Background/AimsEndoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytology of adrenal masses helps in etiological diagnosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of adrenal masses in cases where other imaging methods failed and/or were not feasible.MethodsTwenty-one consecutive patients with adrenal masses, in whom adrenal FNA was performed because conventional imaging modalities failed and/or were not feasible, were prospectively evaluated over a period of 3 years.ResultsOf the 21 patients (mean age, 56±12.2 years; male:female ratio, 2:1), 12 had pyrexia of unknown origin and the other nine underwent evaluation for metastasis. The median lesion size was 2.4×1.6 cm. Ten patients were diagnosed with tuberculosis (shown by the presence of caseating granulomas [n=10] and acid-fast bacilli [n=4]). Two patients had EUS-FNA results suggestive of histoplasmosis. The other patients had metastatic lung carcinoma (n=6), hepatocellular carcinoma (n=1), and adrenal lipoma (n=1) and adrenal myelolipoma (n=1). EUS results were not suggestive of any particular etiology. No procedure-related adverse events occurred.ConclusionsEUS-FNA is a safe and effective method for evaluating adrenal masses, and it yields diagnosis in cases where tissue diagnosis is impossible or has failed using conventional imaging modalities.

With advancements in immunosuppressive strategies and availability of better immunosuppressive agents, survival rate following liver transplantation has improved significantly in the recent times. Besides improvements in surgical techniques, the most important factor that has contributed to this better outcome is the progress made in the field of immunosuppression. Over the last several years, the trend has changed to tailored immunosuppression with the aim of achieving optimal graft function while avoiding its undesirable side effects. Induction agents are no longer used routinely and the aim is to provide minimal immunosuppression in the maintenance phase. The present review discusses the various types of immunosuppressive agents, their mechanism of action, clinical utility, advantages and disadvantages, and their side effects in short and long-term. It also discusses about tailoring immunosuppression in presence of various situations such as renal dysfunction, metabolic syndrome, hepatitis C recurrence, cytomegalovirus infections and so on. The issue of chronic kidney disease and the available renal sparing immunosuppressive strategies has been particularly stressed upon. Finally, it discusses about the practical aspects of various immunosuppression regimens including drug monitoring. ( J CLIN EXP HEPATOL 2013;3:150-158)

EUS-guided drainage has an excellent success rate in drainage of pelvic abscesses.

AIMTo investigated clinical, endoscopic and histopathological parameters of the patients presenting with ileocecal ulcers on colonoscopy.METHODSConsecutive symptomatic patients undergoing colonoscopy, and diagnosed to have ulcerations in the ileocecal (I/C) region, were enrolled. Biopsy was obtained and their clinical presentation and outcome were recorded.RESULTSOut of 1632 colonoscopies, 104 patients had ulcerations in the I/C region and were included in the study. Their median age was 44.5 years and 59% were males. The predominant presentation was lower GI bleed (55, 53%), pain abdomen ± diarrhea (36, 35%), fever (32, 31%), and diarrhea alone (9, 9%). On colonoscopy, terminal ileum was entered in 96 (92%) cases. The distribution of ulcers was as follows: Ileum alone 40% (38/96), cecum alone 33% (32/96), and both ileum plus cecum 27% (26/96). The ulcers were multiple in 98% and in 34% there were additional ulcers elsewhere in colon. Based on clinical presentation and investigations, the etiology of ulcers was classified into infective causes (43%) and non-infective causes (57%). Fourteen patients (13%) were diagnosed to have Crohn’s disease (CD).CONCLUSIONNon-specific ileocecal ulcers are most common ulcers seen in ileo-cecal region. And if all infections are clubbed together then infection is the most common (> 40%) cause of ulcerations of the I/C region. Cecal involvement and fever are important clues to infective cause. On the contrary CD account for only 13% cases as a cause of ileo-cecalulcers. So all symptomatic patients with I/C ulcers on colonoscopy are not Crohn’s.

AI is present in more than half of cirrhotic patients but does not parallel the severity scores of cirrhosis. Its presence predicts early mortality in these patients, and this prediction is independent of CTP or MELD scores.