Notes

Innate organization of LPL rs326 using Body mass index among the Kuwaiti population.
Background and study aims Colonic lesions may not be amenable to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) due to previous manipulation, submucosal invasion, or lesion flatness. In 2018, we described Dissection-enabled Scaffold Assisted Resection (DeSCAR) to be safe for the endoscopic resection of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions 1 In this study, we expand our original cohort to describe our expanded experience with patients undergoing DeSCAR and assess the efficacy, safety, and feasibility of DeSCAR for endoscopic resection of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions. Patients and methods We retrospectively reviewed 57 patients from 2015-2019 who underwent DeSCAR for colonic lesions with incomplete lifting and/or previous manipulation. Cases were reviewed for location, prior manipulation, rates of successful resection, adverse events, and endoscopic follow up to assess for residual lesions. Results Fifty-seven lesions underwent DeSCAR. Of the patients, 51 % were female, and average patient age was 69 years. Lesions were located in the cecum (n = 16), right colon (n = 27), left colon (n = 10), and rectum (n = 4). Thiomyristoyl manufacturer Average lesion size was 27.7 mm. Previous manipulation occurred in 54 cases (72 % biopsy, 44 % resection attempt, 18 % intralesional tattoo). The technical success rate for resection of non-lifting lesions was 98 %. There were two delayed bleeding episodes (one required endoscopic intervention) and one small perforation (managed by endoscopic hemoclip closure). Endoscopic follow up was available in 31 patients (54 %) with no residual adenoma in 28 patients (90 % of those surveilled). Conclusions Our expanded experience with DeSCAR demonstrates high safety, feasibility, and effectiveness for the endoscopic management of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions.Background and study aims Endoscopic resection is recommended as initial treatment for early-stage gastric and duodenal neuroendocrine tumors (G-NETs and D-NETs). However, it can cause serious adverse events. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the band and slough (BAS) technique as a novel and less aggressive endoscopic therapy for management of such tumors. Four patients, three diagnosed with less then 10-mm D-NET and one with 10-mm type I G-NET, were treated with the BAS technique without endoscopic resection. Initial follow-up endoscopy at 3 months was done to assess for residual tumor. Subsequent endoscopic surveillance was performed. After one session of banding, all patients achieved complete remission at 3-month follow-up. No tumor recurrence was detected on repeat biopsy at 12-month surveillance endoscopy. None of the patients developed any adverse events including bleeding or perforation. The BAS technique may prove to be a safe and effective endoscopic therapy for diminutive, non-metastatic type 1 G-NETs and D-NETs. Studies of larger scale and longer follow-up periods are needed to corroborate these findings.Background and study aims Existing guidelines recommend continuation of aspirin therapy prior to outpatient endoscopic procedures, as it reduces peri-procedural cardiovascular events and is not associated with an increased risk of bleeding. Despite this, many patients at our institution inappropriately alter their aspirin prior to endoscopy. We sought to identify why this occurs and implement an intervention that could reduce improper aspirin alteration. Patients and methods All adult patients undergoing outpatient endoscopy at the Medical University of South Carolina were administered a survey querying demographics, aspirin use, endoscopic procedure, thromboembolic risk factors, and pre-procedural aspirin alteration, if any. An intervention involving revised written and verbal instructions as well as an automated voicemail aimed at ensuring patients adhere to guidelines was then undertaken. The same survey was administered after the intervention to assess for improved adherence. Results A total of 240 patients from the initial survey reported daily aspirin use, of which 114 (47.5 %) inappropriately altered aspirin therapy. A total of 182 patients from the post-intervention survey reported daily aspirin use, of which 66 (36.3 %) inappropriately altered aspirin therapy. This was a statistically significant reduction ( P = 0.04), which included adjustments for age, sex, procedure type, and thromboembolic risk. Conclusions A high proportion of patients at our institution inappropriately alter aspirin therapy prior to outpatient endoscopy. The reasons for this behavior include patient self-direction, misguidance from staff, and instruction from other physicians. This alteration can be reduced significantly through an intervention that educates both patients and staff on continuation of aspirin therapy prior to outpatient endoscopy.Background and study aims Choice of sedation (propofol vs opioid/benzodiazepine) has been studied in the literature and has shown variable outcomes. The majority of recent studies have evaluated propofol sedation (PS) versus opioids, benzodiazepines, or a combination of both. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing PS to other sedation methods to assess the impact on colonoscopy outcomes. Methods Multiple databases were searched and studies of interest were extracted. Primary outcome of the study was adenoma detection rate (ADR) and secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate (PDR), advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR), and cecal intubation rate (CIR). Results A total of 11 studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of 177,016 patients (148,753 and 28,263 in the opioids/benzodiazepine group and PS group, respectively). Overall, ADR (RR 1.07, 95 % CI 0.99-1.15), PDR (RR 1.01, 95 % CI 0.93-1.10), and AADR (RR 1.17, 95 % CI 0.92-1.48) did not improve with the use of PS. The CIR was slightly higher for propofol sedation group (RR 1.02, 95 % CI 1.00-1.03). Conclusion Based on our analysis, PS and opioid/benzodiazepine sedation seem to have comparable ADR. Our results do not favor use of a particular sedation method and the choice of sedation should be individualized based on patient preference, risk factors and resource availability.
Read More: https://www.selleckchem.com/products/thiomyristoyl.html