Entity

Time filter

Source Type

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Dumonceau J.-M.,University of Geneva | Polkowski M.,Center of Oncology of Poland | Larghi A.,Catholic University | Vilmann P.,Copenhagen University | And 7 more authors.
Endoscopy | Year: 2011

This article is part of a combined publication that expresses the current view of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) about endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology, including EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and EUS-guided trucut biopsy (EUS-TCB), of submucosal tumors, diffuse esophageal/gastric wall thickening, pancreatic solid masses and cystic-appearing lesions, mediastinal lesions unrelated to lung or esophageal cancer, cancer of the esophagus, stomach, and rectum, lymph nodes of unknown origin, adrenal gland masses, and focal liver lesions. False-positive cytopathological results and needle tract seeding are also discussed. The present Clinical Guideline describes the results of EUS-guided sampling in the different clinical settings, considers the role of this technique in patient management, and makes recommendations on circumstances that warrant its use. A two-page executive summary of evidence statements and recommendations is provided. A separate Technical Guideline describes the general technique of EUS-guided sampling, particular techniques to maximize the diagnostic yield depending on the nature of the target lesion, and sample processing. The target readership for the Clinical Guideline mostly includes gastroenterologists, oncologists, internists, and surgeons while the Technical Guideline should be most useful to endoscopists who perform EUS-guided sampling. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart - New York. Source


Jaka H.,Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences | Jaka H.,Endoscopic Unit | McHembe M.D.,Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences | Rambau P.F.,Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences | Chalya P.L.,Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences
BMC Surgery | Year: 2013

Background: Gastric outlet obstruction poses diagnostic and therapeutic challenges to general surgeons practicing in resource-limited countries. There is a paucity of published data on this subject in our setting. This study was undertaken to highlight the etiological spectrum and treatment outcome of gastric outlet obstruction in our setting and to identify prognostic factors for morbidity and mortality. Methods. This was a descriptive prospective study which was conducted at Bugando Medical Centre between March 2009 and February 2013. All patients with a clinical diagnosis of gastric outlet obstruction were, after informed consent for the study, consecutively enrolled into the study. Statistical data analysis was done using SPSS computer software version 17.0. Results: A total of 184 patients were studied. More than two-third of patients were males. Patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction were older than those of benign type. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Gastric cancer was the commonest malignant cause of gastric outlet obstruction where as peptic ulcer disease was the commonest benign cause. In children, the commonest cause of gastric outlet obstruction was congenital pyloric stenosis (13.0%). Non-bilious vomiting (100%) and weight loss (93.5%) were the most frequent symptoms. Eighteen (9.8%) patients were HIV positive with the median CD 4+ count of 282 cells/μl. A total of 168 (91.3%) patients underwent surgery. Of these, gastro-jejunostomy (61.9%) was the most common surgical procedure performed. The complication rate was 32.1 % mainly surgical site infections (38.2%). The median hospital stay and mortality rate were 14 days and 18.5% respectively. The presence of postoperative complication was the main predictor of hospital stay (p = 0.002), whereas the age > 60 years, co-existing medical illness, malignant cause, HIV positivity, low CD 4 count (<200 cells/μl), high ASA class and presence of surgical site infection significantly predicted mortality (p< 0.001). The follow up of patients was generally poor as more than 60% of patients were lost to follow up. Conclusion: Gastric outlet obstruction in our setting is more prevalent in males and the cause is mostly malignant. The majority of patients present late with poor general condition. Early recognition of the diagnosis, aggressive resuscitation and early institution of surgical management is of paramount importance if morbidity and mortality associated with gastric outlet obstruction are to be avoided. © 2013 Jaka et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. Source


Fassoulaki A.,Endoscopic Unit | Iatrelli I.,Endoscopic Unit | Vezakis A.,Aretaieio Hospital | Polydorou A.,Aretaieio Hospital
European Journal of Anaesthesiology | Year: 2015

BACKGROUND: Propofol alone or combined with opioids is considered the drug of choice for sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of pre or intraprocedural opioids on propofol requirement during deep sedation for ERCP, and on recovery, pain and cognitive function postoperatively. DESIGN: Three-arm, double-blinded randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Aretaieio University Hospital, February 2011 to July 2013. PATIENTS: One hundred and eighty adults aged between 45 and 75 years. INTERVENTIONS: Deep sedation with propofol (target bispectral index 40 to 70) was performed. In the remifentanil group (R), patients received intranasal placebo before ERCP, and remifentanil 0.1 ml kg-1 h-1 (concentration 10μgml-1) during ERCP. In the fentanyl group (F), patients received intranasal fentanyl 200μg before ERCP and placebo during ERCP. In the placebo group (P), patients received intranasal placebo before ERCP and placebo during ERCP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was total propofol requirement. Secondary outcomes were recovery [assessed using the Ramsay Sedation Scale score and Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation Score (OAAS)] at 30 min; postoperative pain [assessed using a visual analogue pain scale (VAS; 0 to 100 mm)]; and cognitive function [assessed using a MiniMental state test (max. 25 points) 30 min before and 30 min after ERCP]. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were included in group R, 59 in group F and 57 in group P. Propofol requirements for deep sedation were similar in all groups (13mgkg-1; P=0.97). Ramsay Sedation Scale scores and OAAS scores were similar in all groups (P=0.18 and P=0.55, respectively). Postoperative median pain VAS differed among the groups (P=0.007): 10 in group R, 0 in group F, five in group P. Cognitive function was high pre and postprocedure (median MiniMental state test 23 to 24) and not different among the groups. CONCLUSION: The addition of pre or intraprocedural opioids had no effect on propofol requirement for deep sedation, but patients who received fentanyl had less minor pain. Copyright © 2015 European Society of Anaesthesiology. All rights reserved. Source


Faga E.,Savigliano Hospital | Giordanino C.,University of Turin | Barletti C.,University of Turin | Barletti C.,Endoscopic Unit | And 5 more authors.
European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology | Year: 2012

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Safety of propofol sedation in patients with liver cirrhosis undergoing colonoscopy or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remains to be studied. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of propofol is safe for endoscopic procedures more complex than gastroscopy in patients with liver cirrhosis in a prospective controlled study. METHODS: Two hundred and fourteen consecutive patients, with or without cirrhosis, who underwent colonoscopy or ERCP with propofol sedation were recruited between January and June 2009. Administration of sedation was performed by anesthesiologists and outcome measures were recorded. Main outcomes were complication rates and recovery times. RESULTS: Sixty-one (28.5%) cirrhotic patients and 153 (71.5%) noncirrhotic patients were included. The incidence of sedation-related complications did not significantly differ between the two populations (11.5 vs. 17.0%, respectively, P=0.31). The mean (±SD) dose of propofol administered (213±86 vs. 239±100 mg, P=0.07), the mean time to achieve adequate sedation (3.3±1.1 vs. 3.0±1.2 min, P=0.21), the mean total duration of the endoscopic procedure (24.5±10.6 vs. 27.4±11.8 min, P=0.08), the mean time to reach Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation Scale 5 (17.2±4.4 vs. 18.4±5.6 min, P=0.15), the mean time from completion of the procedure to release (9.0±2.5 vs. 9.1±3.2 min, P=0.86), and the mean time to full recovery (42.2±7.3 vs. 42.3±7.8 min, P=0.88) were very similar between the two groups. The limitation of this study was lack of randomization, and a control group of cirrhotic patients using standard sedation with benzodiazepines and opioids. CONCLUSION: Propofol deep sedation administered by an anesthesiologist with appropriate monitorings seems to be a safe procedure during colonoscopy or ERCP in cirrhotic patients. © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc. Source


Jensen J.T.,Gentofte Hospital | Jensen J.T.,Endoscopic Unit | Banning A.-M.,Koge Hospital | Clementsen P.,Gentofte Hospital | And 4 more authors.
Danish Medical Journal | Year: 2012

INTRODUCTION: This study provides an evaluation and risk analysis of propofol sedation for endoscopic pulmonary procedures according to our unit's "gastroenterologic nurse-administered propofol sedation (NAPS) guideline". MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study is a prospective descriptive study performed at the Endoscopy Unit, Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen, from May to July 2009. The study comprised at total of 51 consecutive patients who underwent 77 endoscopic procedures. Only patients above the age of 16 years were eligible for treatment. The exclusion criteria were as follows: American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class > 3, history of sedation-related complications, severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Excluded were patients with a potentially difficult airway and ventricular retention. Data on the number and type of procedure, baseline characteristics, sedation time, propofol dose administered and adverse events were obtained from medical histories. RESULTS: A total of 23 cases of adverse events were recorded, including one event of hypotension and 22 events of hypoxaemia. Five patients needed assisted ventilation. The frequency of hypoxaemia in sessions involving bronchoscopy was 17 of 26 (65%) compared with trans-oesophageal endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) (17 of 45, 35%) and endoscopic bronchial ultrasound (EBUS) (three of six, 50%). Endoscopist assessment of working conditions was good and patient assessment of discomfort was low. No patients required endotracheal intubation and there was no mortality. CONCLUSION: This study supports the conclusion that propofol administered by nurses provides for good working conditions and satisfied patients. But our "NAPS for endoscopic gastroenterologic procedures" guideline was unsuited for endoscopic pulmonary procedures including EUS. FUNDING: This work was supported by the START research foundation at Gentofte Hospital. FUNDING: This work was supported by the START research foundation at Gentofte Hospital. Source

Discover hidden collaborations