Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for clearance of refractory bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Following endoscopic sphincterotomy, 90% of bile duct stones can be removed with a Dormia basket or balloon catheter. The removal can fail in patients with large stones, intrahepatic stones, bile duct strictures or a difficult anatomy. The aim of this retrospective study is to investigate the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in fragmenting and allowing the extraction of bile duct stones that could not be cleared by routine endoscopic means including mechanical lithotripsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1989 to January 2005, we treated with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy 376 patients (133 males and 243 females, median age 71.4 years) with bile duct stones that were not removable following endoscopic sphincterotomy, using the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy Lithostar Plus machine built by Siemens Co. of Erlangen, Germany. Stone targeting was performed fluoroscopically following injection of contrast via nasobiliary drain or T-tube in 362 patients and by ultrasonography in eight patients. Residual fragments were cleared at endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatograhy. Two hundred and ten of the 370 patients treated (56.7%) showed only 1 stone, 57 (15.4%) showed 2, 45 (12.1%) showed 3, 58 (15.6%) showed more than 3 stones. The median diameter of the stones was 21mm (range 7-80mm). RESULTS: Complete stone clearance was achieved in 334 of the 376 patients who underwent the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy procedure (90.2%). Six patients (1.5%) dropped out of treatment during their first sessions, mainly because of intolerance. Each patient averaged 3.7 treatments (1-12), at an average rate of 3470 shocks per session (1500-5400), at an average energy level of 3.4mJ (1-7). Complications were recorded in 34 patients (9.1%); 22 patients experienced symptomatic cardiac arrhythmia, 4 haemobilia, 2 cholangitis, 3 haematuria, 3 dyspnoea; no deaths were associated with the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is a safe and effective therapy in those patients in whom endoscopic techniques have failed with a clearing rate of 90.2% of refractory bile duct stones with a low rate of complications.

[The medical therapy of chronic pancreatitis. Problems, progress and outlook]. / La terapia medica della pancreatite cronica. Problemi, progressi e prospettive.

The aims of medical therapy in chronic pancreatitis are mainly to relieve the recurrent pain and to correct any malabsorption secondary to digestive insufficiency resulting from deficient exocrine pancreatic function. The treatment of the pain initially involves the use of dietary measures and analgesic drugs. The results of the use of pancreatic extracts and somatostatin reported in the literature are controversial, as are those of coeliac plexus block. Of unquestionable efficacy, at least in the short to medium term, are surgical decompression interventions in patients, with pain refractory to these measures and who present significant dilation of Wirsung's duct at ERCP. Endoscopic decompression constitutes an alternative to surgical decompression. In view of the transitory results of endoscopic decompression, which, in any event, should be implemented only by endoscopists possessing the necessary experience and expertise, the use of this technique may perhaps be targeted at carefully selected patients to be submitted to surgical decompression. As far as maldigestion is concerned, which occurs only when the pancreatic functional deficit reaches 90% or more, replacement therapy with pancreatic extracts must be resorted to. Multi-Unit Dose preparations are to be preferred, consisting in gastro-protected microspheres measuring not more than 2 mm in diameter and containing high doses of lipase, since at least 30,000 I.U. of lipase are required in the post-prandial phase for reasonably satisfactory correction of the steatorrhoea. Should this fail to prove effective, it is good policy to add antisecretory drugs (H2-antagonists, proton-pump inhibitors).

[Diet and drugs in the therapy of nonorganic dyspepsia: the hypothesis and factual data]. / Dieta e farmaci nella terapia della dispepsia non organica: ipotesi e dati di fatto.

Non-organic dyspepsia, although not frequently reported, is still a disorder which is difficult to classify in nosographic and physiopathological terms, a fact which inevitably influences the indications for its treatment. Non-pharmacological treatment of non-organic dyspepsia includes changes in dietary and behavioural habits which, even if established on empirical grounds, play a far from ancillary role. When considered appropriate, pharmacological treatment must be formulated solely on the basis of controlled clinical trials vs placebo given the well-known significance of the placebo effect in this and other so-called "functional" diseases. The therapeutic strategies which are most subject to verification are based on the one hand on the neutralisation or inhibition of gastric acid secretion and, on the other, on the improvement of gastrointestinal motility. Surprisingly, the widely used antacid drugs are among those which have been less well studied and show the lowest efficacy. Among the anti-secretory drugs, pirenzepine is approximately 25% more effective than placebo. H2-antagonists, the drugs which have been most closely studied both in terms of the number of trials and the size of the sample populations studied, produce contradictory results. However, a meta-analysis of the trials shows an overall 18% improvement in efficacy compared to placebo. The overall results of studies on prokinetic compounds are "good" in meta-analytical terms, with an improved efficacy of 50% compared to placebo. This is not necessarily due to the superiority of prokinetic compared to anti-secretory drugs and can be explained by the reduced placebo effect in trials using prokinetic drugs or a greater presence in the latter of dyspepsia which is physiopathologically correlated to motor discord. Among the future drugs still being studied, it is particularly worth mentioning fedotozine, a specific K opioid receptor agonist which appears to have provided extremely interesting results in preliminary studies. The role of barrier drugs, such as sucralfate and colloidal bismuth, continues to remain unclear and in particular the latter might be of increased use if evidence of a relationship between Helicobacter pylori and non-organic dyspepsia were reinforced; this relationship may in fact not exist in all dyspeptic patients but only in a subgroup. Lastly, the problem of the duration of pharmacological treatment still remains unsolved, as do the questions of whether longterm treatment should be conceived once acute symptoms have disappeared and whether it is possible to hypothesise differentiated pharmacological treatment depending on the clinical variants of functional dyspepsia which have been defined with greater attention over the course of the past decade.

Treatment of gastroesophageal (acid) reflux with lansoprazole: an overview.

Despite the fact that reflux esophagitis is a multifactorial disease, inhibition of gastric acid secretion is the mainstay of medical treatment, both for moderate and severe cases. Antisecretory agents lower the acidity of the refluxate, thus decreasing its aggressive effect, which favors the mucosal healing process. The greater the acid inhibition, the greater will be the mucosal repair. This is the reason for a therapeutic gain for H2-receptor antagonists over anticholinergics and antacids, and for proton pump inhibitors over H2-receptor antagonists. The most recently developed proton pump inhibitor, lansoprazole, at doses of 15, 30, or 60 mg/day for 4 and 8 weeks of treatment, has proven to be significantly more effective than placebo (one multicenter study involving 292 patients) or ranitidine (three multicenter studies involving 653 patients) in terms of mucosal healing and symptom relief. In two comparative trials with omeprazole 20 mg vs lansoprazole 30 mg (in a total of 349 evaluable patients) healing rates were found to be similar, but in one trial the relief of heartburn proved to be significantly more pronounced in patients receiving lansoprazole who also used fewer antacids. The frequency of adverse events was comparable in the two treatment groups. Reflux esophagitis is a chronic condition and after stopping antisecretory treatment, including lansoprazole, most patients relapse in terms of symptoms and endoscopical lesions, which suggests the need for long-term treatment. However, a strategy for long-term control of reflux esophagitis remains to be defined (lower daily dose, alternate-day standard dose, or concomitant prokinetic drugs?). The safety of proton pump inhibitors given for prolonged periods also needs to be more thoroughly evaluated.

Helicobacter pylori and gastric ulcer therapy: reflections and uncertainties.

The relationship between Helicobacter pylori (HP) and gastric ulcer therapy is examined by analyzing both the data that suggest that eradication of HP renders the gastric mucosa less susceptible to development of gastric ulcer as well as the substantial body of evidence that does not support this contention. The results reported in clinical trials with colloidal bismuth citrate, antimicrobial agents (furazolidone), and combinations of anti-ulcer and antimicrobial agents (H2-antagonist+cefixime, H2-antagonist+metronidazole) are reviewed. Also analyzed is the relationship between HP eradication and ulcer recurrence. Only one study is available on this aspect, and the limited evidence it provides in favour of a prophylactic effect of eradication therapy is not entirely convincing. The authors conclude that there is no reasonable case for the dogmatic assumption that eradication of HP facilitates either acute healing or long-term prophylaxis of gastric ulcer, though certain subgroups of gastric ulcer patients may benefit from eradication therapy.

[No acid, no ulcer: such a simple axiom?]. / No ácido, no úlcera: un axioma tan simple?

According to the traditional view gastric acid and pepsin are a sine qua non for ulcer development. Acid suppression, however, is far from being the only successful therapeutic approach, and similar healing rates are achieved by drugs with substantially different mechanisms of action--antacids, H2-antagonists, antimuscarinics, cytoprotective and site-protective agents--thus denoting a multifactorial pathogenesis. Even with the antisecretory compounds, the relationship between gastric acid and ulcer healing gives rise to perplexity: antacids prove effective at widely varying doses; pirenzipine and H2-blockers, which are clinically equieffective, differ considerably in antisecretory efficacy; H2-antagonist studies on early vs late postprandial dosing yield contradictory clinical results; morning and bedtime single administrations of H2-antagonists prove equiactive on ulcer healing, leading to a reappraisal of the alleged importance of nocturnal acidity. Ulcer sealants such as colloidal bismuth and sucralfate prove as effective as H2-antagonists despite their total lack of antisecretory activity, thereby apparently undermining the primary pathogenetic role of acid. However, with the spectacular 100% healing rates achieved by the protonpump blocker, omeprazole, the wheel has come full circle, and gastric acid appears to re-emerge as a primary element in pathogenesis. Specific therapy, based on the predominant pathogenetic factor involved, is likely to be a feasible proposition, but, at present, remains little more than a remote possibility.