| 1. |
- Bergemalm, Daniel, 1977-, et al.
(författare)
-
Systemic Inflammation in Preclinical Ulcerative Colitis
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Gastroenterology. - : AGA Institute. - 0016-5085 .- 1528-0012. ; 161:5, s. 1526-1539.e9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background & Aims: Preclinical ulcerative colitis is poorly defined. We aimed to characterize the preclinical systemic inflammation in ulcerative colitis, using a comprehensive set of proteins.Methods: We obtained plasma samples biobanked from individuals who developed ulcerative colitis later in life (n = 72) and matched healthy controls (n = 140) within a population-based screening cohort. We measured 92 proteins related to inflammation using a proximity extension assay. The biologic relevance of these findings was validated in an inception cohort of patients with ulcerative colitis (n = 101) and healthy controls (n = 50). To examine the influence of genetic and environmental factors on these markers, a cohort of healthy twin siblings of patients with ulcerative colitis (n = 41) and matched healthy controls (n = 37) were explored.Results: Six proteins (MMP10, CXCL9, CCL11, SLAMF1, CXCL11 and MCP-1) were up-regulated (P < .05) in preclinical ulcerative colitis compared with controls based on both univariate and multivariable models. Ingenuity Pathway Analyses identified several potential key regulators, including interleukin-1β, tumor necrosis factor, interferon-gamma, oncostatin M, nuclear factor-κB, interleukin-6, and interleukin-4. For validation, we built a multivariable model to predict disease in the inception cohort. The model discriminated treatment-naïve patients with ulcerative colitis from controls with leave-one-out cross-validation (area under the curve = 0.92). Consistently, MMP10, CXCL9, CXCL11, and MCP-1, but not CCL11 and SLAMF1, were significantly up-regulated among the healthy twin siblings, even though their relative abundances seemed higher in incident ulcerative colitis.Conclusions: A set of inflammatory proteins are up-regulated several years before a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. These proteins were highly predictive of an ulcerative colitis diagnosis, and some seemed to be up-regulated already at exposure to genetic and environmental risk factors.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Schultz, Johannes Kurt, et al.
(författare)
-
Laparoscopic Lavage vs Primary Resection for Acute Perforated Diverticulitis : The SCANDIV Randomized Clinical Trial
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 0098-7484 .- 1538-3598. ; 314:13, s. 1364-1375
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- IMPORTANCE: Perforated colonic diverticulitis usually requires surgical resection, which is associated with significant morbidity. Cohort studies have suggested that laparoscopic lavage may treat perforated diverticulitis with less morbidity than resection procedures.OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes from laparoscopic lavage with those for colon resection for perforated diverticulitis.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, randomized clinical superiority trial recruiting participants from 21 centers in Sweden and Norway from February 2010 to June 2014. The last patient follow-up was in December 2014 and final review and verification of the medical records was assessed in March 2015. Patients with suspected perforated diverticulitis, a clinical indication for emergency surgery, and free air on an abdominal computed tomography scan were eligible. Of 509 patients screened, 415 were eligible and 199 were enrolled.INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assigned to undergo laparoscopic peritoneal lavage (n = 101) or colon resection (n = 98) based on a computer-generated, center-stratified block randomization. All patients with fecal peritonitis (15 patients in the laparoscopic peritoneal lavage group vs 13 in the colon resection group) underwent colon resection. Patients with a pathology requiring treatment beyond that necessary for perforated diverticulitis (12 in the laparoscopic lavage group vs 13 in the colon resection group) were also excluded from the protocol operations and treated as required for the pathology encountered.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo score >IIIa) within 90 days. Secondary outcomes included other postoperative complications, reoperations, length of operating time, length of postoperative hospital stay, and quality of life.RESULTS: The primary outcome was observed in 31 of 101 patients (30.7%) in the laparoscopic lavage group and 25 of 96 patients (26.0%) in the colon resection group (difference, 4.7% [95% CI, -7.9% to 17.0%]; P = .53). Mortality at 90 days did not significantly differ between the laparoscopic lavage group (14 patients [13.9%]) and the colon resection group (11 patients [11.5%]; difference, 2.4% [95% CI, -7.2% to 11.9%]; P = .67). The reoperation rate was significantly higher in the laparoscopic lavage group (15 of 74 patients [20.3%]) than in the colon resection group (4 of 70 patients [5.7%]; difference, 14.6% [95% CI, 3.5% to 25.6%]; P = .01) for patients who did not have fecal peritonitis. The length of operating time was significantly shorter in the laparoscopic lavage group; whereas, length of postoperative hospital stay and quality of life did not differ significantly between groups. Four sigmoid carcinomas were missed with laparoscopic lavage.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with likely perforated diverticulitis and undergoing emergency surgery, the use of laparoscopic lavage vs primary resection did not reduce severe postoperative complications and led to worse outcomes in secondary end points. These findings do not support laparoscopic lavage for treatment of perforated diverticulitis.TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01047462.
|
|
