Streptococcus bovis is a well-known cause of endocarditis, but its role in other infections has not been well described. We analysed prospectively all patients with biliary tract infections caused by S. bovis group during the period 1988-2011. We selected those cases associated with cholangitis and cholecystitis, defined according to Tokyo guidelines. Identification of the strains was performed using the API 20 Strep and the GP card of the Vitek 2 system, and was confirmed by molecular methods. Our series included 51 cases (30 cholangitis and 21 cholecystitis). The associated microorganisms were: Streptococcus infantarius (biotype II/1) 29 cases (57%), Streptococcus gallolyticus subsp. pasteurianus (biotype II/2) 20 cases (39%) and Streptococcus gallolyticus subsp. gallolyticus (biotype I) two cases (4%). The only difference found between S. infantarius and S. gallolyticus subsp. pasteurianus was a greater association of the first with malignant strictures of the bile ducts: 48% (14/29) versus 5% (1/20), p <0.001. Thirty-seven of the cases also had bacteraemia, causing 20% (37/185) of all S. bovis bacteraemia, with differences between S. gallolyticus subsp. gallolyticus (2/112; 2%) and the other two microorganisms: S. infantarius and S. gallolyticus subsp. pasteurianus (35/73; 48%; p <0.001). The vast majority of biliary tract infections due to S. bovis group are caused by S. infantarius and S. gallolyticus subsp. pasteurianus (S. bovis biotype II), and nearly half of the bacteraemia due to these two species has a biliary source (43% of the S. infantarius and 56% of S. gallolyticus subsp. pasteurianus).

Stenting was a useful treatment of acute malignant colonic obstruction. The use of stents as a "bridge to the elective surgery" allowed the intestinal preparation, general status restoration, and a one-stage operation with resection and primary reanastomosis. We have also used the stents as a definitive palliative treatment, avoiding surgery in those patients with a very widely metastatic disease or who cannot undergo operation because of comorbid underlying conditions.

Background: propofol is a hypnotic used with increasing frequency for sedation during endoscopic procedures. Most of the reports published related with its employment by non-anaesthesiologists, refers to basic endoscopy, with little reference to its use in advanced endoscopy.Objective: to evaluate the efficacy and safety of propofol sedation administered by endoscopists, while performing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, an advanced technique that is usually performed in high anesthetic level risk patients.Material and methods: prospective study of a series of endoscopic gastrostomy performed consecutively in our department; the sedation was carried out exclusively with propofol. The staff in the room consisted of two medical gastroenterologists, a nurse and a nursing assistant. Propofol was administered by bolus doses adjusted to patient weight. Arterial oxygen saturation, heart rate and blood pressure were monitored; respiratory activity was monitored visually by observing respiratory excursions of the patient.Results: we included 47 patients, with an average age of 82 years. 87% were ASA III and the rest, ASA IV. The mean dose of propofol was 51 mgr. Complications were recorded: 8 cases of desaturation and two of hypotension, all of them minor and quickly reversible. All procedures were carried out successfully, at a median time of 8 minutes.Conclusion: the propofol sedation carried out by non-anaesthesiologist trained staff, seems to appear as a safe and effective procedure while performing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 220 is urgent laparotomy and splenectomy (4). Splenic embolization and conservative treatment are also possible in selected cases.

No abstract