Electrical properties of thin metal films

Imperial Users onl

Consensus guidelines for the identification and treatment of biofilms in chronic nonhealing wounds

Background: Despite a growing consensus that biofilms contribute to a delay in the healing of chronic wounds, conflicting evidence pertaining to their identification and management can lead to uncertainty regarding treatment. This, in part, has been driven by reliance on in vitro data or animal models, which may not directly correlate to clinical evidence on the importance of biofilms. Limited data presented in human studies have further contributed to the uncertainty. Guidelines for care of chronic wounds with a focus on biofilms are needed to help aid the identification and management of biofilms, providing a clinical focus to support clinicians in improving patient care through evidence-based medicine. Methods: A Global Wound Biofilm Expert Panel, comprising 10 clinicians and researchers with expertise in laboratory and clinical aspects of biofilms, was identified and convened. A modified Delphi process, based on published scientific data and expert opinion, was used to develop consensus statements that could help identify and treat biofilms as part of the management of chronic nonhealing wounds. Using an electronic survey, panel members rated their agreement with statements about biofilm identification and treatment, and the management of chronic nonhealing wounds. Final consensus statements were agreed on in a face-to-face meeting. Results: Participants reached consensus on 61 statements in the following topic areas: understanding biofilms and the problems they cause clinicians; current diagnostic options; clinical indicators of biofilms; future options for diagnostic tests; treatment strategies; mechanical debridement; topical antiseptics; screening antibiofilm agents; and levels of evidence when choosing antibiofilm treatments. Conclusion: This consensus document attempts to clarify misunderstandings about the role of biofilms in clinical practice, and provides a basis for clinicians to recognize biofilms in chronic nonhealing wounds and manage patients optimally. A new paradigm for wound care, based on a stepped-down treatment approach, was derived from the consensus statements

ESPEN Guideline: Clinical Nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease

Introduction: The ESPEN guideline presents a multidisciplinary focus on clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Methodology: The guideline is based on extensive systematic review of the literature, but relies on expert opinion when objective data were lacking or inconclusive. The conclusions and 64 recommendations have been subject to full peer review and a Delphi process in which uniformly positive responses (agree or strongly agree) were required. Results: IBD is increasingly common and potential dietary factors in its aetiology are briefly reviewed. Malnutrition is highly prevalent in IBD – especially in Crohn's disease. Increased energy and protein requirements are observed in some patients. The management of malnu-trition in IBD is considered within the general context of support for malnourished patients. Treatment of iron deficiency (parenterally if necessary) is strongly recommended. Routine provision of a special diet in IBD is not however supported. Parenteral nutrition is indicated only when enteral nutrition has failed or is impossible. The recommended perioperative man-agement of patients with IBD undergoing surgery accords with general ESPEN guidance for patients having abdominal surgery. Probiotics may be helpful in UC but not Crohn's disease. Primary therapy using nutrition to treat IBD is not supported in ulcerative colitis, but is mod-erately well supported in Crohn's disease, especially in children where the adverse conse-quences of steroid therapy are proportionally greater. However, exclusion diets are generally not recommended and there is little evidence to support any particular formula feed when nutritional regimens are constructed. Conclusions: Available objective data to guide nutritional support and primary nutritional therapy in IBD are presented as 64 recommendations, of which 9 are very strong recom-mendations (grade A), 22 are strong recommendations (grade B) and 12 are based only on sparse evidence (grade 0); 21 recommendations are good practice points (GPP)

Alcohol and the Intestine

Alcohol abuse is a significant contributor to the global burden of disease and can lead to tissue damage and organ dysfunction in a subset of alcoholics. However, a subset of alcoholics without any of these predisposing factors can develop alcohol-mediated organ injury. The gastrointestinal tract (GI) could be an important source of inflammation in alcohol-mediated organ damage. The purpose of review was to evaluate mechanisms of alcohol-induced endotoxemia (including dysbiosis and gut leakiness), and highlight the predisposing factors for alcohol-induced dysbiosis and gut leakiness to endotoxins. Barriers, including immunologic, physical, and biochemical can regulate the passage of toxins into the portal and systemic circulation. In addition, a host of environmental interactions including those influenced by circadian rhythms can impact alcohol-induced organ pathology. There appears to be a role for therapeutic measures to mitigate alcohol-induced organ damage by normalizing intestinal dysbiosis and/or improving intestinal barrier integrity. Ultimately, the inflammatory process that drives progression into organ damage from alcohol appears to be multifactorial. Understanding the role of the intestine in the pathogenesis of alcoholic liver disease can pose further avenues for pathogenic and treatment approaches

Polyethylene Glycol-3350 (Miralax®)+1.9-L sports drink (Gatorade®)+2 tablets of bisacodyl results in inferior bowel preparation for colonoscopy compared with Polyethylene Glycol-Ascorbic Acid (MoviPrep®)

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Polyethylene glycol (PEG)-3350, approved by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) only for constipation, combined with 1.9 L of sports drink (SD) (GatoradeR) and bisacodyl (B) is commonly used in outpatient practice for bowel preparation due to cited patient satisfaction and tolerability of this specific regimen. We aim to compare PEG-3350 (MiralaxR) with PEG-AA-based (MoviPrepR) in terms of efficacy, patient satisfaction, and the effects of these two regimen on serum electrolytes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is a prospective, single-blinded, block randomized trial comparing single-dose PEG-3350+SD+B to split-dose 2-L PEG-AA in the outpatient endoscopy unit in patients undergoing colonoscopy. Basic metabolic profiles were checked on the day of randomization and on the day of procedure. Patients completed a survey on the day of procedure. Bowel preparation quality was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) by two endoscopists and a nurse present during the procedure. RESULTS: We randomized 150 patients (74 PEG-3350+SD+B and 76 PEG-AA). The PEG-AA group had significantly higher BBPS scores in the right colon by Endoscopist 1, Nurse, and Endoscopist 2 (p 0.005, CONCLUSION: Use of single-dose PEG-3350+SD+B results in inferior bowel preparation for colonoscopy compared with split-dose PEGAA and does not provide any advantage in regards to patient satisfaction. We therefore recommend discontinuing the use of PEG 3350 for bowel preparation