Antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection for 10- to 20-mm colorectal polyps: A randomized prospective study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is frequently used for the removal of colorectal neoplasms. However, the use of prophylactic antibiotics in patients undergoing EMR is debatable. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to assess whether antimicrobial prophylaxis is crucial in the perioperative period of EMR, especially for 10- to 20-mm lesions in this setting. METHODS: Two hundred and sixty-four patients were randomized equally into 2 groups, the antibiotic (cefixime) group and the control group. The occurrence of adverse events was examined at 1 to 3 days after EMR. Plasma levels of inflammatory markers were analyzed at pre-operation, 1 day post-operation and 3 days post-operation. Blood samples collected at 1 day post-operation were used for culture. RESULTS: A total of 264 and 268 polyps were removed by EMR in the antibiotic group and the control group, respectively. There were 5 cases of fever, with 2 in the antibiotic group and 3 in the control group. In the antibiotic group, 12 patients had abdominal pain and 10 suffered bleeding, whereas in the control group, abdominal pain and bleeding were observed in 10 and 11 patients, respectively. There were no significant differences in the proportion of patients with fever or the incidences of postoperative complications between the groups. No significant differences between the groups were reported in plasma levels of white blood cell count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein or procalcitonin at pre-operation or post-operation. No patients provided positive blood cultures. CONCLUSIONS: The use the prophylactic antibiotics for EMR procedures in the perioperative period is no longer required when the lesions are 10 to 20 mm in size.

Clinical effects of ursodeoxycholic acid on patients with ulcerative colitis may improve via the regulation of IL-23-IL-17 axis and the changes of the proportion of intestinal microflora.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the therapeutic effect of additional ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) with mesalazine, compared to mesalazine alone in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). The mechanism was evaluated by monitoring the changes of IL-23-IL-17 axis and the intestinal microflora. METHODS: In this prospective, single center study, patients with UC were randomly assigned to the Mesalazine group (n=20) or the UDCA + Mesalazine group (n=20). Mayo score and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ), and fecal samples for 16S rRNA sequencing and blood samples for IL-23 and IL-17 ELISA were collected for analysis. RESULTS: Mayo scores and IBDQ score of the UDCA + Mesalazine group were significantly better than those of the Mesalazine group (P = 0.015 and P < 0.001, respectively). At post-treatment week 4, IL-23 and IL-17 levels were significantly lower in the UDCA + Mesalazine group compared to those in the Mesalazine group (both P < 0.038). In patients with UC after treatment, Firmicutes in the UDCA + Mesalazine group was higher than those in the Mesalazine group (P < 0.001). The UDCA + Mesalazine group showed lower percentage of Proteobacteria compared to those in the Mesalazine group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Additional UDCA could provide better therapeutic effects than mesalazine alone, possibly due to the change of IL-23 and IL-17 and the proportional distribution of intestinal microflora.