RESUMO CONTEXTO As evidências ao avaliar o risco da doença celíaca entre pacientes dispéptico têm sido inconclusivas, mostrando discrepâncias notórias em alguns casos. OBJETIVO Determinar a prevalência da doença celíaca em pacientes com dispepsia em comparação com controles saudáveis sem dispepsia. MÉTODOS Pacientes adultos sob avaliação para dispepsia foram convidados a participar. A estes pacientes foi oferecida uma endoscopia digestiva com biópsias duodenais. Por outro lado, voluntários adultos assintomáticos, que realizaram uma visita preventiva ao seu médico de atenção primária foram convidados a participar e concordaram em realizar endoscopia digestiva com biópsias duodenais também. Naqueles pacientes com sinais histológicos de atrofia das vilosidades foram melhor avaliados e foram realizados testes sorológicos para determinar o diagnóstico de doença celíaca. A prevalência de doença celíaca foi comparada entre os grupos. RESULTADOS No total, 320 pacientes com dispepsia e 320 controles saudáveis foram recrutados. Não houve nenhuma diferença significativa entre os grupos em termos de sexo ou idade. O diagnóstico de doença celíaca foi feito em 1,25% (4/320) dos pacientes no grupo de dispepsia, contra 0,62% (2/320) no grupo controle. CONCLUSÃO Pacientes com dispepsia submetidos a biópsias duodenais de rotina não têm risco aumentado para a doença celíaca quando comparados com indivíduos saudáveis.

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND Previous evidence trying to assess the risk of celiac disease among dyspeptic patients has been inconclusive, showing in some cases notorious discrepancies. OBJECTIVE To determine the prevalence of celiac disease in patients with dyspepsia compared to healthy controls without dyspepsia. METHODS Adult patients under evaluation for dyspepsia were invited to participate. These patients were offered an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with duodenal biopsies. On the other hand, asymptomatic adult volunteers who performed a preventive visit to their primary care physician were invited to participate and agreed to undertake an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with duodenal biopsies as well. Those patients with histologic signs of villous atrophy were furtherly evaluated and serological tests were performed in order to determine celiac disease diagnosis. Celiac disease prevalence was compared between groups. RESULTS Overall, 320 patients with dyspepsia and 320 healthy controls were recruited. There were no significant differences in terms of gender or age between groups. Celiac disease diagnosis was made in 1.25% (4/320) of patients in the dyspepsia group versus 0.62% (2/320) in the control group. CONCLUSION Patients with dyspepsia who underwent routine duodenal biopsies did not show an increased risk for celiac disease when compared to healthy individuals.

Background: The most common adverse event of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is pancreatitis. Precut sphincterotomy has been regarded as a risk factor. Some authors have stated that early precut may actually reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis risk. However, early precut as a preventive measure has not been compared to other preventive measures, such as pancreatic duct stent placement. Aim: To compare the efficacy of early precut sphincterotomy versus pancreatic duct stent placement in high-risk subjects undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for the prevention of post-endoscopic cholangiopancreatography. Materials and Methods: This was a single-blinded, randomized trial that took place in two tertiary referral centers in Buenos Aires, from November 2011 to December 2013. ERCP subjects presented at least one of the following risk factors: female sex, age less than 40 years, clinical suspicion of sphincter of Oddi dysfunction, previous pancreatitis, and/or common bile duct diameter of less than 8 mm. Only those who presented a difficult biliary cannulation were randomized into two groups: those who received early precut sphincterotomy and those in whom persistency of biliary cannulation was intended, with subsequent pancreatic duct stent placement after cholangiography was achieved. The incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis, as well as other adverse events incidence, was compared. Results: Overall, 101 patients were enrolled, 51 in the pancreatic duct stent group and 50 in the early precut group. Pancreatitis rate was similar in both groups (3.92% vs. 4%, p NS). In all cases, pancreatitis was classified as mild. There were no deaths registered. Conclusion: Early precut was associated with an incidence of adverse events similar to pancreatic duct stent placement.