The significance of transfusion in the past as a risk for current hepatitis B and Hepatitis C infection: a study in endoscopy patients

BACKGROUND: The objective was to determine the contribution of transfusion in the past to the risk of current infection with hepatitis B or C among patients attending a large hospital for endoscopic procedures.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Blood samples had been tested for hepatitis markers by routine methods. Patients completed a comprehensive risk factor questionnaire and results were analyzed using computer software.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven percent of the 2120 participants in the study received transfusions in the past. There was no increase in prevalence of hepatitis B among those transfused. Compared with nontransfused participants, recipients of blood before the implementation of hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening in 1990 had a 4.6-fold increased risk of HCV infection, whereas those transfused with screened blood had a 3-fold increased risk. The difference between the odds ratios for patients before and after screening was not significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Because screening has almost completely eliminated HCV from the blood supply, our finding of a continuing association of HCV infection with transfusion was unexpected. It implies that there are significant other nosocomial risks for hepatitis C transmission associated with the clinical situations where patients received blood. These should be actively investigated.

The current pattern of hepatitis B virus infectiion in Australia

Summary. There is little recent data of the seroprevalence of hepatitis B in Australia. We have surveyed a large cohort of endoscopy patients attending a teaching hospital in central Sydney, and related the presence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) markers with putative risk factors for exposure using the SAS statistical package. Of the 2115 patients tested: 2.1% (45/2115) were HBV surface antigen positive, 0.75% (14/2115) viraemic, 9.5% (200/2115) anti-HBs and anti-HBc positive, 20.1% (430/2115) vaccinated (anti-HBs only) and the remaining 70% were susceptible. The adjusted OR of HBV infection was significantly increased in patients who had been diagnosed with human immunodeficiency virus (36.3-fold), born in Asia or Pacific islands (12.4-fold), born in North Africa, Middle East & Mediterranean countries (6-fold) or born abroad elsewhere in the world (2.7-fold), had household contact with someone diagnosed with hepatitis between 1980 and 1990 (3.9-fold), injected drugs between 1980 and 1990 (4.4-fold), resided in a military establishment for 3 months (2.3-fold) or in a hospital for 3 months (2.2-fold), never been vaccinated for hepatitis B (2.8-fold), received blood transfusion due to an accident and/or a haemorrhage (1.92-fold) and finally been a male gender (1.59-fold). The prevalence of HBV in this hospital population was higher than predicted on the basis of notifications to the passive surveillance scheme. Most HBV patients had multiple risk factors for infection, but the hierarchy of odds ratios provides a rational basis for targeted programmes to identify asymptomatic HBV carriers who might benefit from treatment.

Midazolam for sedation before procedures

BACKGROUND: Midazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures. It is an imidazole benzodiazepine that has depressant effects on the central nervous system (CNS) with rapid onset of action and few adverse effects. The drug can be administered by several routes including oral, intravenous, intranasal and intramuscular. OBJECTIVES: To determine the evidence on the effectiveness of midazolam for sedation when administered before a procedure (diagnostic or therapeutic). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL to January 2016), MEDLINE in Ovid (1966 to January 2016) and Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials in which midazolam, administered to participants of any age, by any route, at any dose or any time before any procedure (apart from dental procedures), was compared with placebo or other medications including sedatives and analgesics. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. We performed a separate analysis for each different drug comparison. MAIN RESULTS: We included 30 trials (2319 participants) of midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy (16 trials), bronchoscopy (3), diagnostic imaging (5), cardioversion (1), minor plastic surgery (1), lumbar puncture (1), suturing (2) and Kirschner wire removal (1). Comparisons were: intravenous diazepam (14), placebo (5) etomidate (1) fentanyl (1), flunitrazepam (1) and propofol (1); oral chloral hydrate (4), diazepam (2), diazepam and clonidine (1); ketamine (1) and placebo (3); and intranasal placebo (2). There was a high risk of bias due to inadequate reporting about randomization (75% of trials). Effect estimates were imprecise due to small sample sizes. None of the trials reported on allergic or anaphylactoid reactions. Intravenous midazolam versus diazepam (14 trials; 1069 participants)There was no difference in anxiety (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.62; 175 participants; 2 trials) or discomfort/pain (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.49; 415 participants; 5 trials; I² = 67%). Midazolam produced greater anterograde amnesia (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.66; 587 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence). Intravenous midazolam versus placebo (5 trials; 493 participants)One trial reported that fewer participants who received midazolam were anxious (3/47 versus 15/35; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in discomfort/pain identified in a further trial (3/85 in midazolam group; 4/82 in placebo group; P = 0.876; very low-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate (4 trials; 268 participants)Midazolam increased the risk of incomplete procedures (RR 4.01; 95% CI 1.92 to 8.40; moderate-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus placebo (3 trials; 176 participants)Midazolam reduced pain (midazolam mean 2.56 (standard deviation (SD) 0.49); placebo mean 4.62 (SD 1.49); P < 0.005) and anxiety (midazolam mean 1.52 (SD 0.3); placebo mean 3.97 (SD 0.44); P < 0.0001) in one trial with 99 participants. Two other trials did not find a difference in numerical rating of anxiety (mean 1.7 (SD 2.4) for 20 participants randomized to midazolam; mean 2.6 (SD 2.9) for 22 participants randomized to placebo; P = 0.216; mean Spielberger's Trait Anxiety Inventory score 47.56 (SD 11.68) in the midazolam group; mean 52.78 (SD 9.61) in placebo group; P > 0.05). Intranasal midazolam versus placebo (2 trials; 149 participants)Midazolam induced sedation (midazolam mean 3.15 (SD 0.36); placebo mean 2.56 (SD 0.64); P < 0.001) and reduced the numerical rating of anxiety in one trial with 54 participants (midazolam mean 17.3 (SD 18.58); placebo mean 49.3 (SD 29.46); P < 0.001). There was no difference in meta-analysis of results from both trials for risk of incomplete procedures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.12; downgraded to low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no high-quality evidence to determine if midazolam, when administered as the sole sedative agent prior to a procedure, produces more or less effective sedation than placebo or other medications. There is low-quality evidence that intravenous midazolam reduced anxiety when compared with placebo. There is inconsistent evidence that oral midazolam decreased anxiety during procedures compared with placebo. Intranasal midazolam did not reduce the risk of incomplete procedures, although anxiolysis and sedation were observed. There is moderate-quality evidence suggesting that oral midazolam produces less effective sedation than chloral hydrate for completion of procedures for children undergoing non-invasive diagnostic procedures.

The experience of anxiety in colonoscopy outpatients: a mixed-method study.

Colonoscopy is commonly used to investigate gastrointestinal symptoms such as pain or changes in bowel habits and may either induce patient anxiety or assist in patient reassurance. Currently, 2 studies investigating negative colonoscopy, reassurance, and anxiety came to conflicting conclusions on this issue. Furthermore, it is possible that differences in coping styles may influence patient anxiety. A mixed-methods study was conducted with 26 precolonoscopy and 24 postcolonoscopy patients to address the conflicting, limited literature regarding colonoscopy, coping, and anxiety. Participants completed postal surveys and interviews were conducted with 16 participants. There was no significant difference between pre- and postcolonoscopy groups on any anxiety measures; however, this was possibly because of individual differences. Significant positive correlations were found between maladaptive coping and state anxiety indicating that healthcare professionals should consider screening for maladaptive coping in patients needing invasive procedures. Neither problem- nor emotion-focused coping showed any significant relationship with state anxiety. Interviews revealed that clinicians and endoscopy nurses should be aware that some patients are not absorbing correct information about colonoscopy, specifically that they may be conscious or experience pain during the procedure. Because of this, clinicians should ensure that patients understand standard practice at their hospital. In addition, interview data suggested that more attention should be given to pain management as it currently may not be adequate during conscious sedation.

Uncertain diagnostic language affects further studies, endoscopies, and repeat consultations for patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although guidelines state that functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) can be diagnosed with minimal investigation, consultations and investigations still have high costs. We investigated whether these are due to specific behaviors of specialist clinicians by examining differences in clinician approaches to organic gastrointestinal diseases vs FGIDs. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 207 outpatient department letters written from the gastroenterology unit at a tertiary hospital after patient consultations from 2008 through 2011. We collected data from diagnostic letters and case notes relating to patients with organic (n = 108) or functional GI disorders (n = 119). We analyzed the content of each letter by using content analysis and reviewed case files to determine which investigations were subsequently performed. Our primary outcome was the type of diagnostic language used and other aspects of the clinical approach. RESULTS: We found gastroenterologists to use 2 distinct types of language, clear vs qualified, which was consistent with their level of certainty (or lack thereof), for example, "the patient is diagnosed with…." vs "it is possible that this patient might have….". Qualified diagnostic language was used in a significantly higher proportion of letters about patients with FGIDs (63%) than organic gastrointestinal diseases (13%) (P < .001). In addition, a higher proportion of patients with FGIDs underwent endoscopic evaluation than patients with organic gastrointestinal diseases (79% vs 63%; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of diagnoses of patients with FGIDs vs organic disorders, we found that gastroenterologists used more qualified (uncertain) language in diagnosing patients with FGIDs. This may contribute to patient discard of diagnoses and lead to additional, unwarranted endoscopic investigations.