RESUMO
Artemisinin, an ancient Chinese herbal remedy known colloquially as "Qinghao", is now used as treatment for malaria as recommended by the World Health Organisation. There have been few reports of artemisinin-induced liver injury. Most of these instances of hepatotoxicity are reportedly due to prolonged use of herbal remedies containing artemisinin. To our knowledge, we report the first case of intrahepatic ductopenia in a patient with cholestatic liver injury after artemisinin use.
RESUMO
Background and Objectives: EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) is an established technique for the acquisition of tissue to diagnose lesions of the gastrointestinal tract and surrounding organs. Recently, newer-generation FNB needles have been introduced, including a second-generation reverse-bevel and the third-generation fork-tip and Franseen needles. We aimed to determine if there was any difference between these needles in terms of cytopathological diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, or sample bloodiness. Methods: One hundred twenty-seven consecutive patients undergoing EUS-guided FNB of any solid lesion were randomized to use either a Franseen or fork-tip needle in a 1:1 ratio and were compared with 60 consecutive historical cases performed with reverse-bevel needles. Patient and procedure characteristics were recorded. Cases were reviewed by a blinded cytopathologist and graded based on cellularity and bloodiness. Overall diagnostic yield was calculated for each study arm. Results: One hundred seventy-six cases were eligible for analysis, including 109 pancreatic masses, 24 lymphoid lesions, 17 subepithelial lesions, and 26 other lesions. The final diagnosis was malignancy in 127 cases (72%). EUS-guided FNB was diagnostic in 141 cases (80%) overall and in 89% of cases where malignancy was the final diagnosis. There was no difference in diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, or sample bloodiness between the different needle types. There was no difference in adverse events between groups. Conclusions: EUS-guided FNB performed using 25-gauge Franseen, fork-tip, and reverse-bevel needles resulted in similar diagnostic yield, sample cellularity, and sample bloodiness. Our results may not be extrapolated to larger-caliber needles of the same design.
RESUMO
GOALS: We aimed to develop and validate a patient-reported experience measure for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, the Comprehensive Endoscopy Satisfaction Tool that captures relevant domains that influence the patient's experience and identify factors that shape satisfaction. BACKGROUND: Patient-reported experience measures are used to capture specific quality aspects of health care services. GI endoscopic services are high-volume services, and there is a lack of specific, validated instruments to capture various domains that shape the patients' experience with routine clinical endoscopic services. STUDY: After an environmental scan and structured literature review, focus groups with patients were conducted to identify relevant factors influencing the patient experience with GI endoscopic services. After an initial validation in 101 patients undergoing routine GI endoscopies, the instrument was tested in 7800 patients. In addition, the influence of sociodemographic factors on global satisfaction was explored. RESULTS: The final version included 26 specific items plus 4 global ratings for preprocedure, experience on day of procedure, postprocedure care, and infrastructure. In addition, a global rating of the overall experience was included. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in older patients (P<0.001) but not influenced by gender, nationality, marital status, education, or employment status. Interestingly, during periods of coronavirus disease-19-related service interruptions, the Net Promoter Score was significantly reduced (P<0.0001) providing evidence for the responsiveness of the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: The Comprehensive Endoscopy Satisfaction Tool is a valid measure for the patient experience with the various components of endoscopic services, allows for the identification of domains that impact on the patient experience and is a practical tool to compare patient satisfaction over time and across facilities.
