Amyloidosis is a group of disorders that can manifest in virtually any organ system in the body and is thought to be secondary to misfolding of extracellular proteins with subsequent deposition in tissues. The precursor protein that is produced in excess defines the specific amyloid type. This requires histopathological confirmation using Congo red dye with its characteristic demonstration of green birefringence under cross-polarized light. Gastrointestinal (GI) manifestations are common and the degree of organ involvement dictates the symptoms that a patient will experience. The small intestine usually has the most amyloid deposition within the GI tract. Patients generally have nonspecific findings such as abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, and dysphagia that can often delay the proper diagnosis. Liver involvement is seen in a majority of patients, although symptoms typically are not appreciated unless there is significant hepatic amyloid deposition. Pancreatic involvement is usually from local amyloid deposition that can lead to type 2 diabetes mellitus. In addition, patients may undergo either endoscopic or radiological evaluation; however, these findings are usually nonspecific. Management of GI amyloidosis primarily aims to treat the underlying amyloid type with supportive measures to alleviate specific GI symptoms. Liver transplant is found to have positive outcomes, especially in patients with specific variants of hereditary amyloidosis.

Sarcoidosis is typically characterized as a non-caseating granulomatous disease that has the ability to affect multiple different organ systems. Although extra-thoracic sarcoidosis can occur in the presence and also without lung involvement, isolated extra-pulmonary disease is rare. The liver is the third most commonly affected organ system after the lungs and lymph nodes. When discussing hepatic sarcoidosis it is important to keep in mind that many patients in this population may not present as one would typically expect since most of the patients are asymptomatic or have mild presentations. Therefore, the diagnosis can be difficult at times since no single laboratory or imaging study can definitively diagnose this systemic disease. In the rare case of some patients where there is difficulty in discerning between different pathologies, the use of image-guided tissue biopsy may be necessary to establish a diagnosis. At the current time, there are no clear guidelines for the management of hepatic sarcoidosis and are mostly dependent on a patient's clinical status at time of presentation. The current body of research in regard to treatment suggests steroids to be the mainstay of therapy. However, there is a role for additional immunosuppressive therapy in cases where the initial treatment is refractory to steroids. In this manuscript, we discussed the pathogenesis of liver sarcoidosis and context of its presentation. In addition, the differential diagnosis and imaging evaluation in this population is discussed. Finally, treatment options are reviewed in setting of previous studies for liver sarcoidosis.

No abstract

There is no standardized protocol for bowel preparation prior to video capsule endoscopy, although one is strongly recommended. The purpose of our study was to see if there was a statistical significance between small bowel mucosal visualization rates for those who received bowel preparation and those who did not. We retrospectively analyzed all patients who had a video capsule endoscopy from August 2014 to January 2016 at a tertiary care center. All patients fasted prior to the procedure. Bowel preparation when used consisted of polyethylene glycol. A long fast consisted of 12 or more hours. The grading system used to assess the small bowel was adapted from a previously validated system from Esaki et al Statistical analyses were performed using Fisher's exact test or Welch's 2-sample t-test and statistical significance was present if the p value was ≤0.05. 76 patients were carried forward for analysis. Small bowel mucosal visualization rates were similar between those who received bowel preparation and those who did not (92.5% vs 88.9%, p=0.44). Small bowel mucosal visualization rates were significantly better in those patients who had a long fast compared with those who had a short fast (97.7% vs 81.3%, p=0.019). Our study demonstrates that the addition of bowel preparation prior to video capsule endoscopy does not significantly improve small bowel mucosal visualization rates and, in addition, there is a statistically significant relationship between increased fasting time and improved small bowel mucosal visualization. A prolonged fast without bowel preparation might be satisfactory for an adequate small bowel visualization but further randomized, prospective studies are necessary to confirm these findings.

four cases (100%). Three adverse events were recorded (9.7%), two cases of infection and one case of mild pancreatitis. All three patients recovered completely. Conclusions: The use of the novel microbiopsy forceps seems technically feasible. Microbiopsies seem to have higher diagnostic yield compared to standard EUS-FNA cytology. Furthermore, obtaining EUS-guided microbiopsies seems to impact clinical decision-making. Prospective studies are needed to confirm the promising results.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract