Background Dysbiosis of ulcerative colitis (UC) has been frequently investigated using readily accessible stool samples. However, stool samples might insufficiently represent the mucosa-associated microbiome status. We hypothesized that luminal contents including loosely adherent luminal bacteria after bowel preparation may be suitable for diagnosing the dysbiosis of UC. Methods This study included 16 patients with UC (9 men and 7 women, mean age: 52.13 ± 14.09 years) and 15 sex- and age-matched healthy individuals (8 men and 7 women, mean age: 50.93 ± 14.11 years). They donated stool samples before colonoscopy and underwent luminal content aspiration and endoscopic biopsy during the colonoscopy. Then, the composition of each microbiome sample was analyzed by 16S rRNA-based next-generation sequencing. Results The microbiome between stool, luminal contents, and biopsy was significantly different in alpha and beta diversities. However, a correlation existed between stool and luminal contents in the Procrustes test (p = 0.001) and Mantel test (p = 0.0001). The stool microbiome was different between patients with UC and the healthy controls. Conversely, no difference was found in the microbiome of luminal content and biopsy samples between the two subject groups. The microbiome of stool and lavage predicted UC, with AUC values of 0.85 and 0.81, respectively. Conclusion The microbiome of stool, luminal contents, and biopsy was significantly different. However, the microbiome of luminal contents during colonoscopy can predict UC, with AUC values of 0.81. Colonoscopic luminal content aspiration analysis could determine microbiome differences between patients with UC and the healthy control, thereby beneficial in screening dysbiosis via endoscopy. Trial registration: This trial was registered at http://cris.nih.go.kr. Registration No.: KCT0003352), Date: 2018–11-13.

Background/AimsWe investigated which dialysis unit blood pressure (BP) is the most useful for predicting home BP in patients undergoing hemodialysis (HD).MethodsPatients undergoing HD who had been treated > 3 months were included in this study. Exclusion criteria were hospitalized patients with acute illness and changes in dry weight and anti-hypertensive drugs 2 weeks before the study. We used the dialysis unit BP recording data, such as pre-HD, intra-HD, post-HD, mean pre-HD, and post-HD (pre-post-HD), mean pre-HD, intra-HD, and post-HD (pre-intra-post-HD) BP. Home BP (the same period of dialysis unit BP) was monitored as a reference method during 2 weeks using the same automatic oscillometric device. Patients were asked to record their BP three times daily (wake up, between noon and 6:00 PM, and at bedtime).ResultsSignificant differences were detected between home systolic blood pressure (SBP) and pre-HD, post-HD, and intra-HD SBP (p = 0.003, p = 0.001, p = 0.016, respectively). In contrast, no differences were observed between home SBP and pre-intra-post-HD and pre-post-HD SBP (p = 0.235, p = 0.307, respectively). Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve for pre-intra-post-HD and prepost-HD SBP with 2-week home BP as the reference standard were 0.812 and 0.801, respectively.ConclusionsThese results suggest that pre-intra-post-HD and pre-post-HD SBP had similar accuracy for predicting mean 2-week home SBP in HD patients. Therefore, pre-intra-post-HD and pre-post-HD SBP should be useful for predicting home SBP in HD patients if ambulatory or home BP measurements are unavailable.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. We recently encountered an interesting case of acute inferior ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This patient had a rare anatomic variation, single coronary artery. The right coronary artery originate from the left circumflex proper artery, not from aorta, was totally obstructed with thrombi. Though it took more time to figure out the patient's coronary anatomy and the culprit lesion, we successfully performed primary percutaneous coronary intervention within the guideline-recommended time period. We performed left coronary angiography at the beginning. This strategy could be helpful in determining the culprit lesion and preventing unnecessary procedural delay in acute inferior STEMI.