Sex, lies, and gastrointestinal tract biopsies: a review of selected sexually transmitted proctocolitides.

There are many insults that result in gastrointestinal tract inflammation. Infections can be particularly challenging because (1) only a limited number of organisms provoke a specific endoscopic and/or histologic appearance; and (2) although some organisms may be present on biopsies, the findings may be so subtle or organisms so few that they are easily missed if the reviewer is not performing a specific search for the offender. Sexually transmitted infections (STI) are rarely a consideration at the time of GI biopsy examination and clinicians rarely inquire about sexual behavior at the time of initial patient interview. Although establishing a definitive STI diagnosis is not possible on histology alone, these infections are associated with inflammatory patterns that may help raise this diagnostic possibility. Becoming familiar with these patterns is necessary as worldwide outbreaks of these infections are being reported. This review aims to provide the pathologist with histologic clues associated with the most frequently encountered bacterial pathogens in the setting of STI proctitis, namely, Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Treponema pallidum.

Video capsule endoscopy in the emergency department: a prospective study of acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Video capsule endoscopy has been used to diagnose gastrointestinal hemorrhage and other small bowel diseases but has not been tested in an emergency department (ED) setting. The objectives in this pilot study are to demonstrate the ability of emergency physicians to detect blood in the upper gastrointestinal tract with capsule endoscopy after a short training period, measure ED patient acceptance of capsule endoscopy, and estimate the test characteristics of capsule endoscopy to detect acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. METHODS: During a 6-month period at a single academic hospital, eligible patients underwent video capsule endoscopy (Pillcam Eso2; Given Imaging) in the ED. Video images were reviewed by 4 blinded physicians (2 emergency physicians with brief training in capsule endoscopy interpretation and 2 gastroenterologists with capsule endoscopy experience). RESULTS: A total of 25 subjects with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage were enrolled. There was excellent agreement between gastroenterologists and emergency physicians for the presence of fresh or coffee-ground blood (0.96 overall agreement; κ=0.90). Capsule endoscopy was well tolerated by 96% of patients and showed an 88% sensitivity (95% confidence interval 65% to 100%) and 64% specificity (95% confidence interval 35% to 92%) for the detection of fresh blood. Capsule endoscopy missed 1 bleeding lesion located in the postpyloric region, which was not imaged because of expired battery life. CONCLUSION: Video capsule endoscopy is a sensitive way to identify upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage in the ED. It is well tolerated and there is excellent agreement in interpretation between gastroenterologists and emergency physicians.

Follow-up after gastric electrical stimulation for gastroparesis.

BACKGROUND: Gastric electrical stimulation (GES) is used to treat medically refractory gastroparesis. However, there are few large series with outcomes beyond 12 months. This study reports surgical outcomes of GES for patients up to 8 years receiving treatment from a single institution. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective database was reviewed from 2003 to 2013 for patients undergoing GES. Baseline patient characteristics were recorded, including age, sex, cause of gastroparesis, gastric emptying, and Hgb A1C. Outcomes variables included nutrition supplementation, additional operations, 30-day morbidity, and mortality. Pre- and postoperative pain and function scores are analyzed over time using generalized estimating equations. Patient outcomes in terms of reoperation rates and types of operations are also reviewed. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients underwent GES with a mean ± SD age of 43 ± 11 years and a BMI of 27 ± 8 kg/m(2). Symptom scores were available for 60 patients: 60 patients at baseline, 52 patients at 1 year, 14 patients during years 2 to 3, and 18 patients during years 4 to 8. Symptom scores decreased considerably in all categories. At 1-year follow-up, 44% and 31% of patients had at least a 25% reduction in symptom distress for functional and pain symptoms, respectively. Preoperatively, 9 patients required nutrition supplementation. After implantation, 34 (43%) patients underwent additional operations, with a mean of 2.15 operations per patient. Generator-related causes were the most common indication for reoperation, including battery exchanges and relocation. Other operations included 8 gastrectomies and 7 median arcuate ligament releases. Postoperatively, 4 patients required supplemental nutrition. There were no 30-day mortalities, but 11 patients died during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Gastric electrical stimulation was significantly associated with reductions in both functional and pain-related symptoms of gastroparesis. Patients who undergo GES have a high likelihood of additional surgery.

Hereditary angioedema: what the gastroenterologist needs to know.

Up to 93% of patients with hereditary angioedema (HAE) experience recurrent abdominal pain. Many of these patients, who often present to emergency departments, primary care physicians, general surgeons, or gastroenterologists, are misdiagnosed for years and undergo unnecessary testing and surgical procedures. Making the diagnosis of HAE can be challenging because symptoms and attack locations are often inconsistent from one episode to the next. Abdominal attacks are common and can occur without other attack locations. An early, accurate diagnosis is central to managing HAE. Unexplained abdominal pain, particularly when accompanied by swelling of the face and extremities, suggests the diagnosis of HAE. A family history and radiologic imaging demonstrating edematous bowel also support an HAE diagnosis. Once HAE is suspected, C4 and C1 esterase inhibitor (C1-INH) laboratory studies are usually diagnostic. Patients with HAE may benefit from recently approved specific treatments, including plasma-derived C1-INH or recombinant C1-INH, a bradykinin B2-receptor antagonist, or a kallikrein inhibitor as first-line therapy and solvent/detergent-treated or fresh frozen plasma as second-line therapy for acute episodes. Short-term or long-term prophylaxis with nanofiltered C1-INH or attenuated androgens will prevent or reduce the frequency and severity of episodes. Gastroenterologists can play a critical role in identifying and treating patients with HAE, and should have a high index of suspicion when encountering patients with recurrent, unexplained bouts of abdominal pain. Given the high rate of abdominal attacks in HAE, it is important for gastroenterologists to appropriately diagnose and promptly recognize and treat HAE, or refer patients with HAE to an allergist.

Gastric sarcoidosis: a case report and review of the literature.

Sarcoidosis is a systemic granulomatous disease of unknown etiology that is characterized by the formation of noncaseating granulomas. Gastrointestinal (GI) tract involvement in sarcoidosis is rare. Gastric sarcoidosis, particularly involving the antrum, affects approximately 10% of patients with systemic disease. GI sarcoidosis commonly occurs subclinically, with clinical manifestations present in only 0.1 to 0.9% of patients with the disease. This is a rare case report of an individual with symptomatic gastric sarcoidosis. The patient presented with weight loss, nausea, and early satiety. An EGD and colonoscopy were performed and were grossly normal. However, biopsies of the gastric antrum revealed noncaseating granulomatous inflammation involving the gastric mucosa. Corticosteroid therapy was started and the symptoms abated almost immediately. We also offer a review of the literature.

Esophageal manometry and pH monitoring: gastroenterologists' adherence to published guidelines.

GOALS: To determine whether gastroenterologists use esophageal manometry (EM) and esophageal pH recording (pHR) in accordance with published guidelines. STUDY: Questionnaires were mailed to 900 randomly selected gastroenterologists nationwide. Each questionnaire requested demographic information and contained 11 case scenario-based questions, followed by a choice of management options. RESULTS: A total of 275 completed questionnaires (30.6%) were returned. 63.6% and 64.4% of respondents were aware of published guidelines regarding the use of EM and pHR, respectively. The majority of respondents ordered EM appropriately: 1) to confirm a suspected diagnosis of achalasia (97.1%); 2) to establish a diagnosis of connective tissue disease (89.7%); 3) as part of the preoperative evaluation for anti-reflux surgery (74.6%); and 4) to ensure the proper placement of pH probes (69.4%). EM was rarely ordered for the initial workup of noncardiac chest pain. The majority of responding gastroenterologists would order pHR for the evaluation of: 1) endoscopy-negative patients being considered for anti-reflux surgery (79.1%); 2) patients with recurrent GERD symptoms after anti-reflux surgery (62.5%); 3) endoscopy-negative patients with GERD symptoms refractory to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy; and 4) patients with extraesophageal manifestations of GERD that are refractory to PPI therapy (88.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of gastroenterologists in our study order EM and pHR in accordance with published guidelines. However, EM appears to be used less than expected for preoperative evaluation before anti-reflux surgery and for ensuring the proper placement of pH probes. In addition, the use of pHR to evaluate persistent GERD symptoms after anti-reflux surgery was less than anticipated.