Summary Background: Uninvestigated dyspepsia is common in family practice. The prevalence of clinically significant upper gastrointestinal findings (CSFs) in adult uninvestigated dyspepsia patients, and their predictability based on history, is unknown. Methods: Prompt endoscopy was performed within 10 days of referral, in 1040 adult patients presenting with uninvestigated dyspepsia at 49 Canadian family practitioner centres. Subsequent management strategies during a 6‐month follow‐up period were determined by the individual family practitioners. Results: CSFs were identified in 58% (603/1040) of patients. Erosive oesophagitis was most common (43%; N = 451); peptic ulcer was uncommon (5.3%; N = 55). Alarm symptoms were uncommon (2.8%; N = 29). Most patients had at least three dyspepsia symptoms, more than 80% had at least six, and approximately half had eight or more. Based on the dominant symptom, 463 (45%) patients had ulcer‐like, 393 (38%) had reflux‐like and 184 (18%) had dysmotility‐like dyspepsia. The patients' dominant symptom was not predictive of endoscopic findings. Oesophagitis was more common in those with dominant reflux‐like symptoms and was the most common finding in all subgroups. The prevalence of gastroduodenal findings was similar in all symptom subgroups. Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection (30%; 301/1013) was associated with gastroduodenal findings. Conclusions: Dyspepsia subclassifications, based on dominant symptom, are of limited value in predicting the presence and nature of CSFs. Oesophagitis was by far the most common diagnosis (43% of patients). CSFs were common in uninvestigated dyspepsia patients and their nature suggests patients could be initially treated effectively, without endoscopy, using empirical acid suppressive therapy.

Comparison of these benchmarks with actual wait times will identify limitations in access to digestive heath care in Canada. These recommendations should be considered targets for future health care improvements and are not clinical practice guidelines.

Exercise testing of children differs from adult exercise testing in many ways beyond the technical issues related to test performance that are addressed in this report. Disease processes that produce myocardial ischemia are relatively rare in children compared with adults. Exercise testing may be useful in these cases, but the use of testing to assess functional capacity or cardiac rhythms will be encountered more often. Although the precise role of exercise testing in patient evaluation or long-term management of the cardiac patient will vary somewhat from center to center, exercise testing is often essential to diagnose and to direct treatment in a wide variety of clinical problems. An understanding of the role of exercise testing for children with known or suspected heart abnormalities is an essential part of the training of pediatric cardiologists. The staff of the pediatric exercise laboratory should be available to discuss with the clinician when a test might be of value in a specific case in addition to providing advice about the specifics of the performance of the test and offering age- and size-appropriate normal data from the laboratory with test interpretation.

No abstract

Distal ulcerative colitis can be treated with oral or rectal mesalazine, or both. A foam enema preparation has been developed and its efficacy investigated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mesalazine foam enemas compared with prednisolone foam enemas in the treatment of patients with acute distal ulcerative colitis. Patients aged over 18 years presenting with a relapse of distal ulcerative colitis were randomly allocated treatment with mesalazine foam enema (n = 149 evaluable patients) and prednisolone foam enema (n = 146 evaluable patients) for four weeks. A randomised multicentre investigator blind parallel group trial was conducted. It was found that after four weeks of treatment, clinical remission was achieved by 52% of mesalazine treated patients and 31% of patients treated with prednisolone (p < 0.001). There was a trend in favour of more patients in the mesalazine group achieving sigmoidoscopic remission (40% v 31%, p = 0.10). Histological remission was achieved by 27% and 21% of patients receiving mesalazine and prednisolone respectively. Symptoms improved in both treatment groups. Significantly more mesalazine patients had no blood in their stools after four weeks of treatment (67% v 40%, p < 0.001). Prednisolone treated patients had significantly fewer days with liquid stools than mesalazine patients, with a median of 0 and 1 days respectively by week 4 (p = 0.001). In this study mesalazine foam enema was superior to prednisolone foam enema with regards to clinical remission, this was supported by favourable trends in sigmoidoscopic and histological remission rates. Both treatments were well tolerated.