PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Giorgio Minoli

Publications and source records attributed to Giorgio Minoli.

8 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Experts' opinions on the role of liver biopsy in HCV infection: a Delphi survey by the Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists (A.I.G.O.).

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Liver biopsy represents the gold standard to establish a diagnosis in all liver patients, but its current position in chronic viral hepatitis is questioned. We aimed to create a consensus on best practice of use of liver biopsy in the management of chronic HCV infection. METHODS: We applied the Delphi method to 12 clinical scenarios of chronic HCV infection, to assess the extent of agreement (consensus measurement) and to resolve disagreement (consensus development) on the appropriateness of liver biopsy. RESULTS: Among 108 chosen hepatologists, 61 (56.5%) accepted to participate to the first-round survey. In four patients the majority of experts (from 61.4 to 86.2%) agreed not to perform liver biopsy; in two cases an equivalent opinion was found, and in the remaining six scenarios the majority of experts would have recommended a biopsy. No expert recommended liver biopsy in all cases, while most agreed for an histological evaluation of 4 to 8 cases. At the second round, 36 experts (59%) submitted ballots. Fifty-four out of 431 (12.6%) original judgments were changed with equal distribution among different scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey showed a great divergence of management of similar patients and should provide a stimulus for an evidence-based evaluation of liver histology in chronic HCV infection.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed2005

High-dose senna compared with conventional PEG-ES lavage as bowel preparation for elective colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, investigator-blinded trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and patient acceptance of an oral high dose of senna to conventional polyethylene glycol-electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ES) in adults undergoing elective colonoscopy. METHODS: Consecutive outpatients referred for elective colonoscopy were prospectively randomly assigned to receive, the day before the procedure, either 24 tablets of 12 mg senna, divided into two doses at 1 p.m. and 9 p.m. (senna group, n=191), or standard 4-L PEG-ES (PEG-ES group, n=92). The overall quality of colon cleansing (primary outcome measure) and cleansing in the right colon were evaluated using the Aronchick scoring scale (1=excellent to 4=inadequate) by the investigator/endoscopist who was blinded to the treatment assignment. Patient acceptance and the safety of the preparation were assessed by a nurse, using a structured questionnaire covering compliance with the dosing, overall tolerance of the preparation (1=none or mild discomfort to 4=severely distressing), and adverse events. RESULTS: The quality of colon cleansing, overall tolerance of the preparation, and compliance were significantly better with senna; overall cleansing was excellent or good in 90.6% of patients in the senna group and in 79.7% in the PEG-ES group (p= 0.003). The percentage of procedures rescheduled because of insufficient colon cleansing was 7.3% in the PEG-ES group and 2.6% in the senna group (p=0.035). Multivariate logistic regression modeling showed the PEG-ES preparation as negative independent predictor of unsuccessful bowel cleansing. The incidence of adverse reactions was similar in the two groups; patients who received senna experienced significantly less nausea and vomiting, but more abdominal pain. CONCLUSIONS: An oral high dose of senna is a valid alternative to standard PEG-ES for outpatient colonoscopy preparation.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2004

Extended/advanced monitoring techniques in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

The practice of sedation and analgesia is under increasing scrutiny by numerous regulatory agencies, with the aim of making these procedures safer and reducing the incidence of cardiopulmonary complications during GI endoscopy. As we move toward more evidence-based medicine, new technologies will have to be assessed in a manner that demonstrates their efficacy and utility in clinical practice. Although there have been no controlled studies examining whether more intensive monitoring during endoscopy improves outcomes, extended monitoring with capnography seems to offer an advantage over conventional monitoring in that, by providing a real-time indication of any change in adequate ventilation before oxygen desaturation occurs, it can detect early phases of respiratory depression, which can allow a more precise and safer titration of medications. There is a close agreement among experts that capnography may reduce the risk of adverse outcomes during deep sedation; therefore, its use should be required for patients undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures with the potential for deep sedation. Extended monitoring with capnography should also be endorsed whenever propofol is considered as an alternative to standard sedation with a benzodiazepine or narcotic. Our understanding of the clinical application of techniques for monitoring of depth of sedation is in its infancy, and its full contribution to the practice of endoscopy has yet to be determined. Their potential role in improving sedation practice during endoscopy needs to be confirmed by controlled trials. If we consider the lack of proven efficacy of these emerging monitoring techniques in reducing the adverse outcomes associated with sedation and analgesia, the importance of appropriate monitoring cannot be overemphasized. However, it is vital for the endoscopist to be thoroughly familiar with the type of sedation chosen, to be able to recognize the various levels of sedation, and, above all, to rescue patients should they unintentionally progress to a deeper level of sedation than intended.

Procedural Sedation↗
PubMed2004

Is esophageal pH monitoring used appropriately in an open-access system? A prospective multicenter study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the referral patterns and indications for esophageal pH monitoring in an open-access system and to determine whether these indications conform to practice guidelines of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). METHODS: A total of 851 consecutive patients referred for ambulatory pH monitoring to nine open-access gastrointestinal units over a 12-month period received a structured interview. The indication for the examination was decided by the physician performing the procedure, on the basis of the patient's clinical history and main complaint. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-three (38%) examinations were for indications in accordance with the guidelines. The proportion of appropriate requests in each center ranged from 34% to 47%. This figure was not significantly different in larger gastrointestinal units (more than 150 examinations per year) and smaller ones (35% and 40%; p= 0.14). The proportion of appropriate requests was 45% for gastroenterologists, 38% for surgeons, 32% for other specialists, and 24% for primary care physicians (PCPs) (p < 0.001). The percentage of appropriateness was significantly different between gastrointestinal specialists and PCPs (p < 0.001 vs gastroenterologists, p= 0.015 vs GI surgeons), and between gastroenterologists and other specialists (p= 0.006). The underuse of an empirical trial of acid-suppression therapy in patients with suspected reflux disease and the overuse of this test to confirm a diagnosis in patients with erosive esophagitis and in endoscopy-negative cases with typical symptoms responding completely to antisecretory therapy accounted for most of the referrals, which was not in accordance with the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: In an open-access system, a high proportion of esophageal pH studies are done for indications not consistent with published guidelines, particularly among the examinations not requested by gastrointestinal specialists. Further education is still needed on the appropriate use of esophageal pH monitoring and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

Single bolus of midazolam versus bolus midazolam plus meperidine for colonoscopy: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine whether a single bolus of meperidine in addition to midazolam improves patient tolerance during colonoscopy. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy were randomly assigned in double-blind fashion to receive a single rapid intravenous bolus of 5 mg of midazolam and placebo (Group A, n = 125) or 5 mg midazolam plus 50 mg meperidine (Group B, n = 128). Tolerance (4-point scale: 1 excellent, 4 unbearable), pain (4-point scale: 1 none, 4 severe) and willingness to undergo another colonoscopy were assessed 24 to 48 hours later in a telephone interview conducted by an independent observer blinded to the regimen of sedative medication. RESULTS: Significantly more patients in Group A reported moderate or severe pain (28% vs. 9%; p < 0.001), poor or unbearable tolerance (18% vs. 6%; p < 0.01) and unwillingness to undergo colonoscopy again in the future (14% vs. 5%; p < 0.05). By multivariate analysis, randomization to the midazolam group and younger age were the only variables independently associated with the risk of reporting at least one of these outcomes. Recovery time, frequency of oxygen desaturation, and need for supplemental oxygen were not significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a single bolus of meperidine to midazolam improves patient tolerance and lessens pain during colonoscopy without significantly increasing the frequency of side effects or prolonging recovery time.

Analgesics, Opioid↗