Heartburn, Functional Dyspepsia, Anxiety/Depression, and Sleep Disturbances Are Associated With Clinically Significant Belching.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Belching is the act of expelling gas from the stomach or esophagus noisily through the oral cavity. Although it is a physiological phenomenon, belching may also be a symptom of upper gastrointestinal diseases such as reflux esophagitis and functional dyspepsia (FD). A detailed epidemiology of belching has not yet been reported. The aim of this study is to examine the prevalence and clinical characteristics of clinically significant belching (CSB) in adults. METHODS: We analyzed 1998 subjects who visited the hospital for annual health checkups. Belching was evaluated by a simple question "Do you burp a lot?" and scored as 0 (never), 1 (occasionally), 2 (sometimes), 3 (often), or 4 (always). Subjects with CSB were defined as having scores ≥ 3. We also collected the clinical parameters, endoscopic findings, and data according to the Athens Insomnia Scale, Rome IV questionnaire, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). RESULTS: Of the 1998 subjects, 121 (6.1%) had CSB. Subjects with CSB had FD more commonly than reflux esophagitis, but presence of heartburn was high (10.7% vs 3.1%). In addition, the HADS and Athens Insomnia Scale scores in subjects with CSB were significantly higher than those in subjects without CSB. Presence of heartburn (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.05-4.09), presence of FD (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.33-3.36), anxiety/depression (OR, 2.29; 95% CI 1.51-3.45), and sleep disturbances (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.14-2.61) were significantly associated with CSB. CONCLUSION: The detailed epidemiology of belching in the general adult population was clarified.

Gastrointestinal endoscopic practice during COVID-19 pandemic: a multi-institutional survey.

Introduction. An on-going coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a challenge all over the world. Since an endoscopy unit and its staff are at potentially high risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, we conducted a survey for the management of the gastrointestinal endoscopic practice, personal protective equipment (PPE), and risk assessment for COVID-19 during the pandemic at multiple facilities.Methods. The 11-item survey questionnaire was sent to representative respondent of Department of Gastroenterology, Osaka City University Hospital, and its 19 related facilities.Results. A total of 18 facilities submitted valid responses and a total of 373 health care professionals (HCPs) participated. All facilities (18/18: 100%) were screening patients at risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection before endoscopy. During the pandemic, we found that the total volume of endoscopic procedures decreased by 44%. Eleven facilities (11/18: 61%) followed recommendations of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES); consequently, about 35%-50% of esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy were canceled. Mask (surgical mask or N95 mask), face shield/goggle, gloves (one or two sets), and gown (with long or short sleeves) were being used by endoscopists, nurses, endoscopy technicians, and endoscope cleaning staff in all the facilities (18/18: 100%). SARS-CoV-2 infection risk assessment of HCPs was conducted daily in all the facilities (18/18: 100%), resulting in no subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCPs.Conclusion. COVID-19 has had a dramatic impact on the gastrointestinal endoscopic practice. The recommendations of the JGES were appropriate as preventive measures for the SARSCoV-2 infection in the endoscopy unit and its staff.

Continuous warfarin administration versus heparin bridging therapy in post colorectal polypectomy haemorrhage: a study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (WHICH study).

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic removal of colorectal adenoma is considered an effective treatment for reducing the mortality rates associated with colorectal cancer. Warfarin, a type of anticoagulant, is widely used for the treatment and prevention of thromboembolism; however, bleeding may increase with its administration after polypectomy. In recent times, a high incidence of bleeding after endoscopic polypectomy has been reported in patients receiving heparin bridge therapy. However, previous studies have not compared the bleeding rate after endoscopic colorectal polypectomy between patients who continued with anticoagulant therapy and those who received heparin bridge therapy. We hypothesised that endoscopic colorectal polypectomy under the novel treatment with continuous warfarin is not inferior to endoscopic colorectal polypectomy under standard treatment with heparin bridge therapy with respect to the rate of postoperative bleeding. This study aims to compare the efficacy of endoscopic colorectal polypectomy with continuous warfarin administration and endoscopic colorectal polypectomy with heparin bridge therapy with respect to the rate of postoperative bleeding. METHODS: We will conduct a prospective multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial of two parallel groups. We will compare patients scheduled to undergo colorectal polypectomy under anticoagulant therapy with warfarin. There will be 2 groups, namely, a standard treatment group (heparin bridge therapy) and the experimental treatment group (continued anticoagulant therapy). The primary outcome measure is the rate of postoperative bleeding. On the contrary, the secondary outcomes include the rate of cumulative bleeding, rate of overt haemorrhage (that does not qualify for the definition of haemorrhage after endoscopic polypectomy), incidence of haemorrhage requiring haemostasis during endoscopic polypectomy, intraoperative bleeding during endoscopic colorectal polypectomy requiring angiography, abdominal surgery and/or blood transfusion, total rate of bleeding, risk factors for postoperative bleeding, length of hospital stay, incidence of thromboembolism, prothrombin time-international ratio (PT-INR) 28 days after the surgery, and incidence of serious adverse events. DISCUSSION: The results of this randomised controlled trial will provide valuable information for the standardisation of management of anticoagulants in patients scheduled to undergo colorectal polypectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN-CTR UMIN000023720 . Registered on 22 August 2016.

Associations among gastroesophageal reflux disease, psychological stress, and sleep disturbances in Japanese adults.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and psychological stress are associated with sleep disturbances. The aim of the present study was to examine the prevalence of sleep disturbances, anxiety, and depression by GERD subtypes and to identify factors associated with sleep disturbances in general population. METHODS: A total of 2002 Japanese subjects, who underwent annual health checkups, were enrolled and asked to fill out a questionnaire, including the frequency scale for the symptoms of GERD (FSSG), Athens Insomnia Scale (AIS), Rome III questionnaire, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). GERD was divided into asymptomatic erosive reflux disease (a-ERD), symptomatic ERD (s-ERD), and non-erosive reflux disease (NERD), according to the presence or absence of esophageal mucosal injury on endoscopy, and the FSSG scores. Sleep disturbances were diagnosed in subjects with AIS score ≥6. RESULTS: Prevalence of sleep disturbances was significantly higher in GERD subjects than in controls (35.9 and 14.7%, respectively), especially, in the NERD group (45.1%). Sleep duration was significantly shorter in the s-ERD group compared with other groups. Subjects in the NERD and s-ERD groups showed higher HADS scores, resulting in higher incidences of anxiety and depression than those in the control and a-ERD groups. Reflux symptoms, anxiety, depression, and coexisting functional dyspepsia, but not the presence of esophageal mucosal injury, were associated with an increased odds ratio for sleep disturbances. CONCLUSION: There were significant positive associations among reflux symptoms, psychological stress, and sleep disturbance in Japanese adults. Further studies investigating the efficacy of therapy are needed.

A multicenter study on the prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis and PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilic infiltration.

OBJECTIVE: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is diagnosed by the presence of dysphagia and intraepithelial eosinophilic infiltration of ≥15 per high-power field (HPF). EoE should be distinguished from proton pump inhibitor-responsive esophageal eosinophilic infiltration (PPI-R EEI) in patients that are responsive to PPI treatment. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of EoE and PPI-R EEI in Japanese patients in a multicenter study. METHODS: Ten hospitals participated in this study. Esophageal biopsy was performed when the patients had typical EoE symptoms or when endoscopic findings revealed a typical EoE appearance. EEI was defined as the intraepithelial eosinophilic infiltration of ≥15 per HPF. Patients with EEI received rabeprazole for 8 weeks to distinguish EoE from PPI-R EEI. RESULTS: A total of 13,634 subjects that underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy because of further examination or as a routine checkup were enrolled. Seventy-one (0.5%) patients suspected with EoE were examined by biopsy. A histological examination of 7 (9.9%) cases revealed EEI. Two of these 7 patients showed no symptoms and the other 5 were treated with PPI. Two (0.01%) patients were diagnosed with EoE and 3 (0.02%) with PPI-R EEI. CONCLUSION: EoE and PPI-R EEI were rare in Japanese patients that underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.