Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may have an increased risk of venous thrombosis (VTE). PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge and Scopus were searched to identify studies investigating the risk of VTE and the prevalence of acquired and genetic VTE risk factors and prothrombotic abnormalities in IBD. Overall, IBD patients have a two- to fourfold increased risk of VTE compared with healthy controls, with an overall incidence rate of 1%-8%. The majority of studies did not show significant differences in the risk of VTE between Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Several acquired factors are responsible for the increased risk of VTE in IBD: inflammatory activity, hospitalisation, surgery, pregnancy, disease phenotype (e.g., fistulising disease, colonic involvement and extensive involvement) and drug therapy (mainly steroids). There is also convincing evidence from basic science and from clinical and epidemiological studies that IBD is associated with several prothrombotic abnormalities, including initiation of the coagulation system, downregulation of natural anticoagulant mechanisms, impairment of fibrinolysis, increased platelet count and reactivity and dysfunction of the endothelium. Classical genetic alterations are not generally found more often in IBD patients than in non-IBD patients, suggesting that genetics does not explain the greater risk of VTE in these patients. IBD VTE may have clinical specificities, namely an earlier first episode of VTE in life, high recurrence rate, decreased efficacy of some drugs in preventing further episodes and poor prognosis. Clinicians should be aware of these risks, and adequate prophylactic actions should be taken in patients who have disease activity, are hospitalised, are submitted to surgery or are undergoing treatment.

PT-QUOTE-IBD is acceptable, valid, and reliable in the assessment of Performance and Quality Impact of Total Care, but not of all dimensions of healthcare.

IntroductionColorectal cancer presents itself as acute bowel occlusion in 10–40% of patients. There are two main therapeutic approaches: urgent surgery and endoluminal placement self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS).Aims and MethodsThis study intended to better clarify the risk/benefit ratio of the above-mentioned approaches. We conducted a retrospective longitudinal multicenter study, including 189 patients with acute malignant colorectal occlusion, diagnosed between January 2005 and March 2013.ResultsGlobally (85 patients – 35 bridge-to-surgery and 50 palliative), SEMS's technical success was of 94%. Palliative SEMS had limited clinical success (60%) and were associated with 40% of complications. SEMS occlusion (19%) was the most frequent complication, followed by migration (9%) and bowel perforation (7%). Elective surgery after stenting was associated with a higher frequency of primary anastomosis (94% vs. 76%; p = 0.038), and a lower rate of colostomy (26% vs. 55%; p = 0.004) and overall mortality (31% vs. 57%; p = 0.02). However, no significant differences were identified concerning postoperative complications. Regarding palliative treatment, no difference was found in the complications rate and overall mortality between SEMS and decompressive colostomy/ileostomy. In this SEMS subgroup, we found a higher rate of reinterventions (40% vs. 5%; p = 0.004) and a longer hospital stay (14, nine vs. seven, three days; p = 0.004).ConclusionSEMS placement as a bridge-to-surgery should be considered in the acute treatment of colorectal malignant occlusion, since it displays advantages regarding primary anastomosis, colostomy rate and overall mortality. In contrast, in this study, palliative SEMS did not appear to present significant advantages when compared to decompressive colostomy.

Previous meta-analyses on palliative treatment of malignant colorectal obstruction with Self-Expandable Metal Stent (SEMS) or emergency surgery reported contradictory results for morbidity, and frequently included extracolonic obstruction. Therefore, the current meta-analysis aimed to exclusively analyze palliative treatment for primary obstructive colorectal cancer, with early complication rate as a primary outcome. A systematic literature search was performed on studies comparing palliative SEMS and emergency surgery. Corresponding authors were contacted for additional data. Eighteen studies were selected (1518 patients). Early complication rate was 13.6 % for SEMS and 25.5 % for emergency surgery (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.46, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.29− 0.74). Mortality was 3.9 % and 9.4 % (OR 0.44, 0.28− 0.69). Stomas were present in 14.3 % and 51.4 % of patients (OR 0.17, 0.09− 0.31). More late complications occurred after SEMS (23.2 % versus 9.8 %, OR 2.55, 1.70-3.83), mostly due to SEMS obstruction. In conclusion, SEMS placement seems the preferred treatment of obstructing colorectal cancer in the palliative setting.

Introduction Percutaneous liver biopsy (PLB) is an invasive procedure used for the assessment of liver diseases. The patient’s recovery position after the PLB differs among hospitals and departments. This study aims to evaluate adverse events and patient acceptability according to the recovery position adopted after the PLB. Patients and methods From September 2014 to March 2017, patients submitted to PLB were randomly assigned to a recovery position arm: right-side position (RRP), dorsal position (DRP), or combined position. A validated numerical rating scale was used to evaluate the level of pain and the overall acceptability of the PLB experience. Results Ninety (27 patients in RRP, 33 in DRP and 30 in combined position arm) patients were included in the study. There were no differences between the three groups regarding demographic and clinical parameters, except for the number of previous biopsies – higher in the combined group (P=0.03). No major adverse events occurred. Minor complications described were pain (36.7% of patients), vasovagal reaction (2.2%) and nauseas/vomit (3.3%). Pain level and pain duration did not differ significantly between groups. Pain occurred more often in women (P=0.04) and younger patients (P=0.02). The number of passages, operator and previous biopsy did not influence the occurrence of pain. The RRP group considered the procedure less acceptable than the DRP group (P=0.001) or the combined group (P=0.002). There were no differences between the last two arms. Conclusion Although RRP is the most frequently used position, it appears to be less acceptable without any protective role in terms of adverse events.

No abstract

Background: Recent studies demonstrated the positive impact of neoadjuvant treatment in locally advanced gastric cancer. Objective: To assess the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the selection of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma for neoadjuvant therapy (T ! 2 and/or Nþ). Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients with an anatomopathological diagnosis of gastric adenocarcinoma between January 2011 and June 2017, who had EUS for staging and underwent surgery as a first therapeutic attempt. The concordance (k) and accuracy (area under the curve (AUC)) of EUS for T ! 2 and/or Nþ were assessed using the anatomopathological staging of the resected surgical specimen as the gold standard. Results: The final sample included 152 patients (66.4% male, 67.1 AE 12.2 years). The concordance, accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of the EUS for T ! 2 and/or Nþ were 0.72, 0.86 AE 0.03, 88.5% and 83.1%, respectively. The results were higher in proximal (k ¼ 0.93, AUC ¼ 0.96 AE 0.05, sensitivity (S) ¼ 99.0% and specificity (E) ¼ 90.9%) compared with distal lesions (k ¼ 0.67, AUC ¼ 0.84 AE 0.04, S ¼ 85.7% and E ¼ 81.5%), and in intestinal subtype (k ¼ 0.77, AUC ¼ 0.88 AE 0.04, S ¼ 92.6% and E ¼ 84.1%) compared with diffuse (k ¼ 0.58, AUC ¼ 0.79 AE 0.10, S ¼ 85.0% and E ¼ 72.7%) or mixed-subtype tumours (k ¼ 0.65, AUC ¼ 0.84 AE 0.10, S ¼ 76.9% and E ¼ 90.0%). Conclusion: In one of the largest series of patients, we showed that EUS has overall high agreement and accuracy in the selection of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma for neoadjuvant therapy, although the agreement and accuracy are greater for proximal and intestinal lesions.

No abstract