Search

Background: SPINK1 p.N34S gene variation is one of the endogenous factors which seem to be associated with chronic pancreatitis (CP). However, in literature there is no clear agreement regarding its contribution in different ethnicity and CP etiologies., Aim: To investigate the role of SPINK1 p.N34S gene variation in CP patients with European origin by means of meta-analysis., Methods: Literature search was conducted and case-control studies evaluating Caucasian population, published between May 2007 and May 2015, were included. We also included Caucasian selected studies analyzed in previous meta-analysis. We carried out meta-analysis including all selected studies. After that, we performed two additional meta-analyses considering the incidence of SPINK1 p.N34S gene variation in alcoholic or in idiopathic CP patients vs control group., Results: Twenty-five studies were included and the total number of subjects was 8800 (2981 cases and 5819 controls). The presence of p.N34S variation increased nine times the overall CP risk in population of European origin [OR 9.695 (CI 95% 7.931-11.851)]. Also, the contribution of SPINK1 in idiopathic pancreatitis [OR 13.640 (CI 95% 8.858-21.002)] was found to be higher than in alcoholic CP [5.283 (CI 95% 3.449-8.092)]., Conclusion: The association between SPINK1 p.N34S gene variation and CP is confirmed. Also, we confirmed that the idiopathic etiology needs a better definition by means of genetic analysis., (Copyright © 2017 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: BACKGROUND AND STUDY: Combined use of opiates and benzodiazepines often results in delayed discharge after colonoscopy., Aims: To compare sedation quality of two dosages of patient controlled analgesia remifentanil with one another and with that of a midazolam-meperidine association during colonoscopy., Methods: Ninety patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly assigned to three groups. Group M received a meperidine bolus (0.7 mg/kg) and sham patient controlled analgesia. Group R1 received remifentanil 0.5 μg/kg and group R2 remifentanil 0.8 μg/kg together with a patient-controlled analgesia pump injecting further boluses (2-min lock-out). Technical difficulties of the examination, gastroenterologist's and patient's satisfaction with sedoanalgesia were evaluated after colonoscopy on a 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale. Patient's satisfaction was assessed 24 h later., Results: Group M had more adverse events (p = 0.044), required more rescue boluses (p = 0.0010), had lower Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation Scale score at the end of the procedure (p = 0.0016) and longer discharge time (p = 0.0001). Groups R1 and R2 did not differ with respect to these variables. Patient's degree of pain and satisfaction with sedo-analgesia, endoscopist's technical difficulty and satisfaction were not different among groups., Conclusions: Remifentanil patient controlled analgesia is a safe approach to sedation for colonoscopy., (Copyright © 2012 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Best strategy of sedation/analgesia in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is still debated., Aims of the Study: To evaluate sedation and monitoring practice among Italian gastroenterologists and to assess their opinion about non-anaesthesiologist propofol administration., Methods: A 19-item survey was mailed to all 1192 members of the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED). For each respondent were recorded demographic data, medical specialty, years of practise and practise setting., Results: A total of 494 SIED members returned questionnaires, representing a response rate of 41.4%. The most employed sedation pattern was benzodiazepines for oesophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDS) in 50.8% of procedures, benzodiazepines plus opioids for colonoscopy and enteroscopy in 39.5% and 35.3% of procedures, respectively, propofol for endoscopic retrograde colangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in 42.3% and 35.6% of procedures, respectively. With regard to propofol use, 66% respondents stated that propofol was exclusively administered by anaesthesiologists. However, 76.9% respondents would consider non-anaesthesiologist propofol administration after appropriate training. Pulse oximetry is the most employed system for procedural monitoring. Supplemental O(2) is routinely administered by 39.3% respondents., Conclusions: Use of sedation has become a standard practise during GI endoscopy in Italy. Pattern varies for each type of procedure. Pulse oximetry is the most employed system of monitoring. Administration of propofol is still directed by anaesthesiologists., (Copyright © 2011 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: It has been speculated that midazolam may be effective in reducing the required dose of propofol during sedation., Aim: To evaluate the sparing effect of midazolam during target-controlled propofol infusion., Methods: Two hundred-seventy patients undergoing upper endoscopic ultrasound were randomised to receive sedation with propofol plus placebo (group A) or plus midazolam (group B). Outcome parameters were the procedure duration, the discharge time and the satisfaction of patients, operator and nurse about the quality of sedation., Results: The mean propofol dose administered was 364+/-207 mg in group A and 394+/-204 mg in group B. Mean procedure duration (group A: 32+/-17 min, group B: 35+/-22 min) and discharge time (group A: 39+/-30 min, group B: 38+/-24 min) were similar in both groups. No severe complications were observed. The quality of sedation was judged satisfactory for all patients by both the endoscopist and the nurse assistant without any difference between the two groups. No patient remembered the procedure or reported it as unpleasant., Conclusions: Target-controlled propofol infusion provides safe and effective sedation; premedication with low dose of midazolam does not reduce the total amount of propofol administered. Further studies are needed to compare propofol alone with propofol co-administered with opioid.

Background: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) inhibit cyclo-oxygenase (COX), which leads to suppression of COX-1-mediated production of gastrointestinal-protective prostaglandins. Gastrointestinal injury is a common outcome. We compared the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of long-term therapy with celecoxib, a COX-1 sparing inhibitor of COX-2, with diclofenac, a non-specific COX inhibitor., Methods: 655 patients with adult-onset rheumatoid arthritis of at least 6 months' duration were randomly assigned oral celecoxib 200 mg twice daily or diclofenac SR 75 mg twice daily for 24 weeks. Anti-inflammatory and analgesic activity and tolerability were assessed at baseline, every 4 weeks, and at week 24. We assessed gastrointestinal safety by upper-gastrointestinal endoscopy within 7 days of the last treatment dose at centres where the procedure was available. Analysis was by intention-to-treat., Findings: 430 patients underwent endoscopy (celecoxib n=212, diclofenac n=218). The two drugs were similar in management of rheumatoid arthritis pain and inflammation. Gastroduodenal ulcers were detected endoscopically in 33 (15%) patients treated with diclofenac and in eight (4%) in the celecoxib group (p<0.001). The rate of withdrawal for any gastrointestinal-related adverse event, most commonly abdominal pain, diarrhoea, and dyspepsia, was nearly three times higher in the diclofenac-treated group than in the celecoxib group (16 vs 6%; p<0.001)., Interpretation: Celecoxib showed sustained anti-inflammatory and analgesic activity similar to diclofenac, with a lower frequency of upper gastrointestinal ulceration or gastrointestinal adverse events, and tolerability was better.

The composition of gastric mucus and the amount of gastric bicarbonate secretion have been investigated in 26 subjects including healthy controls, duodenal ulcer patients and subjects with chronic gastric disorders (benign gastric ulcer or chronic superficial gastritis). Qualitative changes in gastric mucus (expressed as a reduction in the values of 'mucoprotective index') were found in the gastric ulcer group, but not in patients with chronic superficial gastritis. Basal bicarbonate secretion was significantly reduced (p less than 0.01) in subjects with gastric ulcer and chronic gastritis, compared with healthy controls. Mucus secretion and bicarbonate production proved to be normal in duodenal ulcer patients. Our results support the concept that impairment of the 'mucus-bicarbonate' barrier is an important pathogenetic factor in gastric ulcer and chronic gastritis.