Factors of easy and difficult cecal intubation during unsedated colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: difficulty of cecal intubation should be a main indicator for the need of sedated colonoscopy and skilled endoscopists. The present study aimed to explore the factors associated with easy and difficult cecal intubation in unsedated colonoscopy. METHODS: all consecutive patients who underwent unsedated colonoscopy at our department by the same endoscopist from December 3, 2020 to August 30, 2022 were retrospectively collected. Age, gender, body mass index (BMI), reasons for colonoscopy, position change, Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score, cecal intubation time (CIT) and major colonoscopic findings were analyzed. CIT < 5 min, CIT 5-10 min and CIT > 10 min or failed cecal intubation were defined as easy, moderate and difficult cecal intubation, respectively. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent factors associated with easy and difficult cecal intubation. RESULTS: overall, 1,281 patients were included. The proportions of easy and difficult cecal intubation were 29.2 % (374/1,281) and 27.2 % (349/1,281), respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis found that age ≤ 50 years, male, BMI > 23.0 kg/m2 and the absence of position change were independently associated with easy cecal intubation, and that age > 50 years, female, BMI ≤ 23.0 kg/m2, position change, and insufficient bowel preparation were independently associated with difficult cecal intubation. CONCLUSIONS: some convenient factors independently associated with easy and difficult cecal intubation have been identified, which will be potentially helpful to determine whether a colonoscopy should be sedated and a skilled endoscopist should be selected. The current findings should be further validated in large-scale prospective studies.

Review article: thromboelastography in liver diseases.

BACKGROUND: Patients with liver diseases have complicated haemostatic alternations, resulting in both bleeding and thromboembolic complications, which cannot be sufficiently evaluated by conventional coagulation tests (CCTs), such as platelet count or prothrombin time. Thromboelastography (TEG) is a whole blood viscoelastic test which globally reflects changes in the haemostatic system, and its utility in evaluating patients with liver disease is increasingly recognised. AIMS: To review the current evidence and clinical significance of TEG in liver diseases. METHODS: Literature regarding TEG and liver diseases was comprehensively searched. RESULTS: TEG is associated closely with the severity and aetiology of liver disease, the course of infection and the risk of bleeding and death, but not the risk of portal venous system thrombosis. Additionally, TEG-guided transfusion protocols can significantly decrease the requirement for blood products compared to those guided by CCTs. CONCLUSION: TEG can reflect the haemostatic status of liver diseases more comprehensively than CCTs. It has the potential to assess the severity of liver diseases, predict the risk of bleeding and death in patients with liver disease and guide blood product transfusion. Future studies should standardise the use of TEG for assessing disease severity and development of clinical events and guiding blood product transfusion in patients with liver diseases.

Proton pump inhibitors may reduce the risk of high-grade dysplasia and/or esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is an important risk factor for high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and/or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). The effect of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on the chemoprevention of HGD and/or EAC arising from BE remains controversial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched. Risk ratios (RRs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by a random-effect model. Heterogeneity and its potential source were assessed. RESULTS: Fifteen studies with 26,291 BE patients were included. Meta-analysis of eight cohort studies showed that PPIs can significantly reduce the risk of HGD and/or EAC in BE patients (RR = 0.46; P < 0.001), but meta-analysis of six case-control studies showed no significant benefit of PPIs (OR = 0.64; P = 0.334). Heterogeneity was significant among both cohort and case-control studies, which might be attributed to the information sources of PPIs. There was no significant protective effect of high-dose PPIs on HGD and/or EAC in one RCT (RR = 0.84; P = 0.21), meta-analysis of two cohort studies (RR = 0.61; P = 0.28), or meta-analysis of two case-control studies (OR = 0.32; P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Chemoprevention of HGD and/or EAC by PPIs may be considered in BE patients. However, there might not be further preventive effect of high-dose PPIs.

Impact of proton pump inhibitors on the in-hospital outcome of COVID-19 patients: a retrospective study.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has triggered a global public health crisis. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are one of the most commonly prescribed drugs. However, the effect of PPIs on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients remains unclear. Methods: All COVID-19 patients admitted to the Wuhan Huoshenshan Hospital from February 2020 to April 2020 were retrospectively collected. Patients were divided into PPIs and non-PPIs groups. Logistic regression analyses were performed to explore the effects of PPIs on the outcomes of COVID-19 patients, including transfer to intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, and death. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the presence of upper gastrointestinal symptoms potentially associated with acid and the routes, types, median total dosage, and duration of PPIs. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results: Of the 3024 COVID-19 patients included, 694 and 2330 were in PPIs and non-PPIs groups, respectively. Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that PPIs significantly increased the risk of reaching the composite endpoint in COVID-19 patients (OR = 10.23, 95% CI = 6.90-15.16, p < 0.001). After adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, other medications, and severe/critical COVID-19, PPIs were independently associated with an increased risk of reaching the composite endpoint (OR = 7.00, 95% CI = 4.57-10.71, p < 0.001). This association remained significant in patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms and those who received an intravenous omeprazole alone, but not those who received oral lansoprazole or rabeprazole alone. It was not influenced by dosage or duration of PPIs. Conclusion: The use of intravenous PPIs alone during hospitalization may be associated with worse clinical outcome in COVID-19 patients.

Efficacy of Xuebijing Injection for Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

METHODS: PubMed Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine disc, VIP, and Wanfang databases were searched. The primary outcome was treatment response. The secondary outcomes included changes in clinical and laboratory indicators and incidence of AP-related complications. Meta-analyses were performed by using a random-effect model. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% CIs were calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 23 RCTs were included. The rates of overall (RR = 1.16; 95% CI = 1.12 to 1.20; P < 0.00001) and complete (RR = 1.40; 95% CI = 1.30 to 1.50; P < 0.00001) responses were significantly higher in the Xuebijing injection group. After treatment, the levels of interleukin-6 (WMD = -18.22; 95% CI = -23.36 to -13.08; P < 0.00001), tumor necrosis factor-α (WMD = -16.44; 95% CI = -20.49 to -12.40; P < 0.00001), serum amylase (WMD = -105.61; 95% CI = -173.77 to -37.46; P=0.002), white blood cell (WMD = -1.51; 95% CI = -1.66 to -1.36; P < 0.00001), and C-reactive protein (WMD = -11.05; 95% CI = -14.32 to -7.78; P < 0.00001) were significantly lower in the Xuebijing injection group. Abdominal pain (WMD = -1.74; 95% CI = -1.96 to -1.52; P < 0.00001), abdominal distension (WMD = -1.56; 95% CI = -2.07 to -1.04; P < 0.00001), gastrointestinal function (WMD = -2.60; 95% CI = -3.07 to -2.13; P < 0.00001), body temperature (WMD = -2.16; 95% CI = -2.83 to -1.49; P < 0.00001), serum amylase level (WMD = -1.81; 95% CI = -2.66 to -0.96; P < 0.0001), and white blood cell (WMD = -2.16; 95% CI = -2.99 to -1.32; P < 0.00001) recovered more rapidly in the Xuebijing injection group. The incidence of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (RR = 0.18; 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.62; P=0.006), pancreatic pseudocyst (RR = 0.17; 95% CI = 0.04 to 0.77; P=0.02), and renal failure (RR = 0.16; 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.60; P=0.006) was significantly lower in the Xuebijing injection group. CONCLUSIONS: Xuebijing injection added on the basis of conventional treatment has a potential benefit for improving the outcomes of AP.