Unrestricted vs 3-day low-residue diet for colonoscopy preparation. Results of a feasibility randomized trial.

AIM: To compare the impact of an unrestricted diet with a 3-day low-residue diet before colonoscopy on bowel preparation quality. METHODS: A randomized, multicenter, researcher-blinded, parallel-group feasibility trial was conducted to assess the efficacy of an unrestricted diet versus a 3-day low-residue diet for colonoscopy preparation. Participants, aged 50 to 69, were enrolled in a colorectal cancer screening program with no factors linked to poor bowel cleansing. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was used to evaluate colon preparation during intubation and withdrawal. Secondary outcomes included bowel exploration time, adenoma and polyp detection rates, and preparation and diet tolerability. The trial is registered under Clinical Trials (NCT04664543). RESULTS: One hundred and two individuals (mean age 59.3 ± 5.5 years, 40.1% female) were randomly assigned to each diet. All participants in both groups achieved adequate preparation (Boston scores ≥ 2 in each segment). Complete adherence to preparation was observed in the majority of participants in both groups. No significant differences were noted between groups in withdrawal or cecal intubation times, or in adenoma detection rates. The unrestricted diet was better tolerated than the 3-day low-residue diet (82.5% vs. 32.3%). Preparation assessed during intubation was adequate in 82.5% of the unrestricted diet group and in 90.3% of the 3-day low-residue diet group. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to test the impact of an unrestricted diet for adequate bowel preparation. Comparable cleansing results were achieved, but the unrestricted diet showed better tolerability.

Restrictive diets are unnecessary for colonoscopy: Non-inferiority randomized trial.

Background and study aims In colonoscopy, preparation is often regarded as the most burdensome part of the intervention. Traditionally, specific diets have been recommended, but the evidence to support this policy is insufficient. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the decision not to follow a restrictive diet on bowel preparation and colonoscopy outcomes. Patients and methods This was a multicenter, controlled, non-inferiority randomized trial with FIT-positive screening colonoscopy. The subjects were assigned to follow the current standard (1-day low residue diet [LRD]) or a liberal diet. The allocation was balanced for the risk of inadequate cleansing using the Dik et al. score. All participants received the same instructions for morning colonoscopy preparation. The primary outcome was the rate of adequate preparations as defined by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Secondary outcomes included tolerability and measures of colonoscopy performance and quality. Results A total of 582 subjects were randomized. Of these, 278 who received the liberal diet and 275 who received the 1-day LRD were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. Non-inferiority was demonstrated with adequate preparation rates of 97.8% in the 1-day LRD and 96.4% in the liberal diet group. Tolerability was higher with the liberal diet (94.7% vs. 83.2%). No differences were found with respect to cecal intubation time, aspirated volume, or length of the examination. Global and right colon average adenoma detection rates per colonoscopy were similar. Conclusions The liberal diet was non-inferior to the 1-day LRD, and increased tolerability. Colonoscopy performance and quality were not affected. (NCT05032794).

Diagnostic accuracy of the Oakland score versus haemoglobin for predicting outcomes in lower gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (ALGIB) is a common cause of hospitalization. Recent guidelines recommend the use of prognostic scales for risk stratification. However, it remains unclear whether risk scores are more accurate than some simpler prognostic variables. OBJECTIVE: To compare the predictive values of haemoglobin alone and the Oakland score for predicting outcomes in ALGIB patients. DESIGN: Single-centre, retrospective study at a University Hospital. Data were extracted from the hospital's clinical records. The Oakland score was calculated at admission. Study outcomes were defined according to the original article describing the Oakland score: safe discharge (the primary Oakland score outcome), transfusion, rebleeding, readmission, therapeutic intervention and death. Area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve and accuracy using haemoglobin and the Oakland score were calculated for each outcome. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-eight patients were included. Eighty-four (32.6%) needed transfusion, 50 (19.4%) presented rebleeding, 31 (12.1%) required therapeutic intervention, 20 (7.8%) were readmitted and six (2.3%) died. There were no differences in the AUROC curve values for haemoglobin versus the Oakland score with regard to safe discharge (0.82 (0.77-0.88) vs 0.80 (0.74-0.86), respectively) or to therapeutic intervention and death. Haemoglobin was significantly better for predicting transfusion and rebleeding, and the Oakland score was significantly better for predicting readmission. CONCLUSION: In our study, the Oakland score did not perform better than haemoglobin alone for predicting the outcome of patients with ALGIB. The usefulness of risk scores for predicting outcomes in clinical practice remains uncertain.

Comparable quality of bowel preparation with single-day versus three-day low-residue diet: Randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is controversy about the length of low-residue diet (LRD) for colonoscopy preparation. The aim of the study was to compare one-day vs. three-day LRD associated to standard laxative treatment for achieving an adequate colonoscopy preparation in average risk subjects with positive fecal immunochemical test undergoing screening colonoscopy. METHODS: A non-inferiority, randomized, controlled, parallel-group clinical trial was performed in the setting of average risk colorectal cancer screening program. Participants were randomized to receive 1-day vs. 3-day LRD in addition to standard polyethilenglicol treatment. Adequacy of preparation was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Primary outcome was achieving a BBPS ≥ 2 in all colon segments. Analysis was performed for a non-inferiority margin of 5%, a 95% statistical power and one-sided 0.05 significance level. RESULTS: A total of 855 patients were randomized. Adequate bowel preparation was similar between groups: 97.9% of patients in the 1-day LRD group vs 96.9% in the 3-day LRD group achieved the primary outcome (P-value for non-inferiority < 0.001). The percentage of patients with BBPS scores ≥ 8 was superior in the 1-day LRD group (254 vs 221 in the 3-day LRD group, P = 0.032). The 1-day regimen was better tolerated than the 3-day diet. 47.7% (vs 28.7%, P < 0.05) of patients rated the 1-day LRD as very easy to follow. CONCLUSION: The 1-day LRD is non-inferior to 3-day LRD for achieving an adequate colon cleansing before average risk screening colonoscopy and it is better tolerated.

Endoscopist's Judgment Is as Useful as Risk Scores for Predicting Outcome in Peptic Ulcer Bleeding: A Multicenter Study.

Background: Guidelines recommend using prognostic scales for risk stratification in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. It remains unclear whether risk scores offer greater accuracy than clinical evaluation. Objective: Compare the diagnostic accuracy of the endoscopist's judgment against different risk-scoring systems (Rockall, Glasgow-Blatchford, Baylor and the Cedars-Sinai scores) for predicting outcomes in peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB). Methods: Between February 2006 and April 2010 we prospectively recruited 401 patients with peptic ulcer bleeding; 225 received endoscopic treatment. The endoscopist recorded his/her subjective assessment ("endoscopist judgment") of the risk of rebleeding and death immediately after endoscopy for each patient. Independent evaluators calculated the different scores. Area under the receiver-operating-characteristics (ROC) curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were calculated for rebleeding and mortality. Results: The areas under ROC curve of the endoscopist's clinical judgment for rebleeding (0.67-0.75) and mortality (0.84-0.9) were similar or even superior to the different risk scores in both the whole group and in patients receiving endoscopic therapy. Conclusions: The accuracy of the currently available risk scores for predicting rebleeding and mortality in PUB patients was moderate and not superior to the endoscopist's judgment. More precise prognostic scales are needed.

Prediction of advanced colonic neoplasm in symptomatic patients: a scoring system to prioritize colonoscopy (COLONOFIT study).

BACKGROUND: Fast-track colonoscopy to detect patients with colorectal cancer based on high-risk symptoms is associated with low sensitivity and specificity. The aim was to derive a predictive score of advanced colonic neoplasia in symptomatic patients in fast-track programs. METHODS: All patients referred for fast-track colonoscopy were evaluated. Faecal immunological haemoglobin test (3 samples; positive> 4 µg Hb/g), and a survey to register clinical variables of interest were performed. Colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma were considered as advanced colonic neoplasia. A sample size of 600 and 500 individuals were calculated for each phase 1 and phase 2 of the study, respectively (Phase 1, derivation and Phase 2, validation cohort). A Bayesian logistic regression analysis was used to derive a predictive score. RESULTS: 1495 patients were included. Age (OR, 21), maximum faecal-Hb value (OR, 2.3), and number of positive samples (OR, 28) presented the highest ORs predictive of advanced colonic neoplasia. The additional significant predictive variables adjusted for age and faecal-Hb variables in Phase 1 were previous colonoscopy (last 5 years) and smoking (no, ex/active). With these variables a predictive score of advanced colonic neoplasia was derived. Applied to Phase 2, patients with a Score > 20 had an advanced colonic neoplasia probability of 66% (colorectal cancer, 32%), while those with a Score ≤ 10, a probability of 10% (colorectal cancer, 1%). Prioritizing patients with Score > 10, 49.4% of patients would be referred for fast-track colonoscopy, diagnosing 98.3% of colorectal cancers and 77% of advanced adenomas. CONCLUSIONS: A scoring system was derived and validated to prioritize fast-track colonoscopies according to risk, which was efficient, simple, and robust.

Effect of aspirin on the diagnostic accuracy of the faecal immunochemical test for colorectal advanced neoplasia.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin (ASA) is a drug that can cause gastrointestinal lesions and symptoms. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most prevalent type of cancer in Western countries. We assessed the effect of aspirin on the diagnostic accuracy of the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for CRC and/or advanced neoplasia (AN) in patients undergoing colonoscopy for gastrointestinal symptoms. METHODS: We conducted a prospective multicentre observational study of diagnostic tests that included patients with gastrointestinal symptoms undergoing colonoscopy between March 2012 and 2014 (the COLONPREDICT study). Symptoms were assessed and a FIT and blood tests assessing haemoglobin and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels were performed. RESULTS: The study included 3052 patients: A total of 2567 did not take aspirin (non-user group) and 485 (16%) took aspirin (user group). Continuous treatment with ASA did not change the AUC (0.88, 0.82; p = 0.06), sensitivity (92%, 88%; p = 0.5) or specificity (71%, 67%; p = 0.2) of the FIT for CRC detection. Similarly, we found no differences in the AUC (0.81, 0.79; p = 0.6), sensitivity (74%, 75.5%; p = 0.3) or specificity (76%, 73.6%; p = 0.3) for AN detection. Patients with an aspirin use of ≥ 300 mg/day had a lower prevalence of AN and the sensitivity, specificity and AUC for AN for these patients were 54%, 68% and 0.66, significantly lower than for the non-user group (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Aspirin does not modify the diagnostic accuracy of FIT for CRC and/or AN in patients with gastrointestinal symptoms. Aspirin use of ≥ 300 mg/day decreases the accuracy of the test.

The fecal hemoglobin concentration, age and sex test score: Development and external validation of a simple prediction tool for colorectal cancer detection in symptomatic patients.

Prediction models for colorectal cancer (CRC) detection in symptomatic patients, based on easily obtainable variables such as fecal haemoglobin concentration (f-Hb), age and sex, may simplify CRC diagnosis. We developed, and then externally validated, a multivariable prediction model, the FAST Score, with data from five diagnostic test accuracy studies that evaluated quantitative fecal immunochemical tests in symptomatic patients referred for colonoscopy. The diagnostic accuracy of the Score in derivation and validation cohorts was compared statistically with the area under the curve (AUC) and the Chi-square test. 1,572 and 3,976 patients were examined in these cohorts, respectively. For CRC, the odds ratio (OR) of the variables included in the Score were: age (years): 1.03 (95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.02-1.05), male sex: 1.6 (95% CI: 1.1-2.3) and f-Hb (0-<20 µg Hb/g feces): 2.0 (95% CI: 0.7-5.5), (20-<200 µg Hb/g): 16.8 (95% CI: 6.6-42.0), ≥200 µg Hb/g: 65.7 (95% CI: 26.3-164.1). The AUC for CRC detection was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.85-0.90) in the derivation and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.90-093; p = 0.005) in the validation cohort. At the two Score thresholds with 90% (4.50) and 99% (2.12) sensitivity for CRC, the Score had equivalent sensitivity, although the specificity was higher in the validation cohort (p < 0.001). Accordingly, the validation cohort was divided into three groups: high (21.4% of the cohort, positive predictive value-PPV: 21.7%), intermediate (59.8%, PPV: 0.9%) and low (18.8%, PPV: 0.0%) risk for CRC. The FAST Score is an easy to calculate prediction tool, highly accurate for CRC detection in symptomatic patients.

Development and external validation of a faecal immunochemical test-based prediction model for colorectal cancer detection in symptomatic patients.

BACKGROUND: Risk prediction models for colorectal cancer (CRC) detection in symptomatic patients based on available biomarkers may improve CRC diagnosis. Our aim was to develop, compare with the NICE referral criteria and externally validate a CRC prediction model, COLONPREDICT, based on clinical and laboratory variables. METHODS: This prospective cross-sectional study included consecutive patients with gastrointestinal symptoms referred for colonoscopy between March 2012 and September 2013 in a derivation cohort and between March 2014 and March 2015 in a validation cohort. In the derivation cohort, we assessed symptoms and the NICE referral criteria, and determined levels of faecal haemoglobin and calprotectin, blood haemoglobin, and serum carcinoembryonic antigen before performing an anorectal examination and a colonoscopy. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to develop the model with diagnostic accuracy with CRC detection as the main outcome. RESULTS: We included 1572 patients in the derivation cohort and 1481 in the validation cohorts, with a 13.6 % and 9.1 % CRC prevalence respectively. The final prediction model included 11 variables: age (years) (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.06), male gender (OR 2.2, 95 % CI 1.5-3.4), faecal haemoglobin ≥20 µg/g (OR 17.0, 95 % CI 10.0-28.6), blood haemoglobin <10 g/dL (OR 4.8, 95 % CI 2.2-10.3), blood haemoglobin 10-12 g/dL (OR 1.8, 95 % CI 1.1-3.0), carcinoembryonic antigen ≥3 ng/mL (OR 4.5, 95 % CI 3.0-6.8), acetylsalicylic acid treatment (OR 0.4, 95 % CI 0.2-0.7), previous colonoscopy (OR 0.1, 95 % CI 0.06-0.2), rectal mass (OR 14.8, 95 % CI 5.3-41.0), benign anorectal lesion (OR 0.3, 95 % CI 0.2-0.4), rectal bleeding (OR 2.2, 95 % CI 1.4-3.4) and change in bowel habit (OR 1.7, 95 % CI 1.1-2.5). The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.92 (95 % CI 0.91-0.94), higher than the NICE referral criteria (AUC 0.59, 95 % CI 0.55-0.63; p < 0.001). On the basis of the thresholds with 90 % (5.6) and 99 % (3.5) sensitivity, we divided the derivation cohort into three risk groups for CRC detection: high (30.9 % of the cohort, positive predictive value [PPV] 40.7 %, 95 % CI 36.7-45.9 %), intermediate (29.5 %, PPV 4.4 %, 95 % CI 2.8-6.8 %) and low (39.5 %, PPV 0.2 %, 95 % CI 0.0-1.1 %). The discriminatory ability was equivalent in the validation cohort (AUC 0.92, 95 % CI 0.90-0.94; p = 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: COLONPREDICT is a highly accurate prediction model for CRC detection.

Occult H. pylori infection partially explains 'false-positive' results of (13)C-urea breath test.

BACKGROUND: In a previous study, UBiT-100 mg, (Otsuka, Spain), a commercial (13)C-urea breath test omitting citric acid pre-treatment, had a high rate of false-positive results; however, it is possible that UBiT detected low-density 'occult' infection missed by other routine reference tests. We aimed to validate previous results in a new cohort and to rule out the possibility that false-positive UBiT were due to an 'occult' infection missed by reference tests. METHODS: Dyspeptic patients (n = 272) were prospectively enrolled and UBiT was performed, according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Helicobacter pylori infection was determined by combining culture, histology and rapid urease test results. We calculated UBiT sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (with 95% CI). In addition, we evaluated 'occult' H. pylori infection using two previously-validated polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods for urease A (UreA) and 16 S sequences in gastric biopsies. We included 44 patients with a false-positive UBiT, and two control groups of 25 patients each, that were positive and negative for all H. pylori tests. RESULTS: UBiT showed a false-positive rate of 17%, with a specificity of 83%. All the positive controls and 12 of 44 patients (27%) with false-positive UBiT were positive for all two PCR tests; by contrast, none of our negative controls had two positive PCR tests. CONCLUSIONS: UBiT suffers from a high rate of false-positive results and sub-optimal specificity, and the protocol skipping citric acid pre-treatment should be revised; however, low-density 'occult' H. pylori infection that was undetectable by conventional tests accounted for around 25% of the 'false-positive' results.

Hemospray treatment is effective for lower gastrointestinal bleeding.

Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is diverse in origin and can be substantial, requiring urgent hemostasis. Hemospray is a promising novel hemostatic agent for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). It has been claimed in a small series that the use of Hemospray is also feasible in LGIB. We aimed to expand our knowledge of the application of Hemospray for the treatment of LGIB in a wider range of conditions to further define the optimal patient population for this new therapeutic modality. We analyzed the outcomes of nine unselected consecutive patients with active LGIB treated with Hemospray in two major hospitals in Europe. Initial hemostasis was achieved after Hemospray application in all patients. Rebleeding occurred in two patients (22%) who were on acetyl salicylic acid and presented with spurting bleeds. These preliminary data show that Hemospray can be effective in the management of LGIB, but suggest cautious use for patients on antithrombotic therapy and spurting bleeds.

In-hospital mortality after stomach cancer surgery in Spain and relationship with hospital volume of interventions.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus about the possible relation between in-hospital mortality in surgery for gastric cancer and the hospital annual volume of interventions. The objectives were to identify factors associated to greater in-hospital mortality for surgery in gastric cancer and to analyze the possible independent relation between hospital annual volume and in-hospital mortality. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients discharged after surgery for stomach cancer during 2001-2002 in four regions of Spain using the Minimum Basic Data Set for Hospital Discharges. The overall and specific in-hospital mortality rates were estimated according to patient and hospital characteristics. We adjusted a logistic regression model in order to calculate the in-hospital mortality according to hospital volume. RESULTS: There were 3241 discharges in 144 hospitals. In-hospital mortality was 10.3% (95% CI 9.3-11.4). A statistically significant relation was observed among age, type of admission, volume, and mortality, as well as diverse secondary diagnoses or the type of intervention. Hospital annual volume was associated to Charlson score, type of admission, region, length of stay and number of secondary diagnoses registered at discharge. In the adjusted model, increased age and urgent admission were associated to increased in-hospital mortality. Likewise, partial gastrectomy (Billroth I and II) and simple excision of lymphatic structure were associated with a lower probability of in-hospital mortality. No independent association was found between hospital volume and in-hospital mortality CONCLUSION: Despite the limitations of our study, our results corroborate the existence of patient, clinical, and intervention factors associated to greater hospital mortality, although we found no clear association between the volume of cases treated at a centre and hospital mortality.

Accuracy of diagnostic tests for Helicobacter pylori: a reappraisal.

BACKGROUND: Despite many changes, no large studies comparing the different diagnostic tests for Helicobacter pylori have been performed in the past 10 years. In this time, monoclonal stool antigen immunoassays and in-office 13C-urea breath tests (UBTs) have appeared. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of invasive and noninvasive tests in a large series of dyspeptic patients. METHODS: A total of 199 dyspeptic patients who had not previously been treated for H. pylori infection were prospectively enrolled. Noninvasive analyses included a commercial infrared-based UBT and a commercially available stool test. Biopsy-based tests included histological examination and a rapid urease test. A patient was considered to be infected when at least 2 test results were positive. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. The test results were compared using the McNemar test. RESULTS: Rates of positive test results were similar (54%) for the rapid urease test, histopathological examination, and the stool test. By contrast, 75% of UBT results were positive, and the UBT was associated with a very low specificity (60%). For this reason, the delta cutoff value for the UBT was recalculated as 8.5%. Sensitivities and specificities with this new cutoff value were 95% and 100%, respectively, for the rapid urease test; 94% and 99%, respectively, for histopathological examination; 90% and 93%, respectively, for the stool test; and 90% and 90%, respectively, for the UBT. CONCLUSIONS: Histological examination and rapid urease testing showed excellent diagnostic reliability. The stool test seems to be a good, noninvasive alternative to endoscopy-based tests. By contrast, the infrared-based UBT evaluated in our study showed a lower than expected performance, which was partially corrected when the cutoff value for the test was recalculated.

[Patient satisfaction in gastrointestinal endoscopy: results of a multicenter study]. / Satisfacción del paciente con la endoscopia digestiva: resultados de un estudio multicéntrico.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the main quality problems perceived by patients in gastrointestinal endoscopy through a satisfaction survey. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 321 patients from five gastrointestinal endoscopy units were included. Telephone interviews using a previously validated questionnaire on several aspects related to the procedure were carried out. Pareto analyses were performed to pinpoint the most common aspects among the vital few causes at each medical center. Based on the questionnaire, the satisfaction indicators were calculated for each center: the overall satisfaction score (the sum of the responses to the eight questions) and the rate of perceived problems (number of questions with a negative response divided by the number of questions asked). RESULTS: The most frequent aspects among the vital few were waiting time for an appointment and discomfort during the examination, since both factors were included in the vital few in four of the five medical centers. Significant differences were found among centers in the overall satisfaction score (questionnaire score) (p < 0.001) and for the rate of perceived problems (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: According to the patients, the most problematic aspects were waiting time until the day of the appointment and discomfort during the examination. Perceived quality differed among the participating centers.

Variation among endoscopy units in the achievement of the standards of colonoscopic performance indicators.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To assess the achievement of quality standards of colonoscopy at six endoscopy units. METHODOLOGY: Three indicators were used to assess the quality of 1056 colonoscopies performed at six hospitals: cecal intubation; adequate colon cleansing; and removal and recovery of all detected polyps. Analyses were performed on the total number of colonoscopies and on colonoscopies in which polyps were actually detected. The accomplishment of each indicator and a global compound index of all three indicators, named the Problem Rate, were analyzed. Results from each endoscopy unit were compared to previously established standards. RESULTS: Adequate colon cleansing was the most frequent problem for quality in all centers; adequate colon preparation was 67% (range 50 to 84%). The cecum was reached in 84% of all colonoscopies (range 76 to 90%). 75% of all patients (range 28. 79%) had all polyps excised and recovered. All centers had rates below standard for one or several indicators (p<0.01, all cases). Two of the participant hospitals had an overall problem rate above the estimated standard (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant variation in the achievement of quality standards of colonoscopy between endoscopy units. Colon cleansing is the most frequent quality problem for colonoscopy.

Satisfacción del paciente con la endoscopia digestiva: resultados de un estudio multicéntrico / Patient satisfaction in gastrointestinal endoscopy: results of a multicenter study

FUNDAMENTO Y OBJETIVO: El objetivo de nuestro trabajo fuedeterminar los principales problemas de calidad desde elpunto de vista del paciente en la endoscopia digestiva medianteun cuestionario de satisfacción.PACIENTES Y MÉTODOS: Cinco unidades de endoscopia digestivaincluyeron a un total de 321 pacientes. Se realizó unaencuesta telefónica sobre diversos aspectos relacionados conla prueba utilizando un cuestionario previamente validado.Se realizó un análisis de Pareto para cada centro para averiguarcuáles eran los aspectos más representados entre lospoco vitales. A partir del cuestionario se calcularon dos indicadoresde satisfacción para cada centro: la puntuación globalde satisfacción (suma de los valores de las respuestas alas 8 cuestiones) y la tasa de problemas percibidos (númerode preguntas con respuesta negativa dividido por el númerode preguntas realizadas).RESULTADOS: Los aspectos más representados en los poco vitalesfueron el tiempo de espera para la cita y las molestiasdurante la exploración, pues ambos aparecían en los pocovitales de 4 de los 5 centros. Había diferencias significativasentre los centros para la puntuación global de satisfacción(puntuación del cuestionario) (p < 0,001) y para la tasa deproblemas percibidos (p < 0,001).CONCLUSIÓN: Los aspectos más problemáticos desde el puntode vista de los pacientes son el tiempo de espera hasta el díade la cita y las molestias durante la exploración. Hay diferenciasen la calidad percibida entre los centros participantes

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The aim of this study was to determinethe main quality problems perceived by patients in gastrointestinalendoscopy through a satisfaction survey.PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 321 patients from fivegastrointestinal endoscopy units were included. Telephoneinterviews using a previously validated questionnaire on severalaspects related to the procedure were carried out. Paretoanalyses were performed to pinpoint the most commonaspects among the vital few causes at each medical center.Based on the questionnaire, the satisfaction indicators werecalculated for each center: the overall satisfaction score (thesum of the responses to the eight questions) and the rate ofperceived problems (number of questions with a negativeresponse divided by the number of questions asked).RESULTS: The most frequent aspects among the vital fewwere waiting time for an appointment and discomfort duringthe examination, since both factors were included in thevital few in four of the five medical centers. Significant differenceswere found among centers in the overall satisfactionscore (questionnaire score) (p < 0.001) and for the rate ofperceived problems (p < 0.001).CONCLUSION: According to the patients, the most problematicaspects were waiting time until the day of the appointmentand discomfort during the examination. Perceivedquality differed among the participating centers

Remission on thiopurinic immunomodulators normalizes quality of life and psychological status in patients with Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Thiopurinic immunomodulators are effective for maintaining symptom remission in Crohn's disease. Little is known, however, about their effect on patients' quality of life or psychological well-being. The present study aimed to determine whether remission induced by thiopurinic immunomodulators returns levels of quality of life and psychological well-being to normal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A case-control study was performed. Cases were 33 patients with Crohn's disease treated with azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine and in stable remission for at least 6 months. Sixty-six healthy individuals matched 2:1 by age and sex and 14 patients with active Crohn's disease were included as control groups. Quality of life was evaluated with the Short Form (SF-36) questionnaire, and the respective Hamilton rating scales were used for anxiety and depression. ANOVA with Bonferroni's correction was used for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: SF-36 global scores were 85 in the study group, 85 in healthy controls (P = 1), and 58.6 in patients with active disease (P < 0.001 for the comparison with the other 2 groups). The differences between values were 0 (95% CI -4-4), 26.4 (95% CI 20-32), and 26.4 (95% CI 19-33), respectively. The respective anxiety and depression scores were 6.5, 5.5, and 16.2 and 3.7, 3.3, and 10.9. No significant differences were observed in any of the SF-36 domains between case and control groups, whereas in patients with active disease, all domains were significantly worse. CONCLUSIONS: Thiopurinic immunomodulator-induced remission restores normal levels of quality of life and psychological well-being in Crohn's disease patients.

A randomized study of the safety of outpatient care for patients with bleeding peptic ulcer treated by endoscopic injection.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient management is safe for patients with non-variceal upper-GI bleeding who are at low risk of recurrent bleeding and death. However, outpatient care cannot be offered to many patients because of the presence of risk factors (severe comorbid disorders, major endoscopic stigmata of bleeding, significant hemorrhage). The present study assessed the safety of outpatient management for selected high-risk patients with bleeding peptic ulcer. METHODS: Patients hospitalized with upper-GI bleeding because of peptic ulcer with a non-bleeding vessel were eligible for inclusion in the study. Inclusion criteria were the following: ulcer size less than 15 mm, absence of hypovolemia, no associated severe disease, and appropriate family support. After endoscopic therapy (injection of epinephrine and polidocanol), patients were randomized to outpatient or hospital care. Patients remained in the emergency ward for a minimum of 6 hours before discharge, during which time omeprazole was administered intravenously. Outpatients were contacted by telephone daily during the first 3 days; a 24-hour telephone hotline was provided for any queries. For both groups, outpatient visits were scheduled at 7 to 10 and 30 days after discharge. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients were included: 40 were randomized to outpatient care and 42 to hospital care. Clinical and endoscopic variables were similar in both groups. The rate of recurrent bleeding was similar in both groups (4.8% outpatient, 5% hospital). There was no morbidity or mortality in either group at 30 days. Seven patients (17%) randomized to outpatient care received blood transfusion compared with 14 (38%) in the hospital care group (p=0.06). Mean cost of care per patient was significantly lower for the outpatient vs. the hospital group (970 US dollars vs. 1595 US dollars; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Selected patients with bleeding peptic ulcer can be safely managed as outpatients after endoscopic therapy. This policy conserves health care resources without compromising standards of care.

Addition of a second endoscopic treatment following epinephrine injection improves outcome in high-risk bleeding ulcers.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic therapy reduces the rebleeding rate, the need for surgery, and the mortality in patients with peptic ulcer and active bleeding or visible vessel. Injection of epinephrine is the most popular therapeutic method. Guidelines disagree on the need for a second hemostatic procedure immediately after epinephrine; although it seems to reduce further bleeding, its effects on morbidity, surgery rates, and mortality remain unclear. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether the addition of a second procedure improves hemostatic efficacy and/or patient outcomes after epinephrine injection. METHODS: An extensive search for randomized trials comparing epinephrine alone vs. epinephrine plus a second method was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE and in the abstracts of the AGA Congresses between 1990 and 2002. Selected articles were included in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Sixteen studies including 1673 patients met inclusion criteria. Adding a second procedure reduced the further bleeding rate from 18.4% to 10.6% (Peto odds ratio 0.53, 95% CI: 0.40-0.69) and emergency surgery from 11.3% to 7.6% (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.46-0.90). Mortality fell from 5.1% to 2.6% (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.31-0.84). Subanalysis showed that the risk of further bleeding decreased regardless of which second procedure was applied. In addition, the risk was reduced in all subgroups, although reduction was more evident in high-risk patients and when no scheduled follow-up endoscopies were performed. CONCLUSIONS: Additional endoscopic treatment after epinephrine injection reduces further bleeding, need for surgery, and mortality in patients with bleeding peptic ulcer.