Serum resolvin D1 levels as a marker of inflammation in constipation dominant irritable bowel syndrome.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The objective of this study is to determine the role of circulating resolvin D1 (RvD1) in patients with constipation subtype of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-C) and evaluate the relationship between abdominal pain severity and RvD1 levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This research included 55 patients with IBS-C and 36 healthy controls. Controls were selected from patients who applied to our department with similar complaints as IBS but were not diagnosed with any type of pathology after further investigations. All participants underwent complete blood count, C-reactive protein (CRP), and RvD1 levels measurements. We also recorded abdominal pain severity and the number of bowel movements. Patients with IBS-C were compared with respect to the demographic features and laboratory measurements. RESULTS: The median CRP concentration in patients with IBS-C was significantly higher than that of controls (p=0.003). However, the median RvD1 concentration was significantly lower in the IBS group than that of the control group (p<0.001). The receiver operating characteristic curve analyses revealed that RvD1 concentration lower than 0.47 ng/mL and CRP concentration higher than 3.40 mg/L may identify patients with IBS-C with a high specificity. In the IBS group, there was a strong negative correlation between abdominal pain severity and RvD1 concentration (r=-0.766, p=0.001). CONCLUSION: This research demonstrates that patients with IBS-C have higher CRP and lower RvD1 concentrations than healthy controls. Both RvD1 and CRP concentrations predict the presence of IBS-C. Additionally, RvD1 concentrations decreased with the increase in abdominal pain severity. Further research works are needed for investigating the role of the RvD1 analogs in the treatment of IBS.

The efficacy of a through-the-scope sodium phosphate solution with completion colonoscopy on the same day as a salvage option for inadequate bowel cleansing.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of a through- the-scope sodium phosphate solution with completion colonoscopy on the same day as a salvage option for inadequate bowel preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All participants were instructed to eat a low residual diet for 3 days before the scheduled colonoscopy and a clear liquid diet 18 h before the colonoscopy. The patients were asked to take split doses of an oral sennoside solution at 1800 and 2200 in the evening before the colonoscopy. In cases of inadequate bowel preparation detected during routine colonoscopy, a sodium phosphate solution was administered through the scope on the day of the colonoscopy procedure. The degree of bowel cleansing was assessed by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BPS: 0-9). RESULTS: Almost excellent bowel cleansing was obtained with a statistically significant difference between the degree of bowel cleansing before and after the application of the sodium phosphate (Boston BPS: 5.48 ± 1.01 vs. 8.88 ± 0.33 respectively, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Through-the-scope sodium phosphate with completion colonoscopy on the same day was shown to be an efficacious and acceptable method for inadequate bowel preparation.

Lidocaine versus lidocaine plus benzydamine as a topical anesthesia regimen for unsedated upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: A comparison study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim was to assess the efficacy of adding benzydamine (B) spray to standard treatment with a lidocaine (L) spray before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) as a topical anaesthetic regimen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 118 adult patients undergoing outpatient UGE were randomly assigned to receive L (n=44), LB (n=38) or B (n=36) before the procedure. The primary outcome was the patient tolerance score, which represents a summative evaluation of the taste of the anesthetic agent, the intensity of pharyngeal numbness, the amount of coughing or gagging and the degree of discomfort during oesophageal intubation. RESULTS: The median (min-max) patient tolerance scores were comparable between groups LB (10.5; range 5-12) and L (10; range 4-13) (p=0.235) and significantly lower in group B (7.5; range 3-12) (p<0.01). LB improved several secondary outcomes. Oesophageal intubation was less difficult (5 [range 2-10] vs 3 [range 0-8], p<0.001), and a lower proportion of patients developed postprocedural sore throat (4 [10.5%] vs 15 [34.1%], p=0.011) in LB compared to L. CONCLUSION: LB is not superior to L in terms of overall patient tolerance, but LB may be preferred over L in cases with difficult oesophageal intubation or a previous history of postprocedural sore throat.