Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol ; 33(8): 1055-1062, 2021 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33177382

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The timing of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) for the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains controversial. Early EGD (E-EGD) (within 24 h of presentation) has been compared to late EGD (L-EGD) (after 24 h) in numerous studies with conflicting results. The previous systematic review included three randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, the cutoff time for performing EGD was arbitrary. We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies comparing the outcomes of E-EGD and L-EGD group. METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was undertaken to include both RCTs and cohort studies. Primary outcomes including overall mortality and secondary outcomes (recurrent bleeding, need for transfusion, and length of stay) were compared. Risk ratios and standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 13 observational studies (with over 1.8 million patients) were included in the final analysis. No significant difference in overall mortality (risk ratio: 0.97; CI, 0.74-1.27), recurrent bleeding (risk ratio: 1.12; CI, 0.62-2.00), and length of stay (SMD: -0.07, CI, -0.31 to 0.18) was observed for E-EGD group compared to L-EGD group. The possibility of endoscopic intervention was higher in E-EGD group (risk ratio: 1.70, CI, 1.28-2.27). Consistent results were obtained for subgroup analysis of studies with 100% nonvariceal bleed (NVB) patient (risk ratio: 1.12; CI, 0.84-1.50). CONCLUSION: Given the outcomes and limitations, our meta-analysis did not demonstrate clear benefit of performing EGD within 24 h of presentation for UGIB (particularly NVB).


Subject(s)
Endoscopy, Digestive System , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage , Blood Transfusion , Cohort Studies , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/diagnosis , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/etiology , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/therapy , Humans
2.
Ann Gastroenterol ; 33(6): 571-578, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33162734

ABSTRACT

Cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) is a form of functional gut-brain axis disorder characterized by bouts of episodic nausea and vomiting worsened by cannabis intake. It is considered as a variant of cyclical vomiting syndrome seen in cannabis users especially characterized by compulsive hot bathing/showers to relieve the symptoms. CHS was reported for the first time in 2004, and since then, an increasing number of cases have been reported. With cannabis use increasing throughout the world as the threshold for legalization becomes lower, its user numbers are expected to rise over time. Despite this trend, a strict criterion for the diagnosis of CHS is lacking. Early recognition of CHS is essential to prevent complications related to severe volume depletion. The recent body of research recognizes that patients with CHS impose a burden on the healthcare systems. Understanding the pathophysiology of the endocannabinoid system (ECS) remains central in explaining the clinical features and potential drug targets for the treatment of CHS. The frequency and prevalence of CHS change in accordance with the doses of tetrahydrocannabinol and other cannabinoids in various formulations of cannabis. CHS is unique in presentation, because of the cannabis's biphasic effect as anti-emetic at low doses and pro-emetic at higher doses, and the association with pathological hot water bathing. In this narrative review, we elaborate on the role of the ECS, its management, and the identification of gaps in our current knowledge of CHS to further enhance its understanding in the future.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...