A sub-10-nm, folic acid-conjugated gold nanoparticle as self-therapeutic treatment of tubulointerstitial fibrosis.

Nanomedicines for treating chronic kidney disease (CKD) are on the horizon, yet their delivery to renal tubules where tubulointerstitial fibrosis occurs remains inefficient. We report a folic acid-conjugated gold nanoparticle that can transport into renal tubules and treat tubulointerstitial fibrosis in mice with unilateral ureteral obstruction. The 3-nm gold core allows for the dissection of bio-nano interactions in the fibrotic kidney, ensures the overall nanoparticle (~7 nm) to be small enough for glomerular filtration, and naturally inhibits the p38α mitogen-activated protein kinase in the absence of chemical or biological drugs. The folic acids support binding to selected tubule cells with overexpression of folate receptors and promote retention in the fibrotic kidney. Upon intravenous injection, this nanoparticle can selectively accumulate in the fibrotic kidney over the nonfibrotic contralateral kidney at ~3.6% of the injected dose. Delivery to the fibrotic kidney depends on nanoparticle size and disease stage. Notably, a single injection of this self-therapeutic nanoparticle reduces tissue degeneration, inhibits genes related to the extracellular matrix, and treats fibrosis more effectively than standard Captopril therapy. Our data underscore the importance of constructing CKD nanomedicines based on renal pathophysiology.

Management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Urgent versus early endoscopy.

For decades, timing of endoscopy has been a controversy in the management of patients who present with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). The advent of endoscopic hemostatic therapy led to reduced further bleeding, surgery and mortality. Observational studies suggest that in patients at low risk of further bleeding, early endoscopy establishes diagnosis and allows their prompt hospital discharge. In the high-risk patients, early endoscopy with hemostatic treatment can stop bleeding and improve outcomes. Sample size in early randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was small. They included low-risk patients or patients with poorly defined risks. We designed a RCT to test the hypothesis that in high-risk patients (defined by those with an admission Glasgow Blatchford Score of 12 or greater), endoscopy within 6 h of gastrointestinal consultation, when compared to the standard of care i.e. endoscopy within 24 h, would improve outcomes. The primary outcomes, all-cause mortality at 30 days did not differ between groups; 23 of 258 (8.9%) in the urgent-endoscopy group and 17 of 258 (6.6%) in the early-endoscopy group died (difference 2.3%, 95% confidence interval -2.3 to 6.9%). Further bleeding was similar (10.9% vs. 7.8%) between groups. A higher rate in endoscopic hemostatic treatment was observed in the urgent-endoscopy group (60.1% vs. 48.4%). In patients with peptic ulcers, active bleeding or visible vessels were found on initial endoscopy in 105 of the 158 patients (66.4%) and in 76 of 159 (47.8%) in the respective group. In the majority of patients with GIB, endoscopy earlier than 24 h is not indicated.

Endosonography-guided gallbladder drainage versus percutaneous cholecystostomy in very high-risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis: an international randomised multicentre controlled superiority trial (DRAC 1).

OBJECTIVE: The optimal management of acute cholecystitis in patients at very high risk for cholecystectomy is uncertain. The aim of the current study was to compare endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) to percutaneous cholecystostomy (PT-GBD) as a definitive treatment in these patients under a randomised controlled trial. DESIGN: Consecutive patients suffering from acute calculous cholecystitis but were at very high-risk for cholecystectomy were recruited. The primary outcome was the 1-year adverse events rate. Secondary outcomes include technical and clinical success, 30-day adverse events, pain scores, unplanned readmissions, re-interventions and mortalities. RESULTS: Between August 2014 to February 2018, 80 patients were recruited. EUS-GBD significantly reduced 1 year adverse events (10 (25.6%) vs 31 (77.5%), p<0.001), 30-day adverse events (5 (12.8%) vs 19 (47.5%), p=0.010), re-interventions after 30 days (1/39 (2.6%) vs 12/40 (30%), p=0.001), number of unplanned readmissions (6/39 (15.4%) vs 20/40 (50%), p=0.002) and recurrent cholecystitis (1/39 (2.6%) vs 8/40 (20%), p=0.029). Postprocedural pain scores and analgesic requirements were also less (p=0.034). The technical success (97.4% vs 100%, p=0.494), clinical success (92.3% vs 92.5%, p=1) and 30-day mortality (7.7% vs 10%, p=1) were statistically similar. The predictor to recurrent acute cholecystitis was the performance of PT-GBD (OR (95% CI)=5.63 (1.20-53.90), p=0.027). CONCLUSION: EUS-GBD improved outcomes as compared to PT-GBD in those patients that not candidates for cholecystectomy. EUS-GBD should be the procedure of choice provided that the expertise is available after a multi-disciplinary meeting. Further studies are required to determine the long-term efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02212717.

Secretome from hypoxia-conditioned adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells promotes the healing of gastric mucosal injury in a rodent model.

Studies have indicated that the definitive engraftment and transdifferentiation potential of stem cells do not seem crucial for its property of tissue repair. Our previous study showed that transplantation of adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADMSCs) enhanced the healing of sutured gastric perforation. This study aimed to investigate the paracrine role of ADMSCs in the experimental gastric mucosal injury. Normoxia-conditioned medium (Nor CM) and hypoxia (HPO) CM were obtained after culturing ADMSCs in 20% O2 and 5% O2 for 48h. Cell migration, proliferation, viability, and angiogenesis in vitro were significantly enhanced upon incubation with CM, especially the HPO CM. Experiments in vivo using a rodent model of gastric ulcer demonstrated that HPO CM treatment significantly accelerated wound healing by suppressing inflammation and promoting neovascularization and re-epithelization. Meanwhile, the infusion of HPO CM activated the COX2-PGE2 axis both in vitro and in vivo. And the upregulation of COX2 was further dependent on the activation of ErK1/2-MAPK pathway. In addition, vascular endothelial growth factor, tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases-1, and chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 20 (CCL-20) were analyzed as being highly abundant factors secreted by ADMSCs under hypoxic condition. Notably, the blockade of CCL-20 abrogated the HPO CM-induced COX2 signaling in the primary gastric mucosal epithelial cells, while incubation with recombinant CCL-20 increased the expression of COX2. In conclusion, the secretome from hypoxia-conditioned ADMSCs facilitates the repair of gastric mucosal injury through the enhancement of angiogenesis and re-epithelization, as well as the activation of COX2-PGE2 axis with a paracrine activity involving CCL-20 factor.

Electroacupuncture-reduced sedative and analgesic requirements for diagnostic EUS: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The role of electroacupuncture (EA) in reducing sedative and analgesic requirements during EUS is uncertain. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of EA in reducing procedure-related pain and discomfort during EUS. METHODS: This was a double-blinded randomized controlled study conducted between March 2014 and July 2016. Consecutive patients who were scheduled for diagnostic EUS were recruited and randomized to receive EA or sham-electroacupuncture (SA). The primary outcome was the dosage of propofol used. Other outcome measurements included pain scores, anxiety scores, satisfaction scores, patients' willingness to repeat the procedure, total procedure time, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 128 patients were recruited to the study. The patients who received EA had significantly fewer requirements for patient-controlled sedation and analgesia (PCA). The median (interquartile range) number of demands for PCA (2 [1-5] vs 16.5 [8.5-33.8]; P < .001), the number of successful demands (2 [1-4] vs 9 [5.3-13]; P < .001), and the total dose of propofol (0.15 [0.08-0.34] vs 0.77 [0.38-1.09]; P < .001) and alfentanil (0.38 [0.20-0.86] vs 1.92 [0.94-2.72]; P < .001) were all significantly less. Patients who received EA also had significantly lower procedural pain scores and anxiety scores (P < .001), and higher satisfaction scores (P < .001), and they were more willing to repeat the procedure (P < .001). Being in the SA group and the procedure time were significant predictors of increased PCA demands (P < .001 and P = .009, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the use of EA reduced sedative and analgesia demands, improved patient experience, and was associated with a low risk of adverse events during diagnostic EUS. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02066194.).

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage reduces adverse events compared with percutaneous cholecystostomy in patients who are unfit for cholecystectomy.

Background and study aim There are no data comparing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gallbladder drainage (EGBD) with percutaneous cholecystostomy as a treatment for patients with acute cholecystitis. Patients and methods This was a 1 : 1 matched cohort study of all patients who were unfit for cholecystectomy and underwent EGBD or percutaneous cholecystostomy instead for the treatment of acute cholecystitis. The outcomes were matched for age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. Outcome measures included the technical and clinical success rates, adverse events, hospital stay, the number of unplanned admissions, and mortality. Results Between November 2011 and August 2014, a total of 118 patients were included in the study (59 EGBD, 59 percutaneous cholecystostomy). Technical and clinical success rates were similar. In the EGBD group, significantly fewer patients suffered from overall adverse events (19 [32.2 %] vs. 44 [74.6 %]; P < 0.001) and serious adverse events (14 [23.7 %] vs. 44 [74.6 %]; P < 0.001) compared to the percutaneous cholecystostomy group. Patients in the EGBD group required fewer unplanned admissions (4 [6.8 %] vs. 42 [71.2 %]; P < 0.001), which were due to problems related to the cholecystostomy tube in 95.2 %. The 30-day adverse event rates were similar between the groups (17 [28.8 %] vs. 10 [16.9 %]; P = 0.13). For instance, recurrent acute cholecystitis occurred in 0 patients in the EGBD group and in 4 (6.8 %) patients in the percutaneous cholecystostomy group (P = 0.12). The 30-day mortality rates were non-significantly higher in the EGBD group (5 [8.5 %] vs. 1 [1.7 %]; P = 0.21). Conclusions EGBD and percutaneous cholecystostomy were both effective means of achieving gallbladder drainage. EGBD may be a promising alternative to percutaneous cholecystostomy for treatment of acute cholecystitis in patients who are unfit for surgery, provided that experienced endosonographers are available.

Comparison of early outcomes and quality of life after laparoscopic Heller's cardiomyotomy to peroral endoscopic myotomy for treatment of achalasia.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: This retrospective cohort study compared clinical outcomes and quality of life after peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) against laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) for treatment of achalasia. METHODS: Patient demographics, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, hospital stay, time to resume diet and analgesic requirement were recorded. Clinical outcomes including recurrence of dysphagia, need for reintervention, and occurrence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) were recorded. RESULTS: From 2001 to 2014, 33 patients underwent POEM whereas 23 patients received LHM. Patients LHM had with longer mean operative time (P = 0.02), more blood loss (P = 0.001) and higher requirement for analgesics (P = 0.009) than those treated by POEM. Hospital stay and time to resume diet were similar. Both POEM and LHM achieved similar dysphagia scores at postoperative 4 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. Twenty-six percent of LHM patients and 15.2% of POEM patients sustained gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) after treatment (P = 0.311). Six patients required regular proton pump inhibitor three after POEM and three after LHM (P = 0.639). Thirteen percent of LHM patients sustained recurrent dysphagia and one required reintervention. There was no recurrence in the POEM group. Follow-up duration (mean [SD]) for the LHM group was significantly longer (60 [42] months vs 6 [4] months; P = 0.001). There was also no difference in all four aspects of GERD-related quality of life outcomes. CONCLUSION: Compared to LHM, POEM achieved shorter operative time, less blood loss and pain. POEM is comparable to LHM for treatment of achalasia with similar incidence of GERD after the procedure.

Randomized trial of endoscopic sphincterotomy with balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy alone for removal of bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Limited endoscopic sphincterotomy with large balloon dilation (ESBD) is an alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) for removing bile duct stones, but it is not clear which procedure is most effective. We compared the 2 techniques in removal of bile duct stones. METHODS: Between September 2005 and September 2011, 156 consecutive patients with suspected of having, or known to have, common bile duct stones were randomly assigned to groups that underwent ES or ESBD. Patients in the ESBD group underwent limited sphincterotomy (up to half of the sphincter) followed by balloon dilation to the size of the common bile duct or 15 mm, and patients in the ES group underwent complete sphincterotomy alone. Stones were then removed using standard techniques. The primary outcome was percentage of stones cleared, and secondary outcomes included procedural time, method of stone extraction, number of procedures required for stone clearance, morbidities and mortality within 30 days, and direct cost. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between groups in percentage of stones cleared (ES vs ESBD: 88.5% vs 89.0%). More patients in the ES group (46.2%) than the ESBD group (28.8%) required mechanical lithotripsy (P = .028), particularly for stones ≥15 mm (90.9% vs 58.1%; P = .002). Morbidities developed in 10.3% of patients in the ES group and 6.8% of patients in the ESBD group (P = .46). The cost of the hospitalization was also significantly lower in the ESBD group (P = .034). CONCLUSIONS: ESBD and ES clear bile stones with equal efficacy. However, ESBD reduces the need for mechanical lithotripsy and is less expensive; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00164853.