This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
BackgroundThe evidence on the role of gut microbiota in post-infectious irritable bowel syndrome (PI-IBS) is convincing. Lactobacillus spp. positively affect IBS symptoms, although the mechanisms through which probiotics exert their beneficial effects are largely unknown. The aim of the study is to evaluate the role of Lactobacillus casei DG (LC-DG) and its postbiotic (PB) in modulating the inflammatory/immune-response in PI-IBS in an ex-vivo organ culture model.MethodsEx vivo cultures of ileal and colonic mucosa from 10 PI-IBS, diarrhea predominant subtype (D) patients, and 10 healthy controls (HC) were treated with LPS, LC-DG and PB. Interleukin (IL)-1α, IL-6, IL-8 and IL-10 mRNA levels were assessed by real-time PCR and Toll like receptor 4 (TLR-4) protein expression by Western blotting.ResultsAt baseline, IL-1α, IL-6 and IL-8 mRNA levels as well as TLR-4 protein expression were significantly higher while IL-10 mRNA levels were lower in PI-IBS D than in HC in both ileum and colon. LC-DG and PB significantly reduced the mRNA levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines and TLR-4 while increased that of IL-10 after LPS stimulation. The protective effect was more pronounced for PB than LC-DG treatment.ConclusionLC-DG and its PB attenuate the inflammatory mucosal response in an ex-vivo organ culture model of PI-IBS D.
Background and study aims The over-the-scope clip (OTSC) is a novel tool used to improve the maintenance of hemostasis for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB); however, studies on the comparison with “conventional” techniques are lacking. In this study, we aimed to compare first-line endoscopic hemostasis achieved using conventional techniques with that achieved using OTSC placement for NVUGIB.
Patients and methods From January 2007 to March 2018, 793 consecutive patients underwent upper endoscopy with the hemostasis procedure. Among them, 327 patients were eligible for inclusion (112 patients had OTSC placement and 215 underwent conventional hemostasis). After propensity score matching and adjustment for confounding factors, 84 patients were stratified into the “conventional” group and 84 into the OTSC group. Patient characteristics and outcomes (rebleeding rate, mortality rate within 30 days, and adverse events) were compared between the two groups.
Results In the unmatched cohort, hemostasis with OTSC was more frequent in cases of duodenal ulcers with Forrest Ia to IIa and in patients with a higher Rockall score compared with the “conventional group”. In the matched cohort, 93 % of the patients in the “conventional group” underwent hemostasis with epinephrine + through-the-scope clip. Rebleeding events were significantly less frequent in the OTSC group (8 % vs 20 %, 95 %CI 3 – 16 vs 12 – 30; P = 0.02); however, the mortality rate in the two groups was not significantly different (6 % vs 2 %, 95 %CI 1 – 8 vs 2 – 13; P = 0.4).
Conclusions OTSC is a safe and effective tool for achieving hemostasis, and we recommend its use as the first-line therapy for lesions with a high risk of rebleeding and in patients with a high risk Rockall score.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.