Alta prevalencia de infección por SARS-CoV-2 en pacientes programados para endoscopia digestiva después del pico de la primera onda pandémica / High prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients scheduled for digestive endoscopy after the peak of the first wave of the pandemic

Objetivo: Describir la detección del SARS-CoV-2, en una serie de pacientes, programados para endoscopia digestiva en el Hospital Santa Caterina. Salt. (Girona). Métodos: Estudio descriptivo de una serie de casos de pacientes programados para endoscopia durante el mes de mayo de 2020, en el reinicio de la actividad endoscópica después del pico pandémico, siguiendo las recomendaciones de SCD, SEED, AEG y ESGE. Examinamos muestras nasofaríngeas 48-72 horas antes de la cita, mediante RT-PCR a todos los pacientes. La extracción del ARN se hizo mediante kits: Qiagen®-adaptado, BiosSprint®96-DNA-Blood-Kit (384). Para amplificación-detección del SARS-CoV-2 se siguieron métodos recomendados por la OMS y el CDC. Resultados: Se programaron 110 pacientes asintomáticos sin contacto estrecho con positivo los 14 días previos; 105 (96,4%) fueron negativos y 5 (4,5%) positivos. Dos pacientes desarrollaron clínica respiratoria después del diagnóstico (presintomáticos) y 3 continuaron asintomáticos. Los 5 pacientes eran casos autóctonos y sin antecedentes de viaje o residencia en otra ciudad o país asociado a alta prevalencia de infección. Cuatro casos fueron mujeres entre 60-81 años. El gen N fue detectado en todos los casos. Conclusiones: Se detectó una alta prevalencia de infección por SARS-CoV-2 en pacientes programados por endoscopia digestiva. Dado el riesgo de transmisión a los profesionales, consideramos recomendable realizar RT-PCR del SARS-CoV-2 48-72 horas antes de la exploración en situaciones de alta incidencia poblacional.(AU)

Objective: To describe the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a series of patients scheduled for digestive endoscopy at the Hospital Santa Caterina. Salt. (Girona). Methods: Descriptive study of a series of cases of patients scheduled for endoscopy during the month of May 2020, when endoscopic activity was resumed after the peak of the pandemic, following SCD, SEED, AEG and ESGE recommendations. We examined nasopharyngeal samples 48-72 hours before the appointment, by RT-PCR, in all patients. RNA extraction was performed using the kits: Qiagen®-adapted, BiosSprint®96-DNA-Blood-Kit (384). For amplification-detection of SARS-CoV-2, methods recommended by the WHO and the CDC were followed. Results: 110 asymptomatic patients without close contact with a positive case in the previous 14 days were scheduled; 105 (96.4%) were negative and five (4.5%) were positive. Two patients developed respiratory symptoms after diagnosis (presymptomatic) and three remained asymptomatic. Allfive5 patients were autochthonous cases with no history of travel or residence in another city or country associated with high prevalence of infection. Four cases were women aged 60-81 years. The N gene was detected in all cases. Conclusions: A high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was detected in patients scheduled for digestive endoscopy. Given the risk of transmission to professionals, we consider it advisable to perform SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR 48-72 hours before the examination in situations of high incidence in the population.(AU)

High prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients scheduled for digestive endoscopy after the peak of the first wave of the pandemic. / Alta prevalencia de infección por SARS-CoV-2 en pacientes programados para endoscopia digestiva después del pico de la primera onda pandémica.

Healthcare professionals in endoscopy units have a possible risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by different routes: inhalation of airborne droplets, aerosols, conjunctival contact and faecal-oral transmission. OBJECTIVE: To describe the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in a series of patients scheduled for digestive endoscopy at the Hospital Santa Caterina. Salt. (Girona). METHODS: Descriptive study of a series of cases of patients scheduled for endoscopy during the month of May 2020, when endoscopic activity was resumed after the peak of the pandemic, following SCD, SEED, AEG and ESGE recommendations. We examined nasopharyngeal samples 48-72 hours before the appointment, by RT-PCR, in all patients. RNA extraction was performed using the kits: Qiagen®-adapted, BiosSprint®96-DNA-Blood-Kit (384). For amplification-detection of SARS-CoV-2, methods recommended by the WHO and the CDC were followed. RESULTS: 110 asymptomatic patients without close contact with a positive case in the previous 14 days were scheduled; 105 (96.4%) were negative and five (4.5%) were positive. Two patients developed respiratory symptoms after diagnosis (presymptomatic) and three remained asymptomatic. Allfive5 patients were autochthonous cases with no history of travel or residence in another city or country associated with high prevalence of infection. Four cases were women aged 60-81 years. The N gene was detected in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: A high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was detected in patients scheduled for digestive endoscopy. Given the risk of transmission to professionals, we consider it advisable to perform SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR 48-72 hours before the examination in situations of high incidence in the population.

Norfloxacin vs ceftriaxone in the prophylaxis of infections in patients with advanced cirrhosis and hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Oral norfloxacin is the standard of therapy in the prophylaxis of bacterial infections in cirrhotic patients with gastrointestinal hemorrhage. However, during the last years, the epidemiology of bacterial infections in cirrhosis has changed, with a higher incidence of infections caused by quinolone-resistant bacteria. This randomized controlled trial was aimed to compare oral norfloxacin vs intravenous ceftriaxone in the prophylaxis of bacterial infection in cirrhotic patients with gastrointestinal bleeding. METHODS: One hundred eleven patients with advanced cirrhosis (at least 2 of the following: ascites, severe malnutrition, encephalopathy, or bilirubin >3 mg/dL) and gastrointestinal hemorrhage were randomly treated with oral norfloxacin (400 mg twice daily; n = 57) or intravenous ceftriaxone (1 g/day; n = 54) for 7 days. The end point of the trial was the prevention of bacterial infections within 10 days after inclusion. RESULTS: Clinical data were comparable between groups. The probability of developing proved or possible infections, proved infections, and spontaneous bacteremia or spontaneous bacterial peritonitis was significantly higher in patients receiving norfloxacin (33% vs 11%, P = .003; 26% vs 11%, P = .03; and 12% vs 2%, P = .03, respectively). The type of antibiotic used (norfloxacin), transfusion requirements at inclusion, and failure to control bleeding were independent predictors of infection. Seven gram-negative bacilli were isolated in the norfloxacin group, and 6 were quinolone resistant. Non-enterococcal streptococci were only isolated in the norfloxacin group. No difference in hospital mortality was observed between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous ceftriaxone is more effective than oral norfloxacin in the prophylaxis of bacterial infections in patients with advanced cirrhosis and hemorrhage.

Hepatotoxicidad por Camelia sinensis / Hepatotoxicity due to Camelia sinensis

No disponible

Spironolactone alone or in combination with furosemide in the treatment of moderate ascites in nonazotemic cirrhosis. A randomized comparative study of efficacy and safety.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The most rational treatment of moderate ascites is spironolactone alone or in combination with furosemide. However, it is unknown which of these two treatment schedules is preferable. METHODS: One hundred nonazotemic cirrhotic patients with moderate ascites were randomly assigned to be treated with spironolactone and furosemide (Group 1: 50 patients) or with spironolactone alone (Group 2: 50 patients). If no response was obtained, the doses of diuretics were increased up to 400 mg/day of spironolactone and 160 mg/day of furosemide. In patients of group 2 not responding to 400 mg/day of spironolactone, furosemide was added. In cases with an excessive response, the dosage of diuretics was reduced. RESULTS: The response rate (98% in Group 1 vs. 94% in Group 2), the rapidity of ascites mobilization and the incidence of complications induced by diuretic therapy was similar in both groups. The need to reduce the diuretic dosage was significantly higher in Group 1 than Group 2 (68% vs. 34%; P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of moderate ascites, spironolactone alone seems to be as safe and effective as spironolactone associated with furosemide. Since spironolactone alone requires less dose adjustment, it would be more suitable for treating ascites on an outpatient basis.

Impact of physician specialty on the cost of nonvariceal upper GI bleeding care.

OBJECTIVE: Upper GI bleeding (UGIB) is a common medical emergency that leads to a high consumption of medical resources and costs. We aimed to analyze the influence of physician specialty on the costs of nonvariceal UGIB care. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed 350 nonvariceal UGIB episodes that were primarily cared for by gastroenterologists (n = 142), internists (n = 67), or surgeons (n = 141). Gastroenterologists followed evidence-based clinical protocols that included early endoscopy and early hospital discharge for uncomplicated bleeding. A risk score system was used to control for severity of illness. Linear regression analyses were performed to find out predictors of costs and the influence of specialist care on length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: The overall mean hospital cost was significantly lower in patients cared for by gastroenterologists (EUR 1,630) than in those managed by internists (EUR 3,745, p < 0.001) or surgeons (EUR 2,513, p < 0.05). The mean LOS was the variable with highest influence on total cost. Patients cared for by gastroenterologists had a mean LOS significantly shorter (7.3 days) than that of those treated by internists (16.2 days, p < 0.001) or surgeons (11 days, p < 0.001). Hospital costs and LOS differences were maintained when adjusting for severity of illness. In caring for low risk patients, nongastroenterologists had a higher probability of having a hospital stay longer than 4 days (odds ratio = 18.4, Cl = 4.6-73.6, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The implementation of specific evidence-based protocols by gastroenterologists reduces length of hospital stay and saves medical costs in patients with nonvariceal UGIB, especially those at low risk.

[Induction therapy with interferon alfa-2a in compensated hepatitis C virus-related cirrhosis. Randomized, multicenter study]. / Terapia de inducción con interferón alfa-2a en la cirrosis por el virus de la hepatitis C compensada. Estudio multicéntrico aleatorizado.

BACKGROUND: Although standard dose interferon (IFN) is successful in only 5% of patients with compensated hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related cirrhosis, it has been suggested that this therapy might decrease the risk of complications or the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma. Based on HCV kinetics, daily IFN may improve response rates. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Forty cirrhotic patients were randomised to receive (Group I: 19) or not (Group II: 21) treatment with IFN (4.5 MU/daily for 24 weeks, followed by 4.5 MU/48 hours for a further 24 weeks period, only if ALT was within normal values). RESULTS: Dose reduction and discontinuation for adverse events was required in 11 (58%) and 6 (31.5%) cases, respectively. End-of-treatment response was not observed in any of the 21 controls but in 4 of the 19 (21%) treated patients (p = 0.04); a sustained response was achieved in only 2 treated patients (10.5%). The 3-year probability of developing any of the following: ascites, hepatocellular carcinoma, transplantation or death was lower in Group I than in Group II (6% vs 27%; p = 0.05). CONCLUSION: Although induction IFN therapy is associated with common side effects and poor sustained response in compensated HCV-related cirrhosis, it might improve the outcome of patients at the medium-term.

Terapia de inducción con interferón alfa-2a en la cirrosis por el virus de la hepatitis C compensada. Estudio multicéntrico aleatorizado / Induction therapy with interferon alfa-2a in compensated hepatitis C virus-related cirrhosis. Randomized, multicenter study

FUNDAMENTO: Aunque el tratamiento con interferón (IFN) a las dosis estándar sólo consigue una respuesta persistente en el 5 por ciento de los pacientes con cirrosis debida al virus de la hepatitis C (CVHC), se ha planteado que podría disminuir el riesgo de complicaciones y la incidencia de hepatocarcinoma. Teniendo en cuenta los estudios cinéticos del virus de la hepatitis C (VHC), la terapia de inducción con IFN podría aumentar las tasas de respuesta al tratamiento. PACIENTES Y MÉTODO: Cuarenta pacientes con CVHC compensada fueron distribuidos al azar para recibir (grupo I = 19) o no (grupo II = 21) tratamiento con IFN (4,5 MU/día durante 6 meses, seguidos de 4,5 MU/días alternos durante 6 meses más, sólo si la ALT se había normalizado). RESULTADOS: El tratamiento con IFN hubo de reducirse o interrumpirse por efectos adversos en 11 (58 por ciento) y seis (31,5 por ciento) casos, respectivamente. La respuesta al final del tratamiento se observó en 4 pacientes del grupo I (21 por ciento), que fue persistente en dos (10,5 por ciento), y en ninguno del grupo II (p = 0,04 y NS, respectivamente). La probabilidad global de presentar ascitis, hepatocarcinoma y/o muerte o trasplante hepático fue menor en el grupo I que en el II (el 6 frente al 27 por ciento a los tres años; p = 0,05). CONCLUSIONES: Aunque la terapia de inducción con IFN en la CVHC compensada se asocia a frecuentes efectos adversos e induce una respuesta persistente en una proporción baja de pacientes, podría mejorar el pronóstico a medio plazo de los pacientes. (AU)