-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Gender differences in gastroesophageal reflux disease have been reported. Higher frequency and severity of symptoms, lower esophageal acid exposure and lower incidence of reflux-related complications have been observed in women. The aim of this study was to determine whether there are any gender differences in clinical presentation, diagnostic evaluations and response to endoscopic therapy in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. MATERIAL METHODS: Patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease referred for endoscopic therapy were scored for typical (heartburn and regurgitation) and atypical (chest pain, cough, wheezing, and hoarseness) symptoms at baseline. Upper endoscopy, manometry and pH studies were performed for all patients. Endoscopic treatment consisted of placement of two to three sutures within 2 cm of the squamocolumnar junction. Reflux symptoms were re-scored after endoscopic treatment.
Ninety-five patients (37 M, 58 F, mean age 51 years) were included in the analysis. Male and female patients at baseline reported similar severity of typical reflux symptoms as well as comparable prevalence of atypical symptoms. Manometric findings were also comparable between the genders. Endoscopic and ambulatory pH studies revealed a higher incidence of erosive esophagitis and a trend towards higher acid exposures in male patients. The response to endoscopic therapy was similar for men and women.
Apart from a higher incidence of erosive esophagitis in male patients, no major differences were found in endoscopic, manometric, esophageal acid exposure studies and clinical response to endoscopic therapy between the genders.
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 03/2006; 41(2):144-8. · 2.02 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Acute lower intestinal bleeding is a heterogeneous disorder and identification of high-risk patients is challenging. We previously retrospectively identified predictors of severity in patients with acute lower intestinal bleeding. The aim of this study was to prospectively validate a clinical prediction rule for severe acute lower intestinal bleeding.
This was a prospective, observational cohort study of consecutive patients admitted to an academic, tertiary care or a community-based teaching hospital for management of acute lower intestinal bleeding. Data were collected on seven previously identified predictors of severe bleeding: heart rate > or = 100/min, systolic blood pressure < or = 115 mmHg, syncope, nontender abdominal exam, rectal bleeding in the first 4 h of evaluation, aspirin use, and >2 comorbid conditions. Severe bleeding was defined as transfusion of > or =2 units of red blood cells, and/or a decrease in hematocrit of > or =20% in the first 24 h, and/or recurrent rectal bleeding after 24 h of stability (accompanied by a further decrease in hematocrit of > or =20%, and/or additional blood transfusions, and/or readmission for acute lower intestinal bleeding within 1 wk of discharge). Patients were stratified into 3 risk groups according to the previously developed prediction rule: low (no risk factors), moderate (1-3 risk factors), and high (>3 risk factors).
A total of 275 patients with acute lower intestinal bleeding were identified. The risk of severe bleeding in each risk category was similar in the validation and derivation cohorts (p values >0.05): low risk 6%versus 9%, moderate risk 43%versus 43%, and high risk 79%versus 84%. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.754 for the validation cohort and 0.761 for the derivation cohort. The magnitude of the risk score was significantly correlated with major clinical outcomes including surgery, death, blood transfusions, and length of stay.
We have developed and prospectively validated a clinical prediction rule for acute severe lower intestinal bleeding. This prediction rule could improve the triage of patients to appropriate levels of care and interventions, and guide a more standardized approach to acute lower intestinal bleeding.
The American Journal of Gastroenterology 08/2005; 100(8):1821-7. · 7.28 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: It is not known if combination therapy of epinephrine injection and multipolar electrocoagulation or hemoclips are a more efficient or effective treatment for patients with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.
Adult patients with active nonvariceal upper GI bleeding, a nonbleeding visible vessel, or after removal of an adherent clot findings of active bleeding or a visible vessel were studied. Patients were randomized to either therapy and the outcomes were assessed at 30 days.
Forty-seven patients were studied: 26 patients randomized to hemoclips and 21 to combination therapy. There were 22 patients with active bleeding, 13 with a nonbleeding visible vessel, and 12 with an adherent clot. The median duration of endoscopic therapy was 17 min in the hemoclip group versus 20 min for the combination therapy, p= 0.29. Primary hemostasis with successful initial control of bleeding occurred in 26 (100%) of 26 hemoclip patients and 20 (95.2%) of 21 combination therapy patients, p= 0.45. The rebleeding rates were: 4 (15.4%) of 26 hemoclip patients versus 5 (23.8%) of 21 combination therapy patients, p= 0.49. Overall, the length of hospital stay, units of blood transfused, surgery rates, and mortality were not different.
In this prospective, randomized controlled trial of endoscopic hemoclips versus combination therapy in the nonvariceal upper GI bleeding, the efficiency, efficacy, and complications of the two treatment modalities were not significantly different.
The American Journal of Gastroenterology 08/2005; 100(7):1503-8. · 7.28 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Guidelines have been published as a framework for therapy of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The purpose of this study was to determine whether patients referred for a second opinion were receiving therapy in accordance with practice guidelines.
Patients with luminal IBD under the care of a gastroenterologist who sought a a second opinion at Brigham and Women's Hospital between January 2001 and April 2003 were enrolled in this study. Clinical information was obtained by direct patient interview at the time of initial patient visit and by a review of prior records. Data obtained included the diagnosis, clinical symptoms, prior medical therapy, preventive measures for metabolic bone disease, and colon-cancer screening.
The study population consisted of 67 consecutive patients: 21 with ulcerative colitis, 44 with Crohn's disease and 2 in whom the diagnosis of IBD could not be confirmed. Of the 65 patients with confirmed IBD, 56 patients had symptoms of active disease and 9 were asymptomatic. All analyses were carried out on the 56 patients with active disease. Of the 33 patients treated with aminosalicylates, 21 (64%) were not receiving maximal doses. Nine of 12 (75%) patients with distal ulcerative colitis were not receiving rectal aminosalicylate therapy. Within 6 months of their clinic visit, 35 patients had received corticosteroid therapy, and 27 (77%) patients had been treated with corticosteroids for greater than 3 months. In 16 of 27 (59%) there was no attempt to start steroid sparing medications such as 6-mercaptopurine (6MP), azathioprine, or infliximab. Of the 11 patients treated with either 6MP or azathioprine, 9 (82%) were suboptimally dosed without an attempt to increase dosage. Of the 27 patients on prolonged corticosteroid therapy 21 (78%) received inadequate treatment to prevent metabolic bone disease. Three of 9 patients (33%) meeting indications for surveillance colonoscopy for dysplasia had not undergone colonoscopy at the appropriate interval.
Patients with IBD often do not receive optimal medical therapy. In particular, there is suboptimal dosing of 5-ASA and immunomodulatory medications, prolonged use of corticosteroids, failure to use steroid-sparing agents, inadequate measures to prevent metabolic bone disease, and inadequate screening for colorectal cancer.
The American Journal of Gastroenterology 07/2005; 100(6):1357-61. · 7.28 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Head-mounted video displays recently became available for endoscopy. This study compared a video headset with a conventional monitor during colonoscopy.
Five endoscopists were randomized to headset or to monitor use during colonoscopy. They completed a questionnaire that assessed image quality, procedure characteristics, and comfort. Medication use and length of procedure were recorded.
A total of 96 colonoscopies were performed. Image quality and comfort were rated as poorer during headset use (p < 0.05). However, neck strain was significantly reduced with the headset. Medication use and total procedure time were similar. There was a trend toward increased time to cecum with the headset (9.8 vs. 8.0 minutes, p = 0.055).
In this randomized study, comparing a video headset and a conventional monitor for colonoscopy, image quality and comfort were inferior with the headset, although neck strain was improved. Further improvements in technology are needed before headsets can be considered an acceptable alternative to the conventional video monitor for GI endoscopy.
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 03/2005; 61(2):301-6. · 4.88 Impact Factor
