Search

Introduction: Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) receiving immunosuppressive drugs are at substantial risk of colectomy. We aimed to assess the risk of postoperative complications of tofacitinib exposure before colectomy in comparison with biologics., Methods: A multicenter, retrospective, observational study was conducted in patients with UC who underwent total colectomy for medically refractory disease, exposed to tofacitinib or a biologic before surgery. Primary outcome was the occurrence of any complication within 30 (early) and 90 (late) days after surgery. Secondary outcomes were the occurrence of infections, sepsis, surgical site complications, venous thromboembolic events (VTE), hospital readmissions, and redo surgery within the same timepoints., Results: Three hundred one patients (64 tofacitinib, 162 anti-tumor necrosis factor-α agents, 54 vedolizumab, and 21 ustekinumab) were included. No significant differences were reported in any outcome, except for a higher rate of early VTE with anti-tumor necrosis factor-α agents ( P = 0.047) and of late VTE with vedolizumab ( P = 0.03). In the multivariate analysis, drug class was not associated with a higher risk of any early and late complications. Urgent colectomy increased the risk of any early (odds ratio [OR] 1.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-3.48) complications, early hospital readmission (OR 4.79, 95% CI 1.12-20.58), and early redo surgery (OR 7.49, 95% CI 1.17-47.85). A high steroid dose increased the risk of any early complications (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.08-3.57), early surgical site complications (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.01-4.09), and early redo surgery (OR 7.52, 95% CI 1.42-39.82). Laparoscopic surgery decreased the risk of any early complications (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.29-1.00), early infections (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.85), and late hospital readmissions (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12-1.00)., Discussion: Preoperative tofacitinib treatment demonstrated a postoperative safety profile comparable with biologics in patients with UC undergoing colectomy., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Background: Omental infarction is a rare pediatric disease. Ultrasound is a useful modality for a non-invasive pre-operative differential diagnosis between inflammatory conditions (as appendicitis) and omental infarction, especially by detecting immobility of the omentum adhered to the abdominal wall ("tetherd fat sign"). However, this is a dynamic sign that cannot be documented in a static image with B-mode technique. The goal of this work is to incorporate the versatile function of motion mode (M-mode) into omental infarction diagnosis to describe how the M-mode is useful in the evaluation of fat motion in children suspected of having omental infarction. In 2019 we suggested a new Ultrasound sign named "tethered fat sign" for an accurate non-invasive diagnosis of omental infarction in children. This finding was observed in 6 of the 234 seen children of our previous study with 4 laparoscopic confirmed diagnosis., Methods: From January 2019 to July 2021, we evaluated 195 children (91 boys and 104 girls, from 3 to 15 years) admitted to our Santobono-Pausilipon Children Hospital with acute right-sided abdominal pain. Abdominal ultrasound was performed to all the patients and the investigation of "tethered fat sign" was always included., Results: In 7 patients ultrasound showed the presence of a hyperechoic oval mass localized in the right upper abdominal quadrant and in 2 of these M-mode documented a normal subhepatic fat moving during respiratory movements in relation with the abdominal wall. The remaining 5 patients had an omental infarction showed as a subhepatic motionless mass tethered to the abdominal wall on M-mode. In these patients, a sonographic follow-up was performed every 15 d for 2 months showing a progressive reduction in size of the right-sided hyperechoic mass., Conclusions: In the evaluation of all children who showed the presence of the "tethered fat sign" the use of M-mode provide a certified image in diagnostic ultrasound., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://qims.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/qims-23-1691/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2024 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Background: Ustekinumab and tofacitinib have recently been approved for the management of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). However, there is no evidence on how they should be positioned in the therapeutic algorithm. The aim of this study was to compare tofacitinib and ustekinumab as third-line therapies in UC patients in whom anti-TNF and vedolizumab had failed., Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective observational study. The primary outcome was disease progression, defined as the need for steroids, therapy escalation, UC-related hospitalization and/or surgery. Secondary outcomes were clinical remission, normalization of C-reactive protein, endoscopic remission, treatment withdrawal, and adverse events., Results: One-hundred seventeen UC patients were included in the study and followed for a median time of 11.6 months (q 1 -q 3, 5.5-18.7). Overall, 65% of patients were treated with tofacitinib and 35% with ustekinumab. In the entire study cohort, 63 patients (54%) had disease progression during the follow-up period. Treatment with ustekinumab predicted increased risk of disease progression compared to treatment with tofacitinib in Cox regression analysis (HR: 1.93 [95% CI: 1.06-3.50] p = 0.030). Twenty-eight (68%) patients in the ustekinumab group and 35 (46%) in the tofacitinib group had disease progression over the follow-up period (log-rank test, p < 0.054). No significant differences were observed for the secondary outcomes. Six and 22 adverse events occurred in the ustekinumab and tofacitinib groups, respectively (15% vs. 31%, p = 0.11)., Conclusions: Tofacitinib was more efficacious in reducing disease progression than ustekinumab in this cohort of refractory UC patients. However, prospective head-to-head clinical trials are needed as to confirm these data., (© 2023 The Authors. United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of United European Gastroenterology.)

Background and Aims: Endoscopic activity is associated with an increased risk of surgery in patients with ulcerative colitis [UC]. Transmural activity, as defined by Milan Ultrasound Criteria [MUC] > 6.2, reliably detects endoscopic activity in patients with UC. The present study aimed to assess in UC patients whether transmural severity is a better predictor of colectomy as compared to endoscopy., Methods: Consecutive adult UC patients were recruited in two IBD Referral Centres and underwent colonoscopy and intestinal ultrasound in a blinded fashion. The need for colectomy was assessed at follow-up. Univariable and multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses were performed. Receiver operating characteristic [ROC] analysis was used to compare MUC baseline values and Mayo Endoscopic Scores [MES] in predicting colectomy risk., Results: Overall, 141 patients were enrolled, and 13 underwent colectomy in the follow-up period. Both MES (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.15, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.18-8.37, p = 0.02) and MUC [HR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.19-1.76, p < 0.001] were associated with colectomy risk, but only MUC was independently associated with this event on multivariable analysis [HR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.06-2.02, p = 0.02]. MUC was the only independent variable associated with colectomy risk in patients with clinically active disease (odds ratio [OR]: 1.53 [1.03-2.27], p = 0.03). MUC demonstrated higher accuracy than MES (area under ROC curve [AUROC] 0.83, 95% CI: 0.75-0.92 vs 0.71, 95% CI: 0.62-0.80) and better performance for predicting colectomy [p = 0.02]. The optimal MUC score cut-off value for predicting colectomy, as assessed by the Youden index, was 7.7., Conclusions: A superior predictive value was found for transmural vs endoscopic severity for colectomy risk in UC patients., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.)

Background and Aims: Digestive endoscopy is a resource-intensive activity with a conspicuous carbon footprint and an estimated rate of inappropriateness. However, the carbon costs of inappropriate endoscopic procedures still remain obscure. Here we evaluated the environmental impact of inappropriate endoscopic examinations., Methods: We calculated the carbon cost of a standard endoscopic procedure (EGD and colonoscopy [CLS]), taking into account the items (eg, disposable materials, personal protective equipment) and energy required for the endoscopy procedure itself and the cleaning process. The rates of inappropriateness and the mortality cost of carbon (MCC) of endoscopic examinations in different scenarios were calculated., Results: EGD and CLS presented a carbon cost of 5.43 kg and 6.71 kg of CO 2 , respectively. Different scenarios were evaluated, according to the number of endoscopic procedures performed in Italy per 1000 inhabitants and the reported data on their inappropriateness. The carbon cost of inappropriate EGD and CLS in Italy was 4133 CO 2 metric tons per year (MCC, .93), ranging from 3527 to 4749, and equivalent to 1,760,446 L of gasoline consumed. Applying the same data to the European population, the estimated carbon footprint of inappropriate digestive endoscopy in Europe was 30,804 metric tons., Conclusions: The environmental impact of inappropriate endoscopic procedures in Europe is remarkable. These results highlight the need to adopt novel strategies aimed at reducing both the carbon footprint of digestive endoscopy and the rate of inappropriate procedures., Competing Interests: Disclosure All authors disclosed no financial relationships. Research support for this study was provided in part by the Italian Ministry of Health–Current Research IRCCS for authors from the Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico-Milano., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)