Methods: Cirrhotic patients with suspected EVB were screened (n = 352). Eligible patients were assigned based on the physician's preference to either somatostatin (group S) or terlipressin (group T) followed by EVL. In group S, intravenous bolus (250 µg) of somatostatin followed by 250 µg/hour was continued for three days. In group T, 2 mg bolus injection of terlipressin was followed by 1 mg infusion every 6 h for three days.
Results: A total of 150 patients were enrolled; 41 in group S and 109 in group T. Reasons for physician preference was convenience in administration (77.1%) for group T and good safety profile (73.2%) for group S. Very early rebleeding within 49-120 h occurred in one patient in groups S and T (p = 0.469). Four patients in group S and 14 patients in group T have variceal rebleeding episodes within 6-42 d (p = 0.781). Overall treatment-related adverse effects were compatible in groups S and T (p = 0.878), but the total cost of terlipressin and somatostatin differed i.e., USD 621.32 and USD 496.43 respectively.
Conclusions: Terlipressin is the preferred vasoactive agent by physicians in our institution for acute EVB. Convenience in administration and safety profile are main considerations of physicians. Safety and hemostatic effects did not differ significantly between short-course somatostatin or terlipressin, although terlipressin is more expensive.
METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole (40 mg daily, n = 8791) or placebo (n = 8807). Participants were also randomly assigned to groups that received rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) with aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg) alone. We collected data on development of pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, other enteric infections, fractures, gastric atrophy, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive lung disease, dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality every 6 months. Patients were followed up for a median of 3.01 years, with 53,152 patient-years of follow-up.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the pantoprazole and placebo groups in safety events except for enteric infections (1.4% vs 1.0% in the placebo group; odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.75). For all other safety outcomes, proportions were similar between groups except for C difficile infection, which was approximately twice as common in the pantoprazole vs the placebo group, although there were only 13 events, so this difference was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: In a large placebo-controlled randomized trial, we found that pantoprazole is not associated with any adverse event when used for 3 years, with the possible exception of an increased risk of enteric infections. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT01776424.
METHODS: We reviewed all children with gastroesophageal varices seen in our unit from 2000 to 2019. Primary prophylaxis was defined as endoscopic procedure without a preceding spontaneous bleeding and secondary prophylaxis as preceded by spontaneous bleeding. High-risk varices were defined as presence of grade III esophageal varices, cardia gastric varices or cherry red spots on the varices. Outcome measures (spontaneous rebleeding within 3 months after endoscopic procedure, number of additional procedures to eradicate varices, liver transplant [LT], death) were ascertained.
RESULTS: Sixteen of 62 (26%) patients (median [± S.D.] age at diagnosis = 5.0 ± 4.3 years) with varices had primary prophylaxis, 38 (61%) had secondary prophylaxis while 8 (13%) had no prophylaxis. No difference in the proportion of patients with high-risk varices was observed between primary (88%) and secondary (92%; P = 0.62) prophylaxis. As compared to secondary prophylaxis, children who had primary prophylaxis were significantly less likely to have spontaneous rebleeding (6% vs. 38%; P = 0.022) and needed significantly fewer repeated endoscopic procedures (0.9 ± 1.0 vs. 3.1 ± 2.5; P = 0.021). After 8.9 ± 5.5 years of follow-up, overall survival was 85%; survival with native liver was 73%. No statistical difference was observed in the eventual outcome (alive with native liver) between primary and secondary (71% vs. 78%, P = 0.78).
CONCLUSION: Children with PHT who had primary prophylaxis had less subsequent spontaneous rebleeding and needed fewer additional endoscopic procedures as compared to secondary prophylaxis but did not have an improved eventual outcome. Screening endoscopy in all children who have signs of PHT and primary prophylaxis in high-risk esophageal varices should be considered before eventual LT.
METHODS: A prospective study of 485 consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy during a 22-month period was performed. All patients answered a detailed questionnaire. Indications for colonoscopy and the findings were recorded.
RESULTS: The mean age of the study population was 55.7 +/- 14.7 years. There were 221 (45.6%) males and 264 (54.4%) females. Sixty-five (13.4%) were Malays, 298 (61.4%) were Chinese and 112 (23.1%) were Indians. Multiple backward stepwise regression analysis revealed that independent predictors for colorectal cancer (odds ratio [95% CI]) were the presence of rectal bleeding (4.3 [4.0-8.0]) and iron deficiency anemia (4.0 [3.6-10.2]). In those aged 50 and over, male gender (4.5 [2.2-9.3]) and abdominal pain (3.1 [1.4-6.7]) were also significant positive predictors of cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: With the ever-increasing demand for gastrointestinal endoscopy, the appropriate utilization of colonoscopy is essential to afford prompt patient evaluation. Our study supports the need to prioritize the use of colonoscopy in patients with rectal bleeding and iron deficiency anemia. In the older patient where the background prevalence of colorectal cancer is higher, referral for colonoscopy is also justified.
METHODS: This was an individual participant data meta-analysis of the prognostic performance of histologically assessed fibrosis stage (F0-4), liver stiffness measured by vibration-controlled transient elastography (LSM-VCTE), fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4), and NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS) in patients with NAFLD. The literature was searched for a previously published systematic review on the diagnostic accuracy of imaging and simple non-invasive tests and updated to Jan 12, 2022 for this study. Studies were identified through PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL, and authors were contacted for individual participant data, including outcome data, with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplantation, or cirrhosis complications (ie, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepatic encephalopathy, or progression to a MELD score ≥15). We calculated aggregated survival curves for trichotomised groups and compared them using stratified log-rank tests (histology: F0-2 vs F3 vs F4; LSM: <10 vs 10 to <20 vs ≥20 kPa; FIB-4: <1·3 vs 1·3 to ≤2·67 vs >2·67; NFS: 0·676), calculated areas under the time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curves (tAUC), and performed Cox proportional-hazards regression to adjust for confounding. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022312226.
FINDINGS: Of 65 eligible studies, we included data on 2518 patients with biopsy-proven NAFLD from 25 studies (1126 [44·7%] were female, median age was 54 years [IQR 44-63), and 1161 [46·1%] had type 2 diabetes). After a median follow-up of 57 months [IQR 33-91], the composite endpoint was observed in 145 (5·8%) patients. Stratified log-rank tests showed significant differences between the trichotomised patient groups (p<0·0001 for all comparisons). The tAUC at 5 years were 0·72 (95% CI 0·62-0·81) for histology, 0·76 (0·70-0·83) for LSM-VCTE, 0·74 (0·64-0·82) for FIB-4, and 0·70 (0·63-0·80) for NFS. All index tests were significant predictors of the primary outcome after adjustment for confounders in the Cox regression.
INTERPRETATION: Simple non-invasive tests performed as well as histologically assessed fibrosis in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with NAFLD and could be considered as alternatives to liver biopsy in some cases.
FUNDING: Innovative Medicines Initiative 2.
METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease. Participants were randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole 40 mg daily or placebo, as well as rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg once daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin 100 mg alone. The primary outcome was time to first upper gastrointestinal event, defined as a composite of overt bleeding, upper gastrointestinal bleeding from a gastroduodenal lesion or of unknown origin, occult bleeding, symptomatic gastroduodenal ulcer or ≥5 erosions, upper gastrointestinal obstruction, or perforation.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in upper gastrointestinal events between the pantoprazole group (102 of 8791 events) and the placebo group (116 of 8807 events) (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.15). Pantoprazole significantly reduced bleeding of gastroduodenal lesions (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.94; P = .03); this reduction was greater when we used a post-hoc definition of bleeding gastroduodenal lesion (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.74), although the number needed to treat still was high (n = 982; 95% confidence interval, 609-2528).
CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, we found that routine use of proton pump inhibitors in patients receiving low-dose anticoagulation and/or aspirin for stable cardiovascular disease does not reduce upper gastrointestinal events, but may reduce bleeding from gastroduodenal lesions. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01776424.
Methods: In this cross-sectional study with retrospective record review, 403 established gouty arthritis patients were recruited to determine the incidence of UGIB and associated factors among gout patients who were on regular nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).
Results: The mean age of the 403 gouty arthritis patients was 55.7 years old and the majority (n = 359/403; 89.1%) were male. The incidence of UGIB among gouty arthritis patients who were on NSAIDs was 7.2% (n = 29/403). Older age (p < 0.001), diclofenac medication (p = 0.003), pantoprazole medication (p = 0.003), end-stage renal failure (ESRF) (p = 0.007), smoking (p = 0.035), hypertension (p = 0.042) and creatinine (p = 0.045) were significant risk factors for UGIB among the gouty arthritis patients in univariable analysis. Older age (p = 0.001) and diclofenac medication (p < 0.001) remained significant risk factors for UGIB among the gouty arthritis patients in multivariable analysis.
Conclusions: Age and diclofenac were significantly associated with UGIB among patients with gouty arthritis on regular NSAIDs, indicating that these factors increased the risks of developing UGIB in gout patients. Hence, these high-risk groups of gouty arthritis patients should be routinely monitored to avoid the potential onset of UGIB. Our data also suggest that diclofenac should be prescribed for the shortest duration possible to minimize the risk of developing UGIB in gout patients.
CASE PRESENTATION: We present a case of a 61-year-old lady with mitral valve prolapse (MVP) who underwent TOE with subsequent presentation of odynophagia with left neck swelling. An upper endoscopy examination was inconclusive; however, a contrasted computed tomography of the neck showed evidence of cervical oesophageal perforation. She was managed conservatively and discharged well.
DISCUSSION: The trauma caused by TOE probe insertion and manipulation accounts for most of the upper gastrointestinal complications. Mortality of patients associated with oesophageal perforation can be up to 20% and doubled if the treatment is delayed for more than 24 h. Mechanism of injury from TOE probe is likely multifactorial. Predisposing factors that increase the risk of tissue disruption include the presence of unknown structural pathology. Imaging studies and an upper endoscopy examination may aid in the diagnosis of oesophageal perforation.
CONCLUSION: A high index of suspicion, coupled with a tailored, multidisciplinary approach, is essential to achieve the best possible outcome. Conservative management may be worthwhile in a stable patient despite delayed presentation. Although TOE is considered a safe procedure, physicians should be made aware of such a dreaded complication.