Indian Resuscitation Council (IRC) suggested guidelines for Comprehensive Cardiopulmonary Life Support (CCLS) for suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patient.

Management of the recent outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2(SARS-CoV-2) remains challenging. The challenges are not only limited to its preventive strategies, but also extend to curative treatment, and are amplified during the management of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Older persons with comorbidities like diabetes mellitus, cardiac diseases, hepatic impairment, renal disorders and respiratory pathologies or immune impairing conditions are more vulnerable and have a higher mortality from COVID-19. Earlier, the Indian Resuscitation Council (IRC) had proposed the Comprehensive Cardiopulmonary Life Support (CCLS) for management of cardiac arrest victims in the hospital setting. However, in patients with COVID-19, the guidelines need to be modified,due to various concerns like differing etiology of cardiac arrest, virulence of the virus, risk of its transmission to rescuers, and the need to avoid or minimize aerosolization from the patient due to various interventions. There is limited evidence in these patients, as the SARS-CoV-2 is a novel infection and not much literature is available with high-level evidence related to CPR in patients of COVID-19. These suggested guidelines are a continuum of CCLS guidelines by IRC with an emphasis on the various challenges and concerns being faced during the resuscitative management of COVID-19 patients with cardiopulmonary arrest.

Endpoints for therapeutic interventions in faecal incontinence: small step or game changer.

Faecal incontinence (FI) is common and its pathophysiology and treatments continue to evolve. However, a standard measure(s) for assessing its clinical outcome has been elusive. Consequently, over 100 measures and scoring systems, each with intrinsic biases have been reported. These include adequate relief or global satisfaction, ≥50% reduction in episodes or days without FI, quality of life (QOL), FI severity scales and composite indices. Earlier scales relied on the frequency and type of solid, liquid or flatus incontinence and effects on life style whereas newer scales have incorporated urgency, use of pads, antidiarrhoeals and amount of leakage, using prospective daily stool diaries or retrospective weekly or single point assessments. Such a plethora of measures have negatively impacted the assessment and outcome of clinical trials, and have made comparisons difficult. So, how does one sort out the grain from the chaff? In a provocative, post-hoc analysis published in this issue, the minimal clinically important difference, i.e. the smallest change detected by an instrument that is associated with a clinically meaningful change was used to assess FI endpoint. Based on this a ≥50% reduction in FI episodes is recommended as a clinically meaningful outcome measure when assessed by prospective stool diary, and it correlates with symptoms and severity. However, this requires further validation in multi-centre, longer duration and therapeutically effective clinical trial(s). Simultaneous assessment of coping strategies, QOL and psychosocial domains can provide further insights regarding the overall impact of treatments. This mini-review discusses the advances and controversies in defining meaningful FI endpoints.

Randomised clinical trial: mixed soluble/insoluble fibre vs. psyllium for chronic constipation.

BACKGROUND: Fibre supplements are useful, but whether a plum-derived mixed fibre that contains both soluble and insoluble fibre improves constipation is unknown. AIM: To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of mixed soluble/insoluble fibre vs. psyllium in a randomized double-blind controlled trial. METHODS: Constipated patients (Rome III) received mixed fibre or psyllium, 5 g b.d., for 4 weeks. Daily symptoms and stool habit were assessed using stool diary. Subjects with ≥1 complete spontaneous bowel movement/week above baseline for ≥2/4 weeks were considered responders. Secondary outcome measures included stool consistency, bowel satisfaction, straining, gas, bloating, taste, dissolvability and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: Seventy-two subjects (mixed fibre = 40; psyllium = 32) were enrolled and two from psyllium group withdrew. The mean complete spontaneous bowel movement/week increased with both mixed fibre (P < 0.0001) and psyllium (P = 0.0002) without group difference. There were 30 (75%) responders with mixed fibre and 24 (75%) with psyllium (P = 0.9). Stool consistency increased (P = 0.04), straining (P = 0.006) and bloating scores decreased (P = 0.02) without group differences. Significantly more patients reported improvement in flatulence (53% vs. 25%, P = 0.01) and felt that mixed fibre dissolved better (P = 0.02) compared to psyllium. QoL improved (P = 0.0125) with both treatments without group differences. CONCLUSIONS: Mixed fibre and psyllium were equally efficacious in improving constipation and QoL. Mixed fibre was more effective in relieving flatulence, bloating and dissolved better. Mixed fibre is effective and well tolerated.

Systematic review: dietary fibre and FODMAP-restricted diet in the management of constipation and irritable bowel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Dietary fibre supplements have been advocated for the management of chronic constipation (CC) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Recently, a fermentable oligosaccharide, disaccharide, monosaccharide and polyol (FODMAP) restricted diet has been recommended for IBS. AIM: To systematically examine recent evidence for dietary interventions with fibre in CC and IBS and FODMAP-restricted diet in IBS, and provide recommendations. METHODS: We searched PUBMED, MEDLINE, OVID and COCHRANE databases from 2004 to 2014. Published studies in adults with CC and IBS and constipation-predominant IBS (IBS-C) that compared fibre with placebo/alternative and FODMAP-restricted diet with alternative were included. RESULTS: Of 550 potentially eligible clinical trials on fibre, 11 studies were found and of 23 potentially eligible studies on FODMAPs, six were found. A meta-analysis was not performed due to heterogeneity and methodological quality. Fibre was beneficial in 5/7 studies in CC and 3/3 studies in IBS-C. FODMAP-restricted diet improved overall IBS symptoms in 4/4 and IBS-C symptoms in 1/3 studies and three studies did not meet inclusion criteria. There were significant disparities in subject selection, interventions and outcome assessments in both fibre and FODMAPs studies. CONCLUSIONS: Fibre supplementation is beneficial in mild to moderate CC and IBS-C, although larger, more rigorous and long-term RCTs are needed (Fair evidence-Level II, Grade B). Although the FODMAP-restricted diet may be effective in short-term management of selected patients with IBS (Fair evidence-Level II, Grade C) and IBS-C (Poor evidence-Level III, Grade C), more rigorous trials are needed to establish long-term efficacy and safety, particularly on colonic health and microbiome.

ANMS-ESNM position paper and consensus guidelines on biofeedback therapy for anorectal disorders.

BACKGROUND: Anorectal disorders such as dyssynergic defecation, fecal incontinence, levator ani syndrome, and solitary rectal ulcer syndrome are common, and affect both the adult and pediatric populations. Although they are treated with several treatment approaches, over the last two decades, biofeedback therapy using visual and verbal feedback techniques has emerged as an useful option. Because it is safe, it is commonly recommended. However, the clinical efficacy of biofeedback therapy in adults and children is not clearly known, and there is a lack of critical appraisal of the techniques used and the outcomes of biofeedback therapy for these disorders. PURPOSE: The American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society and the European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility convened a task force to examine the indications, study performance characteristics, methodologies used, and the efficacy of biofeedback therapy, and to provide evidence-based recommendations. Based on the strength of evidence, biofeedback therapy is recommended for the short-term and long-term treatment of constipation with dyssynergic defecation (Level I, Grade A), and for the treatment of fecal incontinence (Level II, Grade B). Biofeedback therapy may be useful in the short-term treatment of Levator Ani Syndrome with dyssynergic defecation (Level II, Grade B), and solitary rectal ulcer syndrome with dyssynergic defecation (Level III, Grade C), but the evidence is fair. Evidence does not support the use of biofeedback for the treatment of childhood constipation (Level 1, Grade D).

Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth: duodenal aspiration vs glucose breath test.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) remains challenging. Our aim was to examine the diagnostic yield of duodenal aspiration/culture and glucose breath test (GBT), and effects of gender, race and demographics on prevalence of SIBO. METHODS: Patients with unexplained gas, bloating and diarrhea and negative endoscopy, imaging and blood tests were prospectively enrolled in two centers in USA. Randomly, within 1 week each patient underwent both duodenal aspiration/culture and GBT. The diagnostic yield of each test and relationship of symptoms, and effects of ethnicity, age, and gender on prevalence of SIBO were assessed and compared. KEY RESULTS: Duodenal culture was positive in 62/139 (44.6%) subjects and GBT was positive in 38/139 (27.3%) subjects with an overall diagnostic agreement of 65.5%. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of GBT was 42%, 84%, 68%, and 64%, respectively. Ethnicity or gender did not influence SIBO, but SIBO positive patients were older (p = 0.0018). Symptom patterns were similar except bloating was more prevalent in GBT positive and gas in culture positive subjects. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Duodenal aspiration/culture identifies 45% of patients with suspected SIBO. GBT has lower sensitivity but good specificity for detection of SIBO. There were no ethnic or gender differences in the prevalence of SIBO, but patients with SIBO were older. Because GBT is non-invasive, it should be considered first in patients with suspected SIBO.

Dysmotility and proton pump inhibitor use are independent risk factors for small intestinal bacterial and/or fungal overgrowth.

BACKGROUND: Whether intestinal dysmotility and the use of a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) either independently or together contributes to small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO), and/or small intestinal fungal overgrowth (SIFO) is not known. AIM: To investigate the role of dysmotility and PPI use in patients with persistent gastrointestinal complaints. METHODS: Patients with unexplained gastrointestinal symptoms and negative endoscopy/radiology tests completed a validated symptom questionnaire and underwent 24-h ambulatory antro-duodeno-jejunal manometry (ADJM). Simultaneously, duodenal aspirate was obtained for aerobic, anaerobic and fungal culture. Dysmotility was diagnosed by (>2): absent phase III MMC, absent/diminished postprandial response, diminished amplitude of antral/intestinal phasic activity, impaired antro-duodenal coordination. Bacterial growth ≥10³ CFU/mL or fungal growth was considered evidence for SIBO/SIFO. PPI use was documented. Correlation of symptoms with presence of SIBO or SIFO was assessed. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty subjects (M/F = 47/103) were evaluated; 94/150 (63%) had overgrowth: 38/94 (40%) had SIBO, 24/94 (26%) had SIFO and 32/94 (34%) had mixed SIBO/SIFO. SIBO was predominately due to Streptococcus, Enterococcus, Klebsiella and E. coli. SIFO was due to Candida. Eighty of 150 (53%) patients had dysmotility and 65/150 (43%) used PPI. PPI use (P = 0.0063) and dysmotility (P = 0.0003) were independent significant risk factors (P < 0.05) for overgrowth, but together did not pose additional risk. Symptom profiles were similar between those with or without SIBO/SIFO. CONCLUSIONS: Dysmotility and PPI use were independent risk factors for SIBO or SIFO and were present in over 50% of subjects with unexplained gastrointestinal symptoms. Diagnosis of overgrowth requires testing because symptoms were poor predictors of overgrowth.

Clinical utility of colonic manometry in slow transit constipation.

BACKGROUND: The clinical significance of colorectal sensorimotor evaluation in patients with slow transit constipation (STC) is unclear. We investigated whether colonic manometric evaluation is useful for characterizing colonic sensorimotor dysfunction and for guiding therapy in STC. METHODS: 24-h ambulatory colonic manometry was performed in 80 patients (70 females) with STC by placing a six sensor solid-state probe, along with assessment of colonic sensation with barostat. Anorectal manometry was also performed. Manometrically, patients were categorized as having colonic neuropathy or myopathy based on gastrocolonic response, waking response and high amplitude propagated contractions (HAPC); and based on colonic sensation, as colonic hyposensitivity or hypersensitivity. Clinical response to pharmacological, biofeedback, and surgical treatment was assessed at 1 year and correlated with manometric findings. KEY RESULTS: Forty seven (59%) patients who had abnormal colonic manometry, with features suggestive of neuropathy (26%), and myopathy (33%); 41% had normal colonic manometry. Patients who had abnormal colonic sensation were 74% and 61% had overlapping dyssynergic defecation. Patients with neuropathy were more likely to have colonic hyposensitivity. Sixty-four percent of patients with colonic myopathy or normal manometry improved with medical/biofeedback therapy when compared to 15% with colonic neuropathy (P < 0.01). Selected patients with colonic neuropathy had excellent response to surgery, but many developed bacterial overgrowth. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Colonic manometry demonstrates significant colonic sensorimotor dysfunction in STC patients and reveals considerable pathophysiological heterogeneity. It can be useful for characterizing the underlying pathophysiology and for guiding clinical management in STC, especially surgery.

Evaluation of constipation in older adults: radioopaque markers (ROMs) versus wireless motility capsule (WMC).

There is scarce information regarding assessment of constipation in older subjects. We examined regional and whole-gut transit time (WGTT) with wireless motility capsule (WMC) and compared this with radioopaque markers (ROM) transit. 39 constipated and 11 healthy older subjects (≥ 65 years) ingested a ROM capsule and WMC, wore a data receiver and kept stool diaries for 5 days. WMC recordings were analyzed for colonic transit time (CTT), WGTT and gastric emptying time (GET). Radiographs obtained on day 5 assessed ROM transit. Results for each device were compared. The CTT (p = <0.0001), WGTT (p = <0.001) and GET (p = <0.04) as measured by WMC were all slower in constipated subjects compared to healthy subjects. ROM colonic transit was also slower (p = <0.007) in constipated compared to healthy subjects. The diagnostic utility for identifying subjects with constipation as assessed by receiver operating characteristics were similar; 0.85 (WMC) versus 0.73 (ROM). Device agreement for slow colonic transit was 88% with good correlation between WMC and ROM (CTT r=0.718, p=0.0001, WGTT r=0.693, p=0.0001). Slow transit constipation was identified in 28% with ROM and 32% with WMC. No adverse events were recorded. WMC is a safe and useful device that provides objective diagnosis of delayed colonic and whole gut transit in older constipated adults. It is a radiation-free, physiologic and ambulatory technique that provides additional diagnostic information than ROM.

Diagnostic utility of the oesophageal balloon distension test in the evaluation of oesophageal chest pain.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal balloon distension test (EBDT) has been advocated for the evaluation of functional oesophageal noncardiac chest pain (NCCP), but its diagnostic utility remains unclear. AIM: To prospectively assess the diagnostic yield of EBDT in clinical practice and compare its yield with standard oesophageal tests. METHODS: Over a period of 6 years, patients with chest pain and negative cardiac work-up underwent sequential testing with endoscopy/biopsy, oesophageal manometry, 24 h pH study and EBDT to elucidate an oesophageal source for their symptoms. Patients with a definite abnormality, for example, erosive oesophagitis on oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) were designated as having positive test and excluded from further work up. RESULTS: Of 348 (m/f = 105/243) suspected NCCP patients, 16 (5%) were excluded; 332 (95%) underwent oesophageal testing. Among these, 48 (14%) had macro/microscopic oesophagitis on endoscopy, 7 (2%) had achalasia and 96 (28%) had excessive acid reflux (pH study). The remaining 181 (52%) patients underwent EBDT; 128 (37%) had oesophageal hypersensitivity. Chest pain was reproduced in 97/128 (75%) subjects. There were no adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Oesophageal testing can reveal an oesophageal source for chest pain in 86% of NCCP subjects. The majority (42%) of patients had gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Oesophageal balloon distension test identified hypersensitivity in over one-third of subjects. The oesophageal balloon distension test provides useful diagnostic information and should be performed routinely in patients with NCCP after excluding GERD.

Topographic and manometric characterization of the recto-anal inhibitory reflex.

BACKGROUND: Recto-anal inhibitory reflex (RAIR) is an integral part of normal defecation. The physiologic characteristics of RAIR along anal length and anterior-posterior axis are unknown. The aim of this study was to perform topographic and vector-graphic evaluation of RAIR along anal canal using high definition manometry (HDM), and examine the role of various muscle components. METHODS: Anorectal topography was assessed in 10 healthy volunteers using HDM probe with 256 sensors. Recto-anal inhibitory reflex data were analyzed every mm along the length of anal canal for topographic, baseline, residual, and plateau pressures during five mean volumes of balloon inflation (15 cc, 40 cc, 71 cc, 101 cc, 177 cc), and in 3D by dividing anal canal into 4 × 2.1 mm grids. KEY RESULTS: Relaxation pressure progressively increases along anal canal with increasing balloon volume up to 71 cc and thereafter plateaus. In 3D, RAIR is maximally seen at the middle and upper portions of anal canal (levels 1.2-3.2 cm) and posteriorly. Peak residual pressure was seen at proximal anal canal. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Recto-anal inhibitory reflex is characterized by differential anal relaxation along anterior-posterior axis, longitudinally along the length of anal canal, and it depends on the rectal distention volume. It is maximally seen at internal anal sphincter pressure zone. Multidimensional analyses indicate that external anal sphincter provides bulk of anal residual pressure. Our findings emphasize importance of sensor location and orientation; as anterior and more distal location may miss RAIR.

Barostat or dynamic balloon distention test: which technique is best suited for esophageal sensory testing?

Esophageal sensation is commonly assessed by barostat-assisted balloon distension (BBD) or dynamic balloon distension (DBD) technique, but their relative merits are unknown. Our aim was to compare the usefulness and tolerability of both techniques. Sixteen healthy volunteers (male/female = 6/10) randomly underwent graded esophageal balloon distensions, using either BBD (n= 8) or DBD (n= 8). BBD was performed by placing a 5-cm long highly compliant balloon attached to a barostat, and DBD by placing a 5-cm long balloon attached to a leveling container. Intermittent phasic balloon distensions were performed in increments of 6 mm Hg. Sensory thresholds and biomechanical properties were assessed and compared. Sensory thresholds for first perception (mean ± standard deviation; 21 ± 6 vs. 21.2 ± 5, mm Hg, P= 0.9), discomfort (38 ± 8 vs. 35 ± 9, P= 0.5), and pain (44 ± 4 vs. 45 ± 3, P= 0.7) were similar with BBD and DBD techniques. However, more subjects tolerated DBD (7/8, 88%) when compared with BBD (4/8, 50%). Forceful expulsion of balloon into stomach (n= 4), pulling around the mouth (n= 4), chest discomfort (n= 2) and retching (n= 2) were overlapping reasons for intolerance with BBD. Esophageal wall distensibility was similar with both techniques. Both techniques provided comparable data on biomechanical properties. However, DBD was better tolerated than BBD for evaluation of esophageal sensation. Hence, we recommend DBD for performing esophageal balloon distension test.

Randomised clinical trial: dried plums (prunes) vs. psyllium for constipation.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of chronic constipation remains challenging with 50% of patients dissatisfied with current therapy. There is an unmet need for natural and safe alternatives. Dried plums (prunes) have been used traditionally for constipation but their efficacy is not known. Aim To assess and compare the effects of dried plums and psyllium in patients with chronic constipation. METHODS: Subjects were enrolled in an 8-week, single-blind, randomised cross-over study. Subjects received either dried plums (50 g b.d., fibre=6 gm/day) or psyllium (11 g b.d., fibre=6 gm/day) for 3 weeks each, in a crossover trial with a 1-week washout period. Subjects maintained a daily symptom and stool diary. Assessments included number of complete spontaneous bowel movements per week, global relief of constipation, stool consistency, straining, tolerability and taste. RESULTS: Forty constipated subjects (m/f=3/37, mean age=38 years) participated. The number of complete spontaneous bowel movements per week (primary outcome measure) and stool consistency scores improved significantly (P<0.05) with dried plums when compared to psyllium. Straining and global constipation symptoms did not differ significantly between treatments (P=N.S.). Dried plums and psyllium were rated as equally palatable and both were safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Dried plums are safe, palatable and more effective than psyllium for the treatment of mild to moderate constipation, and should be considered as a first line therapy.

A bi-directional assessment of the human brain-anorectal axis.

BACKGROUND: Brain-gut dysfunction has been implicated in gastrointestinal disorders but a comprehensive test of brain-gut axis is lacking. We developed and tested a novel method for assessing both afferent anorectal-brain function using cortical evoked potentials (CEP), and efferent brain-anorectal function using motor evoked potentials (MEP). METHODS: Cortical evoked potentials was assessed following electrical stimulations of anus and rectum with bipolar electrodes in 26 healthy subjects. Anorectal MEPs were recorded following transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over paramedian motor cortices bilaterally. Anal and rectal latencies/amplitudes for CEP and MEP responses and thresholds for first sensation and pain (mA) were analyzed and compared. Reproducibility and interobserver agreement of responses were examined. KEY RESULTS: Reproducible polyphasic rectal and anal CEPs were recorded in all subjects, without gender differences, and with negative correlation between BMI and CEP amplitude (r -0.66, P=0.001). Transcranial magnetic stimulation evoked triphasic rectal and anal MEPs, without gender differences. Reproducibility for CEP and MEP was excellent (CV <10%). The inter-rater CV for anal and rectal MEPs was excellent (ICC 97-99), although there was inter-subject variation. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Combined CEP and MEP studies offer a simple, inexpensive and valid method of examining bidirectional brain-anorectal axes. This comprehensive method could provide mechanistic insights into lower gut disorders.

Evaluation of gastrointestinal transit in clinical practice: position paper of the American and European Neurogastroenterology and Motility Societies.

BACKGROUND: Disorders of gastrointestinal (GI) transit and motility are common, and cause either delayed or accelerated transit through the stomach, small intestine or colon, and affect one or more regions. Assessment of regional and/or whole gut transit times can provide direct measurements and diagnostic information to explain the cause of symptoms, and plan therapy. PURPOSE: Recently, several newer diagnostic tools have become available. The American and European Neurogastroenterology and Motility Societies undertook this review to provide guidelines on the indications and optimal methods for the use of transit measurements in clinical practice. This was based on evidence of validation including performance characteristics, clinical significance, and strengths of various techniques. The tests include measurements of: gastric emptying with scintigraphy, wireless motility capsule, and (13)C breath tests; small bowel transit with breath tests, scintigraphy, and wireless motility capsule; and colonic transit with radioopaque markers, wireless motility capsule, and scintigraphy. Based on the evidence, consensus recommendations are provided for each technique and for the evaluations of regional and whole gut transit. In summary, tests of gastrointestinal transit are available and useful in the evaluation of patients with symptoms suggestive of gastrointestinal dysmotility, since they can provide objective diagnosis and a rational approach to patient management.

Wireless pH-motility capsule for colonic transit: prospective comparison with radiopaque markers in chronic constipation.

BACKGROUND: Colon transit (CT) measurements are used in the management of significant constipation. The radiopaque marker (ROM) method provides limited information. METHODS: We proposed to validate wireless motility capsule (WMC), that measures pH, pressure and temperature, to ROM measurement of CT in patients with symptomatic constipation evaluated at multiple centers. Of 208 patients recruited, 158 eligible patients underwent simultaneous measurement of colonic transit time (CTT) using ROM (Metcalf method, cut off for delay >67 h), and WMC (cutoff for delay >59 h). The study was designed to demonstrate substantial equivalence, defined as diagnostic agreement >65% for patients who had normal or delayed ROM transit. KEY RESULTS: Fifty-nine of 157 patients had delayed ROM CT. Transit results by the two methods differed: ROM median 55.0 h [IQR 31.0-85.0] and WMC (43.5 h [21.7-70.3], P < 0.001. The positive percent agreement between WMC and ROM for delayed transit was approximately 80%; positive agreement in 47 by WMC/59 by ROM or 0.796 (95% CI = 0.67-0.98); agreement vs null hypothesis (65%) P = 0.01. The negative percent agreement (normal transit) was approximately 91%: 89 by WMC/98 by ROM or 0.908 (95% CI = 0.83-0.96); agreement vs null hypothesis (65%), P = 0.00001. Overall device agreement was 87%. There were significant correlations (P < 0.001) between ROM and WMC transit (CTT [r = 0.707] and between ROM and combined small and large bowel transit [r = 0.704]). There were no significant adverse events. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: The 87% overall agreement (positive and negative) validates WMC relative to ROM in differentiating slow vs normal CT in a multicenter clinical study of constipation.