Search

This study tested the hypothesis that bowel preparation with mannitol should not affect the colonic concentration of H2 and CH4. Therefore, the SATISFACTION study, an international, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group phase II–III study investigated this issue. The phase II dose-finding part of the study evaluated H2, CH4, and O2 concentrations in 179 patients randomized to treatment with 50 g, 100 g, or 150 g mannitol. Phase III of the study compared the presence of intestinal gases in 680 patients randomized (1:1) to receive mannitol 100 g in single dose or a standard split-dose 2 L polyethylene glycol (PEG)-Asc preparation (2 L PEG-Asc). Phase II results showed that mannitol did not influence the concentration of intestinal gases. During phase III, no patient in either group had H2 or CH4 concentrations above the critical thresholds. In patients with H2 and/or CH4 levels above detectable concentrations, the mean values were below the risk thresholds by at least one order of magnitude. The results also highlighted the effectiveness of standard washing and insufflation maneuvers in removing residual intestinal gases. In conclusion, bowel cleansing with mannitol was safe as the concentrations of H2 and CH4 were the same as those found in patients prepared with 2 L PEG-Asc. In both groups, the concentrations of gases were influenced more by the degree of cleansing achieved and the insufflation and washing maneuvers performed than by the preparation used for bowel cleansing. The trial protocol was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04759885) and with EudraCT (eudract_number: 2019-002856-18).

Background & aim: Although acute lower GI bleeding (LGIB) represents a significant healthcare burden, prospective real-life data on management and outcomes are scanty. Present multicentre, prospective cohort study was aimed at evaluating mortality and associated risk factors and at describing patient management. Methods: Adult outpatients acutely admitted for or developing LGIB during hospitalization were consecutively enrolled in 15 high-volume referral centers. Demographics, comorbidities, medications, interventions and outcomes were recorded. Results: Overall 1,198 patients (1060 new admissions;138 inpatients) were included. Most patients were elderly (mean-age 74±15 years), 31% had a Charlson-Comorbidity-Index ≥3, 58% were on antithrombotic therapy. In-hospital mortality (primary outcome) was 3.4% (95%CI 2.5–4.6). At logistic regression analysis, independent predictors of mortality were increasing age, comorbidity, inpatient status, hemodynamic instability at presentation, and ICU-admission. Colonoscopy had a 78.8% diagnostic yield, with significantly higher hemostasis rate when performed within 24-hours than later (21.3% vs.10.8%, p = 0.027). Endoscopic hemostasis was associated with neither in-hospital mortality nor rebleeding. A definite or presumptive source of bleeding was disclosed in 90.4% of investigated patients. Conclusion: Mortality in LGIB patients is mainly related to age and comorbidities. Although early colonoscopy has a relevant diagnostic yield and is associated with higher therapeutic intervention rate, endoscopic hemostasis is not associated with improved clinical outcomes [ClinicalTrial.gov number: NCT 04364412].

Objectives: Single balloon enteroscopy (SBE) is an effective and safe modality for the diagnosis and therapeutic intervention of small bowel disorders. Its use in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) and particularly its effect on management changes in CD have not yet been determined. Materials and methods: We performed a retrospective review of the endoscopic and clinical data available on a cohort of patients with small bowel CD who had undergone SBE to determine the diagnostic and therapeutic yield of the procedure and the initial and longer-term impact it had on clinical management. Results: About 52 patients have undergone SBE in our unit for the investigation of known (n = 39) or suspected (n = 13) small bowel CD with a diagnostic yield of 77% and 39%, respectively. SBE had an immediate clinical impact in 69% (n = 33) of patients, including dilatation of a stricture in 27% (n = 13), initiation or adjustment of dose of medications in 48% (n = 23), referral for surgical resection in 6% (n = 3). Moreover, the procedure permitted determining a new diagnosis of CD in 8% of the patients (n = 4), and excluding it in 8% (n = 4). Longer term follow-up was available in 34 patients (65%) which showed a significant difference in mean HBI score from 6.6 before the procedure to 4.2 after it (p <.0001). Conclusions: SBE has a high diagnostic and therapeutic yield in CD and significantly impacts disease management. Careful patient selection is a key factor in optimizing its use in CD.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There are no clinical studies that compare epidural infusion of ropivacaine and levobupivacaine in patients undergoing lung surgery. The aim of this prospective, randomized double-blind study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two commercially available solutions of ropivacaine (0.2% w/v) and levobupivacaine (0.125% w/v) when administered by continuous epidural infusion together with sufentanil in patients undergoing lung surgery. METHODS: After obtaining informed consent, 54 patients, ASA physical status I-III undergoing lung resection, were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups in which analgesia was performed by continuous thoracic epidural infusion of ropivacaine 0.2% w/v (Group R) or levobupivacaine 0.125% w/v (Group L) with or without sufentanil 1 microg mL(-1). After a test and a loading dose of each drug for the respective group, continuous epidural infusion, set at 5 mL h(-1), began. General anaesthesia was standardized. In the recovery room, patients were provided with intravenous morphine patient-controlled analgesia. Visual analogue scale at rest and when coughing, rescue patient-controlled analgesia morphine amount, haemodynamics, sensory and motor block, sedation, nausea and vomiting, patient satisfaction score, were evaluated within 48 h. RESULTS: The two groups were similar regarding patient characteristics, quality of analgesia, level of sensory block, morphine consumption and satisfaction score. Postoperative haemodynamic profile was stable in all the patients. Minor side-effects occurred with a similar incidence. Motor block was not seen. CONCLUSIONS: Equivalent volumes of ropivacaine (0.2% w/v) and levobupivacaine (0.125% w/v) provided similar static and dynamic analgesia with similar incidence of minor side-effects after thoracotomy.

The purpose of this work was to verify the usefulness of somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs)in detecting cerebral ischemia and the need for a shunt during carotid endarterectomy (CEA).