首页 > 最新文献

BMJ Open Gastroenterology最新文献

英文 中文
Dutch individuals' views of screening for oesophageal cancer: a focus group study. 荷兰个体对癌症筛查的看法:一项焦点小组研究。
IF 3.1 Q2 Medicine Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001136
Jasmijn Sijben, Yonne Peters, Sharell Bas, Peter Siersema, Linda Rainey, Mireille Broeders

Objective: Screening for early oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC), including its precursor Barrett's oesophagus (BO), can potentially reduce OAC-related morbidity and mortality. This study explores Dutch at-risk individuals' views of screening an at-risk population for BO/OAC.

Design: We invited 372 individuals with risk factors for OAC from primary care practices, 73 individuals with surveillance experience, and 221 participants of previous studies (BO/OAC screening trial or survey) to participate in focus groups. Transcripts were inductively and thematically analysed by two independent researchers.

Results: A total of 50 individuals (42% with gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms) of 50-75 years participated. Themes that were raised included: theme 1 'screening intentions' describing participants' motivation to be screened (eg, early diagnosis, potential reassurance, physician recommendation, and knowing someone with cancer) or decline screening (eg, anticipated discomfort or suboptimal accuracy of the test); theme 2 'risk-based eligibility' describing the tension between effectiveness (eg, targeting high-risk individuals) and inclusivity (eg, making screening available for everyone); theme 3 'distributive justice', in which the pressure of a potential new screening programme on healthcare resources was discussed; and theme 4 'information needs' describing the perceived lack of information access and individuals' preference to discuss screening with their general practitioner.

Conclusion: Individuals not only expressed high willingness to be screened but also voiced the concern that a new screening programme may pressure limited healthcare resources. If implemented, it is crucial to develop educational materials that meet the public's information needs and explain the test procedures and eligibility criteria while avoiding stigmatising language.

目的:筛查早期食管腺癌(OAC),包括其前体巴雷特食管癌(BO),可以潜在地降低OAC相关的发病率和死亡率。本研究探讨了荷兰高危人群对BO/OAC筛查的看法。设计:我们邀请了372名来自初级保健实践的有OAC风险因素的人、73名有监测经验的人和221名先前研究(BO/OAC筛选试验或调查)的参与者参加焦点小组。两名独立研究人员对转录本进行了归纳和主题分析。结果:共有50名50-75岁的患者(42%有胃食管反流症状)参加了研究。提出的主题包括:主题1“筛查意图”,描述参与者接受筛查的动机(例如,早期诊断、潜在的保证、医生建议和认识癌症患者)或拒绝筛查(例如,预期的不适或测试的次优准确性);主题2“基于风险的资格”,描述有效性(例如,针对高危人群)和包容性(例如,为每个人提供筛查)之间的紧张关系;主题3“分配正义”,其中讨论了潜在的新筛查计划对医疗资源的压力;主题4“信息需求”描述了缺乏信息获取的感觉以及个人倾向于与全科医生讨论筛查的情况。结论:个人不仅表达了接受筛查的高度意愿,还表示担心新的筛查计划可能会给有限的医疗资源带来压力。如果实施,开发满足公众信息需求的教育材料,解释考试程序和资格标准,同时避免污名化语言,这一点至关重要。
{"title":"Dutch individuals' views of screening for oesophageal cancer: a focus group study.","authors":"Jasmijn Sijben,&nbsp;Yonne Peters,&nbsp;Sharell Bas,&nbsp;Peter Siersema,&nbsp;Linda Rainey,&nbsp;Mireille Broeders","doi":"10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001136","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001136","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Screening for early oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC), including its precursor Barrett's oesophagus (BO), can potentially reduce OAC-related morbidity and mortality. This study explores Dutch at-risk individuals' views of screening an at-risk population for BO/OAC.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>We invited 372 individuals with risk factors for OAC from primary care practices, 73 individuals with surveillance experience, and 221 participants of previous studies (BO/OAC screening trial or survey) to participate in focus groups. Transcripts were inductively and thematically analysed by two independent researchers.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 50 individuals (42% with gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms) of 50-75 years participated. Themes that were raised included: theme 1 'screening intentions' describing participants' motivation to be screened (eg, early diagnosis, potential reassurance, physician recommendation, and knowing someone with cancer) or decline screening (eg, anticipated discomfort or suboptimal accuracy of the test); theme 2 'risk-based eligibility' describing the tension between effectiveness (eg, targeting high-risk individuals) and inclusivity (eg, making screening available for everyone); theme 3 'distributive justice', in which the pressure of a potential new screening programme on healthcare resources was discussed; and theme 4 'information needs' describing the perceived lack of information access and individuals' preference to discuss screening with their general practitioner.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Individuals not only expressed high willingness to be screened but also voiced the concern that a new screening programme may pressure limited healthcare resources. If implemented, it is crucial to develop educational materials that meet the public's information needs and explain the test procedures and eligibility criteria while avoiding stigmatising language.</p>","PeriodicalId":9235,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10254588/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10350905","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Socioeconomic inequalities in interval colorectal cancer are explained by differences in faecal haemoglobin concentration and age: a register-based cohort study. 间隔期结直肠癌的社会经济不平等可以通过粪便血红蛋白浓度和年龄的差异来解释:一项基于登记的队列研究。
IF 3.1 Q2 Medicine Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001113
Ulrik Deding, Morten Kobaek-Larsen, Henrik Bøggild, Lasse Kaalby, Marianne Kirstine Thygesen, Gunnar Baatrup

Objective: To estimate the risk of interval colorectal cancer (CRC) in faecal immunochemical test (FIT) negative screening participants according to socioeconomic status.

Design: In this register-based study, first round FIT negative (<20 µg hb/g faeces) screening participants (biennial FIT, citizens aged 50-74) were followed to estimate interval CRC risk. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models estimated HRs based on socioeconomic status defined by educational level and income. Models were adjusted for age, sex and FIT concentration.

Results: We identified 829 (0.7‰) interval CRC in 1 160 902 individuals. Interval CRC was more common in lower socioeconomic strata with 0.7‰ for medium-long higher education compared with 1.0‰ for elementary school and 0.4‰ in the highest income quartile compared with 1.2‰ in the lowest. These differences did not translate into significant differences in HR in the multivariate analysis, as they were explained by FIT concentration and age. HR for interval CRC was 7.09 (95% CI) for FIT concentrations 11.9-19.8 µg hb/g faeces, and 3.37 (95% CI) for FIT between 7.2 and 11.8 compared with those <7.2. The HR rose with increasing age ranging from 2.06 (95% CI 1.45 to 2.93) to 7.60 (95% CI 5.63 to 10.25) compared with those under 55 years.

Conclusion: Interval CRC risk increased with decreasing income, heavily influenced by lower income individuals more often being older and having increased FIT concentrations. Individualising screening interval based on age and FIT result, may decrease interval CRC rates, reduce the social gradient and thereby increase the screening efficiency.

目的:根据社会经济状况,评估粪便免疫化学试验(FIT)阴性筛查参与者发生间期结直肠癌(CRC)的风险。设计:在这项基于登记的研究中,第一轮FIT阴性(结果:我们在1 160 902例个体中发现829例(0.7‰)期结直肠癌。区间CRC在较低的社会经济阶层中更为常见,中长期高等教育为0.7‰,而小学为1.0‰,最高收入四分位数为0.4‰,最低收入四分位数为1.2‰。在多变量分析中,这些差异并没有转化为HR的显著差异,因为它们可以用FIT浓度和年龄来解释。当FIT浓度为11.9-19.8 μ g hb/g粪便时,间隔期结直肠癌的HR为7.09 (95% CI),而当FIT浓度为7.2 - 11.8时,间隔期结直肠癌的HR为3.37 (95% CI)。结论:间隔期结直肠癌的风险随着收入的减少而增加,受到低收入人群的严重影响,这些人群往往年龄较大且FIT浓度较高。基于年龄和FIT结果的个体化筛查间隔可以降低间隔CRC发生率,降低社会梯度,从而提高筛查效率。
{"title":"Socioeconomic inequalities in interval colorectal cancer are explained by differences in faecal haemoglobin concentration and age: a register-based cohort study.","authors":"Ulrik Deding,&nbsp;Morten Kobaek-Larsen,&nbsp;Henrik Bøggild,&nbsp;Lasse Kaalby,&nbsp;Marianne Kirstine Thygesen,&nbsp;Gunnar Baatrup","doi":"10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001113","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001113","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To estimate the risk of interval colorectal cancer (CRC) in faecal immunochemical test (FIT) negative screening participants according to socioeconomic status.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>In this register-based study, first round FIT negative (<20 µg hb/g faeces) screening participants (biennial FIT, citizens aged 50-74) were followed to estimate interval CRC risk. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models estimated HRs based on socioeconomic status defined by educational level and income. Models were adjusted for age, sex and FIT concentration.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 829 (0.7‰) interval CRC in 1 160 902 individuals. Interval CRC was more common in lower socioeconomic strata with 0.7‰ for medium-long higher education compared with 1.0‰ for elementary school and 0.4‰ in the highest income quartile compared with 1.2‰ in the lowest. These differences did not translate into significant differences in HR in the multivariate analysis, as they were explained by FIT concentration and age. HR for interval CRC was 7.09 (95% CI) for FIT concentrations 11.9-19.8 µg hb/g faeces, and 3.37 (95% CI) for FIT between 7.2 and 11.8 compared with those <7.2. The HR rose with increasing age ranging from 2.06 (95% CI 1.45 to 2.93) to 7.60 (95% CI 5.63 to 10.25) compared with those under 55 years.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Interval CRC risk increased with decreasing income, heavily influenced by lower income individuals more often being older and having increased FIT concentrations. Individualising screening interval based on age and FIT result, may decrease interval CRC rates, reduce the social gradient and thereby increase the screening efficiency.</p>","PeriodicalId":9235,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/18/19/bmjgast-2023-001113.PMC10230874.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9745080","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Delphi consensus survey: the opinions of patients living with refractory ulcerative proctitis and the health care professionals who care for them. 德尔菲共识调查:难治性溃疡性直肠炎患者及其医护人员的意见。
IF 3.1 Q2 Medicine Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001139
Maro Kyriacou, Shellie Radford, Gordon W Moran

Background: Refractory ulcerative proctitis presents a huge clinical challenge not only for the patients living with this chronic, progressive condition but also for the professionals who care for them. Currently, there is limited research and evidence-based guidance, resulting in many patients living with the symptomatic burden of disease and reduced quality of life. The aim of this study was to establish a consensus on the thoughts and opinions related to refractory proctitis disease burden and best practice for management.

Methods: A three-round Delphi consensus survey was conducted among patients living with refractory proctitis and the healthcare experts with knowledge on this disease from the UK. A brainstorming stage involving a focus group where the participants came up with an initial list of statements was completed. Following this, there were three rounds of Delphi surveys in which the participants were asked to rank the importance of the statements and provide any additional comments or clarifications. Calculation of mean scores, analysis of comments and revisions were performed to produce a final list of statements.

Results: In total, 14 statements were suggested by the focus group at the initial brainstorming stage. Following completion of three Delphi survey rounds, all 14 statements reached consensus following appropriate revision.

Conclusions: We established consensus on the thoughts and opinions related to refractory proctitis from both the experts who manage this disease and the patients living with it. This represents the first step towards developing clinical research data and ultimately the evidence needed for best practice management guidance of this condition.

背景:难治性溃疡性直肠炎不仅对患有这种慢性进行性疾病的患者提出了巨大的临床挑战,而且对照顾他们的专业人员也是如此。目前,研究和循证指导有限,导致许多患者生活在有症状的疾病负担中,生活质量下降。本研究的目的是建立对难治性直肠炎疾病负担和最佳管理实践的共识。方法:对来自英国的难治性直肠炎患者和具有该疾病知识的医疗保健专家进行三轮德尔菲共识调查。在一个涉及焦点小组的头脑风暴阶段,参与者提出了一个初步的陈述清单。在此之后,有三轮德尔菲调查,参与者被要求对陈述的重要性进行排名,并提供任何额外的评论或澄清。计算平均分数,分析评论和修订,以产生最终的陈述列表。结果:在最初的头脑风暴阶段,焦点小组总共提出了14条陈述。在完成三轮德尔菲调查后,经过适当的修改,所有14项陈述都达成了共识。结论:我们对难治性直肠炎的治疗专家和患者的想法和意见达成了共识。这代表了开发临床研究数据的第一步,并最终成为该病症最佳实践管理指导所需的证据。
{"title":"Delphi consensus survey: the opinions of patients living with refractory ulcerative proctitis and the health care professionals who care for them.","authors":"Maro Kyriacou,&nbsp;Shellie Radford,&nbsp;Gordon W Moran","doi":"10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001139","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001139","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Refractory ulcerative proctitis presents a huge clinical challenge not only for the patients living with this chronic, progressive condition but also for the professionals who care for them. Currently, there is limited research and evidence-based guidance, resulting in many patients living with the symptomatic burden of disease and reduced quality of life. The aim of this study was to establish a consensus on the thoughts and opinions related to refractory proctitis disease burden and best practice for management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A three-round Delphi consensus survey was conducted among patients living with refractory proctitis and the healthcare experts with knowledge on this disease from the UK. A brainstorming stage involving a focus group where the participants came up with an initial list of statements was completed. Following this, there were three rounds of Delphi surveys in which the participants were asked to rank the importance of the statements and provide any additional comments or clarifications. Calculation of mean scores, analysis of comments and revisions were performed to produce a final list of statements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 14 statements were suggested by the focus group at the initial brainstorming stage. Following completion of three Delphi survey rounds, all 14 statements reached consensus following appropriate revision.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We established consensus on the thoughts and opinions related to refractory proctitis from both the experts who manage this disease and the patients living with it. This represents the first step towards developing clinical research data and ultimately the evidence needed for best practice management guidance of this condition.</p>","PeriodicalId":9235,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/7d/30/bmjgast-2023-001139.PMC10230891.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9689220","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Yes, they can! Comparing foodborne illness estimates, and the need for greater transparency. 是的,他们可以!比较食源性疾病估计数,以及提高透明度的必要性。
IF 3.1 Q2 Medicine Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001144
Elaine Scallan Walter, Martyn D Kirk, Shannon E Majowicz
To the Editor, In their recent paper, Holland et al, compared foodborne illness rates in the UK, Australia, Canada, and the USA, asking whether such comparisons across countries can legitimately inform trade decisions based on food safety risks. The authors highlighted methodological differences as a major barrier to making accurate comparisons. While we agree that comparing estimates between countries should be done with caution, in our view, the major reason that foodborne burden estimates should not be used for trade purposes is that they do not reflect the food safety risks associated with exported foods, which must meet the standards of the importing country. Foodborne illness estimates reflect food safety risks associated with foods consumed within that country, which is why foodborne burden estimates are used for prioritising and directing food safety efforts within a country. Comparison between countries is feasible and can provide important insights. In analyses of the burden of foodborne disease in Australia, Canada, Ireland, and the USA that used similar methods and a common case definition, we were able to directly compare rates of acute gastroenteritis between countries, revealing consistencies in age and sex patterns and medical care seeking behaviours. After accounting for differences in healthcare delivery, we concluded that overall rates of Campylobacter infections were truly higher in Australia than in the USA. While cohort studies, such as the Infectious Intestinal Disease studies in the UK, have some methodological advantages, they are complex and costly. Thus, many countries rely on data from surveillance and other sources coupled with crosssectional surveys that assess underdiagnosis due to laboratory testing, medical care seeking, and stool sample submission. Crosssectional studies also provide data that we and others have found consistent and valid to estimate diarrheal disease incidence. Indeed, most of the uncertainty arising from foodborne gastroenteritis estimates comes from the expert elicitations used to derive the proportion of illness attributable to foodborne transmission, where data are mostly lacking. That said, there is more that we as a community of investigators should do to improve interpretability, comparability, and reproducibility. Comparative analyses would be greatly enhanced if all burden of foodborne illness studies published raw data and models, along with clear, detailed methods, an assessment of statistical and nonstatistical uncertainty and a clear rationale for how agents and data sources were selected. These efforts would not only benefit individual countries wanting to compare estimates over time, but they would also contribute to larger, international efforts to estimate the burden of foodborne disease, namely, the global estimates produced by the WHO’s Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference Group (FERG), which are currently being updated. Whether for global estimation, better scienti
{"title":"Yes, they can! Comparing foodborne illness estimates, and the need for greater transparency.","authors":"Elaine Scallan Walter,&nbsp;Martyn D Kirk,&nbsp;Shannon E Majowicz","doi":"10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001144","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001144","url":null,"abstract":"To the Editor, In their recent paper, Holland et al, compared foodborne illness rates in the UK, Australia, Canada, and the USA, asking whether such comparisons across countries can legitimately inform trade decisions based on food safety risks. The authors highlighted methodological differences as a major barrier to making accurate comparisons. While we agree that comparing estimates between countries should be done with caution, in our view, the major reason that foodborne burden estimates should not be used for trade purposes is that they do not reflect the food safety risks associated with exported foods, which must meet the standards of the importing country. Foodborne illness estimates reflect food safety risks associated with foods consumed within that country, which is why foodborne burden estimates are used for prioritising and directing food safety efforts within a country. Comparison between countries is feasible and can provide important insights. In analyses of the burden of foodborne disease in Australia, Canada, Ireland, and the USA that used similar methods and a common case definition, we were able to directly compare rates of acute gastroenteritis between countries, revealing consistencies in age and sex patterns and medical care seeking behaviours. After accounting for differences in healthcare delivery, we concluded that overall rates of Campylobacter infections were truly higher in Australia than in the USA. While cohort studies, such as the Infectious Intestinal Disease studies in the UK, have some methodological advantages, they are complex and costly. Thus, many countries rely on data from surveillance and other sources coupled with crosssectional surveys that assess underdiagnosis due to laboratory testing, medical care seeking, and stool sample submission. Crosssectional studies also provide data that we and others have found consistent and valid to estimate diarrheal disease incidence. Indeed, most of the uncertainty arising from foodborne gastroenteritis estimates comes from the expert elicitations used to derive the proportion of illness attributable to foodborne transmission, where data are mostly lacking. That said, there is more that we as a community of investigators should do to improve interpretability, comparability, and reproducibility. Comparative analyses would be greatly enhanced if all burden of foodborne illness studies published raw data and models, along with clear, detailed methods, an assessment of statistical and nonstatistical uncertainty and a clear rationale for how agents and data sources were selected. These efforts would not only benefit individual countries wanting to compare estimates over time, but they would also contribute to larger, international efforts to estimate the burden of foodborne disease, namely, the global estimates produced by the WHO’s Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference Group (FERG), which are currently being updated. Whether for global estimation, better scienti","PeriodicalId":9235,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/53/87/bmjgast-2023-001144.PMC10124210.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9478723","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Liver enzymes among COVID-19 patients in Al-Ahsa region of Saudi Arabia. 沙特阿拉伯Al-Ahsa地区COVID-19患者的肝酶
IF 3.1 Q2 Medicine Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001121
Omar AlOmair
Background Hepatic damage is one of the common forms of extra pulmonary organ destructions among patients with COVID-19 infections. Aim To evaluate the prognosis of liver damage among COVID-19 patients based on their liver enzymes profile. Methods A retrospective study was done to evaluate the records of the hospitably admitted patient due to COVID-19 infection. Retrieved data included clinical presentation and investigation either imaging or laboratory with special investing in liver function tests. Result We reviewed 442 patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection. They were 64.5% of female patients and 35.5% of male patients. Their mean age was 54.5%, most of them were Saudi (76.7%) and the overall mortality reached up to (20.4%). Conclusion This large cohort of 442 patients has shown that liver damage may be an independent prognostic factor for morbidities and mortality among COVID-19 patients. It also showed the importance of liver function enzymes screening as a predictor for the outcome of those patients.
背景:肝损害是COVID-19感染患者肺外器官破坏的常见形式之一。目的:根据新冠肺炎患者肝酶谱评价其肝损害预后。方法:回顾性分析我院收治的新冠肺炎感染患者的住院记录。检索到的资料包括临床表现和影像学或实验室对肝功能检查的特殊投资的调查。结果:我们回顾了442例诊断为COVID-19感染的患者。女性占64.5%,男性占35.5%。平均年龄54.5%,以沙特人居多(76.7%),总死亡率高达20.4%。结论:这项包含442例患者的大队列研究表明,肝损伤可能是COVID-19患者发病率和死亡率的独立预后因素。它还显示了肝功能酶筛查作为预测这些患者预后的重要性。
{"title":"Liver enzymes among COVID-19 patients in Al-Ahsa region of Saudi Arabia.","authors":"Omar AlOmair","doi":"10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001121","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001121","url":null,"abstract":"Background Hepatic damage is one of the common forms of extra pulmonary organ destructions among patients with COVID-19 infections. Aim To evaluate the prognosis of liver damage among COVID-19 patients based on their liver enzymes profile. Methods A retrospective study was done to evaluate the records of the hospitably admitted patient due to COVID-19 infection. Retrieved data included clinical presentation and investigation either imaging or laboratory with special investing in liver function tests. Result We reviewed 442 patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection. They were 64.5% of female patients and 35.5% of male patients. Their mean age was 54.5%, most of them were Saudi (76.7%) and the overall mortality reached up to (20.4%). Conclusion This large cohort of 442 patients has shown that liver damage may be an independent prognostic factor for morbidities and mortality among COVID-19 patients. It also showed the importance of liver function enzymes screening as a predictor for the outcome of those patients.","PeriodicalId":9235,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/45/de/bmjgast-2023-001121.PMC10151239.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10047449","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Quality of life measures in dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus are comparable to patients with non-dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus and do not improve after endoscopic therapy. 巴雷特食管发育不良患者的生活质量与非巴雷特食管发育不良患者相当,内镜治疗后没有改善。
IF 3.1 Q2 Medicine Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2022-001091
Elizabeth Ratcliffe, James Britton, Calvin Heal, Richard Keld, Mark Murgatroyd, Robert Willert, John McLaughlin, Shaheen Hamdy, Yeng Ang

Objective: Barrett's oesophagus (BO) is a precursor lesion, via dysplastic phases, to oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Although overall risk from BO is low, it has been shown to adversely affect health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The aim was to compare dysplastic BO patients' HRQOL pre-endoscopic therapy (pre-ET) and post-ET. The pre-ET BO group was also compared with other cohorts: non-dysplastic BO (NDBO), those with colonic polyps, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) and healthy volunteers.

Design: Participants in the pre-ET cohort were recruited prior to their endotherapy and HRQOL questionnaires provided pre-ET and post-ET. Wilcoxon rank test was used to compare the pre-ET and post-ET findings. The Pre-ET group was compared to the other cohorts' HRQOL results using multiple linear regression analysis.

Results: Pre-ET group of 69 participants returned the questionnaires prior to and 42 post-ET. Both the pre-ET and post-ET group showed similar levels of cancer worry, despite the treatment. No statistical significance was found for symptoms scores, anxiety and depression or general health measures with the Short Form-36 (SF-36) Score. Education for the BO patients was overall lacking with many of the pre-ET group still reporting unanswered questions about their disease.The Pre-ET group was compared with NDBO group (N=379), GORD (N=132), colonic polyp patients (N=152) and healthy volunteers (N=48). Cancer worry was similar between the NDBO group and the Pre-ET group, despite their lower risk of progression. GORD patients had worse symptom scores from a reflux and heartburn perspective. Only the healthy group has significantly better scores in the SF-36 and improved hospital anxiety and depression scores.

Conclusion: These findings suggest that there is a need to improve HRQOL for patients with BO. This should include improved education and devising-specific patient-reported outcome measures for BO to capture relevant areas of HRQOL in future studies.

目的:Barrett食管(BO)是食管腺癌的早期病变。虽然BO的总体风险较低,但它已被证明对健康相关生活质量(HRQOL)有不利影响。目的是比较发育不良BO患者的HRQOL内镜治疗前(et前)和et后。et前BO组还与其他队列进行了比较:非发育不良BO (NDBO)、结肠息肉、胃食管反流病(GORD)和健康志愿者。设计:et前队列的参与者在他们的内皮治疗之前被招募,HRQOL问卷提供et前和et后。使用Wilcoxon秩检验比较et前和et后的结果。使用多元线性回归分析将预et组与其他队列的HRQOL结果进行比较。结果:et前组69人,et后组42人。尽管接受了治疗,但前et组和后et组对癌症的担忧程度相似。短表36 (SF-36)评分对症状评分、焦虑和抑郁或一般健康指标均无统计学意义。对BO患者的教育总体上是缺乏的,许多et前组仍然报告了关于他们疾病的未解之谜。将预et组与NDBO组(N=379)、GORD组(N=132)、结肠息肉患者(N=152)和健康志愿者(N=48)进行比较。NDBO组和Pre-ET组对癌症的担忧相似,尽管他们的进展风险较低。从反流和胃灼热的角度来看,GORD患者的症状评分更差。只有健康组的SF-36得分显著提高,医院焦虑和抑郁得分也有所改善。结论:BO患者的HRQOL有待提高。这应包括改进教育和为BO设计特定的患者报告结果措施,以便在未来的研究中捕捉HRQOL的相关领域。
{"title":"Quality of life measures in dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus are comparable to patients with non-dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus and do not improve after endoscopic therapy.","authors":"Elizabeth Ratcliffe,&nbsp;James Britton,&nbsp;Calvin Heal,&nbsp;Richard Keld,&nbsp;Mark Murgatroyd,&nbsp;Robert Willert,&nbsp;John McLaughlin,&nbsp;Shaheen Hamdy,&nbsp;Yeng Ang","doi":"10.1136/bmjgast-2022-001091","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2022-001091","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Barrett's oesophagus (BO) is a precursor lesion, via dysplastic phases, to oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Although overall risk from BO is low, it has been shown to adversely affect health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The aim was to compare dysplastic BO patients' HRQOL pre-endoscopic therapy (pre-ET) and post-ET. The pre-ET BO group was also compared with other cohorts: non-dysplastic BO (NDBO), those with colonic polyps, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) and healthy volunteers.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Participants in the pre-ET cohort were recruited prior to their endotherapy and HRQOL questionnaires provided pre-ET and post-ET. Wilcoxon rank test was used to compare the pre-ET and post-ET findings. The Pre-ET group was compared to the other cohorts' HRQOL results using multiple linear regression analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pre-ET group of 69 participants returned the questionnaires prior to and 42 post-ET. Both the pre-ET and post-ET group showed similar levels of cancer worry, despite the treatment. No statistical significance was found for symptoms scores, anxiety and depression or general health measures with the Short Form-36 (SF-36) Score. Education for the BO patients was overall lacking with many of the pre-ET group still reporting unanswered questions about their disease.The Pre-ET group was compared with NDBO group (N=379), GORD (N=132), colonic polyp patients (N=152) and healthy volunteers (N=48). Cancer worry was similar between the NDBO group and the Pre-ET group, despite their lower risk of progression. GORD patients had worse symptom scores from a reflux and heartburn perspective. Only the healthy group has significantly better scores in the SF-36 and improved hospital anxiety and depression scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings suggest that there is a need to improve HRQOL for patients with BO. This should include improved education and devising-specific patient-reported outcome measures for BO to capture relevant areas of HRQOL in future studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":9235,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/bf/64/bmjgast-2022-001091.PMC10105999.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9472882","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
First reports of clinical effects of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in four patients with cirrhotic ascites refractory to tolvaptan. 首次报道经颈静脉肝内门体分流术治疗4例托伐普坦难治性肝硬化腹水的临床效果。
IF 3.1 Q2 Medicine Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001120
Kota Tsuruya, Jun Koizumi, Yuka Sekiguchi, Shun Ono, Tatsuya Sekiguchi, Takuya Hara, Yusuke Mishima, Yoshitaka Arase, Shunji Hirose, Koichi Shiraishi, Tatehiro Kagawa

Objective: Ascites in patients with decompensated cirrhosis can lead to abdominal distention and decrease quality of life. Tolvaptan, a vasopressin V2 receptor antagonist, is an effective agent in the treatment of ascites, whereas some patients are refractory to tolvaptan. The efficacy of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for these patients is not known. In this study, we performed TIPS for tolvaptan-refractory cirrhotic patients and analysed its efficacy and safety in these patients.

Design: This retrospective analysis included patients with liver cirrhosis who received TIPS for ascites or hydrothorax refractory to tolvaptan therapy along with conventional diuretics between January 2015 and May 2018 at Tokai University Hospital. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of TIPS.

Results: This study included four patients. All patients presented with Child-Pugh class B liver cirrhosis and model for end-stage liver disease-sodium scores were 10/12/14/16. TIPS was generated successfully without any major complications in all patients. The body weight decreased by a mean of 4.7 (SD=1.0) kg and estimated glomerular filtration rate improved from a mean of 38.2 (SD=10.3) to 59.5 (SD=25.0) mL/min/1.73 m2 in a month after TIPS procedure.

Conclusion: TIPS is an effective potential treatment for ascites in patients with tolvaptan refractory condition. In appropriate patients who can tolerate TIPS, the treatment may lead towards renal function improvement.

目的:失代偿期肝硬化患者腹水可导致腹胀,降低生活质量。托伐普坦是一种抗利尿激素V2受体拮抗剂,是治疗腹水的有效药物,但有些患者对托伐普坦难以耐受。经颈静脉肝内门系统分流术(TIPS)对这些患者的疗效尚不清楚。在这项研究中,我们对托伐普坦难治性肝硬化患者进行了TIPS治疗,并分析了其在这些患者中的疗效和安全性。设计:本回顾性分析包括2015年1月至2018年5月在Tokai大学医院接受TIPS治疗顽固性腹水或胸水的肝硬化患者,这些患者对托伐普坦治疗和常规利尿剂难以耐受。我们评估了TIPS的疗效和安全性。结果:本研究纳入4例患者。所有Child-Pugh B级肝硬化和终末期肝病模型患者的钠评分为10/12/14/16。所有患者均成功生成TIPS,无重大并发症。在TIPS手术后一个月内,体重平均下降4.7 (SD=1.0) kg,肾小球滤过率从平均38.2 (SD=10.3)改善到59.5 (SD=25.0) mL/min/1.73 m2。结论:TIPS是治疗托伐普坦难治性腹水的有效方法。对于能耐受TIPS的适当患者,该治疗可改善肾功能。
{"title":"First reports of clinical effects of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in four patients with cirrhotic ascites refractory to tolvaptan.","authors":"Kota Tsuruya,&nbsp;Jun Koizumi,&nbsp;Yuka Sekiguchi,&nbsp;Shun Ono,&nbsp;Tatsuya Sekiguchi,&nbsp;Takuya Hara,&nbsp;Yusuke Mishima,&nbsp;Yoshitaka Arase,&nbsp;Shunji Hirose,&nbsp;Koichi Shiraishi,&nbsp;Tatehiro Kagawa","doi":"10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001120","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001120","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Ascites in patients with decompensated cirrhosis can lead to abdominal distention and decrease quality of life. Tolvaptan, a vasopressin V2 receptor antagonist, is an effective agent in the treatment of ascites, whereas some patients are refractory to tolvaptan. The efficacy of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for these patients is not known. In this study, we performed TIPS for tolvaptan-refractory cirrhotic patients and analysed its efficacy and safety in these patients.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This retrospective analysis included patients with liver cirrhosis who received TIPS for ascites or hydrothorax refractory to tolvaptan therapy along with conventional diuretics between January 2015 and May 2018 at Tokai University Hospital. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of TIPS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study included four patients. All patients presented with Child-Pugh class B liver cirrhosis and model for end-stage liver disease-sodium scores were 10/12/14/16. TIPS was generated successfully without any major complications in all patients. The body weight decreased by a mean of 4.7 (SD=1.0) kg and estimated glomerular filtration rate improved from a mean of 38.2 (SD=10.3) to 59.5 (SD=25.0) mL/min/1.73 m<sup>2</sup> in a month after TIPS procedure.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TIPS is an effective potential treatment for ascites in patients with tolvaptan refractory condition. In appropriate patients who can tolerate TIPS, the treatment may lead towards renal function improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":9235,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10124206/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9528399","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Evaluation of bowel preparation regimens for colonoscopy including a novel low volume regimen (Plenvu): CLEANSE study. 评估结肠镜检查的肠道准备方案,包括一种新的低容量方案(Plenvu):清洁研究。
IF 3.1 Q2 Medicine Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2022-001070
Ahmir Ahmad, Sarah Marshall, Paul Bassett, Kowshika Thiruvilangam, Angad Dhillon, Brian P Saunders

Background: Poor bowel preparation is the leading cause of failed colonoscopies and increases costs significantly. Several, split preparation, 2 day regimens are available and recently, Plenvu, a low-volume preparation which can be given on 1 day has been introduced.

Aims: Assess efficacy and tolerability of commonly used purgative regimens including Plenvu.

Method: In this service evaluation, patients undergoing screening colonoscopy at St Mark's Hospital, London (February 2020-December 2021) were provided Plenvu (1 or 2 days), Moviprep (2 days) or Senna & Citramag (2 days).Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, fluid volumes and procedure times were recorded. A patient experience questionnaire evaluated taste, volume acceptability, completion and side effects.

Results: 563 patients were invited to participate and 553 included: 218 Moviprep 2 days, 108 Senna & Citramag 2 days, 152 Plenvu 2 days and 75 Plenvu 1 day.BBPS scores were higher with Plenvu 1 and 2 days vs Senna & Citramag (p=0.003 and 0.002, respectively) and vs Moviprep (p=0.003 and 0.001, respectively). No other significant pairwise BBPS differences and no difference in preparation adequacy was seen between the groups.Patients rated taste as most pleasant with Senna & Citramag and this achieved significance versus Plenvu 1 day and 2 days (p=0.002 and p<0.001, respectively) and versus Moviprep (p=0.04).

Conclusion: BBPS score was higher for 1 day and 2 days Plenvu versus both Senna & Citramag and Moviprep. Taste was not highly rated for Plenvu but it appears to offer effective cleansing even when given as a same day preparation.

背景:肠道准备不良是结肠镜检查失败的主要原因,并显著增加费用。几种分离制剂,2天的方案是可用的,最近,Plenvu,一种可在1天给予的小容量制剂已经推出。目的:评估常用泻剂的疗效和耐受性。方法:在这项服务评估中,在伦敦St Mark医院(2020年2月- 2021年12月)接受筛查性结肠镜检查的患者使用Plenvu(1或2天)、Moviprep(2天)或Senna & Citramag(2天)。记录波士顿肠道准备量表(BBPS)评分、液体量和手术时间。患者体验问卷评估口味,容量可接受性,完成度和副作用。结果:563例患者入选,其中553例为:218例Moviprep 2天,108例Senna & Citramag 2天,152例Plenvu 2天,75例Plenvu 1天。与Senna & Citramag相比,Plenvu 1和2天的BBPS评分更高(分别为p=0.003和0.002),与Moviprep相比(分别为p=0.003和0.001)。各组间未见其他显著的两两BBPS差异和准备充分性差异。患者评价Senna & Citramag的味觉最愉悦,这与Plenvu 1天和2天相比具有显著性(p=0.002和p)。结论:与Senna & Citramag和Moviprep相比,Plenvu 1天和2天的BBPS评分更高。人们对Plenvu的味道评价不高,但它似乎能提供有效的清洁,即使是在同一天服用。
{"title":"Evaluation of bowel preparation regimens for colonoscopy including a novel low volume regimen (Plenvu): CLEANSE study.","authors":"Ahmir Ahmad,&nbsp;Sarah Marshall,&nbsp;Paul Bassett,&nbsp;Kowshika Thiruvilangam,&nbsp;Angad Dhillon,&nbsp;Brian P Saunders","doi":"10.1136/bmjgast-2022-001070","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2022-001070","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Poor bowel preparation is the leading cause of failed colonoscopies and increases costs significantly. Several, split preparation, 2 day regimens are available and recently, Plenvu, a low-volume preparation which can be given on 1 day has been introduced.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>Assess efficacy and tolerability of commonly used purgative regimens including Plenvu.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In this service evaluation, patients undergoing screening colonoscopy at St Mark's Hospital, London (February 2020-December 2021) were provided Plenvu (1 or 2 days), Moviprep (2 days) or Senna & Citramag (2 days).Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, fluid volumes and procedure times were recorded. A patient experience questionnaire evaluated taste, volume acceptability, completion and side effects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>563 patients were invited to participate and 553 included: 218 Moviprep 2 days, 108 Senna & Citramag 2 days, 152 Plenvu 2 days and 75 Plenvu 1 day.BBPS scores were higher with Plenvu 1 and 2 days vs Senna & Citramag (p=0.003 and 0.002, respectively) and vs Moviprep (p=0.003 and 0.001, respectively). No other significant pairwise BBPS differences and no difference in preparation adequacy was seen between the groups.Patients rated taste as most pleasant with Senna & Citramag and this achieved significance versus Plenvu 1 day and 2 days (p=0.002 and p<0.001, respectively) and versus Moviprep (p=0.04).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>BBPS score was higher for 1 day and 2 days Plenvu versus both Senna & Citramag and Moviprep. Taste was not highly rated for Plenvu but it appears to offer effective cleansing even when given as a same day preparation.</p>","PeriodicalId":9235,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/11/50/bmjgast-2022-001070.PMC10032399.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9466510","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Derivation and validation of a novel risk score to predict need for haemostatic intervention in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (London Haemostat Score). 推导和验证一种新的风险评分来预测急性上消化道出血止血干预的需要(伦敦止血评分)。
IF 3.1 Q2 Medicine Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2022-001008
Isobel Marks, Imran Karim Janmohamed, Sadek Malas, Athina Mavrou, Thomas Banister, Nisha Patel, Lakshmana Ayaru

Background: Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a common medical emergency, which takes up considerable healthcare resources. However, only approximately 20%-30% of bleeds require urgent haemostatic intervention. Current standard of care is for all patients admitted to hospital to undergo endoscopy within 24 hours for risk stratification, but this is difficult to achieve in practice, invasive and costly.

Aim: To develop a novel non-endoscopic risk stratification tool for AUGIB to predict the need for haemostatic intervention by endoscopic, radiological or surgical treatments. We compared this with the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS).

Design: Model development was carried out using a derivation (n=466) and prospectively collected validation cohort (n=404) of patients who were admitted with AUGIB to three large hospitals in London, UK (2015-2020). Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify variables that were associated with increased or decreased chances of requiring haemostatic intervention. This model was converted into a risk scoring system, the London Haemostat Score (LHS).

Results: The LHS was more accurate at predicting need for haemostatic intervention than the GBS, in the derivation cohort (area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) 0.82; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.86 vs 0.72; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.77; p<0.001) and validation cohort (AUROC 0.80; 95% CI 0.75 to 0.85 vs 0.72; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.78; p<0.001). At cut-off scores at which LHS and GBS identified patients who required haemostatic intervention with 98% sensitivity, the specificity of the LHS was 41% vs 18% with the GBS (p<0.001). This could translate to 32% of inpatient endoscopies for AUGIB being avoided at a cost of only a 0.5% false negative rate.

Conclusions: The LHS is accurate at predicting the need for haemostatic intervention in AUGIB and could be used to identify a proportion of low-risk patients who can undergo delayed or outpatient endoscopy. Validation in other geographical settings is required before routine clinical use.

背景:急性上消化道出血(AUGIB)是一种常见的急症,占用了大量的医疗资源。然而,只有大约20%-30%的出血需要紧急止血干预。目前的护理标准是所有入院患者在24小时内接受内镜检查以进行风险分层,但这在实践中难以实现,具有侵入性且费用昂贵。目的:为AUGIB开发一种新的非内镜风险分层工具,以预测通过内镜、放射或手术治疗进行止血干预的必要性。我们将其与格拉斯哥-布拉奇福德评分(GBS)进行了比较。设计:模型开发使用推导(n=466)和前瞻性收集的验证队列(n=404)进行,这些患者是2015-2020年在英国伦敦三家大医院接受AUGIB的患者。单变量和多变量logistic回归分析用于确定与需要止血干预的机会增加或减少相关的变量。该模型被转换成一个风险评分系统,即伦敦血肿评分(LHS)。结果:在衍生队列中,LHS在预测止血干预需求方面比GBS更准确(接受者工作曲线下面积(AUROC) 0.82;95% CI 0.78 ~ 0.86 vs 0.72;95% CI 0.67 ~ 0.77;结论:LHS在预测AUGIB患者是否需要止血干预方面是准确的,并可用于识别一定比例的低风险患者,这些患者可以接受延迟或门诊内镜检查。在常规临床使用之前,需要在其他地理环境中进行验证。
{"title":"Derivation and validation of a novel risk score to predict need for haemostatic intervention in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (London Haemostat Score).","authors":"Isobel Marks,&nbsp;Imran Karim Janmohamed,&nbsp;Sadek Malas,&nbsp;Athina Mavrou,&nbsp;Thomas Banister,&nbsp;Nisha Patel,&nbsp;Lakshmana Ayaru","doi":"10.1136/bmjgast-2022-001008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2022-001008","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a common medical emergency, which takes up considerable healthcare resources. However, only approximately 20%-30% of bleeds require urgent haemostatic intervention. Current standard of care is for all patients admitted to hospital to undergo endoscopy within 24 hours for risk stratification, but this is difficult to achieve in practice, invasive and costly.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To develop a novel non-endoscopic risk stratification tool for AUGIB to predict the need for haemostatic intervention by endoscopic, radiological or surgical treatments. We compared this with the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Model development was carried out using a derivation (n=466) and prospectively collected validation cohort (n=404) of patients who were admitted with AUGIB to three large hospitals in London, UK (2015-2020). Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify variables that were associated with increased or decreased chances of requiring haemostatic intervention. This model was converted into a risk scoring system, the London Haemostat Score (LHS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The LHS was more accurate at predicting need for haemostatic intervention than the GBS, in the derivation cohort (area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) 0.82; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.86 vs 0.72; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.77; p<0.001) and validation cohort (AUROC 0.80; 95% CI 0.75 to 0.85 vs 0.72; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.78; p<0.001). At cut-off scores at which LHS and GBS identified patients who required haemostatic intervention with 98% sensitivity, the specificity of the LHS was 41% vs 18% with the GBS (p<0.001). This could translate to 32% of inpatient endoscopies for AUGIB being avoided at a cost of only a 0.5% false negative rate.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The LHS is accurate at predicting the need for haemostatic intervention in AUGIB and could be used to identify a proportion of low-risk patients who can undergo delayed or outpatient endoscopy. Validation in other geographical settings is required before routine clinical use.</p>","PeriodicalId":9235,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/dc/6b/bmjgast-2022-001008.PMC10069503.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9472382","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Primary placement of low-profile or 'button' versus traditional balloon-retention radiologically inserted gastrostomy catheters in adults: a retrospective review. 低轮廓或“按钮”与传统球囊保留放射学插入胃造口导管的初步放置:回顾性回顾。
IF 3.1 Q2 Medicine Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001118
Hassan Al-Balas, Zeyad Metwalli, Iftikhar Burney, David Sada

Objective: De novo percutaneous placement of radiologically inserted low-profile or 'button-type' gastrostomy catheters (LPG) is infrequently reported in adults. This study compares the safety and clinical outcomes of primary percutaneous placement of LPG catheters and traditional balloon-retention gastrostomy catheters (TG) using image guidance at a single institution.

Design: This was a retrospective, single-institution review comparing initial LPG and TG radiologically inserted catheter placements in a 36-month time period. The age, gender, indication, catheter type and method of anaesthesia of 139 consecutive initial gastrostomy placement procedures were recorded. Total catheter days without intervention, major and minor complications, reasons for reintervention, and procedure fluoroscopy times were compared.

Results: During the 36-month study period, 61 LPG and 78 TG catheters were placed. Mean total catheter days prior to intervention was 137 days in the LPG group and 128 days in the TG group (p=0.70). Minor complications including cellulitis, pericatheter leakage and early catheter occlusion occurred in 4.9% (3/61) in the LPG group and 9% (7/78) in the TG group (p=0.5). Major complications including early catheter dislodgement and bleeding requiring transfusion (in one patient) occurred in 4.9% (3/61) in the LPG group and 7.7% (6/78) in the TG group (p=0.4). Procedure fluoroscopy time was lower in the LPG group (2.56 min) compared with the TG group (4.21 min) (p<0.005).

Conclusion: Primary placement of low-profile or 'button-type' gastrostomy catheters is technically feasible with a low complication rate similar to that of traditional radiologically inserted gastrostomy catheters.

目的:在成人中,经皮重新放置低侧或“纽扣式”胃造口导管(LPG)的报道并不多见。本研究比较了在同一机构使用图像引导的经皮置置LPG导管和传统气囊保留胃造口导管(TG)的安全性和临床结果。设计:这是一项回顾性的单机构研究,比较了36个月时间内初始LPG和TG放射插入导管的放置情况。记录139例连续初次胃造口手术患者的年龄、性别、适应证、导管类型及麻醉方式。比较未干预的总导管天数、主要和次要并发症、再次介入的原因和透视次数。结果:在36个月的研究期间,共放置了61根LPG导管和78根TG导管。干预前LPG组平均总导管天数为137天,TG组为128天(p=0.70)。LPG组和TG组分别有4.9%(3/61)和9%(7/78)出现蜂窝组织炎、导管外漏和早期导管闭塞等轻微并发症(p=0.5)。LPG组的主要并发症包括早期导管脱位和出血需要输血(1例),发生率为4.9% (3/61),TG组为7.7% (6/78)(p=0.4)。与TG组(4.21分钟)相比,LPG组(2.56分钟)的透视时间更短(p结论:低位或“纽扣式”胃造口导管的初次放置在技术上是可行的,并发症发生率低,与传统的放射插入式胃造口导管相似。
{"title":"Primary placement of low-profile or 'button' versus traditional balloon-retention radiologically inserted gastrostomy catheters in adults: a retrospective review.","authors":"Hassan Al-Balas,&nbsp;Zeyad Metwalli,&nbsp;Iftikhar Burney,&nbsp;David Sada","doi":"10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001118","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2023-001118","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>De novo percutaneous placement of radiologically inserted low-profile or 'button-type' gastrostomy catheters (LPG) is infrequently reported in adults. This study compares the safety and clinical outcomes of primary percutaneous placement of LPG catheters and traditional balloon-retention gastrostomy catheters (TG) using image guidance at a single institution.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This was a retrospective, single-institution review comparing initial LPG and TG radiologically inserted catheter placements in a 36-month time period. The age, gender, indication, catheter type and method of anaesthesia of 139 consecutive initial gastrostomy placement procedures were recorded. Total catheter days without intervention, major and minor complications, reasons for reintervention, and procedure fluoroscopy times were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the 36-month study period, 61 LPG and 78 TG catheters were placed. Mean total catheter days prior to intervention was 137 days in the LPG group and 128 days in the TG group (p=0.70). Minor complications including cellulitis, pericatheter leakage and early catheter occlusion occurred in 4.9% (3/61) in the LPG group and 9% (7/78) in the TG group (p=0.5). Major complications including early catheter dislodgement and bleeding requiring transfusion (in one patient) occurred in 4.9% (3/61) in the LPG group and 7.7% (6/78) in the TG group (p=0.4). Procedure fluoroscopy time was lower in the LPG group (2.56 min) compared with the TG group (4.21 min) (p<0.005).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Primary placement of low-profile or 'button-type' gastrostomy catheters is technically feasible with a low complication rate similar to that of traditional radiologically inserted gastrostomy catheters.</p>","PeriodicalId":9235,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/dd/73/bmjgast-2023-001118.PMC10030477.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9173550","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
BMJ Open Gastroenterology
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1