Buras, Matthew

Hepatic artery stenosis after liver transplant is often treated with endovascular stent placement. Our institution has adopted use of drug-eluting stents, particularly in small-caliber arteries. We aimed to compare patency rates of drug-eluting stents vs. traditional bare-metal stents. This was a single-institution, retrospective study of liver transplant hepatic artery stenosis treated with stents. Primary patency was defined as time from stent placement to resistive index on Doppler ultrasonography (<0.5), hepatic artery thrombosis, or any intervention including surgery. Fifty-two patients were treated with stents (31 men; mean age, 57 years): 15, drug-eluting stents; 37, bare-metal stents. Mean arterial diameters were 4.1 mm and 5.1 mm, respectively. Technical success was 100% (52/52). At 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years, primary patency for drug-eluting stents was 80%, 71%, 71%, and 71%; bare-metal stents: 76%, 65%, 53%, and 46% (p = 0.41). Primary patency for small-caliber arteries (3.5–4.5 mm) with drug-eluting stents was 93%, 75%, 75%, and 75%; bare-metal stents: 60%, 60%, 50%, and 38% (p = 0.19). Overall survival was 100%, 100%, 94%, and 91%. Graft survival was 100%, 98%, 96%, and 90%. Stenting for hepatic artery stenosis was safe and effective. While not statistically significant, patency improved with drug-eluting stents compared with bare-metal stents, especially in arteries < 4.5 mm in diameter. Drug-eluting stents can be considered for liver transplant hepatic artery stenosis, particularly in small-caliber arteries.

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.