ABSTRACT
Background: This report presents the influence of immunosuppression by new rheumatological therapies on hepatitis E virus infection in a 54-year-old male patient with an anti-synthetase syndrome and treatment with methotrexate and rituximab. Case description: The patient arrived at the Emergency Department with epigastric pain, vomiting and dark urine. Initial examination revealed signs of inflammation and hepatic dysfunction. Subsequent laboratory tests and imaging confirmed acute hepatitis E infection in the context of recent initiation of rituximab therapy. Despite initial suspicion of pancreatitis, subsequent investigations ruled out pancreatic involvement. Treatment with ribavirin, along with supportive measures, led to significant clinical improvement with resolution of jaundice, ascites, and oedema. Conclusions: This case underscores the importance of considering hepatitis E in patients with autoimmune conditions, especially when initiating immunosuppressive therapies, a situation that is not well described in scientific literature and is increasingly common, necessitating proper recognition. LEARNING POINTS: Suspect hepatitis E virus infection in the presence of persistent liver failure of unknown cause.Recognise immunosuppression as a cause of increased risk of hepatitis E infection.Take into account the repercussions of immunosuppressive therapy such as rituximab regarding hepatitis E infections in immunocompromised patients.
ABSTRACT
Antecedentes y objetivos: propofol y midazolam son dos de los fármacos más utilizados en la endoscopia digestiva alta (EDA). El objetivo del estudio fue evaluar dos protocolos de sedación utilizando estos fármacos en pacientes sometidos a una EDA en términos de seguridad, eficiencia, calidad de la exploración y aceptación del paciente. Pacientes y métodos: estudio prospectivo, randomizado y a doble ciego, en el que se incluyó a 83 pacientes de 18-80 años, de bajo riesgo anestésico (ASA I-II) sometidos a EDA diagnóstica, aleatorizados a recibir propofol más placebo (grupo A) o midazolam más propofol (grupo B). Resultados: en el grupo A, 42 pacientes recibieron un bolo de placebo (suero salino) y propofol en bolos de 20 mg hasta una media de 115 mg; en el grupo B, 41 pacientes recibieron 3 mg de midazolam y bolos de 20 mg de propofol hasta una media 83 mg. No hubo diferencias significativas en los efectos adversos en ambos grupos y los que se presentaron se trataron de forma conservadora. Los pacientes en el grupo B (midazolam más propofol) alcanzaron de forma más rápida la sedación deseada sin variar el tiempo global de la exploración. La calidad en la evaluación endoscópica fue similar en ambos grupos y los pacientes se sintieron igualmente satisfechos con ambos regímenes de sedación. Conclusiones: la sedación con midazolam más propofol no afecta al tiempo global de la exploración, utiliza menos dosis de propofol, es tan segura como la administración del propofol en monoterapia, proporciona igual calidad de exploración y similar aceptación por los pacientes
Background and objectives: propofol and midazolam are two of the most commonly used sedatives in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE). The objective of this study was to evaluate these two sedation regimens administered to patients who underwent an UGE with regard to security, efficiency, quality of exploration and patient response. Patients and methods: a prospective, randomized and double-blind study was performed which included 83 patients between 18 and 80 years of age of a low anesthetic risk (ASA - American Society of Anesthesiologists- I-II) who underwent a diagnostic UGE. Patients were randomized to receive sedation with either placebo plus propofol (group A) or midazolam plus propofol (group B). Results: in group A, 42 patients received a placebo bolus (saline solution) and on average up to 115 mg of propofol in boluses of 20 mg. In group B, 41 patients received 3 mg of midazolam and an average of up to 83 mg of propofol in boluses of 20 mg. There were no significant differences in the adverse effects observed in either group and all adverse events were treated conservatively. The patients in group B (midazolam plus propofol) entered the desired sedated state more quickly with no variation in the overall time of the exploration. The quality of the endoscopic evaluation was similar in both groups and the patients were equally satisfied regardless of the sedatives they received. Conclusions: the use of midazolam plus propofol as a sedative does not affect the overall exploration time, a lower dose of propofol can be used and it is as safe as administering propofol as a monotherapy while providing the same level of both exploration quality and patient approval
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adolescent , Young Adult , Adult , Middle Aged , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Propofol/administration & dosage , Midazolam/administration & dosage , Endoscopy, Digestive System/methods , Deep Sedation/methods , Prospective Studies , Anesthesia/methods , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: propofol and midazolam are two of the most commonly used sedatives in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE). The objective of this study was to evaluate these two sedation regimens administered to patients who underwent an UGE with regard to security, efficiency, quality of exploration and patient response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: a prospective, randomized and double-blind study was performed which included 83 patients between 18 and 80 years of age of a low anesthetic risk (ASA - American Society of Anesthesiologists- I-II) who underwent a diagnostic UGE. Patients were randomized to receive sedation with either placebo plus propofol (group A) or midazolam plus propofol (group B). RESULTS: in group A, 42 patients received a placebo bolus (saline solution) and on average up to 115 mg of propofol in boluses of 20 mg. In group B, 41 patients received 3 mg of midazolam and an average of up to 83 mg of propofol in boluses of 20 mg. There were no significant differences in the adverse effects observed in either group and all adverse events were treated conservatively. The patients in group B (midazolam plus propofol) entered the desired sedated state more quickly with no variation in the overall time of the exploration. The quality of the endoscopic evaluation was similar in both groups and the patients were equally satisfied regardless of the sedatives they received. CONCLUSIONS: the use of midazolam plus propofol as a sedative does not affect the overall exploration time, a lower dose of propofol can be used and it is as safe as administering propofol as a monotherapy while providing the same level of both exploration quality and patient approval.
Subject(s)
Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal , Hypnotics and Sedatives/administration & dosage , Midazolam/administration & dosage , Propofol/administration & dosage , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anesthesia , Double-Blind Method , Drug Combinations , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Satisfaction , Prospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Young AdultSubject(s)
Humans , Male , Adult , Polyps/complications , Polyps/diagnosis , Intestinal Polyps/complications , Intestinal Polyps/diagnosis , Intestinal Polyps/surgery , Intestinal Polyposis/complications , Intestinal Polyposis/diagnosis , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/complications , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/diagnosis , Intestinal Polyps , Intestinal Polyposis , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/etiology , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/physiopathology , Diagnosis, DifferentialABSTRACT
No disponible
No disponible
