No abstract

No abstract

Background Acute gastrointestinal bleeding (AGIB) results in significant morbidity and mortality. Topical hemostatic products have been developed for endoscopic use to help in the management of difficult bleeding. Our aim was to demonstrate the ease of use, safety, and efficacy of PuraStat, a novel hemostat, to control AGIB. Methods We describe 77 patients (41 men) who were treated for acute upper and lower AGIB in a 2-year period. In 50 patients, bleeding occurred as a complication of a previous endoscopic procedure, predominantly endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP); however, in the other 27 patients, it derived from peptic ulcers, angiodysplasia, cancers, and surgical anastomoses. Bleeding was spurting in 13 of the 77 patients and oozing in 64. PuraStat was used after the failure of at least two conventional hemostatic methods. Results A mean of 2.6 conventional hemostatic methods had been attempted prior to the application of PuraStat. PuraStat achieved successful hemostasis in 90.9 % of patients. In 41 patients, once hemostasis was obtained with PuraStat, endoscopists further stabilized hemostasis by using at least one additional method. Recurrence of bleeding was observed in eight patients (10.4 %). In 16 patients with intraprocedural bleeding, it was possible to complete the procedures (14 EMR, 2 ERCP) after PuraStat hemostasis. No adverse events related to PuraStat were recorded. Conclusions PuraStat is feasible, safe, and effective in controlling different types of gastrointestinal hemorrhage after failure of conventional hemostatic methods. Its application also does not hinder continuing endotherapy.

Background and aims. The add-on EndoRings has been claimed to improve adenoma detection at colonoscopy, but available data are inconsistent. When testing a new technology, parallel and crossover methodologies measure different outcomes, leaving uncertainty on their correspondence. Aims of this study were to compare the diagnostic yield and miss rate of the EndoRings for colorectal neoplasia.Methods. Consecutive subjects undergoing colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) within organized screening program in 7 Italian centers, were randomized between a parallel (EndoRings or Standard) or a crossover (EndoRings/Standard or Standard/EndoRings) methodology. Outcomes measures were the detection rates of (advanced) adenomas (A-)ADR in the parallel arms and miss rate of adenomas in the crossover arms. Results:Of 958 eligible subjects, 927 (317 EndoRings; 317 Standard; 142 EndoRings/Standard; 151 Standard/Endorings) were included in the final analysis. In the parallel arms (mean ADR: 51.3%; mean AADR: 25.4%), no difference between Standard and EndoRings was found for both ADR (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.95-1.28) and A-ADR (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.88-1.51), as well as for the mean number of adenomas and advanced adenomas per patient (EndoRings: 1.9±1.3 and 1.0±1.2; Standard 2.1±1.5 and 1.0±1.2; p=NS for both comparisons). In the crossover arms, no difference in miss rate for adenomas between EndoRings and Standard was found at per-polyp (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.97-2.10), as well as at per-patient analysis (24% vs 26%; p=0.76). Conclusions:No statistically significant difference in diagnostic yield and miss rate between EndoRings and Standard colonoscopy was detected in FIT+ patients. A clinically relevant correspondence between miss and detection rates was shown, supporting a cause-effect relationship.

No abstract

Background Autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a rare, and relatively new, form of chronic pancreatitis. The management of AIP can vary considerably among different centres in daily clinical practice. Objectives The aim of this study is to present a picture of epidemiological, clinical characteristics, outcomes, and the real-life practice in terms of management in several academic and non-academic centres in Italy. Methods Data on the clinical presentation, diagnostic work-up, treatments, frequency of relapses, and long-term outcomes were retrospectively collected in a cohort of AIP patients diagnosed at 14 centres in Italy. Results One hundred and six patients were classified as type 1 AIP, 48 as type 2 AIP, and 19 as not otherwise specified. Epidemiological, clinical, radiological, and serological characteristics, and relapses were similar to those previously reported for different types of AIP. Endoscopic cytohistology was available in 46.2% of cases, and diagnostic for AIP in only 35.2%. Steroid trial to aid diagnosis was administered in 43.3% cases, and effective in 93.3%. Steroid therapy was used in 70.5% of cases, and effective in 92.6% of patients. Maintenance therapy with low dose of steroid (MST) was prescribed in 25.4% of cases at a mean dose of 5 (±1.4) mg/die, and median time of MST was 60 days. Immunosuppressive drugs were rarely used (10.9%), and rituximab in 1.7%. Faecal elastase-1 was evaluated in only 31.2% of patients, and was pathological in 59.2%. Conclusions In this cohort of AIP patients, diagnosis and classification for subtype was frequently possible, confirming the different characteristics of AIP1 and AIP2 previously reported. Nevertheless, we observed a low use of histology and steroid trial for a diagnosis of AIP. Steroid treatment was the most used therapy in our cohort. Immunosuppressants and rituximab were rarely used. The evaluation of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency is underemployed considering its high prevalence.

Background & aim: Although acute lower GI bleeding (LGIB) represents a significant healthcare burden, prospective real-life data on management and outcomes are scanty. Present multicentre, prospective cohort study was aimed at evaluating mortality and associated risk factors and at describing patient management. Methods: Adult outpatients acutely admitted for or developing LGIB during hospitalization were consecutively enrolled in 15 high-volume referral centers. Demographics, comorbidities, medications, interventions and outcomes were recorded. Results: Overall 1,198 patients (1060 new admissions;138 inpatients) were included. Most patients were elderly (mean-age 74 ±15 years), 31% had a Charlson-Comorbidity-Index ≥3, 58% were on antithrombotic therapy. In-hospital mortality (primary outcome) was 3.4% (95%CI 2.5-4.6). At logistic regression analysis, independent predictors of mortality were increasing age, comorbidity, inpatient status, hemodynamic instability at presentation, and ICU-admission. Colonoscopy had a 78.8% diagnostic yield, with significantly higher hemostasis rate when performed within 24-hours than later (21.3% vs.10.8%, p = 0.027). Endoscopic hemostasis was associated with neither in-hospital mortality nor rebleeding. A definite or presumptive source of bleeding was disclosed in 90.4% of investigated patients. Conclusion: Mortality in LGIB patients is mainly related to age and comorbidities. Although early colonoscopy has a relevant diagnostic yield and is associated with higher therapeutic intervention rate,

MC is the first cause of CNBD in subjects submitted to colonoscopy. Multiple biopsies are strongly recommended, even in the case of uneventful endoscopic inspection, especially for age ≥40 years. MC has a reduced risk of colorectal neoplasia, suggesting that this model of chronic inflammation plays a protective effect against colorectal carcinogenesis.