Simons-Linares, C. Roberto

AbstractEndoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) for symptomatic gallbladder disease has been shown to be safe and effective in patients with high surgical risk, but data are lacking for patients with cirrhosis. We investigated the safety and effectiveness of EUS-GBD in patients with and without cirrhosis.This retrospective review included patients who underwent EUS-GBD at four (three US and one Spanish) international tertiary care centers. Outcomes, including technical success, clinical success, and procedure-related adverse events, were compared between patients with and without cirrhosis.170 patients (47 with cirrhosis, 123 without cirrhosis) were included. There was no difference in age, sex, race, comorbidities, antiplatelet use, hemoglobin, or international normalized ratio between the two groups (P > 0.05 for all). The most common etiology of cirrhosis was alcohol (42.6%) with mean Model of End-stage Liver Disease-Sodium (MELD-Na) score of 16.2 (SD 8.8). Acute cholecystitis was more common in patients with cirrhosis (74.5% vs. 56.9%; P = 0.02). Technical (cirrhosis 97.9% vs. no cirrhosis 95.1%; P = 0.67) and clinical (93.6% vs. 94.9%; P = 0.71) success rates were similar in the two groups. Adverse events were infrequent and similar between groups, the most common being stent maldeployment (cirrhosis 4.3% vs. no cirrhosis 5.7%; P = 0.99). Survival rates were similar at the end of follow-up.EUS-GBD was safe and effective in patients with cirrhosis, with outcomes similar to patients without cirrhosis when performed by experienced echoendoscopists. Patients with cirrhosis and symptomatic gallbladder disease can be considered for EUS-GBD.

Abstract Background and study aims Anticoagulation (AC) and antiplatelet (AP) therapy may increase the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding after double balloon enteroscopy (DBE); however, limited data are currently available regarding the incidence. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and clinical characteristics of post-DBE bleeding in patients on AC and AP therapy. Patients and methods The medical records of patients who underwent DBE between 2009 and 2013 at Mayo Clinic, Florida, were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into three groups: 1) continued AP therapy; 2) AC therapy; and 3) neither AP nor AC at the time of DBE. Follow-up data were collected at 60 days and 1 year. Results A total of 683 patients were identified; 43 on AC, 183 on AP and 457 not on AP or AC therapy. The most common indication for DBE was obscure gastrointestinal bleeding in the groups on and not on AP (85.3 % vs 70.9 %, P < 0.0001). There was no statistical difference in post-DBE bleeding rates in patients on AP vs not on AP at 60 days (11.5 % vs 7.5 %, P = 0.12) or 1 year (19.9 % vs 15.7 %, P = 0.23). Rates of bleeding in patients on AC were 11.6 % within 60 days and 22.5 % within 1 year. Multivariate analysis reflected American Society of Anesthesiologist > 3 and indication for DBE of GI bleeding were independent risk factors for post-DBE bleeding within 1 year. Conclusions Continued antiplatelet use at the time of DBE was not an independent risk factor for bleeding post-DBE at 60 days or 1 year of follow up.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with Celiac disease (CD) are at increased risk of infections, as evidenced by increased prevalence of tuberculosis, influenza, and sepsis. Alterations in immunity and microbiota can contribute to this predisposition. Although the prevalence of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) continues to increase in the US, there is little data on the association and outcomes in patients with CD. The aim of this study was to assess inpatient prevalence, outcomes and resource utilization of patients with CD and CDI in the US in the past decade. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using the NIS 2007 to 2016. All patients with CD were included using ICD9-10CM codes. Cohorts were stratified for CDI coexistence. None were excluded. The primary outcome was determining the association of CD with CDI. Secondary outcomes were determining the CDI inpatient prevalence trend in the CD patients, as well as mortality, morbidity, length of hospital stay (LOS), total hospital charges and costs, which were adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index. Multivariate regression was used to adjust for age, gender, income in patient zip code, Charlson Comorbidity Index, hospital region, location, size and teaching status. RESULTS: A total of 337,201 patients with CD were identified, of which 5,500 had associated CDI. Mean age was 55 years and 71% were female. The inpatient prevalence of CDI in patients with CD increased from 0.9/100,000 admissions in 2007 to 1.65/100,000 admissions in 2016. Patients with CD displayed increased adjusted odds (aOR:1.56, P < 0.01) of coexisting CDI compared to patients without CD. Patients with CD had lower odds of mortality, ICU, shock, multiorgan failure, hospital costs, charges, and LOS but increased odds of requiring TPN compared to the general population admitted population with CDI. CONCLUSION: Patients with CD had higher odds of CDI compared to non-CD patients, which could be attributed to CD-related gut mucosal integrity, immunological or microbiome alterations. The inpatient prevalence of CDI in patients with CD increased from 2007 to 2016. This may be a reflection of the general increase of CDI cases in the inpatient population and with improved CD diagnostic modalities. Patients with CD and CDI did show decreased morbidity/mortality and resource utilization, suggesting that the clinical course is less severe. Further studies should further assess the gut immunological and microbiome changes in CD to clarify potential factors associated with CDI.

INTRODUCTION: Esophageal food impaction is a commonly encountered clinical scenario that may warrant emergent intervention, but epidemiological studies are lacking. No major studies have examined the inpatient prevalence of food impaction during the weekend. Therefore, the aim of our study is to assess the inpatient prevalence of food impaction during the weekend compared to week days. METHODS: Case-control study using the NIS 2016, the largest public inpatient database in the US. All patients with ICD10CM codes for food bolus impactions were included. None were excluded. The primary outcome was determining the odds of food bolus impaction during the weekend days as compared to the weekdays. Secondary outcomes included determining rates of esophageal perforation, hospital costs, charges and length of stay (LOS) when comparing admissions during a weekend to admissions during a weekday. Multivariate regression analyses were used to adjust for age, gender, Charlson Comorbidity Index, income in patient zip code, hospital region, location, size and teaching status. RESULTS: 7,025 patients with food bolus impaction were identified. 2,475 underwent emergent EGD (within 24 hours) and 1,935 were admitted during the weekend. Mean patient age was 66.7 years (47.9% were female). Primary outcome: after adjusting for confounders, patients admitted for food impaction displayed significantly higher odds of admission during the weekend days (aOR:1.5, P < 0.01) when compared to the weekdays. No significant difference in esophageal perforation was observed between the two cohorts. Patients admitted during the weekend displayed lower hospitalization costs compared to patients admitted during the weekdays (aMean: -$1,756, P = 0.02), but no differences in hospitalization charges or length of stay were observed. All outcomes are displayed in Table 1. CONCLUSION: The odds of being admitted for esophageal food impaction are higher on weekends than weekdays. There are no different odds of esophageal perforation. This may be reflecting the previous studies demonstrating increased odds of food impaction during leisure times, as weekends in the US are often reserved for leisure activities rather than work. Interestingly, patients admitted during the weekend actually have lower adjusted mean hospital costs. This may suggest that these patients are likely admitted for observation or stay longer periods of time in the ED and hence do not generate the same hospital bill as an admission.