【摘要】 目的 探讨胰腺癌早期诊断的要点及误诊因素。 方法 回顾性分析2009年7月8日收治的1例以腹胀、呕吐为主要表现的胰腺癌患者。 结果 患者经及时剖腹探查确诊为胰腺癌并行手术切除。 结论 胰腺癌起病隐匿，其早期误诊率高，进行胰腺癌的早期诊断、避免误诊是提高预后的重点和难点。【Abstract】 Objective To explore the main points of early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and its misdiagnosis factors. Methods The clinical data of one patient with pancreatic cancer on the 8th July, 2009 was retrospectively analyzed. The chief complaints included abdominal distension and vomiting. Results By exploratory surgery in time,the patient was diagnosed as pancreatic cancer and underwent the resection. Conclusion The onset of pancreatic cancer is very insidious,usually with a high misdiagnosis rate. How to make the right early diagnosis and to avoid misdiagnosis are the focal points of improving the prognosis.
Objective To summarize the gastrointestinal manifestations and diagnostic and therapeutic experience of hereditary angioedema (HAE), enhancing early recognition of this rare disease. Methods The clinical data, genotype analysis results, treatment process, and follow-up data of HAE patients who visited the Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology of West China Hospital of Sichuan University between May 2023 and December 2024 due to abdominal pain were retrospectively collected and summarized for analysis. Results A total of 10 patients with abdominal HAE were included, including 2 males and 8 females. The age range of the patients was 30-71 years old, and 6 patients were found to have HAE through family screening. Most patients first developed the disease during adolescence or youth, and there was a significant time interval between the onset and diagnosis, ranging from 3 to 42 years. Patients mainly presented with gastrointestinal symptoms, with the first symptoms usually being abdominal pain (the most common) and vomiting, accompanied by nausea and other symptoms. Five patients were hospitalized multiple times due to severe gastrointestinal symptoms, and all patients had significantly reduced levels of complement C4, with a C1-esterase inhibitor function of less than 7%. Three patients had a C1-esterase inhibitor concentration below the normal range. All patients were detected with SERPING1 gene mutations. During the follow-up period, 6 patients received preventive treatment. Conclusion Gastrointestinal symptoms are one of the important clinical manifestations of HAE and are often misdiagnosed as other gastrointestinal diseases.
As one of the crucial measures in the action plan for improving health services, day surgery is committed to efficiently integrating medical resources and improving the quality of medical services. Nowadays, public hospitals in China are vigorously promoting the day surgery cases. The normalization of day surgery is also one of the major goals for the Department of Gastroenterology to meet the current medical needs and explore sub-professional development in line with the discipline’s advantages. Taking the current status of day surgery in the Department of Gastroenterology of West China Hospital of Sichuan University as an example, this paper explores and constructs the “Huaxi Model of Day Surgery in the Department of Gastroenterology”, focusing on the management mode, operation process, operation implementation, quality and safety assurance of day surgery, so as to facilitate the exchange of experiences.
Coronary heart disease with gastrointestinal bleeding is common in clinical practice. The disease is dangerous and has a high mortality rate. This article will review the risk factors for coronary heart disease with gastrointestinal bleeding (including Helicobacter pylori infection, long-term use of antiplatelet drugs and combined anticoagulation drugs), blood transfusion strategies (including hemoglobin transfusion thresholds and platelet transfusion strategies), and the management of antithrombotic drugs after bleeding (including the management of antiplatelet drugs and the management of anticoagulation combined with antiplatelet drugs). The purpose is to provide a theoretical basis for the diagnosis and treatment of coronary heart disease with gastrointestinal bleeding.
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of pancreatic duct stenting in prevention of post-ERCP (endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography) pancreatitis for patients at high risk. Methods We searched the Controlled Trials Database of the Cochrane Upper Gastro-Intestinal and Pancreatic Disease Group (Issue 1, 2004), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (1966-2004, 4), EMBASE (1985-2004, 4), CBMdisk (1970-2004, 4), and the Chinese Cochrane Center Database of Clinical Trials; we handsearched 8 Chinese journals, and references of eligible studies were also screened for inclusion. Randomized controlled trials on pancreatic stent for preventing post-endoscopic restrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) were identified.The systematic review was conducted using methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. Results Six trials involving 468 high-risk patients for post-ERCP pancreatitis were included. The incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis was significantly reduced by pancreatic duct stenting (Peto RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.52; P＜0.000 01; NNT=6). The incidence of severe PEP was also significantly lower in pancreatic duct stenting group compared with the control group (Peto OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.47; P=0.002; NNT=24). The results were consistent with the sensitivity-analysis when abstracts were excluded. Conclusion Pancreatic duct stenting appears to be an effective method to prevent PEP. Due to the limitation of the included trials and their methodology, the results should be considered with caution. High quality and large-scale trials are required.
Objective To investigate the efficacy of dietary management based on the principles of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in bowel preparation for patients undergoing colonoscopy. Methods Patients undergoing colonoscopy procedures in the Department of Gastroenterology at West China Hospital, Sichuan University between December 2023 and December 2024 were randomly assigned to a control group and a trial group. The control group received conventional dietary management, comprising a self-prepared low-residue diet with fasting commencing at 22:00 on the preoperative evening. The trial group received dietary management based on the ERAS protocol, comprising pre-packaged low-residue meals on the day before surgery (lunch, dinner, and a 22:00 snack) plus 200 mL of clear liquids consumed 2 hours preoperatively. The Boston Scale and a subjective experience questionnaire (assessing preoperative and postoperative hunger, thirst, adverse reactions, etc.) were used to evaluate and compare bowel preparation quality and patient subjective experiences between the two groups. Results A total of 370 patients were included, comprising 194 in the control group and 176 in the trial group. Compared with the control group, the trial group showed no statistically significant difference in the Boston score for bowel preparation, the rate of adequate bowel preparation (78.41% vs. 71.65%), or the incidence of adverse reactions during bowel preparation or postoperatively (P>0.05). Patients in the trial group demonstrated higher subjective satisfaction with bowel cleansing (81.82% vs. 68.04%) and lower preoperative hunger [1.00 (0.00, 4.00) vs. 2.00 (0.00, 5.00)], with statistically significant differences (P<0.05). Conclusions Dietary management based on the ERAS concept does not increase the risk of bowel preparation failure or the incidence of adverse reactions during bowel preparation or postoperatively, compared with self-prepared low-residue diets. However, it reduces patients’ preoperative hunger and improves subjective satisfaction with bowel cleansing, making it worthy of promotion and application in clinical practice.
Objective To assess the effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the prevention of colorectal neoplasia. Methods A systematic review of all relevant randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials of NSAIDs for prevention of colorectal neoplasms was performed by using The Cochrane Collaboration recommended methods. Results Nine trials were included and assessed. There was sufficient evidence for aspirin to prevent the development of colorectal adenomas compared with placebo in three trials of high quality and large sample size with relative risk (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.91 and P=0.000 5 . No adequate evidence supported aspirin in the prevention of development of colorectal cancer (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.20, P= 0.79). However, there was no evidence to support sulindac and celecoxib curing or preventing colorectal adenomas or familial adenomatous polyposis (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.03, P= 0.07 and RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.07, P=0.23). No evidence on the dose of NSAIDs was used for prevention of colorectal adenomas at present. No significant difference was seen in the number of adverse events between patients taking NSAIDs and those taking placebo (P=0.9). Conclusions Aspirin may prevent the development of colorectal adenomas and may avoid polypectomy for 1 in every 10 to 18 persons but we don’t know whether aspirin can be substituted for endoscopically removed colorectal polyps. However, the true clinical benefit for prevention of colorectal neoplasia of NSAIDs should be considered.
Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of somatostatin and the analogue-octreotide in preventing post-ERCP pancreatitis. Methods We searched Cochrane Clinical Trial Register （Issue 1, April, 2004 ）, MEDLINE （1966- April, 2004）, EMBASE （1985- April, 2004）, CBM disc （1970- April, 2004） and The Clinical Trial Register of Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center and handsearched the related journals to identify Randomized Controlled Trials （RCT）of somatostatin and octreotide in post-endoscopic retrograde chnlangiopancreatography pancreatitis（PEP）prevention. Systematic review was conducted using the method recommended by The Cochrane Collaboration. Results Thirty-one trials involving 4 728 patients undergoing ERCP were included. Meta-analysis showed that the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis [ OR 0.33, 95% CI 0. 20 to 0. 54; P =0. 000 01 ; NNT =13] was significantly reduced by somatostatin. Octreotide could only reduce the incidence of hyperamylasemia [ OR 0. 54, 95% CI 0. 38 to 0. 77 ; P =0. 000 7 ]. The inci- dence of PEP, severe PEP and post-ERCP abdominal pain could not be reduced by octreotide. Conclusions Somatostatin can prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. Four trials are of high quality in the 12 included studies and the results are consistent with the sensitive-analysis, so it is credible to some extent. However, existing evidence does not support that octreotide can reduce the incidence of PEP, so it is not recommended for this indication. Sensitive-analysis even showed that octreotide could increase the incidence of PEP. Therefore, whether it is necessary to carry out further clinical trials should be considered with caution.
Objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of ulinastatin in the treatment of patients with acute pancreatitis. Methods A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCT) of ulinastatin for acute pancreatitis was performed. Trials were identified by searching The Cochrane Library (issue 3, 2004), MEDLINE, EMBASE (1984-2004) and Chinese Biological Medicine Database (1978-2004), handsearching, and personal contact with pharmaceutical companies. All RCTs comparing ulinastatin with other interventions were included. Two reviewers assessed the quality of each studiy, and extracted data independently. Statisticsal analysis was performed by using RevMan 4.2. Results Seventeen trials involving 1 199 patients were included. Most included trials were of poor quality. Only two trials reported death at the end of follow-up. Meta-analysis of 6 RCTs showed that the clinical effective rate of Ulinastatin plus basic treatment group was 93.12% (176/189), and was 73.33% in basic treatment group. A statistic significant difference was found between the two groups (Peto OR 4.29, 95%CI 2.49 to 7.37, P＜0.000 01). Compared with basic treatment group, Ulinastatin plus basic treatment group significantly reduced the mean hospitalization (WMD -4.93, 95%CI -7.76 to -2.09, P＜0.000 7). Meta-analysis of 2 RCTs showed that the clinical effective rate of Ulinastatin plus basic treatment group was 86.75% (131/151), and was 80.49% (99/123) in other drugs plus basic treatment group. No statistic significant difference was found between the two groups (Peto OR 1.46, 95%CI 1.76 to 2.80, P＜0.26). One trial found that comparing with control group (23.5±7.5 days), Ulinastatin group (34.0±6.4 days) significantly reduced the mean hospitalization (P＜0.05).The reported severe adverse events of ulinastatin appeared to be rare (7/488, 1.43%). Conclusion Ulinastatin appears to be a modality of safe and effective treatment with a favorable trend, but there is no enough evidence to support this conclusion at present as the published trials with poor quality. More trials with enough sample size and scientifically sound methodology are required.