Cardiopulmonary Exercise Testing Provides Additional Prognostic Information in Cystic Fibrosis

RATIONALE: The prognostic value of cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) for survival in cystic fibrosis (CF) in the context of current clinical management, when controlling for other known prognostic factors, is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prognostic value of CPET-derived measures beyond peak oxygen uptake (V.o2peak) following rigorous adjustment for other predictors. METHODS: Data from 10 CF centers in Australia, Europe, and North America were collected retrospectively. A total of 510 patients completed a cycle CPET between January 2000 and December 2007, of which 433 fulfilled the criteria for a maximal effort. Time to death/lung transplantation was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regression. In addition, phenotyping using hierarchical Ward clustering was performed to characterize high-risk subgroups. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Cox regression showed, even after adjustment for sex, FEV1% predicted, body mass index (z-score), age at CPET, Pseudomonas aeruginosa status, and CF-related diabetes as covariates in the model, that V.o2peak in % predicted (hazard ratio [HR], 0.964; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.944–0.986), peak work rate (% predicted; HR, 0.969; 95% CI, 0.951–0.988), ventilatory equivalent for oxygen (HR, 1.085; 95% CI, 1.041–1.132), and carbon dioxide (HR, 1.060; 95% CI, 1.007–1.115) (all P < 0.05) were significant predictors of death or lung transplantation at 10-year follow-up. Phenotyping revealed that CPET-derived measures were important for clustering. We identified a high-risk cluster characterized by poor lung function, nutritional status, and exercise capacity. CONCLUSIONS: CPET provides additional prognostic information to established predictors of death/lung transplantation in CF. High-risk patients may especially benefit from regular monitoring of exercise capacity and exercise counseling

Traditional invasive vs. minimally invasive esophagectomy: a multi-center, randomized trial (TIME-trial)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is a rise in incidence of esophageal carcinoma due to increasing incidence of adenocarcinoma. Probably the only curative option to date is the use of neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgical resection. Traditional open esophageal resection is associated with a high morbidity and mortality rate. Furthermore, this approach involves long intensive care unit stay, in-hospital stay and long recovery period. Minimally invasive esophagectomy could reduce the morbidity and accelerate the post-operative recovery.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Comparison between traditional open and minimally invasive esophagectomy in a multi-center, randomized trial. Patients with a resectable intrathoracic esophageal carcinoma, including the gastro-esophageal junction tumors (Siewert I) are eligible for inclusion. Prior thoracic surgery and cervical esophageal carcinoma are indications for exclusion. The surgical technique involves a right thoracotomy with lung blockade and laparotomy either with a cervical or thoracic anastomosis for the traditional group. The minimally invasive procedure involves a right thoracoscopy in prone position with a single lumen tube and laparoscopy either with a cervical or thoracic anastomosis. All patients in both groups will undergo identical pre-operative and post-operative protocol. Primary endpoint of this study are post-operative respiratory complications within the first two post-operative weeks confirmed by clinical, radiological and sputum culture data. Secondary endpoints are the operative data, the post-operative data and oncological data such as quality of the specimen and survival. Operative data include duration of the operation, blood loss and conversion to open procedure. Post-operative data include morbidity (major and minor), quality of life tests and hospital stay.</p> <p>Based on current literature and the experience of all participating centers, an incidence of pulmonary complications for 57% in the traditional arm and 29% in the minimally invasive arm, it is estimated that per arm 48 patients are needed. This is based on a two-sided significance level (alpha) of 0.05 and a power of 0.80. Knowing that approximately 20% of the patients will be excluded, we will randomize 60 patients per arm.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The TIME-trial is a prospective, multi-center, randomized study to define the role of minimally invasive esophageal resection in patients with resectable intrathoracic and junction esophageal cancer.</p> <p>Trial registration (Netherlands Trial Register)</p> <p><a href="http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2040">NTR2452</a></p