Cat scratch esophagus

No disponible

Cat scratch esophagus.

The cat scratch esophagus is an uncommon entity. The first case described in the literature of this type of lesions was published in 2007 and was located in the colon. There are two cases described in the esophagus, this has been the first detected by endoscopic capsule. It is defined by the presence of linear, erythematous, shiny and superficial breaks of the mucosa without significant hemorrhage associated. The diagnosis is morphological. Even though the etiology is unknown, it has been postulated that the main pathogenic mechanism is barotrauma secondary to insufflation. It has also been described association with other processes that can affect the esophageal elasticity as well as the previous use of NSAIDs.

Esofagitis eosinofílica tras episodio de esofagitis herpética / Eosinophilic esophagitis after an episode of herpetic esophagitis

No disponible

Tasa de detección de adenomas e intubación cecal: indicadores de calidad de la colonoscopia / Adenoma detection rate and cecal intubation rate: Quality indicators for colonoscopy

No disponible

Eosinophilic esophagitis after an episode of herpetic esophagitis.

We want to present a case of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) after a herpetic esophagitis (HE) to increase the available evidence on the association suggested between both entities recently published by Iriarte Rodríguez et al.

Hallazgo inesperado de colon en arañazo de gato en una colonoscopia de cribado / An unexpected finding of cat scratch colon in a screening colonoscopy

No disponible

Influencia de la experiencia acumulada del explorador en el valor predictivo negativo de la cápsula endoscópica / Impact of the endoscopist's experience on the negative predictive value of capsule endoscopy

INTRODUCCIÓN: La influencia de la experiencia acumulada del médico que interpreta cápsulas endoscópicas sobre su capacidad diagnóstica es discutida. OBJETIVO: Determinar si existen diferencias en el valor predictivo negativo de las cápsulas endoscópicas informadas por los mismos endoscopistas a lo largo del tiempo. MÉTODOS: Revisamos las 900 primeras cápsulas endoscópicas realizadas por tres gastroenterólogos expertos en endoscopia durante 8 años. Se dividieron en 3 grupos de 300 cápsulas cada uno. El grupo 1 fue la suma de las tres primeras centenas informadas por cada uno, el grupo 2 la suma de las tres segundas centenas y el grupo 3 la suma de las tres terceras centenas. Se hizo un seguimiento mínimo de 28 meses a los casos con exploración normal. RESULTADOS: Aunque se consideraron normales el 18% de las cápsulas del grupo 1, el 19,3% de las del grupo 2 y el 15,6% de las del grupo 3, solo fue posible seguir y finalmente analizar a 34 enfermos en el grupo 1, a 38 en el 2 y a 36 en el 3. Sobre estos casos, el valor predictivo negativo fue del 88,2% en el grupo 1, del 89,5% en el grupo 2 y del 97% en el grupo 3 (p > 0,05). CONCLUSIÓN: El valor predictivo negativo de la cápsula endoscópica, aunque con tendencia a aumentar, se mantiene alto y sin diferencias significativas desde las 100 primeras exploraciones si los médicos que la interpretan son expertos en endoscopia convencional y tienen formación específica previa

INTRODUCTION: The impact of the accumulated experience of the capsule endoscopy (CE) reader on the accuracy of this test is discussed. AIM: To determine whether the negative predictive value of CE findings changes along the learning curve. METHODS: We reviewed the first 900 CE read by 3 gastroenterologists experienced in endoscopy over 8 years. These 900 CE were divided into 3 groups (300 CE each): group 1 consisted of the sum of the first 100 CE read by each of the 3 endoscopists; group 2, the sum of the second 100 and groups 3, the sum of the third 100. Patients with normal CE were monitored for at least 28 months to estimate the negative predictive value. RESULTS: A total of 54 (18%) CE in group 1, 58 (19.3%) in group 2 and 47 (15.6%) in group 3 were normal, although only 34 patients in group 1, 38 in group 2 and 36 in group 3 with normal CE completed follow up and were eventually studied. The negative predictive value was 88.2% in group 1, 89.5% in group 2 and 97% in group 3 (P > .05). CONCLUSION: The negative predictive value tended to increase, but remained high and did not change significantly after the first 100 when readers are experienced in conventional endoscopy and have preliminary specific training

Impact of the endoscopist's experience on the negative predictive value of capsule endoscopy. / Influencia de la experiencia acumulada del explorador en el valor predictivo negativo de la cápsula endoscópica.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of the accumulated experience of the capsule endoscopy (CE) reader on the accuracy of this test is discussed. AIM: To determine whether the negative predictive value of CE findings changes along the learning curve. METHODS: We reviewed the first 900 CE read by 3 gastroenterologists experienced in endoscopy over 8 years. These 900 CE were divided into 3 groups (300 CE each): group 1 consisted of the sum of the first 100 CE read by each of the 3 endoscopists; group 2, the sum of the second 100 and groups 3, the sum of the third 100. Patients with normal CE were monitored for at least 28 months to estimate the negative predictive value. RESULTS: A total of 54 (18%) CE in group 1, 58 (19.3%) in group 2 and 47 (15.6%) in group 3 were normal, although only 34 patients in group 1, 38 in group 2 and 36 in group 3 with normal CE completed follow up and were eventually studied. The negative predictive value was 88.2% in group 1, 89.5% in group 2 and 97% in group 3 (P>.05). CONCLUSION: The negative predictive value tended to increase, but remained high and did not change significantly after the first 100 when readers are experienced in conventional endoscopy and have preliminary specific training.

Diffuse intestinal ganglioneuromatosis an uncommon manifestation of Cowden syndrome.

Diffuse intestinal ganglioneuromatosis is a hamartomatous polyposis characterized by a disseminated, intramural or transmural proliferation of neural elements involving the enteric plexuses. It has been associated with MEN II, neurofibromatosis type 1 and hamartomatous polyposis associated with phosphatase and tensin homolog mutation. We report the case of a female patient with a history of a breast and endometrial tumor who presented in a colonoscopy performed for rectal bleeding diffuse ganglioneuromatosis, which oriented the search for other characteristic findings of Cowden syndrome given the personal history of the patient. The presence of an esophagogastric polyposis was also noted. Cowden syndrome is characterized by skin lesions, but it is rarely diagnosed by these lesions, because they are usually overlooked. Intestinal polyposis is not a major diagnostic criterion but it is very useful for early diagnosis. The combination of colonic polyposis and glucogenic acanthosis should orient the diagnosis to Cowden syndrome.

[Comparison between insufflation with air or carbon dioxide during the colonoscopy in sedated patients with propofol]. / Comparación entre la insuflación con aire ambiente o con dióxido de carbono durante la colonoscopia en pacientes sedados con propofol.

OBJECTIVES: compare the intensity of pain experienced after colonoscopy with air or with CO2 and evaluate the safety of CO2 in colonoscopies performed with moderate/deep sedation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: individuals undergoing ambulatory colonoscopy without exclusion criteria (severe respiratory disease, morbid obesity) were randomized in air or CO2 group. We recorded different variables prior to, during and upon completion of the colonoscopy, performing monitoring using pulse oximetry and capnography. Each patient rated, using a visual numeric scale, the intensity of post-colonoscopy pain at different moments. RESULTS: 141 individuals in the air group (sex M/F 63/78, age 24-83) and the CO2 group (sex M/F 59/70, age 24-82). No significant differences existed in the recorded variables in both groups except for the greater number of explorations performed by an endoscopist in training (TE) in the air group compared to those by a more experienced endoscopist (SE). CO2 in expired air, episodes of oxygen desaturation and of apnoea and dose of propofol, of midazolam were similar in both groups. No episodes of hypercapnea or any complication requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation measures were recorded. The pain in the air group was significantly higher at 15 minutes and at 1, 3 and 6 hours after the endoscopy, equalising at 24 hours. After multivariant adjustment for type of doctor (TE vs. SE) the differences observed in pain intensity for each group were maintained. CONCLUSIONS: a) the use of CO2 in colonoscopy causes significantly less pain in the first 6 hours after the procedure; b) its use in patients with moderate/deep sedation is safe; and c) performance of the endoscopic technique is not modified, nor are times reduced.

Comparación entre la insuflación con aire ambiente o con dióxido de carbono durante la colonoscopia en pacientes sedados con propofol / Comparison between insufflation with air or carbon dioxide during the colonoscopy in sedated patients with propofol

Objetivos: comparar la intensidad del dolor experimentado tras una colonoscopia con aire ambiente o con dióxido de carbono (CO2) y evaluar la seguridad del CO2 en pacientes con sedación moderada o profunda. Materiales y métodos: individuos sometidos a una colonoscopia ambulatoria, sin enfermedad respiratoria severa ni obesidad mórbida, randomizados a grupo "aire" o "CO2". Se recogieron diferentes variables antes, durante y tras la colonoscopia. Todos los pacientes fueron monitorizados mediante capnografía y pulsioximetría. Posteriormente cada paciente puntuó mediante una escala visual numérica la intensidad del dolor experimentado en diferentes momentos tras la colonoscopia. Resultados: 141 pacientes incluidos en grupo "aire" (hombres/ mujeres 63/78, rango edad 24-83) y 129 en "CO2" (hombres/mujeres 59/70, rango edad 24-82). No existieron diferencias significativas entre ambos grupos a excepción del mayor número de exploraciones realizadas por un endoscopista en formación en el grupo "aire" en comparación con las realizadas por endoscopistas experimentados. El CO2 en aire espirado, los episodios de desaturación de oxígeno y las dosis de propofol o midazolam empleadas fueron similares en ambos grupos. No existieron episodios de hipercapnia severos ni complicaciones clínicamente relevantes. El dolor experimentado en el grupo "aire" fue significativamente mayor a los 15 minutos, 1, 3 y 6 horas tras la colonoscopia, igualándose a las 24 horas. Tras la realización de un análisis multivariante según el tipo de endoscopista (experimentado o en formación) las diferencias observadas en la intensidad del dolor en cada grupo se mantuvieron. Conclusiones: a) el uso de CO2 en la colonoscopia causa significativamente menos dolor en las siguientes 6 horas; b) su uso en pacientes con sedación moderada o profunda es seguro; y c) la realización de la técnica no se ve modificada ni sus tiempos reducidos(AU)

Objectives: compare the intensity of pain experienced after colonoscopy with air or with CO2 and evaluate the safety of CO2 in colonoscopies performed with moderate/deep sedation. Materials and methods: individuals undergoing ambulatory colonoscopy without exclusion criteria (severe respiratory disease, morbid obesity) were randomized in air or CO2 group. We recorded different variables prior to, during and upon completion of the colonoscopy, performing monitoring using pulse oximetry and capnography. Each patient rated, using a visual numeric scale, the intensity of post-colonoscopy pain at different moments. Results: 141 individuals in the air group (sex M/F 63/78, age 24-83) and 129 in the CO2 group (sex M/F 59/70, age 24-82). No significant differences existed in the recorded variables in both groups except for the greater number of explorations performed by an endoscopist in training (TE) in the air group compared to those by a more experienced endoscopist (SE). CO2 in expired air, episodes of oxygen desaturation and of apnoea and dose of propofol, of midazolam were similar in both groups. No episodes of hypercapnea or any complication requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation measures were recorded. The pain in the air group was significantly higher at 15 minutes and at 1, 3 and 6 hours after the endoscopy, equalising at 24 hours. After multivariant adjustment for type of doctor (TE vs. SE) the differences observed in pain intensity for each group were maintained. Conclusions: a) the use of CO2 in colonoscopy causes significantly less pain in the first 6 hours after the procedure; b) its use in patients with moderate/deep sedation is safe; and c) performance of the endoscopic technique is not modified, nor are times reduced(AU)