A Comparison between Chicago Classification Versions 3.0 and 4.0 and Their Impact on Manometric Diagnoses in Esophageal High-Resolution Manometry Cases.

High-resolution manometry (HRM) facilitates the detailed evaluation of esophageal motility. In December 2020, Chicago classification (CC) version 4.0 introduced modifications to improve consistency and accuracy. We conducted this study to compare the differences in the interpretations of HRM examinations between CC 3.0 and 4.0. Consecutive HRM records at a Taiwan tertiary medical center, including wet swallows and MRS performed in both supine and sitting positions from October 2019 to May 2021, were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed using both CC versions 3.0 and 4.0. A total of 105 patients were enrolled, and 102 patients completed the exam, while three could not tolerate HRM sitting up. Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms (n = 65, 63.7%) and dysphagia (n = 37, 36.3%) were the main indications. A total of 18 patients (17.6%) were reclassified to new diagnoses using CC 4.0. Of the 11 patients initially diagnosed with absent contractility, 3 (27.3%) were reclassified as having Type 1 achalasia. Of the 18 patients initially diagnosed with IEM, 6 (33.3%) were reclassified as normal. The incidence of diagnosis changes was similar in both the dysphagia and refractory GERD symptoms groups (21.6% versus 15.3%, p = 0.43). The use of CC 4.0 led to changes in the diagnoses of esophageal motility disease, irrespective of examination indications. Early adoption improves the accuracy of diagnoses and affects patient management.

Early double-balloon enteroscopy was not related to better clinical outcomes in patients with suspected overt small bowel bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Device-assisted enteroscopy has been used for over 20 years for the management of patients with suspected small bowel bleeding. Unlike esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy, the appropriate timing of enteroscopy is still unknown. In recent guidelines, early enteroscopy is suggested to maximize diagnostic yield and therapeutic yield in patients with suspected small bowel bleeding. However, few studies have identified its influence on clinical outcomes, including mortality or rebleeding rate. We conducted this study to evaluate the influence of the timing of double-balloon enteroscopy on clinical outcomes in patients with suspected small bowel bleeding. METHODS: Patients with overt small bowel bleeding who underwent double-balloon enteroscopy from January 2013 to February 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorized into an early enteroscopy group (≤14 days) and a nonearly enteroscopy group (>14 days). Clinical outcomes, including short-term mortality and rebleeding rate, long-term mortality and rebleeding rate, diagnostic yield, and therapeutic yield, were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients (mean age, 66.2 years; 53% male) were included, and 44 patients were stratified into the early enteroscopy group. The diagnostic yield, therapeutic yield, mortality, and rebleeding rate were similar between two groups. In multivariate conditional logistic regression analysis, there were no significant differences between two groups regarding the 30-day rebleeding rate (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.43; 95% CI, 0.47-4.33), 90-day rebleeding rate (aOR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.47-2.94), 30-day mortality rate (aOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.21-8.13), 90-day mortality rate (aOR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.48-7.87), and 90-day bleeding-related mortality (aOR, 2.18; 95% CI, 0.24-19.52). The Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis showed that the timing of DBE was not associated with the long-term rebleeding rate or mortality rate ( p = 0.57 and 0.83, respectively). CONCLUSION: The timing of enteroscopy did not influence the clinical outcomes, including the short-term mortality rate, short-term rebleeding rate, long-term mortality rate, and rebleeding rate, in patients with suspected overt small bowel bleeding.

Schizophrenia and risk of new-onset inflammatory bowel disease: a nationwide longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic gastrointestinal inflammatory disorder with increasing global prevalence. The risk of IBD in patients with schizophrenia remains unclear. We aim to investigate the risk of new-onset IBD in patients with schizophrenia compared with matched controls. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, population-based cohort study utilising patient data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database collected between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2011. Patients diagnosed with schizophrenia by board-certified psychiatrists without prior diagnosis of IBD were enrolled and matched to controls in 1:4 fashion by age, sex, residence, income level and medical comorbidities. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for new-onset IBD and sub-analyses were determined using Cox regression analysis with adjustments. RESULTS: Among 116 164 patients with schizophrenia and 464 656 matched controls, overall incidence of IBD among patients was significantly higher (1.14% vs. 0.25%). Average age of IBD diagnosis was 46.82 among patients with schizophrenia, versus 55.30 among controls. The HR of developing IBD among patients was 3.28, with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 2.49-4.33. IBD risk was higher among patients with psychiatric admissions more than once per year (HR 7.99, 95% CI 5.25-12.15) compared to those hospitalised less frequently (HR 2.72, 95% CI 2.03-3.66). CONCLUSIONS: This population-based cohort study demonstrates a significant association between schizophrenia and subsequent IBD development. Patients with schizophrenia develop IBD at a younger age, and the risk increases with inadequately controlled schizophrenia. Physician vigilance and awareness of this correlation will improve IBD diagnosis and management among this vulnerable patient population.

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A systemic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination has been effective in preventing COVID-19 infections and related mortality. The SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was also recommended by the international society for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, IBD patients were not recruited in prospective randomized clinical vaccine studies. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in IBD patients, we conducted this systemic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane Library for studies published between January 1, 2019, and September 9, 2021. Studies written in English reported the efficacy, seroconversion (anti-SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike (S) antibody titer beyond the threshold) rate, and adverse events after the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in IBD patients. We extracted the author, date, study design, country, types of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, number of IBD patients receiving SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, and study outcomes. Published data from the enrolled studies were pooled to determine effect estimates. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021264993). RESULTS: We analyzed findings from 27 454 IBD patients who received SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations in 11 studies that met the inclusion criteria. The post-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination COVID-19 infection rate was comparable between the IBD patients and non-IBD patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.28 [95% CI, 0.96-1.71]) and higher in nonvaccinated IBD patients compared with vaccinated IBD patients (OR, 8.63 [95% CI, 5.44-13.37]). The adverse event rate, severe adverse events, and mortality after the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were 69%, 3%, and 0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is effective and tolerated in preventing COVID-19 infections in IBD patients. Over 98% of patients had seroconversion after receiving all doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and the influence of biologics on vaccination was limited. The SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is recommended for IBD patients.