RESUMO
Background and Objectives: Prospective studies comparing EUS-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) to percutaneous LB (PC-LB) are scarce. We compared the efficacy and safety of EUS-LB with those of PC-LB in a prospective randomized clinical trial. Methods: Between 2020 and 2021, patients were enrolled and randomized (1:1 ratio). The primary outcome was defined as the proportion of patients with ≥11 complete portal tracts (CPTs). The sample size (n = 80) was calculated based on the assumption that 60% of those in the EUS-LB and 90% of those in the PC-LB group will have LB with ≥11 CPTs. The secondary outcomes included proportion of patients in whom a diagnosis was established, number of CPTs, pain severity (Numeric Rating Scale-Pain Intensity), duration of hospital stay, and adverse events. Results: Eighty patients were enrolled (median age, 53 years); 67.5% were female. Sixty percent of those in the EUS-LB and 75.0% of those in the PC-LB group met the primary outcome (P = 0.232). The median number of CPTs was higher in the PC-LB (17 vs 13; P = 0.031). The proportion of patients in whom a diagnosis was established was similar between the groups (92.5% [EUS-LB] vs 95.0% [PC-LB]; P = 1.0). Patients in the EUS-LB group had less pain severity (median Numeric Rating Scale-Pain Intensity, 2.0 vs 3.0; P = 0.003) and shorter hospital stay (2.0 vs 4.0 hours; P < 0.0001) compared with the PC-LB group. No patient experienced a serious adverse event. Conclusions: EUS-guided liver biopsy was safe, effective, better tolerated, and associated with a shorter hospital stay.
RESUMO
Kratom is a plant with opioid-like properties known to produce stimulant and analgesic effects. Although there are numerous studies on the psychoactive components of kratom, less is known about the toxicity. Specifically, few reports describe kratom-induced hepatotoxicity and demonstrate histological features. We provide a case report detailing the clinicopathologic findings of drug-induced liver injury caused by kratom. The laboratory workup included significant elevation of total bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase. Liver biopsy demonstrated a prominent canalicular cholestatic pattern, mixed portal inflammation, and newly described perivenular necrosis. This report provides additional information on kratom toxicity because its use continues to rise.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To determine whether application of a silicone foam dressing is associated with decreased interface pressures when applied to the heel. DESIGN: Prospective, within-subjects design. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: The study was conducted in a community-based hospital using a convenience sample of 50 healthy volunteers with a mean age of 39.6 years and mean body mass index of 26.6; 70% were female. METHODS: Application of the silicone border foam dressing was randomized between the left and right heels. Participants were asked to lie down in the supine position on a viscoelastic foam mattress. Interface pressure measurements were captured using a pressure mapping system; measurements were taken once with the dressing applied to the heel (intervention map) and once without (control map). Data were captured after a 4-minute time period allowing stabilization. Analysis was based on mean interface pressure; data points were collected for both heels in each of the 2 frames, yielding 4 observations per subject. RESULTS: Application of the dressing was associated with a significant decrease in average pressure measurements as compared to the heel with no dressing applied (P < .001). Application of the dressing did not impact pressure readings for the heel to which no dressing was applied (P = .53), and application of the dressing to either the left or right heel did not impact pressure readings (ie, the random effect was insignificant; P = .9). CONCLUSIONS: Application of a silicone border foam dressing is associated with significant reduction in interface pressure and may be considered as part of a pressure ulcer prevention program.
