Symptoms

Signs

 

 

 

Content 12

 

 

NSAID

In the United States, an estimated 13 million people use nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on a regular basis.[1]  The widespread use of NSAIDs has led to an increased prevalence of NSAID-induced gastrointestinal injury.

 

 

The dual-injury hypothesis suggests that both NSAID-mediated direct acidic damage and the suppression of prostaglandin synthesis are necessary to induce gastric damage.

Initially, the acidic properties of NSAIDs induce topical mucosal injury to the gastroduodenum. The active hepatic metabolites of NSAIDs and the NSAID-related decrease in gastric mucosal prostaglandins indirectly contribute to cause gastroduodenal mucosal injury.When the hepatic metabolites in the bile are secreted into the duodenum, they cause mucosal damage to the stomach by duodenogastric reflux and to the small intestine by antegrade passage through the GI tract.

Prostaglandins maintain an intact gastric mucosal barrier by increasing secretion of mucus and bicarbonate, maintaining mucosal blood flow, and decreasing acid secretion.[29] Suppression of prostaglandin synthesis can occur systemically with both oral and parenteral NSAID therapy.[26] The antiplatelet activity of some NSAIDs in low doses may cause bleeding from preexisting ulcers.[30]

Researchers have discovered that 2 isoforms of the enzyme prostaglandin synthase or cyclooxygenase (COX) exist and that NSAIDs inhibit both isoforms.[31] The isoform COX-1 produces protective prostaglandins in the stomach and the isoform COX-2 is inducible at sites of inflammation.[31,32]Researchers developed a new type of NSAID that specifically inhibits COX-2 while sparing COX-1.[31] In theory, selective COX-2 inhibitors should provide the analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects of older NSAIDs with a reduced risk of GI injury.[25] However, within a few months of marketing, physicians reported a case of NSAID-associated gastropathy with celecoxib (a COX-2 inhibitor).[32]

When NSAIDs irritate the gastric mucosa, they weaken the resistance to acid, causing gastritis, ulcers, bleeding, or perforation.[15] The damage ranges from superficial injury to single or multiple ulcers, some of which may bleed. The clinical signs and symptoms of NSAID-induced gastropathy include dyspepsia, diarrhea, and nausea and vomiting.[29] Since these do not always correlate with the severity of the mucosal damage,[29] patients, especially the elderly, need to understand the prudent use of NSAIDs to prevent serious complications.[26]

Elderly patients are especially at risk for NSAID-induced gastroduodenal mucosal injury because of their multiple medical conditions and polypharmacy. Risk factors include concomitant corticosteroid or anticoagulant therapy, high doses of NSAIDs, and long-term NSAID therapy.[5] Patients with a history of peptic ulcer disease, Helicobacter pylori infection, or gastritis are also at risk.[15]

The various NSAIDs differ with regard to their risk of inducing upper GI bleeding and/or perforation.[33,34] Commonly prescribed NSAIDs such as ibuprofen and diclofenac appear to have the lowest relative risk.[33] Sulindac, aspirin, naproxen, and indomethacin have an intermediate relative risk, and piroxicam has the highest relative risk.[33] A reason for these differences may be related to dose.[34]Continue Reading

 

 

 

 

Record of eight hundred and twenty consecutive patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy; from January 1998 to December 2000 were reviewed.

RESULTS:

Peptic ulcers were found in 43% (353/820) patients. NSAID associated peptic ulcers were identified in 14.7% (52/353) patients.

1 Diclofenac and aspirin were most common NSAIDs associated with peptic ulcers in 32.7% (17/52) and 30.7% (16/52) patients, respectively. Duodenal ulcer was more common than gastric ulcer 65.3% (34/52) and 42.3% (22/52), respectively. H. pylori infection was present in 46% (24/52) of the cases. NSAIDs treatment and / or H. pylori infection compared to non NSAIDs and non H. pylori infected peptic ulcer disease were significantly associated with gastric ulcer (p = 0.004) and duodenal ulcer (p = 0.009) respectively.

CONCLUSION:

NSAID-associated peptic ulcer disease is common in Pakistan and most frequently associated with gastric and duodenal ulcer. H. pylori infection is common in association with NSAID related peptic ulcers.

The endoscopic diagnosis varied from gastritis, peptic ulcer to duodenitis. The use of NSAID was documented by reviewing medical records of patients with peptic ulcer.

 

 

 

Complications of Injecting Drug Use

  • Local problems—Abscess (Figures 240-2 
    Image not available.

    A 32-year-old woman with type 1 diabetes developed large abscesses all over her body secondary to injection of cocaine and heroin. Her back shows the large scars remaining after the healing of these abscesses. (Courtesy of ­Richard P. Usatine, MD.)

    and 240-3; Abscess), cellulitis, septic thrombophlebitis, local induration, necrotizing fasciitis, gas gangrene, pyomyositis, mycotic aneurysm, compartmental syndromes, and foreign bodies (e.g., broken needle parts) in local areas.2
    • IDUs are at higher risk of getting methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus(MRSA) skin infections that the patient may think are spider bites (Figure 240-4).
    • Some IDUs give up trying to inject into their veins and put the cocaine directly into the skin. This causes local skin necrosis that produces round atrophic scars (Figure 240-5).
  • IDUs are at risk for contracting systemic infections, including HIV and hepatitis B or hepatitis C.
    • Injecting drug users are at risk of endocarditis, osteomyelitis (Figures 240-6and 240-7), and an abscess of the epidural region. These infections can lead to long hospitalizations for intravenous antibiotics. The endocarditis that occurs in IDUs involves the right-sided heart valves (see Chapter 50, Bacterial Endocarditis).2 They are also at risk of septic emboli to the lungs, group A β-hemolytic streptococcal septicemia, septic arthritis, and candidal and other fungal infections.

 

Content 3

Content 13

Content 11

 

Content 1

A 75-year-old triathlete complains of gradually worsening vision over the past year. It seems to be involving near and far vision. The patient has never required corrective lenses and has no significant medical history other than diet-controlled hypertension. He takes no regular medications. Physical examination is normal except for bilateral visual acuity of 20/100. There are no focal visual field defects and no redness of the eyes or eyelids. Which of the following is the most likely diagnosis?

Complete Quiz and View Results
You will be able to view all answers at the end of your quiz.

The correct answer is A. You answered A.

Age-related macular degeneration is a major cause of painless, gradual bilateral central visual loss. It occurs as nonexudative (dry) or exudative (wet) forms. Recent genetic data have shown an association with the alternative complement pathway gene for complement factor H. The mechanism link for that association is unknown. The nonexudative form is associated with retinal drusen that leads to retinal atrophy. Treatment with vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, and zinc may retard the visual loss. Exudative macular degeneration, which is less common, is caused by neovascular proliferation and leakage of choroidal blood vessels. Acute visual loss may occur because of bleeding. Exudative macular degeneration may be treated with intraocular injection of a vascular endothelial growth factor antagonist (bevacizumab or ranibizumab). Blepharitis is inflammation of the eyelids usually related to acne rosacea, seborrheic dermatitis, or staphylococcal infection. Diabetic retinopathy, now a leading cause of blindness in the United States, causes gradual bilateral visual loss in patients with long-standing diabetes. Retinal detachment is usually unilateral and causes visual loss and an afferent pupillary defect.

 

Content 3


Question 1 of 1

A 42-year-old African-American man has been diagnosed with hypertension for the past 10 years and treated with medication. One morning, he is found unresponsive by his wife. He is taken to the emergency department and pronounced dead by the physician. An autopsy revealed cardiac hypertrophy and a narrowing of the aorta just distal to the ligamentum arteriosum, with dilation of the intercostal artery's ostia. How could the death have possibly been prevented?

Answer

 

USMLE Reviewer (Subscription Required)