Polypyrrole grafts with poly[(methyl methacrylate)-CO-(2-(N-pyrrolyl)ethyl methacrylate)]

Cataloged from PDF version of article.Conducting polymer grafts of pyrrole and poly[(methyl methacrylate)-co-(2- (N-pyrrolyl) ethyl methacrylate)] containing 0.7% PEMA units were prepared by potentiostatic anodic polymerization of pyrrole in different electrolytic media. Grafting between copolymer and pyrrole was achieved in media where tetrabutylammonium fluoroborate and sodium perchlorate were used as the supporting electrolytes. Characterizations were made by using IT-IR, DSC, TGA, SEM, CV, and elemental analysis. The conductivities of the resultant polymers seemed to be in the order of pure polypyrrole prepared under the same conditions. Copyright o 1997 Elsevier Scienc

Development of pancreatic diseases during long-term follow-up after acute pancreatitis:a post-hoc analysis of a prospective multicenter cohort

Background and Aim: More insight into the incidence of and factors associated with progression following a first episode of acute pancreatitis (AP) would offer opportunities for improvements in disease management and patient counseling. Methods: A long-term post hoc analysis of a prospective cohort of patients with AP (2008–2015) was performed. Primary endpoints were recurrent acute pancreatitis (RAP), chronic pancreatitis (CP), and pancreatic cancer. Cumulative incidence calculations and risk analyses were performed. Results: Overall, 1184 patients with a median follow-up of 9 years (IQR: 7–11) were included. RAP and CP occurred in 301 patients (25%) and 72 patients (6%), with the highest incidences observed for alcoholic pancreatitis (40% and 22%). Pancreatic cancer was diagnosed in 14 patients (1%). Predictive factors for RAP were alcoholic and idiopathic pancreatitis (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.51–4.82 and OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.40–3.02), and no pancreatic interventions (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.10–3.01). Non-biliary etiology (alcohol: OR 5.24, 95% CI 1.94–14.16, idiopathic: OR 4.57, 95% CI 2.05–10.16, and other: OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.11–7.94), RAP (OR 4.93, 95% CI 2.84–8.58), prior pancreatic interventions (OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.20–8.02), smoking (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.14–4.78), and male sex (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.05–4.05) were independently associated with CP. Conclusion: Disease progression was observed in a quarter of pancreatitis patients. We identified several risk factors that may be helpful to devise personalized strategies with the intention to reduce the impact of disease progression in patients with AP.</p

Development of pancreatic diseases during long-term follow-up after acute pancreatitis:a post-hoc analysis of a prospective multicenter cohort

Background and Aim: More insight into the incidence of and factors associated with progression following a first episode of acute pancreatitis (AP) would offer opportunities for improvements in disease management and patient counseling. Methods: A long-term post hoc analysis of a prospective cohort of patients with AP (2008–2015) was performed. Primary endpoints were recurrent acute pancreatitis (RAP), chronic pancreatitis (CP), and pancreatic cancer. Cumulative incidence calculations and risk analyses were performed. Results: Overall, 1184 patients with a median follow-up of 9 years (IQR: 7–11) were included. RAP and CP occurred in 301 patients (25%) and 72 patients (6%), with the highest incidences observed for alcoholic pancreatitis (40% and 22%). Pancreatic cancer was diagnosed in 14 patients (1%). Predictive factors for RAP were alcoholic and idiopathic pancreatitis (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.51–4.82 and OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.40–3.02), and no pancreatic interventions (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.10–3.01). Non-biliary etiology (alcohol: OR 5.24, 95% CI 1.94–14.16, idiopathic: OR 4.57, 95% CI 2.05–10.16, and other: OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.11–7.94), RAP (OR 4.93, 95% CI 2.84–8.58), prior pancreatic interventions (OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.20–8.02), smoking (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.14–4.78), and male sex (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.05–4.05) were independently associated with CP. Conclusion: Disease progression was observed in a quarter of pancreatitis patients. We identified several risk factors that may be helpful to devise personalized strategies with the intention to reduce the impact of disease progression in patients with AP.</p

Role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnostic work-up of idiopathic acute pancreatitis (PICUS):study protocol for a nationwide prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION: Idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) remains a dilemma for physicians as it is uncertain whether patients with IAP may actually have an occult aetiology. It is unclear to what extent additional diagnostic modalities such as endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) are warranted after a first episode of IAP in order to uncover this aetiology. Failure to timely determine treatable aetiologies delays appropriate treatment and might subsequently cause recurrence of acute pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of the Pancreatitis of Idiopathic origin: Clinical added value of endoscopic UltraSonography (PICUS) Study is to determine the value of routine EUS in determining the aetiology of pancreatitis in patients with a first episode of IAP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PICUS is designed as a multicentre prospective cohort study of 106 patients with a first episode of IAP after complete standard diagnostic work-up, in whom a diagnostic EUS will be performed. Standard diagnostic work-up will include a complete personal and family history, laboratory tests including serum alanine aminotransferase, calcium and triglyceride levels and imaging by transabdominal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography after clinical recovery from the acute pancreatitis episode. The primary outcome measure is detection of aetiology by EUS. Secondary outcome measures include pancreatitis recurrence rate, severity of recurrent pancreatitis, readmission, additional interventions, complications, length of hospital stay, quality of life, mortality and costs, during a follow-up period of 12 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: PICUS is conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. Five medical ethics review committees assessed PICUS (Medical Ethics Review Committee of Academic Medical Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Radboud University Medical Center, Erasmus Medical Center and Maastricht University Medical Center). The results will be submitted for publication in an international peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Registry (NL7066). Prospectively registered

Immediate versus postponed intervention for infected necrotizing pancreatitis

BACKGROUND Infected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is encapsulated. Whether outcomes could be improved by earlier catheter drainage is unknown. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, randomized superiority trial involving patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, in which we compared immediate drainage within 24 hours after randomization once infected necrosis was diagnosed with drainage that was postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis was reached. The primary end point was the score on the Comprehensive Complication Index, which incorporates all complications over the course of 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS A total of 104 patients were randomly assigned to immediate drainage (55 patients) or postponed drainage (49 patients). The mean score on the Comprehensive Complication Index (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe complications) was 57 in the immediate-drainage group and 58 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, −1; 95% confidence interval [CI], −12 to 10; P=0.90). Mortality was 13% in the immediate-drainage group and 10% in the postponed-drainage group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.42 to 3.68). The mean number of interventions (catheter drainage and necrosectomy) was 4.4 in the immediate-drainage group and 2.6 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.0). In the postponed-drainage group, 19 patients (39%) were treated conservatively with antibiotics and did not require drainage; 17 of these patients survived. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS This trial did not show the superiority of immediate drainage over postponed drainage with regard to complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Patients randomly assigned to the postponed-drainage strategy received fewer invasive interventions

High-Resolution Anoscopy: Clinical Features of Anal Intraepithelial Neoplasia in HIV-positive Men

BACKGROUND: High-resolution anoscopy is increasingly advocated to screen HIV+ men who have sex with men for anal cancer and its precursor lesions, anal intraepithelial neoplasia. A systematic comparison between clinical features and the histopathology of suspect lesions is lacking. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze interobserver agreement in classifying features of intra-anal lesions suspect for anal intraepithelial neoplasia and to compare these features with their histopathological outcome. DESIGN: This study is a cross-sectional survey regarding high-resolution anoscopy with images and biopsies of suspect lesions. Two dermatologists experienced in high-resolution anoscopy, blinded for histopathological outcome, independently classified the lesions on clinical features. SETTING: This investigation was conducted at the Dermatology outpatient clinic of the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. PATIENTS: Included in the study were 163 HIV+ men who have sex with men, older than 18 years, with no history of anal cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the -coefficient for interobserver agreement and the proportions of anal intraepithelial neoplasia per clinical feature. RESULTS: Three hundred four biopsies were taken from 163 patients. One hundred sixty-eight biopsies (55%) showed anal intraepithelial neoplasia, and 67/304 (22%) showed high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia. The -coefficient was 0.65 for condylomatous lesions, 0.14 for surface configuration, 0.54 for punctation, 0.08 for mosaicism, and 0.43 for atypical vessels. Condylomatous lesions showed high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia in 18% (95% CI, 11%-27%). In lesions with flat leukoplakia, punctation, and atypical vessels, high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia was seen in 25%, 30%, and 23%. In lesions with the combination punctation/atypical vessels and punctation/flat leukoplakia/atypical vessels, high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia was found in 38% and 40%. LIMITATIONS: We did not take biopsies of healthy-looking mucosa. Furthermore, the real-time description of features during high-resolution anoscopy, instead of the use of images, would improve the recognition of subtle mucosal abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: A moderate to substantial interobserver agreement was demonstrated in recognizing condylomas, punctation, and atypical vessels. Furthermore, high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia is present in a high proportion of intra-anal condylomata. A combination of punctation, flat leukoplakia, and atypical vessels is the best predictor for high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasi