Neumatosis quística intestinal / Pneumatosis cystoides intestinalis

No disponible

Paciente con ductopenia idiopática del adulto / Patient with adult idiopathic ductopenia

No disponible

Paciente con ductopenia idiopática del adulto / Patient with adult idiopathic ductopenia

No disponible

Cistoadenocarcinoma mucinoso de apéndice: diagnóstico endoscópico / Appendiceal mucinous cystoadenocarcinoma: endoscopic diagnosis

No disponible

[Lower gastrointestinal bleeding due to Dieulafoy's in the upper colon]. / Hemorragia digestiva baja por Dieulafoy de colon ascendente.

Dieulafoy's lesion is a vascular anomaly generally located in the proximal stomach, although it has also been documented in other areas such as the colorectum. It is mainly found in men aged between 50 and 70 years, and represents less than 2% of acute gastrointestinal hemorrhagic episodes.A 66-year-old woman who was undergoing oral Diclofenac treatment presented with black stools. Endoscopy revealed acute duodenal erosions with no signs of bleeding. Black stools persisted after Diclofenac was discontinued and omeprazole treatment was started and the patient was admitted to hospital after 7 days. Colonoscopy revealed active bleeding in the upper colon, which ceased after sclerosis with ethanolamine oleate. The patient was discharged from hospital but was readmitted 10 days later because of rebleeding. The results of upper endoscopy were normal and colonoscopy performed 3 days later detected neither lesions nor bleeding. The pathogenesis of Dieulafoy's lesion is not well known, although it could be caused by erosion of the mucous lining of a vessel. Definitive diagnosis is histologic, although certain endoscopic diagnostic signs have been described. Endoscopic diagnosis is sometimes difficult; in such cases, arteriography should be employed, both for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. The treatment of choice is endoscopic and the use of two hemostatic methods is advisable. If these procedures fail, surgery is required. Arteriography is the most suitable alternative in patients who are poor candidates for surgery.

[The treatment of upper digestive hemorrhage of peptic origin: intravenous ranitidine versus intravenous omeprazole]. / Tratamiento de la hemorragia digestiva alta de origen péptico: Ranitidina intravenosa versus Omeprazol intravenoso.

OBJECT: To evaluate the effectiveness of Ranitidine i.v. versus Omeprazole i.v. for gastrointestinal bleeding of peptic origin. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective, comparative, randomized and open study of 81 in-patients, hospitalized consecutively during 13 months, with gastrointestinal bleeding of peptic origin and signs of recent hemostasis (S.R.H.), belonging to the groups Forrest Ib and II. Treatment groups: group A: Ranitidine: initial injection of 50 mg. i.v., followed by 100 mg/6 hours i.v., during the first 72 hours and afterwards by 150 mg/12 hours, orally; group B: Omeprazole: initial injection of 80 mg. i.v., followed by 40 mg/8 hours i.v. during the first 72 hours and afterwards by 20 mg/24 hours, orally. Evaluation criteria: persistent haematemesis and melena; need for transfusions: treatment failure average period of hospitalization and disappearance of S.R.H. after 72 hours. RESULTS: 43 patients received Ranitidine and 38 Omeprazole. Both groups were homogeneous in regard to variables ar hospitalization. No significant differences were found between these two groups: persistent melena (26% group A vs. 8% group B); patients who needed transfusion (39% vs. 31%); treatment failure (19% vs. 5%); average period of hospitalization; and disappearance of S.R.H. (81% vs. 95%). None of the patients died. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of Ranitidine i.v. and Omeprazole i.v., in the dosage used and in a selected group of patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, is similar. However, there is a trend to register less treatment failures and a higher percentage of S.R.H. disappearance with the patients treated with Omeprazole. Further studies with more patients are necessary to confirm this tendency.