Introduction: This report describes a case of hyperactive delirium induced by tapenatadol whose symptoms were successfully managed with opioid-switching to oxycodon. Case: A 67-year-old female, who had been treated with chemotherapy for malignant thymoma, had to stop chemotherapy because of her carcinomatous pericarditis. Tapentadol 200 mg per day was administrated for her unbearable chest wall tumor invasion-related somatic pain. After a while, insomnia, visual hallucination, thought disturbance, and attention disturbance were appeared. We diagnosed as hyperactive delirium. Because her somatic pain was favorably controlled by tapentadol, we additionally administered quetiapine 50 mg per day instead of replacing tapentadol. Unfortunately, quetiapine was not effective for the delirium. We therefore switched opioids from tapentadol to oxycodon. The delirium was remitted soon after the switching without relapsing of the pain. Conclusion: Tapentadaol reportedly induce hyperactive delirium via its noradrenaline reuptake inhibitory action. This case suggests that switching tapenatadol to other opioid could be an effective option for opioid induced delirium.

PURPOSE: This retrospective cohort study was conducted to demonstrate how allocation of nurses specialized in HIV care influences clinical outcomes of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for people living with HIV (PLWH). METHODS: The medical records of 116 PLWH who started ART between January 2002 and December 2004 were analyzed. Occurrence of viral suppression and viral relapse after suppression achievement and their time from baseline were observed as clinical outcomes related to ART. Clinical outcomes were obtained from medical records between January 2002 and December 2006. PLWH were classified into two groups according to allocation (n = 95, nurse allocated group) or nonallocation (n = 21, nurse nonallocated group) of nurses specialized in HIV. RESULTS: Survival analysis showed that HIV viral load was suppressed more rapidly and continuously in nurse allocated group than nonallocated group (p < .0001). Viral relapse after suppression achievement occurred easily in nurse nonallocated group than allocated group (p = .003). CONCLUSIONS: The present findings demonstrated that the role of specialized nurses is critically important from the viewpoint of clinical outcome.
Achievement ; Antiretroviral Therapy, Highly Active ; Cohort Studies ; HIV ; HIV Infections ; Japan ; Medical Records ; Nursing Service, Hospital ; Recurrence ; Retrospective Studies ; Viral Load

Afferent loop syndrome is often difficult to resolve. Among patients with afferent loop syndrome whose data were extracted from databases, 5 patients in whom metal stent placement was attempted were included and evaluated in this study. The procedure was technically successful without any adverse events in all patients. Metal stent(s) was placed with an endoscope in the through-the-scope manner in 4 patients and via a percutaneous route in 1 patient. Obvious clinical efficacy was observed in all patients. Adverse events related to the procedure and stent occlusion during the follow-up period were not observed. Metal stent placement for malignant obstruction of the afferent loop was found to be safe and feasible.
Afferent Loop Syndrome ; Endoscopes ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Intestinal Obstruction ; Palliative Care ; Self Expandable Metallic Stents ; Stents* ; Treatment Outcome

Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of sedation with propofol as an alternative to benzodiazepine drugs in outpatient endoscopy. Methods: In this prospective study, examinees who underwent outpatient endoscopy under propofol sedation and submitted a nextday questionnaire with providing informed consent were evaluated. Periprocedural acute responses, late adverse events within 24 hours, and examinee satisfaction were evaluated. Results: Among the 4,122 patients who received propofol in the 17,978 outpatient-based endoscopic examinations performed between November 2016 and March 2018, 2,305 eligible examinees (esophagogastroduodenoscopy for 1,340, endoscopic ultrasonography for 945, and total colonoscopy for 20) were enrolled, and their responses to a questionnaire were analyzed. The mean propofol dose was 69.6±24.4 mg (range, 20–200 mg). Diazepam, midazolam, and/or pentazocine in combination with propofol was administered to 146 examinees. Mild oxygen desaturation was observed in 59 examinees (2.6%); and mild bradycardia, in 2 (0.09%). Other severe reactions or late events did not occur. After eliminating 181 invalid responses, 97.7% (2,065/2,124) of the patients desired propofol sedation in future examinations. Conclusions Propofol sedation was found to be safe—without severe adverse events or accidents—for outpatient endoscopy on the basis of the patients’ next-day self-evaluation. Given the high satisfaction level, propofol sedation might be an ideal tool for painless endoscopic screening.

Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of sedation with propofol as an alternative to benzodiazepine drugs in outpatient endoscopy. Methods: In this prospective study, examinees who underwent outpatient endoscopy under propofol sedation and submitted a nextday questionnaire with providing informed consent were evaluated. Periprocedural acute responses, late adverse events within 24 hours, and examinee satisfaction were evaluated. Results: Among the 4,122 patients who received propofol in the 17,978 outpatient-based endoscopic examinations performed between November 2016 and March 2018, 2,305 eligible examinees (esophagogastroduodenoscopy for 1,340, endoscopic ultrasonography for 945, and total colonoscopy for 20) were enrolled, and their responses to a questionnaire were analyzed. The mean propofol dose was 69.6±24.4 mg (range, 20–200 mg). Diazepam, midazolam, and/or pentazocine in combination with propofol was administered to 146 examinees. Mild oxygen desaturation was observed in 59 examinees (2.6%); and mild bradycardia, in 2 (0.09%). Other severe reactions or late events did not occur. After eliminating 181 invalid responses, 97.7% (2,065/2,124) of the patients desired propofol sedation in future examinations. Conclusions Propofol sedation was found to be safe—without severe adverse events or accidents—for outpatient endoscopy on the basis of the patients’ next-day self-evaluation. Given the high satisfaction level, propofol sedation might be an ideal tool for painless endoscopic screening.