The Role of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy in Pneumatosis Cystoides Intestinalis—A Scoping Review

Pneumatosis cystoides intestinalis (PCI) is characterized by gas-filled cysts within gastrointestinal tract wall from esophagus to rectum, with preferential involvement of large and small intestine. PCI is rare with an estimated incidence of 0.03 to 0-2% in general population. PCI can be distinguished into idiopathic (15%) or secondary (85%) and the clinical picture ranges from completely asymptomatic to life-threatening intraabdominal complications. Although etiology of PCI appears to be multifactorial, the exact pathophysiology is poorly understood and two main theories have been proposed (mechanical and bacterial). Over the last decades, an enormous therapeutic armamentarium was considered in PCI's management, including hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT). Treatment comprises conservative treatment in mild cases to surgery in highly symptomatic and complicated PCI. In the late 70s, HBOT started to be used in selected cases of PCI not responding to conservative measures. Since then, several case reports, case series, and reviews have been published in the literature with variable outcomes. The overall response rate and complete response were 92.1% (n = 82/89) and 65.2% (n = 58/89), respectively, with a median follow-up of 7 months. Furthermore, HBOT is extremely safe, with few reported complications in the literature when used for PCI. Nevertheless, a randomized, controlled, and double-blind clinical trial is unlikely to occur given the rarity of PCI, logistical issues of HBOT, and methodological considerations related to adequate blinding with a sham-controlled group. HBOT in combination with personalized diet and antibiotics may be beneficial for moderate to severe PCI in patients with no indication for emergency exploratory laparotomy. The purpose of this article is to synthesize the existing data, analyse results of previous studies, identify gaps in knowledge, and discuss PCI' management, including the proposal of an algorithm, with a special focus on HBOT.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

A Rash Decision. The Hazards of the Wrongful Use of Adrenaline

Anaphylaxis is life-threatening and should be addressed urgently. Its treatment is not without side effects and an accurate diagnosis must be made to prevent potential harm by the wrongful use of medication. A 46-year-old woman with hypertension treated with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) presented to the emergency department with non-pitting oedema of the face and limbs. A hasty diagnosis of anaphylaxis was made and intravenous adrenaline administered. The patient developed a myocardial infarction caused by coronary artery spasm that required invasive intervention. The initial clinical picture was resolved when the ACEI was discontinued unmasking a case of ACEI-induced angioedema. The correct differentiation of these two apparently similar clinical entities is of utmost importance in the management of emergency department patients.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline