Acute Biliary Pancreatitis is Associated With Adverse Outcomes in the Elderly: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

GOALS AND BACKGROUND: In the elderly (age, 65 y or older), acute pancreatitis is most frequently because of gallstones; however, there is a paucity of national estimates evaluating outcomes of acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP). Hence, we utilized a representative population database to evaluate the outcomes of ABP among the elderly. STUDY: The National Readmission Database provides longitudinal follow-up of inpatients for 1 calendar-year. All adult inpatients (18 y or older) with an index primary admission for ABP between 2011 and 2014 were evaluated for clinical outcomes of mortality, severe acute pancreatitis (SAP), and 30-day readmission. Outcomes between age groups (≥65 vs. <65 y) were compared using multivariate and one-to-one propensity score-matched analyses. RESULTS: Among 184,763 ABP admissions, 41% were elderly. Index mortality and SAP rates in the elderly were 1.96% and 21.5%, respectively. Elderly patients underwent more ERCPs (27.5% vs. 23.6%; P<0.001) and less frequent cholecystectomies (44.4% vs. 58.7%; P<0.001). Elderly patients had increased odds of mortality and SAP along with an age-dependent increase in the odds of adverse outcomes; patients aged 85 years or older demonstrated the highest odds of SAP [odds ratio (OR), 1.3; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.2, 1.4] and mortality (OR, 2.2; 95% CI: 1.7, 2.9) within in the elderly cohort. Propensity score-matched analysis substantiated that mortality (OR, 2.8; 95% CI: 2.2, 3.5) and SAP (OR, 1.2; 95% CI: 1.1, 1.3) were increased in the elderly. CONCLUSIONS: Current national survey reveals adverse clinical outcomes among elderly patients hospitalized with ABP. Consequently, there is a need for effective management strategies for this demographic as the aging population is increasing nationally.

Implementation of a Defecation Posture Modification Device: Impact on Bowel Movement Patterns in Healthy Subjects.

GOALS: The goal of this study was to evaluate the influence of defecation postural modification devices (DPMDs) on normal bowel patterns. BACKGROUND: The introduction of DPMDs has brought increased awareness to bowel habits in western populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective crossover study of volunteers was performed that included real-time collection of data regarding bowel movements (BMs) for 4 weeks (first 2 wk without DPMD and subsequent 2 wk with DPMD). Primary outcomes of interest included BM duration, straining, and bowel emptiness with and without DPMD use. RESULTS: In total, 52 participants (mean age, 29 y and 40.1% female) were recruited for this study. At baseline 15 subjects (28.8%) reported incomplete emptying, 23 subjects (44.2%) had increased straining, and 29 subjects (55.8%) noticed blood on their toilet paper in the past year. A total of 1119 BMs were recorded (735 without DPMD and 384 with DPMD). Utilizing the DPMD resulted in increased bowel emptiness (odds ratio, 3.64; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.78-4.77) and reduced straining patterns (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.18-0.30). Moreover, without the DPMD, participants had an increase in BM duration (fold increase, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.17-1.33). CONCLUSIONS: DPMDs positively influenced BM duration, straining patterns, and complete evacuation of bowels in this study.

Study of full-thickness endoluminal segmental resection of colon in a porcine colon model (with videos).

BACKGROUND: Entrapment injury of the adjacent bowel is frequently encountered during full-thickness endoluminal colon suction-resection. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to develop a technique that can create a full-thickness resection of the colon without the risk of entrapment injury to adjacent viscera. DESIGN: Pilot study. SETTING: University medical center. PATIENTS: Five pigs. INTERVENTIONS: Traction-resection of the colon was created by using a grasping forceps to pull the colon into a band ligator loaded on a double-channel endoscope, followed by the application of a band, and subsequent snare resection (n = 14). Suction-resection of the colon was created by using a double-channel endoscope loaded with a band ligator (n = 12) and a single-channel endoscope with a band ligator (n = 6). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Number of full-thickness colon resections, frequency of the adjacent bowel and mesenteric injury, and the size of the resections were measured. RESULTS: The suction-resection technique resulted in significant injury to adjacent viscera compared with the traction-resection technique (56% vs 0%, P = .0013). The traction-resection method resulted in a significantly larger resection compared with the suction-resection method (mean +/- SEM: 2.91 +/- 0.3 cm vs 2.1 +/- 0.1 cm, P = .024). A double-channel endoscope suction-resection method resulted in a significantly larger resection compared with a single channel suction-resection technique (mean +/- SEM: 2.1 +/- 0.1 cm vs 0.91 +/- 0.2 cm, P = .0022). LIMITATIONS: None. CONCLUSIONS: The traction-resection technique is safer than the suction-resection method in removing larger specimens of the colon. In addition, the traction-resection technique reduces the risk of injury of the mesentery or adjacent small intestine.