Back to Authors

Snyder, Diana L.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4923-3978

Mayo Clinic

Mayo Clinic

Citations 27

S453 Prevalence of Esophageal Motility Disorders in Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis
Snyder, Diana L. , Freeman, Catherine , Vela, Marcelo F. , Lacy, Brian E. , Horsley‐Silva, Jennifer L. , Crowell, Michael D. , Ravi, Karthik

American Journal of Gastroenterology | October 24, 2021 | Volume: 116 | Issue: 1 | Pages: S201-S201

10.14309/01.ajg.0000774284.39746.a2 Get It

Deglutition Syncope After Variceal Band Ligation
Taguchi, Yumiko , Snyder, Diana L. , Shah, Jay B. , Dickson, Rolland C. , Taguchi, Yumiko V, Taguchi, Yumiko V , Shah, Jay B.

American Journal of Gastroenterology | April 2, 2021 | Volume: 116 | Issue: 8 | Pages: 1763-1763

10.14309/ajg.0000000000001248 Get It

Prevalence of Barrett's Esophagus in Female Patients With Scleroderma
Snyder, Diana L. , Griffing, W. Leroy , Umar, Sarah B. , Ramirez, Francisco C. , Kahn, Allon , Umar, Sarah, Crowell, Michael D.

American Journal of Gastroenterology | January 13, 2021 | Volume: 116 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 517-521

10.14309/ajg.0000000000001109 Get It

INTRODUCTION: Systemic sclerosis or scleroderma (SSc) is a chronic autoimmune disease that renders the esophagus prone to significant gastroesophageal reflux due to impaired esophageal clearance and reduced lower esophageal sphincter pressure. The reported prevalence of Barrett's esophagus (BE) in women with SSc varies from 2% to 37% and is derived from older studies with small sample sizes. We aimed to assess the prevalence of BE in a large cohort of women with SSc. METHODS: Women with SSc referred from the Mayo Clinic Arizona Rheumatology Clinic who completed esophagogastroduodenoscopy between 2002 and 2020 were included. Demographic and high-resolution manometry data were evaluated. The diagnosis of scleroderma was confirmed by an expert rheumatologist. The BE diagnosis was confirmed by an expert gastrointestinal pathologist. RESULTS: There were 235 women with SSc who underwent EGD. High-resolution manometry (HRM) was completed in 172 patients. Women with SSc with BE were significantly more likely to have scleroderma esophagus (absent contractility with hypotensive lower esophageal sphincter) on HRM than women with SSc without BE ( P = 0.018). There were 30 patients with SSc (12.8%) with histologically proven BE. Dysplasia was found in 13 (43.3%): 4 with indefinite, 7 with low grade, and 2 with adenocarcinoma. The incidence of any dysplasia was 5.3% per year (0.9% per year for adenocarcinoma). DISCUSSION: This the largest study on prevalence of BE in women with SSc, yielding a prevalence of 12.8%. Women with SSc with BE were significantly more likely to have absent contractility with hypotensive lower esophageal sphincter findings on HRM. The high prevalence and incidence of dysplasia found suggest that women with SSc should be included in the screening recommendations for BE.
S0383 Prevalence of Barrett’s Esophagus in Female Scleroderma Patients
Snyder, Diana L. , Griffing, W. Leroy , Umar, Sarah B. , Ramirez, Francisco C. , Crowell, Michael D. , Kahn, Allon

American Journal of Gastroenterology | October 24, 2020 | Volume: 115 | Issue: 1 | Pages: S189-S190

10.14309/01.ajg.0000703580.83851.48 Get It

Effect of Bowel Preparation Volume in Inpatient Colonoscopy. Results of a Prospective, Randomized, Comparative Pilot Study
Hernandez, Patricia V. , Horsley‐Silva, Jennifer L. , Snyder, Diana L. , Baffy, Noemi, Atia, Mary A., Koepke, Laura, Lim, Elisabeth S. , Umar, Sarah B. , Islam, Sameer, Ramirez, Francisco C. , Buras, Matthew , Ruff, Kevin

No container title available | July 2, 2020 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.21203/rs.2.15794/v5 Get It

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy.Methods: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). Results: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01.Conclusion: In this pilot study we found that low-volume colon preparation may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.Trial registration: The Affect of Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Hospitalized Patients Colonoscopies. Trial registration: NCT01978509 (terminated). Retrospectively registered on November 07, 2013.
Effect of Bowel Preparation Volume in Inpatient Colonoscopy. Results of a Prospective, Randomized, Comparative Pilot Study
Hernandez, Patricia V. , Horsley‐Silva, Jennifer L. , Snyder, Diana L. , Baffy, Noemi, Atia, Mary A., Koepke, Laura, Lim, Elisabeth S. , Umar, Sarah B. , Islam, Sameer, Ramirez, Francisco C. , Buras, Matthew , Ruff, Kevin

No container title available | July 1, 2020 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.21203/rs.2.15794/v4 Get It

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy.Methods: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). Results: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01.Conclusion: In this pilot study we found that low-volume colon preparation may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.Trial registration: The Affect of Low-Volume Bowel Preparation for Hospitalized Patients Colonoscopies. Trial registration: NCT01978509 (terminated). Retrospectively registered on November 07, 2013.
Effect of Bowel Preparation Volume in Inpatient Colonoscopy. Results of a Prospective, Randomized, Comparative Pilot Study
Hernandez, Patricia V. , Horsley‐Silva, Jennifer L. , Snyder, Diana L. , Baffy, Noemi, Atia, Mary A., Koepke, Laura, Lim, Elisabeth S. , Umar, Sarah B. , Islam, Sameer, Ramirez, Francisco C. , Buras, Matthew , Ruff, Kevin

No container title available | June 14, 2020 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.21203/rs.2.15794/v3 Get It

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy.Methods: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). Results: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01.Conclusion: In this pilot study we found that low-volume colon preparation may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01978509
Opioids Interfere With Deglutitive Inhibition Assessed by Response to Multiple Rapid Swallows During High-Resolution Esophageal Manometry
Snyder, Diana L. , Valdovinos, Luís Renter, Horsley‐Silva, Jennifer L. , Valdovinos, Miguel A. , Vela, Marcelo F. , Valdovinos-García, Luis R. , Horsley-Silva, Jennifer, Crowell, Michael D.

American Journal of Gastroenterology | May 19, 2020 | Volume: 115 | Issue: 7 | Pages: 1125-1128

10.14309/ajg.0000000000000682 Get It

INTRODUCTION: Normal response to multiple rapid swallows (MRS) during high-resolution esophageal manometry is deglutitive inhibition; opioids may interfere with this. The aim of this study was to evaluate the response to MRS in patients on opioids, not on opioids, and healthy controls. METHODS: Response to MRS was evaluated for complete vs impaired inhibition in 72 chronic opioid users, 100 patients not on opioids, and 24 healthy controls. RESULTS: Impaired deglutitive inhibition was significantly more frequent in chronic opioid users compared with patients not on opioids and healthy controls (54% vs 14% vs 0%; P < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Impaired deglutitive inhibition during MRS is frequent in opioid users, supporting that opioids interfere with esophageal inhibitory signals.
Effect of Bowel Preparation Volume in Inpatient Colonoscopy. Results of a Prospective, Randomized, Comparative Pilot Study
Hernandez, Patricia V. , Horsley‐Silva, Jennifer L. , Snyder, Diana L. , Baffy, Noemi, Atia, Mary A., Koepke, Laura, Buras, Matthew , Lim, Elisabeth S. , Umar, Sarah B. , Islam, Sameer, Ramirez, Francisco C. , Buras, Matthew R , Ruff, Kevin

No container title available | February 11, 2020 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.21203/rs.2.15794/v2 Get It

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regimen for hospitalized patients is unknown. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of bowel preparation volume size in hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy. Methods: This prospective, single blinded (endoscopist), randomized controlled trial was conducted as a pilot study at a tertiary referral medical center. Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, medium, or low-volume preparation. Data collection included colon preparation quality, based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale, and a questionnaire given to all subjects evaluating the ability to completely finish bowel preparation and adverse effects (unpleasant taste, nausea, and vomiting). Results: Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects. Patients who received low-volume preparation averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (7.0, SD 1.41) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.77. When evaluating taste a higher score meant worse taste. The low-volume group scored unpleasant taste as 0.6 (0.74), while the high-volume group gave unpleasant taste a score of 2.2 (0.97) and the medium-volume group gave a score of 2.1 (1.36), P < 0.01. Conclusion: In this pilot study, the low-volume colon preparation Prepopik® may be preferred in the inpatient setting due its better rate of tolerability and comparable bowel cleanliness when compared to larger volume preparation, although we cannot overreach any definitive conclusion. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.
Severe Achalasia Causing Cor Pulmonale
Bayoumi, Mahmoud , Snyder, Diana L. , Menias, Christine O. , Vela, Mareclo F., Kahn, Allon

American Journal of Gastroenterology | October 25, 2019 | Volume: 115 | Issue: 8 | Pages: 1159-1159

10.14309/ajg.0000000000000439 Get It