Young Shim Cho

Efficacy of cap-assisted endoscopy for routine examining the ampulla of Vater

AIM To determine the efficacy of a cap-assisted endoscopy (CAE) to completely visualize the ampulla of Vater (AV) in patients failed by conventional endoscopy. METHODS A prospective study was conducted on 120 patients > 20 years of ages who visited the Health Promotion Center of Chungbuk National University Hospital for conscious sedation esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) as a screening test from July to October, 2011. First, forward-viewing endoscopy was performed with reasonable effort using a push and pull method. We considered complete visualization of the AV when we could observe the entire AV including the orifice clearly, and reported the observation as complete or incomplete (partial or not found at all). Second, in cases of complete failure of the observation, an additional AV examination was conducted by attaching a short cap (D-201-10704, Olympus Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan) to the tip of a forward-viewing endoscope. Third, if the second method failed, we replaced the short cap with a long cap (MH-593, Olympus Medical Systems) and performed a re-examination of the AV. RESULTS Conventional endoscopy achieved complete visualization of the AV in 97 of the 120 patients (80.8%) but was not achieved in 23 patients (19.2%). Age (mean ± SD) and gender [male (%)] were not significantly different between the complete observation and the incomplete observation groups. Additional short CAE was performed in patients in whom we could not completely visualize the AV. This group included 13 patients (10.9%) with partial observation of the AV and 10 (8.3%) in which the AV was not found. Short CAE permitted a complete observation of the AV in 21 of the 23 patients (91.3%). Patients in whom visualization of the AV failed with short CAE had satisfactory outcomes by replacing the short cap with a long cap. The additional time for CAE took an average of 141 ± 88 s. There were no complications and no significant mucosal trauma. CONCLUSION CAE is safe to use as a salvage method to achieve complete visualization of the AV when a regular EGD examination fails.

Inhibition of STAT3 phosphorylation by sulforaphane reduces adhesion molecule expression in vascular endothelial cell

Intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) and vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1) play key roles in the initiation of vascular inflammation. In this study, we explored whether sulforaphane, a dietary phytochemical, can inhibit the expression of ICAM-1 and VCAM-1 in human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC) stimulated with lipopolysaccharide (LPS), and the mechanisms involved. Sulforaphane prevented the LPS-mediated increase in ICAM-1 and VCAM-1 expression, (P < 0.01) in HUVEC. Sulforaphane also prevented the LPS-mediated increase in the phosphorylation of signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) (P < 0.01). Stattic, a STAT3 inhibitor, reduced the LPS-induced expression of ICAM-1 and VCAM-1, and STAT3 phosphorylation (P < 0.01). STAT3 small interfering RNA treatment reduced the LPS-induced expression of ICAM-1, VCAM-1, and STAT3 (P < 0.01). Sulforaphane reduced LPS-mediated THP-1 monocyte adhesion to HUVEC (P < 0.01). In C57BL/6 mice, injection of LPS increased aortic ICAM-1 and VCAM-1 expression, and this effect was prevented by sulforaphane. These data provide insight into the mechanism through which sulforaphane partly reduces the expression of ICAM-1 and VCAM-1 on the vascular wall by inhibiting STAT3 phosphorylation.

Comparison of Midazolam Alone versus Midazolam Plus Propofol during Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Background/Aims For proper sedation during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), propofol has been widely used. This study aimed to compare the levels of sedation and tolerance of patients treated with midazolam (M group) and a combination of midazolam and propofol (MP group) during ESD. Methods A total of 44 consecutive patients undergoing ESD were randomly assigned to the two groups. In the M group, 2 mg of midazolam was given repeatedly to maintain after a loading dose of 5 mg. The MP group initially received 5 mg of midazolam and 20 mg of propofol. Then, we increased the dosage of propofol by 20 mg gradually. Results The average amount of midazolam was 12 mg in the M group. In the M group, 10 patients were given propofol additionally, since they failed to achieve proper sedation. The average amount of propofol was 181 mg in the MP group. Procedure time, vital signs and rates of complications were not significantly different between two groups. Movement of patients and discomfort were lower in the MP group. Conclusions During ESD, treatment with propofol and a low dose of midazolam for sedation provides greater satisfaction for endoscopists compared to midazolam alone.