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
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Options for the endoscopic management of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) include transmural drainage (TM) alone, transpapillary drainage (TP) alone, or a combination of both drainage method (CD). There have been conflicting reports about the best method. This study performed a meta-analysis to determine whether CD presents an added clinical benefit over TM. METHODS: The included studies compared TM with CD and reported clinical success for both methods. A random-effects model was used to determine the pooled odds ratios (ORs) and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the following outcomes: technical success, clinical success, complications, and recurrence. RESULTS: Nine studies involving a combined total of 604 drainage procedures—373 TMs (62%) and 231 CDs (38%)—were included. CD showed no additional benefit over TM in terms of technical success (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.37–3.37; p=0.85), clinical success (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.65–1.89; p=0.70), recurrence (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.53–4.21; p=0.45), or complications (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.61–2.18; p=0.67). CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic duct (PD) stenting provides no additional clinical benefit for the TM of PFCs (particularly pseudocysts). Patients undergoing the TM of symptomatic pseudocysts may not require endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP).
