Faculty Bibliography

We report a case of hypocomplementemic urticarial vasculitis and recurrent angioedema in a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus unresponsive to mycophenolate mofetil, high-dose methylprednisolone, and intravenous immunoglobulin that responded rapidly to rituximab. Rituximab is a monoclonal antibody against CD20 transmembrane protein on the surface of mature and malignant B cells. No adverse effects occurred during or after therapy, and the patient was discharged from the hospital for outpatient rituximab infusion and follow-up care.

BACKGROUND: ERCP sometimes requires deep sedation and rarely general anesthesia with airway protection. The laryngeal mask airway device is placed perorally to create a seal over the larynx. Unlike endotracheal intubation, no tube traverses the vocal cords, thus reducing airway stimulation and obviating the need to administer muscle relaxants. The feasibility of using the laryngeal mask airway during ERCP was evaluated and recovery times compared for patients undergoing ERCP with the laryngeal mask airway versus endotracheal intubation. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, anesthesia records were reviewed for anesthesiologist-assisted ERCP procedures performed during a 30-month period. Demographics, procedure duration, and time from endoscope removal to extubation were abstracted. Either propofol or inhalation agents were used for anesthesia in all patients. OBSERVATIONS: Anesthesiologists administered sedation for 41 ERCPs. The airway was managed in 12 patients with endotracheal intubation and the laryngeal mask airway in 20 patients. Six patients underwent laryngeal mask airway insertion and removal while prone. A therapeutic duodenoscope was passed beyond the laryngeal mask airway with little or no resistance in all cases. Repositioning the laryngeal mask airway during the procedure was required in 1 case. Laryngeal mask airway use was associated with shorter extubation time compared with endotracheal intubation (7.2 vs. 12 min.; p = 0.004). There were no airway complications. CONCLUSION: ERCP can be performed while using the laryngeal mask airway for airway protection. The laryngeal mask airway can be placed with the patient prone, obviating the need to change position. Laryngeal mask airway shortens extubation time compared with endotracheal intubation.

Chronic HIV-associated diarrhea is currently a field in flux. Improved noninvasive diagnostic tests, improved pathogen-specific regimens, and better empiric therapies may change some of the assumptions used to select algorithms for diagnostic evaluation and management. Any shift in the cause of diarrhea from pathogen-associated to idiopathic or a reduction in the overall incidence of diarrhea would have considerable impact. It is unclear how significant the problem of pathogen relapse in previous responders will become. Existing studies reviewed in this article show that the high diagnostic yield of endoscopy when stool tests are negative, coupled with significantly better outcomes when pathogens are identified, support the current practice of routine endoscopic evaluation. There currently are scant data on the economic impact of HIV-associated diarrhea as it relates to pathogen-specific and empiric therapy in the era of protease inhibitors. Such data would be integral to future evaluation of the impact of diagnostic and therapeutic strategies

BACKGROUND: Droperidol has been used in combination with narcotics and benzodiazepines to achieve conscious sedation. We performed a randomized, double-blind, study of droperidol in patients at risk for difficult sedation scheduled for therapeutic endoscopy. METHODS: Patients with regular ethanol, narcotic, or benzodiazepine usage, suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, or a history of difficult sedation were eligible for the study. Patients were randomized to receive either droperidol or placebo along with midazolam and meperidine as preprocedure sedation. Time to achieve sedation, interruptions due to undersedation, medication dosages, recovery time, and subjective assessments of sedation were recorded. RESULTS: One hundred one patients were randomized. The droperidol group had significantly fewer procedure interruptions and observer ratings of difficulty with sedation and required significantly less midazolam (23%) and meperidine (16%) than the placebo group. There were no significant differences in time to achieve sedation, incomplete procedures, procedure length, recovery room time, or complications. There were significantly higher observer ratings of the quality of sedation for patients who received droperidol. CONCLUSIONS: Droperidol is a useful adjunct to conscious sedation in patients who are difficult to sedate. Its use results in significantly fewer interruptions due to poor sedation and improved sedation ratings compared with sedation using midazolam and meperidine alone.

OBJECTIVE: The effect of protease inhibitors on the outcome of chronic HIV-related diarrhea is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the response to treatment of chronic HIV-related diarrhea, recurrence of diarrhea, and survival in a large cohort of individuals taking protease inhibitors to the outcome in similar patients not receiving protease inhibitors. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of all patients referred between October 1993 and October 1996 at Bellevue Hospital for endoscopic evaluation of chronic HIV-related diarrhea after negative stool examination. Only patients presenting after December 1995 received protease inhibitor therapy. Follow-up data were obtained from chart review and direct telephone contact. The success of antidiarrheal therapy was compared between protease inhibitor and nonprotease inhibitor groups for patients receiving pathogen-specific therapy and for those with no pathogens found on endoscopy. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-two of 307 patients evaluated for chronic diarrhea were followed for a mean of 69.9+/-34.1 weeks. Patients receiving protease inhibitors had a significantly higher rate of successful response to antidiarrheal therapy (62.0% vs 33.5%, p < 0.001). Protease inhibitors were associated with a significant decrease in stool frequency (4.8+/-4.5 vs 3.4+/-4.6 bowel movements per day, p = 0.01), an increase in weight (2.4+/-5.9 vs -1.6+/-6.2 kg, p < 0.001), a decrease in recurrence of diarrhea (34.8% vs 15.3%, p = 0.02), and a longer mean survival (148 vs 118 weeks, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Protease inhibitors significantly improve the outcome of antidiarrheal therapy and survival in patients with chronic HIV-associated diarrhea