RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The combination of rectally administered indomethacin and placement of a prophylactic pancreatic stent is recommended to prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk patients. Preliminary evidence suggests that the use of indomethacin might eliminate or substantially reduce the need for stent placement, a technically complex, costly, and potentially harmful intervention. METHODS: In this randomised, non-inferiority trial conducted at 20 referral centres in the USA and Canada, patients (aged ≥18 years) at high risk for post-ERCP pancreatitis were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive rectal indomethacin alone or the combination of indomethacin plus a prophylactic pancreatic stent. Patients, treating clinicians, and outcomes assessors were masked to study group assignment. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis. To declare non-inferiority, the upper bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis (indomethacin alone minus indomethacin plus stent) would have to be less than 5% (non-inferiority margin) in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02476279), and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Sept 17, 2015, and Jan 25, 2023, a total of 1950 patients were randomly assigned. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 145 (14·9%) of 975 patients in the indomethacin alone group and in 110 (11·3%) of 975 in the indomethacin plus stent group (risk difference 3·6%; 95% CI 0·6-6·6; p=0·18 for non-inferiority). A post-hoc intention-to-treat analysis of the risk difference between groups showed that indomethacin alone was inferior to the combination of indomethacin plus prophylactic stent (p=0·011). The relative benefit of stent placement was generally consistent across study subgroups but appeared more prominent among patients at highest risk for pancreatitis. Safety outcomes (serious adverse events, intensive care unit admission, and hospital length of stay) did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: For preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients, a strategy of indomethacin alone was not as effective as a strategy of indomethacin plus prophylactic pancreatic stent placement. These results support prophylactic pancreatic stent placement in addition to rectal indomethacin administration in high-risk patients, in accordance with clinical practice guidelines. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.
Assuntos
Indometacina , Pancreatite , Adolescente , Adulto , Humanos , Administração Retal , Anti-Inflamatórios não Esteroides/uso terapêutico , Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica/efeitos adversos , Indometacina/uso terapêutico , Pancreatite/epidemiologia , Pancreatite/etiologia , Pancreatite/prevenção & controle , Fatores de Risco , StentsRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) has recently been proposed as a quality measure for colonoscopy. We evaluated the impact of a novel artificial intelligence (AI) system, compared with standard high-definition colonoscopy, for APC measurement. METHODS: This was a US-based, multicenter, prospective randomized trial examining a novel AI detection system (EW10-EC02) that enables a real-time colorectal polyp detection enabled with the colonoscope (CAD-EYE). Eligible average-risk subjects (45 years or older) undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy were randomized to undergo either CAD-EYE-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) or conventional colonoscopy (CC). Modified intention-to-treat analysis was performed for all patients who completed colonoscopy with the primary outcome of APC. Secondary outcomes included positive predictive value (total number of adenomas divided by total polyps removed) and adenoma detection rate. RESULTS: In modified intention-to-treat analysis, of 1,031 subjects (age: 59.1 ± 9.8 years; 49.9% male), 510 underwent CAC vs 523 underwent CC with no significant differences in age, gender, ethnicity, or colonoscopy indication between the 2 groups. CAC led to a significantly higher APC compared with CC: 0.99 ± 1.6 vs 0.85 ± 1.5, P = 0.02, incidence rate ratio 1.17 (1.03-1.33, P = 0.02) with no significant difference in the withdrawal time: 11.28 ± 4.59 minutes vs 10.8 ± 4.81 minutes; P = 0.11 between the 2 groups. Difference in positive predictive value of a polyp being an adenoma among CAC and CC was less than 10% threshold established: 48.6% vs 54%, 95% CI -9.56% to -1.48%. There were no significant differences in adenoma detection rate (46.9% vs 42.8%), advanced adenoma (6.5% vs 6.3%), sessile serrated lesion detection rate (12.9% vs 10.1%), and polyp detection rate (63.9% vs 59.3%) between the 2 groups. There was a higher polyp per colonoscopy with CAC compared with CC: 1.68 ± 2.1 vs 1.33 ± 1.8 (incidence rate ratio 1.27; 1.15-1.4; P < 0.01). DISCUSSION: Use of a novel AI detection system showed to a significantly higher number of adenomas per colonoscopy compared with conventional high-definition colonoscopy without any increase in colonoscopy withdrawal time, thus supporting the use of AI-assisted colonoscopy to improve colonoscopy quality ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04979962).
Assuntos
Adenoma , Inteligência Artificial , Pólipos do Colo , Colonoscopia , Neoplasias Colorretais , Detecção Precoce de Câncer , Humanos , Colonoscopia/métodos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Feminino , Adenoma/diagnóstico , Adenoma/diagnóstico por imagem , Estudos Prospectivos , Pólipos do Colo/diagnóstico , Pólipos do Colo/diagnóstico por imagem , Pólipos do Colo/patologia , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/métodos , Idoso , Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Estados Unidos , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Análise de Intenção de TratamentoRESUMO
Cannabis has long been stigmatized as an illicit drug. Since legalization in Canada for both medical and recreational purposes, older adults' cannabis consumption has increased more than any other age group. Yet, it is unclear how the normalization of cannabis has impacted perceptions of stigma for older adults consuming cannabis medicinally. Qualitative description was used to elucidate the experiences of older Canadians aged 60+ related to stigma and their consumption of cannabis for medicinal purposes. Data collection involved semi-structured interviews. Data analysis examined how participants managed stigma related to cannabis use. Perceived stigma was evident in many participants' descriptions of their perceptions of cannabis in the past and present, and influenced how they accessed and consumed cannabis and their comfort in discussing its use with their healthcare providers. Participants employed several distinct strategies for managing stigma-concealing, re-framing, re-focusing, and proselytizing. Findings suggest that while medical cannabis consumption is becoming increasingly normalized among older adults, stigma related to cannabis persists and continues to shape older adults' experiences. A culture shift needs to occur among healthcare providers so that they are educated about cannabis and willing to discuss the possibilities of medicinal cannabis consumption with older adults. Otherwise, older adults may seek advice from recreational or other non-medical sources. Healthcare providers require education about the use of medical cannabis, so they can better advise older adults regarding its consumption for medicinal purposes.