No abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of a genetically engineered glucagon (geG) and hyoscine N-butylbromide (HBB) on the quality of double-contrast barium meal (DCBM) study. Two hundred sixty-four patients scheduled for DCBM were randomized to receive intravenously geG 0.25 mg (geG-25), or geG 0.5 mg (geG-50), or HBB 20 mg as hypotonic agent. The evaluation concerned: duration of isolated visualization of the stomach (A); gastric mucosal coating (B); visualization of areae gastricae (C); quality of duodenal cap (D) and loop (E) study; delay, if any, of duodenal study (F). Global significant differences (P from 0.0183 to < 0.0001) were found for A, C, D, and F. GeG-50 allowed the longest isolated gastric visualization (P < 0.0001); geG-25 allowed more extensive visualization of areae gastricae than HBB (P = 0.0006); HBB allowed a better study of duodenal cap (P = 0.0052) and loop (P = 0.0190) than geG-25; geG-50 prolonged the examination time (P < 0.01). No adverse effect was observed with geG within 1 h after DCBM. In conclusion, geG can be safely used as a hypotonic agent in DCBM. When DCBM is focused on the stomach, 0.25 mg of geG is the optimal choice; if DCBM is focused on the duodenum, 0.5 mg of geG (with a prolonged examination time) or 20 mg of HBB (with a less effective study of the stomach) should be used.

The aim of our work was to propose a double-contrast magnetic resonance examination (DCMRE) in the follow-up of ulcerative colitis (UC), comparing this new technique with X-ray double-contrast barium enema (DCBE). After preparation with colon-cleansing regimen used for DCBE, six UC patients and six control subjects underwent a 1.5-T examination: supine position, coronal and axial fat-spectral-saturation breath-hold gradient-echo T1-weighted sequences after intravenous hypotonization and 1500-2000 cc air insufflation. Without evacuating the primarily insufflated air, the same images were acquired after endorectal administration of negative superparamagnetic contrast agent (600 cc) and intravenous administration of positive paramagnetic contrast agent (0.2 mmol/kg). All patients had undergone DCBE in the four preceding weeks. We found significant increase in wall thickness of UC affected vs apparently unaffected segments (p = 0.0425) and vs CG (p = 0.0447), significant increase in enhancement percent of UC affected vs apparently unaffected segments (p = 0.0161) and vs CG (p = 0.0185), and no significant difference for enhancement percent of UC unaffected segments vs CG. DCMRE and DCBE localized the UC extension at the same sites in all patients. Double-contrast MR examination time was 20-30 min. This new method could be used in follow-up of UC patients.

No abstract

No abstract