Digestive Manifestations in Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The prevalence and significance of digestive manifestations in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain uncertain. We aimed to assess the prevalence, spectrum, severity, and significance of digestive manifestations in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: Consecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were identified across a geographically diverse alliance of medical centers in North America. Data pertaining to baseline characteristics, symptomatology, laboratory assessment, imaging, and endoscopic findings from the time of symptom onset until discharge or death were abstracted manually from electronic health records to characterize the prevalence, spectrum, and severity of digestive manifestations. Regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between digestive manifestations and severe outcomes related to COVID-19. RESULTS: A total of 1992 patients across 36 centers met eligibility criteria and were included. Overall, 53% of patients experienced at least 1 gastrointestinal symptom at any time during their illness, most commonly diarrhea (34%), nausea (27%), vomiting (16%), and abdominal pain (11%). In 74% of cases, gastrointestinal symptoms were judged to be mild. In total, 35% of patients developed an abnormal alanine aminotransferase or total bilirubin level; these were increased to less than 5 times the upper limit of normal in 77% of cases. After adjusting for potential confounders, the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms at any time (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-1.15) or liver test abnormalities on admission (odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.80-2.12) were not associated independently with mechanical ventilation or death. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, gastrointestinal symptoms and liver test abnormalities were common, but the majority were mild and their presence was not associated with a more severe clinical course.

Can We Detect Chronic Pancreatitis With Low Serum Pancreatic Enzyme Levels?

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to evaluate whether serum pancreatic enzyme levels could be used to aid screening for chronic pancreatitis (CP). METHODS: 170 healthy volunteers were screened and prospectively enrolled in the control group. 150 patients who were diagnosed with calcific CP were enrolled in the patient group by retrospective review. Serum amylase and lipase levels were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: The mean values ± SD of the control group were compared with those of the patient group for serum amylase level (48.1 ± 13.2 vs 34.8 ± 17.2 U/L, P < 0.001) and serum lipase level (26.4 ± 11.3 vs 16.3 ± 11.2 U/L, P < 0.001). On the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for amylase level, area under the curve was 0.740 (95% confidence interval), and sensitivity and specificity were 38.7% and 94.1%, respectively, with a cutoff value of 27.5 U/L. On the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis for lipase level, area under the curve was 0.748 (95% confidence interval), and sensitivity and specificity were 33.3% and 95.9%, respectively, with a cutoff value of 10.5 U/L. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that low serum pancreatic enzyme levels can be used to aid in detection of CP.

Long-term follow-up results of endoscopic treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease with the MUSE™ endoscopic stapling device.

BACKGROUND: The initial 6-month data for MUSE™ (Medigus, Omer, Israel) endoscopic stapling device were reported (Zacherl et al. in Surg Endosc 29:220-229, 2015). The current study aims to evaluate the long-term clinical outcome of 37 patients who received endoscopic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) treatment with the MUSE™ device. METHODS: Efficacy and safety data for 37 patients were analyzed at baseline, 6 months, and 4 years post-procedure. In one center (IU), efficacy and safety data were evaluated at baseline, 6 months post-procedure, and then annually up to 4 years. RESULTS: No new complications have been reported in our long-term analysis. The proportions of patients who remained off daily PPI were 83.8 % (31/37) at 6 months and 69.4 % (25/36) at 4 years post-procedure. GERD-Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) scores (off PPI) were significantly decreased from baseline to 6 months and 4 years post-procedure. The daily dosage of GERD medications, measured as omeprazole equivalents (mean ± SD, mg), decreased from 66.1 ± 33.2 at baseline to 10.8 ± 15.9 at 6 months and 12.8 ± 19.4 at 4 years post-procedure (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In our multi-center prospective study, the MUSE™ stapling device appears to be safe and effective in improving symptom scores as well as reducing PPI use in patients with GERD. These results appeared to be equal to or better than those of the other devices for endoluminal GERD therapy. Future studies with larger patient series, sham control group, and greater number of staples are awaited.

A prospective randomized trial of sham, single-dose Stretta, and double-dose Stretta for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

BACKGROUND: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a prevalent disorder that often requires long-term medical therapy or surgery. Radiofrequency (RF) energy delivery (Stretta procedure) has been shown in several studies to improve GERD symptoms and quality of life for approximately two-thirds of patients. The authors proposed that increasing the dose of Stretta would further improve the response to this therapy. METHODS: For this study, 36 patients were randomized into three groups. In group A, 12 patients underwent a single session Stretta procedure. In group B, 12 patients under went a sham Stretta procedure (mirror of the active procedure in all aspects except there was no deployment of the electrodes). In group C, 12 patients underwent a single Stretta treatment followed by repeat Stretta if GERD health-related quality of life (HRQL) was not 75% improved after 4 months. For each patient, 56 RF lesions were created per session. The principal outcome was GERD HRQL improvement. The secondary outcomes were medication use, lower esophageal sphincter (LES) basal pressure, endoscopic grade of esophagitis, and esophageal acid exposure by pH probe. RESULTS: The Stretta procedure was completed successfully for all the patients in both active treatment groups. At 12 months, the mean HRQL scores of those off medications, the LES basal pressure, the 24-h pH scores, and the proton pump inhibitor (PPI) daily dose consumption were significantly improved from baseline in both Stretta groups (p\0.01). The double Stretta was numerically but not significantly better than the single Stretta for mean HRQL, mean 24 h pH, mean LES pressure, and PPI use. Seven patients in the double Stretta treatment group had normalized their HRQL at 12 months compared with 2 patients in the single-treatment group (p = 0.035). The sham patients had a small but statistically significant decrease in their daily PPI dosages (p\0.05) and mean HRQL scores (p\0.05). No serious complications (bleeding, perforation, or death) occurred. However, two patients experienced significant delayed gastric emptying after the second Stretta treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The Stretta procedure significantly reduced GERD HRQL, use of PPI drugs, esophageal acid exposure, LES pressure, and grade of esophagitis compared with the sham procedure. The double Stretta therapy had numerically superior outcomes for most parameters and a significantly more frequent normalization of HRQL scores compared with the single Stretta.