Effects of nizatidine on gastric acid and bicarbonate secretion

The effects of nizatidine on human gastric parietal secretion (volume and acid output) and nonparietal secretion (volume and bicarbonate concentration and secretion) were evaluated in 18 patients with duodenal ulcer. Nizatidine reduced the volume of pentagastrin-stimulated gastric secretion and gastric acid secretion. Nizatidine also decreased the volume of nonparietal secretion and bicarbonate secretion, although bicarbonate concentration remained unchanged. © 1993 Excerpta Medica, Inc. All rights reserved

Epidemiology, clinical features and diagnostic work-up of cystic neoplasms of the pancreas: Interim analysis of the prospective PANCY survey

INTRODUCTION: A prospective survey to evaluate the diagnostic workup of cystic pancreatic neoplasms (CPNs) according to the Italian guidelines. METHODS: An online data sheet was built. RESULTS: Fifteen of the 1385 patients (1.1%) had non cystic neoplastic lesions. Forty percent (518/1295) had at least one 1st degree relative affected by a solid tumor of the digestive and extra-digestive organs. Symptoms/signs associated with the cystic lesion were present in 24.5% of the patients. The cysts were localized in the head of the pancreas in 38.5% of patients. Of the 2370 examinations (1.7 examinations per patient) which were carried out for the diagnosis, magnetic resonance imaging was performed as a single test in 48.4% of patients and in combination with endoscopic ultrasound in 27% of the cases. Of the 1370 patients having CPNs, 89.9% had an intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) (70.1% a branch duct IPMN, 6.2% a mixed type IPMN and 4.6% a main duct IPMN), 12.7% had a serous cystadenoma, 2.8% a mucinous cystadenoma, 1.5% a non-functioning cystic neuroendocrine neoplasm, 0.7% a solid-pseudopapillary cystic neoplasm, 0.3% a cystic adenocarcinoma, and 1.2% an undetermined cystic neoplasm. Seventy-eight (5.7%) patients were operated upon after the initial work-up. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study offers a reliable real-life picture of the diagnostic work-up CPN

Distinguishing features between patients with acute diverticulitis and diverticular bleeding: Results from the REMAD registry

Background: Pathogenesis of acute diverticulitis and diverticular bleeding remains poorly defined, and few data compare directly risk factors for these complications. Aims: to assess differences in clinical features, lifestyles factors and concurrent drug use in patients with acute diverticulitis and those with diverticular bleeding. Methods: Data were obtained from the REMAD Registry, an ongoing 5-year prospective, observational, multicenter, cohort study conducted on 1,217 patients. Patient- and clinical- related factors were compared among patients with uncomplicated diverticular disease, patients with previous acute diverticulitis, and patients with previous diverticular bleeding. Results: Age was significantly lower (OR 0.48, 95% CI: 0.34-0.67) and family history of diverticular disease was significantly higher (OR 1.60, 95% CI: 1.11-2.31) in patients with previous diverticulitis than in patients with uncomplicated diverticular disease, respectively. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was significantly higher in patients with previous diverticular bleeding as compared with both uncomplicated diverticular disease (OR 8.37, 95% CI: 2.60-27.0) and diverticulitis (OR 4.23, 95% CI: 1.11-16.1). Conclusion: This ancillary study from a nationwide Registry showed that some distinctive features identify patients with acute diverticulitis and diverticular bleeding. These information might improve the assessment of risk factors for diverticular complications

The "DICA" endoscopic classification for diverticular disease of the colon shows a significant interobserver agreement among community endoscopists

BACKGROUND AND AIM: An endoscopic classification of Diverticular Disease (DD), called DICA (Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment) is currently available. It scores severity of the disease as DICA 1, DICA 2 and DICA 3. Our aim was to assess the agreement levels for this classification among an endoscopist community setting. METHODS: A total of 66 endoscopists independently scored a set of DD endoscopic videos. The percentages of overall agreement on the DICA score and a free-marginal multirater kappa (κ) coefficient were reported as statistical measures of the inter-rater agreement. RESULTS: The overall agreement levels were: 70.2% for DICA 1, 70.5% for DICA 2, 81.3% for DICA 3. The free marginal κ was: 0.553 for DICA 1, 0.558 for DICA 2, 0.719 for DICA 3. The agreement levels among the expert group were: 78.8% for DICA 1, 80.2% for DICA 2, 88.5% for DICA 3. The free marginal κ among the expert group were: 0.682 for DICA 1, 0.712 for DICA 2, 0.828 for DICA 3. The agreement of expert raters on the single item of the DICA classification was superior to the agreement of the overall group. CONCLUSIONS: The overall inter-rater agreement for DICA score in this study ranges from moderate to good, with a significant improvement in the expert subgroup of raters. Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment is a simple and reproducible endoscopic scoring system

The “dica” endoscopic classification for diverticular disease of the colon shows a significant interobserver agreement among community endoscopists

BACKGROUND AND AIM: An endoscopic classification of Diverticular Disease (DD), called DICA (Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment) is currently available. It scores severity of the disease as DICA 1, DICA 2 and DICA 3. Our aim was to assess the agreement levels for this classification among an endoscopist community setting. METHODS: A total of 66 endoscopists independently scored a set of DD endoscopic videos. The percentages of overall agreement on the DICA score and a free-marginal multirater kappa (κ) coefficient were reported as statistical measures of the inter-rater agreement. RESULTS: The overall agreement levels were: 70.2% for DICA 1, 70.5% for DICA 2, 81.3% for DICA 3. The free marginal κ was: 0.553 for DICA 1, 0.558 for DICA 2, 0.719 for DICA 3. The agreement levels among the expert group were: 78.8% for DICA 1, 80.2% for DICA 2, 88.5% for DICA 3. The free marginal κ among the expert group were: 0.682 for DICA 1, 0.712 for DICA 2, 0.828 for DICA 3. The agreement of expert raters on the single item of the DICA classification was superior to the agreement of the overall group. CONCLUSIONS: The overall inter-rater agreement for DICA score in this study ranges from moderate to good, with a significant improvement in the expert subgroup of raters. Diverticular Inflammation and Complication Assessment is a simple and reproducible endoscopic scoring system