Premedication with simethicone for improving the quality of gastric mucosal visualization: a double-blind randomized controlled trial.

Background and study aims Saliva, bubbles, or mucus can limit gastric mucosal visualization (GMV), increasing the risk of missed lesions such as gastric cancer. Several studies using endoscopy photodocumentation-based scores have reported increased quality of GMV when mucolytic and/or defoaming agents are administered. This single-center, prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial aimed to evaluate whether simethicone administration could improve GMV. Patients and methods Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either 200 mg of simethicone (Group A) or placebo (Group B). Two independent endoscopists reviewed the entire video recording from each examination to assess the quality of GMV. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate GMV, defined as the percentage of patients in each group with a video score scale < 7 based on gastric visualization of five gastric landmarks. Secondary outcomes included procedure duration, patient satisfaction, and side effects. Results A total of 110 consecutive outpatients were randomly assigned to one of the two study groups (11 were excluded for various reasons). For the primary endpoint, 32 patients (61.5 %) in group A achieved adequate GMV compared to one of 47 (2.1 %) in group B (odds ratio [95 % confidence interval]: 73.6 [9.4-576.6]; P  < 0.001). Median procedure time did not differ between the groups ( P  = 0.55), and no differences were detected in patient satisfaction ( P  = 0.18) or side effects ( P  = 0.58). No serious adverse events were documented. Conclusions Premedication with simethicone before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy significantly improves the quality of GMV without affecting the duration of the examination, patient satisfaction, and the rate of side effects.

Non-occlusive Mesenteric Ischemia as a Fatal Complication in Acute Pancreatitis: A Case Series.

BACKGROUND: Vascular complications of severe acute pancreatitis are well known and largely described unlike non-occlusive mesenteric ischemia, which is a rare and potentially fatal complication. Non-occlusive mesenteric ischemia is an acute mesenteric ischemia without thrombotic occlusion of blood vessels, poorly described as a complication of acute pancreatitis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively maintained registry of all pancreatic diseases referred to our center from 2013 to 2018, in order to determine the causes of early death. We identified three patients who died within 48 h after hospital admission from severe acute pancreatitis complicated by irreversible non-occlusive mesenteric ischemia. Their clinical presentation, management, and outcomes were herein reported. RESULTS: Three consecutive patients with severe acute pancreatitis developed non-occlusive mesenteric ischemia within the first 5 days after onset of symptoms and died 48 h after non-occlusive mesenteric ischemia diagnosis despite optimal intensive care management and surgery, giving a prevalence of 3/609 (0.5%). Symptoms were unspecific with consequently potential delayed diagnosis and management. High doses of norepinephrine required for hemodynamic support (n = 3) potentially leading to splanchnic vessels vasoconstriction, transient hypotension (n = 3), and previous severe ischemic cardiomyopathy (n = 1) could be involved as precipitating factors of non-occlusive mesenteric ischemia. CONCLUSION: Non-occlusive mesenteric ischemia can be a fatal complication of acute pancreatitis but is also challenging to diagnose. Priority is to reestablish a splanchno-mesenteric perfusion flow. Surgery should be offered in case of treatment failure or deterioration but is still under debate in early stage, to interrupt the vicious circle of intestinal hypoperfusion and ischemia.

Multiple stents are not superior to single stent insertion for pain relief in patients with chronic pancreatitis: a retrospective comparative study.

Background and study aims Patients with painful chronic pancreatitis (CP) and distal main pancreatic duct (MPD) stricture are considered candidates for treatment using a single plastic stent insertion. Multiple side-by-side stents have been proposed as an alternative treatment but comparative studies are lacking. The aim of this retrospective study is to assess differences in characteristics and treatment outcomes in patients with CP and MPD strictures treated with a different number of stents during the stenting period. Patients and methods Patients with painful CP and distal MPD obstruction requiring endoscopic treatment (01.2004 - 12.2012) were considered. The study population was divided in three groups: Patients treated with (A) exclusively one stent; (B) one or two stents; and (C) exclusively two stents during the stenting period. Patient characteristics and treatment outcomes were retrospectively assessed. Results Among 284 patients, 85 were selected according to inclusion criteria (Group A: 18, Group B: 35, Group C: 32). Median follow-up duration was 84 months. The median number of endoscopic procedures needed was higher for group B [3 (A) vs. 3 (C) vs. 4 (B), P  = 0.001]. Regarding outcome, successful endoscopic treatment was lower in Group C (50 % vs. 88.2 % and 74.2 % for groups A and B, respectively; P  = 0.02). This difference was attributed to better clinical outcome in Group A compared to Group C patients [OR(95%CI): 7.50 (1.46 - 38.70); P  = 0.04]. Moreover, group C patients experienced higher levels of pain at the end of follow-up period [median Izbicki Score 0 (group A) vs. 0 (group B) vs. 6 (group C), P  = 0.03]. Conclusions In patients with painful CP and distal MPD obstruction, treatment with a single stent is associated with better clinical outcome compared to treatment with exclusively two stents during the stenting period.

The use of enteral access for continuous delivery of levodopa-carbidopa in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: Continuous delivery to the jejunum of levodopa-carbidopa is a promising therapy in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease, as it reduces motor fluctuation. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and jejunal tube (PEG-J) placement is a suitable option for this. However, studies focused in PEG-J management are lacking. OBJECTIVES: We report our experience regarding this technique, including technical success, adverse events and outcomes, in patients with advanced Parkinson's disease. METHODS: Twenty-seven advanced Parkinson's disease patients (17 men, median age: 64 years, median disease duration: 11 years) were included in a retrospective study from June 2007 to April 2015. The median follow-up period was 48 months (1-96). RESULTS: No adverse events were noted during and after nasojejunal tube insertion (to assess treatment efficacy). After a good therapeutic response, a PEG-J was placed successfully in all patients. The PEG tube was inserted according to Ponsky's method. The jejunal extension was inserted during the same procedure in all patients. Twelve patients (44%) experienced severe adverse events related to the PEG-J insertion, which occurred after a median follow-up of 15.5 months. Endoscopy was the main treatment modality. Patients who experienced severe adverse events had a higher comorbidity score (p = 0.011) but were not older (p = 0.941) than patients who did not. CONCLUSIONS: While all patients responded well to levodopa-carbidopa regarding neurological outcomes, gastro-intestinal severe adverse events were frequent and related to comorbidities. Endoscopic treatment is the cornerstone for management of PEG-J related events. In conclusion, clinicians and endoscopists, as well as patients, should be fully informed of procedure-related adverse events and patients should be followed in centres experienced in their management.