Search

Background: Partial splenic embolization (PSE) has been proposed to treat the consequences of hypersplenism in the context of portal hypertension, especially thrombocytopenia. However, a high morbidity/mortality rate has made this technique unpopular. We conducted a multicenter retrospective nationwide French study to reevaluate efficacy and tolerance., Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent PSE for hypersplenism and portal hypertension in 7 tertiary liver centers between 1998 and 2023 were included., Results: The study population consisted of 91 procedures in 90 patients, with a median age of 55.5 years [range 18-83]. The main cause of portal hypertension was cirrhosis (84.6 %). The main indications for PSE were (1) an indication of medical treatment or radiological/surgical procedure in the context a severe thrombocytopenia (59.3 %), (2) a chronic hemorrhagic disorder associated with a severe thrombocytopenia (18.7 %), and (3) a chronic pain associated with a major splenomegaly (9.9 %). PSE was associated with a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in 20 cases. Median follow-up after PSE was 41.9 months [0.5-270.5]. Platelet count increased from a median of 48.0 G/L [IQR 37.0; 60.0] to 100.0 G/L [75.0; 148]. Forty-eight patients (52.7 %) had complications after PSE; 25 cases were considered severe (including 7 deaths). A Child-Pugh B-C score (p < 0.02) was significantly associated with all complications, a history of portal vein thrombosis (p < 0.01), and the absence of prophylactic antibiotherapy (p < 0.05) with severe complications., Conclusion: Our results strongly confirm that PSE is very effective, for a long time, although a quarter of the patients experienced severe complications. Improved patient selection (exclusion of patients with portal vein thrombosis and decompensated cirrhosis) and systematic prophylactic antibiotherapy could reduce morbidity and early mortality in the future., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Objectives: The emergence of biologics has improved the course of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) in the elderly population despite a potential higher risk of infections. We conducted a one-year, prospective, multicenter, observational study to determine the frequency of occurrence of at least one infectious event in elderly IBD patients under anti-TNF therapy compared with that in elderly patients under vedolizumab or ustekinumab therapies., Methods: All IBD patients over 65 years exposed to anti-TNF, vedolizumab or ustekinumab therapies were included. The primary endpoint was the prevalence of at least one infection during the whole one year follow-up., Results: Among the 207 consecutive elderly IBD patients prospectively enrolled, 113 were treated with anti-TNF and 94 with vedolizumab (n=63) or ustekinumab (n=31) (median age 71 years, 112 Crohn's disease). The Charlson index was similar between patients under anti-TNF and those under vedolizumab or ustekinumab as well as the proportion of patients under combination therapy and under concomitant steroid therapy did not differ between both both groups. The prevalence of infections was similar in patients under anti-TNF and in those under vedolizumab or ustekinumab (29% versus 28%, respectively; p=0.81). There was no difference in terms of type and severity of infection and of infection-related hospitalization rate. In multivariate regression analysis, only the Charlson comorbidity index (≥ 1) was identified as a significant and independent risk factor of infection (p=0.03)., Conclusion: Around 30 % of elderly patients with IBD under biologics experienced at least one infection during the one-year study follow-up period. The risk of occurrence of infection does not differ between anti-TNF and vedolizumab or ustekinumab therapies, and only the associated comorbidity was linked with the risk of infection., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Ulipristal has recently been suspected to be hepatotoxic by the European Medicines Agency but the evidence base for hepatotoxicity is sparse. This is a brief formal report of a patient administered ulipristal for 6-8 weeks and who developed acute liver failure leading to liver transplantation. The explanted liver showed extensive hepatocyte necrosis and inflammation compatible with drug-induced liver injury and cirrhosis. The usual causes of acute hepatitis and cirrhosis were eliminated. There were no other potential causative drugs. This case suggests that ulipristal may cause acute hepatitis, with pre-existing cirrhosis probably contributing to the severity of liver injury observed in this case. Ulipristal prescribers must remain vigilant and monitor liver function in their patients., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)