Postgraduate Medicine最新文献

Background and study aims Submucosal injection solution is essential for successful endoscopic resection of the early gastrointestinal tumor. We evaluated a new endoscopic hydrogel for submucosal injection and its clinical feasibility. Patients and methods A hydrogel (AceGel) containing 0.4% sodium alginate and 2% calcium lactate was developed for ex vivo and animal studies. Subsequently, a prospective, single-arm study was conducted to assess its feasibility and safety in humans. Patients with gastrointestinal neoplasms undergoing endoscopic resection were enrolled. All patients underwent endoscopic surveillance after 4 weeks and outpatient follow-up at week 6. Afterward, they received endoscopic follow-up according to the medical routine. Results In the ex vivo experiments, the submucosal elevation height of AceGel was equivalent to sodium hyaluronate and superior to saline or glycerol. Animal studies showed that the excised wounds healed well without surrounding tissue damage. Twelve patients participated in the clinical trial, including three, two, and seven patients with esophageal, gastric, and colonic lesions, respectively. The mean neoplasm size and submucosal injection volumes were 24.0±8.6 mm and 22.8±19.9 mL, respectively. All patients had adequate wound healing on 4-week surveillance endoscopy, and none had serious adverse events during 6-week follow-up. Moreover, endoscopic follow-up showed complete wound healing after 6 to 46 months without local mucosal inflammation in all patients. Conclusions AceGel is good for endoscopic submucosal injection and demonstrated its usefulness in durable mucosal elevation for endoscopic therapy in preclinical tests. This clinical trial shows its safety and feasibility in all participating patients.

Background: The Omicron variant has been the predominant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant circulating in Korea since January 2022. This study evaluated and compared the clinical characteristics of children with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) between the Delta and Omicron periods.

Methods: The medical records of children aged < 12 years diagnosed with acute COVID-19 (<2 weeks of symptom onset) at seven university-affiliated hospitals were retrospectively reviewed. Children with a previous history of COVID-19 or vaccination were excluded. The clinical characteristics of the included children during the Delta (1 August 2021 to 15 January 2022) and Omicron (16 January to 30 June 2022) periods were compared.

Results: Among the 515 children included in the study, 36 (7.0%) and 479 (93.0%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 during the Delta and Omicron periods, respectively. A total of 142 (27.6%) were hospitalized, and the hospitalization rate was higher during the Delta period than the Omicron period (91.7% vs. 22.8%, p < 0.001). The incidence of fever (p = 0.009), vomiting (p = 0.031), and seizures (p = 0.007) was higher during the Omicron period, whereas the incidence of rhinorrhea (p = 0.027) was higher during the Delta period. Clinical severity and outcomes were comparable between the two periods. During the Omicron period, 6.4% of the hospitalized children received oxygen therapy and 1.8% received intensive care.

Conclusion: The incidence of fever and seizures was higher during the Omicron period in pediatric patients without a history of vaccination or previous COVID-19. However, the clinical severity was similar during both periods.

Objectives: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) are closely linked conditions, and the presence of each condition promotes incidence and progression of the other. In this study, we sought to better understand the medical journey of patients with CKD and ASCVD and to uncover patients' and healthcare providers' (HCPs) perceptions and attitudes toward CKD and ASCVD diagnosis, treatment, and care coordination.

Methods: Cross-sectional, US-population-based online surveys were conducted between May 18, 2021, and June 17, 2021, among 239 HCPs (70 of whom were primary care physicians, or PCPs) and 195 patients with CKD and ASCVD.

Results: PCPs reported personally diagnosing CKD in 78% and ASVD in 64% of their patients, respectively. PCPs reported they are more likely to serve as the overall coordinator of their patient's care (89%), while slightly more than half of PCPs self-identified as a patient's coordinator of care specifically for CKD (54%) or ASCVD (59%). In contrast, patients viewed their PCP as their coordinator of care for CKD (25%) or ASCVD (9%). PCPs who personally treated patients with CKD and ASCVD most often recalled primarily prescribing or recommending pharmacologic treatments for CKD and ASCVD; however, patients reported that lifestyle modification was the most common treatment modality they had ever used to manage CKD and ASCVD.

Conclusion: CKD and ASCVD are interrelated cardiometabolic conditions with underlying risk factors that can be managed in a primary care setting. However, few patients in our study considered their PCP to be the coordinator of their care for CKD or ASCVD. PCPs can and should take a more active role in educating patients and coordinating care for those with CKD and ASCVD.