Nativity Status Predicts Tobacco Use: A Comparative Analysis of US-Born and Foreign-Born Adults From the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS).

Introduction Tobacco smoking remains one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality globally and in the United States (USA). We hypothesize that US-born naturals have higher odds of tobacco smoking compared to their foreign-born counterparts, and our study aims to assess the relationship between nativity status and odds of tobacco smoking using a nationally representative sample. Methods We utilized the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) 5 Cycle 1 (2017) and Cycle 2 (2018) for this study. Our main outcome variable was smoking status divided as ever smoker and never smoker. The main predictor was US birth status. We controlled for sociodemographic characteristics such as age, race, gender, educational status, and marital status. We performed weighted descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis with chi-square for our variables. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression was used to ascertain the odds of our outcome given our predictor. Significance was set at 95% confidence, and the alpha level was set to 0.05. All analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Results Our final sample consisted of 5,677 individuals (weighted: 429,613,693). Of our sample, 36.89% were ever smokers, females were 50.73%, and the majority (57.90%) were high school graduates. In terms of nativity status, those born in the USA were 85.65%, while the non-US-born population was 14.35%. After adjusting for confounders, we found that non-US-born respondents had 42% lower odds of being ever smokers compared to their US-born counterparts (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.576; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.388-0.854; P = 0.0062). Females were 24% less likely to be ever smokers compared to males (AOR = 0.758; 95% CI = 0.644-0.893; P = 0.0010). Having a bachelor's degree or a graduate degree was associated with 42% and 53% lower odds of being ever smokers compared to high school graduates (AOR = 0.583; 95% CI = 0.474-0.717; P < 0.0001) (AOR = 0.471; 95% CI = 0.377-0.588; P < 0.0001). Whites had 97% higher odds of being ever smokers compared to Hispanics (AOR = 1.977; 95% CI = 1.459-2.679; P < 0.0001). Conclusion Our finding of lower odds of tobacco use among foreign-born nationals compared to US-born nationals is consistent with previous studies and suggests the need for equity in tobacco use prevention between the two populations assessed in our study. This is poised to improve overall tobacco use burden, morbidity, and mortality.

Three-Dimensional Anorectal Manometry Enhances Diagnostic Gain by Detecting Sphincter Defects and Puborectalis Pressure.

BACKGROUND: Constipation and fecal incontinence (FI) are common and are often evaluated with anorectal manometry. Three-dimensional high-resolution anorectal manometry (HRAM) is a promising technology; however, implementation has been limited by lack of metrics and unclear clinical utility. AIM: To investigate the diagnostic utility of 3D HRAM compared to 2D HRAM. METHODS: Three-dimensional HRAM studies performed from April 2012 to October 2013 were identified and re-interpreted by two blinded investigators examining 3D function. Disagreements were resolved by a third investigator. Puborectalis (PR) visualization, focal defects, and dyssynergy were reported. Differences between groups were analyzed with Fisher's exact test. Discordance was analyzed with McNemar Chi-square test. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-one 3D HRAM studies were identified. Mean age and BMI were 52.2 ± 17.4 and 27.1 ± 7.5 years (81% female, 74% white). Most common indications for 3D HRAM were constipation (65%) and FI (28%). PR function was visualized in 81% (rest), 97% (squeeze), and 73% (strain). PR was visualized less often at rest in FI than constipation (68 vs. 85%, p = 0.007). Defects were identified twice as often in FI than constipation (19 vs. 10%, p = 0.113). Twenty-nine defects (86% anterior) were visualized on 3D HRAM. Inter-reader agreement was moderate for PR function (κ = 0.471), but fair for focal defects (κ = 0.304). CONCLUSIONS: PR function and focal defects can be visualized on 3D-HRAM with added diagnostic benefit compared to 2D. Fair inter-reader agreement for focal defects highlights the need for quantitative metrics.

Safety of Propofol Used as a Rescue Agent During Colonoscopy.

GOAL: The goal of this study was to evaluate the safety of propofol when used by gastroenterologists in patients who have an inadequate response to standard sedation (narcotics and benzodiazepines). BACKGROUND: Many patients fail to achieve adequate sedation from narcotics and benzodiazepines during colonoscopy. The administration of propofol for colonoscopy is increasing, although its use by gastroenterologists is controversial. STUDY: We performed a retrospective review of our hospital's colonoscopy records from January 2006 to December 2009 to identify 403 subjects undergoing screening colonoscopies who required propofol (20 to 30 mg every 3 min as needed) because of inadequate response to standard sedation. We also randomly selected 403 controls undergoing screening colonoscopies from the same time period that only required standard sedation. The incidence of adverse effects was then compared. RESULTS: There were no major adverse events in either group. The rates of minor adverse events in the propofol and control group were 0.02 and 0.01, respectively (P=0.56). Adverse effects in the propofol group included: transient hypotension (n=1), nausea/vomiting (n=3), agitation (n=2), and rash (n=1). Adverse effects seen with standard sedation included: transient hypotension (n=2), nausea/vomiting (n=1), and oversedation (n=2). Patients who received propofol were more likely to be younger, had a history of illicit drug use, and a longer procedure time (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive propofol administered by gastroenterologist for conscious sedation was not associated with increased incidence of adverse events. It may be of value in patients who do not respond to conventional sedation.