PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

David J Bjorkman

Publications and source records attributed to David J Bjorkman.

8 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2004

Urgent vs. elective endoscopy for acute non-variceal upper-GI bleeding: an effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND: Urgent endoscopy in patients with acute upper-GI bleeding identifies many patients who may be safely treated without hospitalization. The aim of this multicenter trial was to determine whether urgent endoscopy effectively decreases health care resource utilization in a real-life setting where primary care providers determine the course of care. METHODS: Ninety-three outpatients with acute upper-GI bleeding were randomized to either urgent endoscopy (before hospitalization) or elective endoscopy after admission. The results of urgent endoscopy and a recommendation regarding patient disposition were provided to the attending physician. Medical outcomes and resource utilization were measured. RESULTS: The timing of endoscopy did not affect resource utilization or patient outcomes. Length of stay was similar (urgent endoscopy, OR 3.98 days: 95% CI[2.84, 5.11] vs. elective endoscopy, OR 3.26 days: 95% CI[2.32, 4.21], p=0.45). The mean number of days in an intensive care unit was the same (1.2 days). The urgent endoscopy group had more high-risk endoscopic lesions (15 vs. 9; p=0.031). Outpatient care was recommended for 19 patients (40%). Only 4 patients were discharged. CONCLUSIONS: Urgent endoscopy did not reduce hospitalization or resource utilization because the results of early endoscopy did not impact the decision by attending physicians regarding admission. For early (triage) endoscopy to impact resource utilization, the results of endoscopy must change subsequent patient care.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2004

Endoscopic balloon dilation compared with sphincterotomy for extraction of bile duct stones.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is commonly performed to remove bile duct stones. The aim of this study was to determine short-term outcomes of endoscopic balloon dilation of the sphincter of Oddi compared with sphincterotomy for stone extraction. METHODS: A randomized, controlled multicenter study of 117 patients assigned to dilation and 120 to sphincterotomy was performed in a spectrum of clinical and academic practices. RESULTS: Characteristics of the patients, procedures, and endoscopists were similar except that dilation patients were younger. Procedures were successful in 97.4% and 92.5% of the dilation and sphincterotomy patients, respectively. Overall morbidity occurred in 17.9% and 3.3% ( P < .001; difference, 14.6; 95% confidence interval, 7-22.3) and severe morbidity, including 2 deaths, in 6.8% and 0%( P < .004; difference, 6.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-11.4) for dilation and sphincterotomy, respectively. Complications for dilation and sphincterotomy, respectively, included: pancreatitis, 15.4% and .8% ( P < .001; difference, 14.6; 95% confidence interval, 7.8-21.3); cystic duct fistula, 1.7% and 0%; cholangitis, .9% and .8%; perforation, 0% and .8%; and cholecystitis, 0% and .8%. There were 2 deaths (1.7%) due to pancreatitis following dilation and none with sphincterotomy. The study was terminated at the first interim analysis. Dilation patients required significantly more invasive procedures, longer hospital stays, and longer time off from normal activities. CONCLUSIONS: In a broad spectrum of patients and practices, endoscopic balloon dilation compared with sphincterotomy for biliary stone extraction is associated with increased short-term morbidity rates and death due to pancreatitis. Balloon dilation of the sphincter of Oddi for stone extraction should be avoided in routine practice.

Bile Ducts↗
PubMed2003

The efficacy of oral 5-ASAs in the treatment of active ulcerative colitis: a systematic review.

The authors set out to critically review the current data on the efficacy of oral 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) agents for active ulcerative colitis (UC). Thirty-one studies were identified; 19 met entry criteria. Three trials with mesalamine showed statistical significance versus placebo; those with olsalazine or balsalazide did not. No agent was statistically different from sulfasalazine. In 2 of 3 trials of balsalazide versus mesalamine, results for defined primary and secondary endpoints failed to demonstrate statistically significant differences. Studies suggest that mesalamine is superior to placebo for treating active UC. Five-ASA products appear to be as effective as sulfasalazine, but available data do not suggest a difference in efficacy between any of the 5-ASA preparations.

Administration, Oral↗