Publications

Kidney biopsy is essential for the diagnosis and management of lupus nephritis. The risk of bleeding complication, however, is not defined in the systemic lupus erythematosus population. A retrospective cohort study was conducted to determine predictors of major and minor complications among patients with systemic lupus erythematosus undergoing percutaneous ultrasound-guided kidney biopsy. Major complications included bleeding necessitating intervention, hypotension requiring vasopressors or higher level of care or death. Minor complications included moderate or large (≥ 4 cm in largest diameter) perinephric hematoma, gross hematuria or voiding difficulties. All patients were observed for at least 23 h post-procedure. The overall incidence of bleeding was 10.5% (2.7% major, 7.8% minor). Adjusted logistic regression showed that for every 10,000 cells/mm(3) decrease in platelet count, risk for major and any complication increased by 27% (odds ratio 1.27; 95% confidence intervals 1.06-1.51; p = 0.01) and 8% (odds ratio 1.08; 95% confidence intervals 1.02-1.15; p = 0.01), respectively. Patients with a platelet count <150,000 cells/mm(3) were 30 times more likely to experience a major complication (p = 0.002). Other candidate predictors, including steroid exposure, kidney function, hematocrit and histopathology, were not significant. Kidney biopsies are well tolerated in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. However, patients with pre-biopsy platelet counts <150,000 cells/mm(3) are at markedly increased risk for a major bleeding complication.

BACKGROUND

Unsedated colonoscopy has potential benefits, including decreased costs and decreased risks.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether patient comfort during unsedated colonoscopy can be improved through the use of a magnetic endoscopic imaging (MEI) colonoscope compared with a standard colonoscope.

DESIGN

Prospective, patient-blinded, randomized, controlled trial.

SETTING

San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

PATIENTS

Veterans undergoing outpatient screening or surveillance colonoscopy.

INTERVENTIONS

Use of a standard or MEI colonoscope during unsedated colonoscopy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT

The primary outcome variable was patient perception of pain using a 7-point scale. The secondary endpoint was patient willingness to undergo a future unsedated colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Of the 160 patients enrolled, 140 completed an unsedated colonoscopy in the study protocol. In a per-protocol analysis, the mean and median pain score was 3.12 (standard deviation 1.22) and 4 (interquartile range 2-4) for the standard colonoscope group and 3.06 (standard deviation 1.13) and 3 (interquartile range 2-4) for the MEI group, where 3 was mild pain (P = not significant). Overall, 80% of subjects were willing to undergo a future unsedated colonoscopy for screening or surveillance. In an intention-to-treat analysis, 80% of subjects (64/80) in the standard colonoscope arm and 79% in the MEI arm (63/80) were willing to undergo a future unsedated colonoscopy (P = not significant).

LIMITATIONS

Single-center study of mostly male veterans.

CONCLUSIONS

This patient-blinded, randomized, controlled trial did not demonstrate any difference in patient perception of pain or willingness to undergo unsedated examinations when using the MEI versus the conventional colonoscope. Unsedated colonoscopy is generally feasible and well tolerated and is associated with high patient satisfaction rates.