivity, 0.93; specificity, 0.85) performed better than high-sensitivity gFOBT (2 studies, n = 3503) (sensitivity, 0.50-0.75; specificity, 0.96-0.98) to detect cancers. Serious harms of screening colonoscopy included perforations (3.1/10 000 procedures) and major bleeding (14.6/10 000 procedures). CT colonography may have harms resulting from low-dose ionizing radiation. It is unclear if detection of extracolonic findings on CT colonography is a net benefit or harm.

There are several options to screen for colorectal cancer, each with a different level of evidence demonstrating its ability to reduce cancer mortality, its ability to detect cancer or precursor lesions, and its risk of harms.

Management of iatrogenic gastrointestinal (GI) defects traditionally required surgical interventions. Recently, the over-the-scope-clip system (OTSC) has been reported to be effective for GI defects. So we aimed to conduct an updated systematic review to evaluate the clinical safety and efficacy of the OTSC system for the management of iatrogenic GI defects.

Studies published in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library from January 2006 to December 2018 were searched. The literature was selected independently by two reviewers according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The statistical analysis was carried out using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software version 3.0.

A total of 12 studies including 191 patients with iatrogenic GI defects were identified. The major causes for iatrogenic GI defects were endoscopic submucosal dissection (n = 79) and endoscopic mucosal resection (n = 31). Pooled technical success was achieved in 182 patients (89.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 81.6%-93.8%, I2 =41.06%), and the pooled clinical success was achieved in 170 patients (85.2%; 95% CI, 71.9%-92.8%, I2=58.92%). Two patients (1%) suffered complications after OTSC system procedures.

Our study revealed that endoscopic closure of iatrogenic GI defects by the OTSC system was a safe and effective approach. Further randomized controlled trials are warranted to compare the OTSC system to other treatment modalities.

It is not clear whether a healthy lifestyle affects mortality of patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), including Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC).

We collected data form the Nurses' Health Study (1986-2014), Nurses' Health Study II (1991-2015), and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986-2014), which assess lifestyles with serial questionnaires. We estimated joint and individual associations between 5 healthy lifestyle factors after IBD diagnosis (never smoking, body mass index 18.5-24.9 kg/m², vigorous physical activity in the highest 50% with non-zero value, alternate Mediterranean diet score ≥4, and light drinking [0.1-5.0 g/d]) and mortality using Cox proportional hazards models.

We documented 83 deaths in 363 patients with CD during 4741 person-years and 80 deaths in 465 patients with UC during 6061 person-years. The median age of IBD diagnosis was 55 y. Compared to patients with IBD with no healthy lifestyle factors, patients with IBD with 3-5 healthy lifestyle factors had a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16-0.52; P_trend < .0001). This reduction was significant in patients with CD (P_trend = .003) as well as in patients with UC (P_trend = .0003). Individual associations were more than 25 pack-years (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.24-2.97; P_trend < .0001), physical activity (HR according to quintiles, 0.55-0.31; P_trend = .001), Mediterranean diet (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.98), and alcohol consumption (HR_{0.1-5 g/d} 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.95 vs HR_{>15 g/d} 1.84; 95% CI, 1.02-3.32). The findings did not change when we adjusted for family history of IBD, immunomodulator use, and IBD-related surgery.

In an analysis of data from 3 large cohort studies, we associated adherence to a healthy lifestyle with reduced mortality in patients with CD or UC.

Anesthesia services for endoscopic procedures have proliferated with the promise of increased comfort and safety. Cirrhosis patients are higher risk for sedation, yet limited data are available describing anesthesia complications in this population.

This cross-sectional study utilized the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry, a multicenter quality-improvement database from 2010 to 2015. Patients with cirrhosis undergoing an endoscopy were identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9)/Current Procedures Terminology (CPT) codes. The outcome of interest was serious anesthesia-related complication defined as cardiovascular, respiratory, neurological, drug related, patient injury, death, or unexpected admission. A mixed-effects multivariate logistic regression model determined odds ratios (ORs) between variables and serious complications, adjusting for potential confounders. In total, 9,007 endoscopic procedures were performed among patients with cirrhosis; 92% were esophagogastroduodenoscopies. The majority (81%) were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class ≥3, and 72% had a history of hepatic encephalopathy, ascites, varices, hepatorenal syndrome, or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis identified by ICD-9/CPT codes. In total, 87 complications were reported, 33 of which were serious. Frequency of serious complications was 0.4% or 378.6 per 100,000 procedures (95% confidence interval [CI], 260.8, 531.3). The majority of serious complications were cardiovascular (21 of 33), including 15 cardiac arrests. Serious complications were significantly associated with ASA 4/5 (OR, 3.84; 95% CI, 1.09, 13.57) and general anesthesia (OR, 4.71; 95% CI, 1.20, 18.50), adjusting for age, sex, ASA class, anesthesia type, inpatient status, portal hypertension history, and variable complication reporting practices.

Anesthesia complications among endoscopic procedures in cirrhosis are rare overall. Serious complications were predominantly cardiac and associated with sicker patients undergoing general anesthesia. The complexity of end-stage liver disease may warrant more intensive care during endoscopic procedures, including anesthesia monitoring.

Colonoscopic polypectomy in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients are at risks of post-polypectomy bleeding and perforation, but evidences are limited. This study aimed to determine the incident polypectomy complications among ESRD patients.

In the nationwide ESRD cohort, a propensity score matched case-control study design was conducted to assess risk associated with post-polypectomy bleeding and perforation using the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Research Database from 1997 to 2013 for adults aged 40 years and older; 7011 ESRD and 19 118 non-ESRD patients met the study criteria. A total of 5302 patients in each group were matched for further analyses. The primary endpoint was post-polypectomy bleeding or bowel perforation in 30 days. The secondary endpoint was mortality and length of hospital stay for the bleeding complications requiring hospitalization.

Overall incidences of post-polypectomy bleeding or perforation in patients with ESRD was higher than the non-ESRD group (5.83% vs 1.78%, P < 0.0001) in the matched cohort. High risk of adverse outcomes was associated with ESRD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.38, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.85-3.05), female patient (aOR, 1.7, 95% CI, 1.37-2.11), history of acute myocardial infarction (aOR, 1.91, 95% CI, 1.1-3.32), liver disease (aOR, 1.79, 95% CI, 1.37-2.34), diabetes (aOR, 1.45, 95% CI, 1.16-1.82), cancer (aOR, 1.4, 95% CI, 1.09-1.81), inpatient setting (aOR, 13.19, 95% CI, 9.73-17.88), and prior use of clopidogrel (aOR, 1.61, 95% CI, 1.03-2.52) and warfarin (aOR, 2.03, 95% CI, 1.21-3.41).

End-stage renal disease was associated with approximately twofold higher risk of colonoscopic post-polypectomy bleeding or perforation and should be cautiously performed in this special population cohort.

1:  ESGE recommends that each center implements a written policy regarding the management of iatrogenic perforations, including the definition of procedures that carry a higher risk of this complication. This policy should be shared with the radiologists and surgeons at each center. 2 : ESGE recommends that in the case of an endoscopically identified perforation, the endoscopist reports its size and location, with an image, and statement of the endoscopic treatment that has been applied. 3:  ESGE recommends that symptoms or signs suggestive of iatrogenic perforation after an endoscopic procedure should be rapidly and carefully evaluated and documented with a computed tomography (CT) scan. 4 : ESGE recommends that endoscopic closure should be considered depending on the type of the iatrogenic perforation, its size, and the endoscopist expertise available at the center. Switch to carbon dioxide (CO2) endoscopic insufflation, diversion of digestive luminal content, and decompression of tension pneumoperitoneum or pneumothorax should also be performed. 5 : ESGE recommends that after endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, further management should be based on the estimated success of the endoscopic closure and on the general clinical condition of the patient. In the case of no or failed endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, and in patients whose clinical condition is deteriorating, hospitalization and surgical consultation are recommended.

Despite the increased use of anesthesia services for endoscopic procedures in the United States, the risks of anesthesia-directed sedation (ADS) are unclear. We analyzed national data from multiple centers to determine patterns of use of anesthesia services and risk factors for serious complications.

We performed a cross-sectional study using the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry, a national quality improvement database. Univariable and bivariate analyses investigated frequencies and relationships between predefined variables and serious complications of anesthesia (cardiovascular, respiratory, neurologic, drug-related, patient injury, death, or unexpected admission). A multivariable mixed-effects model determined the odds ratios between these variables and serious complications, adjusting for confounders and varying reporting practices.

In total, 428,947 endoscopic procedures of adults were performed using ADS from 2010 to 2015. The population was 54.9% female with a mean age of 59.1 years, and predominantly American Society of Anesthesiologists classes 2 and 3 (74.4%). More than half of the procedures were colonoscopies (51.4%); 37.4% were esophagogastroduodenoscopies and 6.5% were endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies. A total of 4441 complications (1.09%) were reported; 1349 were serious complications (0.34%). In multivariable analysis, older age, American Society of Anesthesiologists classes 4 and 5, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, general anesthesia, cases performed on an overnight shift, and longer cases were associated independently and significantly with serious complications.

In an analysis of data from the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry, we found ADS during endoscopy to be safe, with few serious complications (<1% of procedures). Risk of ADS complications increased with older age, more severe disease, procedure type, and case complexity.

Colonoscopy is the most commonly performed endoscopic procedure and overall is considered a low-risk procedure. However, adverse events (AEs) related to this routinely performed procedure for screening, diagnostic, or therapeutic purposes are an important clinical consideration. The purpose of this document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's Standards of Practice Committee is to provide an update on estimates of AEs related to colonoscopy in an evidence-based fashion. A systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies was conducted for the 3 most common and important serious AEs (bleeding, perforation, and mortality). In addition, this document includes an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of serious AEs (bleeding and perforation) related to EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection for large colon polyps. Finally, a narrative review of other colonoscopy-related serious AEs and those related to specific colonic interventions is included.

An endoscopic clip device was newly designed to accomplish the closure of large gastrointestinal defects. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility and efficacy of this device in an ex vivo experimental setting.

This prospective study was conducted in porcine colons (n = 5). A large (3-4 cm) linear full-thickness incision was created using a scalpel externally. The device was used for endoscopic closure. The procedure time, number of clips, and success rate of closure were determined.

Ten defects were created in five porcine colons (two incisions in each specimen). Successful closure was achieved in all defects. The mean procedure time was 24.30 ± 4.42 min, the mean leak pressure is 28.30 ± 9.49 mmHg, and the mean number of additional conventional hemostatic clips used was 5.10 ± 0.99.

The results indicated that this clip achieved the convenient and reliable closure of large defects in the colon wall in an ex vivo porcine model and seems to be a promising option for closing large gastrointestinal perforations.

As the incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) rises and the global population ages, the number of older people living with these conditions will inevitably increase. The challenges posed by comorbid conditions, polypharmacy, the unintended consequences of long-term treatment and the real but often underestimated mismatch between chronological and biological ages underpin management. Significantly, there may be differences in disease characteristics, presentation and management of an older patient with IBD, together with other unique challenges. Importantly, clinical trials often exclude older patients, so treatment decisions are frequently pragmatic, extrapolated from a number of sources of evidence and perhaps primarily dictated by concerns around adverse effects. This review aimed to discuss the epidemiology, clinical features and considerations with management in older patients with IBD.

Guidelines recommend systematic biopsy sampling in Barrett's esophagus (BE) to reduce sampling error. Adherence to this biopsy sampling protocol has been suggested as a quality indicator; however, estimates of adherence are not available. Using a national registry, we assessed adherence and identified predictors of adherence to biopsy sampling protocols.

We analyzed data from the GI Quality Improvement Consortium Registry that included procedure indication, demographics, endoscopy, and pathology results. Patients with an indication of BE screening/surveillance or an endoscopic finding of BE were included. Adherence to the Seattle protocol was assessed by dividing BE length by number of pathology jars, with a ratio ≤2.0 with rounding down (lenient definition) or rounding up (stringent definition) for odd BE lengths considered adherent. Variables associated with adherence were assessed using generalized estimating equations to control for clustering within individual physicians.

Of 786,712 EGDs assessed, 58,709 (7.5%) EGDs in 53,541 patients met inclusion criteria (mean age, 61.3 years; 60.4% men; 90.2% white; mean BE length, 2.3 cm). When the lenient and stringent definitions for adherence were used, 87.8% and 82.7% of EGDs were adherent, respectively. Increasing BE length was the most significant predictor of nonadherence (odds ratio, .69; 95% confidence interval, .67-.71). Other predictors were increasing age, male gender, increasing American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and practice location. Performance of EGD by nongastroenterologist physicians was associated with nonadherence (odds ratio, .07; 95% confidence interval, .06-.10).

Nearly 20% of endoscopies performed in BE patients were not adherent to the Seattle protocol. As BE length increases, endoscopists become less compliant with odds of nonadherence increasing by 31% with every 1-cm increase in length.

The aim of this study was to identify a critical predictor of postoperative sepsis in patients with peritonitis due to colorectal perforation.

Between 2009 and 2014, fifty-three patients who underwent emergency surgery for peritonitis due to colorectal perforation in our hospital were examined retrospectively to identify the critical predictor of postoperative sepsis. Between 2016 and 2017, twelve patients with peritonitis due to colorectal perforation were enrolled in a prospective study to validate the critical predictor obtained by the previous retrospective study.

Mechanical ventilation for more than two days after surgery seemed to be a critical predictor of postoperative sepsis. In the prospective study, six patients who were withdrawn from mechanical ventilation within one day after surgery did not develop sepsis.

Respiratory disorders at the end of surgery for peritonitis due to colorectal perforation seem to be a critical predictor of postoperative sepsis.

Although esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is usually the first procedure trainees learn, it is not known whether the involvement of a trainee affects the procedure's complication rate, a key quality and safety indicator. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the complication rate of fellow-performed upper endoscopy differs from that of attending gastroenterologists, and whether that difference varies with the level of training.

Emergency room visits within 14 days of an outpatient EGD deemed to be probably or definitely related to the EGD were categorized as complications. Complication rates were calculated for attending- and trainee-performed gastrointestinal endoscopies, the latter stratified by level of training.

Forty-five attendings and 43 fellows performed 21,899 EGDs during the study period. There were 43 complications (1.96 per 1000 EGDs). Procedures performed by any fellow were more likely to have a complication than those performed by an attending (odds ratio [OR] 2.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-4.6). This difference was driven by a higher rate of complications among fellows who had completed general gastroenterology training and were in advanced training (OR 3.8, 95%CI 1.76-8.04); all of these complications involved trainees in interventional endoscopy. Fellows in any year of general gastroenterology training were not more likely to cause complications than attendings.

The rate of complications from EGDs performed by fellows in their general gastroenterology training does not differ from that of attending endoscopists. The complication rate of advanced trainees exceeded that of attendings, but this is likely to be attributable to the higher-risk interventions undertaken by fellows in interventional endoscopy.

We investigated perforations, bleeding, and splenic injuries after screening or diagnostic colonoscopies to identify patient-, procedure-, endoscopist-, and facility-associated risk factors.

We analyzed data from the SNIIRAM-PMSI national claims databases in France. A total of 4,088,799 patients, 30 years or older, undergoing a first screening or diagnostic colonoscopy from 2010 through 2015 were identified. Rates of severe adverse events (SAEs) were estimated using stringent and broad definitions. Risk factors associated with perforations and major bleeding were estimated using multilevel logistic regression models, adjusted for patient, colonoscopy, and endoscopist characteristics.

Perforation rates ranged from 3.5 (stringent definition) to 7.3 (broad definition) per 10,000 procedures, bleeding rates ranged from 6.5 to 23.1 per 10,000 procedures, and splenic injury rates ranged from 0.20 to 0.34 per 10,000 procedures. Rates of 30-day mortality were 13.2 per 1000 bleeds, 29.2 per 1000 perforations, and 36.1 per 1000 splenic injuries (stringent definitions). Patient characteristics associated with SAEs were increasing age (especially for perforation), cancer, and cardiovascular comorbidities. Procedure characteristics associated with SAEs included polypectomy-especially of polyps larger than 1 cm with an increased risk of perforation (odds ratio, 4.1; 95% CI, 3.4-5.0) and bleeding (odds ratio, 13.3; 95% CI, 11.7-15.1). Less-experienced endoscopists and endoscopists who performed a smaller number of colonoscopies were independently associated with a risk of SAEs.

In an analysis of national claims databases in France, we found SAEs related to screening and diagnostic colonoscopies to be more frequent in older patients, in patients with comorbidities, and with less-experienced endoscopists. Patients at risk of SAE should be identified and colonoscopies should be performed or supervised by experienced endoscopists.

Increased access to endoscopic procedures have entrenched these investigative tools in routine pediatric gastroenterology practice. Patient outcomes following endoscopy therefore are topical in the decision toward endoscopy. We studied the likelihood and patient characteristics of children admitted following ambulatory endoscopy.

Hospitalization data were obtained from the Pediatric Hospital Information System including 49 tertiary children's hospitals in the USA. Children who underwent ambulatory diagnostic endoscopy between October 1, 2005 and September 25, 2015 were included. The primary outcomes were post-procedure events resulting in unplanned admission (not for inflammatory bowel disease management) or emergency room visit within 5 days. Unadjusted, univariate analyses were followed by multivariable analysis of the associations between patient characteristics and outcome using the R statistical package, v. 3.2.3.

During the study period, 217 817 patients underwent diagnostic endoscopy; 101 (0.05%) patients were admitted directly; 1314 (0.60%) were admitted to the same facility's emergency department with either a respiratory or a gastrointestinal complication as a primary diagnosis within 5 days. None of the procedures resulted in death; female patients were more likely to experience adverse outcomes (P < 0.001), as were patients from an urban setting (P = 0.0004), whereas White, non-Hispanic patients were less likely to represent (P < 0.0001). Patients with chronic comorbidities were more likely to experience complications. The most frequent diagnoses at admission were abdominal pain (30.5%), other gastroenterologic processes (26.8%), respiratory disorders (17.1%), gastrointestinal hemorrhage (8.3%), and fever (4.5%).

Ambulatory pediatric endoscopy is safe; significant adverse outcomes are rare but more likely in female, non-White or Hispanic patients and in patients with significant chronic comorbidities.

Previous studies on pediatric endoscopic training have not examined in detail if adverse events (AEs) are affected by the fellow's training level. We aimed to determine whether trainee presence and educational level increase AEs or operative time (OT) for pediatric intestinal endoscopy.

This was a prospective observational study of AEs for all endoscopic procedures and retrospective analysis of OT (time of endoscope insertion until removal) for a sample of specified procedures at a tertiary children's hospital. AEs were categorized by severity grades: 1, home management; 2, outpatient evaluation; 3, hospitalization and/or repeat endoscopy; 4, surgery and/or intensive care unit admission; and 5, death.

A total of 15,886 procedures (6257 with trainee) including 1627 therapeutic procedures (733 with trainee) were analyzed for AEs. Four hundred thirteen total AEs (2.60%) and 213 AEs grade 2 to 4 (1.34%) were identified. Fellow presence at any training level did not increase AE rates for any procedures. Median OT for 3762 EGDs decreased from 17 to 11 minutes from the first quarter to the fourth quarter of first-year fellowship and then remained stable. EGDs without fellows were shorter (9 minutes, P < .0001) compared with any training level. Median times of 1291 colonoscopies with EGD decreased from 55 to 51 to 47 minutes for fellows in the first half, second half of first-year fellowship, and second and third year, respectively. Attendings alone were faster (37 minutes, P < .0001).

Current pediatric endoscopic training for is safe regardless of fellow training level. Trainee efficiency improves during and after fellowship.

Patients with ulcerative colitis, a high-risk group for the development of colon cancer, undergo colonoscopy more frequently than the general population. This increase in endoscopic evaluation also exposes these patients to an increased risk of complications, including iatrogenic perforation. Our survey study aims to determine factors that affect the management choices for iatrogenic perforations for ulcerative colitis patients in remission and identify areas of consensus among general gastroenterologists, inflammatory bowel disease specialists, and colorectal surgeons.

An anonymous, cross-sectional survey was performed using an online platform. A matrix questionnaire posed five clinical scenarios with six management options for an iatrogenic perforation in ulcerative colitis patients with varying disease distribution, disease activity, and maintenance regimens.

One hundred thirty-eight general gastroenterologists, 35 inflammatory bowel disease specialists, and 174 colorectal surgeons responded to the survey; 47, 41, and 23%, respectively, answered they did not feel comfortable managing perforations in ulcerative colitis patients in remission. We found the greatest concordance among gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons in cases of perforation in ulcerative colitis with a history of dysplasia; the majority of respondents chose staged total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch anal anastomosis. We found discordance in decision making for ulcerative colitis in remission without dysplasia, with perforation occurring in colitis involved and uninvolved areas.

Our survey revealed that a significant fraction of gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons are uncomfortable managing iatrogenic colonic perforations in ulcerative colitis patients. We have identified knowledge and practice gaps in defining the optimal management of iatrogenic perforations in ulcerative colitis patients.

The rates of perforation and bleeding are important quality measures of colonoscopy performance.

The objective of this article is to assess the frequency of colonoscopy-related bleeding and perforation in Swedish counties and to relate these findings to patient characteristics.

Data on 593,308 colonoscopies performed on adults from 2001 to 2013 were retrieved from Swedish inpatient and outpatient registers. Covariates were assessed in a multivariate Poisson regression model. The correlation between perforation and bleeding was calculated with Pearson's bivariate correlation formula.

The relative frequency of bleeding and perforation vary across counties (bleeding: 0.02%-0.27%; perforation: 0.02%-0.27%). There were significant positive correlations between the relative frequency of bleeding and perforation at the county level, both including (r = 0.792, p < 0.001) and excluding polypectomies r = 0.814 (p < 0.001). The relative risks of these conditions in the counties ranged from 0.12, p < 0.001, to 1.53, p = 0.05 (bleeding) and from 0.17, p = 0.002, to 2.42, p < 0.001 (perforation).

There are substantial differences in colonoscopy performance in Sweden. These differences do not seem to be explained by patient characteristics.

To compare the outcomes of the colonoscopies between the early (July-September) and the later (April-June) academic year at the urban-teaching hospitals.

Our study cluster was derived from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database for the years 2010-2014. International Classification of Diseases, 9^th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9 CM) procedure codes were used to identify the adult patients who underwent inpatient colonoscopy at urban-teaching hospitals. Post-colonoscopy outcomes and the complications were recognized using ICD-9 CM codes among any of the secondary diagnoses. Categorical and continuous variables were assessed using Pearson's Chi-square and Student's t-test respectively. Odds of complications during the early vs. later academic year was also evaluated by the two-way hierarchical logistic regression analysis.

A total of 124,155 (weighted n=617,907) colonoscopy procedures were performed at the urban teaching hospitals in the US from 2010 to 2014. Out of these, 61,272 (weighted n=304,946) and 62,883 (weighted n=312,961) procedures were performed during early (July to September) and later (April to June) academic months, respectively. There was no significant difference in the all-cause mortality (1.4% vs. 1.4%, P=0.208), and the complications such as colonic perforations (3.1% vs. 3.2%, P=0.229) and postoperative infections (0.6% vs. 0.6%, P=0.733) between the two groups. Similarly, the splenic rupture (0.0% vs. 0.0%, P=0.180) was equally infrequent in both the groups. Bleeding/hematoma following colonoscopy (0.9% vs. 0.8%, P=0.004) was marginally higher during the later academic months. There were no statistically distinctions in terms of length of stay (LOS) (days) (7.3±9.1 vs. 7.3±9.1, P=0.918), total hospitalization charges ($60,549.41 vs. $59,918.56, P=0.311) and discharge of patients to other facilities between the early and the later academic months. Colonoscopy performed during the early academic months was not found to be a significant independent predictor for post-colonoscopy complications such as colon perforation (OR =0.99, 95% CI: 0.93-1.06, P=0.760), postoperative bleeding/hematoma (OR =0.92, 95% CI: 0.81-1.04, P=0.196) and postoperative infection (OR =0.99, 95% CI: 0.84-1.15, P=0.850).

There was no "July effect" on the outcomes of colonoscopies between the early vs. the later academic months.

Screening colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal carcinoma is provided by several specialties. Few studies have assessed geographic variation in the delivery of this care. Our objective was to investigate how geographic and socioeconomic factors affect who provides screening colonoscopy in Canada.

This was a population-based cohort of all screening colonoscopy procedures performed at publicly funded Canadian health care facilities (excluding those in Quebec) between April 2008 and March 2015. The main outcome of interest was the proportion of colonoscopy procedures performed by surgeons versus gastroenterologists at the neighbourhood level. Predictors of interest included socioeconomic and geographic variables. We used spatial analysis to evaluate significant clustering of practitioner services and multinomial logistic regression to model predictors.

We identified 658 113 screening colonoscopy procedures performed by 1886 providers (1169 surgeons and 717 gastroenterologists) over the study period, of which 353 165 (53.7%) were performed by surgeons. A total of 24.2% of neighbourhoods were located within clusters predominantly served by gastroenterologists, and 19.5% were within surgeon clusters; the remainder were in mixed clusters. Rural neighbourhoods had a significantly increased relative risk of being within a surgeon cluster (relative risk [RR] 5.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.48-8.01) compared to mixed clusters and nearly 100 times higher relative risk of being in a surgeon cluster compared to gastroenterologist clusters (RR 98.95, 95% CI 15.3-427.2). Neighbourhoods with the highest socioeconomic status were 1.74 (95% CI 1.14-2.56) times likelier to be in gastroenterologist clusters than in mixed clusters.

Surgeons provide a large proportion of colonoscopy procedures in Canada and are essential for access to care, particularly in rural regions. Most Canadians are served relatively equally by surgeons and gastroenterologists. This emphasizes the importance of both specialties to the delivery of colonoscopy care across the country.

This document summarizes the contents of the Clinical Guidelines for the Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Lesions that was developed by the working group of the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy (GSEED of Endoscopic Resection). This document presents recommendations for the endoscopic management of superficial colorectal neoplastic lesions.