ObjectiveThe best approach for Helicobacter pylori management remains unclear. An audit process is essential to ensure clinical practice is aligned with best standards of care.DesignInternational multicentre prospective non-interventional registry starting in 2013 aimed to evaluate the decisions and outcomes in H. pylori management by European gastroenterologists. Patients were registered in an e-CRF by AEG-REDCap. Variables included demographics, previous eradication attempts, prescribed treatment, adverse events and outcomes. Data monitoring was performed to ensure data quality. Time-trend and geographical analyses were performed.Results30 394 patients from 27 European countries were evaluated and 21 533 (78%) first-line empirical H. pylori treatments were included for analysis. Pretreatment resistance rates were 23% to clarithromycin, 32% to metronidazole and 13% to both. Triple therapy with amoxicillin and clarithromycin was most commonly prescribed (39%), achieving 81.5% modified intention-to-treat eradication rate. Over 90% eradication was obtained only with 10-day bismuth quadruple or 14-day concomitant treatments. Longer treatment duration, higher acid inhibition and compliance were associated with higher eradication rates. Time-trend analysis showed a region-dependent shift in prescriptions including abandoning triple therapies, using higher acid-inhibition and longer treatments, which was associated with an overall effectiveness increase (84%–90%).ConclusionManagement of H. pylori infection by European gastroenterologists is heterogeneous, suboptimal and discrepant with current recommendations. Only quadruple therapies lasting at least 10 days are able to achieve over 90% eradication rates. European recommendations are being slowly and heterogeneously incorporated into routine clinical practice, which was associated with a corresponding increase in effectiveness.

Main Recommendations 1 ESGE suggests that high definition endoscopy, and dye or virtual chromoendoscopy, as well as add-on devices, can be used in average risk patients to increase the endoscopist’s adenoma detection rate. However, their routine use must be balanced against costs and practical considerations.Weak recommendation, high quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends the routine use of high definition systems in individuals with Lynch syndrome.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends the routine use, with targeted biopsies, of dye-based pancolonic chromoendoscopy or virtual chromoendoscopy for neoplasia surveillance in patients with long-standing colitis.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 ESGE suggests that virtual chromoendoscopy and dye-based chromoendoscopy can be used, under strictly controlled conditions, for real-time optical diagnosis of diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps and can replace histopathological diagnosis. The optical diagnosis has to be reported using validated scales, must be adequately photodocumented, and can be performed only by experienced endoscopists who are adequately trained, as defined in the ESGE curriculum, and audited.Weak recommendation, high quality evidence. 5 ESGE recommends the use of high definition white-light endoscopy in combination with (virtual) chromoendoscopy to predict the presence and depth of any submucosal invasion in nonpedunculated colorectal polyps prior to any treatment. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends the use of virtual or dye-based chromoendoscopy in addition to white-light endoscopy for the detection of residual neoplasia at a piecemeal polypectomy scar site. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7 ESGE suggests the possible incorporation of computer-aided diagnosis (detection and characterization of lesions) to colonoscopy, if acceptable and reproducible accuracy for colorectal neoplasia is demonstrated in high quality multicenter in vivo clinical studies. Possible significant risks with implementation, specifically endoscopist deskilling and over-reliance on artificial intelligence, unrepresentative training datasets, and hacking, need to be considered. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Once endoscopy and culture have been performed, SGT is superior to empirical 7 or 10 day triple therapy for first-line treatment. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of SGT in clinical practice, especially when compared with currently recommended first-line quadruple therapies.