RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Choosing an optimal post-polypectomy management strategy of malignant colorectal polyps is challenging, and evidence regarding a surveillance-only strategy is limited. AIM: To evaluate long-term outcomes after endoscopic removal of malignant colorectal polyps. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate outcomes after endoscopic removal of malignant colorectal polyps between 2010 and 2020. Residual disease rate and nodal metastases after secondary surgery and local and distant recurrence rate for those with at least 1 year of follow-up were investigated. Event rates for categorical variables and means for continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney test were performed. Potential risk factors of adverse outcomes were determined with univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: In total, 135 lesions (mean size: 22.1 mm; location: 42% rectal) from 129 patients (mean age: 67.7 years; 56% male) were enrolled. The proportion of pedunculated and non-pedunculated lesions was similar, with en bloc resection in 82% and 47% of lesions, respectively. Tumor differentiation, distance from resection margins, depth of submucosal invasion, lymphovascular invasion, and budding were reported at 89.6%, 45.2%, 58.5%, 31.9%, and 25.2%, respectively. Residual tumor was found in 10 patients, and nodal metastasis was found in 4 of 41 patients who underwent secondary surgical resection. Univariate analysis identified piecemeal resection as a risk factor for residual malignancy (odds ratio: 1.74; P = 0.042). At least 1 year of follow-up was available for 117 lesions from 111 patients (mean follow-up period: 5.59 years). Overall, 54%, 30%, 30%, 11%, and 16% of patients presented at the 1-year, 3-year, 5-year, 7-year, and 9-10-year surveillance examinations. Adverse outcomes occurred in 9.0% (local recurrence and dissemination in 4 patients and 9 patients, respectively), with no difference between patients undergoing secondary surgery and surveillance only. CONCLUSION: Reporting of histological features and adherence to surveillance colonoscopy needs improvement. Long-term adverse outcome rates might be higher than previously reported, irrespective of whether secondary surgery was performed.
RESUMEN
Background: Different endoscopic scoring systems for assessing ulcerative colitis (UC) severity are available. However, most of them are not correlated with disease extent. Objectives: Our study aimed to compare the predictive value of the PanMay score versus the endoscopic Mayo (MES), Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS), and Dublin score in predicting long-term outcomes of UC. Design: This retrospective study enrolled consecutive UC patients who underwent colonoscopy before at least a 3-year follow-up. Methods: The PanMayo, MES, UCEIS, and Dublin scores and the baseline clinical and demographic characteristics of the participants were assessed. Endpoints were disease flare that required novel biological therapy, colectomy, and hospitalization. Patients were stratified using baseline clinical activity. Results: Approximately 62.8% of the 250 enrolled patients were in clinical remission. In these patients, the PanMayo, MES, and Dublin scores were positively associated with the risk of clinical flare. The MES score increased with clinical flare. The PanMayo score (>12 points), but not the MES score, was associated with the need for novel biological initiation and biological escalation. Furthermore, the Dublin and UCEIS scores of patients in remission who need novel biological treatment had a similar trend. Colectomy risk was associated with PanMayo and Dublin scores. Conclusion: The combined endoscopic assessment of disease extent and severity can be more accurate in predicting outcomes among patients with UC. PanMayo score can be utilized in addition to the existing scoring systems, thereby leading to a more accurate examination. Summary: UC endoscopic scores do not assess extension. Our study aimed to analyze the predictive value of the PanMayo score. Based on 250 patients, results showed that the long-term disease outcomes of UC could be predicted with the PanMayo score more accurately.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The inconclusive cytological findings of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) remain a major clinical challenge and often lead to treatment delays. METHODS: Patients who had undergone EUS-FNA sampling for solid pancreas lesions between 2014 and 2021 were retrospectively enrolled. The "atypical" and "non-diagnostic" categories of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System were considered inconclusive and the "negative for malignancy" category of malignancy was suspected clinically. We determined the frequency and predictors of inconclusive cytological finding. RESULTS: A total of 473 first EUS-FNA samples were included, of which 108 cases (22.83%) were inconclusive. Significant increases in the odds of inconclusive cytological findings were observed for lesions with a benign final diagnosis (OR 11.20; 95% CI 6.56-19.54, p < 0.001) as well as with the use of 25 G FNA needles (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.09-4.01, p = 0.023) compared to 22 G needles. Furthermore, the use of a single EUS-FNA technique compared to the combined use of slow-pull and standard suction techniques (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.06-2.70, p = 0.027) and less than three punctures per procedure led to an elevation in the risk of inconclusive cytology (OR 2.49; 95% CI 1.49-4.14, p < 0.001). Risk reduction in inconclusive cytology findings was observed in lesions between 2-4 cm (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.23-0.68, p = 0.001) and >4 cm (OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.08-0.31, p < 0.001) compared to lesions ≤2 cm. CONCLUSIONS: The more than two punctures per EUS-FNA sampling with larger-diameter needle (19 G or 22 G) using the slow-pull and standard suction techniques in combination may decrease the probability of inconclusive cytological findings.
RESUMEN
Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has complicated the management of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Objectives: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of different anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines under different treatments in IBD patients and identify predictive factors associated with lower serological response, including anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) drug levels. Design: A prospective, double-center study of IBD patients was conducted following messenger ribonucleotide acid (mRNA) and non-mRNA anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Methods: Healthy control (HC) patients were enrolled to reduce bias. Baseline and control samples were obtained 14 days after the second dose to assess the impact of conventional and biological treatments. Clinical and biochemical activity, serological response level, and anti-TNF drug levels were measured. Results: This study included 199 IBD (mean age, 40.9 ± 12.72 years) and 77 HC participants (mean age, 50.3 ± 12.36 years). Most patients (76.9%) and all HCs received mRNA vaccines. Half of the IBD patients were on biological treatment (anti-TNF 68.7%). Biological and thiopurine combined immunomodulation and biological treatment were associated with lower serological response (p < 0.001), and mRNA vaccination promoted better antibody levels (p < 0.001). Higher adalimumab levels caused lower serological response (p = 0.006). W8 persistence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 level was equal in IBD and HC groups. Vaccination did not aggravate clinical disease activity (p = 0.65). Conclusion: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is considerably efficacious in IBD patients, with mRNA vaccines promoting better antibody levels. The negative impact of combined biological treatment, especially with high adalimumab drug levels, on serological response to vaccination should be considered. Although midterm durability of vaccination is encouraging, more data are needed to expand the existing understanding on this issue.
Adjustment of COVID-19 vaccination to adalimumab trough level is considerable due to the reduced serological response. mRNA vaccination should be preferred in case of IBD patients with an equal durability of anti-SARS-CoV-2 level of subjects and healthy control participants.
RESUMEN
Endoscopic ultrasound is a minimally invasive modality that combines endoscopy with ultrasound, providing a possibility to visualize the wall of the gastrointestinal tract and adjacent tissues and organs. Since the development of the modality in the 1980s, advancements in endoscopic ultrasound technology have led to increasingly broadening indications: besides diagnostic indications, therapeutic indications have also expanded greatly. According to recent guidelines regarding rectal cancer staging, rectal ultrasonography is mainly considered to be a secondary imaging modality compared to magnetic resonance imaging. With the use of forward-viewing echoendoscopes and ultrasound miniprobes that can be inserted through the working channel of the endoscope, endoscopic ultrasound technology can be expanded to proximal, colonic areas as well. Rectal ultrasonography can also play an important role in the differential diagnosis of subepithelial lesions, in the detection of rectal varices, in the diagnosis of inflammatory bowel diseases as well as perianal complications. Diagnostic accuracy can further be improved with the addition of ultrasound-guided sampling in certain cases. Currently, therapeutic indications are more like promising possibilities, than part of everyday clinical practice, but this might change in the near future. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current indications of rectal ultrasound in the clinical practice, including diagnostic and therapeutic ones as well. Orv Hetil. 2023; 164(30): 1176-1186.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Inflamatorias del Intestino , Neoplasias del Recto , Humanos , Endosonografía/métodos , Recto/diagnóstico por imagen , Endoscopía GastrointestinalRESUMEN
Background: In patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), Crohn's disease (CD), and ulcerative colitis (UC), numerous cases of exacerbations could be observed after colonoscopy, raising the possible pathogenetic effect of colonic microbiota alterations in IBD flare. Objectives: We aimed to investigate the changes in the fecal microbiota composition in IBD patients influenced by the bowel preparation with sodium picosulfate. Design: We enrolled patients with IBD undergoing bowel preparation for colonoscopy in the prospective cohort study. The control group (Con) comprised non-IBD patients who underwent colonoscopy. Clinical data, blood, and stool samples were collected before colonoscopy (timepoint A), 3 days later (timepoint B), and 4 weeks later (timepoint C). Methods: Disease activity and gut microbiota changes were assessed at each timepoint. Fecal microbiota structure - at family level - was determined by sequencing the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene. Statistical analysis included differential abundance analysis and Mann-Whitney tests. Results: Forty-one patients (9 CD, 13 UC, and 19 Con) were included. After bowel preparation, alpha diversity was lower in the CD group than in the UC (p = 0.01) and Con (p = 0.02) groups at timepoint B. Alpha diversity was significantly higher in the UC group than in the CD and Con (p = 0.03) groups at timepoint C. Beta diversity difference differed between the IBD and Con (p = 0.001) groups. Based on the differential abundance analysis, the Clostridiales family was increased, whereas the Bifidobacteriaceae family was decreased in CD patients compared to the Con at timepoint B. Conclusions: Bowel preparation may change the fecal microbial composition in IBD patients, which may have a potential role in disease exacerbation after bowel cleansing.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Budesonide-MMX is a topically active corticosteroid degraded by cytochrome-P450 enzymes, resulting in favorable side-effect profile. We aimed to assess the effect of CYP genotypes on safety and efficacy, and make a direct comparison with systemic corticosteroids. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We enrolled UC patients receiving budesonide-MMX and IBD patients on methylprednisolone in our prospective, observational-cohort study. Before and after treatment regimen clinical activity indexes, laboratory parameters (electrolytes, CRP, cholesterol, triglyceride, dehydroepiandrosterone, cortisol, beta-crosslaps, osteocalcin), and body composition measurements were assessed. CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 genotypes were determined in the budesonide-MMX group. RESULTS: 71 participants were enrolled (budesonide-MMX: 52; methylprednisolone: 19). CAI decreased (p<0.05) in both groups. Cortisol decreased (p<0.001), and the level of cholesterol was elevated in both groups (p<0.001). Body composition altered only following methylprednisolone. Bone homeostasis (osteocalcin; p<0.05) and DHEA (p<0.001) changed more prominently after methylprednisolone. Glucocorticoid-related adverse events were more common following methylprednisolone treatment (47.4% compared to 1.9%). CYP3A5(*1/*3) genotype positively influenced efficacy, but not safety. Only one patient's CYP3A4 genotype differed. CONCLUSIONS: CYP genotypes can affect the efficacy of budesonide-MMX; however, further studies would be needed with analyses of gene expression. Although budesonide-MMX is safer than methylprednisolone, due to glucocorticoid-related side effects, admission should require greater precaution.
Asunto(s)
Budesonida , Colitis Ulcerosa , Humanos , Antiinflamatorios/efectos adversos , Budesonida/efectos adversos , Colesterol , Estudios de Cohortes , Colitis Ulcerosa/tratamiento farmacológico , Citocromo P-450 CYP3A/genética , Glucocorticoides/efectos adversos , Hidrocortisona , Metilprednisolona/efectos adversos , Osteocalcina , Estudios Prospectivos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: According to the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) are preferable to plastic stents (PSs) in the management of pancreatic cancer, regardless of cancer stage. The aim of this study was to compare the therapeutic efficacy and treatment costs of SEMS and PS in the management of malignant biliary obstruction. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-five patients who underwent endoscopic stent placement were retrospectively enrolled and divided into PS (41 patients), primary SEMS (39 patients) and secondary SEMS (55 patients) groups. We determined the technical and functional success rate, stent patency, and cumulative treatment cost. RESULTS: A total of 111 SEMSs and 153 PSs were placed with similar technical (100% vs. 98.69%) and functional success rate (90.10% vs. 86.27%) but with different stent patency (10.28 vs. 22.16 weeks; p < 0.001). Multiple PS implantations and larger stent diameter increased the length of stent patency compared to 7-Fr PSs (10.88 vs. 10.55 vs. 7.63 weeks, respectively). The cumulative treatment cost of patients with different survival times did not differ significantly between groups, however, among patients surviving 2-4 months it was higher in PS group than primary SEMS and secondary SEMS groups (2888 vs. 2258 vs. 2144, respectively, p = 0.3369) due to increased number of biliary reintervention (2.08 ± 1.04 vs. 1.20 ± 0.42 vs. 1.50 ± 0.53; p < 0.0274) and longer hospital stay (15.77 ± 10.14 vs. 8.70 ± 7.70 vs. 8.50 ± 6.17 days, p = 0.0527). CONCLUSIONS: In view of treatment costs, the consequences of illness, and the processes of the health care system, SEMS implantation is recommended regardless of patients' life expectancy.
Asunto(s)
Colestasis , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Stents Metálicos Autoexpandibles , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Colestasis/etiología , Colestasis/cirugía , Stents , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/complicaciones , Costos de la Atención en Salud , PlásticosRESUMEN
Introduction: Inflammatory bowel disease potentially elevates the risk of infections, independently from age, while the disease activity and medical treatment(s) can also increase the risks. Nevertheless, it is necessary to clarify these preconceptions as well during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: An observational, questionnaire based study was conducted in Hungary between February and August 2021. 2 questionnaires were completed. The first questionnaire surveyed the impact of the pandemic on patients with biologic treatments and assessed the severity and outcome of the infection, whereas the second one assessed vaccination rate and adverse events. Results: 472 patients participated in the study. 16.9 % of them acquired the infection and 6.3 % needed hospitalization. None of them required ICU care. Male sex elevated the risk of infection (p = 0.008), while glove (p = 0.02) and mask wearing (p = 0.005) was the most effective prevention strategy. Nevertheless, abstaining from community visits or workplace did not have an impact on the infection rate. Smoking, age, and disease type did not elevate the risk. UC patients had poorer condition during the infection (p = 0.003); furthermore, the disease activity could potentially worsen the course of infection (p = 0.072). The different biological treatments were equally safe; no difference was observed in the infection rate, course of COVID-19. Azathioprine and corticosteroids did not elevate the infection rate. 28 patients (35.0 %) suspended the ongoing biologic treatment, but it had no impact on the disease course. However, it resulted in changing the current treatment (p = 0.004). 9.8 % of the respondents were sceptic about being vaccinated, and 90 % got vaccinated. In one case, a serious flare-up occurred. Discussion: Most patients acquired the infection at workplace. Biologic therapies had no effect on the COVID-19 infection, whereas male sex, an active disease, and UC could be larger threat than treatments. Vaccination was proved to be safe, and patient education is important to achieve mass vaccination of the population.
RESUMEN
Introduction: COVID19 significantly affects endoscopic labs' workflow. Endoscopic examinations are considered high-risk for virus transmission. Objectives: To determine impact of COVID19 pandemic on Hungarian endoscopic labs' workflow and on infection risk of endoscopic staff. Method: A nation-wide, cross-sectional online questionnaire was sent to heads of endoscopic labs in Hungary. The average number (with 95% confidence intervals) of upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopies performed in 2020 was compared to that in 2019. The number of SARS-CoV-2-infected endoscopic staff members and the source of infection was also investigated. Results: Completion rate was 30% (33/111). Neither the number of upper (1.593 [7431.514] vs. 1.129 [1.0202.166], p = 0.053), nor that of lower gastrointestinal endoscopies (1.181 [8231.538] vs. 871 [5911.150], p = 0.072) decreased in 2020, but both upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopies' number decreased by 80% during peak phases. Separate examination room was available in 12% of institutes. Appropriate quality personal protective equipment (PPE) was available during the first and second peak phase in 70% and 82%, respectively. Infection risk stratification by questionnaire and PCR testing was routinely performed in 85% and 42%, respectively. Employee number decreased by 33% and 26% for physicians, and by 19% and 21% for assistants during peak phases, mainly due to age restrictions and COVID care assignments. 32% of assistants and 41% of physicians were infected (associated with inappropriate PPE use in 16% and 18%, respectively). Conclusion: Peak phases' restrictions increase endoscopic workload afterwards. Despite PPE availability, 15% of employees' COVID infection resulted from inappropriate PPE use in pre-vaccination era.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , Pandemias , COVID-19/epidemiología , Estudios Transversales , Equipo de Protección PersonalRESUMEN
Background: Treatment with antitumor necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNF-α) is safe and effective as first-line therapy; however, its efficacy is limited due to primary nonresponse (PNR) and secondary loss of response (LOR), resulting in treatment discontinuation in approximately 40%-50% of cases. Vedolizumab (VDZ) and ustekinumab (UST) therapies could be good alternatives in patient with anti-TNF failure; however, no head-to-head randomized comparison of these drugs as second- or third-line treatments has been made. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the treatment persistence and comparative effectiveness of UST and VDZ in patients with refractory Crohn's disease (CD). Design: In this nationwide retrospective study, patients with CD on UST or VDZ maintenance therapy were enrolled. Clinical data at baseline, after induction, and at week 52 were obtained. Methods: Clinical and biochemical activities as well as corticosteroid-free remission (SFR) rates were assessed, while concomitant medications, comorbidities, hospitalizations, and surgeries were recorded during the follow-up to detect any predictors. Results: A total of 161 UST- and 65 VDZ-treated patients completed the follow-up. No significant difference in clinical or biochemical remission rates was observed after induction between the two treatment groups; however, clinical remission rate at week 52 was higher in UST group. UST showed superior drug persistence than VDZ (86.5%, 57.9%, p < 0.0001). The drug type was predictive of clinical SFR at week 52 [p = 0.011, odds ratio (OR) = 2.39 with UST]. Drug failure rates were higher for VDZ than those for UST (PNR rates: 21.54% and 4.97%, respectively, p < 0.001, OR = 8.267, p = 0.001). LOR and escalations were more common during UST treatment (61.5% versus 36.9%, p < 0.001; 64.2% versus 23.1%, p < 0.001). Hospital and surgical admission rates did not differ significantly. Only one adverse event occurred with VDZ at week 20, which led to drug cessation. Conclusions: VDZ and UST were safe and effective for treating patients with CD in whom anti-TNF therapy failed. UST showed superior drug persistence than VDZ, but dose escalation was more frequent. Biologicals used in lower treatment lines resulted in better drug persistence.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have described the effectiveness of ustekinumab (UST) and vedolizumab (VDZ) in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) failing anti- Tumor necrosis factors (TNFs); however, the effectiveness of VDZ or UST as a third-class biologic has not yet been described. AIMS AND METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, we aimed to investigate the effectiveness of VDZ and UST as a third-class biologic in patients with CD. RESULTS: Two-hundred and four patients were included; 156/204 (76%) patients received VDZ as a second- and UST as a third-class therapy (group A); the remaining 48/204 (24%) patients received UST as a second- and VDZ as a third-class therapy (group B). At week 16-22, 87/156 (55.5%) patients and 27/48 (56.2%) in groups A and B, respectively, responded to treatment (p = 0.9); 41/156 (26.2%) and 15/48 (31.2%) were in clinical remission (p = 0.5). At week 52; 89/103 (86%) patients and 25/29 (86.2%) of the patients with available data had responded to third-class treatment in groups A and B, respectively (p = 0.9); 31/103 (30%) and 47/29 (24.1%) were in clinical remission (p = 0.5). CONCLUSION: Third-class biological therapy was effective in more than half of the patients with CD. No differences in effectiveness were detected between the use of VDZ and UST as a third-class agent.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses a challenge to healthcare. Staff and patients are at increased risk during an examination or intervention, so certain restrictions ought to be introduced. Hence, we aimed to measure the effect of the pandemic on endoscopy units in real-life settings. METHODS: This was an observational, cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study, carried out between 7 April and 15 June 2020. Responds came from many countries, and the participation was voluntary. The survey contained 40 questions, which evaluated the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the endoscopy units and assessed the infection control. RESULTS: A total of 312 questionnaires were filled, 120 from Hungary, and 192 internationally, and 54 questionnaires (17.3%) were sent from high-risk countries; 84.9% of the gastroenterologists declared that they read the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) statement, while only 32.1% participated in any advanced training at their workplace. Overall, 92.1% of gastroenterologists realized risk stratification, and 72.1% claimed to have enough protective equipment. In 52.6% of the endoscopy units, at least one endoscopist had to discontinue the work due to any risk factor, while 40.6% reported that the reduced staff did not affect the workflow. Gastroenterologists considered that the five most important examinations both in low and high-risk patients are the following: lower/upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding with hemodynamic instability, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in obstructive jaundice, foreign body in the esophagus, ERCP in acute biliary pancreatitis, and iron deficiency anemia with hemodynamic instability, which correlates well with the ESGE recommendation. Significant correlation was found in the usage of the necessary protective equipment in high-risk patients depending on the countries (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The survey found weak correlation in preliminary training depending on countries; nevertheless, in Hungary during the examined period, endoscopists considered the recommendations more strictly than in other countries. Although many physicians left the endoscopy lab, the workflow was not affected, probably due to the reduced number of examinations.
RESUMEN
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak emerged in December 2019 in China and rapidly spread worldwide. Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients are likely to be more susceptible to viral infections, and this is significantly influenced by the type of therapy they receive. Thus, issues specifically concerning the medical treatment of IBD patients were shortly addressed at the beginning of the pandemic. However, recently available data on the occurrence and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in IBD patients does not address the concerns raised at the beginning of the pandemic. Growing evidence and the rapid changes happening over the past few weeks have helped elucidate the current situation, contribute to our understanding of the disease, and many previously raised questions could now be answered. We hereby summarise available evidence regarding viral infections and IBD, focusing on SARS-CoV infections, and we provide practical recommendations related to patient management during the COVID-19 pandemic era.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Health care professionals in endoscopic labs have an elevated risk for COVID-19 infection, therefore, we aimed to determine the effect of current pandemic on the workflow and infection prevention and control strategies of endoscopy units in real-life setting. METHODS: All members of Hungarian Society of Gastroenterology were invited between 7 and 17 April 2020 to participate in this cross-section survey study and to complete an online, anonymous questionnaire. RESULTS: Total of 120 endoscopists from 83 institutes were enrolled of which 35.83% worked in regions with high cumulative incidence of COVID-19. Only 33.33% of them had undergone training about infection prevention in their workplace. 95.83% of endoscopists regularly used risk stratification of patients for infection prior endoscopy. While indications of examinations in low risk patients varied widely, in high-risk or positive patients endoscopy was limited to gastrointestinal bleeding (95.00%), removal of foreign body from esophagus (87.50%), management of obstructive jaundice (72.50%) and biliary pancreatitis (67.50%). Appropriate amount of personal protective equipment was available in 60.85% of endoscopy units. In high-risk or positive patients, surgical mask, filtering facepiece mask, protective eyewear and two pairs of gloves were applied in 30.83%, 76.67%, 90.00% and 87.50% of cases, respectively. Personal protective equipment fully complied with European guideline only in 67.50% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Survey found large variability in indications of endoscopy and relative weak compliance to national and international practical recommendations in terms of protective equipment. This could be improved by adequate training about infection prevention.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19/prevención & control , Endoscopía Gastrointestinal , Gastroenterología/organización & administración , Unidades Hospitalarias/organización & administración , Control de Infecciones/organización & administración , Flujo de Trabajo , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/transmisión , Estudios Transversales , Humanos , Hungría , Selección de Paciente , Equipo de Protección PersonalRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The relationship between clinical outcomes and serum anti-TNF levels is controversial. The aim of this study was to perform simultaneous analyses of serum, mucosal, and fecal anti-TNF-α levels. METHODS: Consecutive IBD patients who received maintenance anti-TNF-α therapy were enrolled. The number of TNF-α positive cells in the mucosa was detected using immunofluorescent labeling on biopsy samples. Serum, mucosal and fecal anti-TNF-α, serum anti-drug antibody, and fecal calprotectin levels were determined using ELISA. Each patient underwent body composition analysis as well. RESULTS: Data of 50 patients were analyzed. The number TNF-α positive cells was significantly higher in the inflamed part of the colon than in the un-inflamed part of the colon. Tissue and fecal drug levels did not show any association with serum drug levels; moreover, serum anti-TNF concentration did not correlate with endoscopic activity. Mucosal anti-TNF levels were higher only in IFX-treated patients in remission and IFX-treated patients with detectable fecal anti-TNF had lower tissue drug levels. Presence of the drug in the feces was significantly different according to disease activity. CONCLUSION: Fecal drug concentration is suggested to be a better predictor of endoscopic activity and loss of response, and fecal drug monitoring may improve the estimation accuracy of tissue drug levels.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Inflamatorias del Intestino , Inhibidores del Factor de Necrosis Tumoral , Monitoreo de Drogas , Heces , Humanos , Enfermedades Inflamatorias del Intestino/tratamiento farmacológico , Infliximab/uso terapéutico , Factor de Necrosis Tumoral alfaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: The efficacy of argon plasma coagulation (APC) on gastric antral vascular ectasia (GAVE) may be impaired over time and depends greatly on the application settings. Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) may be an alternative, but study on its efficacy is limited. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy of APC and EBL in treating GAVE. METHODS: Changes in the need for blood transfusion, number of treatment sessions and hospitalizations were retrospectively assessed in 63 transfusion-dependent patients with GAVE (mean age: 67.1 y, 54.0% female) treated with either APC or EBL (45 and 18 patients, respectively) in four tertiary endoscopic centers. RESULTS: Both methods substantially increased hemoglobin levels and decreased patients' need for a transfusion (22.0 ± 4.0 g/L and -5.62 ± 2.30 units of packed red blood cells [RBC] with APC, and 27.4 ± 6.1 g/L and -4.79 ± 2.46 units of packed RBC with EBL), without a significant statistical difference between the methods. However, fewer EBL sessions were required both for the cessation of need for a transfusion compared with those for the resolution of GAVE lesions (0.90 ± 0.10 vs 1.69 ± 0.31, P = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: Both APC and EBL are effective in GAVE treatment. EBL may be superior in terms of number of treatment sessions, but not in its influence on hemoglobin level and need for transfusion. Further prospective studies with large, homogeneous sample size and standardized APC settings are needed.