Transhiatal vs extended transthoracic resection in oesophageal carcinoma: patients' utilities and treatment preferences

To assess patients' utilities for health state outcomes after transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer and to investigate the patients' treatment preferences for either procedure. The study group consisted of 48 patients who had undergone either transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy. In an interview they were presented with eight possible health states following oesophagectomy. Visual Analogue Scale and standard gamble techniques were used to measure utilities. Treatment preference for either transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy was assessed. Highest scores were found for the patients' own current health state (Visual Analogue Scale: 0.77; standard gamble: 0.97). Lowest scores were elicited for the health state ‘irresectable tumour’ (Visual Analogue Scale: 0.13; standard gamble: 0.34). The Visual Analogue Scale method produced lower estimates (P<0.001) than the standard gamble method for all health states. Most patient characteristics and clinical factors did not correlate with the utilities. Ninety-five per cent of patients who underwent a transthoracic procedure and 52% of patients who underwent a transhiatal resection would prefer the transthoracic treatment. No significant associations between any patient characteristics or clinical characteristics and treatment preference were found. Utilities after transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy were robust because they generally did not vary by patient or clinical characteristics. Overall, most patients preferred the transthoracic procedure

Fluid hydration to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis in average- to high-risk patients receiving prophylactic rectal NSAIDs (FLUYT trial): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of ERCP and may run a severe course. Evidence suggests that vigorous periprocedural hydration can prevent PEP, but studies to date have significant methodological drawbacks. Importantly, evidence for its added value in patients already receiving prophylactic rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is lacking and the cost-effectiveness of the approach has not been investigated. We hypothesize that combination therapy of rectal NSAIDs and periprocedural hydration would significantly lower the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis compared to rectal NSAIDs alone in moderate- to high-risk patients undergoing ERCP. Methods: The FLUYT trial is a multicenter, parallel group, open label, superiority randomized controlled trial. A total of 826 moderate- to high-risk patients undergoing ERCP that receive prophylactic rectal NSAIDs will be randomized to a control group (no fluids or normal saline with a maximum of 1.5 mL/kg/h and 3 L/24 h) or intervention group (lactated Ringer's solution with 20 mL/kg over 60 min at start of ERCP, followed by 3 mL/kg/h for 8 h thereafter). The primary endpoint is the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Secondary endpoints include PEP severity, hydration-related complications, and cost-effectiveness. Discussion: The FLUYT trial design, including hydration schedule, fluid type, and sample size, maximize its power of identifying a potential difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis incidence in patients receiving prophylactic rectal NSAIDs