10 research outputs found
Glutamine reduces phorbol-12, 13-dibutyrate-induced macromolecular hyperpermeability in HT-29Cl.19A intestinal cells
Glutamine reduces phorbol-12, 13-dibutyrate-induced macromolecular hyperpermeability in HT-29Cl.19A intestinal cells
Extensive cervicomediastinal hematoma due to spontaneous hemorrhage of a parathyroid adenoma: a case report
The individual relationship between heart rate and oxygen uptake in people with a tetraplegia during exercise
Study design: Descriptive study. Objective: To examine the individual heart rate-oxygen uptake (HR-V
Human taurine metabolism: fluxes and fractional extraction rates of the gut, liver, and kidneys
A step-up approach or open necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis.
Contains fulltext :
87299.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Necrotizing pancreatitis with infected necrotic tissue is associated with a high rate of complications and death. Standard treatment is open necrosectomy. The outcome may be improved by a minimally invasive step-up approach. METHODS: In this multicenter study, we randomly assigned 88 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and suspected or confirmed infected necrotic tissue to undergo primary open necrosectomy or a step-up approach to treatment. The step-up approach consisted of percutaneous drainage followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive retroperitoneal necrosectomy. The primary end point was a composite of major complications (new-onset multiple-organ failure or multiple systemic complications, perforation of a visceral organ or enterocutaneous fistula, or bleeding) or death. RESULTS: The primary end point occurred in 31 of 45 patients (69%) assigned to open necrosectomy and in 17 of 43 patients (40%) assigned to the step-up approach (risk ratio with the step-up approach, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.87; P=0.006). Of the patients assigned to the step-up approach, 35% were treated with percutaneous drainage only. New-onset multiple-organ failure occurred less often in patients assigned to the step-up approach than in those assigned to open necrosectomy (12% vs. 40%, P=0.002). The rate of death did not differ significantly between groups (19% vs. 16%, P=0.70). Patients assigned to the step-up approach had a lower rate of incisional hernias (7% vs. 24%, P=0.03) and new-onset diabetes (16% vs. 38%, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: A minimally invasive step-up approach, as compared with open necrosectomy, reduced the rate of the composite end point of major complications or death among patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and infected necrotic tissue. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN13975868.
A conservative and minimally invasive approach to necrotizing pancreatitis improves outcome.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis has become more conservative and less invasive, but there are few data from prospective studies to support the efficacy of this change. We performed a prospective, multicenter study of treatment outcomes among patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. METHODS: We collected data from 639 consecutive patients with necrotizing pancreatitis, from 2004 to 2008, treated at 21 Dutch hospitals. Data were analyzed for disease severity, interventions (radiological, endoscopic, surgical), and outcome. RESULTS: Overall mortality was 15% (n=93). Organ failure occurred in 240 patients (38%), with 35% mortality. Treatment was conservative in 397 patients (62%), with 7% mortality. An intervention was performed in 242 patients (38%), with 27% mortality; this included early emergency laparotomy in 32 patients (5%), with 78% mortality. Patients with longer times between admission and intervention had lower mortality: 0-14 days, 56%; 14-29 days, 26%; and >29 days, 15%,P <.001. Two-hundred eight patients (33%) received interventions for infected necrosis, with 19% mortality. Catheter drainage was most often performed as the first intervention (63% of cases), without additional necrosectomy in 35% of patients. Primary catheter drainage had fewer complications than primary necrosectomy (42% vs. 64%,P =.003). Patients with pancreatic parenchymal necrosis (n=324), compared to patients with only peripancreatic necrosis (n=315), had a higher risk of organ failure (50% vs. 24%,P <.001) and mortality (20% vs. 9%,P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 62% of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis can be treated without an intervention and with low mortality. In patients with infected necrosis, delayed intervention and catheter drainage as first treatment improves outcome
Effects of hormone replacement therapy on cardiovascular function in postmenopausal women, a brief review
BACKGROUND: Early enteral feeding through a nasoenteric feeding tube is often used in patients with severe acute pancreatitis to prevent gut-derived infections, but evidence to support this strategy is limited. We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing early nasoenteric tube feeding with an oral diet at 72 hours after presentation to the emergency department in patients with acute pancreatitis. METHODS: We enrolled patients with acute pancreatitis who were at high risk for complications on the basis of an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 8 or higher (on a scale of 0 to 71, with higher scores indicating more severe disease), an Imrie or modified Glasgow score of 3 or higher (on a scale of 0 to 8, with higher scores indicating more severe disease), or a serum C-reactive protein level of more than 150 mg per liter. Patients were randomly assigned to nasoenteric tube feeding within 24 hours after randomization (early group) or to an oral diet initiated 72 hours after presentation (on-demand group), with tube feeding provided if the oral diet was not tolerated. The primary end point was a composite of major infection (infected pancreatic necrosis, bacteremia, or pneumonia) or death during 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 208 patients were enrolled at 19 Dutch hospitals. The primary end point occurred in 30 of 101 patients (30%) in the early group and in 28 of 104 (27%) in the on-demand group (risk ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.44; P=0.76). There were no significant differences between the early group and the on-demand group in the rate of major infection (25% and 26%, respectively; P=0.87) or death (11% and 7%, respectively; P=0.33). In the on-demand group, 72 patients (69%) tolerated an oral diet and did not require tube feeding. CONCLUSIONS: This trial did not show the superiority of early nasoenteric tube feeding, as compared with an oral diet after 72 hours, in reducing the rate of infection or death in patients with acute pancreatitis at high risk for complications. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and others; PYTHON Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN18170985.)
The clinical role of glutamine supplementation in patients with multiple trauma: a narrative review
Glutamine is considered an essential amino acid during stress and critical illness. Parenteral glutamine supplementation in critically ill patients has been shown to improve survival rate and minimise infectious complications, costs and hospital length-of-stay. However, glutamine supplementation in patients receiving enteral nutrition and the best method of administration are still controversial. The purpose of this article is to provide a narrative review of the current evidence and trials of enteral and parenteral glutamine supplementation in multiple trauma patients. A search in PubMed and EMBASE was conducted and relevant papers that investigated the effect of enteral or parenteral glutamine supplementation in patients with multiple trauma were reviewed. Although recent nutritional guidelines recommend that glutamine supplementation should be considered in these patients, further well-designed trials are required to provide a confirmed conclusion. Due to the inconclusive results of enteral glutamine supplementation trials in patients receiving enteral nutrition, future trials should focus on intravenous glutamine supplementation in patients requiring enteral nutrition and on major clinical outcome measures (e.g. mortality rate, infectious complications)