Search

Background: Malnutrition is highly prevalent and associated with complications and mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Methods: This was a prospective observational study. Patients with cirrhosis were screened using the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002, the Royal Free Hospital‐Nutritional Prioritizing Tool and the Skeletal Muscle Index. Then, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and consistency with the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria results were calculated. We also analysed the association between nutritional status and short‐term prognosis. Results: We enrolled 125 patients with cirrhosis, of whom 59.20% and 60.00% were malnourished based on the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria and Skeletal Muscle Index. Some 53.60% and 65.60%, respectively, were classified medium‐to‐high nutritional risk by Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 and the Royal Free Hospital‐Nutritional Prioritizing Tool. The Royal Free Hospital‐Nutritional Prioritizing Tool had the best predictive value, and it was more sensitive and had a better negative predictive value than the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 Tool. The Skeletal Muscle Index also had good sensitivity and predictive value. The Royal Free Hospital‐Nutritional Prioritizing Tool, Skeletal Muscle Index and Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria showed high concordance. The 3‐ and 6‐month mortality rates were significantly higher for patients with moderate‐to‐high nutritional risk or malnutrition, regardless of the tool. Conclusions: When assessing cirrhosis with the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria, the Royal Free Hospital‐Nutritional Prioritizing Tool is best for nutritional screening and the Skeletal Muscle Index is also a good nutritional assessment tool. Key points: Diagnosis and treatment of liver diseases were considered.The Royal Free Hospital‐Nutritional Prioritizing Tool score is not affected by the presence of oedema and ascites and is therefore more advantageous than the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002, which is more commonly used in clinical practice in cirrhotic patients.The results of the present study show that the Royal Free Hospital‐Nutritional Prioritizing Tool is more valuable than the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 for determining the short‐term prognosis of patients with liver cirrhosis.The study found good concordance between the Skeletal Muscle Index (SMI) and Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria in patients with cirrhosis. Therefore, lumbar 3‐SMI can be used to assess the nutritional status of these patients.C‐reactive protein, interleukin‐6 and procalcitonin levels significantly increased in patients with moderate‐to‐high nutritional risk or malnutrition compared to their counterparts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A DBN promoted [4+2] cycloaddition of malononitrile with 2‐(3‐oxo‐3‐arylprop‐1‐en‐1‐yl)phenyl buta‐2,3‐dienoates has been developed. This protocol provides a simple strategy for the construction of 2‐amino‐4‐(2‐oxo‐2‐phenylethyl)‐4H‐chromene‐3‐carbonitriles in moderate to good yields. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The optimal methods for removing polyps remain controversial especially for polyps ≤10mm. We aim to combine the latest evidence to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) in the removal of colorectal polyps ≤10mm in size., Methods: We performed an extensive search across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science, with the search period ending in April 2023 for randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness and/or safety of CSP and HSP for the removal of ≤10mm colorectal polyps.The final outcomes included complete resection rate, operation time, and postoperative adverse events (including immediate bleeding, delayed bleeding, and perforation) rates., Results: A total of 14 eligible randomized controlled trials were included, involving 7,460 patients and 15,829 polyps. The incidence of immediate bleeding was observed to be more prevalent in CSP in contrast to HSP, and the disparity was statistically notable (OR=2.18, 95% CI: 1.43-3.30, I2=36%, P=0.0003). The incidence of delayed bleeding was observed to be lower in CSP in contrast to HSP, and this difference was statistically significant (OR=0.30, 95% CI: 0.15-0.58, I2=0%, P=0.0003). Procedure time: both the total colonoscopy time and specific polypectomy time were shorter in CSP than in HSP (MD=-5.92, 95% CI: -9.70 to -2.14, I2=96%, P=0.002; MD=-0.56, 95% CI: -0.91 to -0.20, I2=77%, P=0.002). There were no statistically significant differences in complete resection and the polyp retrieval rate between CSP and HSP., Conclusion: CSP is as effective and safe as HSP for ≤10mm colorectal polyps, while effectively reducing the risk of delayed bleeding and shortening the procedure time.