Citations

We all are witnessing unprecedented pain and suffering, enduring unsurpassed tribulations. As a doctor working in an intensive care unit each day, I carry the burden of my patients and their families, my coworkers, my own family and friends. I never think about myself, the burden on my soul. Yet I believe there will be a better tomorrow. A new day, where COVID times will be remembered with tears in our eyes yet a comfort in our smile that it’s past.

Summary Background Upper endoscopy (EGD) is frequently performed in patients with esophageal complaints following anti-reflux surgery such as fundoplication. Endoscopic evaluation of fundoplication wrap integrity can be challenging. Our primary aim in this pilot study was to evaluate the accuracy and confidence of assessing Nissen fundoplication integrity and hiatus herniation among gastroenterology (GI) fellows, subspecialists, and foregut surgeons. Methods Five variations of post-Nissen fundoplication anatomy were included in a survey of 20 sets of EGD images that was completed by GI fellows, general GI attendings, esophagologists, and foregut surgeons. Accuracy, diagnostic confidence, and inter-rater agreement across providers were evaluated. Results There were 31 respondents in the final cohort. Confidence in pre-survey diagnostics significantly differed by provider type (mean confidence out of 5 was 1.8 for GI fellows, 2.7 for general GI attendings, 3.6 for esophagologists, and 3.6 for foregut surgeons, P = 0.01). The mean overall accuracy was 45.9%, which significantly differed by provider type with the lowest rate among GI fellows (37%) and highest among esophagologists (53%; P = 0.01). The accuracy was highest among esophagologists across all wrap integrity variations. Inter-rater agreement was low across wrap integrity variations (Krippendorf’s alpha <0.30), indicating low to no agreement between providers. Conclusion In this multi-center survey study, GI fellows had the lowest accuracy and confidence in assessing EGD images after Nissen fundoplication, whereas esophagologists had the highest. Diagnostic confidence varied considerably and inter-rater agreement was poor. These findings suggest experience may improve confidence, but highlight the need to improve the evaluation of fundoplication wraps.

Post‐transplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM) is a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality in liver transplant recipients (LTRs). With concurrent comorbidities and use of various immunosuppression medications, identifying a safe and personalized regimen for management of PTDM is needed. There are many comorbidities associated with the post‐transplant course including chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease, allograft steatosis, obesity, and de novo malignancy. Emerging data suggest that available diabetes medications may carry beneficial or, in some cases, harmful effects in the setting of these co‐existing conditions. Sodium‐glucose co‐transporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon‐like peptide 1 receptor agonists have shown the most promising beneficial results. Although there is a deficiency of LTR‐specific data, they appear to be generally safe. Effects of other medications are varied. Metformin may reduce the risk of malignancy. Pioglitazone may be harmful in patients combatting obesity or heart failure. Insulin may exacerbate obesity and increase the risk of developing malignancy. This review thoroughly discusses the roles of these extra‐glycemic effects and safety considerations in LTRs. Through weighing the risks and benefits, we conclude that alternatives to insulin should be strongly considered, when feasible, for personalized long‐term management based on risk factors and co‐morbidities.