Electrosurgical knife with the water-jet function of tip-type during endoscopic treatment injection.

Objectives: This study aimed to objectively evaluate the water-jet-functioned electrosurgical knife injection performances in a desktop experiment. Methods: Five types of water-jet-functioned electrosurgical knives, including two injection styles of sheath-type (A: DualKnife J, KD-655L; B: FlushKnife, DK2620-J-B20S; C: Splash M-Knife, DN-D2718B; D: ISSEN, SN1650-20) and tip-type (E: ORISE ProKnife, M00519361) were evaluated. These knives were compared with an injection needle (Control: SuperGrip 25G) as a control. The injection speed under constant pressure and the injection efficiency for each knife against prepared porcine stomach mucosa were evaluated. The additional clear gel injections using an injection needle were observed using an indigo blue-colored gel to evaluate the difference between the locations of water-jet holes. Results: Four types of knives, except for A, showed significantly higher water-jet speeds (A: 0.79 ± 0.03 g/20 s, B: 2.56 ± 0.05 g/20 s, C: 3.09 ± 0.06 g/20 s, D: 2.86 ± 0.05 g/20 s, and E: 1.79 ± 0.03 g/20 s) compared to that of the control (1.21 ± 0.03 g/20 s). Meanwhile, significantly higher efficacy of injection was found in the tip-type water-jet function knife, second to the injection needle (Control: 37.2% ± 35.5%, A: 20.9% ± 20.2%, B: 1.1% ± 2.2%, C: 6.2% ± 12.6%, D: 12.5% ± 15.6%, and E: 33.3% ± 32.2%). An additional injection experiment revealed that the injection with a piercing tip into the gel could achieve sufficient additional injection inside the stacked clear gel. Conclusions: The tip-type water-jet function electrosurgical knife is preferable for effective submucosal injection during endoscopic treatments.

Low prevalence of colonic mucosal injury and bleeding in patients taking direct oral anticoagulants for non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: Direct oral anticoagulants are frequently used to prevent systemic embolism associated with atrial fibrillation. Gastrointestinal bleeding is a common adverse event of this pharmacotherapy, especially in the lower gastrointestinal tract. However, the prevalence of mucosal injury of the colon in patients taking direct oral anticoagulants has remained unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study using endoscopic records of the colon from patients taking oral anticoagulants. Records from colonoscopies for 120 patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation who had been prescribed direct oral anticoagulants between April 2011 and June 2017 were reviewed to determine the prevalence of mucosal injury and other findings, compared with those of 140 patients on warfarin. RESULTS: The prevalence of mucosal injury was 1.6% in patients taking direct oral anticoagulants and 1.4% in those taking warfarin, lower than other findings such as diverticula, hemorrhoids, and polyps. Bleeding was more frequent with direct oral anticoagulants (18 patients; 15%) than with warfarin (9 patients; 6.4%). Colonic diverticulum was the most common cause of bleeding in patients on direct oral anticoagulants. The prevalence of mucosal injury and causes of bleeding did not differ among direct oral anticoagulants. CONCLUSION: Colonic mucosal injury was infrequent in patients on direct oral anticoagulants. Bleeding was more frequent with direct oral anticoagulants than with warfarin. Colonic diverticulum and vascular ectasia were common causes of bleeding in patients on direct oral anticoagulants. Little difference in cause of bleeding was evident among oral anticoagulants.

Clinical factors associated with safety and efficacy in patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants for non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

Although patients suffering from atrial fibrillation have increased worldwide, detailed information about factors associated with bleeding during direct oral anticoagulant therapy remains insufficient. We studied 1086 patients for whom direct oral anticoagulants were initiated for non-valvular atrial fibrillation between April 2011 and June 2017. Endpoints were clinically relevant bleeding or major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events until the end of December 2018. Incidences of bleeding and thrombosis were 4.5 per 100 person-years and 4.7 per 100 person-years, respectively. Most bleeding events represented gastrointestinal bleeding. Multivariate analysis revealed initiation of anticoagulants at ≥ 85 years old as significantly associated with bleeding, particularly gastrointestinal bleeding, but not major cardiac and cerebrovascular events. Other significant factors included chronic kidney disease, low-dose aspirin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. For gastrointestinal bleeding alone, histories of gastrointestinal bleeding and malignancy also showed positive correlations, in addition to the above-mentioned factors. Clinicians should pay greater attention to the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding when considering prescription of anticoagulants to patients ≥ 85 years old with atrial fibrillation.

Possible Effect of Concomitant Prokinetics and Herbal Medicines against Nausea in Patients Taking Lubiprostone.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Lubiprostone is a novel laxative that sometimes causes nausea, but preventive strategies remain unconfirmed. METHODS: We retrospectively chose 126 patients prescribed lubiprostone from 2013 to 2016. Medical records were reviewed to clarify whether nausea developed after administration of the drug. Background characteristics, including concomitant medicines, were also reviewed. RESULTS: The most common adverse symptom was diarrhea (23.8%). Nausea occurred in 16 patients (12.7%). Patients taking either prokinetics or herbal medicines or both were unlikely to develop nausea (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant prokinetics and/or herbal medicines may help alleviate lubiprostone-induced nausea.