Nutritional Risks in Patients Undergoing Total Pancreatectomy Islet AutoTransplantation in the POST Consortium.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation (TPIAT) can relieve pain for individuals with acute recurrent or chronic pancreatitis. However, TPIAT may increase the risk of poor nutritional status with complete exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, partial duodenectomy, and intestinal reconstruction. Our study's objective was to evaluate nutritional status, anthropometrics, and vitamin levels before and after TPIAT. METHODS: The multicenter Prospective Observational Study of TPIAT (POST) collects measures including vitamins A, D, and E levels, pancreatic enzyme dose, and multivitamin (MVI) administration before and 1-year after TPIAT. Using these data, we studied nutritional and vitamin status before and after TPIAT. RESULTS: 348 TPIAT recipients were included (68% adult, 37% male, 93% Caucasian). In paired analyses at 1-year follow-up, vitamin A was low in 23% (vs 9% pre-TPIAT, p < 0.001); vitamin E was low in 11% (vs 5% pre-TPIAT, p = 0.066), and 19% had vitamin D deficiency (vs 12% pre-TPIAT, p = 0.035). Taking a fat-soluble multivitamin (pancreatic MVI) was associated with lower risk for vitamin D deficiency (p = 0.002). Adults were less likely to be on a pancreatic MVI at follow-up (34% vs 66% respectively, p < 0.001). Enzyme dosing was adequate. More adults versus children were overweight or underweight pre- and post-TPIAT. Underweight status was associated with vitamin A (p = 0.014) and E (p = 0.02) deficiency at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of fat-soluble vitamin deficiencies increased after TPIAT, especially if underweight. We strongly advocate that all TPIAT recipients have close post-operative nutritional monitoring, including vitamin levels. Pancreatic MVIs should be given to minimize risk of developing deficiencies.

Evolution of Endoscopic Bariatric Devices: From Development to Practice.

OBJECTIVES: To familiarize medical providers with the Food and Drug Administration approval process for antiobesity devices and to provide a brief overview of current and promising endoscopy-based bariatric devices. METHODS: Literature review of published scholarly articles. RESULTS: There has been a rapid development of novel endoscopic bariatric therapies in recent years, resulting in the approval of multiple devices. Several promising endoscopic strategies are currently under investigation and review. The Food and Drug Administration has laid down an objective-tiered model to review antiobesity device applications. DISCUSSION: Endoscopic bariatric devices provide a new and promising paradigm in obesity management both as first-line therapy and as adjunctive treatment to medical and surgical strategies. Physicians who plan to offer endoscopic bariatric therapy in their practice need appropriate understanding of the regulatory processes involved in the development and approval of such devices.

Comparative analysis of traditional and coiled fiducials implanted during EUS for pancreatic cancer patients receiving stereotactic body radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: EUS-guided fiducial placement facilitates image-guided radiation therapy (IGRT). OBJECTIVE: To compare 2 types of commercially available fiducials for technical success, complications, visibility, and migration. DESIGN: Retrospective, single-center, comparative study. SETTING: Tertiary-care medical center. INTERVENTIONS: Traditional fiducials (TFs) (5-mm length, 0.8-mm diameter) and Visicoil fiducials (VFs) (10-mm length, 0.35-mm diameter) were compared. Fiducials were placed using linear 19-gauge (for TFs) or 22-gauge (for VFs) needles. A subjective visualization scoring system (0-2; 0 = not visible, 1 = barely visible, 2 = clearly visible) was used to assess visibility on CT. Fiducial migration was calculated as a change in interfiducial distance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Technical success, complications, visibility, and migration of 2 types of fiducials. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer underwent EUS-guided placement of 103 fiducials (77 TFs, 26 VFs). The mean number of fiducials placed per patient was 2.66 (standard deviation 0.67) for the 19-gauge needle and 2.60 (standard deviation 0.70) for the 22-gauge needle (P = .83). No intra- or postprocedural complications were encountered. The median visibility score for TFs was significantly better than that for VFs, both when scores of 0 were and were not included (2.00, interquartile range [IQR] 2.00-2.00 vs 1.75, IQR 1.50-2.00, P = .009 and 2.00, IQR 2.00-2.00 vs 2.00, IQR 1.50-2.00, P < .0001, respectively). The mean migration was not significantly different between the 2 types of fiducials (0.8 mm [IQR 0.4-1.6 mm] for TFs vs 1.3 mm [IQR 0.6-1.5 mm] for VFs; P = .72). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective, nonrandomized design. CONCLUSIONS: Visibility was significantly better for TFs compared with VFs. The degree of fiducial migration was not significantly different for TFs and VFs. There was no significant difference in the mean number of fiducials placed, indicating a similar degree of technical difficulty for TF and VF deployment.

The effect of magnesium supplementation on blood pressure: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: An increased intake of magnesium might lower blood pressure (BP), yet evidence from clinical trials is inconsistent, perhaps as a result of small sample size or heterogeneity in study design. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials that tested the effects of magnesium supplementation on BP. Twenty trials meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. Random effects models and meta-regression methods were used to pool study results and to determine the dose-response relationship of magnesium to BP. RESULTS: The 20 studies included 14 of hypertensive and 6 of normotensive persons totaling 1220 participants. The doses of magnesium ranged from 10 to 40 mmol/day (median, 15.4 mmol/day). Magnesium supplementation resulted in only a small overall reduction in BP. The pooled net estimates of BP change (95% confidence interval [CI]) were -0.6 (-2.2 to 1.0) mm Hg for systolic BP and -0.8 (-1.9 to 0.4) mm Hg for diastolic BP. However, there was an apparent dose-dependent effect of magnesium, with reductions of 4.3 mm Hg systolic BP (95% CI 6.3 to 2.2; P < .001) and of 2.3 mm Hg diastolic BP (95% CI 4.9 to 0.0; P = .09) for each 10 mmol/day increase in magnesium dose. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis detected dose-dependent BP reductions from magnesium supplementation. However, adequately powered trials with sufficiently high doses of magnesium supplements need to be performed to confirm this relationship.