Objectives We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of propofol plus fentanyl versus midazolam plus fentanyl as sedative for patients with advanced liver disease presented for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods A total of 100 patients with liver cirrhosis referred for upper endoscopy were enrolled and divided equally in two groups, midazolam plus fentanyl group and propofol plus fentanyl group. All patients were subjected to history taking, estimation of level of sedation, endoscopist rating, and hemodynamic parameters including oxygen saturation, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, incidence of side effect as (bradycardia, hypotension, hypoxia, nausea and vomiting, cough, shivering, or diplopia), time needed for complete recovery, and time needed for discharge. Results There was no statistical significant difference between the studied groups regarding age, sex, weight, Child–Pugh classification score, type and duration of endoscopic intervention, time needed for complete recovery, or time needed for discharge. Complication rates were similar in both groups except for mean arterial blood pressure which was significantly lower in group of patients receiving propofol and fentanyl (P = 0.001). Conclusion The use of either propofol or midazolam in combination to fentanyl is effective in sedation of patients with advanced liver diseases presented for upper GIT endoscope. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03063866.

The mean age of the patients was 49.32.

HOMA-IR score is a new independent predictor of the presence of EV.

Background and aimsPatients with advanced systemic illness or critically ill patients may present with upper gastrointestinal tract (GIT) bleeding which may need endoscopic intervention; however, this may expose them to unnecessary endoscopy. The aim was to validate a novel scoring system for risk stratification for urgency of GIT endoscopy in critically ill patients.MethodsThis is an observational study conducted from January 2013 to January 2016 to analyze 300 patients with critical medical conditions and presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Meticulous clinical, laboratory, and sonographic evaluations were performed to calculate Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS) and variceal metric score for risk stratification and prediction of the presence of esophageal varices (OV). Finally, this score was applied on a validation group (n=100).ResultsThe use of GBS and variceal metric scores in critically ill patients revealed that patients who showed a low risk score value for OV (0–4 points) and GBS <2 can be treated conservatively and discharged safely without urgent endoscopy. In patients with a low risk for varices but GBS >2, none of them had OV on endoscopy. In patients with intermediate risk score value for OV (5–8 points) and with GBS >2, 33.33% of them had varices on endoscopy. In patients with high risk score value for varices (9–13) and GBS >2, endoscopy revealed varices in 94.4% of them. Finally, in patients with very high risk score for varices (14–17), endoscopy revealed varices in 100% of them.ConclusionGBS and variceal metric score were highly efficacious in identifying critically ill patients who will benefit from therapeutic endoscopic intervention.

Background and Aims. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) have made a revolution in hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment with promising reduction of HCV infection and disease morbidities. However, unfortunately, treatment failure still occurs in about 5–15% of patients treated with DAA‐based combination regimens. The primary aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of a quadruple regimen of (sofosbuvir, daclatasvir, and simeprevir with a weight-based ribavirin) in chronic HCV DAAs-experienced patients. Methods. This observational, open-label prospective study was carried out on 103 genotype 4 hepatitis C virus-infected patients who failed to achieve SVR12 after sofosbuvir-daclatasvir with or without ribavirin. Patients were treated for three months with sofosbuvir (400 mg), daclatasvir (60 mg), and simeprevir (150 mg) with a weight-based ribavirin dosage (1000–1200 mg/d). Response to treatment was determined by quantitative PCR for HCV at 3 months after the end of treatment (SVR12), and adverse events during the treatment were recorded. Results. SVR was achieved in 100 patients (97.1%) at week 12 after treatment. No dangerous or life-threatening adverse events were recorded. Conclusions. Retreatment of HCV genotype 4 patients with quadruple therapy is a good therapeutic option and achieves high response rates with minimal side effects.