This case report describes a 10 yo with multiple medical problems with an expanding G-tube site with mucosal prolapse “where the G-tube balloon easily fell out of her gastrocutaneous fistula.”
The site was treated with three modalities, though the authors attribute the improvement to the use of sucralfate:
Removal of Gastrostomy tube for 5 days
Sucralfate: “1 gram tablet, ½ tablet crushed sprinkled around the ostomy site 3 times a day. Powder was used to fill in the defect and any residual powder medication was gently cleaned off before the next application”
Images showing improvement noted below
The authors provide pathophysiological reasons for sucralfate’s effectiveness:
Background: “The general unavailability of culture-based susceptibility testing for H pylori has resulted in the almost universal reliance on hopeful (empiric) therapy and a high proportion of treatment failures.” Besides the lack of availability of culture-based susceptibility testing, the global increase in prevalence of antimicrobial resistance contributes to the poor cure rates obtained with empiric use of the currently most popular triple therapies for H pylori infection.
Methods:H pylori isolates (n=170) (clinical isolates and formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded) were tested for susceptibility to amoxicillin, clarithromycin, metronidazole, levofloxacin, tetracycline, and rifabutin using agar dilution and NGS targeted to 23S rRNA, gyrA, 16S rRNA, pbp1, rpoB and rdxA. Agreement was quantified using κ statistics.
Agreement between agar dilution and NGS from culture isolates was very good for clarithromycin (κ = 0.90012), good for levofloxacin (κ = 0.78161) and fair for metronidazole (κ = 0.55880), and amoxicillin (κ = 0.21400)
Comparison of NGS from tissue blocks and agar dilution from isolates from the same stomachs demonstrated good accuracy to predict resistance for clarithromycin (94.1%), amoxicillin (95.9%), metronidazole (77%), levofloxacin (87.7%), and tetracycline (98.2%)
“By targeting all of the genes responsible for antibiotic resistance, it is possible to obtain genotypic susceptibility data for all of the antibiotics of potential use, without the need to perform” culture and antibiotic susceptibility testing
“Hulten et al show not only that they obtained comparable results with the reference method (phenotypic) for most of the antibiotics, but also that NGS can also be performed on both culture isolates and stored histologic preparations. This result is important because it avoids the need for extra biopsies and culture”
“NGS could also be applied on stools. In this particular environment where H pylori DNA is found in a low amount, excellent DNA extraction methods are mandatory and progress is being made in this field”
My take: NGS can bring H pylori treatment to a new era (like almost all other infections). “Molecular methods can potentially augment or even replace the current in vitro methods for susceptibility testing, which are cumbersome, technically challenging, and time-consuming.”
A recent article on simplifying the “simple” endoscopic assessment for Crohn’s disease reminded me of a scene from “There’s Something About Mary” (see below) where one of the characters plans to market a 7 minute abs video to replace the 8 minute abs video craze.
The article describes replacing the current “SES-CD” (or Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s disease) with SEMA-CD (or Simplified Endoscopic Mucosal Assessment for Crohn’s disease).
The SEMA-CD was scored by assigning a numerical value ranging from 0 (remission) to 4 (severe disease) for each bowel region (ileum and colon). The colon score was multiplied by the number of involved colonic segments and then added to the ileum score. “For example, if overall the colon was felt to have moderate involvement, and only the ascending and transverse colon had mucosal abnormalities, then a score of 3 for moderate disease would be multiplied by a total of 2 segments for a total [colon] score of 6.”
While there was excellent correlation between SES-CD and SEMA-CD, SEMA-CD was much easier as it required one scoring for the entire colon rather than evaluation of each segment
The authors note that clinical assessment is inadequate to monitor CD. CDAI (PCDAI) are poor surrogates for mucosal improvement…”30-68% of patients in clinical remission have evidence of mucosal inflammation on colonoscopy….Patients whose disease is managed based on clinical information alone are more likely to have disease complications, need more surgeries, or lose response to medications.”
My take: The SEMA-CD appears to be much easier than the SES-CD and thus more likely to be useful in clinical practice (& research), especially as it becomes incorporated into routine endoscopy software. If the SEMA-CD is widely adopted, we will need to be on the lookout for the ‘6 minute ab’ version.
In this retrospective cohort study with 268 adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease, the authors compared the use of a GI PCR panel with 22 analytes (BioFire) and C diff testing to ‘conventional’ stool testing (culture, O&P and C diff). Key findings:
Pathogens were more frequently identified on GI PCR (26 vs 5%; P < 0.01)
GI PCR was associated with less escalation in IBD therapy (16 vs 29%; P < 0.01) and fewer posttest endoscopies (10% vs 18%; P = 0.04), with no differences in IBD outcomes
Those with recent travel had a higher pathogen detection rate: 38% vs 14%; P<0.01
In the GI PCR group, the most common pathogens were E coli species 22 (including 12 Enteropathogenic E coli), Campylobacter 10, Multiple pathogens 7, Norovirus 6, Yersinia 3, C diff 3,
The authors note that the group who underwent GI PCR panel testing were more likely to present with severe symptoms (eg. fever, rectal bleeding) as well as a history of recent travel. Even when controlling for symptoms and biomarkers of inflammation, GI PCR testing was still associated with lower likelihood of escalating IBD therapies.
My take: This study indicates that identification of an infectious pathogen which is more likely with a GI PCR panel helps avoid escalation of IBD therapy and need for endoscopy in the outpatient setting.
In this retrospective study with 218 inpatient pediatric patients with active ulcerative colitis, the key findings:
Use of enoxaparin did not result in a greater fall in hemoglobin among those with acute severe colitis (initial PUCAI ≥65) during the week following admission and there was not an increased risk of needing a transfusion
VTE occurred in 2 of 130 in control group and 1 of 88 in enoxaparin group (enoxaparin group was sicker)
My take: The absolute risk of VTE is low in the pediatric population. This study shows that enoxaparin prophylaxis is NOT associated with increased issues with blood loss. In those with active disease, the presence of CVC and use of steroids are known risk factors and require consideration of, at minimum, nonpharmacologic interventions.
This article is a large retrospective single-center (Boston Children’s) review of laparoscopic gastrostomy (LAP, n=545) compared to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG, n=545) (2010-2015). The authors note a shift in attitude in their institution in favor LAP due to perceived safety advantages (citing references 14-16 -reviewed below).
Total complication rate: 33% (146) in PEG group, 36% (197) in LAP group; cellulitis reported in 18% in PEG group compared with 10% of LAP group
ED visits: 89% (394) of PEG group had zero ED visits compared with 84% of LAP patients; In PEG group, 9% and 1% had one ED visit and two ED visits respectively compared to 15% and 1% in LAP group
In the early postoperative period (first week), patients undergoing PEG placement had more gastrostomy-related complications (PEG 30 [6.7%] vs LAP 13 [2.4%], P = 0.0007) and cellulitis (PEG 23 [5.1%] vs LAP 2 [0.4%], P = 0.03). Complications included postoperative pain, leakage, tube dislodgement, and stoma erythema
The authors reported higher total costs and operative time for LAP compared to PEG but note that in their institution, total cost may be higher for PEG due to frequent need for 2nd procedure for placement of a skin level device
In the discussion, the authors acknowledge that in their institution, “no differences in total complication rates within the first 6 months were seen.” My view is that the difference in cellulitis needs to interpreted cautiously in a retrospective study. The swelling and erythema around a PEG site in the first days postoperatively can be difficult to determine conclusively if there is cellulitis. With regard to potential cost advantages of LAP, this is affected in the PEG group by whether changing to a skin level device is done at the time of another procedure and whether the case is done in an outpatient surgery center where costs are lower.
My take: There is likely a lower rate of visceral perforation among children who have LAP placement over PEG placement. However, overall, it is uncertain if the complication rate from LAP placement is lower than PEG placement.
Review of some of the cited studies from this article:
L Baker et al.J Pediatr Surg 2015; 50: 718-725. A systematic review and meta-analysis of gastrostomy insertion techniques in children In this study, the authors examined 22 studies with 5438 patients that met inclusion criteria. No differences in major complications were noted in studies comparing open versus laparoscopic approaches or open versus PEG. Then, in a subset 10 studies (n=1599 laparoscopic, n=1161 PEG), the authors state that laparoscopic gastrostomy and PEG revealed a significantly increased risk in major complications with PEG (OR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.17–0.51, p < 0.0001). In this study, the most striking difference were 20 cases of visceral perforation with PEG and one case with LAP. Again, the data are limited by the retrospective nature of all but one study. This “suggest that individual-specific and/or institutional-specific factors likely influence outcomes and diminish the generalizability of the presented results.” Cited advantages of LAP: better visualization of site, ability to transfix stomach to abdominal wall, and ability to place primary button.
Disclaimer: This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician. Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure. This content is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a condition.
This retrospective study used data from 331 patients (n=107 with IBD). Fecal calprotectin (FC) was done between 30 days and 1 day before colonoscopy.
Correlation with endoscopy: median FC was lowest for all IBD patients with no active disease (181 μg/g) and highest in severe disease (921 μg/g), with significant difference between no disease and moderate and severe disease (P = 0.019, 0.003), and between mild and severe disease (P = 0.012)
Correlation with histology: median FC was lowest with no active disease (328 μg/g) and highest in severe disease (895 μg/g), with significant difference between no disease and moderate and severe disease (P = 0.021, 0.018)
The control population had median FC of 35.5 compared to 181 μg/g for the IBD population in endoscopic remission (P = 0.018).
My take: Calprotectin levels are particularly helpful as a screen for IBD (probably using threshold of at least 120) and its use to monitor clinical response. This study shows it has some utility in predicting disease severity.