RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) is often found in patients with gut dysbiosis such as irritable bowel syndrome. Recently, the association of SIBO and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has been described in some cases. While clinical symptoms might be similar in IBD and SIBO, treatment is quite different for both diseases. Therefore, the differentiation between SIBO or a flare in IBD patients is key to optimizing treatment for these patients. METHODS: We retrospectively investigated our patients with IBD receiving a glucose breath test for SIBO and correlated the results with the clinical symptoms (clinical remission or active disease). RESULTS: 128 patients with the diagnosis "colitis" were analyzed in our cohort. Fifty-three (41.4%) patients had Crohn's disease and 22 (17.2%) patients were suffering from ulcerative colitis. Seventy-four (57.8%) were female and 54 (42.2%) were male patients. A total of 18 (14.1%) patients had a positive testing for SIBO. Eleven (61.1%) cases were associated with CD patients and two (11.1%) with UC. IBD patients in clinical remission had a positive SIBO in six (19.4%) cases, while IBD patients with active disease were positive in nine (15.3%) cases. The proportion of positive SIBO in active IBD patients was higher; however, it did not reach significance. Older age was a risk factor for SIBO in patients with CD (p < 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, we could show that an increased amount of SIBO was found in IBD patients and was especially more frequent in patients with CD than in those with UC. In UC patients, SIBO rates were not different to patients with other gastrointestinal diseases investigated (e.g., infectious colitis, collagenous colitis, or irritable bowel syndrome). In active IBD, positive SIBO was detected more often numerically compared to quiescent disease; however, due to the low number of patients included, it was not significant. However, older age was a significant risk factor for SIBO in patients with CD. SIBO is of clinical relevance in the vulnerable patient cohort with IBD, and its real prevalence and impact needs to be investigated in further and larger clinical trials.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) with submucosal injection is the current standard for the resection of large, nonmalignant colorectal polyps. We investigated whether underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is superior to CEMR for large (20-40mm) sessile or flat colorectal polyps. METHODS: In this prospective randomized controlled study, patients with sessile or flat colorectal polyps between 20 and 40 mm in size were randomly assigned to UEMR or CEMR. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate after 6 months. Secondary outcomes included en bloc and R0 resection rates, number of resected pieces, procedure time, and adverse events. RESULTS: En bloc resection rates were 33.3% in the UEMR group and 18.4% in the CEMR group (P = .045); R0 resection rates were 32.1% and 15.8% for UEMR vs CEMR, respectively (P = .025). UEMR was performed with significantly fewer pieces compared to CEMR (2 pieces: 45.5% UEMR vs 17.7% CEMR; P = .001). The overall recurrence rate did not differ between both groups (P = .253); however, subgroup analysis showed a significant difference in favor of UEMR for lesions of >30 mm to ≤40 mm in size (P = .031). The resection time was significantly shorter in the UEMR group (8 vs 14 minutes; P < .001). Adverse events did not differ between both groups (P = .611). CONCLUSIONS: UEMR is superior to CEMR regarding en bloc resection, R0 resection, and procedure time for large colorectal lesions and shows significantly lower recurrence rates for lesions >30 mm to ≤40 mm in size. UEMR should be considered for the endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps.
