A Study of Biomarkers Associated with Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Fatty Liver Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes.

Metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) is a new term that no longer excludes patients that consume alcohol or present other liver diseases, unlike nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of different biomarkers as predictors of MAFLD in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In this regard, a cross-sectional, non-interventional study was conducted over a period of 8 months in patients with T2DM. Liver steatosis displayed by abdominal ultrasound certified the MAFLD diagnosis. A percentage of 49.5% of the studied patients presented MAFLD. Through logistic regression adjusted for gender, age, T2DM duration, lipid-lowering therapy, smoking status, nutritional status, we demonstrated that elevated triglycerides (TG) levels, high non-high-density-lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol-to-HDL-cholesterol (non-HDL/HDL) ratio, high atherogenic index of plasma (AIP), and increased Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) had predictive value for MAFLD in patients with T2DM. Furthermore, we calculated the optimal cut-off values for these biomarkers (184 mg/dL for TG, 0.615 for AIP, 3.9 for the non-HDL/HDL ratio, and 2.01 for HOMA-IR) which can predict the presence of MAFLD in patients with T2DM. To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the predictive value of the non-HDL/HDL ratio for MAFLD in patients with T2DM.

Profile of Patients with Cardiovascular Diseases during the Pandemic in a Cardiology Clinic of a COVID-19 Support Hospital.

BACKGROUND: During the pandemic, our hospital became a COVID support hospital and consequently the cardiology clinic had restricted activity; thus, it received only suspect and/or patients confirmed positive with the various COVID-19 strains that were associated with a chronic/flaring cardiovascular pathology. METHODS: Two batches of patients admitted during a one-year period were compared in the cardiology clinic over two different periods of time: BATCH I (1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020), in a non-COVID context (BATCH I N-COV) and BATCH II (1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021) comprising patients that presented with respiratory infection of SARS-CoV-2 (BATCH II COV-2), associated with chronic and/or acute cardiovascular condition. To determine the profile of the patients admitted in our clinic, we observed the following parameters: age, type of cardiac condition, and admission mode (for the N-COV group). RESULTS: The data obtained as absolute numbers and as percentages in relation to the total number of admissions were presented in separate tables and graphs for both of the studied groups. CONCLUSIONS: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, in its almost two years of evolution, has divided the medical world in two main categories: COVID and non-COVID. Admission of the patients with chronic, but non-COVID cardiac conditions, in our case, dropped to almost one-quarter when we compared the two absolute admission numbers: 1382 in the year prior to pandemic compared with only 356 in the pandemic year. We believe that the number of deaths due to SARS-CoV-2 infection was infinitely higher than the reported ones and uncountable, in as much as COVID-19 did not kill only the infected patients, but it has also yielded a very large number of collateral victims among chronic patients who had no contact with the disease, but were unable to be admitted and treated for chronic heart disease.

Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasonography for Gastric Cancer Staging.

Gastric cancer remains a health problem, with treatment indications varying with the TNM stage. We aimed in this study to highlight the role of EUS in GC patients and also to calculate the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of EUS for T and N staging in our group of patients with this disease. In this study, we included 41 GC patients, and individual values for every T stage accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, correct staging, understaging, and overstaging were calculated. EUS overall accuracy for T staging was 58.53%, with the highest sensitivity reached for the T4 stage, 95.83%. For N+vs. N-staging, EUS accuracy was 68.29%, with a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 44.44%. The positive and negative predicted values for the presence or absence of nodal disease were 82.75%, respectively 33.33%. In conclusion, this study confirmed the importance of EUS for the assessment of GC T and N stage and highlighted the role of this tool in the detection of liver micrometastasis unrevealed by other imaging techniques like abdominal ultrasound or MSCT.

EndoCuff-Assisted Colonoscopy Versus Standard Colonoscopy in Colonic Polyp Detection-Experience from a Single Tertiary Centre.

BACKGROUND: Standard colonoscopy fails to visualize the entire colon mucosa and consequently a significant amount of polyps are still being missed. New device, such as EndoCuff, have been developed to improve mucosal visualisation, hence the quality in colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic yield of EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy in comparison with standard colonoscopy by taking into consideration several quality indicators. METHODS: In this study, 965 adults ≥ 18 years referred for colonoscopy were randomly divided into two groups. The main statistical investigation compared the difference between EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy (EC) vs. standard colonoscopy (SC) in the detection of colonic polyps and adenoma detection rate (ADR). The second inquiry sought to compare experienced vs. recently trained and female vs. male operators. RESULTS: The ADR was higher for EC than for SC (37.50% vs. 26.64%). Regarding the mean number of detected polyps per procedure (MPP), the result was statistically significant when generally comparing the EC vs. SC (p=0.0009). There were no differences in MPP between EC and SC for recently trained endoscopists (p=0.7446), while a significant difference for experienced doctors (p=0,0020) was noted. A significant difference was observed between female doctors and male doctors only when using SC. EC was more helpful for female doctors when assessing MPP (p=0.0118). No serious adverse events related to EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy was noted. CONCLUSIONS: EndoCuff-assisted colonoscopy seems to be safe and may bring benefits for improving the polyp/adenoma detection rates in regard to missed lesions, usually located in blind areas.

Contrast-enhanced power Doppler endosonography and pathological assessment of vascularization in advanced gastric carcinomas--a feasibility study.

AIM: Besides representing angiogenesis markers, microvascular density (MVD) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) are two important tools for the assessment of prognosis in patients with gastric cancer. The aim of our study was to assess the Doppler parameters (resistivity and pulsatility indexes) and vascularity index (VI) calculated by contrast-enhanced power Doppler endoscopic ultrasound (CEPD-EUS) in correlation with the expression of intra-tumoral MVD and VEGF in patients with gastric cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study included 20 consecutive patients with advanced gastric carcinoma, but without distant metastasis at initial assessment. All the patients were assessed by contrast-enhanced power Doppler endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) combined with pulsed Doppler examinations in the late venous phase. The vascularity index (VI) was calculated before and after injection of second generation microbubble contrast specific agent (SonoVue 2.4 mL), used as a Doppler signal enhancer. Moreover, pulsed Doppler parameters (resistivity and pulsatility indexes) were further calculated. The correlation between power Doppler parameters and pathological/molecular parameters (MVD assessed through immunohistochemistry with CD31 and CD34, as well as VEGF assessed through real-time PCR) was assessed. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used for the assessment of prognosis. RESULTS: Significantly statistical correlations were found between post-contrast VI and CD34 (p=0.0226), VEGF (p=0.0231), VEGF-A (p=0.0464) and VEGF-B (p=0.0022) while pre-contrast VI was correlated only with CD34 expression. Pulsatility index and resistivity index were not correlated with MVD or VEGF expression. Survival analysis demonstrated that VEGF-A is an accurate parameter for survival rate (p=0.045), as compared to VEGF (p=0.085) and VEGF-B (p=0.230). We did not find any correlation between the survival rate and ultrasound parameters (RI, PI, pre-contrast VI or post-contrast VI). CONCLUSION: Assessment of tumor vascularity using contrast-enhanced EUS, including analysis of spectral Doppler parameters is possible and feasible in gastric cancer patients. A correlation between measured EUS vascularity and pathological parameters of angiogenesis (MVD and VEGF expression) was found.

Power Doppler endoscopic ultrasound for the assessment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

OBJECTIVE: Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNET) represent rare, heterogeneous tumors with clinical, imaging and treatment particularities. The aim of this study was to assess the role of power Doppler endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the diagnosis and characterization of PNET. METHODS: All consecutive patients with PNET assessed by power Doppler EUS in the Research Centre of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Craiova, Romania, in the past 51 months were included in the study. All EUS examinations were performed initially in gray-scale mode, followed by power Doppler mode examinations, before and after contrast-enhancement. Each recorded EUS movie was further subjected to post-processing using a computer-enhanced dynamic analysis using a special plug-in which permitted assessment of vascularity index (EUS-VI). RESULTS: Based on the analysis of all consecutive malignant focal pancreatic masses diagnosed in the study period, a total number of 131 consecutive patients were included: 14 patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and 117 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The sensitivity of the pre-contrast EUS-VI for the diagnosis of PNET was 71.43%, similar to EUS-FNA. After contrast enhancement, the EUS-VI is also higher in PNET (27.07%) as compared to pancreatic adenocarcinoma where it was significantly lower 9.82% (P < 0.001). However, the sensitivity of EUS-VI after contrast enhancement for the diagnosis of PNET was 100%, higher than pre-contrast EUS-VI, with an acceptable specificity (79.49%) and better accuracy (81.68%). CONCLUSION: Power Doppler EUS represents a useful method in the initial assessment of PNET. Using evaluation of vascularity through EUS-VI, the differentiation between PNET and pancreatic cancer could be possible, especially in the subgroup of patients where EUS-guided fine needle aspiration is falsely negative.