Diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy can successfully be performed by applying moderate (conscious) sedation. Moderate sedation, using midazolam and an opioid, is the standard method of sedation, although propofol is increasingly being used in many countries because the satisfaction of endoscopists with propofol sedation is greater compared with their satisfaction with conventional sedation. Moreover, the use of propofol is currently preferred for the endoscopic sedation of patients with advanced liver disease due to its short biologic half-life and, consequently, its low risk of inducing hepatic encephalopathy. In the future, propofol could become the preferred sedation agent, especially for routine colonoscopy. Midazolam is the benzodiazepine of choice because of its shorter duration of action and better pharmacokinetic profile compared with diazepam. Among opioids, pethidine and fentanyl are the most popular. A number of other substances have been tested in several clinical trials with promising results. Among them, newer opioids, such as remifentanil, enable a faster recovery. The controversy regarding the administration of sedation by an endoscopist or an experienced nurse, as well as the optimal staffing of endoscopy units, continues to be a matter of discussion. Safe sedation in special clinical circumstances, such as in the cases of obese, pregnant, and elderly individuals, as well as patients with chronic lung, renal or liver disease, requires modification of the dose of the drugs used for sedation. In the great majority of patients, sedation under the supervision of a properly trained endoscopist remains the standard practice worldwide. In this review, an overview of the current knowledge concerning sedation during digestive endoscopy will be provided based on the data in the current literature.

The treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), especially those with severe or refractory disease, represents an important challenge for the clinical gastroenterologist. It seems to be no exaggeration to say that in these patients, not only the scientific background of the gastroenterologist is tested, but also the abundance of “gifts” that he should possess (insight, intuition, determination, ability to take initiative, etc. ) for the successful outcome of the treatment. In daily clinical practice, depending on the severity of the attack, IBD is treated with one or a combination of two or more pharmaceutical agents. These combinations include not only the first-line drugs (e.g ., mesalazine, corticosteroids, antibiotics, etc ) but also second- and third-line drugs (immunosuppressants and biologic agents). It is a fact that despite the significant therapeutic advances there is still a significant percentage of patients who do not satisfactorily respond to the treatment applied. Therefore, a part of these patients are going to surgery. In recent years, several small-size clinical studies, reviews, and case reports have been published combining not only biological agents with other drugs (e.g., immunosuppressants or corticosteroids) but also the combination of two biological agents simultaneously, especially in severe cases. In our opinion, it is at least a strange (and largely unexplained) fact that we often use combinations of drugs in a given patient although studies comparing the simultaneous administration of two or more drugs with monotherapy are very few. As mentioned above, there is a timid tendency in the literature to combine two biological agents in severe cases unresponsive to the applied treatment or patients with severe extraintestinal manifestations. The appropriate dosage, the duration of the administration, the suitable timing for checking the clinical and laboratory outcome, as well as the treatment side-effects, should be the subject of intense clinical research shortly. In this editorial, we attempt to summarize the existing data regarding the already applied combination therapies and to humbly formulate thoughts and suggestions for the future application of the combination treatment of biological agents in a well-defined category of patients. We suggest that the application of biomarkers and artificial intelligence could help in establishing new forms of treatment using the available modern drugs in patients with IBD resistant to treatment.

Total parenteral nutrition (TPN) represents a therapeutic modality that could save the life of a patient with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) facing severe nutritional problems, by restoring the patient's impaired nutritional status. TPN does not compete with enteral nutrition (EN), the latter being the first choice for all patients having anatomically intact and functionally normal digestive tract. TPN allows bowel rest while supplying adequate calorific intake and essential nutrients, and removes antigenic mucosal stimuli. The value of TPN in malnourished patients with intestinal failure due to CD is beyond doubt. However, it is difficult to suggest TPN as a sole treatment for active CD. An increased rate of remission could not be expected by applying TPN. The utility of TPN is restricted to certain cases involving efforts to close enterocutaneous or other complicated fistulas in patients with fistulizing CD, the treatment of short bowel syndrome following extensive resections for CD, or when EN is impractical for other reasons. There are no advantages of TPN therapy over EN therapy regarding fistula healing. TPN has no influence on the surgical intervention rate and little benefit by bypassing the intestinal passage could be expected. Also TPN shows no advantage if the disease is chronically active. However, an optimal supply of nutrients improves bowel motility, intestinal permeability and nutritional status, and reduces inflammatory reactions. TPN might be associated with an increased risk of adverse events, although TPN undertaken by experienced teams does not cause more complications than does EN.

Enteral nutrition (EN) is considered to be of great importance in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and nutritional problems. This comprehensive review is aiming to provide the reader with an update on the role of EN in IBD patients. EN can reduce Crohn’s disease (CD) activity and maintain remission in both adults and children. Nutritional support using liquid formulas should be considered for CD patients and in serious cases of ulcerative colitis (UC), especially for those who may require prolonged cycles of corticosteroids. Given that the ultimate goal in the treatment of CD is mucosal healing, this advantage of EN over corticosteroid treatment is valuable in therapeutic decision-making. EN is indicated in active CD, in cases of steroid intolerance, in patient’s refusal of steroids, in combination with steroids in undernourished individuals, and in patients with an inflammatory stenosis of the small intestine. No differences between the efficiency of elemental diets and nonelemental formulas have been noticed. EN must be the first choice compared to TPN. EN has a restricted value in the treatment of patients with large bowel CD. In conclusion, it seems important not to underestimate the role of nutrition as supportive care in patients with IBD.

It is well established that the preoperative nutritional status of gastric cancer (GC) patients significantly affects the prognosis of the operated patients, their overall survival, as well as the disease-specific survival. Existing data support that preoperative assessment of nutritional status and early correction of nutritional deficiencies exert a favorable effect on early postoperative outcomes. A variety of relevant indices are used to assess the nutritional status of GC patients who are candidates for surgery. The guidelines of almost all international organizations recommend the use of oral enteral nutrition (EN). Oncologically acceptable types of gastrectomy and methods of patient rehabilitation should take into account the expected postoperative nutritional status. The majority of data support that perioperative EN reduces complications and hospital stay, but not mortality. Oral EN in the postoperative period, albeit in small amounts, helps to reduce the weight loss that is a consequence of gastrectomy. Iron deficiency with or without anemia and low serum levels of vitamin B12 are common metabolic sequelae after gastrectomy and should be restored. EN also significantly helps patients undergoing neoadjuvant or adjuvant antineoplastic therapy. The occurrence of the so-called “postgastrectomy syndromes” requires dietary modifications and drug support. This review attempts to highlight the benefits of EN in GC patients undergoing gastrectomy and to emphasize the type of necessary nutritional management, based on current literature data.

Oxidative stress is present in patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), and natural supplements with antioxidant properties have been investigated as a non-pharmacological approach. The objective of the present study was to assess the effects of a natural Pistacia lentiscus (PL) supplement on oxidative stress biomarkers and to characterise the plasma-free amino acid (AA) profiles of patients with active IBD (Crohn’s disease (CD) N = 40, ulcerative colitis (UC) N = 20). The activity was determined according to 5 ≤ Harvey Bradshaw Index ≤ 16 or 2 ≤ Partial Mayo Score ≤ 6. This is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. IBD patients (N = 60) were randomly allocated to PL (2.8 g/day) or to placebo for 3 months being under no treatment (N = 21) or under stable medical treatment (mesalamine N = 24, azathioprine N = 14, and corticosteroids N = 23) that was either single medication (N = 22) or combined medication (N = 17). Plasma oxidised, low-density lipoprotein (oxLDL), total serum oxidisability, and serum uric acid were evaluated at baseline and follow-up. OxLDL/LDL and oxLDL/High-Density Lipoprotein (HDL) ratios were calculated. The plasma-free AA profile was determined by applying a gas chromatography/mass spectrometry analysis. oxLDL (p = 0.031), oxLDL/HDL (p = 0.020), and oxLDL/LDL (p = 0.005) decreased significantly in the intervention group. The mean change differed significantly in CD between groups for oxLDL/LDL (p = 0.01), and, in the total sample, both oxLDL/LDL (p = 0.015) and oxLDL/HDL (p = 0.044) differed significantly. Several changes were reported in AA levels. PL ameliorated a decrease in plasma-free AAs seen in patients with UC taking placebo. In conclusion, this intervention resulted in favourable changes in oxidative stress biomarkers in active IBD.