Horsley‐Silva, Jennifer L.

AbstractEosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a clinicopathologic disease characterized by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and esophageal eosinophilia. In the last decade, there has been a dramatic increase in its prevalence for reasons that are not completely understood. The underlying pathophysiology involves an antigen‐mediated TH2 immune response that draws eosinophils to the esophagus, causing mucosal inflammation, esophageal remodeling, and fibrosis. This ultimately leads to esophageal dysfunction that most commonly manifests as dysphagia. In this review, we will discuss updates on key questions regarding the diagnosis and treatment of EoE.

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.

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.

AbstractImpedance has traditionally been employed in esophageal disease as a means to assess bolus flow and reflux episodes. Recent and ongoing research has provided new and novel applications for this technology. Measurement of esophageal mucosal impedance, via either multichannel intraluminal impedance catheters or specially designed endoscopically deployed impedance catheters, provides a marker of mucosal integrity. Mucosal impedance has been shown to segregate gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and eosinophilic esophagitis from non‐GERD controls and may play a role in predicting response to reflux intervention. More data are needed with regard to other esophageal subgroups, outcome studies, and functional disease. Our paper reviews the history of impedance in esophageal disease, the means of assessing baseline and mucosal impedance, data with regard to the newly developed mucosal impedance probes, the clinical utility of mucosal impedance in specific clinical conditions, and limitations in our existing knowledge, along with suggestions for future studies.

Summary Distal esophageal spasm (DES) is a motility disorder characterized by premature contraction of the esophageal body during single swallows. It is thought to be due to impairment of esophageal inhibitory pathways, but studies to support this are limited. The normal response to multiple rapid swallows (MRS) is deglutitive inhibition of the esophageal body during the MRS sequence. Our aim was to compare the response to MRS in DES patients and healthy control subjects. Response to MRS during HRM was evaluated in 19 DES patients (8 with and 11 without concomitant esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction [EGJOO]) and 24 asymptomatic healthy controls. Patients with prior gastroesophageal surgery, peroral endoscopic myotomy, pneumatic dilation, esophageal botulinum toxin injection within 6 months of HRM, opioid medication use, and esophageal stricture were excluded. Response to MRS was evaluated for complete versus impaired inhibition (esophageal body contractility with distal contractile integral [DCI] &gt; 100 mmHg-sec-cm during MRS), presence of post-MRS contraction augmentation (DCI post MRS greater than single swallow mean DCI), and integrated relaxation pressure (IRP). Impaired deglutitive inhibition during MRS was significantly more frequent in DES compared to controls (89% vs. 0%, P &lt; 0.001), and frequency was similar for DES with versus without concomitant EGJOO (100% vs. 82%, P = 0.48). The proportion of subjects with augmentation post MRS was similar for both groups (37% vs. 38%, P = 1.00), but mean DCI post MRS was higher in DES than controls (3360.0 vs. 1238.9, P = 0.009). IRP was lower during MRS compared to single swallows in all patients, and IRP during MRS was normal in 5 of 8 patients with DES and EGJOO. Our study suggests that impaired deglutitive inhibition during MRS is present in the majority of patients with DES regardless of whether they have concomitant EGJOO, and future studies should explore the usefulness of incorporating response to MRS in the diagnosis of DES.

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

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.

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.

Abstract Background: Inpatient status has been shown to be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal colon cleansing regimen protocol 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 solution. Data collection included colon preparation quality based on the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale and a questionnaire given to all subjects, in which we evaluated 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 prep averaged a higher mean total BBPS (7.4, SD 1.62), in comparison to patients who received high-volume (6.6, SD 2.19) and medium-volume prep (6.9, SD 1.55), P = 0.64. 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: Although not statistically significant, a low-volume colon preparation showed a trend of equivalent quality of bowel preparation measured by BBPS in comparison to traditional volume regimens, with less unpleasant taste, which may contribute to better patient compliance and therefore better bowel preparation in the inpatient setting. Further more robust studies are required to confirm these findings.Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01978509