RÉSUMÉ
GOALS: The present survey from the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED-Società Italiana di Endoscopia Digestiva) was aimed at reporting infection control practice and outcomes at Digestive Endoscopy Units in a high-incidence area. BACKGROUND: Lombardy was the Italian region with the highest coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) prevalence, at the end of March 2020 accounting for 20% of all worldwide deaths. Joint Gastro-Intestinal societies released recommendations for Endoscopy Units to reduce the risk of the contagion. However, there are few data from high-prevalence areas on adherence to these recommendations and on their efficacy. METHODS: A survey was designed by the Lombardy section of SIED to analyze (a) changes in activity and organization, (b) adherence to recommendations, (c) rate of health care professionals' (HCP) infection during the COVID-19 outbreak. RESULTS: In total, 35/61 invited centers (57.4%) participated; most modified activities were according to recommendations and had filtering face piece 2/filtering face piece 3 and water-repellent gowns available, but few had negative-pressure rooms or provided telephonic follow-up; 15% of HCPs called in sick and 6% had confirmed COVID-19. There was a trend (P=0.07) toward different confirmed COVID-19 rates among endoscopists (7.9%), nurses (6.6%), intermediate-care technicians (3.4%), and administrative personnel (2.2%). There was no correlation between the rate of sick HCPs and COVID-19 incidence in the provinces and personal protective equipment availability and use, whereas an inverse correlation with hospital volume was found. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to recommendations was rather good, though a minority were able to follow all recommendations. Confirmed COVID-19 seemed higher among endoscopists and nurses, suggesting that activities in the endoscopy rooms are at considerable viral spread risk.
Sujet(s)
COVID-19 , Endoscopie gastrointestinale , Humains , Prévention des infections , Italie/épidémiologie , SARS-CoV-2RÉSUMÉ
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is effective and safe for the removal of neoplastic lesions in the general population, but its role in patients with cirrhosis is not clear. We evaluated data on feasibility and safety of ESD for gastric lesions in cirrhotic patients. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature with pooled-data analysis was performed. Data of all consecutive cirrhotics who underwent ESD for gastric neoplastic lesions in a single centre were also reported. RESULTS: In reviewing the published literature, 68 ESD procedures for gastric neoplastic lesions have been performed in 61 cirrhotics, including 5 patients from our experience. En bloc removal and the R0 resection were successful in 88.2% and 89.7% of procedures, respectively. Post-ESD bleeding occurred in 8 (13.1%) patients, and perforation in 1 (1.6%). All patients were successfully managed by endoscopic treatment. No procedure-related death was observed. Patients with advanced cirrhosis, with either INR >1.33 and/or platelets count <105,000/cmm should be regarded at increased risk of bleeding following ESD. CONCLUSIONS: ESD for gastric neoplastic lesions in cirrhotics is an effective and relatively safe procedure. Procedure-related bleeding is a frequent complication, but can be successfully managed endoscopically.
Sujet(s)
Dissection , Endoscopie gastrointestinale , Tumeurs de l'estomac/chirurgie , Muqueuse gastrique/chirurgie , Humains , Cirrhose du foie/complications , Tumeurs de l'estomac/complicationsRÉSUMÉ
OBJECTIVES: Efficacy of symbiotics in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) remains unknown. METHODS: Patients were randomized to a prebiotic (n=135), or a symbiotic formulation containing Lactobacillus paracasei B21060 (Flortec, n=132). Primary efficacy was the responder rate for pain and global relief of symptoms in the overall population and in patients with predominant diarrhea (n=47). Post hoc time-trend analyses for changes within each treatment were carried out. RESULTS: Patients with absent/mild pain amounted to 54.7% in the symbiotic group and to 57.4% in the prebiotic group at treatment week 4, and to 53.9% and 53.4% at the end of treatment. Patients with amelioration of well-being were, respectively, 60.7% versus 61.7% at treatment week 4, and 63.3% versus 60.9% at the end of treatment. Within each treatment group, patients with absent/mild pain increased in the Flortec and the prebiotic group, but time trend analyses were significant only for Flortec (P=0.019). In IBS-predominant diarrhea, Flortec significantly reduced bowel movements, pain, and IBS scores. CONCLUSIONS: To improve pain and well-being, Flortec is encouraging in patients with diarrhea predominant IBS. To establish its efficacy for the majority of IBS patients, Flortec has to be compared with an inert placebo in future work.