Effect of allopurinol in addition to hypothermia treatment in neonates for hypoxic-ischemic brain injury on neurocognitive outcome (ALBINO): Study protocol of a blinded randomized placebo-controlled parallel group multicenter trial for superiority (phase III)

Background: Perinatal asphyxia and resulting hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy is a major cause of death and long-term disability in term born neonates. Up to 20,000 infants each year are affected by HIE in Europe and even more in regions with lower level of perinatal care. The only established therapy to improve outcome in these infants is therapeutic hypothermia. Allopurinol is a xanthine oxidase inhibitor that reduces the production of oxygen radicals as superoxide, which contributes to secondary energy failure and apoptosis in neurons and glial cells after reperfusion of hypoxic brain tissue and may further improve outcome if administered in addition to therapeutic hypothermia. Methods: This study on the effects of ALlopurinol in addition to hypothermia treatment for hypoxic-ischemic Brain Injury on Neurocognitive Outcome (ALBINO), is a European double-blinded randomized placebo-controlled parallel group multicenter trial (Phase III) to evaluate the effect of postnatal allopurinol administered in addition to standard of care (including therapeutic hypothermia if indicated) on the incidence of death and severe neurodevelopmental impairment at 24 months of age in newborns with perinatal hypoxic-ischemic insult and signs of potentially evolving encephalopathy. Allopurinol or placebo will be given in addition to therapeutic hypothermia (where indicated) to infants with a gestational age 65 36 weeks and a birth weight 65 2500 g, with severe perinatal asphyxia and potentially evolving encephalopathy. The primary endpoint of this study will be death or severe neurodevelopmental impairment versus survival without severe neurodevelopmental impairment at the age of two years. Effects on brain injury by magnetic resonance imaging and cerebral ultrasound, electric brain activity, concentrations of peroxidation products and S100B, will also be studied along with effects on heart function and pharmacokinetics of allopurinol after iv-infusion. Discussion: This trial will provide data to assess the efficacy and safety of early postnatal allopurinol in term infants with evolving hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. If proven efficacious and safe, allopurinol could become part of a neuroprotective pharmacological treatment strategy in addition to therapeutic hypothermia in children with perinatal asphyxia. Trial registration: NCT03162653, www.ClinicalTrials.gov, May 22, 2017

Endoscopic Versus Surgical Step-Up Approach for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (ExTENSION): Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years. METHODS: In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life. RESULTS: After a mean followup period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up.Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog

Predicting inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy in participants receiving split-dose bowel preparation: development and validation of a prediction score

Contains fulltext : 152602.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)BACKGROUND: Adequate bowel preparation is important for optimal colonoscopy. It is important to identify patients at risk for inadequate bowel preparation because this allows taking precautions in this specific group. OBJECTIVE: To develop a prediction score to identify patients at risk for inadequate bowel preparation who may benefit from an intensified bowel cleansing regimen. DESIGN: Patient and colonoscopy data were prospectively collected, whereas clinical data were retrospectively collected for a total of 1996 colonoscopies in participants who received split-dose bowel preparation. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted in a random two-thirds of the cohort to develop a prediction model. Validation and evaluation of the discriminative power of the prediction model were performed within the remaining one-third of the cohort. SETTING: Four centers, including one academic and three medium-to-large size nonacademic centers. PATIENTS: Consecutive colonoscopies in November and December 2012. Mean age was 57.3 +/- 15.9 years, 45.8% were male and indications for colonoscopy were screening and/or surveillance (27%), abdominal symptoms and/or blood loss and/or anemia (60%), inflammatory bowel disease (9%), and others (4%). INTERVENTIONS: Colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Inadequate bowel preparation defined as Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score /=3, use of tricyclic antidepressants, use of opioids, diabetes, chronic constipation, history of abdominal and/or pelvic surgery, history of inadequate bowel preparation, and current hospitalization. The discriminative ability of the scale was good, with an area under the curve of 0.77 in the validation cohort. LIMITATIONS: Study design partially retrospective, no data on patient compliance. CONCLUSION: We developed a validated, easy-to-use prediction scale that can be used to identify subjects with an increased risk of inadequate bowel preparation with good accuracy

Influence of two pedalling rate conditions on mechanical output and physiological responses during all-out intermittent exercise

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Cecal intubation rate (CIR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR) have been found to be inversely associated with the occurrence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Depicting differences in CIR and ADR between hospitals could provide incentives for quality improvement. The aim of this study was to compare quality parameters of routine colonoscopies between seven hospitals in The Netherlands in order to determine the extent to which possible differences were attributable to procedural and institutional factors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy were prospectively included between November 2012 and January 2013 at two academic and five nonacademic hospitals. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes were excluded. Main outcome measures were CIR and ADR. RESULTS: A total of 3129 patients were included (mean age 59 +/- 15 years; 45.5 % male). The majority of patients (86.2 %) had a Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score >/= 6. Overall CIR was 94.8 %, ranging from 89.4 % to 99.2 % between hospitals. After adjustment for case mix (age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and indication for colonoscopy), factors associated with CIR were hospital and a BBPS score >/= 6. Overall ADR was 31.8 % and varied between hospitals, ranging from 24.8 % to 46.8 %. Independent predictors for ADR were hospital, BBPS score >/= 6, and cecal intubation. By combining CIR and ADR for each hospital, a colonoscopy quality indicator (CQI) was developed, which can be used by hospitals to stimulate quality improvement. CONCLUSION: Differences in the quality of colonoscopy between hospitals can be demonstrated using CIR and ADR. As both indicators are affected by institution and bowel preparation, a comparison between hospitals based on the newly developed CQI could assist in further improving the quality of colonoscopy

High detection rate of adenomas in familial colorectal cancer

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND AND AIMS: Subjects with one first-degree relative (FDR) with colorectal cancer (CRC) 1) adenomas. Men were more often found to have an adenoma than women (24% vs 14.3%; p=0.01). Adenomas were more frequent in group B compared with group A (22.0% vs 15.6%; p=0.09). CONCLUSION: The yield of colonoscopic surveillance in familial CRC is substantially higher than the yield of screening reported for the general population

Adorno, der sport und die kritische sporttheorie

PURPOSE: Colonoscopic surveillance is recommended for individuals with familial colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the appropriate screening interval has not yet been determined. The aim of this randomized trial was to compare a 3-year with a 6-year screening interval. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individuals between ages 45 and 65 years with one first-degree relative with CRC age < 50 years or two first-degree relatives with CRC were selected. Patients with zero to two adenomas at baseline were randomly assigned to one of two groups: group A (colonoscopy at 6 years) or group B (colonoscopy at 3 and 6 years). The primary outcome measure was advanced adenomatous polyps (AAPs). Risk factors studied included sex, age, type of family history, and baseline endoscopic findings. RESULTS: A total of 528 patients were randomly assigned (group A, n = 262; group B, n = 266). Intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference in the proportion of patients with AAPs at the first follow-up examination at 6 years in group A (6.9%) versus 3 years in group B (3.5%). Also, the proportion of patients with AAPs at the final follow-up examination at 6 years in group A (6.9%) versus 6 years in group B (3.4%) was not significantly different. Only AAPs at baseline was a significant predictor for the presence of AAPs at first follow-up. After correction for the difference in AAPs at baseline, differences between the groups in the rate of AAPs at first follow-up and at the final examination were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In view of the relatively low rate of AAPs at 6 years and the absence of CRC in group A, we consider a 6-year surveillance interval appropriate. A surveillance interval of 3 years might be considered in patients with AAPs and patients with >/= three adenomas

Endoscopic or surgical step-up approach for infected necrotising pancreatitis: a multicentre randomised trial

Contains fulltext : 181861.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)BACKGROUND: Infected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease and an indication for invasive intervention. The surgical step-up approach is the standard treatment. A promising alternative is the endoscopic step-up approach. We compared both approaches to see whether the endoscopic step-up approach was superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, superiority trial, we recruited adult patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis and an indication for invasive intervention from 19 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned to either the endoscopic or the surgical step-up approach. The endoscopic approach consisted of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic necrosectomy. The surgical approach consisted of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or death during 6-month follow-up. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN09186711. FINDINGS: Between Sept 20, 2011, and Jan 29, 2015, we screened 418 patients with pancreatic or extrapancreatic necrosis, of which 98 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach (n=51) or the surgical step-up approach (n=47). The primary endpoint occurred in 22 (43%) of 51 patients in the endoscopy group and in 21 (45%) of 47 patients in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR] 0.97, 95% CI 0.62-1.51; p=0.88). Mortality did not differ between groups (nine [18%] patients in the endoscopy group vs six [13%] patients in the surgery group; RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.53-3.59, p=0.50), nor did any of the major complications included in the primary endpoint. INTERPRETATION: In patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing major complications or death. The rate of pancreatic fistulas and length of hospital stay were lower in the endoscopy group. The outcome of this trial will probably result in a shift to the endoscopic step-up approach as treatment preference. FUNDING: The Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation, Fonds NutsOhra, and the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development

Endoscopic Versus Surgical Step-Up Approach for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (ExTENSION): Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years. METHODS: In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life. RESULTS: After a mean followup period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up