Objective: To determine the role of serum procalcitonin levels in predicting ascites infection in hospitalized cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients.Methods: A total of 101 patients (mean age: 63.4±1.3, 66.3% were males) hospitalized due to cirrhosis (n=88) or malignancy related (n=13) ascites were included in this study. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP, 19.8%), culture-negative SBP (38.6%), bacterascites (4.9%), sterile ascites (23.8%) and malign ascites (12.9%) groups were compared in terms of procalcitonin levels in predicting ascites infection. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of procalcitonin levels and predicting outcome of procalcitonin levels was compared with C-reactive protein (CRP).Results: Culture positivity was determined in 26.7% of overall population. Serum procalcitonin levels were determined to be significantly higher in patients with positive bacterial culture in ascitic fluid compared to patients without culture positivity (median (min-max): 4.1 (0.2-36.4) vs. 0.4 (0.04-15.8), p<0.001). Using ROC analysis, a serum procalcitonin level of <0.61 ng/mL in SBP (area under curve (AUC): 0.981, CI 95%: 0.000-1.000, p<0.001), <0.225 ng/mL in culture-negative SBP (AUC: 0.743, CI 95%: 0.619-0.867, p<0.001), <0.42 ng/mL in SBP and culture-negative SBP patients (AUC: 0.824, CI 95%: 0.732-0.916, p<0.001), and <1.12 ng/mL in bacterascites (AUC: 0.837, CI 95%: 0.000-1.000, p=0.019) were determined to accurately rule out the diagnosis of bacterial peritonitis. Predictive power of serum procalcitonin levels in SBP + culture-negative SBP group (AUCs: 0.824 vs 0.622, p=0.004, Fig 4), culture-positive SBP (AUCs: 0.981 vs 0.777, p=0.006, Fig 5) and (although less powerfull) in culture-negative SBP (AUCs: 0.743 vs 0.543, p=0.02, Fig 6) were found significantly higher than CRP.Conclusion: According to our findings determination of serum procalcitonin levels seems to provide satisfactory diagnostic accuracy in differentiating bacterial infections in hospitalized patients with liver cirrhosis related ascites.

No abstract

Objective: To evaluate the implementation of screening colonoscopy amongst first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) in Turkey. Materials and Methods: A total of 400 first-degree relatives (mean(SD)age: 42.5(12.7) years, 55.5% were male) of 136 CRC patients were included in this cross-sectional questionnaire based survey. Data on demographic characteristics, relationship to patient and family history for malignancy other than the index case were evaluated in the FDRs of patients as were the data on knowledge about and characteristics related to the implementation of screening colonoscopy using a standardized questionnaire form.

Background/Aim. To identify the etiological role of Helicobacter pylori (Hp) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in endoscopically diagnosed duodenal ulcers (DUs). Methods. Patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy in two major hospitals in Antalya and Adiyaman were included in this study and assigned as duodenal ulcer (n = 152; median age: 41.0 (16–71) years; 58.6% males) or control group (n = 70; median age: 41.0 (18–68) years; 57.1% males). Patient demographics, risk factors, and NSAID/acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) use were recorded. Results. HP was more commonly located in the corpus (75.0 versus 50.0%; odds ratio [OR] = 3.00; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.66–5.44; P < 0.001), incisura (75.7 versus 60.0%; OR = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.13–3.79; P = 0.017), and antrum (80.3 versus 60.0%; OR = 2.71; 95% CI: 1.45–5.05; P = 0.001) among DU patients than controls. Hp positivity was 84.9% while Hp was negative in 15.1% of patients including those accompanied with NSAID and/or ASA use (9.2%), and those were negative for all three etiological factors (5.9%). Conclusion. Our findings indicate the substantial role of Hp in the pathogenesis of DU disease as identified in 84.9% of DU patients compatible with the background prevalence of 61.4% among age-matched control subjects. Hp was the single causative factor in 44.1% of our patients, while NSAID/ASA exposure was in 9.2%.

No abstract