Effectiveness and safety of intravenous dexmedetomidine sedation for ophthalmic surgery under regional anesthesia.

PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of intravenous (IV) dexmedetomidine for sedation in ophthalmic surgery. METHODS: Prospective, observational, uncontrolled, single-center study. Patients were sedated with a continuous dexmedetomidine IV infusion started 15 min before regional anesthesia administration and maintained up to the end of surgery. Effectiveness of dexmedetomidine was assessed by the Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation (MOAA/S) targeted at 5. Safety was assessed by the incidence of patients' movements/snoring and by the incidence of respiratory and haemodynamic complications. An eleven-point numerical rating scale (NRS) was used to assess the level of satisfaction of both the surgeon and the patient. RESULTS: 123 patients (73 males, mean age: 63 ± 13) were included; 81 (81/123; 65.8%) patients reached the requested MOAA/S score of 5. Any intraoperative movement - mostly voluntary - occurred in 34 (34/123; 27.6%) cases with no need for a switch to general anaesthesia; no ocular complications related to the intraoperative movements occurred. Intraoperative snoring occurred in 30 (30/123; 24.4%) patients and it did not affect the surgical manoeuvres. Respiratory drive depression requiring manual or mechanical ventilation never occurred. Bradycardia occurred in 14 (14/123; 11.3%), cases but only 4 (4/123; 3.2%) patients required atropine administration, which was always effective. Intraoperative analgesia was consistently obtained and both the surgeons and the patients reported a high NRS satisfaction score. CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine provided adequate sedation in patients undergoing ocular surgery under local anaesthesia and showed a good effectiveness and safety profile. Upper airway obstruction, apnoea and snoring can occur.

The impact of covid-19 pandemic on urgent endoscopy in Italy: a nation-wide multicenter study.

Objective: COVID-19 pandemic has seriously affected Italy. Radical changes occurred in the Italian NHS and thus in GI departments, as only urgent endoscopies were guaranteed. The study aimed to report how the demand for urgent endoscopy changed during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy and to evaluate the appropriateness of urgent referrals in the Endoscopy Unit.Material and methods: Nation-wide, cross-sectional survey study in 54 Italian GI Units. Data were collected regarding urgent endoscopies (EGD, CS, ERCP) in two different time periods: March 2019 and March 2020.Results: Thirty-five (64.8%) GI endoscopy Units responded to the survey. The entity of reduction of overall urgent EGDs and CSs performed in March 2020 versus March 2019 was statistically significant: 541 versus 974 (-80%), p < .001 for EGD and 171 versus 265 (-55%), p < .008, for CS, respectively. No statistically significant reduction of urgent ERCP performed in March 2020 versus March 2019 was found. The increase in overall diagnostic yield for urgent EGD in March 2020 versus March 2019 was 7.3% (CI [0.028-0.117], p = .001). No statistically significant difference in diagnostic yield for CS between 2019 and 2020 was found.Conclusion: The study showed a statistically significant reduction of urgent EGD and CS performed during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, in March 2020, compared to March 2019. The diagnostic yield of urgent EGD performed in March 2020 was significantly higher than that of March 2019. No statistically significant difference was found in terms of diagnostic yield of urgent CS between March 2020 and March 2019.

Nonbiological therapeutic management of ulcerative colitis.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC) is constantly evolving. In the last two decades, new therapeutic strategies have been implemented by addressing specific disease mechanisms: biological agents against tumor necrosis factor-α and integrins are now widely used, and more agents targeting different pathological pathways are being marketed. Despite these novel therapies, nonbiological drugs are still the mainstay of treatment, especially in mild-to-moderate disease, since a proven safety and tolerability profile is observed. Excellent efficacy both in induction and maintenance of remission is obtained, with a lower cost compared to biological agents. AREAS COVERED: The purpose of this review is to summarize the current knowledge and the latest clinical evidence regarding nonbiological therapies for UC. EXPERT OPINION: Concomitant administration of oral and rectal 5-aminosalicylates acid is more effective in the treatment of UC in remission. Corticosteroids are the treatment of choice in patients with moderately severe or severe UC. The association of azathioprine with biological treatments is more effective than monotherapy. Cyclosporine is an effective drug in severe UC, but its poor management must be considered. Probiotics are very popular; however, evidence on their actual role in UC still must be demonstrated; cytapheresis plays only a niche role at this time.