Search

Background: Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a common gastroenterological emergency associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is currently recommended as the gold standard modality for both diagnosis and treatment. As historically played a limited role in the diagnosis of acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, multidetector-row computed tomography angiography is emerging as a promising tool in the diagnosis of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, especially for severe cases. However, to date, evidence concerning the role of multidetector-row computed tomography angiography in the non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding diagnosis is still lacking., Aim: The purpose of this study was to retrospectively investigate the diagnostic performance of emergent multidetector-row computed tomography angiography performed prior to any diagnostic modality or following urgent upper endoscopy to identify the status, the site, and the underlying etiology of severe non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding., Methods: Institutional databases were reviewed in order to identify severe acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients who were admitted to our bleeding unit and were referred for emergent multidetector-row computed tomography angiography prior to any hemostatic treatment (< 3 h) or following (< 3 h) endoscopy, between December 2019 and October 2022. The study aim was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of multidetector-row computed tomography angiography to detect the status, the site, and the etiology of severe non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding with endoscopy, digital subtraction angiography, surgery, pathology, or a combination of them as reference standards., Results: A total of 68 patients (38 men, median age 69 years [range 25-96]) were enrolled. The overall multidetector-row computed tomography angiography sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy to diagnose bleeding status were 77.8% (95% CI: 65.5-87.3), 40% (95% CI: 5.3-85.3), and 75% (95% CI: 63.0-84.7), respectively. Finally, the overall multidetector-row computed tomography angiography sensitivity to identify the bleeding site and the bleeding etiology were 92.4% (95% CI: 83.2-97.5) and 79% (95% CI: 66.8-88.3), respectively., Conclusion: Although esophagogastroduodenoscopy is the mainstay in the diagnosis and treatment of most non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding cases, multidetector-row computed tomography angiography seems to be a feasible and effective modality in detecting the site, the status, and the etiology of severe acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. It may play a crucial role in the management of selected cases of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, especially those clinically severe and/or secondary to rare and extraordinary rare sources, effectively guiding timing and type of treatment. However, further large prospective studies are needed to clarify the role of multidetector-row computed tomography angiography in the diagnostic process of acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Alcoholic beverages (ABs) and carbonated soft drinks (CSDs) are widely consumed worldwide. Given the high consumption of these beverages, the scientific community has increased its focus on their health impact. There is epidemiological evidence of a causal association between AB intake and digestive cancer, but the role of alcohol in determining cancer is not fully defined. Experimental studies have so far identified multiple mechanisms involved in carcinogenesis; ethanol itself is not carcinogenic but available data suggest that acetaldehyde (AA) and reactive oxygen species-both products of ethanol metabolism-have a genotoxic effect promoting carcinogenesis. Other carcinogenetic mechanisms include nutritional deficits, changes in DNA methylation, and impaired immune surveillance. As CSDs are often suspected to cause certain gastrointestinal disorders, consequently, some researchers have hypothesized their involvement in gastrointestinal cancers. Of all the ingredients, carbon dioxide is prevalently involved in the alteration of gastrointestinal physiology by a direct mucosal effect and indirect effects mediated by the mechanical pressure determined by gas. The role of sugar or artificial sweeteners is also debated as factors involved in the carcinogenic processes. However, several surveys have failed to show any associations between CSDs and esophageal, gastric, or colon cancers. On the other hand, a slight correlation between risk of pancreatic cancer and CSD consumption has been found.