| 1. |
- Sweeney, M. D., et al.
(author)
-
Vascular dysfunction-The disregarded partner of Alzheimer's disease
- 2019
-
In: Alzheimers & Dementia. - : Wiley. - 1552-5260 .- 1552-5279. ; 15:1, s. 158-167
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Increasing evidence recognizes Alzheimer's disease (AD) as a multifactorial and heterogeneous disease with multiple contributors to its pathophysiology, including vascular dysfunction. The recently updated AD Research Framework put forth by the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association describes a biomarker-based pathologic definition of AD focused on amyloid, tau, and neuronal injury. In response to this article, here we first discussed evidence that vascular dysfunction is an important early event in AD pathophysiology. Next, we examined various imaging sequences that could be easily implemented to evaluate different types of vascular dysfunction associated with, and/or contributing to, AD pathophysiology, including changes in blood-brain barrier integrity and cerebral blood flow. Vascular imaging biomarkers of small vessel disease of the brain, which is responsible for >50% of dementia worldwide, including AD, are already established, well characterized, and easy to recognize. We suggest that these vascular biomarkers should be incorporated into the AD Research Framework to gain a better understanding of AD pathophysiology and aid in treatment efforts. (C) 2018 the Alzheimer's Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 2. |
- Pironi, L., et al.
(author)
-
COVID-19 infection in patients on long-term home parenteral nutrition for chronic intestinal failure
- 2023
-
In: Clinical Nutrition Espen. - : Elsevier BV. - 2405-4577. ; 55, s. 212-220
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background and aims: To investigate the incidence and the severity of COVID-19 infection in patients enrolled in the database for home parenteral nutrition (HPN) for chronic intestinal failure (CIF) of the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN). Methods: Period of observation: March 1st, 2020 March 1st, 2021. Inclusion criteria: patients included in the database since 2015 and still receiving HPN on March 1st, 2020 as well as new patients included in the database during the period of observation. Data related to the previous 12 months and recorded on March 1st 2021: 1) occurrence of COVID-19 infection since the beginning of the pandemic (yes, no, unknown); 2) infection severity (asymptomatic; mild, no-hospitalization; moderate, hospitalization no -ICU; severe, hospitalization in ICU); 3) vaccinated against COVID-19 (yes, no, unknown); 4) patient outcome on March 1st 2021: still on HPN, weaned off HPN, deceased, lost to follow up.Results: Sixty-eight centres from 23 countries included 4680 patients. Data on COVID-19 were available for 55.1% of patients. The cumulative incidence of infection was 9.6% in the total group and ranged from 0% to 21.9% in the cohorts of individual countries. Infection severity was reported as: asymptomatic 26.7%, mild 32.0%, moderate 36.0%, severe 5.3%. Vaccination status was unknown in 62.0% of patients, non-vaccinated 25.2%, vaccinated 12.8%. Patient outcome was reported as: still on HPN 78.6%, weaned off HPN 10.6%, deceased 9.7%, lost to follow up 1.1%. A higher incidence of infection (p = 0.04), greater severity of infection (p < 0.001) and a lower vaccination percentage (p = 0.01) were observed in deceased patients. In COVID-19 infected patients, deaths due to infection accounted for 42.8% of total deaths.Conclusions: In patients on HPN for CIF, the incidence of COVID-19 infection differed greatly among countries. Although the majority of cases were reported to be asymptomatic or have mild symptoms only, COVID-19 was reported to be fatal in a significant proportion of infected patients. Lack of vacci-nation was associated with a higher risk of death.(c) 2023 European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Vanbiervliet, G, et al.
(author)
-
Endoscopic management of ampullary tumors: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline
- 2021
-
In: Endoscopy. - : Georg Thieme Verlag KG. - 1438-8812 .- 0013-726X. ; 53:044, s. 429-448
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- 1 ESGE recommends against diagnostic/therapeutic papillectomy when adenoma is not proven.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.2 ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasound and abdominal magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for staging of ampullary tumors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.3 ESGE recommends endoscopic papillectomy in patients with ampullary adenoma without intraductal extension, because of good results regarding outcome (technical and clinical success, morbidity, and recurrence).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.4 ESGE recommends en bloc resection of ampullary adenomas up to 20–30 mm in diameter to achieve R0 resection, for optimizing the complete resection rate, providing optimal histopathology, and reduction of the recurrence rate after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.5 ESGE suggests considering surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas when endoscopic resection is not feasible for technical reasons (e. g. diverticulum, size > 4 cm), and in the case of intraductal involvement (of > 20 mm). Surveillance thereafter is still mandatory.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.6 ESGE recommends direct snare resection without submucosal injection for endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.7 ESGE recommends prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting to reduce the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.8 ESGE recommends long-term monitoring of patients after endoscopic papillectomy or surgical ampullectomy, based on duodenoscopy with biopsies of the scar and of any abnormal area, within the first 3 months, at 6 and 12 months, and thereafter yearly for at least 5 years.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Manes, G, et al.
(author)
-
Endoscopic management of common bile duct stones: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline
- 2019
-
In: Endoscopy. - : Georg Thieme Verlag KG. - 1438-8812 .- 0013-726X. ; 51:5, s. 472-491
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- ESGE recommends offering stone extraction to all patients with common bile duct stones, symptomatic or not, who are fit enough to tolerate the intervention.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends liver function tests and abdominal ultrasonography as the initial diagnostic steps for suspected common bile duct stones. Combining these tests defines the probability of having common bile duct stones.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography to diagnose common bile duct stones in patients with persistent clinical suspicion but insufficient evidence of stones on abdominal ultrasonography.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the following timing for biliary drainage, preferably endoscopic, in patients with acute cholangitis, classified according to the 2018 revision of the Tokyo Guidelines:– severe, as soon as possible and within 12 hours for patients with septic shock– moderate, within 48 – 72 hours– mild, elective.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends endoscopic placement of a temporary biliary plastic stent in patients with irretrievable biliary stones that warrant biliary drainage.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.ESGE recommends limited sphincterotomy combined with endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation as the first-line approach to remove difficult common bile duct stones. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of cholangioscopy-assisted intraluminal lithotripsy (electrohydraulic or laser) as an effective and safe treatment of difficult bile duct stones.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends performing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 2 weeks from ERCP for patients treated for choledocholithiasis to reduce the conversion rate and the risk of recurrent biliary events. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.
|
|
| 7. |
- Arvanitakis, M, et al.
(author)
-
Endoscopic management of enteral tubes in adult patients - Part 1: Definitions and indications. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline
- 2021
-
In: Endoscopy. - : Georg Thieme Verlag KG. - 1438-8812 .- 0013-726X. ; 53:011, s. 81-92
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- ESGE recommends considering the following indications for enteral tube insertion: (i) clinical conditions that make oral intake impossible (neurological conditions, obstructive causes); (ii) acute and/or chronic diseases that result in a catabolic state where oral intake becomes insufficient; and (iii) chronic small-bowel obstruction requiring a decompression gastrostomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of temporary feeding tubes placed through a natural orifice (either nostril) in patients expected to require enteral nutrition (EN) for less than 4 weeks. If it is anticipated that EN will be required for more than 4 weeks, percutaneous access should be considered, depending on the clinical setting.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the gastric route as the primary option in patients in need of EN support. Only in patients with altered/unfavorable gastric anatomy (e. g. after previous surgery), impaired gastric emptying, intolerance to gastric feeding, or with a high risk of aspiration, should the jejunal route be chosen.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests that recent gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding due to peptic ulcer disease with risk of rebleeding should be considered to be a relative contraindication to percutaneous enteral access procedures, as should hemodynamic or respiratory instability.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE suggests that the presence of ascites and ventriculoperitoneal shunts should be considered to be additional risk factors for infection and, therefore, further preventive precautions must be taken in these cases.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that percutaneous tube placement (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy [PEG], percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy with jejunal extension [PEG-J], or direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy [D-PEJ]) should be considered to be a procedure with high hemorrhagic risk, and that in order to reduce this risk, specific guidelines for antiplatelet or anticoagulant use should be followed strictly.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends refraining from PEG placement in patients with advanced dementia.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends refraining from PEG placement in patients with a life expectancy shorter than 30 days.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence*.
|
|
| 8. |
- Gkolfakis, P, et al.
(author)
-
Endoscopic management of enteral tubes in adult patients - Part 2: Peri- and post-procedural management. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline
- 2021
-
In: Endoscopy. - : Georg Thieme Verlag KG. - 1438-8812 .- 0013-726X. ; 53:022, s. 178-195
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- ESGE recommends the “pull” technique as the standard method for percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the direct percutaneous introducer (“push”) technique for PEG placement in cases where the “pull” method is contraindicated, for example in severe esophageal stenosis or in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) or esophageal cancer.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends the intravenous administration of a prophylactic single dose of a beta-lactam antibiotic (or appropriate alternative antibiotic, in the case of allergy) to decrease the risk of post-procedural wound infection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends that inadvertent insertion of a nasogastric tube (NGT) into the respiratory tract should be considered a serious but avoidable adverse event (AE).Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that each institution should have a dedicated protocol to confirm correct positioning of NGTs placed “blindly” at the patient’s bedside; this should include: radiography, pH testing of the aspirate, and end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring, but not auscultation alone.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends confirmation of correct NGT placement by radiography in high-risk patients (intensive care unit [ICU] patients or those with altered consciousness or absent gag/cough reflex).Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE recommends that EN may be started within 3 – 4 hours after uncomplicated placement of a PEG or PEG-J.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends that daily tube mobilization (pushing inward) along with a loose position of the external PEG bumper (1 – 2 cm from the abdominal wall) could mitigate the risk of development of buried bumper syndrome.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
