Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
Add more filters










Language
Publication year range
1.
B. Joseph Elmunzer; Rebecca L. Spitzer; Lydia D. Foster; Ambreen A. Merchant; Eric F. Howard; Vaishali A. Patel; Mary K. West; Emad Qayad; Rosemary Nustas; Ali Zakaria; Marc S. Piper; Jason R. Taylor; Lujain Jaza; Nauzer Forbes; Millie Chau; Luis F. Lara; Georgios I. Papachristou; Michael L. Volk; Liam G. Hilson; Selena Zhou; Vladimir M. Kushnir; Alexandria M. Lenyo; Caroline G. McLeod; Sunil Amin; Gabriela N. Kuftinec; Dhiraj Yadav; Charlie Fox; Jennifer M. Kolb; Swati Pawa; Rishi Pawa; Andrew Canakis; Christopher Huang; Laith H. Jamil; Andrew M. Aneese; Benita K. Glamour; Zachary L. Smith; Katherine A. Hanley; Jordan Wood; Harsh K. Patel; Janak N. Shah; Emil Agarunov; Amrita Sethi; Evan L. Fogel; Gail McNulty; Abdul Haseeb; Judy A. Trieu; Rebekah E. Dixon; Jeong Yun Yang; Robin B. Mendelsohn; Delia Calo; Olga C. Aroniadis; Joseph F. LaComb; James M. Scheiman; Bryan G. Sauer; Duyen T. Dang; Cyrus R. Piraka; Eric D. Shah; Heiko Pohl; William M. Tierney; Stephanie Mitchell; Ashwinee Condon; Adrienne Lenhart; Kulwinder S. Dua; Vikram S. Kanagala; Ayesha Kamal; Vikesh K. Singh; Maria Ines Pinto-Sanchez; Joy M. Hutchinson; Richard S. Kwon; Sheryl J. Korsnes; Harminder Singh; Zahra Solati; Amar R. Deshpande; Don C. Rockey; Teldon B. Alford; Valerie Durkalski; Field F. Willingham; Patrick S. Yachimski; Darwin L. Conwell; Evan Mosier; Mohamed Azab; Anish Patel; James Buxbaum; Sachin Wani; Amitabh Chak; Amy E. Hosmer; Rajesh N. Keswani; Christopher J. DiMaio; Michael S. Bronze; Raman Muthusamy; Marcia I. Canto; V. Mihajlo Gjeorgjievski; Zaid Imam; Fadi Odish; Ahmed I. Edhi; Molly Orosey; Abhinav Tiwari; Soumil Patwardhan; Nicholas G. Brown; Anish A. Patel; Collins O. Ordiah; Ian P. Sloan; Lilian Cruz; Casey L. Koza; Uchechi Okafor; Thomas Hollander; Nancy Furey; Olga Reykhart; Natalia H. Zbib; John A. Damianos; James Esteban; Nick Hajidiacos; Melissa Saul; Melanie Mays; Gulsum Anderson; Kelley Wood; Laura Mathews; Galina Diakova; Molly Caisse; Lauren Wakefield; Haley Nitchie.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-20143024

ABSTRACT

BackgroundThe prevalence and significance of digestive manifestations in COVID-19 remain uncertain. MethodsConsecutive patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were identified across a geographically diverse alliance of medical centers in North America. Data pertaining to baseline characteristics, symptomatology, laboratory assessment, imaging, and endoscopic findings from the time of symptom onset until discharge or death were manually abstracted from electronic health records to characterize the prevalence, spectrum, and severity of digestive manifestations. Regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between digestive manifestations and severe outcomes related to COVID-19. ResultsA total of 1992 patients across 36 centers met eligibility criteria and were included. Overall, 53% of patients experienced at least one gastrointestinal symptom at any time during their illness, most commonly diarrhea (34%), nausea (27%), vomiting (16%), and abdominal pain (11%). In 74% of cases, gastrointestinal symptoms were judged to be mild. In total, 35% of patients developed an abnormal alanine aminotransferase or total bilirubin level; these were elevated to less than 5 times the upper limit of normal in 77% of cases. After adjusting for potential confounders, the presence of gastrointestinal symptoms at any time (odds ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.76-1.15) or liver test abnormalities on admission (odds ratio 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.80-2.12) were not independently associated with mechanical ventilation or death. ConclusionsAmong patients hospitalized with COVID-19, gastrointestinal symptoms and liver test abnormalities were common but the majority were mild and their presence was not associated with a more severe clinical course

2.
Clinical Endoscopy ; : 213-220, 2020.
Article | WPRIM (Western Pacific) | ID: wpr-832167

ABSTRACT

Background/Aims@#The management of small, incidentally discovered nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NF-PNETs) has been a matter of debate. Endoscopic ultrasound with fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a tool used to identify and risk-stratify PNETs. This study investigates the concordance rate of Ki67 grading between EUS-FNA and surgical pathology specimens in NFPNETs and whether certain NF-PNET characteristics are associated with disease recurrence and disease-related death. @*Methods@#We retrospectively reviewed the clinical history, imaging, endoscopic findings, and pathology records of 37 cases of NFPNETs that underwent pre-operative EUS-FNA and surgical resection at a single academic medical center. @*Results@#There was 73% concordance between Ki67 obtained from EUS-FNA cytology and surgical pathology specimens; concordance was the highest for low- and high-grade NF-PNETs. High-grade Ki67 NF-PNETs based on cytology (p=0.028) and histology (p=0.028) were associated with disease recurrence and disease-related death. Additionally, tumors with high-grade mitotic rate (p=0.005), tumor size >22.5 mm (p=0.104), and lymphovascular invasion (p=0.103) were more likely to have poor prognosis. @*Conclusions@#NF-PNETs with high-grade Ki67 on EUS-FNA have poor prognosis despite surgical resection. NF-PNETs with intermediate-grade Ki67 on EUS-FNA should be strongly considered for surgical resection. NF-PNETs with low-grade Ki67 on EUSFNA can be monitored without surgical intervention, up to tumor size 20 mm.

3.
Clinical Endoscopy ; : 175-181, 2019.
Article in English | WPRIM (Western Pacific) | ID: wpr-763411

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim of this study was to describe the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in patients with isolated elevated levels of amylase and/or lipase. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted at a large academic medical center from 2000 to 2016. Patients were selected based on having elevated amylase, lipase, or both, but without a diagnosis of pancreatitis or known pancreatobiliary disease. Patients were excluded if they had abnormal liver function tests or abnormal imaging of the pancreas. RESULTS: Of 299 EUS procedures performed, 38 met inclusion criteria. Symptoms were present in 31 patients, most frequently abdominal pain (87%). In 20 patients (53%), initial EUS most commonly found chronic pancreatitis (n=7; 18%), sludge (5; 13%), or new diagnosis of pancreas divisum (3; 8%). In the asymptomatic patients (7), 3 had a finding on EUS, most importantly sludge (2), stone (1), and pancreas divisum (1). No patients were diagnosed with a mass or pancreatic cyst. During the follow up period, 6 patients (22%) had cholecystectomy. CONCLUSIONS: In our study of patients with isolated elevations in amylase and/or lipase without acute pancreatitis who underwent EUS, approximately 50% had a pancreatobiliary finding, most commonly chronic pancreatitis or biliary sludge.


Subject(s)
Humans , Abdominal Pain , Academic Medical Centers , Amylases , Bile , Cholecystectomy , Diagnosis , Endosonography , Follow-Up Studies , Lipase , Liver Function Tests , Pancreas , Pancreatic Cyst , Pancreatitis , Pancreatitis, Chronic , Retrospective Studies , Sewage , Ultrasonography
4.
Clinical Endoscopy ; : 411-420, 2015.
Article in English | WPRIM (Western Pacific) | ID: wpr-170081

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Surgery is the mainstay of treatment for cholecystitis. However, gallbladder stenting (GBS) has shown promise in debilitated or high-risk patients. Endoscopic transpapillary GBS and endoscopic ultrasound-guided GBS (EUS-GBS) have been proposed as safe and effective modalities for gallbladder drainage. METHODS: Data from patients with cholecystitis were prospectively collected from August 2004 to May 2013 from two United States academic university hospitals and analyzed retrospectively. The following treatment algorithm was adopted. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with sphincterotomy and cystic duct stenting was initially attempted. If deemed feasible by the endoscopist, EUS-GBS was then pursued. RESULTS: During the study period, 139 patients underwent endoscopic gallbladder drainage. Among these, drainage was performed in 94 and 45 cases for benign and malignant indications, respectively. Successful endoscopic gallbladder drainage was defined as decompression of the gallbladder without incidence of cholecystitis, and was achieved with ERCP and cystic duct stenting in 117 of 128 cases (91%). Successful endoscopic gallbladder drainage was also achieved with EUS-guided gallbladder drainage using transmural stent placement in 11 of 11 cases (100%). Complications occurred in 11 cases (8%). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic gallbladder drainage techniques are safe and efficacious methods for gallbladder decompression in non-surgical patients with comorbidities.


Subject(s)
Humans , Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde , Cholecystitis , Cholecystitis, Acute , Comorbidity , Cystic Duct , Decompression , Drainage , Gallbladder , Hospitals, University , Incidence , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , Stents , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...