Scielo RSS <![CDATA[Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/rss.php?pid=1130-010820170006&lang=en vol. 109 num. 6 lang. en <![CDATA[SciELO Logo]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/img/en/fbpelogp.gif http://scielo.isciii.es <![CDATA[<b>Acute-on-chronic liver failure</b>: <b>a time to step forward</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600001&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en <![CDATA[<b>CLIF-C ACLF score is a better mortality predictor than MELD, MELD-Na and CTP in patients with acute on chronic liver failure admitted to the ward</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600002&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en Background and aims: Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is a frequent syndrome associated with high mortality. The aims of the present study are: a) comparing the Chronic Liver Failure Consortium (CLIF-C) ACLF Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), MELD Sodium (MELD-Na) and Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) scores for prediction of short/medium term mortality; b) identifying ACLF prevalence in patients admitted to the ward; and c) comparing mortality between non-ACLF/ACLF. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of 177 patients admitted to the Gastroenterology ward for acute decompensation of cirrhosis. Results: We included 132 males. Alcohol was the cirrhosis cause/co-factor in 79.7% of cases. Infection was present in 40.7%. At admission, 19.8% of patients presented ACLF and 7.9% developed it during hospitalization (overall prevalence was 27.7%). ACLF grade 1 was diagnosed in 55.1% of the ACLF patients; grade 2, in 42.8%, and grade 3, in 2.0%. Infection (p < 0.001) and hepatic encephalopathy (p = 0.004) were more prevalent and C-reactive protein and leukocyte counts were higher in ACLF patients. ACLF 28 and 90-day mortality was 45.8% and 60.4%, respectively. The CLIF-C ACLF score was significantly superior to CTP, MELD, MELD-Na in predicting 28-day (AUROC 0.799 ± 0.078, 95% CI 0.637-0.891) and 90-day mortality (AUROC 0.828 ± 0.063, 95% CI 0.705-0.952). Conclusion: ACLF is highly prevalent in the ward. The new CLIF scores identify high mortality cirrhotic patients admitted to the ward and are better than their predecessors to predict ACLF patients' short/medium term mortality. <![CDATA[<b>Post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease in liver transplant recipients</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600003&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en Introduction: Post-transplant lymphoproliferative syndrome (PTLD) is a rare and potentially life-threatening complication after liver transplantation. The aim of this study was to analyze the clinicopathologic features related to PTLD in a single institution after liver transplantation. Methods: Observational study where we have retrospectively analyzed 851 cases who underwent liver transplantation. Ten cases have developed PTLD. Their clinical-pathological characteristics and the treatment received have been analyzed. Results: PTLD incidence was 1.2% (10/851). The mean time from liver transplantation to PTLD diagnosis was 36 months (range 1.2 to 144 months). PTLD localization was extranodal in all cases, the most frequent location being intestinal. Seven cases showed a monomorphic lymphoma which in all cases was differentiated B cell lymphomas. Fifty per cent of the series were seropositive for Epstein-Barr virus. Five patients were alive at the time of the review. Among these patients, we observed three cases of complete remission and two cases of disease stabilization. The death rate was higher in the first year after diagnosis of PTLD. Conclusion: PTLD is a rare complication after liver transplantation, but it may pose a threat to the life of a liver transplant recipient. It is essential to identify patients at risk, to establish an early diagnosis and treatment that can change the outcome of the disease.<hr/>Introducción: el síndrome linfoproliferativo postrasplante (SLPT) es una complicación infrecuente que ensombrece el pronóstico de los pacientes sometidos a un trasplante hepático (TH). Su patogenia es multifactorial, siendo sus dos principales factores de riesgo la inmunodepresión y la infección del virus de Epstein-Barr (VEB); sin embargo, en actualidad se piensa que puede estar relacionada con otros factores. Métodos: estudio observacional en el que hemos analizado de forma retrospectiva 851 casos que fueron sometidos a un trasplante hepático, de los cuales diez casos han desarrollado un SLPT. Se han analizado sus características clinicopatológicas y el tratamiento recibido. Resultados: la incidencia del SLPT ha sido del 1,2% (10/851) y el tiempo medio de presentación desde el TH hasta el diagnóstico, de 36 meses (rango 1,2-144 meses). El lugar de presentación ha sido extranodal en todos los casos, siendo más frecuente la localización intestinal. Siete casos presentaron un SLPT monomorfo, todos ellos linfomas diferenciados de células B. El 50% de la serie presentó seronegatividad para el virus de Epstein-Barr. La supervivencia global ha sido del 50%. Entre estos pacientes, hemos observado tres casos de curación completa, un caso de estabilización de la enfermedad y otro caso de recurrencia. Conclusión: el SLPT es una complicación infrecuente que supone una amenaza para la vida del paciente. Para poder instaurar un diagnóstico precoz y un tratamiento que pueda modificar el curso de la enfermedad, es fundamental la identificación de los pacientes en riesgo. <![CDATA[<b>Matrix metalloproteases expression in different histological types of colorectal polyps</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600004&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en Introduction: Colorectal carcinoma (CC) may begin as benign polyps, which may be classified in different histological types with a different risk to develop cancer. Matrix metalloproteases (MMPs) are able to degrade all components in the extracellular matrix and are important tissue-remodeling enzymes and key elements in tumor invasion and metastasis. The aim of this study was to investigate the expression and clinical relevance of MMPs in different histological types of colorectal polyps. Methods: The expression levels of MMP-1, 2, 7, 9, 11, 13 and 14 were analyzed by real-time PCR, Western-blot and immunohistochemistry in 50 patients with different histological types of colorectal polyps, 28 of which developed CC. Results: The results indicate that hyperplastic polyps had the lowest levels of MMP-1 and MMP-7, tubular polyps showed higher levels of both MMP-7 and MMP-14, and tubulovillous adenoma showed higher levels of MMP-1, MMP-7 and MMP-14. Conclusion: MMP expression was decreased in hyperplastic, tubular and tubulovillous adenoma polyps from patients who developed CC. Our findings suggest that MMP expression may be a pathological marker of colorectal polyps and for cancer susceptibility, which may improve strategies for CC prevention based on screening colonoscopy. <![CDATA[<b>Knowledge of disease and access to a specialist reported by Spanish patients with ulcerative colitis</b>: <b>UC-LIFE survey</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600005&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en Background and aim: Education of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) about their disease and access to a specialist are important to improve health outcomes. Our objective was to determine, by collecting information directly from the patients, their information sources and knowledge of the disease, and the options for access to the gastroenterologist. Methods: The information was collected using a printed survey handed out by 39 gastroenterologists to 15 consecutive adult patients with UC. Patients answered anonymously from their home. The responses were stratified by hospital size (&gt; 900; 500-900; < 500 beds). Results: A total of 585 patients received the survey and 436 responded (74.5%; mean age of 46 years [13.5], 53% men). The main information source was the specialist physician (89.2%). Between 32% and 80% of patients had areas of improvement regarding knowledge of their disease. Knowledge of the disease was better in patients from small hospitals (< 500 beds). The frequency of routine visits was also higher in small hospitals. In case of a flare-up, 60% stated they were able to contact their doctor by phone and 37%, that they could get an appointment on the same day. The percentage stating that they had to ask for an appointment and wait until their physician was available was lower in small hospitals. Conclusions: There are areas of improvement with regard to knowledge of their disease in patients with UC followed in hospital clinics. Patients followed in small hospitals seem to know their disease better, are followed more frequently in the clinic, and have better access in case of a flare-up.<hr/>Antecedentes y propósito: la educación de los pacientes con colitis ulcerosa (CU) sobre su enfermedad y el acceso al especialista es importante para mejorar los resultados en salud. Nuestro objetivo fue conocer, recogiendo información directamente de los pacientes, sus fuentes de información y su conocimiento de la enfermedad, y las posibilidades de acceso al especialista en gastroenterología. Métodos: la información fue recogida mediante encuesta impresa, entregada por 39 gastroenterólogos a 15 pacientes adultos consecutivos con CU. Los pacientes contestaron de forma anónima desde su domicilio. Las respuestas se estratificaron según el tamaño del hospital (&gt; 900; 500-900; < 500 camas). Resultados: quinientos ochenta y cinco pacientes recibieron la encuesta y 436 contestaron (74,5%; edad media 46 años (13,5), 53% hombres). La principal fuente de información fue su médico especialista (89,2%). Entre un 32% y un 80% presentaron áreas de mejora en el conocimiento de su enfermedad. El conocimiento de la enfermedad fue mejor en pacientes de hospitales pequeños (< 500 camas). La frecuencia de revisiones rutinarias fue mayor también en hospitales pequeños. Ante empeoramiento, el 60% declaró poder contactar por teléfono con su médico y el 37%, conseguir cita el mismo día. El porcentaje que declaró tener que pedir cita y esperar disponibilidad fue menor en hospitales pequeños. Conclusiones: en pacientes con CU seguidos en consultas hospitalarias, existen áreas de mejora en el conocimiento de su enfermedad. Los pacientes seguidos en hospitales pequeños parecen conocer mejor su enfermedad, son seguidos con más frecuencia en la consulta y tienen mejor acceso en caso de empeoramiento. <![CDATA[<b>Twelve-day quintuple regime containing four antibiotics as a rescue therapy for <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> eradication in the central region of Portugal</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600006&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en Background: Helicobacter pylori eradication rates with standard triple therapy in many countries are clinically unacceptable. Fluoroquinolone resistance is increasing and jeopardizing second-line regimens. There is a growing need for an effective strategy in patients who failed previous therapies. Methods: This is a single-center, non-randomized clinical study conducted in the central region of Portugal. Sixty-four patients were included with a positive 13C-urea breath test (UBT) or histology for H. pylori, and at least one failed eradication attempt. The patient cohort included 71.7% of females with a median of age of 52 (range 23-87). They were treated with a twelve-day regimen consisting of a proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) bid, amoxicillin at 1,000 mg 12/12h and levofloxacin at 500 mg bid during the first seven days, followed by PPI bid, clarithromycin at 500 mg 12/12 h and either tinidazole or metronidazole at 500 mg bid/tid for five days. Eradication was assessed by UBT. The local Ethics Committee approved this study. Results: Eradication therapy was prescribed due to dyspepsia (66.7%), peptic ulcer (10%) and thrombocytopenia (8.3%). The median number of failed therapies was one (range 1-4). The eradication rate was 64.6% according to an intention-to-treat analysis (95% CI: 53-77%), and 70% by the per-protocol analysis (95% CI: 58-82%). Age, smoking, indication for eradication, previous therapies and the use of a second-generation or full-dose PPI did not affect success rates. Conclusions: Even though treatment with four antibiotics was used, this "reinforced" therapy achieved suboptimal results. This fact highlights the lack of effective H. pylori antimicrobials and suggests that second-line treatment in our region should be prescribed according to susceptibility testing. <![CDATA[<b>Quality indicators in digestive endoscopy</b>: <b>introduction to structure, process, and outcome common indicators</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600007&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en The general goal of the project wherein this paper is framed is the proposal of useful quality and safety procedures and indicators to facilitate quality improvement in digestive endoscopy units. This initial offspring sets forth procedures and indicators common to all digestive endoscopy procedures. First, a diagram of pre- and post-digestive endoscopy steps was developed. A group of health care quality and/or endoscopy experts under the auspices of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (Spanish Society of Digestive Diseases) carried out a qualitative review of the literature regarding the search for quality indicators in endoscopic procedures. Then, a paired analysis was used for the selection of literature references and their subsequent review. Twenty indicators were identified, including seven for structure, eleven for process (five pre-procedure, three intra-procedure, three post-procedure), and two for outcome. Quality of evidence was analyzed for each indicator using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification.<hr/>El objetivo general del proyecto en el que se inscribe este trabajo es proponer procedimientos e indicadores de calidad y seguridad útiles para facilitar la mejora de la calidad en unidades de Endoscopia Digestiva. En este primer resultado se proponen procedimientos e indicadores comunes a las pruebas de endoscopia digestiva. Primero, se ha diseñado un diagrama de los pasos previos y consecutivos a la realización de la endoscopia digestiva. Un grupo de expertos en calidad asistencial y/o endoscopia, bajo el amparo de la Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva, han realizado una revisión cualitativa de la literatura haciendo referencia a la búsqueda de indicadores de calidad en los procedimientos endoscópicos. Posteriormente, por un procedimiento de análisis por pares se ha hecho la selección y análisis de la literatura seleccionada. Se ha identificado un total de 20 indicadores, de los cuales siete son de estructura; once, de proceso (cinco de preprocedimiento, tres de procedimiento y tres de posprocedimiento); y dos, de resultado. Se ha analizado la calidad de la evidencia de cada uno de ellos aplicando la clasificación utilizada en GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). <![CDATA[<b>Pancreas Burkitt primary lymphoma in pediatric age</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600008&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en The general goal of the project wherein this paper is framed is the proposal of useful quality and safety procedures and indicators to facilitate quality improvement in digestive endoscopy units. This initial offspring sets forth procedures and indicators common to all digestive endoscopy procedures. First, a diagram of pre- and post-digestive endoscopy steps was developed. A group of health care quality and/or endoscopy experts under the auspices of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (Spanish Society of Digestive Diseases) carried out a qualitative review of the literature regarding the search for quality indicators in endoscopic procedures. Then, a paired analysis was used for the selection of literature references and their subsequent review. Twenty indicators were identified, including seven for structure, eleven for process (five pre-procedure, three intra-procedure, three post-procedure), and two for outcome. Quality of evidence was analyzed for each indicator using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification.<hr/>El objetivo general del proyecto en el que se inscribe este trabajo es proponer procedimientos e indicadores de calidad y seguridad útiles para facilitar la mejora de la calidad en unidades de Endoscopia Digestiva. En este primer resultado se proponen procedimientos e indicadores comunes a las pruebas de endoscopia digestiva. Primero, se ha diseñado un diagrama de los pasos previos y consecutivos a la realización de la endoscopia digestiva. Un grupo de expertos en calidad asistencial y/o endoscopia, bajo el amparo de la Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva, han realizado una revisión cualitativa de la literatura haciendo referencia a la búsqueda de indicadores de calidad en los procedimientos endoscópicos. Posteriormente, por un procedimiento de análisis por pares se ha hecho la selección y análisis de la literatura seleccionada. Se ha identificado un total de 20 indicadores, de los cuales siete son de estructura; once, de proceso (cinco de preprocedimiento, tres de procedimiento y tres de posprocedimiento); y dos, de resultado. Se ha analizado la calidad de la evidencia de cada uno de ellos aplicando la clasificación utilizada en GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). <![CDATA[<b>Portal air embolism after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600009&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en The general goal of the project wherein this paper is framed is the proposal of useful quality and safety procedures and indicators to facilitate quality improvement in digestive endoscopy units. This initial offspring sets forth procedures and indicators common to all digestive endoscopy procedures. First, a diagram of pre- and post-digestive endoscopy steps was developed. A group of health care quality and/or endoscopy experts under the auspices of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (Spanish Society of Digestive Diseases) carried out a qualitative review of the literature regarding the search for quality indicators in endoscopic procedures. Then, a paired analysis was used for the selection of literature references and their subsequent review. Twenty indicators were identified, including seven for structure, eleven for process (five pre-procedure, three intra-procedure, three post-procedure), and two for outcome. Quality of evidence was analyzed for each indicator using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification.<hr/>El objetivo general del proyecto en el que se inscribe este trabajo es proponer procedimientos e indicadores de calidad y seguridad útiles para facilitar la mejora de la calidad en unidades de Endoscopia Digestiva. En este primer resultado se proponen procedimientos e indicadores comunes a las pruebas de endoscopia digestiva. Primero, se ha diseñado un diagrama de los pasos previos y consecutivos a la realización de la endoscopia digestiva. Un grupo de expertos en calidad asistencial y/o endoscopia, bajo el amparo de la Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva, han realizado una revisión cualitativa de la literatura haciendo referencia a la búsqueda de indicadores de calidad en los procedimientos endoscópicos. Posteriormente, por un procedimiento de análisis por pares se ha hecho la selección y análisis de la literatura seleccionada. Se ha identificado un total de 20 indicadores, de los cuales siete son de estructura; once, de proceso (cinco de preprocedimiento, tres de procedimiento y tres de posprocedimiento); y dos, de resultado. Se ha analizado la calidad de la evidencia de cada uno de ellos aplicando la clasificación utilizada en GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). <![CDATA[<b>Diverticulitis of the cecal appendix</b>: <b>a case report</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600010&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en The general goal of the project wherein this paper is framed is the proposal of useful quality and safety procedures and indicators to facilitate quality improvement in digestive endoscopy units. This initial offspring sets forth procedures and indicators common to all digestive endoscopy procedures. First, a diagram of pre- and post-digestive endoscopy steps was developed. A group of health care quality and/or endoscopy experts under the auspices of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (Spanish Society of Digestive Diseases) carried out a qualitative review of the literature regarding the search for quality indicators in endoscopic procedures. Then, a paired analysis was used for the selection of literature references and their subsequent review. Twenty indicators were identified, including seven for structure, eleven for process (five pre-procedure, three intra-procedure, three post-procedure), and two for outcome. Quality of evidence was analyzed for each indicator using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification.<hr/>El objetivo general del proyecto en el que se inscribe este trabajo es proponer procedimientos e indicadores de calidad y seguridad útiles para facilitar la mejora de la calidad en unidades de Endoscopia Digestiva. En este primer resultado se proponen procedimientos e indicadores comunes a las pruebas de endoscopia digestiva. Primero, se ha diseñado un diagrama de los pasos previos y consecutivos a la realización de la endoscopia digestiva. Un grupo de expertos en calidad asistencial y/o endoscopia, bajo el amparo de la Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva, han realizado una revisión cualitativa de la literatura haciendo referencia a la búsqueda de indicadores de calidad en los procedimientos endoscópicos. Posteriormente, por un procedimiento de análisis por pares se ha hecho la selección y análisis de la literatura seleccionada. Se ha identificado un total de 20 indicadores, de los cuales siete son de estructura; once, de proceso (cinco de preprocedimiento, tres de procedimiento y tres de posprocedimiento); y dos, de resultado. Se ha analizado la calidad de la evidencia de cada uno de ellos aplicando la clasificación utilizada en GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). <![CDATA[<b>Artifacts of the common bile duct caused by a duodenal metallic hemoclip on magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600011&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en The general goal of the project wherein this paper is framed is the proposal of useful quality and safety procedures and indicators to facilitate quality improvement in digestive endoscopy units. This initial offspring sets forth procedures and indicators common to all digestive endoscopy procedures. First, a diagram of pre- and post-digestive endoscopy steps was developed. A group of health care quality and/or endoscopy experts under the auspices of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (Spanish Society of Digestive Diseases) carried out a qualitative review of the literature regarding the search for quality indicators in endoscopic procedures. Then, a paired analysis was used for the selection of literature references and their subsequent review. Twenty indicators were identified, including seven for structure, eleven for process (five pre-procedure, three intra-procedure, three post-procedure), and two for outcome. Quality of evidence was analyzed for each indicator using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification.<hr/>El objetivo general del proyecto en el que se inscribe este trabajo es proponer procedimientos e indicadores de calidad y seguridad útiles para facilitar la mejora de la calidad en unidades de Endoscopia Digestiva. En este primer resultado se proponen procedimientos e indicadores comunes a las pruebas de endoscopia digestiva. Primero, se ha diseñado un diagrama de los pasos previos y consecutivos a la realización de la endoscopia digestiva. Un grupo de expertos en calidad asistencial y/o endoscopia, bajo el amparo de la Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva, han realizado una revisión cualitativa de la literatura haciendo referencia a la búsqueda de indicadores de calidad en los procedimientos endoscópicos. Posteriormente, por un procedimiento de análisis por pares se ha hecho la selección y análisis de la literatura seleccionada. Se ha identificado un total de 20 indicadores, de los cuales siete son de estructura; once, de proceso (cinco de preprocedimiento, tres de procedimiento y tres de posprocedimiento); y dos, de resultado. Se ha analizado la calidad de la evidencia de cada uno de ellos aplicando la clasificación utilizada en GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). <![CDATA[<b>Dorsal inflammatory mass secondary to lost stones after laparoscopic cholecystectomy</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600012&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en The general goal of the project wherein this paper is framed is the proposal of useful quality and safety procedures and indicators to facilitate quality improvement in digestive endoscopy units. This initial offspring sets forth procedures and indicators common to all digestive endoscopy procedures. First, a diagram of pre- and post-digestive endoscopy steps was developed. A group of health care quality and/or endoscopy experts under the auspices of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (Spanish Society of Digestive Diseases) carried out a qualitative review of the literature regarding the search for quality indicators in endoscopic procedures. Then, a paired analysis was used for the selection of literature references and their subsequent review. Twenty indicators were identified, including seven for structure, eleven for process (five pre-procedure, three intra-procedure, three post-procedure), and two for outcome. Quality of evidence was analyzed for each indicator using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification.<hr/>El objetivo general del proyecto en el que se inscribe este trabajo es proponer procedimientos e indicadores de calidad y seguridad útiles para facilitar la mejora de la calidad en unidades de Endoscopia Digestiva. En este primer resultado se proponen procedimientos e indicadores comunes a las pruebas de endoscopia digestiva. Primero, se ha diseñado un diagrama de los pasos previos y consecutivos a la realización de la endoscopia digestiva. Un grupo de expertos en calidad asistencial y/o endoscopia, bajo el amparo de la Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva, han realizado una revisión cualitativa de la literatura haciendo referencia a la búsqueda de indicadores de calidad en los procedimientos endoscópicos. Posteriormente, por un procedimiento de análisis por pares se ha hecho la selección y análisis de la literatura seleccionada. Se ha identificado un total de 20 indicadores, de los cuales siete son de estructura; once, de proceso (cinco de preprocedimiento, tres de procedimiento y tres de posprocedimiento); y dos, de resultado. Se ha analizado la calidad de la evidencia de cada uno de ellos aplicando la clasificación utilizada en GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). <![CDATA[<b>Endoscopic management of afferent loop syndrome caused by enteroliths and anastomotic stricture</b>: <b>A case report</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600013&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en The general goal of the project wherein this paper is framed is the proposal of useful quality and safety procedures and indicators to facilitate quality improvement in digestive endoscopy units. This initial offspring sets forth procedures and indicators common to all digestive endoscopy procedures. First, a diagram of pre- and post-digestive endoscopy steps was developed. A group of health care quality and/or endoscopy experts under the auspices of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (Spanish Society of Digestive Diseases) carried out a qualitative review of the literature regarding the search for quality indicators in endoscopic procedures. Then, a paired analysis was used for the selection of literature references and their subsequent review. Twenty indicators were identified, including seven for structure, eleven for process (five pre-procedure, three intra-procedure, three post-procedure), and two for outcome. Quality of evidence was analyzed for each indicator using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification.<hr/>El objetivo general del proyecto en el que se inscribe este trabajo es proponer procedimientos e indicadores de calidad y seguridad útiles para facilitar la mejora de la calidad en unidades de Endoscopia Digestiva. En este primer resultado se proponen procedimientos e indicadores comunes a las pruebas de endoscopia digestiva. Primero, se ha diseñado un diagrama de los pasos previos y consecutivos a la realización de la endoscopia digestiva. Un grupo de expertos en calidad asistencial y/o endoscopia, bajo el amparo de la Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva, han realizado una revisión cualitativa de la literatura haciendo referencia a la búsqueda de indicadores de calidad en los procedimientos endoscópicos. Posteriormente, por un procedimiento de análisis por pares se ha hecho la selección y análisis de la literatura seleccionada. Se ha identificado un total de 20 indicadores, de los cuales siete son de estructura; once, de proceso (cinco de preprocedimiento, tres de procedimiento y tres de posprocedimiento); y dos, de resultado. Se ha analizado la calidad de la evidencia de cada uno de ellos aplicando la clasificación utilizada en GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). <![CDATA[<b>A giant hiatal hernia and intrathoracic pancreas</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600014&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en The general goal of the project wherein this paper is framed is the proposal of useful quality and safety procedures and indicators to facilitate quality improvement in digestive endoscopy units. This initial offspring sets forth procedures and indicators common to all digestive endoscopy procedures. First, a diagram of pre- and post-digestive endoscopy steps was developed. A group of health care quality and/or endoscopy experts under the auspices of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (Spanish Society of Digestive Diseases) carried out a qualitative review of the literature regarding the search for quality indicators in endoscopic procedures. Then, a paired analysis was used for the selection of literature references and their subsequent review. Twenty indicators were identified, including seven for structure, eleven for process (five pre-procedure, three intra-procedure, three post-procedure), and two for outcome. Quality of evidence was analyzed for each indicator using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification.<hr/>El objetivo general del proyecto en el que se inscribe este trabajo es proponer procedimientos e indicadores de calidad y seguridad útiles para facilitar la mejora de la calidad en unidades de Endoscopia Digestiva. En este primer resultado se proponen procedimientos e indicadores comunes a las pruebas de endoscopia digestiva. Primero, se ha diseñado un diagrama de los pasos previos y consecutivos a la realización de la endoscopia digestiva. Un grupo de expertos en calidad asistencial y/o endoscopia, bajo el amparo de la Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva, han realizado una revisión cualitativa de la literatura haciendo referencia a la búsqueda de indicadores de calidad en los procedimientos endoscópicos. Posteriormente, por un procedimiento de análisis por pares se ha hecho la selección y análisis de la literatura seleccionada. Se ha identificado un total de 20 indicadores, de los cuales siete son de estructura; once, de proceso (cinco de preprocedimiento, tres de procedimiento y tres de posprocedimiento); y dos, de resultado. Se ha analizado la calidad de la evidencia de cada uno de ellos aplicando la clasificación utilizada en GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). <![CDATA[<b>Successful extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) treatment of a symptomatic massive biliary stone proximal to an anastomotic biliary stricture</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600015&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en The general goal of the project wherein this paper is framed is the proposal of useful quality and safety procedures and indicators to facilitate quality improvement in digestive endoscopy units. This initial offspring sets forth procedures and indicators common to all digestive endoscopy procedures. First, a diagram of pre- and post-digestive endoscopy steps was developed. A group of health care quality and/or endoscopy experts under the auspices of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (Spanish Society of Digestive Diseases) carried out a qualitative review of the literature regarding the search for quality indicators in endoscopic procedures. Then, a paired analysis was used for the selection of literature references and their subsequent review. Twenty indicators were identified, including seven for structure, eleven for process (five pre-procedure, three intra-procedure, three post-procedure), and two for outcome. Quality of evidence was analyzed for each indicator using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification.<hr/>El objetivo general del proyecto en el que se inscribe este trabajo es proponer procedimientos e indicadores de calidad y seguridad útiles para facilitar la mejora de la calidad en unidades de Endoscopia Digestiva. En este primer resultado se proponen procedimientos e indicadores comunes a las pruebas de endoscopia digestiva. Primero, se ha diseñado un diagrama de los pasos previos y consecutivos a la realización de la endoscopia digestiva. Un grupo de expertos en calidad asistencial y/o endoscopia, bajo el amparo de la Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva, han realizado una revisión cualitativa de la literatura haciendo referencia a la búsqueda de indicadores de calidad en los procedimientos endoscópicos. Posteriormente, por un procedimiento de análisis por pares se ha hecho la selección y análisis de la literatura seleccionada. Se ha identificado un total de 20 indicadores, de los cuales siete son de estructura; once, de proceso (cinco de preprocedimiento, tres de procedimiento y tres de posprocedimiento); y dos, de resultado. Se ha analizado la calidad de la evidencia de cada uno de ellos aplicando la clasificación utilizada en GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). <![CDATA[<b>Fishbone impaction in the colon</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600016&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en The general goal of the project wherein this paper is framed is the proposal of useful quality and safety procedures and indicators to facilitate quality improvement in digestive endoscopy units. This initial offspring sets forth procedures and indicators common to all digestive endoscopy procedures. First, a diagram of pre- and post-digestive endoscopy steps was developed. A group of health care quality and/or endoscopy experts under the auspices of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (Spanish Society of Digestive Diseases) carried out a qualitative review of the literature regarding the search for quality indicators in endoscopic procedures. Then, a paired analysis was used for the selection of literature references and their subsequent review. Twenty indicators were identified, including seven for structure, eleven for process (five pre-procedure, three intra-procedure, three post-procedure), and two for outcome. Quality of evidence was analyzed for each indicator using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification.<hr/>El objetivo general del proyecto en el que se inscribe este trabajo es proponer procedimientos e indicadores de calidad y seguridad útiles para facilitar la mejora de la calidad en unidades de Endoscopia Digestiva. En este primer resultado se proponen procedimientos e indicadores comunes a las pruebas de endoscopia digestiva. Primero, se ha diseñado un diagrama de los pasos previos y consecutivos a la realización de la endoscopia digestiva. Un grupo de expertos en calidad asistencial y/o endoscopia, bajo el amparo de la Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva, han realizado una revisión cualitativa de la literatura haciendo referencia a la búsqueda de indicadores de calidad en los procedimientos endoscópicos. Posteriormente, por un procedimiento de análisis por pares se ha hecho la selección y análisis de la literatura seleccionada. Se ha identificado un total de 20 indicadores, de los cuales siete son de estructura; once, de proceso (cinco de preprocedimiento, tres de procedimiento y tres de posprocedimiento); y dos, de resultado. Se ha analizado la calidad de la evidencia de cada uno de ellos aplicando la clasificación utilizada en GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). <![CDATA[<b>Mesenteric-portal axis thrombosis and deep venous thrombosis in a patient with inferior vena cava agenesis</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600017&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en The general goal of the project wherein this paper is framed is the proposal of useful quality and safety procedures and indicators to facilitate quality improvement in digestive endoscopy units. This initial offspring sets forth procedures and indicators common to all digestive endoscopy procedures. First, a diagram of pre- and post-digestive endoscopy steps was developed. A group of health care quality and/or endoscopy experts under the auspices of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (Spanish Society of Digestive Diseases) carried out a qualitative review of the literature regarding the search for quality indicators in endoscopic procedures. Then, a paired analysis was used for the selection of literature references and their subsequent review. Twenty indicators were identified, including seven for structure, eleven for process (five pre-procedure, three intra-procedure, three post-procedure), and two for outcome. Quality of evidence was analyzed for each indicator using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification.<hr/>El objetivo general del proyecto en el que se inscribe este trabajo es proponer procedimientos e indicadores de calidad y seguridad útiles para facilitar la mejora de la calidad en unidades de Endoscopia Digestiva. En este primer resultado se proponen procedimientos e indicadores comunes a las pruebas de endoscopia digestiva. Primero, se ha diseñado un diagrama de los pasos previos y consecutivos a la realización de la endoscopia digestiva. Un grupo de expertos en calidad asistencial y/o endoscopia, bajo el amparo de la Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva, han realizado una revisión cualitativa de la literatura haciendo referencia a la búsqueda de indicadores de calidad en los procedimientos endoscópicos. Posteriormente, por un procedimiento de análisis por pares se ha hecho la selección y análisis de la literatura seleccionada. Se ha identificado un total de 20 indicadores, de los cuales siete son de estructura; once, de proceso (cinco de preprocedimiento, tres de procedimiento y tres de posprocedimiento); y dos, de resultado. Se ha analizado la calidad de la evidencia de cada uno de ellos aplicando la clasificación utilizada en GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). <![CDATA[<b>A bronchobiliary fistula due to a giant hydatid cyst</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600018&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en The general goal of the project wherein this paper is framed is the proposal of useful quality and safety procedures and indicators to facilitate quality improvement in digestive endoscopy units. This initial offspring sets forth procedures and indicators common to all digestive endoscopy procedures. First, a diagram of pre- and post-digestive endoscopy steps was developed. A group of health care quality and/or endoscopy experts under the auspices of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (Spanish Society of Digestive Diseases) carried out a qualitative review of the literature regarding the search for quality indicators in endoscopic procedures. Then, a paired analysis was used for the selection of literature references and their subsequent review. Twenty indicators were identified, including seven for structure, eleven for process (five pre-procedure, three intra-procedure, three post-procedure), and two for outcome. Quality of evidence was analyzed for each indicator using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification.<hr/>El objetivo general del proyecto en el que se inscribe este trabajo es proponer procedimientos e indicadores de calidad y seguridad útiles para facilitar la mejora de la calidad en unidades de Endoscopia Digestiva. En este primer resultado se proponen procedimientos e indicadores comunes a las pruebas de endoscopia digestiva. Primero, se ha diseñado un diagrama de los pasos previos y consecutivos a la realización de la endoscopia digestiva. Un grupo de expertos en calidad asistencial y/o endoscopia, bajo el amparo de la Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva, han realizado una revisión cualitativa de la literatura haciendo referencia a la búsqueda de indicadores de calidad en los procedimientos endoscópicos. Posteriormente, por un procedimiento de análisis por pares se ha hecho la selección y análisis de la literatura seleccionada. Se ha identificado un total de 20 indicadores, de los cuales siete son de estructura; once, de proceso (cinco de preprocedimiento, tres de procedimiento y tres de posprocedimiento); y dos, de resultado. Se ha analizado la calidad de la evidencia de cada uno de ellos aplicando la clasificación utilizada en GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). <![CDATA[<b>Recurrent hyperammonemic encephalopathy</b>: <b>embolization of the portosystemic shunt</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600019&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en The general goal of the project wherein this paper is framed is the proposal of useful quality and safety procedures and indicators to facilitate quality improvement in digestive endoscopy units. This initial offspring sets forth procedures and indicators common to all digestive endoscopy procedures. First, a diagram of pre- and post-digestive endoscopy steps was developed. A group of health care quality and/or endoscopy experts under the auspices of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (Spanish Society of Digestive Diseases) carried out a qualitative review of the literature regarding the search for quality indicators in endoscopic procedures. Then, a paired analysis was used for the selection of literature references and their subsequent review. Twenty indicators were identified, including seven for structure, eleven for process (five pre-procedure, three intra-procedure, three post-procedure), and two for outcome. Quality of evidence was analyzed for each indicator using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification.<hr/>El objetivo general del proyecto en el que se inscribe este trabajo es proponer procedimientos e indicadores de calidad y seguridad útiles para facilitar la mejora de la calidad en unidades de Endoscopia Digestiva. En este primer resultado se proponen procedimientos e indicadores comunes a las pruebas de endoscopia digestiva. Primero, se ha diseñado un diagrama de los pasos previos y consecutivos a la realización de la endoscopia digestiva. Un grupo de expertos en calidad asistencial y/o endoscopia, bajo el amparo de la Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva, han realizado una revisión cualitativa de la literatura haciendo referencia a la búsqueda de indicadores de calidad en los procedimientos endoscópicos. Posteriormente, por un procedimiento de análisis por pares se ha hecho la selección y análisis de la literatura seleccionada. Se ha identificado un total de 20 indicadores, de los cuales siete son de estructura; once, de proceso (cinco de preprocedimiento, tres de procedimiento y tres de posprocedimiento); y dos, de resultado. Se ha analizado la calidad de la evidencia de cada uno de ellos aplicando la clasificación utilizada en GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). <![CDATA[<b>The clinical extremes of autoimmune cholangitis</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600020&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en Autoimmune cholangitis (AIC) was first described in 1987 as immunocholangitis in three women who presented with signs and symptoms of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), but who were antimitochondrial (AMA) negative and antinuclear antibodies (ANA) positive, and responded to immunosuppressive therapy with azathioprine and prednisolone (1). AIC is a rare chronic cholestatic inflammatory disease characterized by the presence of high ANA or smooth muscle antibodies (SMA) but AMA seronegativity. Histologically, AIC exhibits bile duct injury (2). In terms of therapeutics, in addition to response to ursodeoxycholic acid, a prompt response to corticosteroids has also been reported in earlier stages, distinguishing it from PBC. Herein the authors describe two cases with mixed signs of PBC and autoimmune hepatitis (AIH). The diagnostic differentiation between these diseases (AIC, PBC and AIH) is essential because of the different therapeutic strategies. Our cases highlight the importance of clinician awareness of the autoimmune spectrum of liver diseases. <![CDATA[<b>Duodenal diverticular bleeding</b>: <b>an endoscopic challenge</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600021&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en Duodenal diverticula are an uncommon cause of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Until recently, it was primarily managed with surgery, but advances in the field of endoscopy have made management increasingly less invasive. We report a case of duodenal diverticular bleeding that was endoscopically managed, and review the literature about the various endoscopic therapies thus far described. <![CDATA[<b>Hepatic hematoma after ERCP</b>: <b>two new case reports</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600022&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en ERCP is an endoscopic procedure with a complication risk ranging from 2.5 to 8%. The most frequent complications are pancreatitis, cholangitis, hemorrhage or perforation. Hepatic hematoma after ERCP is a potentially serious, rare complication. Not many cases are reported in the literature. We present here two new cases of hepatic hematoma following ERCP along with a review of the literature and possible therapeutic options.<hr/>La colangiopancreatografía retrógrada endoscópica (CPRE) es una técnica endoscópica con un riesgo de complicaciones secundarias que oscila del 2,5-8%. Las complicaciones que con más frecuencia se presentan son la pancreatitis, procesos infecciosos, hemorragia o perforación. El hematoma hepático secundario a CPRE es una rara y potencialmente grave complicación con pocos casos descritos en la literatura. A continuación presentamos dos casos de hematomas hepáticos secundarios a la realización de CPRE, realizando una revisión de la bibliografía y de las posibles opciones terapéuticas. <![CDATA[<b>Fecal microbiota transplantation in recurrent <i>Clostridium difficile</i> infection in a patient with concomitant inflammatory bowel disease</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600023&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en The use of fecal microbiota transplantation in recurrent Clostridium difficile infection and coexistent inflammatory bowel disease remains unclear. A 61-year-old man with ulcerative pancolitis was diagnosed with a third recurrence of Clostridium difficile infection, previously treated with metronidazole, vancomycin and fidaxomicin. Fecal microbiota transplantation of an unrelated healthy donor was performed by the lower route. After a twelve month follow-up, the patient remains asymptomatic without Clostridium difficile infection relapses or inflammatory bowel disease flare-ups. Fecal microbiota transplantation is relatively simple to perform, well-tolerated, safe and effective in recurrent Clostridium difficile infection with ulcerative pancolitis, as an alternative in case of antibiotic therapy failure. <![CDATA[<b>Atraumatic splenic rupture as a complication of acute exacerbation of chronic pancreatitis, an unusual disease</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600024&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en The use of fecal microbiota transplantation in recurrent Clostridium difficile infection and coexistent inflammatory bowel disease remains unclear. A 61-year-old man with ulcerative pancolitis was diagnosed with a third recurrence of Clostridium difficile infection, previously treated with metronidazole, vancomycin and fidaxomicin. Fecal microbiota transplantation of an unrelated healthy donor was performed by the lower route. After a twelve month follow-up, the patient remains asymptomatic without Clostridium difficile infection relapses or inflammatory bowel disease flare-ups. Fecal microbiota transplantation is relatively simple to perform, well-tolerated, safe and effective in recurrent Clostridium difficile infection with ulcerative pancolitis, as an alternative in case of antibiotic therapy failure. <![CDATA[<b>Genetics in idiopathic pancreatitis and acute recurrent pancreatitis</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600025&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en The use of fecal microbiota transplantation in recurrent Clostridium difficile infection and coexistent inflammatory bowel disease remains unclear. A 61-year-old man with ulcerative pancolitis was diagnosed with a third recurrence of Clostridium difficile infection, previously treated with metronidazole, vancomycin and fidaxomicin. Fecal microbiota transplantation of an unrelated healthy donor was performed by the lower route. After a twelve month follow-up, the patient remains asymptomatic without Clostridium difficile infection relapses or inflammatory bowel disease flare-ups. Fecal microbiota transplantation is relatively simple to perform, well-tolerated, safe and effective in recurrent Clostridium difficile infection with ulcerative pancolitis, as an alternative in case of antibiotic therapy failure. <![CDATA[<b>Bacteremia with <i>Raoultella planticola</i> in the setting of acute pancreatitis complicated with acute cholangitis</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600026&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en The use of fecal microbiota transplantation in recurrent Clostridium difficile infection and coexistent inflammatory bowel disease remains unclear. A 61-year-old man with ulcerative pancolitis was diagnosed with a third recurrence of Clostridium difficile infection, previously treated with metronidazole, vancomycin and fidaxomicin. Fecal microbiota transplantation of an unrelated healthy donor was performed by the lower route. After a twelve month follow-up, the patient remains asymptomatic without Clostridium difficile infection relapses or inflammatory bowel disease flare-ups. Fecal microbiota transplantation is relatively simple to perform, well-tolerated, safe and effective in recurrent Clostridium difficile infection with ulcerative pancolitis, as an alternative in case of antibiotic therapy failure. <![CDATA[<b>Symptomatic retention of the Agile<sup>®</sup> patency capsule</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600027&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en The use of fecal microbiota transplantation in recurrent Clostridium difficile infection and coexistent inflammatory bowel disease remains unclear. A 61-year-old man with ulcerative pancolitis was diagnosed with a third recurrence of Clostridium difficile infection, previously treated with metronidazole, vancomycin and fidaxomicin. Fecal microbiota transplantation of an unrelated healthy donor was performed by the lower route. After a twelve month follow-up, the patient remains asymptomatic without Clostridium difficile infection relapses or inflammatory bowel disease flare-ups. Fecal microbiota transplantation is relatively simple to perform, well-tolerated, safe and effective in recurrent Clostridium difficile infection with ulcerative pancolitis, as an alternative in case of antibiotic therapy failure. <![CDATA[<b>Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600028&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en The use of fecal microbiota transplantation in recurrent Clostridium difficile infection and coexistent inflammatory bowel disease remains unclear. A 61-year-old man with ulcerative pancolitis was diagnosed with a third recurrence of Clostridium difficile infection, previously treated with metronidazole, vancomycin and fidaxomicin. Fecal microbiota transplantation of an unrelated healthy donor was performed by the lower route. After a twelve month follow-up, the patient remains asymptomatic without Clostridium difficile infection relapses or inflammatory bowel disease flare-ups. Fecal microbiota transplantation is relatively simple to perform, well-tolerated, safe and effective in recurrent Clostridium difficile infection with ulcerative pancolitis, as an alternative in case of antibiotic therapy failure. <![CDATA[<b>Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors-induced angioedema of the small bowel mimicking postoperative complication</b>]]> http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600029&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en The use of fecal microbiota transplantation in recurrent Clostridium difficile infection and coexistent inflammatory bowel disease remains unclear. A 61-year-old man with ulcerative pancolitis was diagnosed with a third recurrence of Clostridium difficile infection, previously treated with metronidazole, vancomycin and fidaxomicin. Fecal microbiota transplantation of an unrelated healthy donor was performed by the lower route. After a twelve month follow-up, the patient remains asymptomatic without Clostridium difficile infection relapses or inflammatory bowel disease flare-ups. Fecal microbiota transplantation is relatively simple to perform, well-tolerated, safe and effective in recurrent Clostridium difficile infection with ulcerative pancolitis, as an alternative in case of antibiotic therapy failure. <link>http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1130-01082017000600030&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en</link> <description/> </item> </channel> </rss> <!--transformed by PHP 09:06:38 24-06-2021-->