Anthony Y.B. TeohVinay DhirMitsuhiro KidaIchiro YasudaZhen Dong JinDong Wan SeoMajid AlmadiTiing Leong AngKazuo HaraIda HilmiTakao ItoiSundeep LakhtakiaKoji MatsudaNonthalee PausawasdiRajesh PuriRaymond S. TangHsiu Po WangAi Ming YangRobert HawesShyam VaradarajuluKenjiro YasudaLawrence Khek Yu HoMedanta Institute of Digestive & Hepatobiliary SciencesChanghai HospitalAsan Medical CenterKing Khalid University HospitalUniversity of MalayaAichi Cancer Center Hospital and Research InstituteTeikyo UniversityNational Taiwan University College of MedicinePrince of Wales Hospital Hong KongKitasato University HospitalNational University of SingaporeAsian Institute of Gastroenterology IndiaFlorida HospitalChangi General HospitalSt. Marianna University School of MedicineFaculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol UniversityPeking Union Medical CollegeKyoto Daini Sekijyuji ByoinTokyo Medical UniversityBaldota Institute of Digestive Sciences2019-08-282019-08-282018-01-01Gut. Vol.67, No.7 (2018), 1209-122814683288001757492-s2.0-85050201620https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/47253© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. Objectives: Interventional endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) procedures are gaining popularity and the most commonly performed procedures include EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst, EUS-guided biliary drainage, EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage and EUSguided celiac plexus ablation. The aim of this paper is to formulate a set of practice guidelines addressing various aspects of the above procedures. Methods: Formulation of the guidelines was based on the best scientific evidence available. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology (RAM) was used. Panellists recruited comprised experts in surgery, interventional EUS, interventional radiology and oncology from 11 countries. Between June 2014 and October 2016, the panellists met in meetings to discuss and vote on the clinical scenarios for each of the interventional EUS procedures in question. Results: A total of 15 statements on EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst, 15 statements on EUS-guided biliary drainage, 12 statements on EUSguided pancreatic duct drainage and 14 statements on EUS-guided celiac plexus ablation were formulated. The statements addressed the indications for the procedures, technical aspects, pre- and post-procedural management, management of complications, and competency and training in the procedures. All statements except one were found to be appropriate. Randomised studies to address clinical questions in a number of aspects of the procedures are urgently required. Conclusions: The current guidelines on interventional EUS procedures are the first published by an endoscopic society. These guidelines provide an in-depth review of the current evidence and standardise the management of the procedures.Mahidol UniversityMedicineReviewSCOPUS10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314341