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.

Objective: The package inserts are official clinical decision-making documents that provide pharmacological treatment information. However, it has been noted that package inserts on perinatal drug usage differ greatly from expert opinions. This study identified Japanese package insert drugs that are contraindicated for pregnant women and compared them to foreign risk categories.Methods: The survey included 19,022 drugs on the drug pricing list as of April 2022, with package inserts available on the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency website. We retrieved the package inserts with the word “pregnant” in the “Contraindications” section and reviewed the descriptions to exclude those that satisfied the exclusion criteria. We also checked the foreign risk categories of contraindicated ingredients for pregnant women. This study used the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration’s categorization for prescribing medicines in pregnancy (the TGA classification).Results: Of the 19,022 medicines studied, 4,111 (21.6%) were contraindicated for pregnant women. Conversely, 19 (5.1%) ingredients categorized under the relatively safe TGA classifications A, B1, and B2 were also contraindicated for pregnant Japanese women.Conclusion: This study revealed that Japanese package inserts contraindicate over 20% of drugs for pregnant women. On the other hand, some forbidden ingredients did not match the foreign risk categories. Therefore, healthcare professionals should be aware of the limitations of Japanese package inserts concerning pregnant women and make careful decisions based on both package inserts and additional drug information.