Search

The endoscopy suite is the central hub of activity where most gastroenterologists spend a majority of their time in clinical practice. With the evolution of more complex diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, an ergonomically designed and dedicated gastrointestinal endoscopic unit is not only desirable but a necessity. Such a unit will ensure optimal workflow efficiency and throughput, as well as both patient and physician safety. It is important to plan meticulously upfront by seeking input from all stakeholders including engineers, physicians, nurses, technicians and architects. This will ensure a highly desirable work environment including procedural areas and the scope cleaning/sterilization section while optimizing patient and instrument flow. The procedure room should be ergonomically designed to allow for adjustability and optimize utilization of space for endoscopists, technicians, nurses, anesthesiologists, and trainees as well as the equipment required to perform the endoscopic procedures. This article provides practical tips on how to plan and develop an endoscopy suite, taking into consideration ergonomic and regulatory aspects, and is based on real life experience with designing a modern gastroenterology procedural suite.

Background: Office-based biofeedback therapy is effective for constipation with dyssynergic defecation, but must be performed by skilled staff, is only available in selected centres, and requires multiple visits. The efficacy of home-based biofeedback therapy is unknown. We compared clinical and subjective outcomes with home-based and office-based approaches. Methods: In this randomised controlled trial, eligible patients were adult outpatients (age 18–80 years) who met the Rome III criteria for functional constipation and who had been referred to a tertiary-care centre after non-response to routine management, and who had dyssynergic defecation. Patients were randomly assigned according to a schedule generated in advance by the study biostatistician, in permuted blocks of four, to receive office-based or home-based biofeedback therapy. Office-based biofeedback comprised therapist-guided pelvic floor training for six sessions over 3 months (visits every 2 weeks). Home-based biofeedback comprised 20 min self-training sessions twice per day, in which a self-inserted probe was used to provide visual feedback via a handheld monitoring device of anal sphincter pressure and push effort. Patients recorded in diaries the time of each defecation attempt, stool consistency, straining effort, feeling of incomplete evacuation, need for digital assistance with stooling, and satisfaction with bowel function, from 1 week before enrolment to the end of follow-up. Treatment responders were defined post hoc as those with normalisation of dyssynergic defecation and an increase in the number of complete spontaneous bowel movements per week by 3 months. Cost outcomes calculated from health-care costs and loss of salary were assessed from hospital billing and medical records and questionnaires. Primary outcome measures were the presence of a dyssynergic pattern during attempted defecation, balloon expulsion time, the number of complete spontaneous bowel movements per week, and satisfaction with bowel function, assessed by intention to treat (non-inferiority) and per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03202771. Findings: Of 300 patients screened we enrolled 100, from Jan 7, 2005, to Jan 31, 2010. 83 patients completed training (38 [76%] of 50 in the home-based biofeedback group and 45 [90%] of 50 in the office-based biofeedback group). 34 (68%) patients in the home-based group and 35 (70%) in the office-based group were classified as responders. All primary outcomes improved significantly from baseline in the two treatment groups (all p

Fecal incontinence (FI), the involuntary passage of stool, is common and can markedly impair the quality of life. Among patients who fail initial options (pads or protective devices, bowel modifying agents, and pelvic floor exercises), the options are pelvic floor biofeedback (BIO), perianal injection with bulking agents (INJ), and sacral nerve electrical stimulation (SNS), which have not been subjected to head-to-head comparisons. This study will compare the safety and efficacy of BIO and INJ for managing FI. The impact of these approaches on quality-of-life and psychological distress, cost effectiveness, and predictors of response to therapy will also be evaluated. Six centers in the United States will enroll approximately 285 patients with moderate to severe FI. Patients who have 4 or more FI episodes over 2 weeks proceed to a 4-week trial of enhanced medical management (EMM) (ie, education, bowel management, and pelvic floor exercises). Thereafter, 194 non-responders as defined by a less than 75% reduction in the frequency of FI will be randomized to BIO or INJ. Three months later, the efficacy, safety, and cost of therapy will be assessed; non-responders will be invited to choose to add the other treatment or SNS for the remainder of the study. Early EMM responders will be re-evaluated 3 months later and non-responders randomized to BIO or INJ. Standardized, and where appropriate validated approaches will be used for study procedures, which will be performed by trained personnel. Prospectively collected data on care costs and resource utilization will be used for cost effectiveness analyses.

Background & Aims Few treatments have demonstrated efficacy and safety for diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D). A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was performed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of repeat treatment with the nonsystemic antibiotic rifaximin. Methods The trial included adults with IBS-D, mean abdominal pain and bloating scores of 3 or more, and loose stool, located at 270 centers in the United States and Europe from February 2012 through June 2014. Those responding to a 2-week course of open-label rifaximin 550 mg 3 times daily, who then relapsed during an observation phase (up to 18 weeks), were randomly assigned to groups given repeat treatments of rifaximin 550 mg or placebo 3 times daily for 2 weeks. The primary end point was percentage of responders after first repeat treatment, defined as a decrease in abdominal pain of ≥30% from baseline and a decrease in frequency of loose stools of ≥50% from baseline, for 2 or more weeks during a 4-week post-treatment period. Results Of 1074 patients (44.1%) who responded to open-label rifaximin, 382 (35.6%) did not relapse and 692 (64.4%) did; of these, 636 were randomly assigned to receive repeat treatment with rifaximin (n = 328) or placebo (n = 308). The percentage of responders was significantly greater with rifaximin than placebo (38.1% vs 31.5%; P = .03). The percentage of responders for abdominal pain (50.6% vs 42.2%; P = .018) was significantly greater with rifaximin than placebo, but not stool consistency (51.8% vs 50.0%; P = .42). Significant improvements were also noted for prevention of recurrence, durable response, and bowel movement urgency. Adverse event rates were low and similar between groups. Conclusions In a phase 3 study of patients with relapsing symptoms of IBS-D, repeat rifaximin treatment was efficacious and well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01543178.

The Rome IV Diagnostic Questionnaires were developed to screen for functional gastrointestinal disorders, serve as inclusion criteria in clinical trials, and support epidemiologic surveys. Separate questionnaires were developed for adults, children and adolescents, and infants and toddlers. For the adult questionnaire, we first surveyed 1162 adults without gastrointestinal disorders, and recommended the 90th percentile symptom frequency as the threshold for defining what is abnormal. Diagnostic questions were formulated and verified with clinical experts using a recursive process. The diagnostic sensitivity of the questionnaire was tested in 843 patients from 9 gastroenterology clinics, with a focus on clinical diagnoses of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), functional constipation (FC), and functional dyspepsia (FD). Sensitivity was 62.7% for IBS, 54.7% for FD, and 32.2% for FC. Specificity, assessed in a population sample of 5931 adults, was 97.1% for IBS, 93.3% for FD, and 93.6% for FC. Excess overlap among IBS, FC, and FD was a major contributor to reduced diagnostic sensitivity, and when overlap of IBS with FC was permitted, sensitivity for FC diagnosis increased to 73.2%. All questions were understandable to at least 90% of individuals, and Rome IV diagnoses were reproducible in three-fourths of patients after 1 month. Validation of the pediatric questionnaires is ongoing.

Chest pain is a common and frightening symptom. Once cardiac disease has been excluded, an esophageal source is most likely. Pathophysiologically, gastroesophageal reflux disease, esophageal dysmotility, esophageal hypersensitivity, and anxiety disorders have been implicated. However, treatment remains a challenge. Here we examined the efficacy and safety of various commonly used modalities for treatment of esophageal (noncardiac) chest pain (ECP) and provided evidence-based recommendations.We reviewed the English language literature for drug trials evaluating treatment of ECP in PubMed, Cochrane, and MEDLINE databases from 1968-2012. Standard forms were used to abstract data regarding study design, duration, outcome measures and adverse events, and study quality.Thirty-five studies comprising various treatments were included and grouped under 5 broad categories. Patient inclusion criteria were extremely variable, and studies were generally small with methodological concerns. There was good evidence to support the use of omeprazole and fair evidence for lansoprazole, rabeprazole, theophylline, sertraline, trazodone, venlafaxine, imipramine, and cognitive behavioral therapy. There was poor evidence for nifedipine, diltiazem, paroxetine, biofeedback therapy, ranitidine, nitrates, botulinum toxin, esophageal myotomy, and hypnotherapy.Ideally, treatment of ECP should be aimed at correcting the underlying mechanism(s) and relieving symptoms. Proton pump inhibitors, antidepressants, theophylline, and cognitive behavioral therapy appear to be useful for the treatment of ECP. However, there is urgent and unmet need for effective treatments and for rigorous, randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) have abdominal symptoms that vary in severity. Linaclotide, a guanylate cyclase-C agonist, improves abdominal and bowel symptoms in these patients. We examined the prevalence of severe abdominal symptoms in patients with IBS-C and assessed the effects of linaclotide on abdominal symptoms, global measures, and quality of life (QOL). METHODS: In two phase 3 trials, patients who met modified Rome II criteria for IBS-C were randomly assigned to groups given oral, once-daily linaclotide (290 mg) or placebo for 12 weeks. During the baseline (2 weeks prior to treatment) and treatment periods, patients rated abdominal pain, discomfort, bloating, fullness, and cramping daily (from 0 [ none to 10 [ very severe). Linaclotide’s effects on abdominal symptoms, global measures, and IBS-related QOL were assessed in subpopulations of patients who rated specific individual abdominal symptoms as severe (‡7.0) at baseline. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population (1602 patients; 797 receiving placebo and 805 receiving linaclotide), baseline prevalence values for severe abdominal symptoms were 44% for bloating, 44% for fullness, 32% for discomfort, 23% for pain, and 22% for cramping, with considerable overlap among symptoms. In patients with severe symptoms, linaclotide reduced all abdominal symptoms; mean changes from baseline severity scores ranged from –2.7 to –3.4 for linaclotide vs –1.4 to –1.9 for placebo (P < .0001). Linaclotide improved global measures (P < .0001) and IBS-QOL scores (P < .01) compared with placebo. Diarrhea was the most common adverse event of linaclotide in patients with severe abdominal symptoms (18.8%–21.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Of 5 severe abdominal symptoms assessed, bloating and fullness were most prevalent in patients with IBS-C. Linaclotide significantly improved all abdominal symptoms, global measures, and IBS-QOL in subpopulations of IBS-C patients with severe abdominal symptoms. Clinicaltrials.gov Numbers: NCT00938717, NCT00948818.

The U.S. elderly population (≥85 years old) is estimated to increase from 5 to 20 million people between the years 2000 to 2050. Among the medical disorders facing the elderly, anorectal problems are not only highly prevalent, but cause significant morbidity and mortality, and have deleterious effects on health care burden and quality of life. These include disorders such as fecal incontinence, fecal impaction with overflow fecal incontinence, chronic constipation, dyssynergic defecation, hemorrhoids, anal fissure, and pelvic floor disorders. Here, we discuss the latest advances in age-related changes in anal sphincter morphology and function, changes in cellular and molecular biology, alterations in neurotransmitters and reflexes, and their impact on functional changes of the anorectum in the elderly. These biophysiologic changes have implications for the pathophysiology of anorectal disorders. A clear understanding and working knowledge of the functional anatomy and pathophysiology will enable appropriate diagnosis and treatment of these disorders.

Background & Aims Dyssynergic defecation is a common cause of chronic constipation; its diagnosis requires anorectal physiological tests that are not widely available. It is not known whether digital rectal examination (DRE) can be used to identify dyssynergia. We examined the diagnostic yield of DRE in patients with dyssynergic defecation. Methods Consecutive patients with chronic constipation (Rome III criteria, n=209) underwent DREs, anorectal manometry analyses, balloon expulsion tests, and colonic transit studies. In the DRE, dyssynergia was identified by 2 or more of the following features: impaired perineal descent, paradoxic anal contraction, or impaired push effort; diagnostic yields were compared with physiological test results. Results Of the patients included in the study, 187 (87%) had dyssynergic defecation, based on standard criteria; 134 (73%) of these were identified to have features of dyssynergia, based on DREs. The sensitivity and specificity of DRE for identifying dyssynergia in patients with chronic constipation were 75% and 87%, respectively; the positive predictive value was 97%. DRE was able to identify normal resting and normal squeeze pressure in 86% and 82% of dyssynergic patients, respectively. Conclusions DRE appears to be a reliable tool for identifying dyssynergia in patients with chronic constipation and detecting normal, but not abnormal, sphincter tone. DREs could facilitate the selection of appropriate patients for further physiologic testing and treatment.

Chronic constipation is a common digestive problem in North America, with significant psychosocioeconomic implications. Dietary and lifestyle measures and low-cost traditional over-the-counter laxatives are usually the first line of therapy but help only half of the patients. Several newer agents that act by increasing colonic peristalsis, altering colonic secretion, and/or antagonizing enteric opioid receptors have been developed that are effective in treating constipation and its related symptoms as well as improving quality of life. This article focuses on the pharmacology of traditional and newer agents for the treatment of constipation.