Publications

Abstract

  • Mathur A, Portocarrero D, Puri N, & Che K. (2013). Aggressive Endoscopic Management of an Esophageal Stricture aft er Caustic Ingestion: A Case Report. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 108, S431-S431. (10/2013)
  • Mathur A, Basseri R, & Che K. (2013). Malignant Gastrocolic Fistula: The Reported Case of Non-Surgical Fistula Closure. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 108, S238-S239. (10/2013)
  • Lee F, Ohanian E, Rheem J, Laine L, Che K, & Kim J. (2013). Predictors of Organ Failure and Role of Early ERCP in Hospitalized Patients with Acute Cholangitis. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 108, S89-S89. (10/2013)
  • Che K, Liang R, Olafsson S, Jackson C, & Winter T. (2011). Prevalence of Significant Gastrointestinal Pathology in Patients Presenting with Unexplained Anemia for Upper and Lower Endoscopy. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 106, S550-S550. (10/2011)
  • Mendler M H, Lim N H, Kim J, Che K, Joo E, & Runyon B A. (2010). HBV SCREENING IN 1,007 FIRST-GENERATION KOREANS LIVING IN TWO LARGE CALIFORNIA COUNTIES EAST OF LOS ANGELES REVEALS A LOWER THAN EXPECTED CARRIER RATE. Hepatology, 52(4), 681A-681A. (10/2010)

Scholarly Journals--Published

  • Portocarrero D J, Che K, Olafsson S, Walter M H, Jackson C S, Leung F W, & Malamud A. (2012). A pilot study to assess feasibility of the water method to aid colonoscope insertion in community settings in the United States. J Interv Gastroenterol, 2(1), 20-22. BACKGROUND: The water method decreases patient discomfort and sedation requirement. Applicability in non-veteran community settings in the United States (U.S.) has not been reported. AIMS: Our aim is to perform a pilot study to establish feasibility of use the water method at 2 community sites. We tested the hypothesis that compared with air insufflation patients examined with the water method would require less sedation without adverse impact on outcomes. METHODS: Two performance improvement projects were carried out. Consecutive patients who consented to respond to a questionnaire after colonoscopy were enrolled. Project 1: The design was single-blinded (patient only); quasi-randomized - odd days (water), even days (air). Colonoscopy was performed by a staff attending. Project 2: A supervised trainee performed the reported procedures. In both, patient demographics (age, gender and body mass index), amount of sedation required during colonoscopy and procedure-related variables were recorded. The patients completed a questionnaire that enquired about discomfort during colonoscopy and willingness to repeat the procedure within 24 hours after the procedure. RESULTS: Project 1: Significantly lower doses of fentanyl and midazolam were used and a higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) was demonstrated in the water group. Project 2: 100% cecal intubation rate was achieved by the supervised trainee. CONCLUSION: This is the first pilot report in the U.S. documenting feasibility of the water method as the principal modality to aid colonoscope insertion in both male and female community patients. In a head-to-head comparison, significant reduction of sedation requirement is confirmed as hypothesized. No adverse impact on outcomes was noted. (01/2012) (link)
  • Che K, Muckova N, Olafsson S, & Srikureja W. (2010). Safety of same-day endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography under conscious sedation. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 16(26), 3287-3291. AIM: To assess the tolerability and safety of same-day tandem procedures, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) followed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) under conscious sedation. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted at Loma Linda University Medical Center, a tertiary-care center. All 54 patients who underwent EUS followed by ERCP (group A) from 2004 to 2006 were included in the study. A second group of 56 patients who underwent EUS only (group B), and a third group of 53 patients who underwent ERCP only (group C) during the same time period were selected consecutively as control groups for comparison. RESULTS: Conscious sedation was used in 96% of patients in group A. Mean dosages of meperidine and midazolam used in group A were significantly higher than in group B or C. Mean recovery time in group A was not statistically longer than in group B or C. There was no significant difference in the incidence of sedation-related and procedural-related complications. CONCLUSION: Tandem EUS/ERCP procedure can be safely performed under conscious sedation with minimal adverse events. Combined procedures, however, are associated with higher dosages of sedatives, and slightly longer recovery time. (C) 2010 Baishideng. All rights reserved. (07/2010) (link)