No abstract

AIMTo investigate the factors affecting diagnostic delay and outcomes of diagnostic delay in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)METHODSWe retrospectively studied 165 patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) and 130 patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who were diagnosed and had follow up durations > 6 mo at Korea University Ansan Hospital from January 2000 to December 2015. A diagnostic delay was defined as the time interval between the first symptom onset and IBD diagnosis in which the 76th to 100th percentiles of patients were diagnosed.RESULTSThe median diagnostic time interval was 6.2 and 2.4 mo in the patients with CD and UC, respectively. Among the initial symptoms, perianal discomfort before di-agnosis (OR = 10.2, 95%CI: 1.93-54.3, P = 0.006) was associated with diagnostic delays in patients with CD; however, no clinical factor was associated with diagnostic delays in patients with UC. Diagnostic delays, stricturing type, and penetrating type were associated with increased intestinal surgery risks in CD (OR = 2.54, 95%CI: 1.06-6.09; OR = 4.44, 95%CI: 1.67-11.8; OR = 3.79, 95%CI: 1.14-12.6, respectively). In UC, a diagnostic delay was the only factor associated increased intestinal surgery risks (OR = 6.81, 95%CI: 1.12-41.4).CONCLUSIONA diagnostic delay was associated with poor outcomes, such as increased intestinal surgery risks in patients with CD and UC.

Acute pancreatitis is an inflammatory disease characterized by interstitial edema, inflammatory cell infiltration, and acinar cell necrosis, depending on its severity. Regardless of the extent of tissue injury, acute pancreatitis is a completely reversible process with evident normal tissue architecture after recovery. Its pathogenic mechanism has been known to be closely related to intracellular digestive enzyme activation. In contrast to acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis is characterized by irreversible tissue damage such as acinar cell atrophy and pancreatic fibrosis that results in exocrine and endocrine insufficiency. Recently, many studies of chronic pancreatitis have been prompted by the discovery of the pancreatic stellate cell, which has been identified and distinguished as the key effector cell of pancreatic fibrosis. However, investigations into the pathogenesis and treatment of pancreatitis face many obstacles because of its anatomical location and disparate clinical course. Due to these difficulties, most of our knowledge on pancreatitis is based on research conducted using experimental models of pancreatitis. In this review, several experimental models of pancreatitis will be discussed in terms of technique, advantages, and limitations.

Background and study aims The present study aimed to determine the type of intravenous hydration that is best suited to reducing the incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Patients and methods In a prospective randomized multicenter trial, average-to-high risk patients who underwent first-time ERCP were randomly assigned to three groups (1:1:1) who received: aggressive intravenous hydration (3 mL/kg/h during ERCP, a 20-mL/kg bolus and 3 mL/kg/h for 8 hours after ERCP) with either lactated Ringer’s solution (LRS) or normal saline solution (NSS), or standard intravenous hydration with LRS (1.5 mL/kg/h during and for 8 hours after ERCP). The primary end point was post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Results 395 patients were enrolled, and 385 completed the protocols. The three groups showed no significant differences in demographic characteristics. There was a significant difference in the intention-to-treat (ITT) PEP rate between the aggressive LRS group (3.0 %, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.1 % – 5.9 %; 4 /132), the aggressive NSS group (6.7 %, 95 %CI 2.5 % – 10.9 %; 9 /134) and the standard LRS group (11.6 %, 95 %CI 6.1 % – 17.2 %; 15 /129; P = 0.03). In the two-group comparisons, the ITT PEP rate was significantly lower for the aggressive LRS group than for the standard LRS group (relative risk [RR] 0.26, 95 %CI 0.08 – 0.76; P = 0.008). There was no significant difference in the ITT PEP rate between the aggressive NSS group and the standard LRS group (RR 0.57, 95 %CI 0.26 – 1.27; P = 0.17). Conclusion Aggressive hydration with LRS is the best approach to intravenous hydration for the prevention of PEP in average-to-high risk patients.