No abstract

Objective: To examine whether proton‐pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy influences the incidence and progression of dysplasia in patients with Barrett's oesophagus. Design and setting: Review of prospective data on patients undergoing surveillance with regular endoscopy and biopsy at a private endoscopy centre in Canberra, ACT, between 1981 and 2001. Patients: 350 patients diagnosed with Barrett's oesophagus. Interventions: PPI therapy was progressively introduced into clinical practice from late 1989. Once begun, PPI therapy was ongoing, with no attempt to reduce the dose. Main outcome measures: Relationship between development of dysplasia or adenocarcinoma and delay between diagnosis with Barrett's oesophagus and starting PPI therapy was determined by Cox regression analyses, stratified by year of enrolment. Age, sex, presence of macroscopic markers (severe oesophagitis, nodularity, Barrett's ulcer, stricture) and use of aspirin or non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs were considered as confounding factors in the regression analyses. Results: The 350 patients had 1422 surveillance endoscopies, with a median follow‐up of 4.7 years. Patients who delayed using a PPI for 2 years or more after diagnosis with Barrett's oesophagus had 5.6 times (95% CI, 2.0–15.7) the risk of developing low‐grade dysplasia at any given time as those who used a PPI in the first year. Similar results were found for the risk of developing high‐grade dysplasia or adenocarcinoma (hazard ratio, 20.9; 95% CI, 2.8–158). Conclusions: Use of ongoing PPI therapy appeared beneficial in the prevention of dysplasia and adenocarcinoma in patients with Barrett's oesophagus. We suggest that all patients with this condition, even those with no oesophagitis or symptoms, should be encouraged to continue long term PPI therapy.

This is the fourth and final paper of a series of reviews undertaken to explore the relationships between oral health and general medical conditions, in order to support teams within Public Health England, health practitioners and policy makers. This review aimed to explore the most contemporary evidence on whether poor oral health and dementia occurs in the same individuals or populations, to outline the nature of the relationship between these two health outcomes and to discuss the implication of any findings for health services and future research. The review was undertaken by a working group comprising consultant clinicians from medicine and dentistry, trainees, public health and academic staff. Whilst other rapid reviews in the current series limited their search to systematic reviews, this review focused on primary research involving cohort and case-control studies because of the lack of high level evidence in this new and important field. The results suggest that poor oral hygiene is associated with dementia, and more so amongst people in advanced stages of the disease. Suboptimal oral health (gingivitis, dental caries, tooth loss, edentulousness) appears to be associated with increased risk of developing cognitive impairment and dementia. The findings are discussed in relation to patient care and future research.

Objective: To determine the incidence of adverse events related to an endoscopy sedation regimen that included propofol, delivered by general practitioner (GP) sedationists. Design: Audit of reports of sedation‐related adverse events in patients undergoing endoscopy. A sample of 1000 patients' medical records was also reviewed to determine the drugs and dosages used and the proportion of sedations delivered by GPs. Setting and participants: All patients undergoing gastroscopy and/or colonoscopy from January 1996 to December 2000 in two private endoscopy centres in Canberra. Sedation was provided by GPs or a specialist anaesthetist, in most cases using a drug regimen that included propofol. Main outcome measures: Incidences of respiratory arrest, airway obstruction, hypoxia requiring intervention, hypotension, and death; number of interventions to correct these events, including extra airway management, bag‐mask ventilation, intravenous fluid infusion, endotracheal intubation and the use of reversal agents, and admission to hospital. Results: 28 472 procedures were performed in the five years. There were 185 sedation‐related adverse events (6.5/1000 procedures; 95% CI, 5.6–7.4): 107 for airway or ventilation problems (3.8/1000) and 77 hypotensive episodes (2.7/1000). Respiratory‐related adverse events were more common in patients managed by GPs than anaesthetists, but this was not significant (P = 0.1). Interventions were recorded in 234 patients (8.2/1000; 95% CI, 7.2–9.3): 123 to maintain ventilation, and 111 intravenous infusions. GPs were more likely than anaesthetists to intervene to manage respiratory‐related adverse events (P = 0.03). Four patients required transfer or admission to hospital. No patients required endotracheal intubation, and there were no deaths. Conclusions: The GP sedationists encountered a low incidence of adverse events, which they managed effectively. It appears that appropriately selected and trained GPs can safely use propofol for sedation during endoscopy.

SUMMARY BackgroundIt has been shown that the presence on diagnosis of endoscopic macroscopic markers indicates a high-risk group for Barrett's oesophagus.