ABSTRACT
Olmesartan is an angiotensin II receptor antagonist used for the management of hypertension. This drug can lead to an enteropathy that clinically and histologically resembles coeliac disease. Symptoms may appear months or years after the introduction of the drug and usually resolve after discontinuation. The authors present a case of an 86-year-old woman with hypertension who was treated with olmesartan for 10 years. She presented to the emergency department with diarrhoea after three months of development and weight loss. The aetiological study that was conducted excluded infectious, inflammatory, endocrinological, and neoplastic causes. The pathological anatomy of the duodenal biopsy was suggestive of coeliac disease, but the serology was not compatible. The patient presented complete remission of the condition with the suspension of the drug and subsequent recrudescence when, by self-initiation, she resumed olmesartan. This case study aims to alert readers of a rare cause of enteropathy with a clinical manifestation that mimics coeliac disease. Olmesartan-induced enteropathy seems to be a diagnosis of exclusion and should be considered in patients chronically medicated with olmesartan.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous liver biopsy (PLB) is an invasive procedure used for the assessment of liver diseases. The patient's recovery position after the PLB differs among hospitals and departments. This study aims to evaluate adverse events and patient acceptability according to the recovery position adopted after the PLB. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From September 2014 to March 2017, patients submitted to PLB were randomly assigned to a recovery position arm: right-side position (RRP), dorsal position (DRP), or combined position. A validated numerical rating scale was used to evaluate the level of pain and the overall acceptability of the PLB experience. RESULTS: Ninety (27 patients in RRP, 33 in DRP and 30 in combined position arm) patients were included in the study. There were no differences between the three groups regarding demographic and clinical parameters, except for the number of previous biopsies - higher in the combined group (P=0.03). No major adverse events occurred. Minor complications described were pain (36.7% of patients), vasovagal reaction (2.2%) and nauseas/vomit (3.3%). Pain level and pain duration did not differ significantly between groups. Pain occurred more often in women (P=0.04) and younger patients (P=0.02). The number of passages, operator and previous biopsy did not influence the occurrence of pain. The RRP group considered the procedure less acceptable than the DRP group (P=0.001) or the combined group (P=0.002). There were no differences between the last two arms. CONCLUSION: Although RRP is the most frequently used position, it appears to be less acceptable without any protective role in terms of adverse events.
