Intravenous Targeted Microbubbles Carrying Urokinase versus Urokinase Alone in Acute Peripheral Arterial Thrombosis in a Porcine Model

Background Standard therapy in acute peripheral arterial occlusion consists of intra-arterial catheter-guided thrombolysis. As microbubbles may be used as a carrier for fibrinolytic agents and targeted to adhere to the thrombus, we can theoretically deliver the thrombolytic medication locally following simple intravenous injection. In this intervention-controlled feasibility study, we compared intravenously administered targeted microbubbles incorporating urokinase and locally applied ultrasound, with intravenous urokinase and ultrasound alone. Methods In 9 pigs, a thrombus was created in the left external iliac artery, after which animals were assigned to either receive targeted microbubbles and urokinase (UK + tMB group) or urokinase alone (UK group). In both groups, ultrasound was applied at the site of the occlusion. Blood flow through the iliac artery and microcirculation of the affected limb were monitored and the animals were euthanized 1 hr after treatment. Autopsy was performed to determine the weight of the thrombus and to check for adverse effects. Results In the UK + tMB group (n = 5), median improvement in arterial blood flow was 5 mL/min (range 0–216). Improvement was seen in 3 of these 5 pigs at conclusion of the experiment. In the UK group (n = 4), median improvement in arterial blood flow was 0 mL/min (−10 to 18), with slight improvement in 1 of 4 pigs. Thrombus weight was significantly lower in the UK + tMB group (median 0.9383 g, range 0.885–1.2809) versus 1.5399 g (1.337–1.7628; P = 0.017). No adverse effects were seen. Conclusions Based on this experiment, minimally invasive thrombolysis using intravenously administered targeted microbubbles carrying urokinase combined with local application of ultrasound is feasible and might accelerate thrombolysis compared with treatment with urokinase and ultrasound alone

Acute effects of muscle stretching on physical performance, range of motion, and injury incidence in healthy active individuals: a systematic review

Abstract: Recently, there has been a shift from static stretching (SS) or proprioceptive neuromuscular acilitation (PNF) stretching within a warm-up to a greater emphasis on dynamic stretching (DS). The objective of this review was to compare the effects of SS, DS, and PNF on performance, range of motion (ROM), and injury prevention. The data indicated that SS- (–3.7%), DS- (+1.3%), and PNF- (–4.4%) induced performance changes were small to moderate with testing performed immediately after stretching, possibly because of reduced muscle activation after SS and PNF. A dose–response relationship illustrated greater performance deficits with ≥60 s (–4.6%) than with <60 s (–1.1%) SS per muscle group. Conversely, SS demonstrated a moderate (2.2%) performance benefit at longer muscle lengths. Testing was performed on average 3–5 min after stretching, and most studies did not include poststretching dynamic activities; when these activities were included, no clear performance effect was observed. DS produced small-to-moderate performance improvements when completed within minutes of physical activity. SS and PNF stretching had no clear effect on all-cause or overuse injuries; no data are available for DS. All forms of training induced ROM improvements,typically lasting <30 min. Changes may result from acute reductions in muscle and tendon stiffness or from neural adaptations causing an improved stretch tolerance. Considering the small-to-moderate changes immediately after stretching and the study limitations, stretching within a warm-up that includes additional poststretching dynamic activity is recommended for reducing muscle injuries and increasing joint ROM with nconsequential effects on subsequent athletic performance

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

Aim The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. Methods This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. Results Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. Conclusion One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

Aim The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. Methods This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. Results Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. Conclusion One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease