Background: Although the incidence of perforation after endoscopic procedures of the colon is low, the rising number of procedures could pose relevant health problems. Recognizing risk factors and optimizing treatment may reduce perforation incidence and the probability of (severe) complications. This study aimed to determine perforation frequency and the management of endoscopic colonoscopic perforation. Methods: A retrospective review of patient records was performed for all patients with iatrogenic colonic perforations after sigmoido/colonoscopy between 1990 and 2005. The patientsÕ demographic data, endoscopic procedural information, perforation location, therapy, and outcome were recorded. Results: In the 16-year period, 30,366 endoscopic colonic procedures were performed. In total, 35 colonic perforations occured (0.12%). All the patients underwent a laparotomy: for primary repair in 18 cases (56%), for resection with anastomosis in 8 cases (25%), and for resection without anastomosis in 6 cases (19%). In three patients (8.6%), no perforation was found. The postoperative course was uncomplicated in 21 cases (60%) and complicated in 14 cases (40%), including mortality for 3 patients (8.6% resulting from perforations and 0.01% resulting from total endoscopic colon procedures). The relative risk ratio of colonoscopic and sigmoidoscopic procedures for perforations was 4. Therapeutic procedures show a delay in presentation and diagnosis compared with diagnostic procedures. Of the 35 perforations, 26 (74%) occurred in the sigmoid colon. Conclusion: Iatrogenic colonic perforation is a serious but rare complication of colonoscopy. A perforation risk of 0.12% was found. The perforation risk was higher for colonoscopic procedures than for sigmoidoscopic procedures. The sigmoid colon is the area at greatest risk for perforation. Immediate operative management, preferably primary repair and sometimes resection, appears to be a good strategy for most patients. Key words: Colon perforation -ColonoscopyComplication -Endoscopy -IatrogenicColonic perforation resulting from colonoscopic and sigmoidoscopic procedures is a rare but serious complication with high rates of morbidity and mortality [1,3,6,7,12]. The frequency of perforations after colonoscopy is estimated to be 0.03% to 0.8% for diagnostic colonoscopy and 0.15% to 3% for therapeutic colonoscopy [22]. With increasing numbers of colonoscopies being performed for screening purposes, this small possibility of perforations still may cause a high number of clinical problems. The optimal treatment for perforations, whether conservative or operative, still is unclear because no randomized trial has ever been conducted.Recent studies are acquiring evidence for laparoscopic and endoluminal repair using clips for perforation closure [15-17, 19, 22]. Knowing risk factors, recognizing early signs of perforation, and giving early and optimal treatment may reduce the probability of (severe) complications and death from iatrogenic colon perforations. In this report, we re...

This trial did not show the superiority of early nasoenteric tube feeding, as compared with an oral diet after 72 hours, in reducing the rate of infection or death in patients with acute pancreatitis at high risk for complications. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and others; PYTHON Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN18170985.).

Background and objective: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most prevalent complication after ERCP with an incidence of 3.5%. PEP severity is classified according to either the consensus criteria or the revised Atlanta criteria. In this international cohort study we investigated which classification is the strongest predictor of PEP-related mortality. Methods: We reviewed 13,384 consecutive ERCPs performed between 2012 and 2017 in eight hospitals. We gathered data on all pancreatitis-related adverse events and compared the predictive capabilities of both classifications. Furthermore, we investigated the correlation between the two classifications and identified reasons underlying length of stay. Results: The total sample consisted of 387 patients. The revised Atlanta criteria have a higher sensitivity (100 vs. 55%), specificity (98 vs. 72%) and positive predictive value (58 vs. 5%). There is a significant difference (p < 0.001) between the two classifications. In 124 patients (32%), the length of stay was influenced by concomitant diseases. Conclusion: The revised Atlanta classification is superior in predicting mortality and better reflects PEP severity. This has important implications for researchers, clinicians and patients. For the diagnosis of PEP pancreatitis, the consensus criteria remain the golden standard. However, the revised Atlanta criteria are preferable for defining PEP severity. Key summary Established knowledge. Post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) is the most prevalent complication of ERCP, with an incidence rate of 3.5%. /home/ueg . Adequate assessment of PEP severity is necessary for researchers and clinicians to predict prognosis and compare efficacy of prophylactic measures for PEP. . Two classification systems for PEP severity exist: the consensus criteria and the revised Atlanta criteria. New findings. Our study shows that the diagnostic performance of the revised Atlanta criteria for PEP-related mortality is better than the consensus criteria, because of its focus on necrosis and organ failure. . In that way, use of the revised Atlanta criteria allows for a better and more objective evaluation of PEP prophylaxis efficacy. . However, the consensus criteria, with its focus on length of hospital stay, could still be useful in light of patient-reported outcome measures and patient-centered care.

Inulin increases serum Mg(2+) concentrations under PPI maintenance in patients with PPI-induced hypomagnesaemia.

No abstract