A few studies have assessed the short-term effects of low-dose nicotine e-cigarettes, while data about nicotine-free e-cigarettes (NF e-cigarettes) are scanty. Concerns have been expressed about the use of NF e-cigarettes, because of the high concentrations of propylene glycol and other compounds in the e-cigarette vapor. This laboratory-based study was aimed to compare the effects of ad libitum use of a NF e-cigarette or and a traditional cigarette for 5 min in healthy adult smokers (n = 10) and non-smokers (n = 10). The main outcome measures were pulmonary function tests, fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and fractional concentration of carbon monoxide (FeCO) in exhaled breath. The traditional cigarette induced statistically significant increases in FeCO in both smokers and non-smokers, while no significant changes were observed in FeNO. In non-smokers, the traditional cigarette induced a significant decrease from baseline in FEF75 (81 % ± 35 % vs 70.2 % ± 28.2 %, P = 0.013), while in smokers significant decreases were observed in FEF25 (101.3 % ± 16.4 % vs 93.5 % ± 31.7 %, P = 0.037), FEV1 (102.2 % ± 9.5 % vs 98.3 % ± 10 %, P = 0.037) and PEF (109.5 % ± 14.6 % vs 99.2 % ± 17.5 %, P = 0.009). In contrast, the only statistically significant effects induced by the NF e-cigarette in smokers were reductions in FEV1 (102.2 % ± 9.5 % vs 99.5 ± 7.6 %, P = 0.041) and FEF25 (103.4 % ± 16.4 % vs 94.2 % ± 16.2 %, P = 0.014). The present study demonstrated that the specific brand of NF e-cigarette utilized did not induce any majoracute effects. In contrast, several studies have shown that both traditional cigarettes and nicotine-containing e-cigarettes have acute effects on lung function. Our study expands on previous observations on the effects of NF e-cigarettes, but also for the first time describes the changes induced by smoking one traditional cigarette in a group of never smokers. The short-term use of the specific brand of NF e-cigarette assessed in this study had no immediate adverse effects on non-smokers and only small effects on FEV1 and FEF25 in smokers. The long-term health effects of NF e-cigarette use are unknown but worthy of further investigations. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02102191

Background and aim No marker to categorise the severity of chronic intestinal failure (CIF) has been developed. A 1-year international survey was carried out to investigate whether the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism clinical classification of CIF, based on the type and volume of the intravenous supplementation (IVS), could be an indicator of CIF severity. Methods At baseline, participating home parenteral nutrition (HPN) centres enrolled all adults with ongoing CIF due to non-malignant disease; demographic data, body mass index, CIF mechanism, underlying disease, HPN duration and IVS category were recorded for each patient. The type of IVS was classified as fluid and electrolyte alone (FE) or parenteral nutrition admixture (PN). The mean daily IVS volume, calculated on a weekly basis, was categorised as 3 L/day. The severity of CIF was determined by patient outcome (still on HPN, weaned from HPN, deceased) and the occurrence of major HPN/CIF-related complications: intestinal failure-associated liver disease (IFALD), catheter-related venous thrombosis and catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI). Results Fifty-one HPN centres included 2194 patients. The analysis showed that both IVS type and volume were independently associated with the odds of weaning from HPN (significantly higher for PN 1 L/day), patients’ death (lower for FE, p=0.079), presence of IFALD cholestasis/liver failure and occurrence of CRBSI (significantly higher for PN 2–3 and PN >3 L/day). Conclusions The type and volume of IVS required by patients with CIF could be indicators to categorise the severity of CIF in both clinical practice and research protocols.

Background: Acute abdominal pain (AAP) is one of the most common causes of referral to an emergency department (ED), but information about its impact is limited.Objectives: The objectives of this article are to define the prevalence of AAP among ED visits in a large university hospital and analyze its main clinical features.Methods: All patients admitted at the Sant’Orsola, Malpighi University Hospital of Bologna ED on 12 a priori selected sample days in 2013 were included. General data were recorded for each patient. A total of 192 clinical variables were recorded for each patient with abdominal pain.Results: During the observation period the ED assisted 2623 patients with a daily admission rate of 219 ± 20 (mean ± SD). Of these, 239 patients complained of AAP as their chief complaint at entry (prevalence = 9.1%). AAP prevalence was significantly higher in females than in males (10.4% vs. 7.8%; OR = 1.37; p = 0.021) as well as in foreign over Italian patients (13.2% vs. 8.5%; OR = 1.64; p = 0.007). The most frequent ED operative diagnoses were non‐specific abdominal pain (n = 86, 36.0%) and gastrointestinal (GI) tract‐related pain (n = 79, 33.1%; n = 19 upper GI, n = 60 lower GI).Conclusions: AAP is a common cause of referral at EDs. Despite technological advances, non‐specific abdominal pain is still the main operative diagnosis.

Prevention is essential to reduce Colorectal Cancer (CRC) mortality. We previously reported a panel of four genes: CEACAM6, LGALS4, TSPAN8, COL1A2 (CELTiC) able to discriminate patients with CRC. Here, we assessed the CELTiC panel by quantitative polymerase chain reaction, in the blood of 174 healthy subjects, who resulted negative to the faecal immunochemical test (FITN). Using non-parametric statistic and multinomial logistic models, the FITN were compared to previously analysed subjects: 36 false positive FIT (NFIT), who were negative at colonoscopy, 36 patients with low risk lesions (LR) and 92 patients with high risk lesions or CRC (HR/CRC). FITN showed a significantly lower expression of the four genes when compared to HR/CRC. Moreover, FITN showed a significantly lower expression of TSPAN8 and COL1A2 compared to NFIT and LR patients. The multinomial logistic model confirmed that TSPAN8 alone specifically discriminated FITN from NFIT, LR and HR/CRC, while LGALS4 was able to differentiate FITN from false positive FIT. Finally, ROC curves analysis of the comparisons between FITN and HR/CRC, LR or NFIT reported AUC greater than 0.87, with a sensitivity and specificity of 83% and 76%, respectively. The CELTiC panel was confirmed a useful tool to identify CRC patients and to discriminate false FIT positive subjects.

To study the efficacy and efficiency of a “universal warming protocol” for vitrified human embryos, based on subsequent steps with 1 and 0.5 M concentration of extracellular cryoprotectant (ECCP).