Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
1.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol ; 20(6): e1283-e1291, 2022 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34256147

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Failed bowel preparation for colonoscopy occurs commonly, but the optimal regimen for the subsequent attempt is unknown. High-volume preparations often are used but are not well studied. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of 2 regimens for use after failed bowel preparation. METHODS: A multicenter, endoscopist-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted in patients who previously failed bowel preparation despite adequate compliance. Patients were randomized to 1 of 2 split polyethylene glycol (PEG) regimens, preceded by 15 mg bisacodyl: PEG 2 L the evening before and 2 L the day of colonoscopy (PEG 2+2L+bisacodyl), or 4 L and 2 L (PEG 4+2L+bisacodyl). All patients followed a low-fiber diet on both the third and second day before the procedure, followed by a clear fluid diet the day before and the morning of the colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adequate bowel preparation, defined as a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale total score of 6 or higher, with all segment scores of 2 or higher. Secondary outcomes included adenoma detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, sessile serrated lesion detection, cecal intubation rate, tolerability, and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 196 subjects were randomized at 4 academic centers in Canada (mean age, 60.7 y; SD, 11.4 y; 44.9% were women). There were no significant differences between the PEG 2+2L+bisacodyl and the PEG 4+2L+bisacodyl groups in achieving adequate bowel preparation (91.2% vs 87.6%; P = .44). There were no significant differences with regard to mean adenoma detection rate (37.4% vs 31.5%; P = .41), advanced adenoma detection rate (18.7% vs 11.2%; P = .16), sessile serrated lesion detection (8.8% vs 5.6%; P = .41), and cecal intubation rate (96.7% vs 92.1%; P = .19). The 2 regimens were similarly well tolerated, but PEG 2+2L+bisacodyl was associated with a higher willingness to repeat the bowel preparation (91.2% vs 66.2%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Split-dose 4 L-PEG with 15 mg bisacodyl, along with dietary restrictions, has similar efficacy as a higher-volume preparation, and should be considered for patients who previously failed bowel preparation (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02976805).


Asunto(s)
Adenoma , Bisacodilo , Bisacodilo/efectos adversos , Catárticos/efectos adversos , Ciego , Colonoscopía/métodos , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Polietilenglicoles/efectos adversos
2.
Inflamm Bowel Dis ; 26(6): 949-959, 2020 05 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31665288

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) post-liver transplant (LT) may have bowel inflammation requiring biologic therapy. We aimed to evaluate the safety of combination biologic and antirejection therapy in IBD patients after LT from a tertiary center case series and an updated literature review. METHODS: Inflammatory bowel disease patients undergoing LT between 1985 and 2018 and requiring combination biologic and antirejection therapy post-LT were identified from the London Health Sciences Transplant Registry (Ontario, Canada). Safety outcomes were extracted by medical chart review. For an updated literature review, EMBASE, Medline, and CENTRAL were searched to identify studies evaluating the safety of combination biologic and antirejection therapy in IBD patients. RESULTS: In the case series, 19 patients were identified. Most underwent LT for primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC; 14/19, 74%) treated with anti-integrins (8/19, 42%) or tumor necrosis factor α (TNF) antagonists (6/19, 32%). Infections occurred in 11/19 (58%) patients, most commonly Clostridium difficile (4/19, 21%). Two patients required colectomy, and 1 patient required re-transplantation. In the literature review, 13 case series and 8 case reports reporting outcomes for 122 IBD patients treated with biologic and antirejection therapy post-LT were included. PSC was the indication for LT in 97/122 (80%) patients, and 91/122 (75%) patients were treated with TNF antagonists. Infections occurred in 32/122 (26%) patients, primarily Clostridium difficile (7/122, 6%). CONCLUSIONS: Inflammatory bowel disease patients receiving combination biologic and antirejection therapy post-LT appeared to be at increased risk of Clostridium difficile. Compared with the general liver transplant population in the published literature, there was no increased risk of serious infection.


Asunto(s)
Productos Biológicos/efectos adversos , Infecciones por Clostridium/etiología , Terapia de Inmunosupresión/efectos adversos , Enfermedades Inflamatorias del Intestino/tratamiento farmacológico , Trasplante de Hígado , Adulto , Anciano , Productos Biológicos/uso terapéutico , Colangitis Esclerosante/complicaciones , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Ontario , Sistema de Registros , Factores de Riesgo
3.
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr ; 40(4): 507-10, 2016 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25632031

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Malnutrition is common in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and is associated with poor outcomes. Our aim is to determine if patient self-administered malnutrition screening using the malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) is reliable by comparing patient scores with those derived from the healthcare practitioner (HCP), the gold standard. METHODS: We conducted a prospective validation study at a tertiary Canadian academic center that included 154 adult outpatients with IBD. All patients with IBD completed a self-administered nutrition screening assessment using the MUST score followed by an independent MUST assessment performed by HCPs. The main outcome measure was chance-corrected agreement (κ) of malnutrition risk categorization. RESULTS: For patient-administered MUST, the chance-corrected agreement κ (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 0.83 (0.74-0.92) when comparing low-risk and combined medium- and high-risk patients with HCP screening. Weighted κ analysis comparing all 3 risks groups yielded a κ (95% CI) of 0.85 (0.77-0.93) between patient and HCP screening. All patients were able to screen themselves. Overall, 96% of patients reported the MUST questionnaire as either very easy or easy to understand and to complete. CONCLUSION: Self-administered nutrition screening in outpatients with IBD is valid using the MUST screening tool and is easy to use. If adopted, this tool will increase utilization of malnutrition screening in hectic outpatient clinic settings and will help HCPs determine which patients require additional nutrition support.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Inflamatorias del Intestino/complicaciones , Desnutrición/diagnóstico , Pacientes Ambulatorios , Adulto , Canadá , Intervalos de Confianza , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Desnutrición/complicaciones , Tamizaje Masivo/métodos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Factores de Riesgo , Autoinforme
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA